D&D 4E General /4eg/

Wishful-thinking faggotry. There is nothing extra special about Radiant Breath that would make it change an unrelated rule, it's exactly the same as e.g. Breath Admixture but with a fixed damage type, and the path feature acknowledges multityped breaths exist and says you still have to pick one type.

I guess yours was just houseruled to be Dishonorable Blade instead.

I still don't think it's as clear cut, since you can have multiple damage types via Adaptable Breath without having multiple damage types in one via Admixture Breath. It could be argued (Cold+Radiant) is a single damage type, since it's dealt all together, as opposed to just having Adaptabler Breath and the choice, say, of Cold or Fire.

>Have you started up your own 4e game yet?
Yeah, I was DMing the very first one that came out of /4eg/'s rebirth. It's going well, but we've a few issues as of right now. I've been meaning to join a game as a player. I've a few character ideas I want to explore, both mechanically and in RP.

There's no argument to be had here, it's totally clear-cut. Feat says your breath does two types of damage. Path says you pick one type of damage your breath deals. You pick one of the two types, that's it.

And no, two damage types are not a new "single damage type", you pulled that completely out of your ass. Fuck off munchkin.

Well, my GM disagreed, and his interpretation is the one that matters. And even then, did you even read my first post when I said it was purely a flavour choice?

Aside from all this, when I mentioned it in a previous thread even THF seemed to think there was some merit in the interpretation my group used, so I don't know what to tell you.

>arguing what makes sense in a 4e thread
user, why the fuck are you even playing 4e if you don't want to RAW?

>Well, my GM disagreed

It's not polite to brag about exploiting the illiterate.

4e is actually great for not-RAW, in that it's really easy to write houserules for stuff such that they don't fuck up the game.

Because, as mentioned and despite what the other guy says, I think there's a validity to my argument. Although I guess it's a question of how order of operations works.

With Dragon Breath, you can usually select one damage type to deal with the attack, more if you have Adaptable Breath. If you have Admixture Breath, you can instead select two damage types, and with Radiant Breath the damage is always Radiant in addition to other types.

With Honourable Blade's feature, you select one damage type you can deal with your Dragon Breath. Admixture Breath is more fiddly here, it's arguable whether or not it would also let you select two, but Radiant Breath is an automatic effect- I literally cannot choose to just deal pure Cold damage with my Dragon Breath. The feat permanently changes it so that it is always Cold+Radiant.

As I said, originally I thought I didn't work, so I double checked it with my GM and he said it was fine. I thought it was a houserule until THF chimed in during a thread a while ago to say he thought it made sense RAW.

Isn't that every game? You should probably take a look at the Old School Primer, or the first page of every other RPG ever.

Attached: 2f7[1].jpg (601x508, 94K)

...What?

Can we stop with the weeb ops?

I'm normally rolling my eyes at the "Reeeeeeeee anime on my Veeky Forums" guys, and love my animu sluts, but I honestly don't think they send the right message.
Or if you have to do it, at least put disgaea or other anime SRPG pics instead of stuff that is completely unrelated to 4e

Attached: 1423016248243.png (879x1031, 316K)

Don't give him (You)'s, seriously.
That's what Pathfinder threads are for

It's a Touhou thing. Bullethell is 4e like.

So I have a question: why is 4e the only D&D edition to not receive a retroclone?
Basic has been reimagined into so many different games it's not even funny.
1e and 2e have had many spin-offs as well.
3.5 has become Pathfinder for the most part.
Even 5e has got books for playing in Lord of the Rings and similar shit. And Paizo is working on a "second edition" of Pathfinder that is similar to 5e.
Whereas 4e has.... what? Strike? 13th Age? Neither contain very many 4e mechanics. Let's face it: 4e was so bad that no one wanted to pick up the reins and keep riding the horse. It had a few good ideas, like a level-inherent bonus to AC, and.....and....well, AEDU worked kind of alright for wizards.... and.... that's about it. Maybe because people just don't like a horridly contrived "you can do a cool cinematic fighter thing once per day" ability that is not cinematic in the least, nor cool, it's just a damage boost to make people think the game has resource management mechanics. And it does, but in the most contrived way possible, after all other forms of scarcity are eliminated from the game. I played 4e for 2 years and the best I can say for the game is that it is relatively DM friendly. Then 5e came out and it was just objectively better. Simpler, faster character creation, and the healing surges were much better as hit dice. Ironically, the game's worst mechanics are the fighter mechanics, which are still based off of 4e's rules. Anyway, there is nothing you can do with 4e that you can't do with 5e, and since this bloated mess has been pretty much dropped (maybe because it took 3 monster manuals to fix the game's math) I don't really see any reason to play 4e anymore. Any advice on how to sell the books? My friends have quite a collection.

It has, we've got Strike! and 13th Age, and even technically The 4e we all play vs what was published.

I'm currently working on one, but I think it's just that actually making content for it is a huge amount of work. In other versions of the game you can straight up use core content, or it's simple enough you can remake it, but in 4e there's not a good OGL equivalent, which means you need to redesign every class from the bottom up, including a large number of balanced power selections for every single class, whereas in other editions you can cut corners by sharing spell lists.

Oh wait, reading the rest of the post you're just an idiot troll. My bad.

cont.
jesus, I replied before fully reading that shitpost. What a bunch of goddamn garbage. I'm so sorry I gave him a You.

Here's a (You), but the main reason has to do with the fact that to make a basic 4e class there's far too many things to consider when making one. This leads to an issue when trying to simplify the game to a core level.

It's not the things to consider, necessarily. It's that they're very simple and because no OGL means you have to try very hard not to just straight copy-paste all the existing ones, and there's only so much innovation room.

I mean, there's an absolutely huge amount of design space and innovation room, but actually exploring it while maintaining balance and a consistent level of quality is just a lot of hard work. You can't afford to half arse anything, unlike most retroclones.

I'm the user who was asking about rituals in the other thread. What does this houserule look like:

>Buy/copy cost stays the same
>No component cost (except special cost for stuff like enchant item)
>All rituals need a specific focus, cost = regular component cost
>Repeated castings in a day drain surges

It's for my home game, and I trust my players not to be dicks, but I'm looking for something halfway between RAW and full abstract.

>Bullethell is 4e like.
Not really. I mean maybe you could maybe make some equivalence with spellcard wankery or something to make it fit, but a bullet hell shooter isn't really similar to a grid based tactics game at all.
And again artwork that looks like it belongs in a game or rulebook artwork (like pick related) would be better fitting than any tangentially related waifu pic and would be more in line with what the game is about

Attached: brown dragon.jpg (613x796, 462K)

I think that works well. Just make sure to apply permanent GP costs to anything with a permanent effect. But I think in general temporary resources for temporary effects, permanent resources for permanent effects makes sense.

Come on /4eg/, we're better than that.

Attached: 1520480559144.jpg (622x626, 94K)

Are we talking about player or monsters powers? Because I feel like if you tried to make a game without copying any official content you would be totally fucked. The Dice+Stat attack vs X is pretty damn played out.

Player powers.

And I find it hard to say dice+stat attack vs x is played out when it's such a basic framework you can use it to do almost anything. It's a foundational unit of every edition of D&D, and they're still finding different ways to apply it, 4e just explored it more, and it still only scratched the surface.

Then again, there's also a hell of a lot of design space for utilities and non-combat powers that went unexplored, which a retroclone would need to put work into as well.

>Oh wait, reading the rest of the post you're just an idiot troll.
How is that? The D&D designers seemed to pretty clearly reject AEDU. It's a mess of bookkeeping that adds nothing to the game, and strains believability because how the fuck does your fighter know that he can't use Brutal Strike until he rests for a few hours?

Attached: LQ.jpg (600x600, 18K)

Good god don't reply to him, it's completely not worth it.

Might make for some interesting homebrew addition as well.

That doesn't answer my question. Sorry. And I fail to see how it's not a legitimate question.

Uh, because WotC are litigious pricks?

See, it'd be ok if we all ignored, but we all know what happens if we ignore rampant shitposting - thread dies with at max 100 replies.

Attached: STOPRIGHTTHERE.gif (400x207, 1.12M)

It still serves it's purpose better at 100 meaningful posts than 300 wastes of time.

I don't think they'd even care to sue over an edition that is no longer making them any money compared to 5e.

You'd be surprised!

A hundred replies of actual on topic discussion is better than three hundred posts of bullshit.

While I'm here, I might as well ask the thread overall- Perception and Initiative.

I'm working on a 4e rewrite and these are the two systems we're currently looking at and fiddling around with. Perception is a problem because it often ends up the most used skill, and it becomes almost necessary to have someone with a good score in it. We're considering changing up how it works, instead of having a standard skill for it, everyone gets a specific kind of Perception, themed around their class. Rangers being good at seeing it in nature, looking for animal tracks, etc. Trouble is finding a good one for each class, and possibly race, while incorporating things like darkvision on top of that.

For Initiative, meanwhile, we're removing it as an innate property of Dex since currently all our stats have a balanced set of defensive secondary stats they contribute to, and one stat getting extra innate stuff would be unbalancing. We're pondering having Initiative defined by class, possibly influenced by role, but are also considering an extra sort of thing to introduce some more variety- Initiative Actions. Initiative Actions are declared before the first turn of combat, while rolling initiative, and give you a bonus or penalty to your init in return for obliging you to take a specific action on your first turn of the combat. Declaring that you'll recklessly charge headlong into the enemy, for example, might be an action that gives you an initiative bonus, since you decided to do so before taking a moment to confirm whether or not it was a good idea, letting you act faster. It'll be tricky to balance and set up an interesting set of both general and class specific options, but we think it could add some interesting depth to the initiative system and make the first turn of a fight more variable.

The last couple of threads went pretty well ignoring shitposters, and we can all guess why we're going to have a couple of sad fucks trying to renew their efforts at shitposting. Ignore and report guys, ignore and report.

>compared to 5e
Not a very useful comparison, we don't need to tack things on to our posts just because the arguments from popularity hurt us, toughen up.

Build Perception into the game with passive perception, do not make it a skill. Add a way for a character to take "oblivious" or some other thing if he wants to not be good at noticing things.

It's imbalancing to have skills so much better than others.

Well, that's our whole point, we're not making it a skill. However, everyone just having the same generic bonus seems dull. Giving each class/race their own perception specialty seemed like a way of keeping up variety while also making it a more universal thing.

Perception is a weird thing, in the sense that it's the filter for giving players the information they need to explore the world. Passive perception is an improvement, but it's still a noticeable hurdle - and in the end, when you have one character with high perception, that controls the flow of information to the whole party.
An idea could be to take a page from the GUMSHOE system, where you have certain skills that give information to the party automatically. You could do something like that for things like perception, secret doors, tracking and so on. It becomes a mechanic of filter between the GM and the whole group.

That's actually something I'm pushing for, although I'm more indie inclined than most of my dev team. I like the idea of the default use of Perception being automatic, 'You get the information', but others are still in favour of perception rolls as a common thing, arguing that reactive perception to stop an ambush, or using perception in a skill challenge as part of problem solving, are important.

I like your idea for class, not for race. Darkvision is pretty unfair in my games because I adhere to the sacred Combat:Ammunition:Light:Food

And I find you can't set the same fear with darkvision easily available via race.

...I'm really not convinced perception needs fixed? Having "radar" as a skill coverage role doesn't bother me, especially since the way 4e allots stats you've got "Gimli, what do your dwarf eyes see?"

You are correct that Initiative could be better. I've experimented with making it a trainable skill that doesn't get half-level or a stat modifier and was pleased with the results, as it allowed converting monsters to fixed initiatives by role without needing to add a level adjustment term.

Just spitballing here, but - you could split up things and have a sort of "notice hidden" skill used specifically against hiding (even though typing this made me think of using stealth as an attack agains widom or something), and have a more general passive perception to use for the kind of thing we were talking earlier.
I don't really see the point of keeping it in an halfay useful state though. I don't thing the game would benefit from rolls made for the sake of rolling something to progress.

This is the real answer.

pathfinder only exists because of a generous application of copyright. WotC stopped doing this with 4e, which is why you can't legally make make a 4e "pathfinder."

In hindsight, the OGL was one of the worst business decisions WotC ever made, and in some ways 4e was a burner product to get rid of it. The OGL essentially meant that WotC would have to compete with itself every time it released a new product. If it weren't for the OGL, we wouldn't have had pathfinder astroturfing and the entire industry would have been better off for it.

I dislike the idea of putting such mechanically important things in skill slots, because it somewhat obliges people to take them, rather than more flavourful options. I'd prefer skill choice to be entirely based on representing the character rather than filling in mechanical necessities.

Initiative is one of the few things I generally houserule out of games (not oly 4e), because I find tracking turns incredibly tedious, I do initiative checks against fixed DCs (10+monster's init) for having a round before going into side initiative, but that's my extreme position.
A system I like on paper is that from Shadow of the Demon Lord. You can either take a fast turn or a slow turn. Fast turn means one action, but you go first. Slow turn means you get the full round, but act later. That doesn't solve the sorting of combatants in each phase, but then again you can easily do fixed initiative based on modifier alone.

In hindsight it was a bad decision for them, yeah, but the immediate effect was a huge sales spike.

Also, the industry and third party companies were made hundreds of times better by having it, so
>industry would have been better off for it
Is just being a contrarian so that you can be "cool" and hate on popular things to fit in on Veeky Forums, pathetic.

Stop trying to suck our dicks.

But skills have always been based on mechanical necessities. So have classes. I don't get the mindset where "one of you is expected to be a leader class" is fine but "one of you is expected to train Perception" is not.

>he doesn't remember the d20 glut

Some good things came out of the OGL, and the companies making said good things managed to stay afloat and keep making good things. I'm partial to Green Ronin to say one.

There were also a few years were the market was nothing but shitty ripoffs and forced adaptations. People nowadays have forgotten stuff like Monte Cook World of Darkess d20 or Abortion Clinic Bombing: the Game, but those were a thing.

>I dislike the idea of putting such mechanically important things in skill slots, because it somewhat obliges people to take them, rather than more flavourful options.
I really question the notion that 4e needs 20 different people to be writing retroclones that have bad ideas about game design in general. This seems like an issue of too many home cooks and not enough trained chefs.

No visible progress was made on the 4e simulator other than optimization and cleaning up the code. I had a migraine that was bad enough to make me delirious. That said, the way tiles and objects are loaded is improved so that I could potentially in the future generate arbitrarily large campaigns "minecraft" style. Right now the world is still bounded.

Well but Perception IS kind of a corner case, because without that PCs cannot interact (fully) with the world. So it makes sense to try and think outside the box with it.

I sincerely believe the OGL was bad for RPGs in the long run.

The OGL only helped companies publish d20 content. When d20 died, that content went along with it. It's because of the OGL that RPG content is split between d20, d20-5e, and d20-paizo. It's because of the OGL that the way wotc did d20 in the 90s is considered the one true way.

d20 certainly helped get some content published, but it wasn't a sustainable growth. It's hard to know what would have happened without OGL, but it's possible that it cannibalized a market that was already growing incidentally.

If you're going to call it bad, you should explain why you think it's bad.

Our logic is that skills should be flavourful things that say something about the character while also providing a form of mechanical benefit, but that those mechanical benefits should be roughly equivalent.

Something we are going out of our way to avoid with our design is forcing someone to choose between something flavourful and something useful. We're also segregating feats into Combat and Non-combat, as well as splitting Utilities into Support (combat utility) and Utility (Non-combat utility). The point being making sure that properly representing the character you want to play never comes at a cost to their combat capabilities.

When I was outlining the 4e simulator, I went through every skill and listed how I would be able to simulate each of them. Some skills are harder than others because they don't have as many concrete uses. Dungeoneering and nature needed some added utility to compensate.

I ended up giving those skills the ability to be used for navigation within specific environments. Incidentally, this gave characters more tools for avoiding traps and ambushes and finding loot than just perception without detracting from what perception could do.

I'm still having trouble structuring how social skills are used, but I know I'll come up with something.

>If you're going to call it bad, you should explain why you think it's bad.
I couldn't think of anything that wouldn't be condescending.

Look at the 4e skill list. There are a lot of skills that have mechanical utility. acrobatics, athletics, stealth, heal, and perception all are obviously useful. If your environments have any traps or obstacles, then at least arcana, religion, and thievery are going to be useful. Add in social skills where relevant, and there is a shitload of mechanical representation for a character's skillset. What few skills aren't covered by that already can be added to some challenges just to keep them relevant.

>I dislike the idea of putting such mechanically important things in skill slots, because it somewhat obliges people to take them, rather than more flavourful options. I'd prefer skill choice to be entirely based on representing the character rather than filling in mechanical necessities.

What you are basically doing with this is gutting everything the 4e skill list already does well, and that is provide different mechanical rewards for your skill choices. It's ok for characters to have strengths and weaknesses. Making skill lists almost purely flavor-based would just make the system a parody of itself where every character is mechanically the same out of combat and you are forced to "fluff" everything.

I'm sure I would be. But since you can't point to an actual example of it happening, I'm going to have to reserve my surprise for the time being.

>implying that any of the OGL products besides Pathfinder ever gave Wizards of the Coast any significant competition
>implying that Pathfucks would have bought 4e anyway.
Have you ever met pathfucks? They were sticking to 3.5 beforehand anyway. At best you can argue new players who choose Pathfinder over D&D and that's just a branding failure on D&D's part, lol.

>But skills have always been based on mechanical necessities.
Wrong.

>Well but Perception IS kind of a corner case, because without that PCs cannot interact (fully) with the world.
Wrong.

>d20
>90s
I love how underage kiddos out themselves in these posts.
>I sincerely believe the OGL was bad for RPGs in the long run.
Of course you'd think that if you hated d20 system. In reality, it's smaller publishers' fault for being so asshurt about their product that they can't release an OGL of their own.

...So you don't understand what I'm saying at all and are just making a lot of stupid assumptions?

It's fine that different 4e skills have different mechanical uses. We're all for that, and we're retaining it and expanding on it to make every skill a meaningful choice both in flavour terms and in mechanical options.

What I'm against is placing something purely mechanical in the skill list, like Initiative, or having other skills alongside Perception, which is almost universally more valuable and something everybody wants at times. Having it be its own separate thing, rather than being a mandatory choice for some classes, is good for increasing player options and letting more than one person in the group actually gain information about their environment.

>I'm going to give one-word replies with no argument just because

He would be surprised, because he has no idea how copyright works.

Or, he's baiting.

So is a quarter of the thread.

Nah, it's just one user keeping up "the good fight" now that PF2e has been announced. We're just arguing between us of technicalities.

As a note, I didn't reply to you because you said your beliefs were sincere and I didn't want to shit all over that, so a different asshole user told you off for you not knowing much about the OGL.

I didn't make assumptions. I purely criticized what you have typed here. To reiterate:

>It's fine that different 4e skills have different mechanical uses. We're all for that, and we're retaining it and expanding on it to make every skill a meaningful choice both in flavour terms and in mechanical options.
That makes more sense. It contradicts the language used here.

>I dislike the idea of putting such mechanically important things in skill slots, because it somewhat obliges people to take them, rather than more flavourful options. I'd prefer skill choice to be entirely based on representing the character rather than filling in mechanical necessities.
...because depending on the campaign, skills like diplomacy can be mechanical necessities. Furthermore, players get so many skills that it's more than likely that the party will be able to adequately cover every skill. This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

IMO, a much better idea than nerfing perception by splitting it and bloating the skill list would be to give the players more tools. I honestly agree with the concept that perception has a monopoly on too many things. For example, you could have nature/dungeoneering/streetwise have an "environment awareness" check to identify traps and ambushes. Boom, you have broken up the perception monopoly, added more flavor to the game, and didn't bloat the skill list with 2-4 reskinned "perception" skills, which was a mistake that wotc already attempted with 3e and reverted in 3.5

Contextual flavour necessities are very different from mechanical, system required necessities. Needing a social skill in a social campaign is the former, Initiative occupying a skill slot is the latter. The former is impossible to do anything about without crippling the system, all we can do is provide advice to GM's about what skills will be over or undervalued in certain kind of games and encouraging them to keep that in mind so as to not screw over certain PC's.

Did you even read my initial post? This was never about bloating the skill list. This was about removing Perception from the skill list entirely and making it its own discrete thing.

My only real point is that the OGL spawned pathfinder. Everything else was just hot air.

I read your whole post, but I also take goals and mission statements seriously. Whenever you're working on a large project, your goals are important, and an RPG is a large project.

>I dislike the idea of putting such mechanically important things in skill slots, because it somewhat obliges people to take them, rather than more flavourful options. I'd prefer skill choice to be entirely based on representing the character rather than filling in mechanical necessities.

This indicates that the goal is reducing the mechanical impact of skills. If this is NOT the case, then what is the goal? I already have a decent idea of your intentions, but the initial concept was foggy.

>Have you started up your own 4e game yet? Why not?

I have and it's going great. I put together a group with 2 of my old players and 2 recovering 3aboos. I warned them that I was going to prep only the bare minimum but I'm having so much fun and the players are responding well so it's growing as we go. I ran them through Twisting Halls as a tutorial, then Reavers which has been better than I expected (but I scrapped the whole elf part, which I found unsatisfactory, and built it around the map of an elf city I got from some Pathfinder AP). We have still one session to end it and level up.
After that, I'm planning to do Thunderspire, but I've been reworking the whole module encounterwise and changed a few of the dungeons too. I'm building up to dovetail it into Gardmore Abbey and very probably end the game there.
As it happens, the modules serve me as a starting point, cause I don't have that much time time to prep, but the best things have come from the emerging gameplay. So far we have a bunch of weird NPC wizards, a recurring changeling foe, some curious magical knick-knacks, a paladin who is shaping up to be Sailor Moon, and of course a mysterious card that's doing its own thing until Gardmore.
Good times, good times.

...How do you get that the idea is reducing the mechanical impact of skills? I cannot understand that.

It's just about not putting purely mechanical things in those slots to compete with more flavourful options. All skills are mechanics plus flavour. Initiative would be pure mechanics and become a necessary pick at any level of real optimisation, limiting player choice.

Not having a Perception skill does not affect the characters' ability to interact with the world in any way. It just means they can't spam skill checks at everything, and instead have to interact with the DM and the game world.

I'm not sure that that's a point so much as a factoid.

How does it feel breaking up the adventure by resting every time the PCs blow their daily loads because the 15 minute adventuring day now applies to all classes?

...But skill checks are how the interact with the GM and the game world. That's why skills exist. Players have to ask the GM before making a roll is legitimate. You aren't making sense.

What if you allow the other Skills to have a Perception-like function within each Skill's domain?

For example:

Make a Nature Check (instead of a Perception Check) to notice the cave hidden by the waterfall.

Make a Dungeoneering Check (instead of a Perception Check) to notice the trapdoor.

Make a Stealth Check (instead of a Perception Check) to notice the hiding assassin.

It feels great, because that doesn't happen and is a hilarious nonsense argument made by people who have never played the game?

We did actually consider that, but the trouble is that you'd likely find a few easily justifiable skills becoming the defaults and getting the lion's share of the use, and that by which skill they declared the GM would be likely to give away the nature of the thing they were looking for anyway.

>t. every dnd player of all editions

>Not having a Perception skill does not affect the characters' ability to interact with the world in any way. It just means they can't spam skill checks at everything, and instead have to interact with the DM and the game world.

That was kinda my point? I mean, let's look at this from a modern design standpoint where character skills matter (as opposed to just player skill). If you have a Perception skill, you have to roll it to see things, and since the DM tells you what you see, you have to roll to interact with the DM. OR, you have an arbitrary number (passive perception) that tells the DM how much he can tell you, but once one character in the group passes it, in most cases he does so for the whole group. The logical conclusion of this is that you are facing the same issue of investigation checks in call of cthulhu, and you can consider solving it in a way similar to what GUMSHOE does in Trail.
This ofc is assuming that youre arguing in good faith and not just trying to stir shit with some OSR Primer stuff that has no place here.

I'm playing with regular, non-autistic people and this has never happened. Nice strawman though.

>...But skill checks are how the interact with the GM and the game world.
You are actually this brainwashed. I'm sorry. And to think you people actually mentioned the Old School Primer further up in this thread.

No? I'm stating a fact. Skill checks exist as a way of guiding interaction between players and the GM, as a representation of the characters capabilities.

They can interact with the world without them, sure. But skill checks exist to codify and govern important aspects of those interactions. If you reject that premise, why are you even in this thread?

Interesting, because I did play the game for 2 years and if you didn't do the standard 4-fights-per-day bullshit slog of a structure, the characters wiped the floor with everything, and if you did do the standard dungeon crawl then you would save your dailies for when you needed them and either blow your load early and rest, or hoard them until the last encounter before you were going to rest anyway. Rarely does another strategy make sense.

>muh anecdotal evidence
Doesn't change the fact that it's the best strategy. Purposely gimping yourself to avoid a major flaw in the game, baked into the core rules even (not like this is some splatbook cheese) does not mean that flaw does not exist. Deal with it.

>For example, you could have nature/dungeoneering/streetwise have an "environment awareness" check to identify traps and ambushes.

Heh, the only problem with this is that 2/3 of them are also WIS-based.

>at least put disgaea or other anime SRPG pics instead of stuff that is completely unrelated to 4e
You know, there's only really one anime SRPG I can think of that has a kitsune character, and it's apparently mediocre.

Attached: 2018-03-13_14-30-57.jpg (1772x2734, 535K)

...

This is a 4e thread, in case you haven't noticed. The Primer might have its merits for a certain playstyle, but this is not the place to discuss it. How do you say? GYG