Thread starter questions: How do you use the Feywild in your games, whether as a player creating backstories or a world-building DM? What are your favorite aspects of the Heroes of the Feywild book? How much do you like the stranger fey races, such as hengeyokai, pixies (one of 4e's strongest out-of-the-box races), hamadryads, satyrs, and wilden?
If you are GMing, remember... 1. To strongly consider giving out at least one free "tax feat," like Expertise and pre-errata Melee Training. 2. To use Monster Manual 3/Monster Vault/Monster Vault: Nentir Vale/Dark Sun Creature Catalog math. Avoid or manually update anything with Monster Manual 1 or 2 math. 3. That skill challenges have always been scene-framing devices for the GM, that players should never be overtly told that they are in a skill challenge, and that the Rules Compendium has the most up-to-date skill DCs and skill challenge rules.
If you would like assistance with character optimization, remember to tell us what the what the rest of the players are playing, what books are allowed, your starting level, the highest level you expect to reach, what free feats you receive, if anything is banned, whether or not themes are allowed, your starting equipment, and how much you dislike item-dependent builds. If you wish to talk about settings, 4e's settings are Points of Light (the planes and the natural world's past empires are heavily detailed in various sourcebooks and magazines), 4e Forgotten Realms, 4e Eberron, 4e Dark Sun, and whatever setting you would like to bring into 4e.
For people who do like 4e- What is your least favourite thing about the system? The thing you'd most like to see changed, improved or expanded upon?
Christian Nguyen
Least? The entirety of the Essentials line and the gross change in design philosophy AND power creep that came with it I have decided for a new campaign to offer the free feats that are commonly bandied about. But I sorta forgot which ones are the most common. The party consists so far Thaneborn barbarian, blaster cleric, wizard, avenger, warlock (maybe) and the last is undecided. Game is going to start at levels 1 and 4. >Level 1 for the rookies to get used to the game >time skip forward to level 4
Josiah Moore
Any class that uses the arcane, divine, elemental, primal, psionic, or shadow keyword is a magical class. Therefore, any weapon-using character with powers of those keywords is a "gish" or a "spellsword." Disregading hybrids and multiclasses, this leaves you with precisely two dozen options:
• Ardent • Artificer • Assassin (Dragon Magazine version) • Avenger • Barbarian, because this is a primal magic-using class • Barbarian (berserker) • Bard • Bard (skald) • Cleric (templar) • Cleric (warpriest) • Druid (sentinel) • Monk, which is a weapon-using psionic class for all intents and purposes • Paladin • Paladin (blackguard) • Paladin (cavalier) • Ranger (hunter) • Ranger (scout) • Runepriest • Seeker • Swordmage • Warden • Warlock • Warlock (hexblade) • Wizard (bladesinger)
"Gishes" are, in fact, the most common type of class in 4e, and every single one of them has magical powers that accompany weapon attacks.
Is there anything specific you are looking for in a "gish" or "spellsword"?
A pure-classed swordmage can be a very capable defender, although it takes a specific build and playstyle. Aegis of Assault and Aegis of Ensnarement are rubbish for a non-hybrid swordmage, so you are essentially locked into Aegis of Shielding.
The swordmage's specialty as a defender is its ability to mark opponent, run away, and then engage other opponents. If you try to play a swordmage as an "arcane fighter" or an "arcane paladin," you will fail tremendously, because the swordmage is terribly non-threatening as a traditional defender.
The warlock (hexblade) is quite poor aside from low/mid-heroic builds involving the Gloom Pact and Flail Expertise, which is probably the strongest hexblade build. If you do not expect your game to go past level 8, then by all means, play a Gloom Pact warlock (hexblade).
For one, 4e's feat taxes are a major, extant issue that were never solved by errata.
Andrew Williams
Player is looking for the traditional gish, as in it's original connotation: capable melee combatant with some skill in "arcane" arts. >they's new to the fantasy thing, so they are going very pop basic Bard is actually looking like a decent contender. My experience with them has shown them very capable at all of the above.
Brayden Watson
4th ed best ed. Just giving this thread a friendly bump because I like to read about 4E.
Nicholas Moore
>How do you use the Feywild in your games, whether as a player creating backstories or a world-building DM? What are your favorite aspects of the Heroes of the Feywild book? How much do you like the stranger fey races, such as hengeyokai, pixies (one of 4e's strongest out-of-the-box races), hamadryads, satyrs, and wilden?
I like the Feywild as a place that is scary as the Shadowfell but in a less obvious way. It's the wildcard plane. You could run into horrible flesh-eating lamias or genuinely friendly hag grandmothers.
I encourage players to play Feywild races (with the exception of pixies) because I genuinely enjoy using that plane in stories.
Wyatt Cooper
What will the character's starting level be, and how high a level are they expected to reach?
>Bard is actually looking like a decent contender. My experience with them has shown them very capable at all of the above. The Virtue of Valor bard is a good choice. Chainmail proficiency is offset by Constitution as a secondary score and a light shield, and Shout of Triumph is one of the strongest level 1 encounter attack powers in the entire game. The War Chanter paragon path has an amazingly potent action point feature and solid level 11 and 12 powers.
A Virtue of Valor bard should almost certainly be a draconian for flight and Dragonfear. Remember that one need not take all racial variant features; one can mix and match.
Hunter Bailey
Also, as much as the class balance in D&D 4e is leaps ahead of that of D&D 3.X/Pathfinder and D&D 5e, it... still is not that good.
There are simply *so many* class builds in 4e that are inexplicably weaker than the rest for no good game design reason. Just to name a few as a non-exhaustive list:
• Assassins in general, seekers, and vampires. Too weak and undertuned all-around.
• Avengers at the heroic tier. This can be mitigated with charge-heavy builds, but without those and without Painful Oath, avengers cannot put out reliable damage from levels 1 to 10. I would be wary of the avenger in for this precise reason.
• Barbarians who are neither hybrids nor Whirling Slayers. They are too fragile in the defenses the department, they do not have any outstanding class features, and they are essentially worthless outside of combat. The vast majority of barbarian builds can be improved by being a hybrid. This goes out to as well.
• Battleminds before they receive Lightning Rush at level 7. Their abilities as defenders are tenuous, and they are arbitrarily taxed with post-errata Melee Training at level 1. Lightning Rush (and at level 13, Brutal Barrage) are the only saving graces of this entire class.
• Clerics of pacifist healer builds. These were initially strong, but then completely gutted by errata and then further made obsolete by Monster Manual 3 math.
• Monks of the Stone Fist tradition. Stone Fist Flurry of Blows is garbage.
• Rogues of the Artful Dodger build. They still want to avoid opportunity attacks anyway, so the Artful Dodger class feature is doing nothing for them. They are obsolete in the face of Brutal Scoundrel rogues.
Blake Gomez
• Warlocks who are not hybrids and who do not have the Sorcerer-King Pact. They do not have good potential as strikers without Mindbite Scorn, and their single-target control is middling at best.
• Any Strength/Constitution, Dexterity/Intelligence, or Wisdom/Charisma character who is not a paladin. The game completely screws over the defenses of all of these characters for no good reason, and there are *many* of these builds. Mantle of Clarity ardents, Virtue of Prescience bards, and ranged clerics are bad enough, but then we have Strength/Constitution defenders who fold in the face of Reflex- and Will-targeting attacks.
• Any defender other than a barbarian (berserker) who uses a two-handed weapon that is not a polearm. There is no point in doing this whatsoever, and yet the game suggests this is possible.
• A large portion of the Essentials classes other than the cleric (warpriest) and the wizard (mage). While they start off quite solid at levels 1-2, many of these classes begin a downward slide from level 3 onwards due to poor scaling and awful upgrades. Some of them receive a minor resurgence at levels 11-12 thanks to paragon-tier feats like Deft Blade and Impaling Spear, then fall back into their downward slide.
Again, all of this is non-exhaustive. 4e has so much more instances of "things that should be nice, but are not nice due to poor design."
This party composition is particularly concerning. The barbarian and the cleric are guaranteed to be frail simply because of poor game design. The avenger will be mediocre as a striker unless they optimize for charging, and the warlock will likewise be a shabby striker unless they are a Sorcerer-King Pact warlock with Mindbite Scorn.
Your party just so happens to have run head-first into 4e's failings in the "class design that makes all characters equally competent, just in different ways" department.
William Miller
Now, if I were you, I would fix up this party as follows:
1. House rule that all characters receive a free Expertise feat *and* free pre-errata Melee Training. The latter is particularly important for a low-heroic avenger.
2. Have the avenger be a githzerai with Githzerai Blade Master and a fullblade. When rebuilding them at level 4, ensure that they take up a charging build, replete with a Vanguard Fullblade +1 as their level 3 item.
3. House rule that a barbarian can use their Constitution or Charisma modifier in place of their Dexterity or Intelligence modifier when determining their AC when not in heavy armor. The barbarian will be needing this.
4. House rule that clerics can use their Charisma modifier in place of their Dexterity or Intelligence modifier when determining their AC when not in heavy armor, and in place of their Strength or Constitution modifier when determining their Fortitude. The cleric will thank you.
5. Have the warlock be a Sorcerer-King Pact warlock with Mindbite Scorn. Refer to the sidebar in page 6 of Dragon Magazine #390 concerning the Sorcerer-King Pact in non-Athasian settings.
Alexander Russell
What, in your opinion, are the best twelve character classes in 4E D&D, and the best twenty feats?
Elijah Miller
Define "best."
Even if we say "most powerful," determining this for feats would be nearly impossible due to different classes valuing different feats. Of course, everyone will spring for an Expertise feat early on, and then Essentials defense feats by level 11 or earlier.
Nathan Brown
I don't think I can hit twelve classes, but I can list the ones I really like
Warlord, particularly Bravura, was my first and remains my favourite. Just so much damn fun.
Swordmage in second, as I've only ever seen a little of what they can do but it's a really inventive and cool twist on the defender.
Third is Runepriest, which I'm hoping to play some day despite their rather limited power selection because the multiple states mechanic is neat.
Artificer for fourth, I'm in a game with one at the moment and they're a really curious and unique sort of leader, we keep discovering cool ability interactions which makes every battle novel in some way.
Beyond that I don't feel like I have any particularly strong opinions. I'm playing a Warlock at the moment, and it's fun, but the class doesn't have anything particularly unique about how it's designed.
Kevin Phillips
Rageblood barbarians that go str-primary, dex-secondary are pretty good
Aaron Reed
Feat taxes are probably the biggest flaw, but are incredibly easily fixed, just give expertise and improved defenses out for free
I think, as someone who came into 4e from 3.5, my least favourite thing is the comparative lack of material. Especially in terms of classes and races.
There is only one race in the whole game that can get +strength and +intelligence at the same time, yet there are three classes that can run str/int builds. That is kind of stupid
Isaiah Lee
>Warlord, particularly Bravura, was my first and remains my favourite. Just so much damn fun.
Note that the Bravura Presence warlord suffers from some shoddy design on two counts.
Firstly, its action point class feature does not actually help the entire party, unlike Resourceful Presence or Tactical Presence (the two best presences all-around both for their action point features and their Intelligence builds). Not every party member will have a strong basic attack, and having to settle for a move action is underwhelming.
Secondly, Brash Assault is perhaps the worst warlord at-will power RAW because it leaves the choice to the enemy. If it is advantageous for the enemy to take the swing, then it will do so. Otherwise, it will simply refuse. This is bad, and it is *actually worse than the warlord making a regular, basic attack* if you think about it closely.
The Harlequin Style feat from Dragon Magazine #373 can salvage Brash Assault for a bit, but even then, you are spending a whole feat to transform one of your at-will powers into a narrow defense-raiser. It would be strong for a hybrid defender|warlord, but otherwise, it is just better for any warlord to avoid Brash Assault altogether.
At that point, you may as well be playing a hybrid barbarian. Any barbarian who intends on being a Rageblood, a Thaneborn, or a Thunderborn is substantially better off as a hybrid. Good hybrid choices include: • Barbarian|cleric for Battle Cleric's Lore. • Barbarian|paladin (cavalier) for Defender Aura, Spirit of Sacrifice, and Hybrid Talent (Paladin Armor Proficiency). • Barbarian|warden for marking and Wildblood Frenzy.
Constitution/Intelligence is also one of the rarest racial ability score bonus pairs, available only to genasi, warforged, and the completely unsupported githyanki. The artificer, swordmage, warlock, and wizard, all of which are coincidentally arcane, have Constitution/Intelligence builds.
Zachary Stewart
>Secondly, Brash Assault is perhaps the worst warlord at-will power RAW because it leaves the choice to the enemy. If it is advantageous for the enemy to take the swing, then it will do so. Otherwise, it will simply refuse. This is bad, and it is *actually worse than the warlord making a regular, basic attack* if you think about it closely.
This seems like a bit of an assumption on your part, although one necessary for theorycrafting, that doesn't always hold up in actual play. My GM has enemies act appropriately to their in game situation, so I can often bait them into taking the swing even if it would be disadvantageous, while sufficiently dumb creatures do so as a matter of course unless they're in full retreat.
It's fair to comment that it's a power quite reliant on your GM to play fair, but that doesn't mean it's bad, just that it's only appropriate if you've got a GM of the right disposition.
Joseph Rivera
Player's Handbook 1, page 57: >Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed. For example, when a paladin uses divine challenge against an enemy, the enemy knows that it has been marked and that it will therefore take a penalty to attack rolls and some damage if it attacks anyone aside from the paladin.
Therefore, a creature that has been targeted with Brash Assault knows precisely the deal it has been given.
"The DM can have enemies act stupidly" is no excuse for a power being poor, because by that very logic, the entirety of the defender role and its premises of improving stickiness and mark enforcement are completely unnecessary because "the DM can have enemies act stupidly."
4e already has defenders who force enemies into lose-lose situations, so Brash Assault letting an enemy gain an advantage by simply picking whatever is most advantageous to it is deplorable.
A power that is good only if "the DM has enemies act stupidly" is garbage. The moment the DM has enemies start responding to it intelligently, every usage of the power will be strictly worse than making a plain, basic attack. Why not keep to a warlord at-will power that actually works out-of-the-box unconditionally?
Josiah Taylor
I really wanna give 4th ed. a shot, but my players are already having problems with the 5th ed. So what you guys would recommend to me to make the game simpler?
Is there a way to remove or at least reduce the amount of feats?
The essentials line seems simpler, but I want to know what you think about it, I have the impression it removes some elements that make 4th ed what it is
Cooper Lopez
It's pure personal experience, but I found 4e a lot easier to get into than other editions of D&D. Abilities all being logically laid out helps a lot, as does the character builder.
Evan Stewart
Essentials was 1-2 writers' efforts to return 4e to 3.5-style classes, with fixed features and abilities. It was supposed to make it simpler to get into the ruleset for new players, but generally turned off experienced ones because it ran so counter to the game's prior design philosophy.
If you wanted to remove the feat choice paralysis, you'd have to adjust a lot of monster math downward to compensate, since so much of the feat support is geared toward keeping you alive and kicking against ever more imposing threats.
That being said--
As said, I found 4e easy enough to get into. Partly that's because I'd been playing since late AD&D 2e, but partly because it IS simpler.
If you have the time, maybe sit down with your players and go through the handbooks for classes that google brings up. Or instruct them to go look themselves, if you can't do it physically. Sure, there are a lot of words, but most of them that I've read at least try to explain WHY Choice X is mechanically more viable than Choice Y.
Nolan Anderson
*Most* essentials classes other than the cleric (warpriest) and the wizard (mage) are perfectly fine if your party will only ever play at levels 1-2. Past then, they run into serious scaling issues. I cannot vouch for the pure-classed paladin (cavalier) or the warlock (binder) though, as those are awful even from the beginning.
You could perhaps give the players premade, pre-optimized characters with a full suite of power cards.
Austin Perez
4e is more complicated and board gamey than 5th edition, but less vague (has much clearer wordings in its rules and content,) has better balance, and has a stronger emphasis on fun tactical gameplay.
4th edition all but requires a battlemap; wheras 5e plays very well in theatre of the mind, 4e does not.
What this has resulted in for my group was that we stopped playing 4e, but only because our foreverGM simply didn't want to spend the time and effort to create well laid-out battle maps with interesting environment features, etc.
But the reason why we felt we "had to", as opposed to just coming up with simple "white rooms" with maybe one gimmick, on the fly, is because we actually did try playing on interesting battle maps for a while, and we just couldn't face going back.
4e on a grid (the best way to play it as far as I'm concerned) takes more than twice as much DM prep work, as 5e in theatre of the mind (the best way to play it as far as I'm concerned.)
So now we play 5e. We just bitch about shitty spell wordings and rangers being underpowered a lot.
Aiden Thompson
What's the key to the PDFs? Also I agree with feat tax being the big problem. That and errata.
Jack Morris
How does that even apply?
Most Int 3 monsters won't even be able to understand it, even if they're somehow 'aware of it. And the most intelligent humans aren't purely rational creatures. Knowing that an opponent might be feinting but thinking you might have a chance to hurt them doesn't seem at all preposterous to me, and saying that it'd never be effective just seems silly.
Kevin Stewart
Thanks, I might give it a shot the way it is to see how my players feel about it. I thought mos important feats were related with attack bonus, so I could just give them the bonuses. Or I could just ask the class/race of each player and use some premade character. Thats interesting to know, thanks for the tips. >We just bitch about shitty spell wordings and rangers being underpowered a lot. Thats what I do too, especially about the wording, people just cant get to a consensus
Juan Powell
I'm actually about to start a 4e campaign soon with a friend GMing. Thankfully he has a lot of experience.
Setting is going to be Points of Light, and I'm planning on running a Monk. I've been reading up, and found a few guides online. Any points and tips to someone who is very new to tabletop gaming?
Nolan Cook
>That pic, the guy holding it with both hands Lol
Charles Ward
Essentially, if played under the Player's Handbook 1's assumptions that monsters can always make informed decisions, Brash Assault will always give the enemy the advantage by letting them make the best choice in any given situation.
Hand all characters a free Expertise feat, and possibly pre-errata Melee Training as well.
Optimal monks in D&D 4e are *not* unarmed characters save for level 1 monks. They are weapon-using melee psionicists. A monk has very little reason to *not* use a weapon in 4e.
What is your character's starting level, and what bonus feats are you entitled to?
Mason Martin
To expound:
The Iron Soul monk is easily the most efficacious of the monks due to having Constitution as a secondary score, an unconditional +1 bonus to AC, and the ability to prevent enemies from shifting. The lattermost benefit locks down enemies adjacent to the monk, thereby keeping them targetable by close attacks such as Five Storms, and also allowing the Iron Soul monk to make use of their naturally high AC (with Unarmored Agility) and Constitution.
The Desert Wind monk is a good runner-up to the Iron Soul monk, but only due to its ability to gain a quick burst of damage via its Blistering Flourish at-will, which increases the damage of Desert Wind Flurry of Blows due to the Rules Compendium's definition of "attack." However, such a monk instantaneously becomes near-worthless when faced with any enemies with fire resistance, such as all demons (variable resistance) and all devils. Charisma is a reasonably useful ability score.
The Centered Breath monk comes third. Sliding enemies with a flurry is always useful, particularly with the Deadly Draw feat. Wisdom is a very useful ability score to have. This is the "middle of the pack" monk build.
Far, far below the Centered Breath monk are the Eternal Tide and Stone Fist monks, both of which are coincidentally Strength-based. Strength is not an especially useful ability score since it only really affects Athletics checks in practice. Which one is worth depends on your level. At heroic, Eternal Tide is worse than Stone Fist since it deals the lowest damage and you will wind up trying to "pull" an enemy already adjacent to you, but at paragon and epic, it is better than Stone Fist because it can cluster up enemies for close attacks and trigger Deadly Draw. It is still not very good, however. Stone Fist's problem comes from its base flurry being nothing more than 3 + Strength modifier damage, which makes it dreck compared to other flurries in the long term.
tl;dr = The best monk is the Iron Soul monk.
Luke Johnson
>character builds
>gotta optimize to win
>muh autistic class analysis
this is why modern D&D is bad and why 4e is the worst edition
Lincoln Sanders
I have a modest list.
>If players aren't used to playing tactical RPGs, combat is *excruciatingly* tedious. >Essentials is OP >Feats are a choice between "pick cool stuff or pick the thing which makes you good" >Some legitimate class fantasies are just hot garbage mechanically
Jordan Wright
Nope. While what THF says is technically true, all but the worst class options still work fine in a low to moderate optimization game. I've never played in a high op game, and I never intend to. I much prefer going for powers that are interesting and fun instead of always going for the absolute best.
Liam Bell
What are doing in the 4th edition general then?
Nathan Bennett
>Tohoufag = all of 4e DnD
This is as dumb as thinking SKR is all of Pathfinder.
Gavin Sanchez
>Essentials is OP Some of the feats, like Staff Expertise, yes. Most of the classes, not so much.
>Some legitimate class fantasies are just hot garbage mechanically This is true, as I point out in my non-exhaustive list in .
Aaron Baker
>4e on a grid takes more than twice as much DM prep work, as 5e in theatre of the mind While that's true, it's still faster than 3.X. Also, unlike 5e, 3MM monster math and Encounter budget system actually work properly
Angel Martin
No, that's just 2hu's inability to not optimize. As long as you allow for some imprecision of balance (much less than in any other edition) 4e works just fine out of the box
Adam Roberts
How the fuck do you pronounce Svirfneblin?
Nicholas Bell
Yeah, 4e makes optimising easy, but it also makes competency easy.
Basically, comparing to 3e, let's say you need to reach '100% efficiency' to meet level appropriate threats.
3e, unoptimised character: 60% - 110% efficiency, depending on class 3e, optimised character: 300%+ efficiency
I've always pronounced it more or less as it looks...
Sverf (rhymes with smurf) - *neb* - lin (emphasis on the second syllable)
Henry Lewis
Is there any so 5e/4e hybrid out there?
Something that carries over be streamlined character creation and combat well still offering in depth tactical options and class interactions?
Dominic Perez
Your choices are as following: Strike: DnD4e's grid attached to a super-light skill system.
13th Age: Basically DnD5e, but actually achieving the design goals of DnD5e without being stuck in outdated game design. If the game was literally released as "DnD 5e" and the actual 5e didn't exist, you wouldn't notice.
Shadow of the Demon Lord: Like 13th Age, but with a taste of Warhammer on the gritty side.
Unity: Not actually out yet, but it looks good I guess.
James Adams
Stop shilling Strike!
Why does Veeky Forums keep shilling Strike!?
Michael Gomez
this is the worst forced meme since fefe and Milhouse
Eli Kelly
Is strike! worth looking at or hot garbage?
Ayden Thompson
Agreed It is, though I will warn you that it definitely reads like a "this is the first edition of this game" game. Check it out.
Carter Campbell
Stop shilling Strike!
Why does Veeky Forums keep shilling Strike!?
Isaac Robinson
It's... okay, I suppose.
1) Its combat and non-combat systems are completely separate. I don't believe there's any overlap. 2) Its combat system is a very precise and tactical combat engine. Grid, roles, classes, the whole shebang. 3) Its non-combat system is an extremely lightweight concoction inspired by something like Fate or Burning Wheel. Essentially, you have skills and some ways of acquiring new skills... and that's it.
So, it's worth a look as long as you can stomach its non-combat part. Then again, due to it being separate, it's really easy to throw it away and use something else.
Zachary Evans
>1) Its combat and non-combat systems are completely separate. I don't believe there's any overlap.
There are actually minor instances of overlap between the combat and noncombat sides of Strike!, such as Conditions, skill rolls in combat, and the non-variant version of the archer's Trick Shot. Still, crossover between the two halves.
I am listed in the development credits of Strike!, although I had a negligible, minor role due to having contacted the main author very late. I do not even make any money off sales. I did have a hand in its conception nevertheless, and I would like to say that its noncombat side is wholly worthless rubbish that nobody should have to suffer through.
Look no further than the skill check mechanics. It's the hottest possible garbage.
Sebastian Morris
It's combat mechanics meanwhile are fine
Jacob Williams
The merits of a game, from the perspective of whether to actually buy/play it or not, are only as good as its worst unavoidable component.
The argument that the combat mechanics are fine may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant unless you're talking about whether to pirate it, rip out the combat section, and then splice it onto something else, or homebrew the rest on your own.
Nathan Brooks
Apparently it's based around the single D6 roll
I'm all for simply but that sounds insanely small number range.
How can you fuck up skill checks? Like seriously how?
Dominic Perry
By oversimplifying them to the point where they can't comfortably represent anything usefully.
Zachary Murphy
>hot garbage
Ethan Bailey
>to pirate it, rip out the combat section, and then splice it onto something else, or homebrew the rest on your own. That wouldn't be a wrong course of action
Noah Wright
About a truckload of extra-stinky Limburger tossed into an active volcano.
Jordan Brooks
I wholeheartedly concur.
Levi Jackson
It's the same probability range as DnD4e, just turned into a d6. "Average 70% chance to succeed at things you are good at" turned into "66% chance to succeed at things you are good at."
Aaron Brooks
I consider the first two of those hybrid choices to basically be cheating
Battle Cleric's Lore is so far and away superior to healer's lore on clerics alone, on classes that are normally using hide armor it's just rediculous.
And Cavalier hybrids are just dumb, like all essentials hybrids, you get 90% of the class features when you should only be getting 50%
Cameron Anderson
Starting at 1, skipping to 3 after a prequel adventure. I plan on at least reaching level 12, then a pause, then 21.
Brayden Sullivan
Since you are looking for a melee arcane class and hybrid classes are off the metaphorical table, you want either a Charisma/Constitution-based Virtue of Valor bard or an Intelligence/Constitution-based Aegis of Shielding swordmage. As the former, the optimal race for you will be draconian due to pixie-style flight, while as the latter, eladrin should be the prime race option due to Fey Step and Eladrin Weapon Training.
I would *not* recommend a bard (skald) due to that being obsolete in the face of a Virtue of Valor bard.
This comes down to whether you prefer to be a leader and a skill monkey with rituals, or a defender with less skills and no rituals.
Will the GM at least hand you a free Expertise feat and/or free Melee Training? Both the Virtue of Valor bard and the swordmage can benefit greatly from free Melee Training.
Eli Richardson
The avenger will likely be human, all told. The rest are small things I can work with.
Kevin Carter
I recommend 13th Age or Gamma World 7E (which uses a modified 4E ruleset). Strike! is a mediocre game with horrible formatting and terrible non-combat rules.
Jordan Reyes
Allow the human to take Githzerai Blade Master anyway, but only as an avenger.
Adam Flores
Take everything 2hu says with a grain salt or a few. While he does indeed know the system inside and out, the differences between builds aren't at all as grievous as you might conclude from reading his posts. See: And when your whole party is at (as that post puts it) 90%-100% efficiency, there's no real need to nudge the balance
Cameron Sanders
>13th Age over Strike! kek Enjoy your shitty paladin smite damage at level 10 while wizards and clerics teleport across the world.
Gavin Rivera
...
Jason Howard
>Will the GM I AM the GM. The Expertise, I'm alright with. The pre errata melee training less so.
Thomas Wilson
It's actually only worthwhile pre errata and doesn't break anything. After... let's just say it was nerfed because of excesses of Essentials classes
Gavin Gonzalez
Explain what it was before, after, and what got it nerfed, and you got yourself a look. >i'd do it myself, but I'm feasting on a 2lb london broil steak, medium even
Zachary Rodriguez
>feat tax If I'm already implementing Inherent Bonuses*, can't I just give +1 per tier at, say, X4th levels? And change Expertise feats to only give their side effects
*best things since sliced bread as far as I'm concerned
Luis Stewart
Actually, on second review, the difference isn't that great for a casual game, I was remembering it wrong.
Original: >Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon you are proficient with, you can use that ability instead of Strength for the attack roll and the damage roll.
Errata'd: >Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll. In addition, you can use half of that ability’s modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, for the damage roll.
Excesses I was referring to are the fact that normal game's Warlord allows you to make additional basic attacks out of turn. Essential classes boost basic attacks to the level of At-Wills or sometimes Encounter powers. You can see the problem?
Christopher Anderson
Different guy, but here you go
>Pre nerf: Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage roll.
>Post nerf Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll. In addition, you can use half of that ability’s modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, for the damage roll.
What got it nerfed was new essentials classes like the knight and slayer, which are supposed to be strength-primary, but the only reason they're strength-primary is because everything they do is a melee basic attack, and the devs wanted them to be strength primary, so they nerfed melee training to make it so
It didn't work, the correct way to play either slayer or knight is to find whatever methods possible to get MBAs that aren't strength-based.
My personal opinion on the matter is that strength is inherently the weakest stat in the game, and giving melee training for free just makes it even weaker. Don't give it out for free, but do use the pre-nerf version of it for people to take as a feat
Dylan Green
This list is missing the battlemind, now that I consider it.
The Melee Training feat gives an ardent, a melee artificer, a Dragon Magazine assassin, an avenger, a Virtue of Valor bard, a battlemind, a cleric (warpriest), a monk, an Artful Dodger rogue, or a swordmage a viable melee basic attack. This is important for opportunity attacks and charges.
Melee Training was downgraded immediately before Heroes of the Fallen Lands (the first Essentials book) was released, solely to discourage the new fighter (knight) and fighter (slayer) from using it to dump Strength and focus solely on Constitution or Dexterity.
That is it. That was the only reason Melee Training was downgraded. The other classes mentioned above all suffered for it. The avenger and the swordmage were left unscathed due to Power of Skill and Intelligent Blademaster respectively. The ardent, the melee artificer, the Dragon Magazine assassin, the Virtue of Valor bard, the battlemind, the cleric (warpriest), the monk, and the Artful Dodger rogue all took a hit to their melee basic attack damage for no reason at all. That is insulting.
Handing out Melee Training, preferably pre-errata Melee Training, is important for a game that starts out at level 1, because otherwise, characters like Virtue of Valor bards and battleminds will have to burn their level 1 feat just to gain a vaguely viable melee basic attack.
This is not the only instance of nonsensical errata during the Essentials era. Before Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms was released, they published an errata that removed the "divine" keyword from the cleric's Healing Word. This arbitrarily caused it to lose plenty of support for divine powers and divine healing powers. Why? Because the new druid (sentinel) happened to have a power called Healing Word, and that class was primal, not divine. They could have called the druid's healing power something else... but no, they took the nuclear option.
Jayden Scott
Clerics have Sonnlinor's Hammer (at-will that can be used as an MBA), Avengers have Overwhelming strike combined with power of skill(at-will and a feat that lets them use said at-will as an MBA), Swordmages have intelligent blademaster (basically pre-nerf melee training, but for swordmages only and only for intelligence)
Tyler Ward
>It didn't work, the correct way to play either slayer or knight is to find whatever methods possible to get MBAs that aren't strength-based. Note that this is only really practical as an eladrin fighter (knight) with Intelligent Blademaster, or as a level 11+ half-elf fighter (knight) or fighter (slayer) with Versatile Master.
>My personal opinion on the matter is that strength is inherently the weakest stat in the game, and giving melee training for free just makes it even weaker. This is faulty logic. Even with post-errata Melee Training and no free Melee Training, characters whose class build does not use Strength will *never* raise their Strength past 13 at the very most.
What you should be worried about is those characters who need a good melee basic attack yet are screwed out of one. A battlemind is pigeonholed into selecting Melee Training as their first feat, and a swordmage is likewise forced to take Intelligent Blademaster as their first feat.
This would not be so bad in a game starting at level 6 or 8 or so, but for a game starting at level 1, it is incredibly annoying to have to spend the character's *only* feat on a blatant tax feat and math fix.
I have already mentioned Power of Skill and Intelligent Blademaster in the post you are quoting. The important part about them is that they still have to be taken just to satisfy a silly feat tax. They are clumsy band-aids to a problem.
Sonnlinor's Hammer is highly inconvenient for a cleric (warpriest) to take, because Charisma is a dump score for them, so Sonnlinor's Hammer's rider is completely useless for them.
Leo Johnson
The feat slot price is what you pay in order to use a better main stat
Battleminds pay it to have fucktons of healing surges and hit points, swordmages pay it in access to sage of ages and arcana training as a viable thing, rogues and monks pay it with their naturally high initiative scores, often higher than other classes even with improved initiative.
Granted poor ardents and bards pay the price pretty hard without much of a reward in exchange, but giving it to them for free is fair, it's not like it matters as much for them anyway, no one is going to be granting them free MBAs when they could be giving free MBAs to a striker or fighter.
I would also recommend starting at level 2, the extra feat and utility power helps a lot with character individuality, and reduces the pain of having to spend your level 1 feat slot on a tax
Thomas Long
>If I'm already implementing Inherent Bonuses*, can't I just give +1 per tier at, say, X4th levels? >And change Expertise feats to only give their side effects That's functionally the same as giving out Versatile Expertise for free. I've never seen anyone interested in swapping primary weapon types. >*best things since sliced bread as far as I'm concerned Agreed.
Jayden Carter
>Battleminds pay it to have fucktons of healing surges and hit points Disregarding Essentials classes, the battlemind is also the worst defender class in the system from levels 1-6 due to its shoddy mark enforcement. Even when it picks up Lightning Rush at level 7 and actually becomes good, the battlemind simply bumps itself up to the level of the fighter and the paladin. There is no need for the class to be taxed into taking Melee Training.
>swordmages pay it in access to sage of ages and arcana training as a viable thing The swordmage is not exactly a stellar defender on par with the fighter and the paladin. It is a *decent* defender class, yes, but only if built as an Aegis of Shielding hit-and-run kiter or as a hybrid swordmage|warlock with a melee basic attack in the form of Eldritch Strike anyway. Even with such builds, it is still only on the level of the fighter and the paladin.
>rogues and monks pay it with their naturally high initiative scores The rogues who need Melee Training the most are the ones who are the worst rogues (i.e. anything other than a Brutal Scoundrel), so they could absolutely benefit from being handed it as a free feat. You have a point regarding monks since they are already very capable all-around, the two Strength monks are the worst of the monk builds, and Internalize the Basic Kata can vaguely justify going unarmed at the lower levels... so I would probably hold off from giving free Melee Training to monks.
Caleb Gutierrez
>I'm all for simply but that sounds insanely small number range.
Well, the small number range is a problem because it's less granular, so bonuses and penalties hit really hard in Strike! (which is why there aren't many in it).
It also necessitates a bunch of design decisions (like miss tokens). Overall, I'd have been happier with a larger die like d10 on d12 to base the game around, but the fighting part is pretty good either way.
Kayden Smith
>fighting part is good >1d6 for combat lel
Angel Hernandez
>PDFs for 4e books Not even a 4e player but bless you all for having a trove I can use to convert neat stuff to 5e.
Joshua Myers
What's the problem as long as probabilities work out?
Hudson Martin
The probabilities NEVER work out with 1d6.
Ethan Kelly
I want to mine some Warlord and Dragonborn content for 5e conversion. I figured the 4e PHB is a good start, but are there other sources with noteworthy material for those? I'm not too familiar with 4e.
Henry Barnes
Nice claim you have there
Dylan Jenkins
Warlord stuff is in PHB and Martial Power Dragonborn had a small supplement of their own. Player's Handbook Races - Dragonborn.
Ryder James
Thanks user.
Evan Stewart
The 13 age has a lot of good ideas, but it completely drops, the tactical combat element. Which love it or hate made 4e 4e.
Landon Cooper
Speaking of which what's the good synonymous term for charge attack? It's too easy to be confused with charged attack.
Eli Robinson
I saw one comment the other day on Veeky Forums about an "eladrin knight" being a really fun and good class. Can anybody tell me more?
Rushdown, maybe?
William Anderson
That was my first idea but it's too similar to Bullrush.
Dash Attack?
From what I remember it was just a pladain subtype.
Logan Wood
Eladrin knights are certainly more fun than ordinary knights, but I'd generally say ordinary knights are the most boring class in the game, and eladrin knights aren't a gigantic leap up from ordinary knights.
Basically it boils down to the discussion about melee training above, combined with a unique knight stance an opportunity attack for eladrin, which let you teleport around your enemies constantly.
With post-nerf melee training, you use these abilities in combination with swordmage multiclassing and the intelligent blademaster feat. If you're using pre-nerf melee training, you can instead multiclass into warlock and take the evermeet warlock paragon path, which is insane in this case, because it turns you into an invisible defender, and invisible defenders are seriously hard to deal with
Nicholas Parker
>d20, 5% increments. >d6, 16.66% increments.
Josiah Robinson
What strike does is put you at like, 66% of affecting an enemy every time you attack (3, 4, 5, 6 all do something). This is because the d6 attack table are the exact same results (4-5 are always "do damage, and do effect"), and there's no +1s to hit, or whatever.
This is about (65% or 70% - I forget which exactly) 4e assumes you have, except 4e scales the numbers ever higher and lets people accumulate modifiers to gently nudge that in various directions.
It's just cutting out all the stuff surrounding the to-hit roll and says "this is what it will be more or less anyways"
