I smell an episode of Mythbusters brewing...
I am keen on seeing how they go about making magical fire.
Oh that and one of the team in a chainmail bikini... ;)
Please Kari and not Jamie.
Please Kari and not Jamie.Please Kari and not Jamie.
Thank you.
The two races are both descendants of fallen empires, and both I think are often found as travelers out in the world.The fallen empires business is some of the most troubling business with both races. It behooves DMs, if not pitching both races from his chronology (always an option) to either come up with some alternate origin story for them (equally an option) or to have to shoehorn in not only massive empires named Bael Turoth and Arkhosia, but to figure out where their capitals are/were, what they fell to, and who lives there now. Is there an Istanbul was Constantinople thing going, and Bael Turath and Arkhosia now known as Waterdeep and Saltmarsh? And what do these races do when they're not being nobles or persecuted outcasts?
Depends somewhat on when they fell. Each race can have a mythology about a Fallen Empire but no real hard core knowledge on where the Empire was or when it fell except that it fell a long time ago. In this instance the DM does not really have to work out the details unless he chooses to explore this area of his campaign worlds mythology in some adventures because the players in question and everyone else don't know the answers anyway.
|
I smell an episode of Mythbusters brewing...
I am keen on seeing how they go about making magical fire.
Oh that and one of the team in a chainmail bikini... ;)
Please Kari and not Jamie.
Please Kari and not Jamie.
Please Kari and not Jamie.
Thank you.
Hmmmmm'
Kari in a chainmail bikini....Kari in a Princess Leia slave bikini....
Kari in a regular bikini....
Kari in a exploding bikini....
Kari byron and Morgan Webb in bikinis oil wrestling....
Yum yum yummy.
...Morgan Webb...
I came as soon as I heard.
...Morgan Webb...I came as soon as I heard.
Eeeeuuuggghh!:)
I hope you cleaned up afterwards ;)
Where's vomit guy when you need him..
I smell an episode of Mythbusters brewing...
I am keen on seeing how they go about making magical fire.
Oh that and one of the team in a chainmail bikini... ;)
Please Kari and not Jamie.
Please Kari and not Jamie.
Please Kari and not Jamie.
Thank you.
Ok then. Kari and Jamie in chainmail bikinis. :P
Rules Question. Let's say the heroes are fighting a hydra and the creature has multiple attacks per round. This particular hydra's bites causes 10 points ongoing poison damage. Does the ongoing poison damage stack? ie. if a character is hit by 3 out of the creature's 6 attacks will the PC be subject to 30 points of ongoing damage, and will the character have to make three separate saves at the end of his turn to loose the ongoing damage?
Rules Question. Let's say the heroes are fighting a hydra and the creature has multiple attacks per round. This particular hydra's bites causes 10 points ongoing poison damage. Does the ongoing poison damage stack? ie. if a character is hit by 3 out of the creature's 6 attacks will the PC be subject to 30 points of ongoing damage, and will the character have to make three separate saves at the end of his turn to loose the ongoing damage?
The character will take only 10 points of poison damage every round, as the different instances don't stack. However, he will have to save 3 times at the end of his turn.
I know you could justify it, but it seems a little unnecessary. :)
Rules Question. Let's say the heroes are fighting a hydra and the creature has multiple attacks per round. This particular hydra's bites causes 10 points ongoing poison damage. Does the ongoing poison damage stack? ie. if a character is hit by 3 out of the creature's 6 attacks will the PC be subject to 30 points of ongoing damage, and will the character have to make three separate saves at the end of his turn to loose the ongoing damage?The character will take only 10 points of poison damage every round, as the different instances don't stack. However, he will have to save 3 times at the end of his turn.
** spoiler omitted **
I think it's generally pretty important to let the removal of the effects stack like they're supposed to. The net effect is that the ongoing damage ends up lasting a little longer than it would if the character was only under one effect (but not three times as long, or whatever). But there should be some reason for the monster to continue attacking a character suffering from an ongoing effect - ruling that they don't stack at all makes it a lot less useful to continue hammering a creature with ongoing effects.
I think it's generally pretty important to let the removal of the effects stack like they're supposed to. The net effect is that the ongoing damage ends up lasting a little longer than it would if the character was only under one effect (but not three times as long, or whatever). But there should be some reason for the monster to continue attacking a character suffering from an ongoing effect - ruling that they don't stack at all makes it a lot less useful to continue hammering a creature with ongoing effects.
I guess it depends on the situation. Normally, I would agree with you; but the one time I actually saw this in play (as the DM), it seemed like overkill. I don't mind killing a PC, but I'd like them to stick around for enough of the fight to feel like they contributed something...usually... :)
You only make one size per type of ongoing damage. If you are hit by two attacks that deal ongoing damage of the same type, only one applies - you don't stack multiple 'instances' to save against.
I'm pretty sure it's been clarified somewhere that you still need to save out of all effects you're under, but I can't for the life of me find the ruling. If it turns out that you're correct that's something I probably need to be aware of. ;P
I prefer to roleplay without miniatures or battlemats. How difficult is it to houserule away miniature positioning without breaking the balance of the classes, combat or other rule subsystems?
|
Pretty much our experience (and why my main D&D group reverted to 3.5E/pfPRG) of not using battle mats. By not using the battle mat you really negate or at least make very difficult the use of virtually all the "shift/slide/move" abilities/powers of all classes. 4E was designed with the idea that miniatures would be utilized and as such is inherent in the game mechanics. I have said before and will state again, perhaps the most significant disappointment I have with 4E. Before the same rebuttals start again, I know I should live in the 21st century, 4E IS D&D now. I get it. Doesn't make it any less disappointing from my perspective.
S.
I prefer to roleplay without miniatures or battlemats. How difficult is it to houserule away miniature positioning without breaking the balance of the classes, combat or other rule subsystems?
Its pretty clear that 4E was made with miniatures in mind. That said there are some that seem to get by without them and like the system - I'm thinking Grim Cleaver here. Others seem to have much more difficulty in this area.
If you did not play with miniatures in 3.5 then that serves as a baseline. It seems clear that 4E makes miniature gaming even more important by having more instances where things are moving around on the battle map. Hence I think if you found that you could do 3.5 without miniatures but it was sometimes a tough stretch then probably the rules of tactical combat in 4E will push this past the point where its even possible anymore. On the other hand if you and your group found running 3.5 a breeze without miniatures then, presumably, you'll find the extra complexity being added by the shifts and slides fairly easy to handle.
If you are running a dnd game that features very little in the way of combat then you could easily get away without a battlemat and minis. However, if you plan to have a lot of combat in the game I would think you'd want one. However, if you drew maps on regular graph paper and used pencil to write letters to mark locations of various critters on you map, you could still do it, but I think to run 4E combat effectively you need some kind of visual aid. Miniatures are certainly not essential, any kind of marker (coins, tokens etc...) would work fine.
Just out of curiosity what is the aversion to battle mats? Is it the space at the table issue or more of a style of play thing? I didn't used to use them, but now I do and I love them and wouldn't go back (at least not with dnd). Still, even before I used them I always had maps of all the locations the characters visited done on paper, and I would mark on them where they were with pencil (I did this all the time with games like Shadowrun). The only sort of game where I ever felt comfortable with not using a gridded map was Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia, but I find those games have a much different feel and style of play than dnd. 3E and 4E are both pretty tactical games (4E even more so), so if that isn't your play style there are probably other rpgs that would be better suited to your interests.
|
|
Just out of curiosity what is the aversion to battle mats? Is it the space at the table issue or more of a style of play thing?
3E and 4E are both pretty tactical games (4E even more so), so if that isn't your play style there are probably other rpgs that would be better suited to your interests.
Style I would say, and perhaps dogma from the way historically we roleplayed. Also I would say added time spent for a combat setting up the map etc, which we see as more of a hassle than anything else. Again this may in part be due to unfamiliarity with the 4E rules, but combat seemed to take forever - I would think some of this is due to the hit point bloat of players and monsters in 4E.
I think you are completely correct in that it really depends on the type of game you play.
We found that 3E wasn't really an issue without a map board and miniatures as in a way the "miniatures game" was tacked onto what were the same basic rule setup dating back to Basic D&D. 4E it is integral, and no real easy way around that - not a flaw a feature, as they say. I like D&D and will continue to play for sure, but I really do think it more likely that pfRPG will allows us to continue playing in our out dated style of roleplaying.
S.
|
|
In every game I have ever played we have always used a map of some kind, except for minds Eye Theater. Using a map enables players to think tacitly as a group and also guarantees that all players have the same idea of what the room/dungeon/threat looks like. I'm with a previous poster and have to ask what people have against using maps in their games.
It is possible to play 4e without a map but a lot of the special abilities or side effects of powers would have to be wholly arbitrated by the DM, using a map just makes play go smoother.
I do agree that there are cons to a battle mat. For instance they can be a pain in the ass to lug around, they take up space at the table, and they take time to draw out. However, I do own several battlemats, and if I know that there is a certain location the characters will in all probability visit and have a fight in, I try to draw it out ahead of time. Another option is the dungeon tiles. I've heard of dms bagging up the tiles needed to make a certain room and having all the minis they need to go with them in the bag along with stat cards etc... I can't quite be bothered to be that organized, but I could see it being handy. That being said, it is also one of the things that I find a little off putting about the new 4E adventures (ie. Keep on Shadowfell etc...). They are all well organized and easy to use, but they feel as though they are designed so that the dm can just pull out his next encounter bag, build his next little set of dungeon rooms, plop on his next set of monster minis, run his next fight and repeat. In effort to make the game easy to run and create interesting tactical encounters the element of telling a story seems to have been lost, and the adventures feel more hack and slash than ever (of course since my a few of my players love hack n slash it probably wouldn't be an issue if I ran one these adventures). It also doesn't mean that it's a bad system or you can't have a good story with the system, but I do agree that it has a different feel to it- one that I'm not yet fully comfortable with even though there are a lot of things I like about the new game. Another thing that bugs me is the lack of art in those adventures. Now the pages are all used up by little maps that show where the monsters you are inevitably going to kill should begin. I miss the images that stir my imagination- sure they have some in a separate section at the back, but it's not the same.
Not exactly. There is some good fluff out there. I just finished reading some of the manual of the planes, and it had plenty of good fluff that was inspiring. In fact, I think I prefer the new cosmology to the old one. I look forward to the release of true 4E campaign setting that incorporates all the fluff that has been released thus far. There is also plenty of good fluff to be found in some of the dragon articles, but overall it can't compete with the fluff paizo puts out.
4e is fluff free. :(
That being said, it is also one of the things that I find a little off putting about the new 4E adventures (ie. Keep on Shadowfell etc...). They are all well organized and easy to use, but they feel as though they are designed so that the dm can just pull out his next encounter bag, build his next little set of dungeon rooms, plop on his next set of monster minis, run his next fight and repeat. In effort to make the game easy to run and create interesting tactical encounters the element of telling a story seems to have been lost, and the adventures feel more hack and slash than ever (of course since my a few of my players love hack n slash it probably wouldn't be an issue if I ran one these adventures). It also doesn't mean that it's a bad system or you can't have a good story with the system, but I do agree that it has a different feel to it- one that I'm not yet fully comfortable with even though there are a lot of things I like about the new game. Another thing that bugs me is the lack of art in those adventures. Now the pages are all used up by little maps that show where the monsters you are inevitably going to kill should begin. I miss the images that stir my imagination- sure they have some in a separate section at the back, but it's not the same.
Possibly why Paizo conversions are popular. That said I think there is room for adventures that are just as you described them - basically insular and meant to provide some pretty good gaming for 3 1/2 hours on Tuesday night but not meant to really be to much of a drain on anyones time. However a lot of people would like to see some much more reactive adventures. More background, more role playing and less of a linier feel. The XP system for designing balanced encounters is great - but it shares with the CR system the problem that the bad guys can't be very dynamic or your going to totally overwhelm your party.
That said for DMs that are looking to build more dynamism into their adventure you can combat the five minute workday and the lack of Dynamism fairly well by making the encounters to weak for the players CR but allow the monsters to react by bunching up if they figure out whats going on and by putting together a better defence if the party leaves and comes back.
I prefer to roleplay without miniatures or battlemats. How difficult is it to houserule away miniature positioning without breaking the balance of the classes, combat or other rule subsystems?
I work in a Gamestore and council people on a daily basis.
My 5-cents are, if you don't like to use miniatures then 4E is NOT for you.Like others have said, the concept of minis is worked thoroughly into the rules, and from my perspective it is an integral part of 4E. Playing without them would be like... like playing 3.0-3.5 without dice (I am sure it can be done, I just don't want to be there while it is).
No amount of houseruling will fix this...
You could use something other than minis, if its the cost you worry about. But you will need a mat or something similar and some kind of gaming pieces.
Hope that helps.
I would like some clarification to make sure I'm not reading this wrong or missing something. My character wields two weapons, a short sword and a longsword, has the paragon feat Heavy Blade Opportunity (Player's Handbook), and has the Level 1 At-Will Ranger power Twin Strike* (Player's Handbook). Can I use Twin Strike as an opportunity attack even though both weapons are not heavy blades?
Edit: *It is actually Level 1 At-Will Fighter power Dual Strike (Martial Power), but they are similar enough in phrasing that I didn't want to add the issue of referencing several books with the question.
I would like to reduce a monster's defenses in order to allow the PCs to hit more often but I would also like to increase its HP so it lasts as long in combat as it normally would. Any suggestions on a good reduce defenses/increase HP ratio? Thank you.
I'd look at monsters with the Brute role. They have lowered defenses and higher hit points compared to other monsters of their level. I'd use them as a guideline for adjusting defenses and hit points.
|
|
I would like to reduce a monster's defenses in order to allow the PCs to hit more often but I would also like to increase its HP so it lasts as long in combat as it normally would. Any suggestions on a good reduce defenses/increase HP ratio? Thank you.
I would suggest that you consider decreasing DEF's but rather than increasing hp's which would have the effect making each kill seem just as long - but with more hitting. Rather increase the numbers of critters in the encounter. They will get hit more often die faster and then the PC's get the satisfaction of killing something but the encounter should take about the same amount of time.
I suggest this because I get the impression that you don't have issue with the time an encounter takes but rather the mindless "you miss, you miss again". But just increasing hp's will result in just as boring "you hit!" then they ask "is it dead yet?!".
How much to decrease the DEF's by isn't too hard. Decide how "easy" you want the encounter to be. Let's say "easy", "medium", and "hard". Look at the bonuses of either the best, middle or worst attack roll for a particular DEF and then ask how often (on average) should the PC's be hitting. Adjust the DEF so the average chance of hitting is what you want it to be.
4th Ed. has added a whole mess of number combination's into its mechanics and some just don't quite work yet. You are not only in house-ruling combat encounters to make them more playable. This is just a nature of the beast when designing a new game system, if it wasn't we wouldn't need errata or further editions would we?
Luck with you game,
S.
I would also suggest leveling the monsters down as per the DMG and then include more of them to keep the encounter at the same level.
Have they produced 4E rules for Empire Building and Campaign Setting development yet?
Apart from the guidelines in the DMG, then no they havent. But at the end of the day, do they really need to? Most of that kind of imformation is generalistic and system independant and doesnt really require a "4e" version. I still use the info out of Gary Gygaxs World Builder series, but mostly (and im sure like many DMs) I just make sh*t up that I think is cool.
Have they produced 4E rules for Empire Building and Campaign Setting development yet?
It's possible that they will cover world building in the DMG 2, but that's pure and unsupported speculation on my part.
I would like some clarification to make sure I'm not reading this wrong or missing something. My character wields two weapons, a short sword and a longsword, has the paragon feat Heavy Blade Opportunity (Player's Handbook), and has the Level 1 At-Will Ranger power Twin Strike* (Player's Handbook). Can I use Twin Strike as an opportunity attack even though both weapons are not heavy blades?
Edit: *It is actually Level 1 At-Will Fighter power Dual Strike (Martial Power), but they are similar enough in phrasing that I didn't want to add the issue of referencing several books with the question.
I would probably allow it since you are using the heavy blade to make the opportunity attack in the first place, and it is part of the at-will power as well.
|
|
I am still very new to 4E and all. I have played every edition before and so I come to 4E with that knowledge. I also play other RPG games as well.
My questions are:
Warforged no longer have natural armor class as per 3E. Does this mean they can wear suits of armor?
Is there a way for non-rangers to gain a animal companion?
In 3E if you had a reach weapon and someone was in the next square to you you could not attack them. Many characters then decided to wear spiked gauntlets to be able to smack people that got too close that prevented them from taking a 5 foot step in order to allow for use of the reach weapon. Is this still the case for reach weapons in 4E?
Under the RAW a non-spiked shield cannot be used as a melee weapon?
It looks to be that with implements of rod, wand, staff, orb and tome you have to be holding the object to use it. Is that the same for holy symbol and totem?
It looks to be that with implements of rod, wand, staff, orb and tome you have to be holding the object to use it. Is that the same for holy symbol and totem?
Matthew answered this pretty thoroughly, but I'd just like to add that you can always use implement powers even if you aren't wielding an implement. You just won't gain any magical bonuses the implement might have.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I, too, am a relative newcomer to 4e (though I've been playing D&D since 1990) and have so far only created one character. My next character (one that I will be playing this upcoming weekend) is a Bard from the PHB2. Since this campaign is starting at level 4, I was told to level the character appropriately and to choose a 3rd, 4th, and 5th level magic item for my equipment.
The first magic item type that caught my eye was, of course, the Songblade. Specifically, the Harsh Songblade +1 from the PHB2. It's a level 3 item that, if my understanding is correct, serves as both a weapon AND an implement for bards. This would allow me to use a longsword (Songblade) and shield without needing to switch back and forth from my sword to a wand when I wanted to switch from a ranged implement power to a melee weapon power (yes, I know, I shouldn't be in melee to begin with, but some of the melee powers are very handy).
My question is twofold, however:
1.) Is my understanding correct? When using the Songblade as either a melee weapon OR an implement, may I add the +1 enhancement bonus to the attack/damage rolls? Also, I assume the +3 longsword proficiency bonus only applies to weapon attacks and would therefore have no effect on my ranged powers even though I'd be using the longsword AS an implement?
2.) Are there any other Songblades available (in that level range of 3-5) via other book sources? The Harsh one is okay, but it's daily power specifically pertains to thunder-based powers, of which I only have one. I was hoping there were a few other options out there somewhere.
Feedback much appreciated. Thank you.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Now, how it interacts with a lot of specific feats and abilities (weapon focus, etc) is a lot more complicated, and tends to vary on a case by case basis. But those should only really come up when dealing with very specific cases.
I did take Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blades) under the advisement that +hit bonuses are very important in 4e. Should I have taken Implement Expertise (songblade) instead? Would that feat only apply to the songblade being used as an implement instead of a melee weapon? It seems to me that, if I'm getting the proficiency bonus for melee attacks, it might be better to get Implement Expertise for the +hit bonus on ranged attacks. Does that seem valid/reasonable?