/4eg/ - D&D 4e and 4e-like General: Heavy Armor Warlock Edition

>if samus is a Battlemage, Does it mean that the doomguy is the Multiclass mix of Berserker and Paladin of the classic party?

A fair point, I hadn't thought of that. I doubt we'll use them often, especially since using the modifier alone eliminates the existence of 'odd' stats.

Part of the issue with point buy with just using the modifier is that with flat costs it's too easy to bump multiple stats to +4, which we're somewhat trying to avoid, and with weighted point buy the jumps from point to point suddenly become extreme as all the distinction distributed in the classic point buy is concentrated into a much smaller number of steps. Just using a standard array for everyone seems like it might be a lot less of a headache.

Why not ditch stats then? Apply it directly to class and race.

How do you mean?

Not him, but have race and stat both give modifiers.

Orc gets +STR and can pick between +1 DEX or +1 CON

Paladin gives +1 STR and can pick between +1 WIS and +1 CHA.

So an Orc Paladin would have +2 STR and +1/+1 to two different stats.

We're actually going the opposite direction, scrapping racial stats entirely, instead trying to convey the character and identity of each race through powers and traits. Optimal race/class combos aren't fun in our eyes, it's better to not punish people for trying out a combination they think is interesting and fluffy, even if the stats don't line up.

Have it so each class gives the optimal stat usage. Or go further: Classes gives your +x to Attack and AC/NAD, without refering to stats altogether.

I like the "no race/class combo" you mentioned.

We do want to stick with stats for familiarities sake, although we are doing some of that stuff.

Each class will get to designate an attack stat, usually from a couple of options, which is where their +4 will go. No mucking about, that's the stat they use for attack rolls.

We're also, at least currently, getting ride of the idea of AC. Instead, we just have Ref, Fort and Will, with attacks that would usually target AC instead targeting your Highest defence. Mathematically it works out pretty similarly while streamlining things quite nicely.

I agree with that approach, I merely tried to explain what I thought he's saying.

> Classes gives your +x to Attack and AC/NAD, without refering to stats altogether.

That's basically what level/2 bonus in 4e does anyway + good save/bad save.

So... what would you use stats for? Have equipment neutral powers and then just use the stat based on the equipment? I.e. making the attack with a sword is strength, with a dagger dex, with a wand, intm, with a totem wis, with a holy symbol, cha? (Actually toying with this in my Strike! homebrew).

here

>We're also, at least currently, getting ride of the idea of AC. Instead, we just have Ref, Fort and Will, with attacks that would usually target AC instead targeting your Highest defence. Mathematically it works out pretty similarly while streamlining things quite nicely.

I'm _also_ nabbing that. heh.

>what would you use stats for?
Won't. Scrap them, butcher them.

Pretty sure he's a battlerager that is somehow ranged-based. Extremely tough, extremely deadly, extremely angry

Probably some sort of hybrid. I'd actually peg him as one half ranger at least, they are pretty killy and have good switch hitting capabilities.

>2hu, are you around? There was a thread recently about an interesting sci-fantasy spelljammer campaign and I'm pretty sure it was you who posted it. I had already thought about doing a setting like that for 4e, so I'd be grateful if you could expound on your setting a little more.

What would you like to know about it?

probably wants to know its secrets to a long life

you nerds working on those ki classes should get a google doc together or something.

Then we can idly suggest things or just read what you've all got

And if you abandon the project, at least it was out in the wild for a time.

>Have you ever found an autist that have analysized the game? Average damage per round per role per level? Average successful attacks to kill a monster per role per monter role per level? Average turns of combat per level? Or any guideline for creating a homebrew or retroclone?
user, I used to do most of that on my free time. Hell, I still have some papers from high school somewhere where I calculated the highest Nova round I could think of.

Doomguy is a Ranger who multiclassed Barbarian.
>above average staying power
>deadly as fuck at multiple ranges
>moves real fast

>I used to do most of that on my free time
.txt, please? Even jpeg photos of your maths could help.

At decently high optimized levels, a Striker should spend one to two rounds killing an enemy (hopefully aided by his Leader). Defenders are a bit more odd in that they depend on what your catch-22 is: an Assault Swordmage will have a far more damaging punishment than a Charisma-based Paladin; though at high levels of optimization the punishment should basically rival a Striker's at-will. Leaders don't care that much about their own damage, what is interesting is that they tend to shave off a turn or two thanks to granting more attacks/movement/buffs/debuffs. Controllers pretty much do the same, too.

Turns per combat hovers around 4 to 6, 6 is generally pushing it, honestly, but I can see that happening with some bad luck/an encounter based on bleeding the players dry. As for homebrew and retroclones, I tried designing one based more around cardgame stuff and I failed quite badly.

Why is Warlord so based?

Why did the class get translated so shitty into 5e?

Vanilla non-hybrid Assault Swordmages are dogshit though.

>Why is Warlord so based?

Because I can finally be a support-type character who is a team-playing warrior and not a buff-buddy.

>Why did the class get translated so shitty into 5e?

Because 5e removed emphasis from certain elements of combat (and combat in general) which means the warlord simply has no place in it.

You'll still likely end up with some level of optimisation/effectiveness (dudes with resilience-based abilities gonna find themselves on frontliners more than an archer, etc), but I do respect dispensing with stat bonuses; it's a good sign that in 4e races already FELT a certain way just because of their racial feature and feats, you'd just be taking it one step further?

Firstly, is there any particular resource you draw from that I could consult? Old spelljammer books or something?

Are there any notable differences in technology between your setting and a soft scifi one? You mentioned super capital ships, computers, phones, etc. Is there anything you leave out, or is it all there but powered by magic?

Who are the important factions in your setting? What's the central conflict? What kind of plot threads/adventures work best in your setting?

How do you stat things like magitech guns and grenades? I'm playing 4e so I'm interested in equipment that still roughly fits the existing stuff. Do you just reskin all the old equipment? Longbow -> arcanorifle, plate armor -> power armor, etc.?

Sorry for the late reply, I was busy all day today and forgot about the thread.

I'm generally assuming they're trying to have really powerful punishments; with some luck, a Warlock|Assault Swordmage might be considered.

How much damage can a Optimized Eladrin Sword Mage do?

Uhm... The best one is Warlock|Ardent MC Swordmage, Ilyianbruen Guardian as a theme, making Eldritch Strike really deadly somehow. It's basically Curse, Ire Strike, Fey Jump every damn turn, getting a mini-nova of sorts. You need a Leader to enable movement, though.

That works really well with long night scion, evermeet warlock, or feytouched

Assault swordmages teleport all the time, so adding extra damage/invisibility to your teleports is extremely effective

Thanks, gonna take a look at that.

>long night scion, evermeet warlock, or feytouched
AKA "top 3 paragon paths ever nobody else even try to compete, if you aint 'portin then you aint playin"

I dunno

Entrancing mystic is hilarious fun

that's top 4.

tiefling assault swordmage with long night scion, hellfire teleport, and the ethereal sidestep power

21-25 damage to all adjacent enemies for free every round, with extra additions of that for off-turn teleports

Just ran a Strike! oneshot!

Everyone was satisfied, although one of the players couldn't make it, so I had to downsize a bit. Used a fluffy random generation system; the players seem to have loved the idea, they all agreed it was really fun. Aside from that, had 1 easy combat, a team challenge, and a hard combat (with some "endo of story" wrap up), and it all went pretty well. It ran about 3 hours in total including soe explanations for people who never played Strike! (did play 5e though).

More details
What is this "fluffy random generation system"
You play online (and if so, how), or off?
What did they end up fighting, and what guidelines did you follow for easy and hard combat? As far as I know it just says "for a combat with minor concessions made, 1 standard:1 PC" but that is sort of an easy fight.
What were the classes+roles used?

Any thoughts on its combat system versus 4es?

The game was played in person at a FLGS.

Okay, the fluffy generation system was basically me attaching a power source to roles and rolling d6 + d20 for role/class (using pic related). I wrote out the basic fluff of the combination to the players, but otherwise let them pick stuff.

With that, the characters ended up as:
Divine (Leader) Berserker (Battle Trance)
Martial (Striker) Illusionist (Melee)
Arcane (Blaster) Magician (Star)

For the easy combat, I used 3 simple level appropriate enemies (a bear who grappled and AoE raged, a wolf who trip'd and gave advantage, and an orc shepherd who gave the other two attacks and repositioned enemies/allies with his shepherds' cane). For hard combat, two gorillas (throw/trip enemies around) a bear (see above) and an Elite "boss" transmutionist wizard who buffed allies (giving them extra reach with enlarge and extra actions with haste), then transformed himself into a gibbering mouther (mental effects like panic/frenzy/dominate + grab with his tentacles/mouths).

These monsters were all homebrewed so I went a bit wild there.

Combat was fast, even with players getting the hang of their characters, and me piling up enemies in the last encounter. I feel like the number of powers is in the sweetspot where decisions are still fast but you still have a meaningful amount of stuff to choose from. No modifier bloat helps a lot. There was an okay number of improvised actions, about 1 per player per combat. I used the 2d6 variant for combat, and a 2d6+ homebrew for out of combat (you pick two "main stats" from the D&D 6 and 2 backgrounds you make up, and add as many pluses to skill rolls as many you can justify for it, up to 3).

Was waiting for Shugenjanon to write one up But last I saw he said it was a bit to much for him, so I'll get to doing that today and see what I can come up with. Right now I'm still working on the Shugenja and trying to come up with it's class features. and exactly how they'll work with the powers we create.

If I have a double weapon equiped can I use it as a 2hander for powers that require a melee weapon in 2 hands? As well as one melee weapon in each hand?

Yup, you can do that.

Brilliant! thank you!

For making those monsters, did you follow the guidelines with points and tiers at all, or did you just slap stuff together?

yes but only if it has the "stout" quality

Slap stuff, but used the example monsters as base, so I think it was around the correct values.

I wanted to do it right, but I ran out of time to prepare. I basically only had an afternoon + a few hours before the game and had to make the player character sheets depending on their choices (in retrospect, they were way more on point with characters than I expected, and could have let them do it, saving me a lot of time, but I didn't want to leave it up to chance; had a very bad experience before). I was so strapped for time I arrived 20 minutes late because of printing stuff out.

Working on patching up and reformatting the 13th Age rules for an upcoming campaign. As I understand it, barbarians, rangers, and paladins are underpowered both froma DPR standpoint and a utility standpoint, and the druid is just a mess.

I stumbled across bad-omen.obsidianportal.com/wikis/classes digging through old 13th Age threads and the fixes seem pretty good for rangers and paladins (rangers get two extra talents and access to traps if they spend one of their talents on it, paladins have scaling smite evil, divine challenge as a class feature, and access to bard battle cries for a talent). Barbarians, not so much, but my group had a bad experience with barbarians in our last game so I'm not so concerned about them being playable.

First off, is my assessment at all correct? Second, does anyone know of any similar overhaul to the druid? Or even just a decent nature domain for the cleric? As-is there's a nature mage shaped hole in my class lineup.

Druids are like monks, nothing wrong with general design, just... too low numbers

Rolling is alright if you put some rules in place to compensate/correct for getting an unplayable character.

Alright gang, I've had two primary resolution mechanics in mind for my successor attempt. Which would be a better fit for a 4e-like in your collective eyes?
>2d10 with success/failure
>1d20 with crit/success/partial/failure

The second one is more appealing to me.

That's the general idea, yeah. That and 4e's stat bonuses for race always felt a bit redundent.

>Here is the dwarf. He is defined by being tough.
>He gains +endurance
>He can second wind easier.
>He resists poison
>He's hard to push about.

Oh and he's also got +2 con which sorta doubles up with his skill bonus and makes his second wind better, I guess?

Now that you put it that way, most things that define the races in terms of fluff were their racial bonuses rather than their stat bonuses. The stat bonuses helped (Dragonborns are reckless, strong fighters with an emphasis on morale, while Eladrin like to defeat their enemy with strategical superiority and finesse, and Tieflings just use every dirty trick in the book).

I'm in favor of removing stat bonuses from races, however, is removing stats themselves a good idea? I feel like having a combination of "stats" that represents your character's aptitude over a broad set of challenges, as well as having more focused skills for specific shit is useful. Having only one or the other leads to all sorts of weird things.

They don't have to affect combat, of course.

>is removing stats themselves a good idea?
Skills can fill the blanks.
Most of the time, in 4E, the DM can fit a skill. Or make the stats into skills!

It should be the natural evolution. Nurture vs nature. But D&D will never drop the stats (and the 3-18 range) because of sacred cows.

I quite like the interaction between skills and stats

Or I would, if they'd just stop tying skills to specific stats. I should roll thievery/strength to break a lock with a crowbar, stealth/charisma to blend into a crowd, or diplomacy/intelligence to abide by esoteric cultural customs

>Skills can fill the blanks.
Well, we had this thing with Strike! which actually dropped the stats. I had a player complain that he'd need to take a fuckload of skills to simulate a barbarian just having high STR, and is sorta alright.

I _think_ careful skill design could maybe overcome this, but that sorta sounds like it's easy to fall into the trap of a skill list that's way too long and too specific and leads to weird situations where being good in 1 athletic sport gives you absolutely 0 advantage on anything else, which is sorta weird.

Yeah. That situation comes about from Strike from having both specific skills, and skills that you have to make up yourself. I mean it does have that rule for having one primary/broad skill or whatever it is, and you can fit a decent amount in there, but even then "be barbarian" is ??

>and you can fit a decent amount in there, but even then "be barbarian" is ??

You could make a mixed system where your "broad skill" is actually a stat.

pic

Honestly I support having a few attributes and then a bunch of skills myself.
Although I can usually see the vague merit in all the other 50 ways people do stat/skill/etc setups.

> I should roll thievery/strength to break a lock with a crowbar, stealth/charisma to blend into a crowd, or diplomacy/intelligence to abide by esoteric cultural customs
Maybe untie them?

Skills no longer have a stat tied to them. But then, stats do lose even more significance, up to a point they become pointless to have.

Or use them as skills, as I said. So anyone can be trained in Strength, and some can specialize in Athletics.

Any further input on this?

2d10, with doubles meaning something.

bump

2d10, but rolling the same number means something.

>when you never got to play a game of 4e irl and had to rely on online sessions

I just wanted to experience the greatness :(

Aren't online tools really good for 4e's style of combat, though?

They totally are. Tracking conditions and measuring distances is a lot more tedious irl. Still fun to be in person but it has its drawbacks.

Any recommendations for a good class/build to refluff as elemental water magic? Fire and Ice get all the support, but my pet favorite seems to get left out. Even if a mismatched set of refluffed powers can't build like a pyro sorcerer, are there any that are serviceable?

Well, what'd you want water to have? (Is it even a keyword?). Without the niche you have in mind, it's hard to tell how that'd work.

10

Things like summoning a crashing wave to knock enemies back or down, impeding their movement with swirling brine, maybe something like speeding allies along or healing them since those are sometimes the purview of water magic.
Maybe telekinetic Psion would be a good pick?

Whoops, meant to list that as an outcome.

Made a Strawpoll for it top hopefully get more input; strawpoll.me/13639082

Do you have any idea on what you want the doubles to do?

Unity is a system that's reminiscent of 4e in that it has a tactical, power & combo-based combat system, and it uses 2d10s as its core resolution mechanic. In that game, rolling 2d10 (anytime) replenishes your class resource (which you use to use your powers)

I was honestly thinking of giving each class their own special thing for it. Resource recovery and healing are possible universal options though. Probably let players pick which one they want in a given instance.

Isn't "water" magic usually translated into ice or acid?

Bump

Honestly one thing I'm quite interested in 4e is more to do with the effect it had on the RPG scene. There was a substantial rise of rules lite and "freer" RPGs, I feel, in no small part because how 4e was borderline crucified. People did want to move away from the "game" part of Role-Playing Game.

Do you see that trend reverting? Especially in the lower levels, because the big distributors can afford to pay enough people to pull off big, complex games; it's the people who are developing this as amateurs that interest me.

I agree with this, sorta, but draw a different conclusion.

I think 4e paved the way for more conscious design. This probably contributed to making RPGs like Apocalypse World.

Oh, yeah, definitely. 4e's greatest victory is showing that you couldn't purely design around what seemed cool. You had to have game design ideas when heading into it, rather than hamstringing mechanics together. It made people be a lot more deliberate when designing.

ehh

The Forge and co were making games with "actual thought" well before DnD 4e. Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard (by Baker, who made Apoc World) all before 4e. They had their own theories written down (like GNS, even if that's fallen out of favor), extensive terminology, plenty of stuff.

You guys claiming 4e was some heavy-hitter in /actually thinking/ about your game design (which as I understand, is what you are all saying?) need to support yourselves way more. Maybe previous DnDs were slapped together, but lots of other games were decidedly not.

Or is it just your claim that 4e is responsible for any game design perspective change because it's DnD and as such they're the "big RPG" and so it is the one that influenced everything else? I can't really speak to that.

How do i make a campaign interesting? Me and some friends started playing without much experiencie but i notice that sometimes encounter take too long, should i try to avoid it as much as possible or just throw lower levels monsters?

Nah. If you just started playing, you haven't yet got into the nuances of how the game flows. It can take a bit to find a good pace for encounters.

To start with, tell us what you're running, what sort of monster books you're using, and what your players are doing?

>sometimes encounter take too long
Minions galore.
If the fight is "over" and the winning side is obvious, retreat/surrender the rewmaining enemies.
Or fudge their HP to be killed in the next hit instead of another 2 or 3.
Encounters should be important. 4e doesn't support well random encounters for the sake of random. If the battle doesn't advance the plot in some way, it may be better to skip the battle altogether.

First you need to figure out why encounters are taking too long, are turns passing too slowly or are they taking too many rounds to kill things?

The solutions to these problems are very different

As for trying to make the game more interesting, my main advice is that you should try and remember that 4e is a very narrativistic game. Random encounters should be kept to a minimum. Think of how often characters in a fantasy novel have random fights against wolves or whatever. Every unit of time can be abstracted. "long rests" can be withheld if it makes things more dramatic even if they have time to sleep. Don't let players get complacent with roleplaying, whenever a daily is popped, ask them to narrate what their character does, it doesn't need to match the provided fluff, only the provided effect.

Yeah i think some encounters were kinda pointless, removing innecesary fights is something i will do. I think my campaign needs a stronger narrative.
Yeah with 4 players sometimes they sometimes take too long per turn, and with too many monsters it happen the same. I tried "splitting" the party for a dungeon and that didnt really worked so i wont do that again. I will do the retreating part, that sounds interesting.
I think turns took too damn long, the players read every spell every single time, but that has to be because of inexperience.
I'm using the PH and the Dm manual that came in the red box, altough some spells only appear on the red box's manual but not the PH.
I have so many things to streamline, but it's been fun for now, i think that's the important part. Thanks to all

>Or is it just your claim that 4e is responsible for any game design perspective change because it's DnD and as such they're the "big RPG" and so it is the one that influenced everything else? I can't really speak to that.

Not sure about the other guy, but yeah, that's what I'm thinking. It laid game design bare for the average D&D player for the first time (or at least the first time in quite some while). I think it also drew in a crowd that's more willing to experiment with RPGs.

Here's an idea, give small bonuses out to people who have their turn planned out ahead of time, and if anyone needs to look up what an interrupt or reaction does, give them an IRL time limit on it before their character "misses the chance"

Yeah, it's due to it being the big one. Market penetration is one hell of a thing.

Huh. I'd disagree almost entirely, if only because that claim is overly broad and just ...fundamental to actually making a thing, it's hard to give credit.

There's maybe the idea of "People literally only played DnD, then saw with 4e that you can make a game differently [than the one DnD has been for its entire life], and then so tried to make their own games." -> I'd say they're more likely to make retroclones than anything actually new if their experience is that limited. Not create radically new games. Or really, just not make new games if their base-level creativity is that low.

I'm actually unsure what games you can even reasonably claim are influenced by DnD4e at all except directly obvious ones (because they're retroclones, have 4e writers, or say they were) like Strike, 13th age, Valor, Unity.
If 4e drew in a crowd more willing to experiment with RPGs, what other games has DnD 4e influenced in this way (not counting the retroclones)?

Apoc World itself had plenty of thought already into it off the backs of The Forge with Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard, so "thinking about your design" didn't come from 4e for it. Really, I'd more likely say The Forge did what you guys are saying because it's actually laid out theories and terminology, and DnD just took a while to catch up.

How does one support the idea that Apoc World was influenced by 4e, and can you do it without just saying "well, it looks like it was thought out"?
What about DnD5e?

I don't really support that theory, but as for 4e, you're kind of missing my point. It's not that people only played D&D; it's more that D&D, being the big one, moved, and thus everyone did. Naturally, this meant a few reactions. Some loved the games they've always grown up with and latched onto whatever copied it, from heartbreakers that take 2 pages to the gigantic mess that is Pathfinder. Some felt that this wasn't the way either, and went on exploring different things because they didn't like both versions of D&D that were radically different, so they explored out.

It's not that 4e drew a crowd more willing to experiment with RPGs, it's 4e's sheer existance and way it separated itself from 3.5 that lead to a loss of audience from D&D for people more willing to experiment with other games. For all Apoc World was, it never had the impact of a D&D in culture.

I noticed that happened with 4e's transition, but not 5e, because of 5e's "unification" so to speak. People were much more ok with playing 5e, and those that liked 4e never found another true home after the edition was dropped.

Of course, since more people were willing to experiment with other systems, that meant that a lot of possibilities opened up. There are also economic considerations (Kickstarter and later Patreon) that had a definitive impact, too.

It sounds like you're saying the impact 4e had was being divisive enough that it made people abandon ship and stop being so attached to DnD, and weakened its monopoly on the playerbase (although it's still about 75% of all games on roll20, amazingly).

That is essentially what I'm saying, and what has been my experience. As for weakening the monopoly, yeah, it did. Doesn't mean it's not a monopoly still.