Man, I love this game. *sigh*
Haha.
April Fools.
You got us!
>>46397674
I have the 4E red box.
I never played it, but I think it's actually a nifty thing.
I wish more RPGs would be like that. Just a quick start box with the essential stuff and some goodies to get you started and get the right feels.
You totally got me!
For a moment I thought you were trolling, but then I looked at the calendar and realized you are totally serious.
>>46397674
Is the April Fools joke making fun of people who rag on 4e without having played it because its the hip thing to do?
>>46397674
The ultimate proof that people prefer fluff and a pretty book with flowery descriptions over good game design and ease of use.
>>46398725
Actually, I'd argue that while 4e has very SOUND mechanics, that are very easy to understand, they're a little too hidebound to allow for quick play.
For example, what if I want to play without a battle mat (as I have done and continue to do in every other edition)?
Due to 4e being heavily based ON the battle mat, I can't do it.
I absolutely adore 4e for dungeon crawls.
I have an ongoing megadungeon in it.
But for more narratively focused campaigns, it starts to get in the way of "getting on with it".
>>46398813
4e has watertight design, which is actually a problem if you think about it.
It's designed for one style of play and it handles it extremely well- the problem is that if you don't want to play it that way, there's really no easy way of changing it. You'd have to revamp a significant part of the game and at that point, why not play something else?
>>46398813
I wouldn't play 3.5/PF without a map personally any more than I'd 4e. 5e/AD&D movement just doesn't matter, so you don't need maps as much.
>>46399485
I don't think it's any less flexible than other D&Ds.
>>46399485
I don't think there's anything wrong with focused game design. I'd much prefer a game to know exactly what it wants to do and do it well than be a sprawling mess with no focus or consistency.
Then again, I'm the sort of person who loves finding new games and interesting ways of telling different sorts of story. 4e is just one game amongst the ones I enjoy, and part of the reason it keeps its place is that there's nothing better for what it does, focused fantasy dungeoncrawling. Other D&D systems try to spread themselves more thinly, and so for everything I'd want to do with them I can find a better, more focused system to handle it.
>>46397674
It's a fun game.
But it really does behave a bit like a board game. You have to be in the mindset of "playing the game" to enjoy the combat. You could, of course, just RP with it anyways, but it really doesn't benefit that any better than any other system.
If you like the combat and like RPing with it, then it's perfectly fine - assuming you can get the books for a good price. That, honestly, was the worst aspect for me.
>>46401696
>paying for books
>not pirating the PDFs
>not using the builder instead
>not just getting the rules compendium
>or if you really want to give WotC your jewgold, shell out for the subscription and download everything legally.
>>46398813
>what if I want to play without a battle mat
You do the same thing you did in every other edition.
>>46397674
April Fools
I do too. It was too good for us grogs, and now exists only in memory and as basement project heartbreakers
>>46398813
That's pretty much the only reason I don't play 4e. I can live with the early shitty monster math, and needing to give everyone that one feat (I forgot which) for free to fix it a bit. But I hate mats and don't use them, and 4e unlike other editions just does not work without a mat and minis.
Oh well, at least I have Shadow of the Demon Lord so I don't need any other fantasy games.
>>46398813
>I absolutely adore 4e for dungeon crawls.
>I have an ongoing megadungeon in it.
>But for more narratively focused campaigns, it starts to get in the way of "getting on with it".
I've found the opposite to be true in my games: when I want mindless dungeon crawls, I do 3rd E6, or 5e, but when I want a game that feels like a fantasy novel in which the PC's are the protagonists, I go to 4e.
>>46397674
What are your favorite tricks?
Frost Cheese is great. Entire party of white walkers pretty much.
>>46406541
Radiant mafias are where it's at
>>46406643
Agreed.
I'm also fond of fighters with flails. Dragging Flail + Footwork Lure is pretty damned great.
Other cool tricks:
Fey-Charging
Sub-zero fighting
Polearm Cheese
Crit-fishing
>>46399485
>4e has watertight design, which is actually a problem if you think about it.
I've thought about it, and I don't see how that's a problem. I'll take the games that do one thing well over any of the millions of games that don't know what they're trying to do and do everything poorly.
>>46406175
See, where my issue comes from is that in other editions we can just kinda run combat fast and loose, using vague positioning in order to get it done fast.
You literally CAN'T do that in 4e because everything is measured in squares.
This means combat takes longer.
And when combat isn't the primary focus of the game, you really don't want it eating up half the session.
>>46406916
>Sub-zero fighting
I know all of the others, but not familiar with this one.
Also polearm shenanigans are the best. Put someone with polearm momentum and everyone else in the party with that one feat that adds +5 damage against prone opponents.
>>46407714
>You literally CAN'T do that in 4e because everything is measured in squares.
other editions measure everything in 5 foot intervals, which translate to 1 square in 4e jargon.
That's all it is, terminology.
>>46405255
Speaking of basement project heartbreakers, I'm actually working on a set of rules to modify 4e. I want to make the scaling work without magic items, feats and stat bumps, and get rid of stats in combat, since they've partially done that anyway.
I'm currently stumped on initiative. Does anyone know how it scales monster side? I also don't want to give all PCs the same initiative bonus, but doing it by class seems too fiddly. One option I had in mind was to give each power source and/or role a different base initiative, but I'm not sure what the numbers should be.
Another choice would be to just get rid of it as it currently stands and do some alternative for turn orders.
>>46407940
it just goes forever
monster initiative quickly gets out of control
I'm pretty sure no one knew how it was supposed to go.
>>46407772
>Sub-zero fighting
Characters that can continue fighting even when their hit point total is 0 or less.
Revenants, warforged, etc.
>>46407940
Glad to hear it!
I'm working on a 4E hack myself. Maybe we can compare notes?
As for initiative, have you considered dropping initiative rolls altogether and looking for some kind of alternative?
>>46407940
> Another choice would be to just get rid of it as it currently stands and do some alternative for turn orders.
I threw turn order out entirely for mine, and it's actually great.
Initiative roll:
- Everyone can try to use one of their skills to try to get a drop on the other party.
- A representative from each party can use one of their skills to oppose that.
- Everyone who beat the representative has surprise.
- Whichever side has more surprise has initiative. (Ties go to the players.)
(Note: I'm vague on the skills because my system has no fixed skill names. In 4E it would be Stealth vs Notice though.)
Turns:
- Everyone in the party with initiative goes, in whatever order they like.
- Everyone in the other party goes, in whatever order they like.
- During the first round, only people with surprise get to go: afterwards, everyone.
Players talk among themselves and figure out their turns, which is fast and keeps everyone engaged. The GM just moves all the monsters at once, which is really easy and super fast.
>>46406541
I love some radiant mafias bc it's so indicative of 4e's Teamwork-Oriented gameplay. AD&D challenged the player, 3.PF challenged the character, 4e challenged the party.
On an individual level though I loved my pal/sorc ranged defender. Shoot holy fire at my foes and challenge them from behind the ranger. Watch the enemies fuck themselves either eating my Divine Challenge damage, eating the ranger's AoOs, or sulk about doing nothing.
Similarly, my friend's wizard|swordmage was pretty mean; anything that can force an enemy to attack helps my above paladin's damage, especially if they attack themselves or another enemy.
Honourable mention goes to my Marauder ranger archer for a oneshot. Shoot enemies in the face pointblank, dodge the AoO with -10 (-4 marauder feature, -4 battle caster defence, -2 mark), and then instigate the party defender's mark punishment.
>>46397674
It was alright. I don't approve of the powers-and-feats format (you could probably come up with a point-buy system that covers 99% of the options in a fraction of the page count), but it had lots of good ideas that I'm sad to see cut from 5E.
By the way, what's that cover from, a beta version? My PHB doesn't look like that.
>>46407832
Buddy, this is 4chan. Don't be reasonable.
>>46408245
I don't have anything proper written down yet. It's mostly based on replacing all instances of Stats in powers with a static bonus, like making all attack bonuses 4+level. AC becomes 14, 15, ... +level depending on the classes proficiencies, regardless of what they're wearing.
I'm mostly using that scaling to be able to use the original monsters without problems.
>>46408307
I'm in favour of side based initiative as well, I'm just wondering what to give the PCs as an initial bonus instead of Dexterity. A skill based system would make it scale pretty much to half level, though that's close to the original dex check.
>>46397674
4e would have been a lot better if it wasn't an edition of D&D.
Which isn't me saying "oh, it's too different, it doesn't count"--I mean the D&D trappings it has drag the game down in a big, big way.
I don't have a lot of love for 4e per se, but I love Gamma World 7e and I think 4e Essentials should have built things in that fashion instead of being what it was.
Or, take 4e's mechanics, replace classes with a Gamma World-like template system, and have progression be broken down sort of like a universal system--maybe replacing feat trees with power trees. "To qualify for this power you need [other power], *or* have one of these keywords", which you could get from an origin element (a race or class template).
>>46409608
4E spends a couple pages defining and making use of the six D&D ability scores, and then has to spend an entire system subverting that to get everything to work out right. It would have been a lot simpler if it just cut them entirely. Ability scores are almost only used indirectly in D&D - you can just make the base skill or attack bonus higher instead.
I think that's the worst of the things they had to do because it's D&D. But I get the impression that the system was put through a lot of bullshit constraints, not just the "has to be D&D" one, and it does show in places. It looks like they were under too much of a time crunch and had to fit in spaces for corporate cash grabs.
The math would have been right the first time if they had more time, and I think the initial classes would have explored more daring spaces. They had good designers, after all. But they had to stretch everything to 30 levels in a hurry while leaving easy room to slot in more content at a blistering pace, too.
And a corporate culture of "arbitrary heads will roll if this isn't impossibly successful."
>>46397958
In theory, yes.
Unfortunately, Red Box fucked up a bunch of stuff and made it really confusing for new players once you finished the built in adventure
>>46399485
>the problem is that if you don't want to play it that way, there's really no easy way of changing it.
So what?
D&D has always been shit for anything but murderhoboing, aside maybe from first and second edition.
>>46407714
I didn't know my Vampire books required me to use a mat because the distances for combat interactions were actually defined.
>>46409775
It really did have a few confusing aspects.
But I mostly liked it.
Should have had a pamphlet with basic rules instead of requiring you to sift through the example adventure.
Maybe even use a GM screen for that purpose.
>>46409608
While I don't agree with your idea, and think 4e is actually the best edition of (WotC-)D&D, having a sort of "4e-lite" based on GW would still be awesome. Possibly with a tad less randomness and slapstick, but being able to make a character by bashing together two templates AND functioning passably as a combat-heavy game is a very interesting prospect.
>>46399485
Bullshit. 4e' style is "adventuring adventurers who adventure", which is still pretty wide to allow for different kinds of games. The out of combat part, and the addition of actual, working subsystems for running scenes, allowed me to run exactly the kind of story-heavy games that I wanted to play. Of course it's not a perfect fit for everything ever, but that is the norm with most games that aren't generic systems (and also for many that are); it'0s the d20 wave that left people thinking that you can run anything in D&D.
>>46409255
>>46407940
Check Strike!
It's a kind of 4e retroclone, with as much stripped away as possible.
>>46407832
Terminology is important in an RPG, to me at least. Functionally, you can mostly convert everything in 4e to being measured in feet (except the many powers that revolve around walls and things like swapping position), but it changes the feel by having it in squares and not feet. One is a real measure of distance, the other is a term for playing a game on a board.
>>46410714
>but it changes the feel by having it in squares and not feet
So what, niggerchucklefuck?
I have to convert to metric from your fucking obnoxious ugga bunga measurement system.
And yet you don't see me crying that it destroys the game to do some simple conversation.
Go kill yourself and fuck a fire.
>>46398813
>For example, what if I want to play without a battle mat (as I have done and continue to do in every other edition)?
>What if I want to be a lazy GM who puts zero thought into his encounters?
>>46397674
me too
best DnD edition so far
shame that it is the only one without any computer games
>>46410714
>(except the many powers that revolve around walls and things like swapping position)
I don't understand. You mean effects that trigger when adjacent to things? 4e just calls that being adjacent; it doesn't even use it's measurement system there. Personally I think that's even better for theatre of the mind gameplay than 5e's "being within 5ft of"
>>46410714
If anything, 4e squares are a lot better than 3.5 and 5 "we measure everything in standard increments but don't call it squares". Because, if it's true that the assumption is the same, it's trivially easy to change the value of a square to, say, 1 m for non-imperial users, or bigger scales for abstract battles or kaiju skirmishes.
>>46416345
I'd be fine with just using "yards" or "meters" instead of 5 foot increments. Converting between yards and meters by pretending they're the same length is plenty accurate when we're talking about imaginary worlds. And once your units are the same as the size of your squares, everything is easy.
Or you could use old timey units like cubits, paces, and fathoms. It's a shame fathoms have such a nautical connotation, since they're such a handy size for combat grids.
>>46410629
Yeah, but Strike also literally didn't have an editor. It's a train wreck.
>>46419222
I asked the writer why things like kits and classes weren't in any kind of order.
His answer for classes was that the simpler 'more traditional' mechanically classes came first, so that's why Necromancer comes first, followed by Duelist, and then the weirder ones that change things up like Monk and Shapeshifter come after.
For kits, he said it was mainly a layout thing to keep similar layouts on the same page.
I'm not a fan of the response - it would've been easier to just take the 13th Age route of "hey, the necromancer and duelist are the most traditional classes, if you're learning the game look at those first" and then keep it in alphabetical order.
>>46405508
Combat expertise. And your argument is specious. There is nothing in 4e that you didnt need to do in older editions if you wanted to go matless. The only difference is that you have to keep the 1 square = 5ft math in mind. Which you already had to do in every other generation anyways.
Still need to figure out who gets hit by an AOE. Still need to remember where persistent effects are. Still need to figure out who is threatening a person who wants to provoke. Still need to figure out how far people can move over varied terrain.
If you want to make a joke criticism of 4e, you could at least start with essentials and go from there.
>>46419222
>>46419793
Eh, I didn't have too much of a problem with it, personally.
Like, it's pretty bad and especially kits are terrible (why do an ordered list? Why?), but I didn't find the classes being out of alphabetical order bad. When we were making characters I just printed out each individual class and had the player circle in his selection so he knew what he has.
>>46416520
It's interesting to not that Star Wars Saga, which is very close to 4e, uses squares equal to 1 m - apparently metres are fine in space, but not in fantasy.
>>46420836
Well yeah. Sometimes you need to use different names for different genres. That's most of why psionics exist.
>>46409255
I'm looking forward to seeing it when its done. :)
May I get your thoughts on something?
I'm trying to design 12 classes for my own 4E/Gamma World hack. These classes aren't directly based on the ones found in normal 4E D&D; I'm not going to rewrite the fighter, rogue, and wizard.
Instead, I want each of my classes to be based on a popular trick or tactic from 4E. So far I've got classes based around each of the following gimmicks:
>Polearm Shenanigans
>Grappling
>Permafrost/Radiant Mafia
>FeyCharging
I want to design classes based around...
>Constant Concealment
>Sub-zero fighting
What are some other tricks I should build classes around?
>>46420069
I just feel that there are a lot of powers and classes that require the accuracy of a board. Whereas in other editions I can just ignore specific locations and estimate aoe. But in 4e, if I did that the warlord and probably a few others would be very sad.
But also, I don't play any dnd because they all require a mat or suck. 4e is just my favorite but still doesn't fit my style.
>>46423811
Admittedly, 4e has a lot of repositioning powers, but then, you could also just approximate those as much as you can approximate anything else.
>>46408702
Charisma classed all seem to hybridize so well. Bardaladins. Bardlocks. Palalocks. Bardorcerers. Etc.
>Prince of Genies Paragon Path, from Heroes of the Elemental Chaos
>Your life took a turn for the strange when you discovered a minor treasure containing an elemental spirit. The being trapped inside promised you much in exchange for its freedom, offering anything in its power to grant. Freeing the spirit is not so easy, since potent wards keep it imprisoned. So you came to an arrangement with it. You will search for a way to free it, and it will help you complete your quests.
This seems like it'd be really fun to play out. It seems pretty potent, too, lots of utility and ability refreshing powers that work with nigh any class.
>>46427025
I have heard good things about that book. I hear it has great monk options and some cool themes.
>>46426517
Paladins hybridize well with everything thanks to their marking method. Locks and sorcs have the typical half-striker issue of not getting full output on all their powers. Never really came across a sorcerer hybrid I liked.
That said, I had a baller time with a Bard|Barbarian dragonborn shouting thunder at people
>>46426013
You probably could, it just doesn't feel fair to the game and the good balance it has. I'm not criticizing or even pointing out flaws in the game, just saying it scratches a different kind of itch I currently don't have and I don't need it right now since I have no reason for it. If I am ever in the mood for a game using a mat, or showing rpgs to someone who insists on playing a game with "Dungeons and Dragons" written on the cover, I will use 4e, no contest.
What other classes hybridize well? I understand wizards do okay as they are not so dependant on class features ad much as spells.
>>46423416
I've seen your posts in another thread, but let me ask you this: why are going with this approach?
Basing "classes" around charop tricks instead of well-known archetypes might be fun in game, but it strikes me as a design choice that will make the game inaccessible and thematically strange.
>>46430654
Clerics are a big one with battle cleric lore. Many of the essentials classes are improved by hybriding as well.
