Greetings and welcome to Fourth Edition.
Current List of Players:
Please make 1st level characters with the following information in mind:
The region you are in is the Duchy of Niebold, in the kingdom of Lobraan. The ruler of the duchy is Duke Garilund Durdigan, who lives in a keep atop the large hill in the center of town. Niebold is mostly filled with forests, and is inhabited mainly by humans. However, there's a sizable population of elves and shifters, and the mushroom-like myconians dwell deep within the forest. Sometimes the mushroom men come to Hawk Hill to trade, but rarely do they stay for long. The other PHB races are found in Hawk Hill, but are somewhat rare... especially tieflings and dragonborn. There is a dwarven merchant company operating in Hawk Hill (run by the Klondurain clan, who have a seat on the town council), and halflings seem to run some of the more popular businesses (including the store called Goldenfoot's and the popular--if rowdy--tavern named the Spinning Coin).
About 30 miles south of Hawk Hill, on the shore of the Lake of Lost Whispers, lies the small fishing village of Marenta. Meanwhile, there's two settlements to the north of Hawk Hill: The elf village of Barrale (located a ways into the Velias Wood) and the village of Karin (comprised mostly of humans and shifters).
Popular religions of the region include the Unbroken Circle (Avandra, Corellon, Melora, and Sehanine) and the Church of the Light (Bahamut and Pelor). There's a temple for each in Hawk Hill.
Rumor has it that a large criminal organization called the Raven Syndicate operates in Hawk Hill, but there's been no concrete evidence of their existence.
Count me in. I'll wait a little before choosing a race/class since I'm flexible and would like others to have their first choice. How many players are you looking for?
I may be interested... curious about playtesting the 4e rules.
I didn't know what a Myconian was, so I googled it. Here's the info if anyone else wants to have a look. It's worth doing that just for the pic!
fyi it's a pdf
Yeah, I love the myconians.. Whoever did that PDF is awesome. In any case, the two non-PHB races you can be are shifters (both types) and myconians.
Count me in as well, I'm still toying around with what type I want to play but I should have something put together soon.
Cool. Take your time, everyone. Being a new system and all, it's good to just read through everything and find something that clicks.
Is there any specific connection to all of us yet, or will we come up with that after we roll our characters?
Do you have a particular stat generation method in mind?
Count me in too!! I'll wait for more CG info before deciding my class, but I will be a half elf.
btw anyone know of any pdf's like the one for the myconians but for shifters?
Stat Generation is the point buy method found in the PHB.
You start with 100 gold.
As for connections between characters, let's wait to find out what everyone's characters will be. After that, I'll help work out a backround for the character and possible ways to know each other.
Still accepting players? I count 4 before me, but I'm not necessarily good at math . . .
I'm traveling much of tomorrow (Friday), so I may be a little slow.
How many people are in so far. If there's room, I'll go for it.
I could take all 7 of you, really. It will make for some big battles, but 4E gives plenty of info on scaling up the game for more people. However, I'll think the cut off will be at 7. So, any more than that will be wait-listed.
The list of players currently (in order of appearance):
Joventus
TwiceBorn
Tieren
Amelia
Pat O' The Ninth Power
Rambling Scribe
FabesMinis
Okay! Just ask if you require more info to create your character.
I'm going with either ranger or warlock, still debating which one. If someone else wants to play one of the classes, I'll take the other one happily enough.
Shifters are in the back of the MM as a playable race.
Eladrin for me. Mayhap fey-pact warlock. :D
Good to see the party forming up a bit. I guess put me down as an Eladrin Rogue for now, though I may switch to a Fighter if no one else makes one.
How do you plan to handle combat rounds with 7 PCs? Are we going to wait for each person to post at their turn in initiative? Does it matter much in 4E if PCs act slightly out of order? Some of the powers look kind of tricky to coordinate on PbP, like the Rogue power that lets you switch places with an ally...
"Verily, comrade mine, the choices a 4E character must make are multifarious. I envy not the DM."
In other words, we should have a clear ruling on it before we start. Initiative order would make sense but it slows PbP down if someone can't post. On the other hand it will make combat slightly messier as we're trying to get used to a new system if we all post at once.
4E might get complicated if we have everyone deciding their actions all at once, and if we go in true initiative order it will take a really long time. Thus, we'll do something in the middle.
We'll probably go through a round in chunks. Which is to say, if A, B, and C go before the bad guys, they all post their actions, not necessarily in order. Then the bad guy goes, and the round comes to the next chunk of PCs.
I would ask that you tell me in the discussion thread if you will be gone for an extended amount of time so I can put your character on DM control or have him/her withdraw from the scene for a while.
This is my proposed character, the stats are in his profile. Let me know if you see any errors or have any questions.
Other players note that I have a few bonuses that apply to you!
Looks like we're heavy on people wanting to play strikers, and have one leader. I guess I'll step up for Wizard, then. Race TBD.
Just a heads up that while I am a leader, I am not Charisma guy.
4E might get complicated if we have everyone deciding their actions all at once, and if we go in true initiative order it will take a really long time. Thus, we'll do something in the middle.
We'll probably go through a round in chunks. Which is to say, if A, B, and C go before the bad guys, they all post their actions, not necessarily in order. Then the bad guy goes, and the round comes to the next chunk of PCs.
I would ask that you tell me in the discussion thread if you will be gone for an extended amount of time so I can put your character on DM control or have him/her withdraw from the scene for a while.
Sounds good. I'm a little intimidated by the idea of us having a 7-PC combat, what with the party bonuses, markers, roles, etc. Should be fun :)
Just a heads up that while I am a leader, I am not Charisma guy.
As far as I can tell, in 4E "leader" means buffer/healer.
I've decided not to go with Ranger or Warlock and will instead be a Paladin of Melora, though I don't picture her in heavy armor, as I really don't think that meshes with a sea goddess :)
I'll be stat working tommorow, and if anyone wants to chat about meshing backgrounds, feel free to let me know.
I'm starting to lose track of things, so here's a recap of the party breakdown:
Jonventus: Eladrin Rogue
TwiceBorn: ??
Tieren: ??
Amelia: Half-Elf Paladin
Pat: Wizard
Rambling/Drogan: Human Warlord
Fabes/Arianwyn: Eladrin Warlock
I think I would like there to be a Fighter in the party, mostly cause I'm interested to see what they did with that class. So, if neither TwiceBorn or Tieren want to play one, I'll audible to a Fighter, probably Dragonborn. I'll also do that if one the T's want to play a Rogue.
As far as I can tell, in 4E "leader" means buffer/healer.
I hope we can use this Discussion thread to talk about the 4E mechanics as well as any ooc campaign stuff.
So far, I have to admit I'm 0 for 1. I think the "roles" are lame. They've added a word with no mechanics attached to it to supposedly simplify things. Is this simpler? As Pat points out, a "leader" is most likely a buffer/healer. But that's not really clear. And why is a wizard a "controller"? I don't think the word conveys any obvious clue to what a wizard contributes to the party. A good word for that might be "wizard" instead. Or arcanist. And does a party really need somebody capable of being a "striker"? A rogue used to fill the skill-monkey niche. He wasn't really counted on as the guy who would do massive damage to a single foe.
When creating a party, most d&d players know they need a healer and a fighter-type, especially at low levels. And that some sort of arcanist is a good idea, as is a someone who can scout, pick locks, disarm traps, and gather information. I guess they've avoided some problems by specifically saying that a ranger does not qualify as a warrior, but in most cases party composition takes care of itself. I don't think adding extra, poorly-chosen words to broad class definitions makes d&d any easier to explain to new players.
Anyway, I suppose this is a minor beef since it doesn't actually change the game in any meaningful way, at least that I know of. Just a silly thing to do imo.
As far as I can tell, in 4E "leader" means buffer/healer.I hope we can use this Discussion thread to talk about the 4E mechanics as well as any ooc campaign stuff.
So far, I have to admit I'm 0 for 1. I think the "roles" are lame. They've added a word with no mechanics attached to it to supposedly simplify things. Is this simpler? As Pat points out, a "leader" is most likely a buffer/healer. But that's not really clear. And why is a wizard a "controller"? I don't think the word conveys any obvious clue to what a wizard contributes to the party. A good word for that might be "wizard" instead. Or arcanist. And does a party really need somebody capable of being a "striker"? A rogue used to fill the skill-monkey niche. He wasn't really counted on as the guy who would do massive damage to a single foe.
When creating a party, most d&d players know they need a healer and a fighter-type, especially at low levels. And that some sort of arcanist is a good idea, as is a someone who can scout, pick locks, disarm traps, and gather information. I guess they've avoided some problems by specifically saying that a ranger does not qualify as a warrior, but in most cases party composition takes care of itself. I don't think adding extra, poorly-chosen words to broad class definitions makes d&d any easier to explain to new players.
Anyway, I suppose this is a minor beef since it doesn't actually change the game in any meaningful way, at least that I know of. Just a silly thing to do imo.
Yep, I was planning on using this thread for discussing rules and other OOC stuff.
As for the "roles", this is how I see it: the warlord and cleric are called leaders not because they're the actual leaders of the party, but that they give a lot of bonuses to their companions--leading the party into success in combat, or something... As such, their helpfulness isn't limited to healing, so they couldn't simply be called healers. As for wizards, their spells include a lot of movement impeding effects, which help them "control" the battlefield. They could slow down the oncoming foes so the ranger can take em out before they enter into melee. Rogues definitely are still the best at skills, but they no longer have a monopoly on the useful skills. Thus, their grouped with rangers and warlocks as a class that deals a lot of damage and is good at avoiding the enemies... in addition to being good at skills.
4E might get complicated if we have everyone deciding their actions all at once, and if we go in true initiative order it will take a really long time. Thus, we'll do something in the middle.
We'll probably go through a round in chunks. Which is to say, if A, B, and C go before the bad guys, they all post their actions, not necessarily in order. Then the bad guy goes, and the round comes to the next chunk of PCs.
I would ask that you tell me in the discussion thread if you will be gone for an extended amount of time so I can put your character on DM control or have him/her withdraw from the scene for a while.
Sounds good. I'm a little intimidated by the idea of us having a 7-PC combat, what with the party bonuses, markers, roles, etc. Should be fun :)
Yes... I'm contemplating various strategies to keep order, but only time will tell what will actually work. Despite the perceived difficulty, however, 7 PCs on a PBP will probably be easier than 7 in a real life game... At least in my experience.
They are a good way of grouping the components of a successful group together, especially for new players.
I'd be intrigued to see your dragonborn fighter, Jonventus.
I have to admit I'm not overly fond of the 'roles'. I'd have left them out myself, but it does look like it's not too hard to step outside them with the PHBs own power list and that will expans as WotC (and hopefully other companies) put out more product. I can see how it might help a totally brand new player as well to make a character that does what he or she envisions mentally.
What suprises me more than anything, though, is that there is not a second controller choice. I'd have found a way to add a ninth class (say, oh, Bard??? I mean bard with the way powers work on 4E screams controller to me, though I suspect that it will end up as a Leader), or altered one of the 3 striker classes to a controller. (I can see ranger or rogue in that role.)
But, honestly, when I was brainstorming for Ky, I totally ignored roles. I envisioned the character and then found the class I thought worked the best with what I had in mind. I think a lot of more experienced players will do things like that - or deliberately try and break roles to see how readily it can be done.
The cleric functions great as a controller, beyond its powers as a leader.
Beyond that, there's a few other classes that seem to stray beyond the edges of their defined role. The fighter seems to edge close to a striker, while the paladin is part leader. The archer ranger can fulfill a bit of a controller's role--specifically, dealing damage to multiple creatures. When the bard comes out, I'm sure it will be a leader with controller flavor, much like the cleric but with less focus on damaging foes.
I'm a bit late in signing up for this, so if you have anyone drop out, I'll be happy to just follow along the thread and step in from the bullpen if needed.
V
Contributor
|
I've been mostly ignoring the 'roles.' I don't think they are that useful, clear, or important. Nor do I think they are as restrictive as many think.
I do agree that the 'leader' role isn't intended to mean the leader of the party nor necessarily the diplomat of the party, and I intentionally wanted to push those boundaries.
And I too really want to use this as a testing/discussion ground for the new mechanics of the game.
Yeah, in the end, roles are a way for Wizards to ease a new player into the D&D trope that a basic party is made up of a cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. For more experienced gamers, the whole thing seems kinda heavy-handed and easily ignored.
Stats - check. Vocal mannerisms - check. Gear - to be bought.
Mechanics done, background to come
I'm having a lot of fun creating this character. This is my kind of D&D.
Looking good so far, guys.
So, I've got a bunch of ideas bopping around in my head. How long of a game is everyone looking for? As someone mentioned in the other thread, I think a shorter game would probably be best, given how long PBPs usually take. But, how short would everyone want it? A one level thing? 1-5? 1-10? I've got a good idea of what would happen in a 1-10... It's really up to you guys.
I'm a bit late in signing up for this, so if you have anyone drop out, I'll be happy to just follow along the thread and step in from the bullpen if needed.
V
Hi V. I'll definitely put you down for a spot if someone drops.
Looking good so far, guys.
So, I've got a bunch of ideas bopping around in my head. How long of a game is everyone looking for? As someone mentioned in the other thread, I think a shorter game would probably be best, given how long PBPs usually take. But, how short would everyone want it? A one level thing? 1-5? 1-10? I've got a good idea of what would happen in a 1-10... It's really up to you guys.
I'm good for as long as you want to run. One level, 5, 10, 20, 30, it's all the same to me.
I also have stats done and will have a small background section written up by the end of tommorow.
I'm good for a short game or long game, would be nice to develop a character over a period of time. but again, however we decide to go with it! i'm out of town at the moment but I've been contemplating my character a bit and I should have something up by later tonight or tomorrow when I get home. trying to not hold up the game any
Alright, I guess I'll try a shifter ranger. I should hopefully have the character done by Monday evening.
Ok, switch me to Dragonborn Fighter, unless Tieren wants to play a Fighter. I was interested in an Eladrin Rogue because I thought Fey Step might be overpowered in that role, and wanted to test that out. But Fabes is already playing Eladrin, so I'll build a Draconian.
My preference is Level 1-5. But with 7 PCs, it should be easy to continue the campaign if a few players drop out along the way. I don't mind a larger campaign arc if that's what people want, or what you want to run.
I think it would be best to start with a self-contained adventure, rather than aiming right away to complete a longer campaign with a more distant goal. We can move to another adventure if the interest/commitment of the group remains after we've completed the first scenario. Speaking from experience, I think that aiming right away to undetake a a 10- or 20-level campaign arc can be a little too ambitious, especially in a PbP.
Just my two cents worth...