PDA

View Full Version : D&D 4th Q&A and Suggestions



Tamerath
06-12-2008, 12:12 AM
Hello Everyone, I had thought about posting this in Wizard's community at first but...well...I like this community WAY better. So here's my thought. I know I have my share of questions about the new system even after paging through the new books. So how about us seasoned game masters and players put ourselves a little Pen and Paper Games Q&A and design our own table rules?

To Start out I have two very big questions:
1) Why does the Fighter have all access to armor EXCEPT plate?: Does this seem logical to anyone else? They are THE tanking class correct? So why only the paladin?

and

2) Can someone help me understand designing monster's and humanoid npc's from scratch. Basically I've been reading and it seems so...well...up to the gamemaster..and while that's great. I was hoping for a little more foundation on how to create a monster or npc.

cplmac
06-12-2008, 10:08 AM
Although I may be eventually moving to 4E, I would have to agree that it makes no sense that a fighter doesn't have access to plate armor. This being said, I also don't think that a first level fighter will be able to afford plate armor since it is usually one of the more pricey types of armor (or at least it is in 2E).

Shadow Dweller
06-12-2008, 10:13 AM
Regardless if they can afford it at base, it's a little rediculious(sp?) that they have to burn a feat/mult-class/what they hell ever just to use plate(is there a difference between full/half plate? getting my "books" tonight, so don't know yet.)

Webhead
06-12-2008, 10:37 AM
Regardless if they can afford it at base, it's a little rediculious(sp?) that they have to burn a feat/mult-class/what they hell ever just to use plate...

I find myself tending to agree, but I'll wait until I've had more time to ponder (and hopefully time to actually play) before I make a decision on this.


(is there a difference between full/half plate? getting my "books" tonight, so don't know yet.)

By the book, no. They treat armor in broader categories (which I actually like). The "Plate" category covers any armor made from large metal plates. The next "step down" is Scale which is any armor made from smaller linked or overlapping pieces (probably including splint mail and banded mail). A DM may decide that half-plate is really just a specialized form of Scale armor and may assign it stats as such, or they may just lump it in the same category with "full plate" and run with that. Scale offers slightly less protection but is not as encumbering and does not have the check penalty that Plate does.

Webhead
06-12-2008, 11:03 AM
This being said, I also don't think that a first level fighter will be able to afford plate armor since it is usually one of the more pricey types of armor (or at least it is in 2E).

4e makes basic armor (especially Plate armor) far more affordable than previous editions. I think this is in part to allow beginning characters to have it (which has me thinking that Fighters probably should start proficient in Plate) and in part out of a conceptual switch from "ceremonial plate" to "raw battlefield plate". Much less about artistry, aesthetic appeal and custom-crafted fittings, and more about covering people with big pieces of metal. For a fantasy setting, that works for me. If a player wanted to buy "custom-fitted ceremonial plate armor", then I would charge them much more that what is in the book".

My 2 cents...

ronpyatt
06-12-2008, 11:23 AM
I checked Wizards, and this debate is on-going. I don't know why they left out Plate.

Perhaps it is because the fighter is a weapons specialist, and plate makes less sense on a fighter than a paladin. There may be other reasons as well: Character balance; Future classes that are kin to the fighter might include plate (Knights?); The check penalty would be an unfair disadvantage to the fighter.
Then again, a fighter can learn plate. PHB page 212: "You can take feats to learn the proper use of other kinds of armor."

As far as the monster design is concerned, I'll have to study the MM a little more. There is a pattern there, I just have to wrap my head around it. My copy will not be here (delayed, and I pre-ordered in Feb!) until late July.

Dimthar
06-12-2008, 12:04 PM
Perhaps it is because the fighter is a weapons specialist, and plate makes less sense on a fighter than a paladin. There may be other reasons as well: Character balance; Future classes that are kin to the fighter might include plate (Knights?); The check penalty would be an unfair disadvantage to the fighter.
Then again, a fighter can learn plate. PHB page 212: "You can take feats to learn the proper use of other kinds of armor."
.

Following this train of thought, perhaps it was assumed that "Plate" was for "Nobles" only, Paladins being perhaps some type of "Church sponsored Knight" were allowed and trained to use it.

Most likely it was just a victim of the overall "Balance" thing. Is there something showing that maybe by taking off heavy armor they gave an extra "Flexible Point/Feat" that can be allocated as you wish? To promote Non-heavy armor combatants (e.g. Archer)

.

ithil
06-12-2008, 12:08 PM
I think of plate armor as something only knights bother with, and in my mind, a paladin is much closer to a knight than a fighter is.

fmitchell
06-12-2008, 12:16 PM
Here's another one ... and I've only skimmed the PHB so "RTFM" is an acceptable answer.

Is there any rule actually preventing certain daft combinations of races and classes? Can I have a Tiefling Paladin? A Half-Elf Rogue? A Halfling Warlord?

Just imagining a hellborn fiend sticking to the straight and narrow despite being sorely tempted, or a squeaky voice urging his fellows to victory, just makes me smile.

And actually, is a Half-Elf Rogue that daft? What's wrong with a swashbuckling thief, making ladies swoon as he swings out the window? "They seek him here, They seek him there, Those watchmen seek him everywhere. Is he a human? Is he an elf? That damned, elusive Androgelf!"

ronpyatt
06-12-2008, 12:29 PM
Is there any rule actually preventing certain daft combinations of races and classes? Can I have a Tiefling Paladin? A Half-Elf Rogue? A Halfling Warlord?

No race/class restrictions. In fact, my first 4ed character is a Tiefling Paladin. I'm looking to see if my paladin can dip in and multi-class as a rogue.
One interesting feature for the Half-Elf is the 1st level choice of an additional Encounter Power from the list At-Will powers from a class not his/her own.

Valdar
06-12-2008, 12:41 PM
There was a lot of historical debate in the "No Plate for Fighters" thread (which I started, btw :D), but the best reasoning I heard was that scale was inferior in the heroic tier, but could be made superior in the paragon tier with one feat (same AC, no check). So basically giving the two classes different "flavors" of roughly equivalent armor, and not making scale armor (and all the other heavy armors) be "newbie plate" that has no purpose in the game beyond 3rd level.

No restrictions to race/class combos, like 3e, but even less restrictions in 4e- now class/alignment restrictions are gone. Even Paladins can be any alignment as long as it matches their god.

Tamerath
06-12-2008, 01:39 PM
Wow, Thanks for the support everyone! Great thoughts all around.


There was a lot of historical debate in the "No Plate for Fighters" thread (which I started, btw :D), but the best reasoning I heard was that scale was inferior in the heroic tier, but could be made superior in the paragon tier with one feat (same AC, no check).

Thanks Valdar! after reading what you said I had a closer look at Paragon Feats...First let me explain to everyone the difference between scale and plate armor in fourth Edition. Scale +7 AC, no armor check penalty (ACP), -1 speed. Plate +8 -2 ACP, -1 speed. Valdar is correct in his findings. At paragon tier you can take a feat which not only gives the Scale a +1 to AC but removes the speed penalty...making it superior to plate. If your character is a "armor fiend" though you can take a similar feat for plate but it only gives you +1 to AC and that's it.


There may be other reasons as well: Character balance; Future classes that are kin to the fighter might include plate (Knights)

I think you may be on to something here looking at the cleric for example they can now only use up to chainmail armor when they used to wear plate as well. Same could be said about Rangers and chainmail.




Is there any rule actually preventing certain daft combinations of races and classes? Can I have a Tiefling Paladin? A Half-Elf Rogue? A Halfling Warlord?

No there's no rules preventing this at all...in fact I think it's encouraged that you make interesting characters that were "prevented" in earlier versions. I think a Tiefling Paladin is a great choice...hmmm...ideas ideas.

Webhead
06-12-2008, 02:05 PM
No there's no rules preventing this at all...in fact I think it's encouraged that you make interesting characters that were "prevented" in earlier versions. I think a Tiefling Paladin is a great choice...hmmm...ideas ideas.

There's also nothing that says Paladins only exist for "good" deities or causes. You could have a Paladin of Vecna if you wanted. It's just all about devotion to the set of beliefs of your patron.

Tamerath
06-12-2008, 02:49 PM
There's also nothing that says Paladins only exist for "good" deities or causes. You could have a Paladin of Vecna if you wanted. It's just all about devotion to the set of beliefs of your patron.

I know it's a little off topic but a long time ago I was going to create a dark elf paladin of Lloth in my buddies Menzoberrazan boxed set for 2nd edition. Perhaps I could dust off that idea and finally put it to use.

Valdar
06-12-2008, 03:33 PM
I know it's a little off topic but a long time ago I was going to create a dark elf paladin of Lloth in my buddies Menzoberrazan boxed set for 2nd edition. Perhaps I could dust off that idea and finally put it to use.

Evil characters in otherwise good parties are strongly discouraged in 4e. Though, in 4e, "discouraged" means they tell you something's a bad idea, some good reasons why it's a bad idea, and then tells you to go for it if you still want to, with your DM's permission. That's one of the biggest differences I've seen in 4e- the books are written in a very candid style, with good explanations like these where 3rd would have just said "Evil alignments are not appropriate for PCs" with no explanation.

Now if they could only get over their apparent phobia of cross-referencing...

Valdar
06-12-2008, 03:48 PM
Here's one that came up last night that I'd like to hear what your call would have been:

Leaf on the Wind: (PHb, 145) 2[W] +Str mod dmg. You or an ally adjacent to the target swaps places with the target.

What comes first- the attack, the swap, or can they pick?

Seems to me it's attack, then swap, since if the attack misses, you can't really justify the swap. Otherwise you could do this, with a Foe, Defender, and Warlord in a line:

setup:
Foe Def War

swap:
Def Foe War

attack: instant, free flank!

Correct?

EDIT: The Warlord is using a reach weapon here, and as such can still hit the foe before the swap.

Webhead
06-12-2008, 04:02 PM
Evil characters in otherwise good parties are strongly discouraged in 4e. Though, in 4e, "discouraged" means they tell you something's a bad idea, some good reasons why it's a bad idea, and then tells you to go for it if you still want to, with your DM's permission. That's one of the biggest differences I've seen in 4e- the books are written in a very candid style, with good explanations like these where 3rd would have just said "Evil alignments are not appropriate for PCs" with no explanation.

Oh, yeah. Having an evil PC in a group of good characters is begging for trouble. I even tend to dislike the "chaotic neutral" characters played as "I'm only looking out for my best interest". They're not evil, they're just selfish to a flaw. If you've ever had the Rogue who steals from other PCs or tries to stiff the party on loot, you know what I'm talking about.

Last session, I even got my players to admit to why "all-evil" parties never work in the long run. They all agreed and didn't try to deny it, which was surprising.

I agree that I like 4e's tone and that it tries to go beyond "doing this is wrong". It takes a step further and says "this may be a bad idea and here's why".

Tamerath
06-12-2008, 04:08 PM
Here's one that came up last night that I'd like to hear what your call would have been:

Leaf on the Wind: (PHb, 145) 2[W] +Str mod dmg. You or an ally adjacent to the target swaps places with the target.

What comes first- the attack, the swap, or can they pick?

Seems to me it's attack, then swap, since if the attack misses, you can't really justify the swap. Otherwise you could do this, with a Foe, Defender, and Warlord in a line:

setup:
Foe Def War

swap:
Def Foe War

attack: instant, free flank!

Correct?

EDIT: The Warlord is using a reach weapon here, and as such can still hit the foe before the swap.

That's a good question. The way I'm reading Leaf on the Wind is that you attack and if you miss...nothing happens...no damage no swap. On a hit you deal your damage and then you swap a target with yourself or an ally adjacent to the target (I'm assuming to set up flanking attacks or better position someone else for their attacks)

On the reach weapon I'll have to read more about when I get some time.

Webhead
06-12-2008, 04:14 PM
Here's one that came up last night that I'd like to hear what your call would have been:

Leaf on the Wind: (PHb, 145) 2[W] +Str mod dmg. You or an ally adjacent to the target swaps places with the target.

What comes first- the attack, the swap, or can they pick?

Seems to me it's attack, then swap, since if the attack misses, you can't really justify the swap. Otherwise you could do this, with a Foe, Defender, and Warlord in a line:

setup:
Foe Def War

swap:
Def Foe War

attack: instant, free flank!

Correct?

EDIT: The Warlord is using a reach weapon here, and as such can still hit the foe before the swap.

The attack comes first, then the swap. Here's where I'm getting this reading from:

1) The Effect is under the "Hit" section of the power. This means that if the attack successfully hits, the effect happens. You can't swap positions with the target until the hit is successful.

2) The power's description says, "Your fierce attacks force him to give ground". This tells me that it is the attack that causes the swap, not the swap that allows the attack.

Valdar
06-12-2008, 06:37 PM
I even tend to dislike the "chaotic neutral" characters played as "I'm only looking out for my best interest". They're not evil, they're just selfish to a flaw. If you've ever had the Rogue who steals from other PCs or tries to stiff the party on loot, you know what I'm talking about.


CN has always been the big excuse for antisocial behavior, and I'm glad it's gone. No longer does being an ass mean "I'm just roleplaying."

My crackdown on this sort of malarkey goes like this:

1. PCs cannot have an Evil alignment.
2. Doing evil things gives you the Evil alignment.
3. PCs that gain the Evil alignment become NPCs.

So yes, anyone can stab or rip off their buddies, or slaughter the innocent villagers. Once. Then they're a villain, and I get to take advantage of all their careful minmaxing to make their next character's life hell ;)

Engar
06-13-2008, 02:55 AM
Tiefling Paladin? You just made it much harder to keep an open mind about 4e.

Tamerath
06-13-2008, 03:03 AM
Tiefling Paladin? You just made it much harder to keep an open mind about 4e.

Why? You could do it in third edition...just your tiefling paladin would have a +1 level adjustment :P

Maelstrom
06-13-2008, 04:35 AM
Just because your parent was an evil Demon Underlord of total awesome wickedness, doesn't mean you have to be a bad dude, in fact some might want to go the total opposite direction then their blood tells them to. What is more opposite than a paladin? :)

Engar
06-13-2008, 05:50 AM
I am old school. Human and Lawful Good. I might stretch on the human after some serious intervention (probably divine and not anytime soon). I would cringe to allow a good tiefling and never LG. Call me what you will, this falls under the belief that curious races/classes is a form of creative roleplaying. Creative roleplaying is taking that tiefling with at least a reasonable chaotic alignment and futily trying to emulate a Paladin in spite of the races' tendencies and shortfalls in the hope that some diety or order will at some point reward the behavior with at least the title.

Valdar
06-13-2008, 10:55 AM
I am old school. Human and Lawful Good.

Not letting Dwarves be Paladins sends them the message that they are there for comedy relief. And now they're a lot more viable without that pesky Charisma penalty.

fmitchell
06-13-2008, 11:11 AM
Creative roleplaying is taking that tiefling with at least a reasonable chaotic alignment and futily trying to emulate a Paladin in spite of the races' tendencies and shortfalls in the hope that some diety or order will at some point reward the behavior with at least the title.

In 4e the only alignments are (in descending goodness) Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil. (Unaligned isn't the new "neutral"; it's just not caring about cosmic struggles and grand ideals, and where +90% of the population fits.) Note that a number of gods are Unaligned, and others are simply Good, and a Paladin has to match his god's alignment. Also, as stated above, Tieflings have "a dark side" but aren't necessarily evil (or "chaotic"); many work hard to compensate for their tendencies to anger and violence.

Having said that, I also dispute the "innate alignment" argument implicit in your statement. Restricting certain species (except humans) to certain alignments or stereotyped behaviors smacks too much of real world biological determinism. What if you raised an orc from birth in a disciplined but benevolent environment? Would the orc still become Evil, or do their evil tendencies come from a brutal culture where only the most savage survive?

This might spiral into the old alignment argument, but I reject the whole notion that non-human creatures have immutable ethical stances. It's a short step to say particular groups of humans have immutable ethical stances. The last place I want to encounter that repellent belief is woven into the fabric of something I do to unwind.

So let some Tieflings win their struggle with their (literal) internal demons; let some elves be ruthless elf supremacists, and a few dwarfs toss the "family honor" shtick to steal from the rich and give to the craps table. Let people be people, even if they aren't the sort of people we usually refer to as "people".

Shadow Dweller
06-13-2008, 11:52 AM
Tieflings bother me being good, in the sence of the game for one reason and one reason only. The are the spawn of deamons. Evil, quite literally, flows through their veins. Is it impossibleto believe that some have managed to rise above their foul parentage and become a paragon of good(Which a Paladin should be), throwing their aliegence in the face of their demonic fathers? No, and it could be fun to play. But the matter of corse is this, most people in the D&D world KNOW what, and where, a tiefling comes from. And much as it might be wrong to do so, it's held against them. We're not talking about enlightened folks for the most part in the D&D world, we talkin about common farmers, craftsmen, ect...that are very superstisious. In their mind Deamon = Evil, thus the spawn of a deamon must also = evil, especailly as I would assume most tieflings can trace their origin back to a non-concentual conception.

Even today, in the real "enlightened" world, the offspring of such encounters, though definately not demonic, more often than most people like to admit face a harsh upbringing by the parent that had them thrust upon themm, leaving said offspring to have a somewhat jaded look on life.

Now, it's entirely possible that the child grew up in a household that honestly cared for them, loved them and tought them "good" moral values. These children could grow to be clerics of Bahamut, Paladins or some other such benign entity. I would say, however, that it is more rare by far than an evil, or at the most "unaligned" outcome.

Now, on the flip side it would, and should be possible for Aasmir(when their released) to be evil. It just wouldn't be as like for the inverse reason of the good tiefling I talked about above.

[/essay]

Dimthar
06-13-2008, 11:53 AM
Just because your parent was an evil Demon Underlord of total awesome wickedness, doesn't mean you have to be a bad dude, in fact some might want to go the total opposite direction then their blood tells them to. What is more opposite than a paladin? :)

If I read correctly the book, it was not your parent, but your great-great-great-great grand parent who was an evil Demon Underlord of Total Awesome Wickedness (From Hell).

I guess someone just wanted to play Hell-boy in WotC.

It looks like people is bothered more by the fact that Tieflings are a "Core Race" rather than the fact that you can play such character. Tieflings in the PHB have a Society-Cultural Background, which the Random Aasimar or Tiefling of the Realms don't.

What should be the qualifications for a "Core Race"? Population Numbers? Seems that the "New" Tiefling outnumber the Half-Elves.

InfoStorm
06-13-2008, 12:13 PM
I'll put money down that 99% of CN players will become "unaligned" and use the exact same excuse.

fmitchell
06-13-2008, 12:40 PM
I'll put money down that 99% of CN players will become "unaligned" and use the exact same excuse.

I think "Unaligned" is the realization that most players imbue their characters with extremely fluid situational ethics, no matter what their stated alignment is.

In 4e "Good" and "Evil" are definitive moral stances, moreso for their intensified counterparts. A "Good" character says "I want to make the world a better place"; an "Evil" character says "I want what I want, and I don't care how I get it". Either way, characters have to work toward it, or slip back into Unaligned.

If you want to discourage "Chaotic Neutral" behavior, give it consequences, just like in the real world.

Engar
06-13-2008, 01:01 PM
Having said that, I also dispute the "innate alignment" argument implicit in your statement. Restricting certain species (except humans) to certain alignments or stereotyped behaviors smacks too much of real world biological determinism. What if you raised an orc from birth in a disciplined but benevolent environment? Would the orc still become Evil, or do their evil tendencies come from a brutal culture where only the most savage survive?

Your argument disregards the orc raised by orcs who is good because of disgust with all the evil around them. What about the evil orc raised in a benevolent elven society who practices evil selfish entitlement because he is spoiled rotten and wants more than they can give. Which is more "wounded" by the experience? Your scenario discards all the depth of character (dual meaning intended) which is the only good reason to play something abstract to begin with (odd characters do not substitute for creative roleplay). Here the greatest effort in developing an unusual character is at creation and effort/interest (which are compimentary) wain thereafter.


This might spiral into the old alignment argument, but I reject the whole notion that non-human creatures have immutable ethical stances. It's a short step to say particular groups of humans have immutable ethical stances. The last place I want to encounter that repellent belief is woven into the fabric of something I do to unwind.

Groups of real world and likewise imaginary people do have ethical stances. They are simply not immutable. People who reject/overcome them are the exception. How they did it is the inspiration for stories which comfort and guide others. Making something special into something mundane is a frequent substitute for creativity in roleplay. A half-weirdling samurai spell-priest is no more interesting than a human fighter, it is a cry for help by a player not engaged in the story.


So let some Tieflings win their struggle with their (literal) internal demons; let some elves be ruthless elf supremacists, and a few dwarfs toss the "family honor" shtick to steal from the rich and give to the craps table. Let people be people, even if they aren't the sort of people we usually refer to as "people".

Okay. I just like them to earn it. I can always create huge orders of tiefling paladins and have them walk the streets of all my towns. If you want it to be easy to be a tiefling paladin, that makes it easy. Still want to play one?

If you prefer they be rare and special they also need to be curious and challenging and certainly will not be available just for the asking. They must be earned. Of course that is what makes the journey into a great yarn. And the journey matters more than the destination so never quite getting there is still a better tale than having everything at the start.

Webhead
06-13-2008, 01:12 PM
I'll put money down that 99% of CN players will become "unaligned" and use the exact same excuse.

Agreed, and as fmitchell said, the consequences of such behavior should be made clear to those players. More importantly though, if a DM is concerned about this problem cropping up in their game, they need to make it clear to the players whether or not it is acceptable within the campaign. Were I running a game around the idea of a "good" party for instance, and a player wanted to play "Unaligned", I would not disallow it, but I would communicate my intent and direction for the campaign being about "doing the right thing" and "being heroic", and that demonstrating a lack of desire to contribute to that theme is harmful to the game and is not acceptable. In short, "If we're playing a 'good' campaign and you are constantly being evil or just a bastard, your character becomes an NPC and you are welcome to make another".

It's best to address these things early, before they damage the integrity of the whole game.

fmitchell
06-13-2008, 02:33 PM
I can always create huge orders of tiefling paladins and have them walk the streets of all my towns. If you want it to be easy to be a tiefling paladin, that makes it easy. Still want to play one?

If you prefer they be rare and special they also need to be curious and challenging and certainly will not be available just for the asking. They must be earned. Of course that is what makes the journey into a great yarn. And the journey matters more than the destination so never quite getting there is still a better tale than having everything at the start.

OK. Fair enough. I interpreted the statement I quoted earlier as saying "a Tiefling can 'pretend' he's a paladin, but he's just a wannabe".

While I enjoy coming up with bizarre race/class combinations, part of the game for me is coming up for plausible motivations for such a creature.

In Midnight I played an "elfling defender", essentially a halfling monk with elvish blood. The "defender" class of Midnight pares away the Shaolin nonsense to produce a warrior who can work with simple and even improvised weapons (including bare hands). Also in that world halflings are slaves, and the notion of a pipsqueak slave honing his body and mind to be a weapon against his oppressors appealed to me.

Similarly, I'm toying with the idea of a Halfling Warlord ... once regarded as the standard bearer and mascot, his compatriots found out he had a keen tactical mind and/or an ability to say just the right thing. (I've heard some theories that Joan of Arc wasn't a great warrior, but she was an inspirational leader ... and more of a standard bearer than a front-line fighter.)

Granted, you can do any of these character concepts as humans: slave with a grudge (and a big shovel), small inspirational war leader, "bad guy" nationality proving he's more Lawful Good than the so-called "good guys" despite *really* wanting to hurt them, charismatic swashbuckling rogue (who might be human or Half-Elf, I haven't decided). In fact, the next fantasy game I run will have humans only, but something like "backgrounds" from Iron Heroes to create "outsider" characters (e.g. desert nomad, scion of an eldritch bloodline, small-d dwarf).

But, at least to give 4e a test run, I'd like to see how I can bend the system.

cplmac
06-13-2008, 04:38 PM
Although I have never had a player that wanted to have an evil character, I would let them have one of the NPC's that the party encounters. I think it would make things rather interesting it the adversary of the party could manage to get one of their henchmen into the party "to keep an eye on what the party knows and is planning".

Valdar
06-13-2008, 05:03 PM
GURPS talks about the concept of the Adversary player- it's a good idea sometimes to have someone running the bad guy who doesn't have all the information.

I've played the "plant" in a party once. It is surprisingly easy to get the rest of the party killed when you're working for the other team...

cplmac
06-13-2008, 05:13 PM
GURPS talks about the concept of the Adversary player- it's a good idea sometimes to have someone running the bad guy who doesn't have all the information.

I've played the "plant" in a party once. It is surprisingly easy to get the rest of the party killed when you're working for the other team...


Did the party ever figure out that you were not actually on their side? If so, how did things go after that?

ronpyatt
06-13-2008, 05:21 PM
This leads into the question of 4ed's ability to handle an evil party of PC's.

fmitchell
06-13-2008, 05:30 PM
This leads into the question of 4ed's ability to handle an evil party of PC's.

Granted I've only skimmed, but I haven't found any rules that bias 4e towards good or evil, apart from exhortations to run a Good or Unaligned campaign. They've explicitly removed alignment from most if not all powers; to quote a recent article on Wizards:



In 3rd Edition, choosing an alignment usually had the unfortunate mechanical repercussion of making the aligned player vulnerable to an opposing aligned attack of a foe. It’s not really ideal that being good made you more vulnerable to demonic attacks, for instance. Another reason some players stuck with the neutral alignment of previous editions.


Really, it's a question of a DM's ability to handle an evil party. From experience "evil campaigns" can degenerate fast ... especially if there are issues between players themselves.

Valdar
06-13-2008, 06:01 PM
Did the party ever figure out that you were not actually on their side? If so, how did things go after that?

It was just for a few sessions. I bided my time until a sufficient force of enemies could be gotten together to attack the party in the inn. I believe my chara took off in the confusion, and we rotated DMs at that point to avoid repercussions toward my next chara...

MooseAlmighty
06-13-2008, 10:08 PM
Here's one that came up last night that I'd like to hear what your call would have been:

Leaf on the Wind: (PHb, 145) 2[W] +Str mod dmg. You or an ally adjacent to the target swaps places with the target.
EDIT: The Warlord is using a reach weapon here, and as such can still hit the foe before the swap.

Could you use reach to do this? Or does the wording intend that you need to be adjacent to the target while making this attack?

Ie - adjacent and you succeed = you swap one square of movement.
Or can folks with reach weapons do this and swap themselves in for two squares of movement.

ronpyatt
06-14-2008, 12:15 AM
They've explicitly removed alignment from most if not all powers
That's a very good point. Like with the Paladin's smiting anything (not just evil). I have not read anything about "detect evil" or "detect good" during my reading, but I'll keep an eye out for them.

I've played in a long running evil campaign, and the cohesion was not a problem. You'd think there would be too much mistrust among evils, but just because you're evil doesn't mean you can't cooperate. Evil folks have good friends, too.

Valdar
06-14-2008, 12:18 AM
Could you use reach to do this? Or does the wording intend that you need to be adjacent to the target while making this attack?

Ie - adjacent and you succeed = you swap one square of movement.
Or can folks with reach weapons do this and swap themselves in for two squares of movement.

I think you could swap for two squares, but it's always as a result of the attack- so, you couldn't swap first and then immediately take advantage of the flanking bonus...

Farcaster
06-14-2008, 06:36 PM
I am old school. Human and Lawful Good. I might stretch on the human after some serious intervention (probably divine and not anytime soon).

So, what is your justification for humans only?


This leads into the question of 4ed's ability to handle an evil party of PC's.

I tell you one thing, I was a little disappointed when on my first glance through the Monster Manual, I found that there were no metallic dragons listed...

Engar
06-14-2008, 07:00 PM
LOL, tradition? I can come up with one surely, but does it matter much? Why can mages not wear armor? If it really is for dexterity to cast what about a breastplate? Why give up on it, work on some custom stuff for ease of use by mages...

I could say that the powers are only granted to humans by the gods because... humans are short lived ... humans are the youngest race and need the advantage ... humans are the youngest race and the new hope for benevolence and order ... humans were rewarded as a race by the gods for overcoming their youth and against all odds fighting their way to even ground with the other races ... humans are favorites of the gods ... only the human pantheon allows paladins (obviously requires strict racial pantheons).

When it comes down to it the question of why only matters if you want a reason, not as an argument for or against something in these games. And I also am old school in that player characters are rare and exceptional. I would not disallow a player who could roleplay (and yes that is subjective too, but within reason) to run with something out of the box. That said, I would not reward them for it. People fear what they do not understand and many would seek to destroy it (auto hook!).

I play this out in my games. Good luck being trusted or perhaps even permitted in town as a minotaur PC. But again, it is all about the journey... if it is important to a player to earn that trust then it is important to me as a DM to offer them a fantastically realistic opportunity.

tesral
06-15-2008, 02:11 AM
I think "Unaligned" is the realization that most players imbue their characters with extremely fluid situational ethics, no matter what their stated alignment is.

In 4e "Good" and "Evil" are definitive moral stances, moreso for their intensified counterparts. A "Good" character says "I want to make the world a better place"; an "Evil" character says "I want what I want, and I don't care how I get it". Either way, characters have to work toward it, or slip back into Unaligned.

If you want to discourage "Chaotic Neutral" behavior, give it consequences, just like in the real world.

I can't say I understand the philosophy behind the new alignment system. They kind of half tossed the whole thing but kept the shiny bits? OK back to a three alignment system, Good Unaligned, Evil ... but no, we have Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil too.

Now I am an admitted anti-alignment type but I understand the system be it the older Lawful, Neutral Chaotic axis or the later nine alignment box, I understand where it's coming from, even if I don't like it.

I don't understand where this is coming from. Good-good, Good, unaligned, Evil, Evil-evil? Only good can be lawful only evil can be chaotic? Why are the scraps of the law chaos axis even IN there? Do the writers have a clue?

tesral
06-15-2008, 02:17 AM
Agreed, and as fmitchell said, the consequences of such behavior should be made clear to those players. More importantly though, if a DM is concerned about this problem cropping up in their game, they need to make it clear to the players whether or not it is acceptable within the campaign. Were I running a game around the idea of a "good" party for instance, and a player wanted to play "Unaligned", I would not disallow it, but I would communicate my intent and direction for the campaign being about "doing the right thing" and "being heroic", and that demonstrating a lack of desire to contribute to that theme is harmful to the game and is not acceptable. In short, "If we're playing a 'good' campaign and you are constantly being evil or just a bastard, your character becomes an NPC and you are welcome to make another".

It's best to address these things early, before they damage the integrity of the whole game.

This is assuming that someone that doesn't give a care about the machinations of powers greater than themselves cannot care at all.

That's a big assumption and to me yet a better reason to drop the whole alignment mess in the trash bin for good. You are saying that because I fit the profile of 90% of the world I am an amoral bastard. I cannot be a nice guy unless I embrace "Good" whole heartedly.

I'm not enjoying this game already.



OK. Fair enough. I interpreted the statement I quoted earlier as saying "a Tiefling can 'pretend' he's a paladin, but he's just a wannabe".

While I enjoy coming up with bizarre race/class combinations, part of the game for me is coming up for plausible motivations for such a creature. .... In Midnight I played an "elfling defender" .... toying with the idea of a Halfling Warlord.


I like the idea of the anti-type. I'm a nurture over nature person in any case. People have ethic identities because they are raised with them. No one is "born" Irish or Chinese. they are born in China or Ireland and raised Irish or Chinese.

An Elf raised away from Elves with be physically an Elf, but they are not going to share the Elven culture, it isn't delivered with the placenta. Likewise an Orc doesn't get Orc culture before they are born.

Play the anti-type character. I won't make it easy. It shouldn't be easy. You are bucking the typical. You are volunteering to be the green monkey. However, I will make playing it fun.

Farcaster
06-15-2008, 02:42 AM
:focus:

I think we're getting a little derailed on this thread. I think the original purpose was to talk about house rules for the 4e system or things that needed to be tweaked. There is another thread somewhere for debating alignments and such.

Engar
06-15-2008, 02:51 AM
That struck me as odd too. That and toss everything to date about the planes of existence. I always liked the alignment system, but I know most people feel "bound" by it.

When I first played and did not fully understand it, we treated alignment as a known and understood trait inside the game. Each character could actually ask another, "What is your alignment?" like you might ask someone their race today, although we treated such as a massive taboo often met with violence and justifiably. If an NPC or party member learned of a "know alignment" spell being cast it was like declaring war. Paladins were not so specific and detected intent so that was okay. It was a weird interpretation, but interesting roleplay.

edit: Sorry Farcaster, typed over you and saw your post after.

Tamerath
06-15-2008, 02:06 PM
Well, to bring things back on topic I thought I'd post something that I personally misunderstood in the new rules and I'd like to share it all with you.

My group and I played Keep on the Shadowfell with the pregenerated characters but after the second session we thought we'd like to go back and make our own characters since we had gotten our hands on the books. My character after creation (Eladrin Ranger) didn't have no where near the hit points that my pregenerated character had. It wasn't until last night that it finally hit me...I'm thinking old school.

HP in 3.5 was calculated by adding your constitution modifier each level where as this 4th edition does something different.

My HP for my Eladrin Ranger doing it the WRONG way
Hit Points at 1st Level: 12 + Con Modifier (+1) = 13....crap my pregen had at least twice that....

AFTER I READ THE SENTENCE RIGHT AND HIT MYSELF IN THE FOREHEAD:
Hitpoints at 1st Level: 12 + Constitution SCORE (13) = 25

So if there's anyone out there like me that had that old "backwards" thinking perhaps this will help you.

NOTE: My Fiance'e who has only played two games now (4th edition) pointed this HP mistake to me ( A seasoned Gamer)...lol...humbling and yet maybe Wizard indeed did make the system easier to understand for newcomers to the game.

Valdar
06-15-2008, 02:39 PM
AFTER I READ THE SENTENCE RIGHT AND HIT MYSELF IN THE FOREHEAD:
Hitpoints at 1st Level: 12 + Constitution SCORE (13) = 25

So if there's anyone out there like me that had that old "backwards" thinking perhaps this will help you.

NOTE: My Fiance'e who has only played two games now (4th edition) pointed this HP mistake to me ( A seasoned Gamer)...lol...humbling and yet maybe Wizard indeed did make the system easier to understand for newcomers to the game.

I'd be curious to know if there are any other mentions in the rules about using your actual attribute SCORE for anything (rather than the modifier)- with the removal of ability damage and buffing, it looks like the attributes are now completely behind-the-scenes with this one exception.

And yes, a new player is going to teach you a lot about 4e, because they won't skip over the stuff you'll assume you know. Fighters not getting the plate proficiency is my example (who would even check that?). The above (attributes not actually used for anything beyond their modifier) was another thing that a new player asked me to confirm.

ronpyatt
06-15-2008, 06:52 PM
There are these new "marks" like Divine Challenge from the paladin or the Curse from the warlock that modify the combat in various ways. I'm not completely clear on it, but can the marks from different classes stack? I mean can two or more different classes place these marks upon the same target during combat?

At first I read it like you can't, but I've reread it, and now I think you can.

tesral
06-15-2008, 07:11 PM
AFTER I READ THE SENTENCE RIGHT AND HIT MYSELF IN THE FOREHEAD:
Hitpoints at 1st Level: 12 + Constitution SCORE (13) = 25


Interesting. I have been adding half Con to hit points for oh, about 20 years. First level only mind you.

First time i have seen the actual score used for anything. Green Ronin in the True 20 system actually got rid of the 3-18 scores. they went right for the blood, you ability score is your modifier. So if you would have a +2 in Strength, that is your score, +2.

Valdar
06-16-2008, 12:15 AM
There are these new "marks" like Divine Challenge from the paladin or the Curse from the warlock that modify the combat in various ways. I'm not completely clear on it, but can the marks from different classes stack? I mean can two or more different classes place these marks upon the same target during combat?

At first I read it like you can't, but I've reread it, and now I think you can.

I would say you can stack all the mark you want, but you can't stack a limiting mark. Two defenders can't mark the same target and expect said target to take minuses or damage whoever they attack, if they have two marks against them. The latest limiting mark overrides the previous ones. Things like Ranger and Warlock marks that define who you get bonuses towards, should stack. If Soveliss throws down a Hunter's Quarry, you can Curse the same target for more effect, but if the Fighter and Paladin are throwing down challenges, only the last one should be in effect.

agoraderek
06-16-2008, 12:20 AM
I would say you can stack all the mark you want, but you can't stack a limiting mark. Two defenders can't mark the same target and expect said target to take minuses or damage whoever they attack, if they have two marks against them. The latest limiting mark overrides the previous ones. Things like Ranger and Warlock marks that define who you get bonuses towards, should stack. If Soveliss throws down a Hunter's Quarry, you can Curse the same target for more effect, but if the Fighter and Paladin are throwing down challenges, only the last one should be in effect.

i still dont like the thought that, just because some dude with a sword "challenges" me, i have to suffer a combat disadvantage even if completely ignoring the fool would make better tactical sense. bah...

Valdar
06-16-2008, 11:24 AM
i still dont like the thought that, just because some dude with a sword "challenges" me, i have to suffer a combat disadvantage even if completely ignoring the fool would make better tactical sense. bah...

It's a supernatural power. It will never make sense to go after the high-defense, low-offense guy when there's a low-defense, high-offense guy standing next to him, so defenders need some method to make sure they're the one getting attacked. And you can't make the Fighter high-defense AND high-offense, as then there'd be no compelling reason to play anything else.

tesral
06-16-2008, 12:41 PM
It's a supernatural power. It will never make sense to go after the high-defense, low-offense guy when there's a low-defense, high-offense guy standing next to him, so defenders need some method to make sure they're the one getting attacked. And you can't make the Fighter high-defense AND high-offense, as then there'd be no compelling reason to play anything else.

So you need a supernatural power to make you character concept even work. I see a problem here.

Valdar
06-16-2008, 12:53 PM
So you need a supernatural power to make you character concept even work. I see a problem here.

Well, it _is_ a fantasy game. Should the Wizard be non-supernatural too?

tesral
06-16-2008, 12:57 PM
Well, it _is_ a fantasy game. Should the Wizard be non-supernatural too?

I kind of like my fighters to live by the sword I guess. I have a hard time seeing Conan mystically challanging someone.

Farcaster
06-16-2008, 01:20 PM
The way I have been reading the martial abilities, I don't see them so much as supernatural abilities but more melee skills. Marking for instance is described as "It's dangerous to ignore a fighter". So, when a fighter "marks" someone, he's basically putting his focus on them. If they don't focus on him, then he is effectively harrying them. That is why they get a negative and he gets an opportunity attack if they choose to attack someone else.

Engar
06-16-2008, 01:28 PM
But is that really simpler or faster than even 3.x AO's? And it seems like a nice tasting bone to distract fighters from noticing how all the other classes are now quite good at their job.

Valdar
06-16-2008, 01:50 PM
I kind of like my fighters to live by the sword I guess. I have a hard time seeing Conan mystically challanging someone.

That's why fighters started sucking in 3e at level 5, and were completely superfluous by level 9- being non-magical was a glass ceiling.

Now the stuff they do isn't magic with a capital M, but it's also not realistic. My suspension of disbelief is healthy enough to be able to watch Jackie Chan whoop a hundred dudes with his bare hands without thinking he's supernatural, so I can give Fighters the same nod.

Anyway, I'd love to hear a better suggestion for how to make the Defender role work in a way that's realistic, not overly complex, and workable. AoOs are not it- realistic, but too complex for most players, and didn't work in practice. Having the Wizard be able to take care of himself is not it as it makes the fighter useless. Marking is simple and effective, but not all that realistic. Just having the monsters go for the fighters and ignore the wizard is a cop-out.

Engar
06-16-2008, 02:02 PM
Ah, but try having smart monsters go for the wizard and avoid the fighter! Now you need some tactics (and that wizard better have bought breakfast). And why not? Any middle intellect monsters will realize that while a fighter (the one with all the armor) can easily kill them one on one or even in small groups, the wizard (with the robes and smells like weird herbs and sulfer) can eliminate or massively wound them en masse *never know how to spell that*.

If your party fought another party, what character would you kill first?

That said, I do not understand your argument, please rephrase.

*edit: nevermind, had to jog my brain to remember that 4e calls it a general "defender" roll for fighters/pallies/barbarians. I restate the above, only now imagine the fighter desperately wants to save the wizard (hopefuly he should if your game has any roleplay and the wizard is not a fool), he is really the best one to help but will inevitably take more attacks and damage to do so (wade away from his "distractors" to engage those attacking the mage, or fire ranged at them while suffering AoO's in 3.x). He has to do it fast too.

Valdar
06-16-2008, 02:18 PM
Ah, but try having smart monsters go for the wizard and avoid the fighter! Now you need some tactics (and that wizard better have bought breakfast). And why not? Any middle intellect monsters will realize that while a fighter (the one with all the armor) can easily kill them one on one or even in small groups, the wizard (with the robes and smells like weird herbs and sulfer) can eliminate or massively wound them en masse *never know how to spell that*.

If your party fought another party, what character would you kill first?

That said, I do not understand your argument, please rephrase.

Which argument are you referring to? You didn't quote anyone.

Anyway, I agree with you- if you have two opponents, and one is the classic "fighter" who has high defenses and relatively weak attacks, and the other is the opposite, attacking the fighter makes no sense at all, and there needs to be some mechanism built into the game to make the opponent go after the fighter.

That being said, I can't think of a good way to do this. Marking is not realistic and doesn't work from a narrative standpoint. AoOs are too complex and not terribly workable. Having the monsters play dumb and attack the fighter is unsatisfying. Having the Wizard take care of himself (which is what usually happened in 3e) makes the fighter useless.

So, out of several bad choices, you have "Marking", which gets to the point of what we're trying to accomplish with the rules, without needless clutter. The fighter wants you to fight him, and he has a straightforward ability to make that happen.

Oh, and Conan won't be challenging anyone. Barbarian will probably not be a Defender.

Engar
06-16-2008, 02:58 PM
The point is some things cannot be handled with rules. If you cannot roleplay into a cohesive party then the group may just not be that legendary and dying in the dirty alcove of the kobold ruins because it was every man for himself is okay (hopefully one or two slink off and learn a lesson).

I tossed a nasty at a party once on day one (really first session, first level, but old players). A three headed huge flying beast no less. It hunted the road outside the village and stole from travelers. It's goal was to take their money, which it did. After one player resisted (and very cleverly used some kind of darkness causing the beast to crash land as it buzzed the party in a near-ground fly by) the beast turned him to stone. Because I really wanted to reward the cleverness in spite of it being somewhat foolish, I introduced a friar character who witnessed the "bravery" and got them a free stone-to-flesh in exchange for a quest. Now the party hated me in common and disliked the beast, but shared a common goal as well as a common debt and started working as a team.

I also make random encounters truly random. I do not care if you are level 5, you have a very rare opportunity here to negotiate with the ancient black dragon of the Merigold Swamp. He saw your fire and is only hungry enough to eat one of you. He prefers dwarves, is willing to consider a human, but the halfling has too little meat.

tesral
06-16-2008, 03:21 PM
That's why fighters started sucking in 3e at level 5, and were completely superfluous by level 9- being non-magical was a glass ceiling.

I have never understood this becasue I have never seen it. My current Staurday group I DM the fighters rock, period. No fancy prestige classes no feats, just plain and well built melee power.

The Friday Group I play in the same, the group has one caster, me. The warriors of many different types rock the house.

Historically I have never seen the magic types make the fighters useless. 32 years of playing the game and I have never seen fighters made pointless at any level.

Burt, a 3.5 build at 17 levels simply rocks the battle space, he owns the place, the boy is nothing but fighter and ECL.

Dimthar
06-16-2008, 03:32 PM
The way I have been reading the martial abilities, I don't see them so much as supernatural abilities but more melee skills. Marking for instance is described as "It's dangerous to ignore a fighter". So, when a fighter "marks" someone, he's basically putting his focus on them. If they don't focus on him, then he is effectively harrying them. That is why they get a negative and he gets an opportunity attack if they choose to attack someone else.

It seems that the "Mark" ability although handled almost equally, each class has a different approach on how it is accomplished.

I agree with Farcaster that in the case of the fighter it is the product of Melee Skills and nothing to do with the "supernatural".

Webhead
06-16-2008, 05:24 PM
This is assuming that someone that doesn't give a care about the machinations of powers greater than themselves cannot care at all.

I didn't think that I was imply this, but if it came across that way, I apologize. From what did you draw this reading? Just curious where my language may have faltered.


That's a big assumption and to me yet a better reason to drop the whole alignment mess in the trash bin for good. You are saying that because I fit the profile of 90% of the world I am an amoral bastard. I cannot be a nice guy unless I embrace "Good" whole heartedly.

No, in fact I specifically mentioned that I would allow Unaligned characters because simply being "Unaligned" does not mean "not-Good". Unaligned characters can fit perfectly well in either a "Good" or "Evil" game depending on that characters general moral and ethical stance. Where the "amoral bastard" part comes from is from players who use "Unaligned" as an excuse to play a character that doesn't fit the style of the campaign being played. I've seen this happen. You have the player who doesn't want to be a "good guy" so he plays "Chaotic Neutral" or some such so that he can justify his actions to the DM as "role playing his character". In fact, I had one *heroic* super hero game (non d20, no alignment system), where the player was blatantly acting more like a villain than a hero and when confronted about this behavior, he got upset because he felt he should "be able to play his character however he wanted". That game died pretty quick.

It's not about "anyone who doesn't embrace Good is a bastard". It's "anyone who uses alignment as an excuse to justify disruptive behavior is not acceptable". Big difference.



I'm not enjoying this game already.

I generally dislike alignment-type systems in any RPG that I play as well. I would just as soon have 4e be rid of alignment entirely.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but to my mind, this is an unfair means of judging the game. This is like saying a sandwich is terrible because you don't like the kind of lettuce it is topped with. It speaks nothing of the entirety of the rest of what constitutes the sandwich which might actually be fantastic given a chance. The meat, the bread, the cheese, the condiments, etc, etc.

agoraderek
06-16-2008, 09:47 PM
I have never understood this becasue I have never seen it. My current Staurday group I DM the fighters rock, period. No fancy prestige classes no feats, just plain and well built melee power.

The Friday Group I play in the same, the group has one caster, me. The warriors of many different types rock the house.

Historically I have never seen the magic types make the fighters useless. 32 years of playing the game and I have never seen fighters made pointless at any level.

Burt, a 3.5 build at 17 levels simply rocks the battle space, he owns the place, the boy is nothing but fighter and ECL.

ditto that. fighters have always been the bad boys on the block in my games.

and "defender", "striker", are we playing d&d or soccer???

ronpyatt
06-17-2008, 01:10 AM
It seems that the "Mark" ability although handled almost equally, each class has a different approach on how it is accomplished.
Exactly, some marks include magical compulsions and some do not.

After skimming the wizards forums, and a bit more reading, "marks" convey the -2 penalty to the target for not confronting the one that placed the mark. Fighters and paladins have these marks to target/compel enemies, and their marks override each other. The Divine Challenge works for the paladin as long as the paladin's mark is in place. Once the paladin's mark is superseded by a fighter's mark, the Divine Challenge goes away. This seems tactically important. So, my question about if they stack is a qualified "no, marks don't stack."
Also, some encounter powers from other classes have the ability to "mark". These powers override other marks and can be overridden. As far as I can tell, these power are specifically noted as "marks" or "marking".

The special targeting that the Ranger (quarry) and the warlock (curse) have are not considered marks. So, these would stack with "marks".

cplmac
06-17-2008, 10:19 AM
...I tell you one thing, I was a little disappointed when on my first glance through the Monster Manual, I found that there were no metallic dragons listed...


This will allow for the ability to have a second edition to the 4e Monster Manual. Not sure how many there are for 3.x, but look at how many there are for 2E.

cplmac
06-17-2008, 10:30 AM
Ah, but try having smart monsters go for the wizard and avoid the fighter! Now you need some tactics (and that wizard better have bought breakfast). And why not? Any middle intellect monsters will realize that while a fighter (the one with all the armor) can easily kill them one on one or even in small groups, the wizard (with the robes and smells like weird herbs and sulfer) can eliminate or massively wound them en masse *never know how to spell that*.

If your party fought another party, what character would you kill first?

That said, I do not understand your argument, please rephrase.

*edit: nevermind, had to jog my brain to remember that 4e calls it a general "defender" roll for fighters/pallies/barbarians. I restate the above, only now imagine the fighter desperately wants to save the wizard (hopefuly he should if your game has any roleplay and the wizard is not a fool), he is really the best one to help but will inevitably take more attacks and damage to do so (wade away from his "distractors" to engage those attacking the mage, or fire ranged at them while suffering AoO's in 3.x). He has to do it fast too.


Usually whoever can hurt the party the most is the first to be attacked/killed. From there, just go with the next best of the foe.

If the party is thinking on their feet, they should manuver so that the wizard/mage is not left alone to fight, if they are not already in that type of a formation.

Tamerath
06-17-2008, 01:10 PM
I came across a thought today that I didn't understand all that well. When you Multiclass and take the multiclass feat...you can't start taking your pick of new powers you gain out of both classes correct? Hence the reason for the "power swap" feats and the Paragon Multiclass features?

Farcaster
06-17-2008, 03:05 PM
:focus:

Again, back on topic please. This thread is for people who intend to play 4e to discuss the new rules and any alterations to the rules they will be doing in their games. Further posts that are off topic will be moved to the "What's wrong with 4e" thread or deleted.

BTW, I have moved several threads there already if you are looking for your previous posts.

ryan973
06-19-2008, 11:06 AM
oops sorry posted without reading your message.

Tamerath
06-19-2008, 01:35 PM
Does anyone else think it'd be overly hard to make your own paragon class in this edition? They kind of remind me of prestige classes in the last edition so I'm sure if you can do something balanced to the class role it would be just like them.

Valdar
06-20-2008, 03:08 AM
Does anyone else think it'd be overly hard to make your own paragon class in this edition? They kind of remind me of prestige classes in the last edition so I'm sure if you can do something balanced to the class role it would be just like them.

That's a part of 4e that I'm putting off. My players are still level 1, and right now I'm seeing the Heroic tier as a complete campaign. Paragon tier will be another complete campaign, but with the same characters.

InfoStorm
06-20-2008, 11:00 AM
That will be in the Paragon book when it comes out, or in the newer version of "Complete Moneymaker".

Tamerath
06-21-2008, 02:20 PM
That will be in the Paragon book when it comes out, or in the newer version of "Complete Moneymaker".

That was kinda funny :) Although I'll probably end up paying for that sourcebook to add to my collection...lol *looks at 2nd and 3rd Edition books on his wall*

tesral
06-21-2008, 05:27 PM
That was kinda funny :) Although I'll probably end up paying for that sourcebook to add to my collection...lol *looks at 2nd and 3rd Edition books on his wall*

Ah, I don't have a collection. I have a library, and there is the difference.

Aidan
06-22-2008, 07:30 PM
Wizards in fourth edition can use implements, staves, orbs or wands. There are magical implements that exist, which have enhancements from +1 to +6. If you have a magical implement with enhancements and you have mastery of that implement, you can add the enhancement to hit and damage rolls for spellc channelled through the implement.

The Wizard of the Spiral Tower paragon path allows a wizard to use a longsword as if it were one of the implements they have mastered. My question is, would you allow the enhancements of a magical longsword to apply to spells channelled through it, and would you add things like magical sword's critical hit bonuses to spells?

Tamerath
06-23-2008, 01:29 PM
The Wizard of the Spiral Tower paragon path allows a wizard to use a longsword as if it were one of the implements they have mastered. My question is, would you allow the enhancements of a magical longsword to apply to spells channelled through it, and would you add things like magical sword's critical hit bonuses to spells?

After reading the class over I'd rule in my games that:
1) You choose rod, staff, or wand implement and add that property to your longsword (longsword of Imposition, Longsword of Defense, or Longsword of Accuracy)
2) Yes I'd rule that you can use it's enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and damage rolls of wizard powers that have the implement keyword in their descriptions.
3) About the criticals I'd say use the critical for the type of magic weapon it is (standard magic weapon description is +1d6 damage per plus)

Hope this helps

InfoStorm
06-26-2008, 12:40 PM
NEW ISSUE:
Someone else explain this to me. Why is there such an inconsistancy between blask and burst? Maybe I read the rules wrong.

Burst 1 is a 3x3 area, but so is a blast 3
while a Burst 2 is a 5x5, but so is a blast 5.
per the rules, a burst 3 is 7x7, Burst 4 iz 9x9, & burst 5 is 11x11.
Am I calculating this correctally?

The differences are confusing to get a hold of and inconsistant, IMHO. Someone tell me I'm reading it wrong or I'll have end up moving this post to "What's wrong with 4e."

Webhead
06-26-2008, 01:12 PM
NEW ISSUE:
Someone else explain this to me. Why is there such an inconsistancy between blask and burst? Maybe I read the rules wrong.

Burst 1 is a 3x3 area, but so is a blast 3
while a Burst 2 is a 5x5, but so is a blast 5.
per the rules, a burst 3 is 7x7, Burst 4 iz 9x9, & burst 5 is 11x11.
Am I calculating this correctally?

The differences are confusing to get a hold of and inconsistant, IMHO. Someone tell me I'm reading it wrong or I'll have end up moving this post to "What's wrong with 4e."

You are correct in your measurements, but I'm not sure if you've picked up on the difference between a "Burst" effect and a "Blast" effect.

A "Burst" effect centers on your square and affects "all squares within [X] radius from you". So, a Burst 1 affects all squares adjacent to you (aka, all squares with in [1] square of distance).

A "Blast" does not affect a radius around you, instead, it affects an area of its size adjacent to you in the direction of your choosing. So if you use a Blast 3 effect, you pick a group of squares (3x3) in which at least one square is adjacent to yours.

Simply put, a "Burst" is like an area of effect that centers on you, and a "Blast" is like a cone that extends from you.

Hope that helps.

Engar
06-26-2008, 01:23 PM
Seems overdone. Why not just have one or the other and define the center of effect as caster/user/whatever when appropriate?

Webhead
06-26-2008, 01:36 PM
Seems overdone. Why not just have one or the other and define the center of effect as caster/user/whatever when appropriate?

It's just a way of short-hand so they don't have to refer to what the origin point of an effect is for every single power. It describes the same thing in fewer words.

It's really no different than the "radius" or "cone" definitions for spell effects in 3e...except that now they are shaped in a slightly different, and much easier to use, way.

InfoStorm
06-26-2008, 04:13 PM
I personally find it inconsistant. I would have had the number defined by both Burst and Blast equal to the Size of the area of effect, which is always square in the new rules. Easy enough to define Blast as they have, adjacent to target and state that while burst is centered on target. But in the long run, to each their own.

P.S. the thing with 3e definitions, they were always consistant, with a foot being the same in all measurements. A square # (blast vs burst) is different depending on the type.

Webhead
06-26-2008, 04:32 PM
I personally find it inconsistant. I would have had the number defined by both Burst and Blast equal to the Size of the area of effect, which is always square in the new rules. Easy enough to define Blast as they have, adjacent to target and state that while burst is centered on target. But in the long run, to each their own.

P.S. the thing with 3e definitions, they were always consistant, with a foot being the same in all measurements. A square # (blast vs burst) is different depending on the type.

I (personally) don't see any greater inconsistancy or complication than how 3e approached it. Okay, so you had "30 foot radius", "30 foot diameter" and "30 foot cone", but each of those generates a very different looking area of effect (and in 3e, cones were such a pain to plot out as you had to consider whether you were casting them straight-on or at an angle).

This way, when you read the word "Burst", you know exactly what the shape of the effect will look like. You read "Burst 3" and you know, "Oh, this effects everything within 3 squares in all directions".

I may have a slightly different perspective on this though, as I've played Mutants & Masterminds where they use short-hand of a similar (but not exact) notion and it works rather well. In it, if I have the [Disintegration 10] power, I know exactly what the range of the power is without having to look it up in the power descripton. It's rather helpful.