The General D&D thread

So was 3rd edition pretty much the result of Vecna rewriting reality?

Given that it was the last 2e adventure path. It is implied to be yes.

Vecna is one of the very few beings who managed to fuck with the Lady of Pain and not regret it. Dude earns props for that if nothing else.

I remembered that old Keith Baker Q&A in whihc one part said

And then not much happened, for now...

On can convert Eberron to fifth edition using this though, so that's good.

edited 25th May '15 7:47:06 AM by YoKab

I'm not sure if Baker had any input on the Eberron UA. On his blog, he was leaning toward hacking the Cleric to make an Artificer, rather than making it a Wizard sub-class.

WOTC has a monthly poll where they ask users for feedback on their product (Which classes you think are overpowered/underpowered, what do you think of X class features. Which class options are more appealing). And the last one covered the article you linked, noting that people wanted a proper artificer class, and wanted the warforged re-jiggered. The article covering the poll result seems to imply an Eberron setting book is actually in the work or at least being considered as it outright calls the Unearthed Arcana article a draft.

edited 25th May '15 12:12:22 PM by CobraPrime

Vecna forgets the #1 rule : THE DM IS KING.

Vecna can't do shit if the DM doesn't allow it.

I'd love to run a campaign where Vecna fights Ploticus Devicus, God of Reality. Whom looks not unlike Rick Moranis in Ghostbusters, for lulz.

edited 26th May '15 10:02:47 PM by MarkVonLewis

Clearly the DM allows it otherwise the DM wouldn't run the adventure to begin with.

Dumb post is dumb.

Ghilz: no, more like drunk post is drunk.

The DM isn't King. The DM is God.

Ahem. DM is Author.

Yeah, the god wouldn't need to take player's interests in account

DM is Author, except that the PC's double as Whatever Weights and (in)subordinate co-Authors.

I feel like DM isn't really king or God or author. More like player who plays a lot of characters.

The Table is Author. Whether the DM maintains control of it is a different question.

The DM is the Ego, and the Superego; the players are the Id. All of them together comprise the Author.

edited 28th May '15 9:46:36 AM by Knowlessman

Or the DM is an author of the Writing by the Seat of Your Pants sort, the kind that says "the characters made me do it, I don't control them". Except in this case it's literal.

So, making a new character to run with my 4th players. They have a paladin, cleric, monk, and hopefully the ranger doesn't reroll on a whim.

They lack two obvious things: a controller and somebody skilled with Arcana. I was tempted to make a controller but the problem is it seems like a lot of extra work playing against myself—trying to out-maneuver the party with monsters while trying to prevent said monsters from succeeding.

As for Arcana, it feels perhaps a little like GM fiat if they succeed at it. Especially with how the skills tend to be loaded, if the +13 Arcana NPC is challenged by the roll then the +4 PC doesn't have a prayer.

So, should I shore up these flaws in the party or work around/exploit them?

Is the ranger melee or ranged based?

It's possible for rangers to take a feat that gives them options to a Hunter at-will. This allows them a modicrum of control.

Over all, control isn't really essential, but playing without a controller does pretty drastically affect how you go through surges and the like. Controllers tend to make fights into a kiting contest (Immobilize the melee only enemies, fighters pile on the other guys).

He's a ranged ranger. I don't recall him being particularly control focused, short of us misinterpreting one of his powers and letting him turn into an anti-minion turret during one battle.

edited 29th May '15 6:50:36 PM by Rotpar

There following are potential control options.

1.) Disrupting Shot feat. Lose a ranger encounter power to gain Disrupting Shot, a Hunter encounter power that deeals 1W+Dex Mod damage and immobilizes (save ends) or dazes (save ends). Not worth it IMO, but it's an option.

2.) Archery Mastery feat. Lose a ranger at-will power to gain one of the three following at-will powers:

Aimed Shot: Standard action to make an RBA that ignores cover or concealment, and reduces the penalty from total concealment. Definitely not worth it.

Clever Shot: Standard action to make an RBA that does one of the following:

-Slow (save ends) -Knock the target prone -Slide the target 2.

Rapid Shot: Standard Action to select one square within weapon range, and make an RBA at -2 to hit against each target in said square. In short, it's basically a ranged basic attack against an area burst 1.

Other than that, there's always the Seeker class (introduced in the PHB 3) and the ranger could multiclass into it. But direct damage is pretty decent as is, and I'm sure they have their feats full just trying to take feat tax feats like Bow Expertise.

Admittedly, he's probably the player least likely to do something for the team.

He may not even be playing ranger by the second session, just fickle that way.

At any rate, without a controller is there anything the party would be particularly vulnerable to? A monster type they don't counter effectively? Or is it just "inefficiency" with their resources, losing more HP, surges, more inclined to use daily power, etc?

There are two kinds of Hunter in 4e: the one from Essentials, which is basically a controller, and the one from the PBH, which is more damage-oriented. I know; it's weird.

I have no idea. :/ Probably having a bunch of enemies on the field at once would turn bad with no ranged AoEs, and not having a caster could go bad if something shows up that's resistant to conventional weapons.

Maybe if there's a player who's more of a DnD veteran or interested in roleplaying or something, you could ask if they're interested in making another character and playing both of them. I was in a two-player Encounters session once where we both played two characters, although of course Encounters is different from a regular campaign.

edited 30th May '15 8:12:19 AM by Knowlessman

I can't really comment too much since while I've played 4E for LONGER THAN ANYONE ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!! it's always been highly modded. That being said, I'd say that without controllers, your fights will likely be quicker and deadlier. If you have a lot of strikers, you'll have higher overall damage output (assuming said strikers are at least marginally optimized). A controller isn't necessary for multi-target damage (see: sorcerer and Monk, for instance), though it doesn't seem like your party has much in the way of multi-target damage either.

In which case, probably best to hold back on the minions.

Also swarms. Swarms are a bitch if you don't have an multi-target at-wills in the party.