/4e/ general thread please

/4e/ general thread please.

Is your campaign setting a points of light setting?

Other urls found in this thread:

rpggeek.com/thread/792832/gamma-world-rpg-review
archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/48865239/#48888299
archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/43530325/#43533070
archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/47191606/#47197158
dropbox.com/s/a1i5mhmasq77iqm/Strike Books.zip?dl=0
13thage.org/index.php/classes/495-the-improved-monk
dropbox.com/s/rtg87nut82vf1y4/Madness at Gardmore Abbey.zip?dl=0
site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/13th-sage-new-alternative-array-ability-scores/
asmor.com/scripts/4eMonsterMathCruncher/
pastebin.com/85Hm56k5
funin.space/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Not at the moment, although it's always a nice idea.

I don't think it's the best idea to try and spam-create 4e generals though. I like the game, but it doesn't have the population or playerbase to support consistent threads at the moment, most die before hitting 300 posts. Better to have more occasional really long, good threads than very regular mediocre ones that bleed away interest rather than letting it build up to a point where we can get some really good discussions going.

Is there a 4e game set on modern, future or post apocalyptic settings? I think the type of game Shadowrun does of urban crawling and building delving makes it good for 4e.

rpggeek.com/thread/792832/gamma-world-rpg-review

You'd need to kind of change the whole things or refluff a lot of stuff but theoretically it could work, it just wouldn't be easy.

Creating a similar system wouldn't also be easy, 4e's got a ton of material to cover even at the basics.

EitherOr you could try Strike!. It's got built in stuff for XCOM-like shenans, but also strips away the d20 and a lot of D&D-isms.

>Earthdawn timeline led to Shadowrun timeline
>People familiar with Earthdawn compare 4e to it
>Also former Earthdawn devs worked on 4e
:thinking:

Stop shilling Strike! Why does Veeky Forums keep shilling Strike?!

Stop saying to stop shilling Strike!
Why does Veeky Forums keep saying to stop shilling Strike!?

Mekton Zeta will always be abetter system for any sort of giant robot combat.

This. The Gamma World based on 4e is fun as fuck, especially character creation.

Mekton Zeta is exactly on the opposite end of the scale when it comes to design from 4e/Strike!.

Since I really like the top-down design of those games, Mekton is actively repulsing me. Like, I can't finish reading the book, because every 5 minutes I have to put it down and think about how shit doesn't make sense from a game-design perspective.

It's probably great for your robot-simulationist boner, but I can not for the life of me imagine why I'd want to play it, aside from maybe novelty's sake.

Giant robots in systems like strike or 4e have no weight. It feels like you are doing some kind of special move, which does some kind of basic effect. In MZ, all attacks have weight, and damage usually has an effect. It's much better for representing the giant robot experience than Strike!

Well, that depends on the giant robot experience you are going for.

Strike!/4e is perfect for SRW style super robots. It doesn't do real mecha with hit locations and overheating and shit like that as well (although I think it'd be relatively easy to homebrew for Strike!; I tried something like it for the AC game I ran but ran out of time before I could finish it).

>Is your campaign setting a points of light setting?
Pretty Much, I mean I always put my own spin on it, and a different spin each time, because part of the point of points-of-light is that the up-and-coming heroes don't know how the big scary magic world works, and the PC's stumbling through discovering it should be mirrored by their players stumbling through discovering it.

bump

/vg is > that way lads.

Every day I check for a 4e general. Not having a place to discuss 4e kinda sucks.

If I have a party of 3 PCs, do you think its better to use lower level 5 man encounters (per the DMG suggestion) or smaller encounters?

Well its Dark Sun, so that's pretty PoL.

As long as you fit it to the encounter budget and don't stray from the usual level range, you should do fine.

What classes are they?

Blackguard|Assassin, Warden, Shaman|Sentinel.

>Blackguard|Assassin

Holy charge optimization Batman!

Oh? Do tell.

Blackguard | Assassin (assuming under assassin you mean executioner) hybrid can stack the Striker features they have _and_ can also stack smite+poison.

It's a really strong nova build and also a pretty good charger build since it has really good basic attacks. What race is the character?

Revenant. Do you feel like giving me a spoonfeeding of whatever charge tomfoolery would work?

Grabs Valiant Strike to have a CHA basic attack, then applies all the bonuses. If he got a high profile target, also activates Dreaded Smite and a poison for massive nova damage.

Revenant could pick up race specific charge bullshit, such as Streak of Light from pixie (which would guarantee always getting his shit off). or... IDK, Springing Charge from minotaur?

Alsu multiclass fighter or rogue (most likely rogue) for Surprising charge.

Oh wow, that sounds fuckin amazing.

Quick Mock of level 10 Blackguard | Executioner

This is your basic attack strike

I remember someone saying something about how the bladesinger is deceptive in how you go about making one decent.
I have a player who rolled one up (which I've never seen or used myself) and they went 16/16 dex/int, which struck me as sorta... not bad, but made of why, until I read how the book recommends it. Can I get some advice on this, whether it will come back to bite them or hold them back?
Also, runepriest, is it as shit as I've heard? I am a fan of the lore, and just imagine slapping people with blocky roman print and telling them how much the gods hate them and I will write it down for them if they don't believe it.

Runepriest isn't bad, it's just got quite a limited power selection since it was such a late class.

Let the bladesinger add INT or DEX to a secondary defense. They have a gaping hole with DEX and INT overlapping.

I would say that an assassin (executioner)|paladin (blackguard) is not much better than an assassin (executioner)|warlock, a generic Spiked Chain Training rogue (scout), or a charging gouge fighter (slayer) with Martial Cross-Training for Rain of Blows.

While such builds will always be good chargers, they are probably going to find themselves outclassed by more dedicated nova builds in the paragon tier.

I am slated to play a level 6 wood elf Spiked Chain Training ranger (scout) in an upcoming mini-adventure myself. I can do nothing but charge, but I do charge well.

This character should be a pixie for the improved mobility of altitude limit 1 flight, which is not actually as limited as it seems. It would also help to shuffle around wealth (e.g. selecting and selling off rare items at 100% market price) to afford a Horned Helm and a Vanguard Weapon.

Well, that player is fairly new and keeps to the fundamentals, so that won't be a issue at all, thank you.
Recommendations? I'm thinking fortitude.

A runepriest is serviceable enough in a Strength/Wisdom build, though I would not call it on par with an Intelligence warlord or a Virtue of Cunning bard in the right party.

Strength/Constitution runepriests have the same issue as any other Strength/Constitution character: abysmal noncombat capacities and horrendous Reflex and Will. Strength/Wisdom is simply the better choice for a runepriest.

As for the wizard (bladesinger), give it Dexterity to Fortitude in place of Strength or Constitution and call it "Agile Conditioning." Give it actual daily attack powers as well; there is no reason at all for a bladesinger to be saddled with encounter attack powers as daily attack powers, particularly when they are not even compatible with bladespells.

The nova turn it can do with dread smite is a bit better than Warlock I think.

Besides, it doesn't have to be better, being on par with some of the most optimized chargers is pretty stupid already.

Also, virtuous strike can become arcane, and in Paragon that means you can grab white lotus riposte which is pretty great.

>Recommendations? I'm thinking fortitude.

I think having a bad Will on a wizard is weird so I'd lean that way.

>The nova turn it can do with dread smite is a bit better than Warlock I think.
A bit better, yes. I believe I had posted such a build in these threads some time ago: archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/48865239/#48888299
I had used Valorous Smite instead of Dread Smite in order for the character to serve as an off-defender.

>Also, virtuous strike can become arcane, and in Paragon that means you can grab white lotus riposte which is pretty great.
On the other hand, Eldritch Strike is arcane by default.

>I think having a bad Will on a wizard is weird so I'd lean that way.
The wizard (bladesinger) already has +2 Will, and the iconic bladesinger race, eladrin, has +1 Will and a bonus to saving throws against charm effects. The bladesinger could use Fortitude more than Will.

>The nova turn it can do with dread smite is a bit better than Warlock I think.

Oh, and I almost forgot, it got the rain of hammers Ki focus.

Which just makes things very dead (albeit once a day, unless you have a friendly Artificer around).

Yeah, I remember that thread.

I bet there's some other optimization tricks you could do with virtuous I'm not thinking of (on top of the off defending). As well as the revenant.

How to optimize a superior crossbow using rogue? Assume a free weapon expertise and improved defenses feat.

Hmmm, neat.

Is a Vanguard weapon that good for a small party, though?

Is this how the edition of Touhoufag dies? DISAVOW

Vanguard Weapons are for the +1d8 damage on a charge.

Avalanche Hammers can add another +1[W] to a mordenkrad, but hammers have less overall charging support.

Should I run this, or Strike!? Or is there a different game that captures the slightly-anime feeling of gridded powers-based combat better? Basically the group I'm playing 5e with is going alright, but I can tell from their actions and lack of critical thinking that they want more combat-oriented approach, and I remember liking 4e's combat back when I tried it.

Advice?

I prefer D&D 4e for customizing a character's precise combat capacities. There is no denying the sheer wealth of combat options 4e has available to it.

I prefer Strike! for its actual combat chassis. How attack rolls are resolved, the way positioning is even more important than in 4e due to the way Advantage works (flanks are terrifying and cover is a life-saver), the splitting up of Move Actions by default, and the more hard-coded mechanics of combat roles all make for a more thought-provoking and tactically intense experience, in my opinion.

Strike! has its share of stupidly strong combinations (rogue [backstabber]/striker is the most prominent one; summoner/controller is another), but they are nothing compared to the sheer insanity of certain 4e builds. Strike! also suffers from some of the exact same problem that 4e does (a party of nothing but high-initiative strikers can blaze through the vast majority of combat encounters), and alas, there is little that can be done about it short of house rules or anti-alpha-striking encounter design.

Strike! is also the better game for reflavoring. 4e is a breeze to reflavor, but it still has its share of reflavoring obstacles, such as weapons and armor. Strike! is much more flexible in that regard.

While Strike!'s noncombat subsystem is a befuddling mess of narrow skills and spontaneous skill acquisition, I would *still* take that over D&D 4e's skill subsystem, which has trivially-beatable easy/moderate DCs and which arbitrarily screws over some characters in the skill department for no good reason (e.g. anyone Str/Con-based). Strike! tries to divorce combat resources from noncombat resources as much as possible; being strong and sturdy does not screw over your skills.

4e and Strike! are both deeply flawed games with completely *pathetic* and nonexistence balance in the face of high optimization, but I prefer Strike!, since customizing a character's combat capacities is not of very high importance to me.

Touhoufag, do you have advice for playing a ranged rogue that doesn't use hand crossbows?

Kamigakari or Valor are alternatives I'd look into.

I don't hate Strike, but I think 4e has more depth.

Permanent Stealth builds are by far the most reliable means of vindicating ranged rogues. Another decent method is being a Fey Beast Tamer by level 5+ for easy combat advantage, and it helps that the owlbear sharply increases the party's damage output.

If you just want to shoot people without gimmicks, play a ranger.

Speaking as someone who has studied Kamigakari and played, and who has studied Valor as well, I think both of them are a notch or two below both 4e and Strike!

Kamigakari has an intensely interesting and engaging resource management subsystem from Spirit dice, but the actual tactics involved are primitive. There are vague attempts at "combat roles," but direct offense is more cost-effective than anything else, party-defender mechanics are more unreliable than in 4e or Strike!, the best buffs are the ones that improve damage, and I hardly saw any meaningfully useful debuffs. This means that Kamigakari is even worse than 4e and Strike! about promoting parties that do nothing but bash enemies to death with raw damage. Let us not get into how multitarget attacks are dominant with the likes of Mysteries of Battle, and how Contractor B is a broken mess.

Valor impressed me even less than Kamigakari. It has character customization going for it, and that is it. There is hardly any incentive to build towards actual roles (which means combat runs the very real risk of being as primitive as "let us all gang up on this one person with our huge-damage attacks), you are better off concentrating on one or two super-moves rather than emphasizing a more diverse array, and the way attributes works encourages heavily lopsided characters who suddenly flop ineffectively when faced with an Achilles' heel. If you thought level 8+ 4e was bad with its rift between key ability scores and non-key ability scores, and strong NADs vs. weak NADs, you will hate Valor for sharpening that rift even further.

That gives me a lot to think about. I think I do like the idea of more tactical combat. What was putting me off about Strike! was in fact the roleplay section as I don't care too much for 'narrative' roleplay mechanics. ESPECIALLY that bit about spontaneously gaining a skill. But you made me reconsider. I might try reading it a little bit more before giving up on it.

1. Is Kamigakari in English?
2. Given a choice between all 4 of them, which would you choose for a long-running campaign?

I'd say 4e is the safest bet. With the fixes it works great, and a lot of THF's issues only come through in high op games, when it all works fine mid to low op.

>I'd say 4e is the safest bet. With the fixes it works great
Yeah, that was actually one of my concerns with 4e and why I didn't just dive into it. I had heard that you needed to half the HP of the monster and double their attacks or something? But only for certain books? I wasn't too clear about what needed fixing and where I could get that info.

Additionally, my opinion is that 4e has more complexity, but Strike! has more depth to it.

Strike! places much more emphasis on thinking through the durations of various effects, positioning your party and your enemies to gain Advantage on your attacks while trying to place Disadvantage on theirs, synergizing your party's effects together, and so on. 4e has plenty of this as well, but Strike! beats this out.

I say this as someone with a fair degree of experience in playing both 4e and Strike!, and as someone running a 4e campaign and playing in a Strike! campaign.

They run into similar problems in optimized environments, and like many games, they fall prey to the dominance of ridiculous alpha striking (though at least in a more interesting way than in Kamigakari and Valor), but these are more difficult problems to solve.

I would take up Strike! for the reason stated above: the actual combat gameplay has more tactical depth to it than 4e's, at least in my opinion.

I consider it a high mark for a game to withstand heavy optimization. Strike! and 4e both *horribly* fail in this regard, but Strike! fails less dramatically.

Therefore, since I value in-combat tactical depth and resistance to heavy optimization, I will take Strike! over 4e any day.

It's actually pretty simple. Pic related is all the math you need, the Monster Manual 3 and the Monster Vault use these stats if you want premade monsters.

For PC's, you just need to give everyone an Expertise feat and Improved Defences for free. After that, you're golden.

People will suggest other things to tweak it, but these are the only bits you need to know.

Have you ever played 13th Age? What did you think of it?

Thanks for answering my question guys. Touhou fag made a pretty persuasive argument for it, so I'm gonna stomach the narrative shit and try out strike. Failing that, I'll just fall back to 4e. Thanks again!

Strike needs to come in booklet form instead of lorem ipsum form

If you metaphorically placed a firearm to my temple and asked me to rank these five games in an instant, I would probably say: Strike! > 4e > Kamigakari > 13th Age > Valor.

I like 13th Age's icon relationship subsystem, but that is just about it. The tactical depth of the combat suffers greatly when it is all about loosey-goosey relative distances, and contrary to what the book implies, it is not that easy to convert it to a more traditional grid.

The AC/PD/MD subsystem is a complete mess that strongly encourages having two dumped ability scores. Bizarrely, it all but forces Strength-based characters to dump Dexterity down to 8 if they want to have good defenses.

Where 13th Age flails around epileptically, however, is the class design. The designers had an opportunity for unified class progression, and then squandered it horribly. The classes are internally balanced against one another at levels 1 and 2, but once you hit level 3, class balance goes out of whack.

An older thread in which I go over my issues with 13th Age can be found here:
archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/43530325/#43533070

I do not think I was able to articulate myself as well as I did in this more recent thread, however:
archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/47191606/#47197158

Tiers in 13th Age are probably less "tier 1 to tier 6" and more "tier 3 to tier 5," to borrow 3.X/Pathfinder parlance, but that is still a non-negligible disparity.

The author actually planned on releasing, for free, a completely reformatted and restructured Strike! core rulebook that contained all player rules and combat rules, but no GMing section.

However, the author's child began to die of cancer, thereby putting a stop to that project. For that matter, the "Player's Handbook 2" project, as was the monster project. Strike! would have had a "Player's Handbook 2" and a comprehensive bestiary by now, were it not for that incident.

If anyone would like a collection of Strike! books and playtest material, it can be downloaded here: dropbox.com/s/a1i5mhmasq77iqm/Strike Books.zip?dl=0

>I like 13th Age's icon relationship subsystem, but that is just about it.
I mean, our GM basically just adapted it our Final Fantasy flavored 4e campaign, along with the whole "One Unique Thing" stuff. They're both mechanics that can easily be adapted to other systems.

I personally find Strike!s class design incredibly boring

Sure it allows a lot of combination with few actual classes, but the lists of powers are frustratingly short, and the classes themselves all have to operate in each possible role, which I feel is a very limiting design decision, far more so than 4e's AEDU system.

Of course, that's ignoring the big problem with Strike!, the weird fetish the creators had for the worst possible dice system

13th Age has balance issues, but I can almost forgive that for how mechanically beautiful the 13th Age monk is.

You know, so long as you ignore the existence of the Barbarian and Ranger and remember to use the no-ability-scores variant system

4e does have much more customization of combat capacities. It is true. Strike!, by comparison, is far more restrictive even with the playtest material.

Where Strike! shines, however, is its actual in-combat gameplay. The classes and roles play as they are supposed to... sometimes a little too well, and often with many stupidly strong builds like the rogue (backstabber)/striker, the duelist/defender, and the summoner/controller. For the most part though, its design is quite tight.

I think that the d6 works perfectly fine for Strike! It is the natural extension of what 4e's attack/defense math was supposed to work out to anyway, Miss Tokens help soften misses while Miss Triggers make misses interesting, and Strike! does not have that "and now I hit on a natural 2+" phenomenon that shows up eerily often in 4e.

13th Age's monk is poorly designed beyond the surface. Its MAD is a serious issue for its progression, and its attack chain mechanic does not work as well as it should. Here is a fix for it: 13thage.org/index.php/classes/495-the-improved-monk

>Everyone ignores thread prompt
>Strike! general instead

More like
>2hu general

It's hard to argue about 4e, it's a good game that's been mechanically solved.

Arguing about Strike is far easier, it's a bizarre game that's relatively new


Buuut, to bring things back to 4e, I like Barbarians but think they're a tad weak compared to the crazy shit other strikers can do and a tad too strong when hybrided compared to base. So I've got a bit of a homebrew idea. Barbarians get 4 skills at level 1, rageblood mechanics now work off of dexterity instead of constitution, deadly rage is now a Barbarian feature instead of a feat, and Howling Strike now reads "When charging, you can use this power as a melee basic attack. If you are raging, you can move 2 extra squares as part of the charge." instead of "When charging, you can use this power in place of a melee basic attack. If you are raging, you can move 2 extra squares as part of the charge."

So, you know that Deck of Many Things that came with the 4e adventure Madness at Gardmore Abbey?

This is gonna sound really fitting, but after drawing from it and then setting it down, it disappeared on me. Can't find it fucking anywhere. Because of course the deck that disappears when it's done... disappeared.

Joking aside, anybody got a spare copy of Madness at Gardmore Abbey I can bum some cards off of?

you need to use the no-ability-scores variant for 13th Age anyway, and that fix is pretty small, just a collection of small buffs while sticking to the basic design, which show that the class is well designed, just underpowered

My fix for pure-classed barbarians would be:
• Barbarians have four trained skills.
• Barbarians gain a +1 feat bonus to AC in leather armor and a +3 feat bonus to AC in cloth armor or no armor.
• Barbarians can use their Constitution or Charisma modifier in place of their Dexterity or Intelligence modifier when determining their AC when not in light armor.
• While a Whirling Slayer barbarian is wielding two weapons, their main hand weapon deals damage as if the barbarian was one size category larger. A Whirling Slayer barbarian also gains proficiency with ki foci.

I would not touch Howling Strike; charging has enough support.

Here is Madness at Gardmore Abbey:
dropbox.com/s/rtg87nut82vf1y4/Madness at Gardmore Abbey.zip?dl=0

I personally prefer to use the New Alternative Array Ability Scores" for 13th Age, which, unlike Death to Ability Scores, is actually an official variant:
site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/13th-sage-new-alternative-array-ability-scores/

But the alternative array still stops you from making a strong rogue or a nimble barbarian

death to ability scores both expands character options and fixes maths at the same time

I mean, I have the pdf as well as the physical box, I'm just being autistic about completionism.

post MM3 math is fine.

If you use MM1-2 era stuff, the damage is a bit low.
asmor.com/scripts/4eMonsterMathCruncher/

Anyone got the usual pastebin links that usually get posted when a 4e thread pops up? Checked the archives, but couldn't find it.

On the Strike! stuff: I think it's got plenty of character building options, once you start brewing multiclass feats. Since your feats are not tied down to minor increases and "feat combos" like in 4e, I think there's a lot more variety there.

I'm also kinda-sorta working on some homebrew that'll have 2 options/role (by splitting up existing role's focus into two and building around it, but also some new stuff), and some other extra stuff.

4plebs says:
Useful resources: pastebin.com/85Hm56k5
Online compendium: funin.space/

>Kamigakari has an intensely interesting and engaging resource management subsystem from Spirit dice, but the actual tactics involved are primitive.

What makes that interesting? I've not looked into it myself.

Are dex/wis or int/wis Avengers considered better?

It would perhaps be best for you to visit the Veeky Forums's Kamigakari thread and ask for an explanation on the "spirit pool." It takes a while to explain.

In optimization circles, it is generally agreed that Wisdom/Dexterity-based avengers are overwhelmingly superior. Dexterity confers high initiative right out of the gate, and the Censure of Pursuit's benefit is more generally useful than the other Censures, since it effectively locks down an enemy that the avenger chooses to engage. Furthermore, the Ardent Champion, practically the best avenger paragon path short of Morninglord madness, is exclusive to the Censure of Pursuit.

Outside of combat, while Wisdom/Intelligence makes a character a party sage, Wisdom/Dexterity makes a character a party scout. Furthermore, an avenger is supremely qualified to take point and scout ahead due to their melee focus and their high durability.

>In optimization circles, it is generally agreed that Wisdom/Dexterity-based avengers are overwhelmingly superior. Dexterity confers high initiative right out of the gate, and the Censure of Pursuit's benefit is more generally useful than the other Censures, since it effectively locks down an enemy that the avenger chooses to engage. Furthermore, the Ardent Champion, practically the best avenger paragon path short of Morninglord madness, is exclusive to the Censure of Pursuit.

Ah, that's unfortunate to hear. I'm putting together an int/wis avenger as I wanted to play a learned priest and the group was missing a striker. Seriously, it's the only group I've seen where no one wanted to be a striker.

Is the separation far enough apart that it's as bad as playing a Str/Con fighter? I was looking at the Censure of Unity as the group is mostly melee.

I think there has to be some way to game Unity. Like, stack familiars/summons and companions around the target for guaranteed damage bonus or somehting.

But the +1 is paltry and you don't have any multi-attacks so it feels not too great until you hit paragon/epic.

A lot depends on composition, admittedly.

Unity could do some pretty disgusting things with a summoner ally/fey tamers in the party.

What do you do when you play a character that you're loving character wise but hate mechanically

Because the dm I'm with has been going to work at including character backstory elements for everyone in game and I like the way my character's side plot stuff is going but I'm so fucking bored of playing a ranger
>Alright I twin strike
>Oh I guess I'll use my encounter power that's just a stronger twin strike
>Time for a daily! It functions exactly the same as twin strike but it's 1 weapon
>New daily acquired, it's like twin strike but you hit one guy 3 times and a different guy once

I'm trying to think up a different character to do but I'm not sure what exactly he'll be. How are paladins in terms of combat options? Might go with cavalier or just the normal paladin, probably going to make him really good at mounted combat

Choose different powers/retrain the character.

I find TWF fighters and barbs way more interesting than rangers, and they can pull off the same themes easily.

I thought retraining was limited to just changing out feats?

You could swap a ranger pretty easily (Keeping the same fluff) into a two weapon rogue/barbarian/fighter or monk (The last if you are in paragon). Most of those are still strikers, too.

Feats and powers, yeah. You'd need to talk to your GM about a full on rebuild.

You can retrain powers as well (I think?). Retraining needs DM approval anyway, so doing it as a full rebuild shouldn't be that much different.

Your DM sounds like a cool guy, give it a try.

On Barbarians:

I think that mostly due to the fixation on the strength of their charge optimization we've kind of missed their capacity for multiattacks which honestly rivals the Ranger. Then again, one of the reasons why Barbarian hybrids are so strong is that their striking is overwhemingly more dependant on their powers than other characters.

I do concur that they kinda get the short end of the stick often but on the other hand sometimes they feel overloaded with stuff.

Speaking of barbarian hybrids, I want Ragespell PP to work but I keep hitting stonewalls.

>Elementalist barb multiclass would be great, but you don't have dailies to exchange for rages
>Barbarian or berserker sorc multiclass (using half elf dilettante for an at-will) actually usually has a better at-will option in charging (although special mention goes to berserker using a sorc at-will as a punishment power+white lotus riposte maybe?)
>Hybrids need to be split evenly STR CHA and have a hard time between switching between melee and ranged.
>Sorc with barb multiclass also has limited rages

Personally, with a bit of refluffing I've always thought that 4e's combat system could work really well for a mech game.
Classes = Mecha chassis
Races = Cores
Powers = weapon mounts
Magic items = Custom mods
It does away with the people who bitch about powers being limited use by saying that encounter powers require recharging or reloading manually while dailies require stripping down and rearming.

Of course that's on top of having to use an implement or dagger for everything, when as a Barb you want a nice big weapon.

Arcane implement proficiency feat, grab heavy blade implement proficiency, then you can use a fullblade as an implement

Wisdom/Intelligence avengers are not that much worse than Wisdom/Dexterity avengers, even if the difference is obvious.

On the topic of avengers, they only come into their own by the paragon tier thanks to Painful Oath. During the heroic tier, an avenger can be vindicated only by charge optimization from a Vanguard Weapon, a Horned Helm, and the rest of the charge package. A heroic-tier avenger has little going for themselves otherwise.

Paladins are perfectly fine defenders. How they compare to other defenders depends on the level range you will be playing at, which you should definitely state.

Avoid the paladin (cavalier) at all costs. It is one of the more horrid Essentials classes, and its lack of true encounter attack powers is a major liability. On the other hand, a hybrid paladin (cavalier) loses nearly nothing, so if you wish to try a cavalier, that is what you should be.

4e is a near-completely solved game by this point, and various barbarian builds have already acknowledged that barbarian multiattack optimization can achieve some impressive results.

Between Savage Growl, Thundering Howl, and Storm of Blades, a level 13 barbarian has an impressive action point encounter nova available to them. If they can take the Five Stars Five Strikes alternative reward to help trigger Rampage, that is even better.

Granted, such a barbarian is still better off as something like a barbarian|cleric or a barbarian|warden, but that is the barbarian for you: hybrid fodder.

Another problem with a barbarian|sorcerer is item support until mid-paragon. Once you can get your hands on a Radiant Weapon with a Siberys Shard of Radiance, you should be golden, but before then, you will struggle if you want both an item bonus to damage rolls and a dragonshard bonus to damage rolls.

>On the topic of avengers, they only come into their own by the paragon tier thanks to Painful Oath. During the heroic tier, an avenger can be vindicated only by charge optimization from a Vanguard Weapon, a Horned Helm, and the rest of the charge package. A heroic-tier avenger has little going for themselves otherwise.

Oof. Is there any houserules/simple fixes to make Avengers more playable in heroic?

They're entirely fine at mid to low optimisation. Always remember that THF has a very high base threshold for optimisation and what he considers acceptable.

Making Painful Oath a heroic feat might work, but then, I would be worried that a heroic-tier avenger with such a house-ruled Painful Oath might overshadow other strikers with charge optimization on top of that.

Right. Man, charge optimisation really screws up 4e designs stuff.

Outside of charge optimisation, painful oath at heroic would be alright though you think?

Bit of a houseruled feat:

>Precise Oath
>Requirements: Avenger, Oath of Emnity power
>If you roll against your Oath of Embity target and both attacks hit, you deal additional damage equal to your Wisdom modifier

I'd say the best multiattack Barbarian is a simple Barbarian|Fighter, and for some mid-high optimization I enjoy using Master of the Fist and going Shock Trooper; essentially becoming Kenshiro. Plus you can get Quicksilver Motion and that's ridiculous.

It doesn't screw up as much as you'd think, actually. They deal really strong DPR with a sole attack but pale in Nova levels and ultimately that will be the main thing. It's why the best Strikers are the Ranger and the Sorcerer and their DPR is kinda mediocre; as you go on the Rogue, the Monk and the Barbarian show up and they deal good enough Novas to be very useful in high optimization.

It should be noted that during the heroic tier, certain charger builds have DPR close to (if not higher than) optimized novas' damage output, which is quite frightening if you think about it.

Spiked Chain Training rangers (scout) and hybrid assassins (executioner) are the scourge of combats in the heroic tier.

Are the people who say avengers are meh factoring in oath of enmity's effective +5 to hit?

They're talking about high optimisation games, an experience the vast majority of 4e groups will never encounter.