Is there a Pathfinder sort of thing for 4th?

user, you've got me curious. Could you expand on what makes monks and druids great?

If they fix any issues they're doing better than Pathfinder.

Because I like a lot of things about 4E, but there are a number of things that bug me, and if someone else has already done the work of fixing them, then great.

E6 really made 3x better, is there an equivalent for 4th?

>If they fix any issues they're doing better than Pathfinder.

Right, but for example Strike! focuses entirely on the grid-combat aspect, while 13th Age removes it. Each game used a different approach for "fixing".

Playing in heroic only? Possibly inherent bonuses.

It's hard to say, because 4e is nowhere near as broken as 3.x.

What are the things that bug you?

Monks use flowing techniques, when they choose attack powers, each choice comes with three attacks, an opener, a followup, and a finisher. You don't have to follow the exact technique, but you can only use a followup after an opener, and can only use a finisher after a followup. (so if you have techniques A, B and C, you could use opener A, followup C and finisher B, or opener C, followup C and finisher A). You can end a flow at any point to restart at the opener, it makes monks really fun to play with.

Druids on the other hand have a huge array of character options, they can be shapeshifters, spellcasters based off of animal spirits, spellcasters based off of the power of the land, healers, nature warriors and a few more things, and you can mix and match these options in a huge array of possibilities which makes them super-flexible and really fun to build

I just wish the rest of the system was better

Strike! Also uses a really, really shit out-of-combat system that can be pretty accurately described as 'FATE but worse in every possible way'

I think there might be eventually, but 4e isn't old enough to have an OSR community yet like 3.5 did. And possibly not enough people have/will play 4 and only 4 as the only RPG in their lives that they obsess over.

It's actually more in line with PbtA and (as far as I've heard) Burning wheel.

>And possibly not enough people have/will play 4 and only 4 as the only RPG in their lives that they obsess over.

You hit the core of it, more or less. Most people who played 4e weren't full-time "one true edition" D&D die-hards and are happy to play other games.

Bit of a shame, 4e is a very unique system and it's a shame that we'll probably never get another big game like it

To be fair, some games have taken inspiration from it. Battle Century G, for instance, has seen fit to work on the same assumptions such as grid-based combat and deep tactics.

A ton of little things that i just wish were cleaned up. The main problem is that it's really fun in heroic, but turns into a shitshow in paragon and epic, as you have zones, AoEs, reactions, vulnerabilities, OAs, and just so many other things going on that combat slows to a crawl, even with an experienced group. I feel like the framework is good, but it really needed to be pared down.

There are a lot of other things but it's 2 am and I had a long day, sorry user.

This thread seems like a good opportunity to ask

I really want to try 4e, but I heard the math is wrong and there is a huge number bloat. I also hate feats, and I think they should be removed.

How can I "fix" this? And what levels do you consider the funniest? When my players and I play 5e we hardly go beyond level 5

Stay in heroic (1-10).

You can play "featless" as long as you hand out the math fix feats (in heroic that's basically an expertise feat and melee training for some classes), though you'll be missing some cool stuff.

You may also want to hand out inherent bonuses so you don't have to deal with magic weapons treadmill.

Numbers bloat is highly overstated. It's bloaty, but not that bad at those levels.

You can't really remove feats from 4e, they're a big part of character customization and removing them removes a big part of what defines a character's playstyle

The maths is mostly right, but only with the right feat taxes, which can easily be baked into the standard progression, just give PCs a +1 to all attack rolls and NADs in heroic, going up to +2 in paragon and +3 in epic (heroic paragon and epic are the tiers of play, each containing 10 levels, 1-10 is heroic, 11-20 is paragon, 21-30 is epic). Also, remember to use enemies from Monster Manual 3 to begin with, it just makes everything easier for you, the DM, and more fun for your players.

As for the most fun levels, I personally love paragon tier in general, but I;ve seen a lot of people say the most fun levels in 4e are from 6 to 10, from when you get your second utility power to the end of heroic tier

I love how now that they have had it for a while, 4e is considered 'imperfect' and 'has some shit classes and powers' and 'feat taxes' and 'number bloat that you have to fix by not using core'.

Hypocrites, all of you.

The worst part of Essentials was that fucking Mearls decided to "reduce complexity" by removing POWERS instead of FEATS

There are degrees to faults, famalam.

liking things and recognizing the flaws in those things is not hypocrisy, user

Well yeah

He didn't mean "reduce complexity" as in "make the game easier to get into an understand". He meant "reduce complexity" as in "make it play more like 3.5 with wizards shitting all over shitty martial classes"

I am definitely not bitter

In all seriousness though, essentials classes aren't that bad overall, the only ones that really ruffle me are knight and bladesinger because the book lies to you on how they should be built

motherfucker mastered the "Republican education" strategy

Say a thing sucks so you fuck with it so it sucks more so people think it sucks so they let you fuck with it more so it sucks more so you get to fuck with it more until you can just replace it with your retarded bullshit that doesn't work

The math was fixed during the lifespan of the game. Use Monster Vault and MM3, or use MM3 math to convert the ones from MM1&2.

Also give PCs the feats mentions.

4E is tough to do featless like 5E, because a lot of the diversity of characters in combat stems from feat selection (the rest comes from powers) but I guess you could do it.

I'd say it's best from level 3 or so, on up to maybe 15.

Not all of us. Some of us liked the system just fine rather than spending years trying to kill it.

Mearls is a fucking hack. Him and Monte will be doing their best to kill martials for another 20 years.

One thing I really liked from Essentials are the changes to the fighter, replacing At-Will attacks with stances that modify the basic attack. That I got an Slayer to fight alongside my lazy Warlord made it even better.

>only ones that really ruffle me are knight and bladesinger because the book lies to you on how they should be built
Could you elaborate?

Yeah, I wish stances had gotten more love over the lifespan of the game.

Speaking of, Divine Power 2 when?

WINNING POST IS WINNING

Bladesinger is actually a striker masquerading as a controller. Both it and the Knight are better off using a different pair of abilities than what the game suggests.

The book says bladesingers should be int-primary, dex-secondary and that they're controllers. This is a filthy lie, bladesingers should be str-primary, dex-secondary and they're primarily strikers

Similarly, the book says knights should be str-primary, con-secondary, when they should be literally-anything-but-strength-because-you're-taking-melee-training-or-a-similar-means-of-not-using-strength-for-MBAs-primary, con-secondary. Because a defender should never take a primary and secondary stat under the same NAD

>4E is tough to do featless like 5E, because a lot of the diversity of characters in combat stems from feat selection...

Does it, though? Weapon feats could just be rolled into (martial? exotic?) weapon proficiencies, since you can't really use more than one or two at once anyway, so you're still making an active choice depending on what you decide to wield (and, later, enchant).

Elemental cheese feats should go anyway, they're either weak damage upgrades or way-too-strong damage upgrades, both of which are dull as dirt.

Racial feats usually either suck or help pigeon-hole race/class combos, and you could easily work out some level-based racial progression for the ones that don't (a lot of the revenant feats are generally pretty cool, for example).

Then you've got the practically required feats for each class and spec. Is taking Painful Oath really a choice? Or the stuff that you always want anyway, if you can get it, like Superior Will.

So then what's left? The few Druid form feats worth looking at?

What are you talking about? Stance powers are AMAZING, they got so much love

Really? Where? I never saw much of them.

It'll probably come out right after Martial Power 3

Specialization feats and multiclass feats

For example. Cunning stalker isn't necessary for rogues, but it's nice if you plan on operating alone, while cunning sneak is much better if you plan to be double-teaming every enemy with your defender.

>Similarly, the book says knights should be str-primary, con-secondary, when they should be literally-anything-but-strength-because-you're-taking-melee-training-or-a-similar-means-of-not-using-strength-for-MBAs-primary, con-secondary. Because a defender should never take a primary and secondary stat under the same NAD

To be fair, there's no way to do this in the Essentials books -AND- mearls went out of his way to nerf Melee Training just to fuck that option over (and in the process fucked a lot of regular characters over too, because of course he did)

So you're not -supposed- to be able to do that

This. Recognising the flaws in things you like is a fundamental part of appreciating them.

Dancing Defense, Rain of Steel, Bare-knuckled Rebuke, Skirmishing Stance, Spitting Cobra Stance, Masterful Spiral, Meditation of the Blade, Unyielding Avalanche, Dust Storm Assault, Tyrian Battle Stance, Giant's Might, Quicksilver Blade, Goad of Blood and Kiss of Death to name a few

So here's a question- What about 4e would you like changed, if a retroclone or some such was created?

For me, I'd really like them to flesh out and rework rituals/martial practices and out of combat utility powers. The concepts are all good, but Rituals are often massively overcosted for what they do and out of combat utility powers have to fight with combat utility powers for space, which isn't a fun choice for players.

A suggestion a friend made that I agree with is changing all costs for non-permanent rituals to Healing Surges. They make sense as a resource you can expend for that sort of advantage and it stops you wasting gold on temporary buffs rather than important permanent item progression.

Meanwhile, I'd divide combat utility and out of combat utility powers, give each one their own set of slots and progression so everyone has a full suite of combat options while also getting access to some fun out of combat stuff.

Sure there is

Multiclass into swordmage and grab intelligent blademaster, or be a half-elf and grab eldritch strike or sonnlinor's hammer (although that one only works from level 11 onwards)

I'd also divide combat and out-of-combat feats

Because there are a lot of fun feats that never get used because they're suboptimal for combat

Unless it's 3.PF, rite?

So I should:

>use MM3 and Monster Vault
>give (or force players to pick) weapon expertise and meele training
>inherent bonus

Anything else? Should I avoid essentials?

If a 3.PF fan can acknowledge the flaws in their system of choice but enjoys it anyway, I have nothing but respect for them.

It's the mouthbreathing fanatics who insist caster supremacy and ivory tower design are good things who I've got nothing but disdain for.

Look up cbloader, the offline character builder. It's been fanpatched with all the missing content and it's a really great resource for character generation.

Also funin.space is a site with an index of 4e content.

Some 3.5 fans are like that, they're generally the ones stirring up stupid arguments, but for the most part I think people who like 3.5 know it's a busted-ass game and love it warts and all

>intelligent blademaster
not in Essentials
>or be a half-elf
don't get to poach at-wills in Essentials
>eldritch strike or sonnlinor's hammer
also not in Essentials

Remember, Essentials was Mearls little "kick over your blocks and build my own" power grab. It was meant to disavow anything to do with previous 4e because that "wasn't real D&D" by lil' Mikey's reckoning.

(In a large part because it didn't fellate spellcasters enough...read what Heinsoo had to say about the original PHB's development and how *certain parties* repeatedly insisted that the wizard and cleric had to be straight-up better than everyone else because that was the soul of D&D.)

Essentials.

Essentials only really becomes shit when your players know how to optimize 4e, don't worry about banning Essentials, just gently nudge them away from bladesinger

Where can I find what Heinsoo said about 4e PHB1?

Also I think Heinsoo may have given Tweet a bit too much ground to work with when developing 13th Age

except half the 3.x fans who see problems in their system of choice go on to do stupid shit like nerfing Monks because "omg that d20 damage die!" and Warlocks because ALL DAY CASTING memes

seriously, how many times have the Pathfinder devs nerfed the Monk now? while giving the Wizard ever more powers? and printing the Arcanist?

But it's those handwraps and brass knuckles that are breaking the game!

Aren't the PF devs on record as saying they refuse to address the flaws in 3.5 because that would be too big of a change to the game?

Don't blame 3.5 fans for the Pathfinder devs being retarded

>It really should be grid-based, the caster classes are far stronger than the martial classes due to how the defense systems work, the way AC works means that any class that needs strength, charisma or intelligence is automatically weaker than classes that use dexterity, constitution or wisdom

Use the Death to Ability Scores homebrew rule. It fixes this issue.

Er, rather the attribute issue. Didn't mean to greentext the grid-based portion.

That actually makes a lot of sense too.

Idly, any thoughts on succinct names you could give to in combat/out of combat utilities and feats, since referring to them that way is rather longwinded?

combat utilities/feats and exploration utilities/feats

Why not? It's a feedback loop - idiot fans demand idiotic changes from idiotic developers, who make idiotic changes because that's what the idiots want. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Some of those idiotic developers are also idiotic fans themselves.

That's only more reason to blame them.