4th Ed General

Where does it say that?

Where does it say you can't?

By RAW spirit healing uses a minor action and healing word uses a minor action. You can only have one minor action in a turn.

You can trade your actions down IIRC. So you could use a minor and a move to heal twice.

Seems better, and this is with the standard action?

No one cares about 4e.

Except for all the people posting in this thread, and the other threads about it?

And, y'know, you. Even the people who post about hating it care about it.

...

Obviously, all the cool kids are out playing.

Playing Strike! that is

I haven't a chance to run it, but I really want to do a Disgaea game in 4e.

I think MOST disgaea demons can just be a refluffed race/class combination, like a Nekomata could be a razorclaw shifter monk. But there was one effect that I couldn't seem to replicate without homebrew.

Shill me Strike!. We've recently starting playing an off and on campaign in 4e and have been satisfied so far. What does Strike! change? Does it have the same amount of content? Does it have a character builder with the same quality?

I heard there was some 3rd party content early in 4E's life cycle but I've never really looked into it. Anyone know about that?

Probably happened before the 3rd parties jumped ship to PF, since its business model was more profitable.

It has waaaay less content (intentionally so), and there's a fan made online character builder that is functional, but has no frills.

The big streamlining changes are:
-switching from d20 to d6
-removing stats and defenses
-removing basically all the scaling
-removing small modifiers (uses 5e style advantage instead for most things)
-removing tax feats
-consolidating levels into 10

The big character building change is that you create the combat side of your character (your skill side can be created standalone; technically you can play Strike! without using the combat system, but why would you?) by combining a Class and a Role. For example, there's the Warlord class, who gets to do all kinds of warlord-y shit, like giving allies extra attacks and movements, or extra damage to their attacks. On top of selecting the Warlord, you can select the Leader role which gives you heals, or the Defender role which gives you marking and tankyness, or the Striker role if you want to deal some damage and have some mobility on top of your support stuff, etc.

There's right now about 20 classes (half of them in the core book, the rest in expansions/playtests) and 5 base roles, (with a 6th in playtest that's a "hybrid" role).

Compared to 4e, you are more or less forced to make up your own fluff (everything is set up basically fluff-free), so there's a bit more work expected out of the box, but it plays faster and smoother because of all the streamlining (which however also means it lost a lot of granularity). A class book (with the second batch of classes) and a monster hunter based book (with equipments) is coming.

Oh, and the core book is trash. It tries to sell you on the out of combat skill system for the first 90 or so pages, when, let's face it, the fights are where it's at.

So like, I really like it, but it's a very rocky sell.

Do you happen to have it lying around so I can take a look?
It does however sound kinda bad for the people who like to build characters, when the options are so low

I've looked at Strike, but it always seemed like characters had a lot less options and actual depth to playing them than 4e. Every class seemed like it had a single mechanical gimmick and that making use of that was all you really needed to do.

Here: sendspace.com/file/2fuwd4

Playtest stuff in this post.

Well, there's still quite a number of options depending on class (one of the playtest classes is basically invoker), but yeah, I think the idea is that you choose a class/role based on the gimmick you like, and then the interactions between the characters in combat is where the depth comes, not from the character in itself. I kinda like that approach in the sense that it makes characters a bit less self-reliant, which encourages team-play to get the best out of your stuff.

Also, when it comes to building you still got quite a number of build options (again, depending on class), and although the book doesn't go into detail about it, I'm about 90% sure you are supposed to homebrew feats and equipment that mimics powers and abilities of other classes/enemies for maximum character building combo potential.

Actually, newer playtest stuff with berserker.

Ok so I slapped something together in the online character generator and it looks really barebones. Plus it kind of only seems to resemble 4e visually with how the power cards look.
For example, although I chose defender, I don't see any marking powers, or is that simply gone?

However, just thinking about it for a bit, it does present itself as quite accessible for combat heavy oneshots I guess

Defender gets Marking as a role action at-will.

Mark is a universal status effect, if you mark someone and he attacks anyone else, he provokes an opportunity from you (which in Strike! hit automatically for 2 damage, more if you are a defender and got stickiness boost).

Ah, alright, missed that, because it was under that whole Assess mumbojumbo.
However, the problem with it being really barebones still persists. I didn't see anything about gear in the character generator either.
For now, it's in the oneshot system list.
Furthermore, what can you even discuss about the game? There's probably some perfect builds everyone parrots and then nothing, because it has no internal setting (which I don't mind) and that's pretty much it.
The non-combat aspects mix in some FATE-ish stuff with how your special doodads from Origin etc work I guess

>I didn't see anything about gear in the character generator either.

Yep, no set gear list at the moment. There are rules/guidelines for making your own items though.

>For now, it's in the oneshot system list.

That's how I use it as well, but a mid-length campaign is definitely doable.

>Furthermore, what can you even discuss about the game? There's probably some perfect builds everyone parrots and then nothing,

I wish the game would be popular enough to be explored to that degree, but not really, as far as I know. So what's best is probably up for discussion (although Touhou is going to appear any moment now to talk about how alpha striking setups are broken). Probably homebrewing feats and equipment would also be a good discussion point. Or recreating characters from popular media, that seems to be a hit.

Sorry mate, if Touhou already has his dirty claws on this shit, it's deader than dead already. 4e gets away because there's enough options that you can just play something else, but for a game that's so small as Strike!, that's quite a predicament.

Meh, I hope not, I quite like this and Godbound.

What the hell is this Blaster and Lurker class business? How is it any different from a Striker? A slightly different Striker, sure, but I can't really see it being enough for TWO additional class types.

Maybe one is ranged striker And the other is a melee one?

What about a setting where a Warlord really COULD yell someone's arm back on?

>that racial power
Well, it's not as bad as the draconian's.

Works pretty well with Planescape

Your warlord convinces his party members that they didn't get their arm chopped off, and is so convincing that everyone believes it to be true, so it becomes the truth

E bump

The threads seem to be slow and poor-quality lately, is the usual crowd MIA?

Controller in 4e struggled with having an identity, so it had been split into Controller (debuff ad enemy reposition guy) and Blaster (AoE damage and some battlefield effects guy).

Lurker is just an alternate Striker.

>Controller in 4e struggled with having an identity

Did it?

Blasted seems misnamed - nothing "blasty" about battlefield effects

Lurker seems pointless - just a subset of some Striker classes I'd guess. But what does it have to distinguish itself?

Blaster blasts large groups of enemies. I think the name is apt.

Lurker is mechanically distinct enough with it's switching between his two different modes I think, making it a sort of hybrid role between offense and defense.

Blaster is named that because they basically just do what 4e blaster wizards do

Better than Kapak draconian, worse than bozak draconian

Note how the power lacks either the weapon or implement keywords and doesn't have a scaling attack bonus, which means it will pretty much always miss

Why is it named lurker then? If it doesn't sneak or make big attacks? I'm reading the bit on it now and I just can't figure out why it's "lurker"

I mean, in theory it's similar to the Berserker, which is a dual role, but not its own role

Because that's what monsters in 4e that attacked like that were called.

They had one ability that made them invisible, or raised their defenses, or had them take less damage but took a standard action to switch to, and when in that form, they could do one big attack that deal two-turns worth of damage, but forced them back into their base state

They're a pain in the butt to fight in 4e because most of them can use their big attack as an MBA, which means that you have to be really careful about their opportunity attacks, which is hard when they're invisible or otherwise hidden

It does get both of those. It gets to sneak around when in defensive mode, and then gets a higher damage bonus than striker in aggressive mode.

Really just seems like a striker still IMO.

Lurkers only exist because monsters are more specialized, I feel. I just can't see it being enough for an entire role.

Yeah, I can't really envision any "lurkers" that are heroes of fantasy works. Other than the sneaky rogue.

It is a striker. It even says so. It's just an alternate method of being a striker that's more swingy.

It's mostly for the sneaky rogue types, although the mechanics let it work like an "unsheath my sword" type of thing, or anyone having an Aggressive mode (say, ABA from Guilty Gear)..

Ah, I thought it was intended to be a new role, as in, Defender-Leader-Striker-Controller-Lurker-Blaster.

I wish Strike! had proper classes instead of modular classes. The modularity makes the game as samey as 4e detractors claim 4e is.

I also wish it used a better dice system, 2d6 or 3d6 would let it use granular bonuses. As it is, any bonus either does basically nothing, or is a complete game-changer

Also, the entire non-combat section of the game needs to be entirely scrapped, it's all garbage all the time

What do you guys think of the different power sources? The base ones are all good, but Shadow and Psionics just seem whack (and what the fuck is happening with Elemental?) and some that seem like they SHOULD have made it in didn't, like Ki.

I like Shadow in principle, but the execution was subpar. Psionic is also fine, especially when you keep in mind that they folded Ki into it, vis the Monk.

I've never really understood Psionics in 4E, desu.

Fluffwise or mechanically?

I like the power sources, I wish psionics got some expansion though

A defender or leader that used full disciplines like the monk, or a striker that used psionic augmentation would be really cool

>I wish Strike! had proper classes instead of modular classes. The modularity makes the game as samey as 4e detractors claim 4e is.

I feel like the class/role separation means you can quarantine off the parts that are kinda samey (i.e. the "+x dice/stat damage" class abilities) and and have the classes be the mechanically interesting stuff.

>I also wish it used a better dice system, 2d6 or 3d6 would let it use granular bonuses.

2d6 is an optional rule at least, both for in and out of combat.

Mechanically

Psionics is Ki, and it's the most unique power source 4e has. Shadow amounted to nothing really and Elemental was just arcane by another name

no encounter powers, instead enhance at-wills to encounter-like effects by spending power points which refill every short rest. Not much else to it

Ok. 4e Psionics works like this:

Rather than having encounter powers, they have Power Points. These points can be spent to buff at-will powers. These points are regained on a short rest.

So for this example it's got an augment 1 (Spend 1 point) and augment 2 (Spend 2 points). If you spend that amount, you replace those lines with the new one.

So spending 1 changes it from 'One dude in the burst' to 'All dudes in the burst'. and spending 2 points gives you that AND extra damage AND more options (As you can now teleport them both outside the burst and to places within it.

It means that Psionic characters are both very versatile (They have many at-will power options) and kinda limited (They can only do improved versions of what they already know)

So how does Monk play into this?

>A defender or leader that used full disciplines like the monk, or a striker that used psionic augmentation would be really cool

What are "full disciplines"? I remember very little about 4E monks

And isn't there another Psionic striker?

Monk uses full disciples, where he has a movement option and a standard action attack in one package. He doesn't have the augments of other psionic classes, however.

There's no augment points psionic striker (although the existing psionic classes can kinda striker as secondary, Battlemind especially in paragon has some very reliable damage options for example).

The two powers that make up one full discipline can be used separately, but not on the same turn as other full discipline powers, unless an action point is used, in which case the extra standard action can be a different full discipline power