After about 8 years since I last DM'ed a game, I've been asked to run a session. Unfortunately my books - adnd, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e are in storage two states away.And i prefer physical copies. Thanks to critical role and the movie DND books have gone up in price which is weird.>4e books are ~10-15$ now. Is it viable to run 4e in 2025? I don't remember hating it and I still remember some home rules to streamline combat to speed it up a touch. Does anyone have suggestions for 1-3lvl adventures or campaign settings? >4e thread I guess
I don't care that you prefer physical.Download OSE and run them Hole in the Oak. Keep it simple.https://necroticgnome.com/products/old-school-essentials-basic-rules
>>972352554e has gone through something of a rennaissance in the last 5 or so years, with a few fairly-popular games adopting some of its design principles and focus on finely-textured grid-based tactical combat with descrete abilities, so I would say that yes, it is absolutely viable to run it in 2025. The cracked character builder with all the resources are still out there for free if you know where to look, but you don't really need the software if you have everything and know where to look and how to find the eratta.
>>97235255It was never viable to play 4e.
>>972352554e had a number of issues. Massively bloated baseline monster HP. The At-Will. Encounter, Utility, Daily ability structure while I think a great evolution was hamstrung by a lot of the later abilities just being slightly better versions of lower level ones and a general sameyness that wasn't addressed until the Power of X books. A lot of floating - or + 1s that come and go every round makes keeping track tricky. But if you are just gonna run a single session then had them premades that around around level 3 or if it's a small say 3 or 4 part adventure then start then at one and level thenm when they reach each part so they can experience it and you get more monsters to throw at them. A lot of the early adventures aren't very good out of the box imo and need a lot of work to bring them up to snuff. They made one or two "Dungeon Delve books" that had an sortment of premade dungeons with paper thin reasons for the party to go loot them. You could just string some other together with a more unified "plot".
>>97235255Look, I love 4e, and it is incredibly easy to run and play in 2025. But running it purely from physical copies is less than ideal. They don't include the errata, several useful books are unavailable, and the online compendiums have everything in one place for easy reference. It can be done, just make sure you use MM3 math for the enemies and have the errata handy. Buy what you can and print the remaining books, they are all available online for free. The generally recommended adventures are HS1 The Slaying Stone, Reavers of Harkenwold, Madness at Gardmore Abbey, and Thunderspire Labyrinth. For new to 4e players, I also generally recommend Prey for Smiley Bob.
>>97236233This is a fantastic suggestion, thank you I'm fine printing off a few adventures and some extra sheets and errata and stuff. >Im running this for some younger friends (I'm late 20's they're in college) and I plan to give the books away if the game takes off because they're broke kids and I prefer basic fantasy, 2e and 3.5 anyway.Also I just prefer to have the books to flip through in front of me.
>>97235698I've been using these retards since 2010, but I don't disagree that ose is good.However, I'm running a game for dudes that grew up on WoW, bg3 and RuneScape.
>>972352554E runs much much better with the compendium and character builder.
>>97236301>running a game for dudes that grew up on bg3If they grew up on BG3 then you're probably not old enough to post, OP
>>97236988While the Essentials line is stinky, to say the least, having Heroes of the Fallen/Forgotten Lands on hand means that you have an easily passed around copy of the core errata. That's part of the reason why I took it off my FLGS's hands some time ago.>>97237057Well, open development for BG3 did last for a very, very long time.
>>97237714I wouldn't call 3 years ago very, long, long time
>>97237861Open access actually dates back to five years ago. So, not the greatest margin, but not entirely out of the question for people who were teenagers at the start of that cycle.
>>97235698isn't OSE super deadly like all the other OSR and NSR games?
>>97239031Only if players are actively being stupid.
>>97240259but OP is asking for 4e and that edition got made for people who want to revel in violence. so acting stupid. i don't think OSE would be a good fit for that
>>97237714The Rules Compendium is a better purchase than the Heroes of books. It came out a few months after the first Essentials books and its literally just all the rules and charts from the PHBs all errata'd up.Still suffers from being an Essentials book so it's smaller with larger print than the original books and so its not particularly page efficient. God I hate how Essentials fucked up book size and formatting.
>>97237057Op here, I like that this glazes over the mentions of WoW or that I already said how old everyone is. > for quick maths bg3 opens up 5 years ago. If you were 13- 16 then, now you are 16-21.Time does not slow for us, grognards. Soon we will be like the adnd and 2e greybeards. Shaking old stat blocks at whipper snappers and discussing days gone by when gygax still ruled gen con.
>>972352554e is still very viable. Dear fuck there are so many races, classes, backgrounds, themes, feats, paragon paths and epic destinies to keep players tweaking character ideas for years as well as mountains of lore tidbits and setting ideas to run campaigns for just as long.
>>97247015The lore is interesting stuff and I wish the compendiums had it. Even if someone doesn't want the print books its worth hunting down the pdfs just to read all the fluff since running only builder and compendium feels really dry.I think some of my favorite D&D stuff in general was the race write ups from the Dragon Magazines.
>>97235255>Is it viable to run 4e in 2025?Yes. However,If you aren't prepared for the tactical wargame stuff 4e is designed for, you will probably have a bad time. I'd keep a VERY open mind and make sure your players understand that it does not work like what they're probably used to, but it can be very rewarding if you do your prepwork and don't approach it with the mindset that it's just like every other edition of the game.
>>97241831>that edition got made for people who want to revel in violence. so acting stupidThis gets you killed in 4e pretty fast.The game depends on players working together to win any fight that is level appropriate according to xp budget. Acting stupid gets pcs picked off singly, or in groups when someone tries to be a hero.
>>97247640>don't approach it with the mindset that it's just like every other edition of the game.Every edition benefits from this. At worst, it staves off the spread of the 3.x rot that led to Main Character Syndrome. At best, it allows for the game to be appreciated entirely on it's merits without the foulness of comparison.>If you aren't prepared for the tactical wargame stuff 4e is designed for, you will probably have a bad timeI'd argue this affects the DM even more than the players, because you can get a lot of mileage out of well honed enemy groups and setpiece battles, even if the enemies are under leveled. Brainless enemies are miserable to experience in 4e.
>>97241883The most overlooked part of Mearls' perfidy.
>>97247720>Every edition benefits from this.Yeah. But in my experience you can run almost every edition like they're fundamentally the same and it'll be fine, except for 4th edition. If you don't respect the differences it has, it tends to fuck things up.
>>97247015>>97247111Hell, they hid an incredibly interesting concept for the Lizardfolk - that they used to have an advanced civilization based on their reverence for their dead creator-god Kecuala, but it was destroyed by a populist uprising under the leadership of the future cult of the god-beast Semuanya, whose shamans have kept the lizardfolk locked in their Stone Age near-bestial state ever since - in an adventure called "Captain Slygo's Treasure" in Dungeon Magazine of all places.
>>97235255>Is it viable to run 4e in 2025? If you have a table that wants to play 4e or you want to run on Discord, yes.If not, you're a 5e player.
>>97247754Imo, you should not, because threat differences in each edition.Before 3e, some foes were always dangerous even if you were high level, and dying was a real threat at all times. In 3e, death stopped being a problem, and more a consequence to deal with. 4e, feast or famine. I've had battles turn on a single crit, or a pc going all the way off and dropping their load to turn the momentum.
>>97236174Can confirm, use the MM3 math for monsters and it works pretty well. Things like enemies having morale should also be considered, as the length of combats isn't so much an issue as the length of the boring bit at the end. When there's one foe left out of five, who's bloodied and has used all their abilities that's probably time to either have them flee or say "I'm happy you can pull the last couple of opponents down without taking any damage."VTTs help a hell of a lot with 4e, moreso than 5th. if your players are new to it I'd actually recommend using a VTT first to track all the modifiers and 2W type stuff.
>>97247917>a pc going all the way off and dropping their load to turn the momentum.4th ed does seem to generate that kind of scenario more than other editions, which is one of the reasons I like it. I distinctly remember thinking the party were going down in one of my missions when the warlord, the only one on his feet, pulled out a daily that let everyone spend a surge. I'm sure mass heal or something could've done that in an earlier edition but the monster damage was such everyone went down in quick succession.My current 3rd ed group by contrast has a leader and 3 strikers which will be... interesting in terms of survival.
>>97248073>My current 3rd ed group by contrast has a leader and 3 strikers which will be... interesting in terms of survival.Depending, it can be very good. I have a lot of 3.x experience.The problem is early levels, which require more handholding from the DM. I try to not be afraid of handing out potions and gear if it looks like their are struggling.In my current game, we took on an entire nest (25+) lycanthropes from levels 3 to 6, and it took all our cleverness, as well as some crucial DM handouts, for us to even survive. I accepted becoming a werewolf to give us the punch we needed to win; it's worked out fairly well.If you are ever in the 3.5 general and see a storytime about the werewolf elf, that's me.
>>97247917You don't know much about running games yet.
>>97248098Yeah, early on with the low HP it's swingy as hell but that's their problem. I did warn them to bring their a game and they're all experienced players.
>>97235255Use the Gamma World rules that were built off 4e instead of 4e. It was a much better game.
>>97248103Been doing this a long time, but I'd enjoy seeing you explain how I'm wrong about the game's assumptions and game flow.
>>97247763Its really funny how random Dungeon articles btfo the entire first 1-30 Adventure Paths. It definitely didn't help 4e's reputation when the first year of pre-made were all unfocused and sloggy.When I first played 4th Edition back in 2011/2012 my DM ran us through Keep on the Shadowfell and The Slaying Stone back to back and the difference in quality was night and day. KotS felt so disjointed with half of it being bounty hunting a random goblin while also dealing with a death cult. Meanwhile SS was so open and let us make choices and all the side objectives weren't out of the way and felt natural.And who would have guessed but fat gremlin Mike Mearls helped write the dogshit adventure and he's greasy paws had nothing to do with the good one.
bump for more info on modules.
>>972536994e modules are pretty loosely "Did it come out before 2010? Trash that needs a lot of work. Did it come out during or after 2010? Probably pretty good". This includes Dungeon articles.4e really needed a few more months in the oven before it actually released, especially when it came to figuring out modules. That's why generally the edition steadily climbs in quality as it goes on. Except for Classes. By PHB3 they were out of steam and so Seeker and Runepriest were just unsupported ass, the Dragon exclusive Assassin just didn't work and Essentials ruined every class except Wizard (Wow what a surprise 3eaboo faggot Mearls would make his favorite class the only interesting one). But minus the shit classes and formatting Essentials had excellent Monster Manuals and modules.
>>97254633IMO, Slayer Fighter worked for what it was, at least. The rest, ehhh.
>>97254633>>97254714Add to this, I tried the Seeker seriously at a stable hosted by my LGS. God, it was butt. I could see potential, but it was just hamstrung by itself.My first experience with bad 4e mechanics. Not even fun, my armored half orc ranger was way better as a chassis.
>>97254714The Fire Monk was okay too. Too bad its paired Water Monk was a wet fart.Slayer was strong due to how easy and powerful charge cheese is in 4e. It otherwise was just really boring "I basic attack for big numbers".The Vampire class sucked dick but it's multiclass feat from Dragon 402 was kino. You get all the interesting features without chaining you to a dogshit class.
>>97254769Seeker desperately needed Primal Power 2 like how Paladin desperately needed Divine Power to be worth playing. Instead it got a single Dragon Article that added like 7 new powers that doubled down on its soft control instead of helping it even look at Wizard or Invoker. The best way to play Seeker is to Hybrid it with Ranger. Sure that drags Ranger down but it drags Seeker up to not being a waste of space. It also makes Ranger the pseudo magic class it was in other editions. I'm totally not mad that Arcane Archer is my favorite archetype and its hot dogshit in every single edition.
>>97254793>It otherwise was just really boring "I basic attack for big numbers".I reckon that was the point. God knows some of my players were that dumb.>>97254818This makes me gently sad, because it shouldn't be that way. 4e should have been bettter than that.
>>97254793Vampire was functional, just really boring because it only had like 1 or 2 choices you could make during leveling. Now Binder and Cavalier were just borderline unplayable, absolute dog shit classes.
>>97254633Assassin's biggest problem was it was a class focused on backloading damage in a game where everyone else was focused on frontloading damage, so odds are you either popped your shrouds early ands did jack shit, or you wait a few turns and whoever you were stacking shrouds on is dead.
>>97254894My table played with the idea of letting any PC activate Shrouds for extra damage. It turned Assassin into a fairly interesting support Striker, but I wouldn't say it measured up well comparatively. If we ever get a game going with one again soon, the next fix was going to be Shrouds being a meta currency Assassin's could spend and regain at a rate of 1/Round on their turn. I get the feeling that would have worked out better.
>>97254633>Except for Classes. By PHB3 they were out of steam and so Seeker and Runepriest were just unsupported ass, the Dragon exclusive Assassin just didn't work Part of that was them trying to lock every class into the Role/Power matrix. Giving every class a role was a good idea, but locking each class to a single power source massively limited design space as it prevented classes from deviating outside their default power source and forcing them to try and reinvent the wheel with each new class rather than allowing for some overlap.>>97254818>I'm totally not mad that Arcane Archer is my favorite archetype and its hot dogshit in every single edition.Arcane Archer is a really good example of a Ranger sub-class archetype would have been viable if they were not obsessed with locking classes to single power sources. Imagine a Martial/Arcane hybrid Ranger with a few "arrow enchantment" utility spells that supported the archer ranger's normal Martial at-will and encounter powers and a few "magic arrow" encounter and daily spell powers.
>>97255320>Part of that was them trying to lock every class into the Role/Power matrix. Giving every class a role was a good idea, but locking each class to a single power source massively limited design space as it prevented classes from deviating outside their default power source and forcing them to try and reinvent the wheel with each new class rather than allowing for some overlap.Which is something they changed in Essentials with several Classes being two Sources like Hunter and Skald. And it sucked because it was just a pointless label and they didn't actually inherit any of the loose unity that the original Classes within that Power Source had.Seeker and Runepriest being bad had less to do with crowbarring them into Power Sources and more to do with them being a double ups on existing Roles within that Power Sources. They were just unnecessary when next to Cleric and Druid. And also missing their Power books. And for Seeker the devs being dipshits and thinking [W] is too strong since the only other weapon based Controller also sucks balls. They didn't get that no damage at all but action denial like Daze, Stun or Dominate is infinitely more helpful than d10+mod and Slows.
>>97255320>Arcane Archer is a really good example of a Ranger sub-class archetype would have been viable if they were not obsessed with locking classes to single power sources. Imagine a Martial/Arcane hybrid Ranger with a few "arrow enchantment" utility spells that supported the archer ranger's normal Martial at-will and encounter powers and a few "magic arrow" encounter and daily spell powers.Seeker was just Arcane Archer except replace the word Arcane with Primal. It was the cool magic arrow spam class except its bad and you don't get the fantasy because you are dragging down your team. The 3e and 5e version of Arcane Archer sucks dick entirely because of your proposal. I want to shoot magic arrows all day. Not have 1 or 2 and then be a worse archer. Dragon's Dogma and the Wakfu franchise are like the only thing that gets this right.
>>97235255I miss the 4e warlord
>>97255496Really? I never found "give other people actions" that appealing as a class, desu. What did you like about it?
>>97254633>the Dragon exclusive Assassin just didn't workIs the Heroes of Shadow Assassin (Executioner) alright?
>>97255405>Which is something they changed in Essentials with several Classes being two Sources like Hunter and Skald. And it sucked because it was just a pointless label and they didn't actually inherit any of the loose unity that the original Classes within that Power Source had.Essentials pretty much mangled everything, including the good ideas. Essentials doing something doesn't mean that it was a bad idea, it just means that Mearls is a bad designer.>>97255416>The 3e and 5e version of Arcane Archer sucks dick entirely because of your proposal.The 3e version sucks because it is limited to 3rd level spells (or 4th level if you go 8 levels in on a full caster class and only 2 levels on on a a Full BAB class), and you can't get any further spells per day or caster levels. It massively overvalued the ability to cast 3rd level spells, enchant your own ammo and the ability to inflict instant death 1/day like all early 3.X gish prestige classes.>Not have 1 or 2 and then be a worse archer.I wasn't thinking anything as limited as that. I was thinking things like a free action at-will utility that lets you choose the element of your shots, encounter powers that let you do things like fire arrows that explode dealing (your selected) elemental damage, and dailies that let you fire a single shot into the air and then hundreds rain down upon your target location.
Why didn't 4e have orcsor half orcs in the phb1?It felt like they were really pushing tieflings and dragon born. Who are just the "big burly scaries" and "problematic heritage" pieces of orcs but without the orcs.
>>97255672Personally a lack of Race/Class identity, I feel. Half Orc followed with the Barbarian in PH2, where as the Dragonborn Warlord or Tiefling Warlock fit more naturally for their positions in PH1.
>>97255672They wanted to include races that had traction and also aligned with the classes they wanted to include in the book. Just like how the PHB1 didn't have Gnomes, Orcs/half-orcs were left out because they didn't have a class or classes that they resonated with in the PHB1.>>97255716Dragonborn were the defacto Paladin race more than they were the Warlord race. I think Half-Elves were meant to be the Warlord race.
>>97255566Overall its better but it has a fat feat tax of Venom Hand Master so your poisons actually work against half of the monsters in existence. Its not actually that interesting though being an Essentials Martial.Like essentially all Essentials classes* its fine in Heroic but falls behind as you go into Paragon or Epic. Though honestly I think 4e in general starts cracking as you go into the higher tiers in general.
>>97255815*Mage is the most notable exception because it arguably scales BETTER than the core Wizard even when you take its normally assigned Paragon Path. Slayer can also keep up if built for charge cheese and your DM is kind with items to get your build trucking. Thief can also charge cheese into Epic but not as well.
>>97255806>Dragonborn were the defacto Paladin raceThat's a good point. Either or works honestly. But yeah, you can tell they tried to make race/class combos with the books.
>>97255672They actually talked about this is the Wizard's Presents 4th Edition books. While the other anons are correct on the Race/Class combo thing there were other reasons. Tieflings replaced Gnomes because Gnomes were wildly unpopular and Tieflings, at least on the D&D forums (rip in peace), were insanely popular. Like more popular than Elves. So they got the slot. Dragonborn were more of "We keep getting emails about playing a dragon in Dungeons and DRAGONS so we made sure there were dragon people in the first book so we could say yes" and they didn't want to double up on warrior races so Half Orcs got nudged to be with Barbarian in PHB2.
>>97254633To be fair to Runepriest, what it got was pretty good. It just didn't get enough.
>>97256142Runepriest mostly suffered from the "taxes" issue. He handed out like double the amount of gribbly little bonuses of every other Leader while completely lacking the positioning or action granting of others. They did have an interesting gimmick where their "heal" could be spent to not heal and instead just give the buff if you wanted to alpha strike hard and not spend surges.Also one of the builds being Str/Con. Gross. Serene Blade should have been the standard design ideal of all the Runic Artistries instead of the later fixed one. Really it shouldn't have been a Strength class. Wis or Con should have been its primary with finding a way to slip Int in there as a Secondary so it wouldn't be so bad at Religion for flavor reasons.
>>97256225>so it wouldn't be so bad at ReligionEvery divine class is shit at religion.
>>97257727That's true. Nature got moved to Wisdom so Rangers and Druids would actually be good at it. There wasn't really a reason other than Wisdom slowly closing in as the king stat that Religion shouldn't have been as well. Or at least a feat for Divine characters to use Wis for Religion like how Half Orcs got a feat to use Str for Intimidate or Rogues have a feat to add Cha to Acrobatics and Athletics.
>>97235255I jorked the shit outta my meat to the chick on the cover when I was younger. Then my best friend showed me his dad's 2nd edition books and the pages with actual naked monsters on some of them.This shit 100% legit derived from satanism but without it I probably woulda grown up a fag, and I wouldn't have developed my healthy Christian shiny/latex fetish. Dark fantasy shit always leads down that path, those black mages don't wear fucking fabric, shit's for peasants
>>97254894>>97254949I actually had a lot of success using the Assassin's mechanics on npcs.
>>97258409It's not that it doesn't work, it's that it's slow to get the most out of, where as all other Strikers bust out huge damage in a single sit. This makes it unpalatable by comparison.
>>97255535>I never found "give other people actions" that appealing as a class, desu.It's not for everyone because, honestly, most people in this hobby exercise a fairly high level of selfishness and/or vainglory.
>>97258417My point is that npcs using it on pcs becomes a threat focus; the same mechanic weakness for a pc becomes a strength for enemies.
>>97258434Oh, AS npcs, not ON npcs. My mistake. Sure, such things would work just fine as a Lurker mechanic, for example, but how monsters and PCs behave is already different to a degree, so this is expected really.
>>97258439It's alright, it was a confusing sentence to be sure.It was actually using the Assassin mechanics that I 1 turn dropped a pc. I had storytimed it years ago.Deck of Many Things was involved.
>>97255815How much of a boost does it need in Paragon or Epic? I don't want to give it powers (that would defeat the point of having Essentials martials, which is simplicity for those who want it), but I would be perfectly fine with house-ruling some other bonuses into it.
Kinda felt like this was a waste of Dark Sun. Really wish the setting was still more popular.
>>97258839On the topic of campaigns, >Can anyone sauce me up a pdf for this thing?
>>97258742ALL of the Essentials classes fall off very hard past level 10 because of pausity of options.Basically, what you got from 1-10 gets a bigger number, but nothing new or something that matures the class in to new heights.>>97258839I disagree, as someone who played Dark Sun in 2e and recognizes that it was built with a different mechanics paradigm in mind.It was still ruthless on paper while instilling the fear of death in even high level pcs. Losing healing surges is the best and most efficient way to remind players of their pcs mortality, especially if they are cocksure, and it is really damn easy to do so in DS.That said, it also offered a way to do real heroics and cleave to the 4e ethos of 'You are big damn heroes, and can do big damn heroic things'.>>97258879A friend of mine was planning on running this. If you have time and the thread lasts, I can ask him to send me the pdf on promise to not read it.
>>97258879Not that last anon but I got youMF /folder/qnx91216m4tp4/Stuff
>>97260346What is this file type??
>>97261994A pdf? Does it not show the pdf symbol next to its long ass file name when you go to the link?
>>972479173e was as deadly as you wanted it to be. Plenty of shit could kill you outright, DMs just became pussies about doing so.Note that this isn't a defense if 3e because it had a frankly retarded amount of problems.
>>972642103e had shit that could kill character easily enough.Older editions had stuff that fucked with the player. Level Drain was what Vampires and such used that actively made PLAYERS dread even attempting to fight something with that ability. You might be doing a one off adventure and now you got months of work to try and recoup.
>>972479174E's encounters being hard feels earned and it's a lot easier to dial in on the difficulty that'll push your party to the limit without killing them. 3E encounters being hard feels like I got slapped with bullshit and it's very easy to overshoot and accidentally TPK the party when you try.
>>972642603e encounters being hard is also because so many enemy stat blocks are filled with ridiculous powers and spells while 4e's enemies can almost all but the most powerful be gleaned a d understood in a few seconds.
>>97262021It's literally not a link.
>>97260346What the fuck is MF? I can't find anything from MEGA
>>97248299>Been doing this a long timeThe worst GMs of all time all say this btw. All it means is you've spent a long time learning nothing lol
>>97275110MediaFire. You couldn't figure that out from the initials?
>>97275115>I'd enjoy seeing you explain how I'm wrong about the game's assumptions and game flow.Still waiting for you to 'teach' me.You see, I'm not in love with being 'right'. If you had an opinion on how to run a better game, I'd cheerfully listen, because making the best game I can for my players is what is important, not my ego.
>>97236174Utility spells and 4e rituals weren't an issue
>>97276274My biggest complaint is that I think Utility Powers should have been separated into in combat ones like Shield, Tumble and the stances and out of combat ones like Crucial Advice, Instant Friends and Double Take and when you would get Utility Powers you get one of each. Or at least give everyone one class Utility Power and one Skill Power each time. Also throwing out the skill replacement Powers. Wizards if built somewhat intelligently can replace like 70% of the skill list with Arcana which they then can jack to the moon. I'd replace those with Powers that let you use Int/Cha instead of the usual modifier for one round per encounter. That way it's a lot less cheesey and makes Wizards and Warlocks a lot less "I just roll Arcana/Bluff every round of a Skill Challenge but call it 4 different skills".
>>97235255The movie? why are culture warriors so retarded, the recent movie was not successful.
>>97254793Wait, they had elemental monks?
>>97279807Only Fire (Desert Wind) and Water (Eternal Tide) from Heroes of the Elemental Chaos. Unfortunately it was one of the last book with player options ever printed for 4e so we never got ones for other elements.
>>97254866>BinderI have no idea what the fuck they were thinking with this class.>Oh hey let's make a squishy ranged controller >Now let's make it's primary controller feature be based around standing in melee with enemies or beign the one to deal the killing blow(minions didn't count iirc?)Honestly the Hexblade was everything the Binder should have been.
>>97282374Binder seems like it was supposed to be designed with a Curse like base Warlock so it could trigger its Pact Boon at ranged when its Cursed target went down but they didn't want it to be damage and just erased it right before shipping it. What I would have done is make the Curse be "Minor Action you lay your Curse on the closest target. When you hit your Cursed target it is Slowed/Slid/Gains Vulnerable/whatever based on your Pact. When a target under your Curse falls to 0 Hit Points trigger your Pact Boon".Instead they made you, a Controller, have to finish something off or be next to it. And in a jank way to facilitate that you get at-wills that are fake Blasts so you can fire them off in melee. I wish I could have been in the room when they decided on that asinine bandaid. And to top it off as written you can't take the generic or other Pact specific Encounter Powers. It specifically says "You gain an encounter attack power associated with your pact." which absolutely guts your pool of Powers.If someone for some psychotic reason wants to play Binder just slap them and then make them play base Warlock, especially almost any Cha Warlock. You'll still have access to the Binder Powers if you really want them but the increased flexibility, better Pact boons, Curse which opens up so many options, the ability to stay ranged and in the end more consistent Control its just better. Similarly if someone wants to play Bladesinger you should beat them with a brick. If you want to be a magic sword guy Swordmage is awesome, Hexblade is okay and you can rig Sorcerer to be melee too. Or if you desperately want to be a Wizard then be a Mage and use AIP to poach a longsword onto it and waggle that around like a wand. Hell even just Hybrid Wizard with literally anything is better than Bladesinger.
>>97282579>Bladesinger That class at least has an interesting enough gimmick. If it wasn't a half-assed essentials class I think it could have been decent.
>>97279915Wonder if anyone homebrewed some
>>97235255Why are you buying into a brand name when there's plenty of games out there? does it need to say Dungeons and Dragons on the cover for you to play it, or are both you and your players flexible enough to try something new? if so, give it a shot. I started a bunch of players off on ICRPG, they had a great time.
>>97282779It probably would have been better too if i3t had better Dailies. I get they were just Wizard Encounter powers they get 1/day, but that's a stupid gimmick.
>>97276155>Still waiting for you to 'teach' me.I don't recall offering, but paypal me a 50 and I'll give you an hour's worth of lessons. I'd charge you my usual rate of free but you've already proven that it's gonna be in one ear and out the other.>You see, I'm not in love with being 'right'.He says, desperately trying to prove how right he is and how he doesn't need to work on his craft.>If you had an opinion on how to run a better gameYou would vehemently deny its worth as you already have because you think time spent running = skill.>because making the best game I can for my players is what is important, not my ego.>which is why I argued that I am already a good GM because I've been doing this for a long time. Also I don't understand how the rules work and run them RAW.
>>97284064You are an incredibly obnoxious faggot, fuck off.
>>97284075Wew a near instant reply. I really ruffled your feathers huh faggot?
>>97284081This guy >>97284075 isn't me.But he is right, you are an ass.This is the last (you) from me.
>>97284385>Samefag tries and fails to defend himselfLol imagine being embarrassed on an imageboard.
I REALLY like the 4e essentials line. I've been running it for my family recently and it hand holds very well.
>>97284665To wit, if you do not mix the different books, the Essentials line is excellent at a low bookkeeping, straightforward game.I'd run it for my kids.
>>97284787I've been mixing the books a bit. My wife wanted to play from the Fae book and my brother wanted to play from the elemental book. So far so smooth.
>>97284665Honestly, I do too. A lot of 4e fans hate it because it stepped away from the AEDU framework and people who liked 4e liked that framework, but I don't actually care about that: an attack is an attack, and "hit harder" is a perfectly valid improvement rather than getting a "hit REALLY hard 1/encounter and move enemy one step / give enemy -1 slaves for 1 round/etc."A lot of 4e's problem is having too much faff in combat, and Essentials classes reduced the faff
>>97284813If your players don't go hard in the paint, it can work, especially if you modulate battles towards their strengths.>>97284845I gently disagree, as I believe the wealth of options at all times was a boon for players who wanted to have meaningful impact outside 'I hit the dude'.I've brought in almost a dozen new players to the hobby with 4e, and I have found that it is fairly easy to understand, has depth, and forges good habits of mindfulness and paying attention to the battle when the spotlight isn't directly on you.One of my cherished memories was running a game for some teens at my LGS, and the fighter being the star because she just ran around protecting everyone, forcing a chokepoint and battering the attacking spider demons.The look on her face when the party was cheering her on, watching the group fall in together like a well oiled engine, supporting each other, that is what this hobby really is about for me.That was more than 10 years ago. I wonder what they are doing now?
>>97236120Of course 4e is going through a rennaissance. Compared to the monster that is 5e, 4e is very GM friendly to the point where a guy who hates making preps can actually run a decent campaign.
>>97284665I'm a big 4e fan and an Essentials hater but I'd still rather run pure Essentials than 3e or 5e. Its hated because of how boring its classes are compared to the base game, how unbalanced its classes are even compared to each other and the fact that it throttled books 4e fans actually wanted in the crib like the rest of the X Power 2 books and the Nentir Vale lore book. It then caused a sales crash which killed the edition, exactly what Mearls wanted when he started Essentials. The Monster Vaults, Rules Compendium, adventures and equipment book would have been 10/10 if they weren't formatted like shit. I wish it had run long enough for Monster Vault 2 to redux MM2 like how MV1 was a 95% redux of MM1 with the better math and more options.
>>97284845It's not valid when it breaks the game's curve in an attempt to be different from AEDU. The Essentials classes that aren't worthless dogshit are either still AEDU or are broken as fuck early on and degrade into dogshit later. This is bad when the entire point of 4E was to get away from the Fighter solely hitting things with a stick and sucking at high levels.
So, with 4e being in a small renaissance, I'm thinking I should run my group through a short campaign and see how well they enjoy it. I'm thankful my group isn't diehard 3e/5e only morons since we do play other systems (Call of Cthulhu, The One Ring, and FFG Star Wars for instance) but I need a good hook. I'm thinking of setting the game in the Nentir Vale and cribbing ideas from various adventures, namely I think I will pull from Lost Mines of Phandelver to be sort of the lead in for the overall adventure before connecting it to the D&D Encounters Seasons 8-12. Think it would work?
>>97286976How short is short? Because Lost Mines plus 5 seasons would probably be a year+ of content. When I think short I think like 5-10 sessions and so just like a one shot like Prey for Smiley Bob and then The Slaying Stone. And then if they like it spin in other adventures. Most of the modules mention at the end which one fits the best next.
>>97284845>A lot of 4e's problem is having too much faff in combat, and Essentials classes reduced the faff4e's problem was that combat worked well for big tactical set piece battles suitable for boss and mid boss fights, but didn't really work for quick random encounters. The resource system wants a combat rhythm that was something like: >quick fight, quick fight (Short rest)>medium length set-piece Mid-boss fight (short rest)>quick fight, quick fight (Short rest)>long set-piece Boss fight (long rest)Where you could do multiple small fights and a big fight in a single session, but ended up with a rhythm more like:>below level standard enemy pack set-piece fight (short rest)>at level standard enemy pack set piece fight (short rest)>slightly higher level elite duo mid-boss set-piece fight (long rest)>at level elite with standard pack set-piece fight (short rest)>higher level solo with minions boss set-piece fight (long rest)with each fight taking most of a session.
>>97286976The damage numbers on that chart seems a bit low. Increasing the modifier to +5 instead of +3 at 1st level, then increasing it by 1 on every odd level is more in line with later math.
>>97287060It was from the DMG1, so it was based on old math. Hence why.
>>97287056>quick random encountersQuick random encounters are shit. If there's no chance of the party losing then you should either handwave the fight or not have it at all. Its the same as having players roll for shit that has 0 consequences for failure.
>>97287040Sorry, I should have clarified better that I would not be running ALL of seasons 8-12 but using them as guidelines and idea resources to run the short campaign. As for how long, I was thinking maybe from levels 1 to 5. Some of the players are major skeptics to the systems (one player in particular) but they have agreed that if I were to run they would play but only for a short campaign to get a feel for how the system works and whether "it's as bad as people say" basically.
>>97287089You do multiple ~15 min quick fights more for power fantasy and resource attrition. Blasting through a small pack of weak mooks with at-wills and maybe an encounter power lets the PCs feel strong while giving them a few nicks and bruises to eat away the their healing surges. This actually heightens feelings of progression and they also give bigger fights a greater sense of gravitas and grandeur compared to every fight being a 1+ hour tactical slog.
>>97287194>resource attritionThat only works if you prevent them from resting between fights. Otherwise all they're realistically losing is a couple healing surges which is incredibly marginal.
>>97287218As long as they are not trying to take long rests the minor healing surge attrition/rationing is the point. The idea is to get about 6 different encounters in between long rests rather than the 1 or 2 fights per long rest rhythm that 4e usually ended up with.
>>97286976>So, with 4e being in a small renaissanceYou're like half a year late, anon. The little revival period ended in September.
>>97287501What happened in September to end it?
>>97287056You could do random encounters, just not in the way you would in other games due to how enemy roles and design worked.In other editions, a pack of wolves was a perfectly suitable 'random encounter'. In 4e, it would be dreadfully boring.>>97287400You would have to light a fire under them to get them going, but that isn't too hard.
Anyone know where I can get the Essentials books? The archive for 4e doesn't have them.
>>97288062Enough people had tried draw steel and lost interest in it for discussions to die.
>>97291094The 4e stuff on Da Archive sucks. Its like 20% of all the books. The Eye used to be my go to since they have everything but their servers crashed a month or two back and they are still working on fixing them.Genuinely if you know the names of the books just Google "Name of book 4e pdf" and a little over half the time someone's Drive will show up with it. Give me like 2 hours and a list of what you can't find that way and I'll see if I can shove it in a MediaFire for you. I have almost everything on my PC but I'm not at it right now.>>97291107Draw Steel does suck but it's not the sole 4e cousin. PF2e (barf) is too and so is Lancer and both of those have normie players who now have a passing interest in 4e. As well as many many people using house rules in an attempt to fix both versions of 5e and being told "Yeah that's just how 4e did it 18 years ago".
>>97291094They're on all the popular shadow libraries.
One thing I really like about 4e is the ability to challenge tactically savvy players with enemy group synergies.For example, let us consider an encounter against a group of xivort darters (level 1 artilleries) who have tamed a bunch of thornskin frogs (level 1 brutes) and wolf packmates (level 1 minion skirmishers).http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster5029http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster4879http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster4614The xivort darters can daze PCs, which is annoying enough. However, the thornskin frogs can move in to deal heavy damage and knock PCs prone. Standing from prone takes a move action, and a dazed creature can take only one action on their turn, so a dazed PC who wants to use a standard action will have to settle for staying prone. Unfortunately, the wolf packmates can then move in to deal extra damage to the prone PCs. Simple but nasty enemy synergy.How about a positioning challenge for PCs of a slightly higher level? Let us say a couple of centurions of the Iron Circle (level 6 soldiers) have rounded up several dwarf warriors (level 1 minion artilleries) and a couple of extremist wilden ancients (level 4 artilleries [leader]) to stir up trouble.http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster6025http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster115713http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster5027The Iron Circle centurions are highly accurate against PCs with no other adjacent PCs... but if the PCs cluster up, then they might just be smacked by nasty area attacks from the wilden ancients, who can also buff the centurions. Worse, the dwarf warriors are many in number, and any PC not in cover is liable to be pincushioned by the extra damage from the crossbow attacks.I like how 4e is a 30-level game, yet even lower-level encounters can have a surprising amount of tactical depth just with some good enemy selection, to say nothing of terrain.>>97236174>>97248061The Monster Manual 3 did not actually reduce enemy hit points. It made them hit harder, recalibrating combats that way.
>>97291171>>97291191I managed to locate HotFL, HotFK, Monster Vault, and the Rules Compendium. Now all I'm looking for is the Dungeon Master's Kit.
>>97291353Here you goMediaFire/file/wwpyoq6rz5iaumc/Dungeon_Master%2527s_Kit%252BReavers_of_Harkenwold.pdf/file
>>97291552Thank you kindly, bud.
bump
>>97282579But I want to be a bladesinger.
>>97297517Why though? It can't be for flavor since flavor is free. It can't be because you want to sword wizard because both Swordmage and just Wizard with a sword do that better. It can't be because you want to be an MBA caster because that's just Hexblade. It can't be because its a good Controller because its shit from an ass as a Controller because you get only mediocre Encounter Powers as Dailies and your Encounter Power is a weird damage boost/survivability button that doesn't fit in a Controller at all. Maybe by finding a way to get a Dex MBA you could bend Bladesinger into a mediocre Striker but its as written role it is useless.
Recently built ~6 4e characters and honestly, Fuck man there are too many martial abilities. I miss these stupid cards.
>>97298767Also, the math break down for 4e character generating really does make everything feel very same-y. >Hp 26, ac 14, for everyone.
>>97298767Those cards are only like half of what was printed for Warlord. Also if you think that's too much than your bloodline is weak.
>>97298777This only matters for theorycraft and nogames activities.In actual play, due to the interaction of multiple pcs and enemies, the 'sameyness' is revealed to be a mindset you choose to adopt. Oddly, I have never heard this comment lobbed at any of the many systems that use a standard template for pcs.
>>97298777Outside like Wizard and a few others if you are starting with 14 AC you are doing something wrong. Essentially all Defenders and Strikers should be closer to 17+ AC. Same with HP. Defenders closer to 30, Controllers closer to 20. And did you even look at the other defenses? Those vary wildly class to class.The most same-y part of making level 1 characters in 4e is the fact that everyone will just take X Expertise since its almost always the most efficient use of your first feat.
>>97298767>>97298777>>97298888Something is going very wrong if all of these starting characters have HP 26 and AC 14.Here is a collection of five level 1 characters I made for a showcase. Perhaps you could have a look at them:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L-uQ9Tdl0ZJX9xOXpAf2I6Py2ajc9O7tnqaeL60FghA/edit
>>97257831take your meds bro
>>97298888>Wizard>14 ACWhy did you not put 20 in int bro? An 18 main stat is preferable for a lot of classes, but there's 0 reason not to go all in on Wizard.
>>97299544Because I did it by old roll for ability scores 4d6 drop the lowest d6 for each ability score. These are just a couple burner characters to play with character gen. >They're not all the same ac and hp but they average pretty close to it.
>>97286976Remember that Skill Challenges can also be used to run filler flak combat and you should only really be busting out the grid when it's an actual interesting and/or important fight.
>>972996344e really is not that balanced around 4d6 drop lowest. The point-buy method produces better characters overall.A level 1 party would have to be built rather poorly for 14 to be the average AC. I really cannot see that happening. Have a look at the five PCs in the document linked above, for example.
>>97291171Pf2e and Lancer have more in common with 5th than 4th.
One of the minor bits of 4e lore I really like is the idea that many githzerai enclaves who live in the mortal world often develop unusual theologies that blend psionic and primal spiritualism. It's great for lore building, but anyone else struggle to translate it into mechanics? I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any primal and psionic classes that really gel well together using the hybrid class system?For example, we all know that animal-inspired kung fu schools are a thing in the real world. But unless I'm mistaken, a hybrid Monk/Warden runs into some pretty severe MAD, doesn't it?
>>97299662>4e really is not that balanced around 4d6 drop lowest.Another reason why it failed, not actually being built around the conceits that people liked about D&D.
>>97299894I mean Monk/Druid mixes fine using Dex/Wis, Psion/Shaman with Wis/Int and Battlemind/Druid with Con/Wis. Would they be good? No not really. You'd probably have better luck with multiclass feats. Warden has some decent poachable feats, Shaman MC gets a summon to clog with. Would have been better if we had gotten more Power books for both Primal and Psionic.
>>97299956Only grogs and 5eheads like rolling for stats.
>>97300467>Only 99% of the consumerbase like rolling for statsCorrect.
>>97300472Pointbuy became standard for a reason. Stat rolling is, as far as I'm aware, deeply unpopular
>>97301065>Pointbuy became standardLOLOf course you're not aware, you'd have to play games.
>>97301157NTA, but it depends on the edition.PB was popular in 3.x, Array was popular in 4e, especially since 4e had multiple different arrays you could choose.5e can functionally work with rolling because the stat spread doesn't quite handicap you as hard (in theory) due to BA.
>>97301310Extremely nogames post. The most popular way to play the game in 3.x was rolled stats.
>>97301362I could grant this in 3e, but no one I ever knew who played more than 1 campaign in 3.x rolled for stats, and I have played 3.5 since '05 with dozens of people.The only people that used rolled stats were new players, and DMs coming fresh of 3e. There really isn't a way to prove either of our statements outside anecdotal experience, tho, so I am content to accept your words, balanced against my experiences.
>>97301398>The nogames thinks anybody believes himTopjej. People who played know. People who didn't (like you) don't.
You gonna argue with a "lolnogames" bot the whole thread?
>>97301476No, I've made it clear that most assertions can not be supported empirically, so what anyone says is subjective.
>>97299634>don't follow character creation rules>let randomness decide your stats and averages make things samey>apparently don't even bother buying equipment >this game sucksYou didn't even try. If you can't be bothered to read the like 3 pages of steps to make a character then you can't be trusted to judge a game's quality.
>>97302928Basic bitch troll, anon.
Rolled Stats are more fun.DnD started out with rolled Stats and the expectation that your character may not survive. I don't want to power game. I don't want one PC to become a Walking God, or a Glass Cannon. I play these games because I have an autistic perseveration on numbers and I like making up stories with my friends that could airbrushed on to the side of a 1978 Chevy van.>Rolled Stats add some RNG to a character that makes them more interesting and more realistic.
>>97308166Also 4e is a really good combat game and an 'okay' DND edition. Streamline the combat with some homebrew and combat is way faster.
>>97308174Using Declared Actions from ADnD in 4e makes the combat faster.
>>97235255>Is it viable to run 4e in 2025?I loved it when it was new, but I'm not sure how well it holds up to later games that stole ideas from it. Draw Steel seems pretty interesting to me, having a lot of 4e dna, but my current game is Shadow of the Demon Lord.
>>97308166>I don't want to power game. I don't want one PC to become a Walking God, or a Glass Cannon.That's exactly what happens when you randomly generate stats though. One character will inevitably be better than the rest. Point buy gives everyone the same total.
>>97300467Not even people who play 5e seem to like rolling stats, every game I have been invited to or was evenly remotely interested in had the party use point buy or standard array.
>>97309025>That's exactly what happens when you randomly generate stats though. One character will inevitably be better than the rest. Only when the stat system is badly tuned for random generation. 4e just happens to be one poorly designed for random generation due to them tuning the game around +3 and higher stat bonuses.
>>97309199>intentionally ignore devs advice on what makes for best games>is surprised when game doesn't work as well as it couldI mean, you can run a car on 50 octane gasoline, doesn't mean you will get the best performance from it.
>>97309424I wasn't the poster you original responded to. I was just countering your supposition that random generation inherently generates imbalanced characters. 4e pretty much only includes the 3 to 18 stat curve in character creation due to it being a D&D sacred cow. That doesn't mean that in other games stats generated with rolls of 3d6 would cause characters to under perform. 4e is just tuned with a "16" being the expected minimum value for a main stat which means that only about 4.62% of 3d6 rolls are viable main stat rolls.
>>97310041That is why I brought up the dev's advice, as well as how in the core book, the arrays are presented before rolling stats.The arrays are clearly the preferred method.
>>97310041>That doesn't mean that in other games stats generated with rolls of 3d6 would cause characters to under perform.Try playing 3.5 or any of its derivatives with under 16 in your main stat and see how it goes for you sis.
>>97310094Arrays and Point buy are definitely 4e's preferred stat generation methods. Not going to argue about that.>>97310573>Try playing 3.5 or any of its derivatives with under 16 in your main stat and see how it goes for you sis.3.X is pretty much where the stat inflation started. Prior to that "10s across the board" created functional characters due to how the game was tuned.
>>97312358>Prior to that "10s across the board" created functional characters3rd ed is over 25 years old grandpa.
>>97313591Still too new
>>97313591>only 25not even a real adult yet.
>>97312358>Prior to that "10s across the board" created functional characters due to how the game was tuned.ntayrt Have you looked at the advised stat generation methods in AD&D?
>>97316817Have you? "Roll 3d6 for each stat" was only the default for chargen in OD&D.AD&D 1e: It was dropped entirely."Roll 4d6 and drop the lowest, rearrange as desired" is Method 1 of the four recommended methods for determining character attributes. The other three are "Roll 3d6 twelve times and retain the highest six scores", "roll 3d6 six times for each ability score and retain the highest result" and "generate twelve sets of ability scores, each time rolling a 3d6 for each ability score, and retain the single set the player prefers". He explicitly warned players and DMs against using the 3d6 in order method to generate PCs, and even recommended a variant of it for generic NPCs.It wasn't until Gygax left TSR and AD&D 2nd edition was made that the method was brought it back as one of the six methods of character generation. The other five methods the devs recommended consisted of "Roll 3d6 twice for each ability score, and then keep which result you prefer for that score", "Roll 3d6 and arrange the results to whichever ability scores you want", "roll 3d6 twice, keep the results you want and arrange to taste", "roll 4d6, drop lowest, arrange as desired", and "start with an 8 in all stats, then roll 7d6 and add the results from each dice to each ability score as you prefer".
Playing Pathfinder2e made me realize that 4e hate was a meme, and I am ashamed to have bought into it.That being said, Pathfinder 2e is a better D&D4e in nearly every way. And it has a pretty well-upkept online rules resource. And Pathbuilder2e makes tooling out random builds easy as fuck
>>97320914>Pathfinder 2e is a better D&D4e in nearly every wayI disagree, in that 4e offers more concepts that bear out, especially oddball concepts, in usable play, and has a stronger risk/reward mechanic that I find enjoyable.There is a lot of 3.5isms in the game that I found generally needless; calling it something like 4e is, imo, actually a misnomer. The only real 4e thing about the game is the math progression.
>>97321362>The only real 4e thing about the game is the math progression.I've found that in the majority of cases when people are comparing new games to 4e what they really mean is that the book has a readable layout and the math is baseline functional.
>>97321384Also that fighters are good
>>973209144e hate was always a meme. Almost all of its most vocal haters never played it, let alone actually read the books. They'll claim they have but then when pushed for what specifically they don't like they never actually had a real reason. They'll lie and squirm and make excuses but they just want to be mad at something and 4e was their obvious scapegoat.
Anyone ever looked this over? What are your thoughts?
>>97329180Going by the previews it seems okay I guess? Outside the flavor and maybe vamps into mid paragon instead of being end of heroic threats I don't really see a need for the book. From the previews it doesn't seem to do anything that can't be done by just refluffing existing monsters. If you don't have to spend money on it then use it I guess but I don't think its probably worth the $8 they are asking for it.I am always super wary of 4e homebrew. Because of the much tighter math of 4e compared to other editions most homebrew stuff is just thrown together and ends up either unusably weak or way too strong. More modern homebrew has gotten better since the system has been flayed open for so long but that book is from like 2011/2012 when 4e was still in print and thus is sketchy on its quality. If you are desperate for more monsters, even though 4e already has like 5.3k, then I'd check out the 4e Discord. They have a few of the premier 4e homebrew writers there who autistically fix people's fucked up homemade ones.
>>97329180One of the best supplements from the 4E era if you actually read it and don't just assume it's dogshit to fit some personal narrative like the previous poster did. My favorite thing is the ritual that turns a spellcaster's corpse into two distinct undead monsters: an invisible flying head only arcane classes can see and the headless body that punishes spellcasting performed around it.
