Talk about whatever, even non-4th Edition subjects. This could be where new threads get kicked off.

I'll just shoot this out here, since this is the place to bring it up. I'm looking for a 4E game on RPOL that doesn't die a month after it starts. Drow War died a few days before I looked at it, Rescue at Rivenroar hasn't made a public post in two weeks, What Fades Away is heavily homebrewed and makes me step back cautiously, The Hoard the Race looks dead since early April, and...Sharn Bridging the Gaps brought to us by our very own engine?

Well, I was apprehensive because I'm just looking to play, but I'm looking at it again now. But that one looks like the only 4E game up and running beyond What Fades Away. And I'm already at my game-running peak, so I'm not able to set up one of my own.

I'm considering reviving something I had a while back that worked for a while, but died to outside issues.

I had an arena-style 4E game going. The idea was to use the Dungeon Delve book as-is. Run a party through the first mission, let them gain a level (including upgrading gear), then run mission #2. Rinse, repeat.

It turned out to be really, really popular. I think I had three or four full parties active at one point, with a few extra people waiting in the wings. Then my daughter was born, and my free time went bye-bye. Plus, updating the combats for three separate 4E games was taking a good chunk of my day.

I'm thinking of bringing it back, but limiting it to a single party. God knows that I couldn't manage more than that -- or maybe two -- at a time right now. I'd consider using a co-GM, but I'd want them to basically handle things the same way I did.

It wouldn't have much in the way of roleplaying, unless there are spots in the scenarios that allows for it. Mostly, it would be a tactical exercise, with a party trying to get through each delve as fast as possible.

I would love to play in this LonePaladin!

I have never advanced a character a level in 4e. This would be awesome!!!

Oooh...that is interesting, even without the roleplaying aspects.  I have been keeping an eye out for a new 4e game on rpol for a while.

Well, I guess that means you have three at least.

I would enjoy that too, LonePaladin. I always thought Dungeon Delve was a terrific book and leveling quickly would be fun.

I'm all for not roleplaying when it means haggling with shopkeepers or schmoozing with royalty. I like to play a character in combat, though, which sometimes means not being absolutely strategic or optimal. Would that be put of place?

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound.

Here's a link to it. I only just noticed that the Game ID is a nice round 64000.

link to another game

In reply to LonePaladin (msg # 8):

Huh...I'd been using the D&D Insider's Legacy Tools to build 4e characters as recently as early March of this year...I hadn't noticed they'd shut it down later that month.  That's disappointing.  Thanks for pointing it out, LonePaladin!

If any of you want it, I have the files for the original offline Character Builder. It includes a script that overrides the online-checker, and also updates the database to include everything that came out after they dropped it.

The site that was originally hosting it is down, but I kept the files. I can put it on DropBox and share it here, if you want. (We'd want it to be outside of Group 0, though. Site rules.)

Yep, Bridging the Gaps is going pretty well right now. As listed, it's intended to be highly collaborative, and that's working well, I think. The players are forcing me to think about things I hadn't considered before about Eberron and Sharn.

There is room for other players to join, if anyone is interested in the concept. I understand it's not for everyone.

It's been done before (including an attempt by me) but I'd like to run a game based on the XCOM games.

The Xoriat Committee (XCOM for short) is a group of shadowy figures on the continent of Khorvaire in Eberron who are aware of a growing incursion by creatures from the Far Realm. Elite groups, generally made up of former Last War soldiers (not all from the same side), will be sent around Khorvaire to deal with hotspots where the aberrations are up to their insane schemes.

I would want the party to have a base that they can improve, and I'd want them to have to capture aliens alive, so that they and their artifacts can be studied. The field units might not involve a lot of personal interaction, but my thought was that each player could also run a staff support person, such as an artificer, scholar/researcher, operations specialist, etc. and that those characters would be focused on deciding what priorities the strike teams would have.

Any interest? Knowledge Eberron and the XCOM games wouldn't be required, but wouldn't hurt.

I know X-Com, and a little bit about Eberron, and am a complete and total sucker for base building mechanics.

I'm interested enough to want to see what you have in mind for myself.

In reply to engine (msg # 12):

Is that X-Com like the sci-fi video games?

I'd be interested in something along those lines.

engine, you know I'm a sucker for all things Eberron and this sounds like a lot of fun on both fronts.

What are your thoughts on the base building mechanics? Does 4e handle that somewhere?

Not that I saw. That's largely what the adamantine vault went into in the game I ran: making the Seven-Pillared Hall into the new base of operations after killing off pretty much all the locals that could threaten it, beyond the mages, who decided a group of local heroes might not be a bad set of part-time rulers, and that crossing them was probably more trouble than it would be worth.

Also, they had access to that Tower outside of town, which the mages really appreciated.

Improvisation was very much the order of the game I ran. My players gave me a workout.

In reply to jkeogh (msg # 16):

Nothing official. Missions would give XCOM access to some "lair" items from Adventurer's Vault II, or a permanent warding ritual, or a contingent of guards, or just a bonus of some kind.

Thanks for the interest. I'll keep thinking about it.

A DM I've played with in a high level Pathfinder game has started a 4e Epic Level game that he's still the working out and has opened it up to an informal advertisement. I thought I would link to it here as I'm assuming there are some interested parties here:

link to another game

Were there class templates published for the Player's Handbook 3 classes and the artificer? I could probably figure it out, but I also just would like to think that that was completed.

Do you mean the templates for monsters/NPCs in the DMG? I used these once and it didn't work well. I strongly recommend not using them as made in the DMG1. You can do much better by ad-libbing the flavour you wanted onto your monster at the last minute with a mix of mady-up powers using MM-on-businesscard, and the appropriate flavour.

In reply to jacktannery (msg # 21):

Yes. I thought they might be worth a try. The DMG 2 says something like "you might not need the whole template" just a feature or two.

What didn't go well with them?

Too fiddly. Monsters won't get to use 2-3 additional powers on top of their exisitng powers, ever. Monsters are lucky to get 2-4 full actions (with controller/defender PCs, the average actions each monster gets is 2, I find). This is one at will attack and 1 encounter attack.

Instead of adding additional optional powers onto a monster to give it flavour, you need to strongly emphasise the flavour in those two full round of attacks it will get (on ave). That means making them count, powering them up, and packing them with flavour.

In reply to jacktannery (msg # 23):

I don't want to overstate this, because this is just a game, but I find that very sad. We want interesting, evocative monsters, but we also want to smash them as quickly as possible. Is there any game that has cracked that, that has made an extended, evocative combat (rather than a rapid slaughter) something everyone at the table works to achieve?

It's probably best if I just try it for myself, but here are my thoughts:

They don't need to be seen as "additional powers." Yes, they are "in addition" but if the creature uses the template powers rather than its own powers, then they're just "powers." Maybe that means that the monster doesn't do whatever it's "shtick" originally was, but a (say) hobgoblin warcaster who casts some specific wizard (or warlock, or sorcerer, or psion, or invoker, or whatever) powers rather than what was written for it is still making use of the options provided by the template. Not that I need a "template" to give a monster arc lighting instead of some other ranged attack.

As I understand it, monsters with templates shouldn't be "average," anyway. They are at least elites at that point, with more HP, an action point, and a save bonus to keep it around. Give it two or three soldier/controller cohorts and they can keep it alive to use some of those additional powers. Seems to me.

I'm not necessarily after enhancing the flavor of a monster. There are some powers and combinations I'm interested to try, and using them as monsters in my own game might be a way to do that. Not to mention aggravating tactics like "spirit companion passage blocking" that I'm interested to see how characters would handle. That's why I was asking about the PHB3 templates, because I've never seen anyone play a battlemind and I never expect to, but I'd like a chance to try one out. I could have a battlemind-run cadre of enemies, with multiple chances for me to try out the concept.

So, while I can just go to the Monster Manual for some examples to work from for different kinds of powers, I'm also interested in "correctly" implementing PC powers in monsters.

In reply to engine (msg # 24):

Personally, I think the templates mostly failed because they were unnecessary.  The monster manuals were really well designed in 4th edition.  I'd argue they were the best part of the edition.  The modularity of the monsters made them easy to customize on their own, and as long as you aren't the type to pile ALL TEH POWAHS on your monsters (always an issue with some inexperienced DMs, regardless of the edition,) the monsters were easy to balance to a party.

Plus, even without a tiny bit of customization, the 4E Monster Manuals gave a variety of every type of monster to us, eliminating the primary need for templates (the issue in previous and later editions where every kobold/goblin/orc/etc had the same stat line if it didn't have a class or template.)  With 4e, it's already easy to have a variety of kobolds in a particular encounter.  And, if it wasn't enough for some reason, you could find another monster of similar level, strip away the racial power and plug in the kobold racial powers to make a new kobold.  (I know I used Goblins, Kobolds, and Halflings fairly interchangeably this way for a long time.)

In the end, templates were just extra options for monster powers...without the actual monsters themselves.  I know that I always preferred when they used that space for something more interesting...like actual monsters to go with the powers.  :-D

Yup, I agree with Godzfirefly. Later 4E monsters in particular were perfectly tuned, and 4E is already so re-fluffable that additional template powers were unnecessary. Also, 4E was always against 3E-style 'build monsters like PCs' on principle.

I'm a big fan of 4th Edition monster design, but there are still things they leave out, I think. And while I couldn't love more the freedom to make monsters differently than PCs, I think there are times when it might be worth giving them or swapping in a PC power or a particular pre-existing magic item.

And, frankly, some monster types were a bit weird. More than one has made me go "who ordered this?" or "can't I just get a kobold monk, or a warforged ranger?"

In 4th Edition, the templates were in the DMG, which, toward the back, seemed to be really grasping for content. Not that almost anything in that book wouldn't be better off if it were replaced by pages that just say "Yes, and..." over and over again.

I am a big fan of the ideal that monsters are not PCs and PCs are not monsters.  I liked that 4e eliminated the 3e expectation that if an opponent could cast a spell to do something then the PCs should be able to figure out how to duplicate it and vice versa.  I'd generally be opposed to steps backward from that.

PC powers don't belong on monsters.  They're not balanced for it.  And, monster powers definitely don't belong on PCs, since monster powers are designed with the knowledge that the monster has 1 fight today while the PCs probably have multiple.

If you want to make a kobold monk...first I'd ask, "why?"  Second, if you gave a good enough reason for it, I'd just find a monster that is of the appropriate level/power and theme (probably a skirmisher), give it the kobold shifting power, take away any other racial power it might have had, and call it a Kobold Monk.  No need to give it actual monk mechanics...that's probably too complicated for running in an actual tabletop game when you're running multiple monsters, anyway.

I am too. I don't think PC templates step on that significantly.

That's a significantly different consideration from the ones stated before. Not that the designers can't make mistakes, but they seemed to think that three PCs powers on a monster would not go amiss. Arguably it's a cruddy design, and I wish they had offered other versions, but the main vampire in the Monster Manual is a rogue. So, I'm not convinced that there's a significant balance problem with PC powers on monsters.

Criminy, that's just an example, and my reason doesn't need to be "good enough" for anyone other than myself. The point is that I might want monster type X that does thing Y, that happens to be well provided for in PC class Z, and not in any other monster that comes to mind.

It's too complicated to give them flurry of blows, and a full discipline or two allowing them to hop around the different levels of the area I have in mind? PC template monsters are elites, so they're due a little more complexity and focus.

"Just." I don't think there are quite as many monster options as you think there are, unless I look far above and below (assuming I'm not working at 1st level) the monster's level. If I'm lucky, I might find a couple that look suitable. Then I will need to adjust the numbers and possibly some of the effects, if I looked far enough out, and hope that doesn't skew the whole concept too far one way or the other.

Or, I can go to the appropriate Player's Handbook. Sure, there aren't infinite options there, but at least they're all in one place.

I'd generally rather not make monsters like characters, but a semi-viable option along those lines seems to have upsides. I will consider it further and try it myself, I guess.

In reply to engine (msg # 29):

Give me a monster concept and a level, and I can find a monster in one of the 3 monster manuals that works well for it.  :-D

Well...unless you're looking at the very highest levels.  Those tend to be harder, I will admit.

As for asking why, I kinda meant asking myself as a GM why I'd want it so that I'd know what to use and if it's worth finding a monster match for.  I admit, my wording didn't match my meeting, and for that I apologize.

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 30):

Apology accepted, and I apologize for being touchy.

I happily concede that monster races can fairly easily be transmuted (in an early sample adventure, the antagonist was a "half-elf" without any clearly "half-elf" features. That's when I realized the game was on to something.) so, how about:

A "monk," who gets into melee, can deal bonus damage to nearby enemies or the original target when it hits, and has one or two movement modes to let it get around. (It occurs to me that one intended function of flurry of blows might have been for the monk to roundhouse packs of minions, which a monster won't tend to need to do, though PCs might have minions or minion-like things on their side.)

A "shaman" who creatures a moveable conjuration or two that benefit itself and its allies and which can attack and be attacked, but not trivially destroyed. If the "conjuration" is another monster that's fine, but it should be somewhat sturdy.

A "battlemind" who can mark enemies, counter their attempts to escape by shifting or teleporting next to them, and punishes transgressions automatically, in proportion the damage the mark dealt.

Another thing that occurs to me is that PC abilities don't just need to work more times than most monster powers, but they need to be more general, since monsters can be picked for an environment or a specific party, but PC powers generally can't. So, while I'm not sure that messes too much with balance, I do recognize that as a difference. On the other hand, PCs also get more powers than monsters, and got a lot of their generalization from that.

I was going to ask for a monster that can augment its powers, but I find that some Dark Sun monsters have a sort of augmentation, and that there's a monster theme that offers it generally. Are themes deemed to be in the same category as templates, or are they considered better since they're more clearly meant to be a grab bag (which I think templates were too, at least the PC-type ones, though that's in the fine print).

In reply to engine (msg # 31):

Are you testing me?  If so, you needed to give me a level or level range.  ;-)

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 32):

Right, sorry. Let's say level 4-6. I could bring it up or down to a lot of my needs from there.

And I don't mean it as testing, exactly. I'd like a demonstration of how you'd make such monsters, as I'm not sure how I would.

Monk Option:

---

Battlemind Option:

---

I ran out of time to do the Shaman.  (That's two monsters, in reality, so it's a bit tougher.)

Obviously, the race can be switched about, but I chose races that seem appropriate for the concept.  Plus, the idea of a kobold monk is fun and I like it.

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 34):

Thanks. Could you tell me how those were those arrived at?

The battlemind is nicely shifty, but doesn't have any psionic flavor to speak of, let alone something akin to mindspike. I'd use it in an encounter, but I would have trouble thinking of it as a battlemind. It seems to be a fairly typical soldier. Are there any soldiers that behave significantly differently? They're all simple to run, but I don't remember ever seeing one that really made me thing it would make a PC worry too much about the punishment (then again, players will often avoid free attacks purely out of principle, it seems).

In reply to engine (msg # 35):

The monk's base is a shadar-kai chainfighter with the shadar-kai stripped away and the kobold ability added in.

The issues you have with the Battlemind probably come from the fact I've never played one, so I only had your description to go on in a quick search.  It's a bit more piecemeal, and I may have actually stripped away a ranged power that could have been made psionic in favor of the Tactics power.  In that one, the base was a Kenku Ringleader.  Its at will powers were replaced by an at-will from something I literally can't remember because it was so generic...some kind of hunter, I think.  Its Encounter was replaced by the Kobold Dragonshield's Dragonshield Tactics, altered so that it only works when a creature moves away and adding the attack if the triggerer is marked.

I'm not sure anyone ever has.

Thanks for the explanations. The most I've done is reflavor things now and then, or level and de-level things. I don't think I've ever moved powers around.

@Godzfirefly, those monsters are brilliant! I love them, that's a brilliant execution of what engine was describing. I think these would work excellently in play.

@engine, I did not mean to come across negative above. I love changing monsters around, and godfirefly's examples above are really workable, because - key point - they have one or two options per round rather than five.

Have any of you seen the alternate monster themes in 'Open Grave'? Unlike the themes I criticised upthread, these were quite interesting. I used 'Spawn of Kyuss' (on page 218) with great effect a long time ago (admittedly in a D&D next test game but anyway, still).

The best, however, are the 'alternate powers' on page 220. These replace a 'racial/monster-type' power typical of 4E monsters with something else. For example, a power that replaces all mummies' 'despair' aura with a different power that afflicts unlucky PCs with mummies rot disease. These worked for me, in my head, because they replaced, rather than added to, a monsters powers.

In reply to jacktannery (msg # 38):

I get (with some sadness) that monsters aren't going to get to use more than a few powers, but I have to reiterate my infirm grasp of why having extra powers is a problem. If we were talking about monsters in a book that were laden with more options than they could ever hope to use, that would be one thing - though even still a monster that has both melee and ranged powers might be good, even if it's likely only to use one kind or the other in any given encounter.

But we're talking about monsters I'm making myself, by using the templates. Yes, I'm adding powers, but even if I leave the original powers in place, I'm probably focused more on the ones I added. A kobold slinger with a ranger template is probably twin striking his quarry, rather than bothering with special shot. I'd only be adding the class powers and features that I intended to use. In my own notes, I'd probably leave out the other ones.

The DMG class templates form pretty good guidelines for what the Eberron and PHB 3 templates would have looked like. My main question is really about power points for psion, ardent and battlemind. But, going by how Dark Sun monsters use augmentation, I imagine that, rather than messing with power points, the rules would say something like "Instead of choosing an encounter power, choose an augment from an/the at-will power/s. If you choose the [mid-range] augment, the creature can use that twice in the encounter, though only once per turn. If you choose the [top-range] augment, the creature can use that once during the encounter. If the daily power you chose has an augment, apply that to an/the at-will to form a power the creature can use once per encounter."

By the way, are there any guidelines for creating recharge powers, in terms of what kinds of powers should recharge, and how often?

In reply to engine (msg # 39):

There are a few reasons that having a monster with too many powers is a problem.

1) From a practical standpoint, too many options slow down the game as the DM has to consider them all before deciding on them (not as much of an issue for PbP, admittedly, but still a concern.)

2) The more powers you have, the more likely you'll include one that breaks an encounter.  This is particularly an issue for inexperienced DMs that want to have 'super-cool awesome monsters!'

3)  If you have too many powers (especially passive ones,) the monsters start stacking effects like PCs do.  Which is another risk of breaking an encounter.  (Again, monsters shouldn't really be acting like PCs.)  This is especially an issue since there's a temptation to give every monster an option to use every type of action...Interrupt, Opportunity, Minor, Move, etc.  At higher level, that's fine.  At lower levels, that's a balance issue.

There's no problem with having both a ranged and melee attack power.  Many monsters do.  There's nothing wrong with having a variety of powers or a variety of monsters in an encounter with varying power roles.  That's often good encounter design.  There is a bit of an issue with the desire that many inexperienced (or even experienced) DMs fall into to munchkin or power-game encounters.  And, that can result in super-long combats.  (Or super fast TPKs...)

As for power points on monsters...what is the point of that?  Monsters don't have to save resources for multiple encounters like PCs do, so they don't need power points any more than they need a difference between Daily and Encounter powers.

4) If monsters have powers to cover every eventuality, it detracts from the tactical-combat-mini-game which is a key part of 4E from a player perspective. What's the point of immobilising the brutes if they have a ranged attack?

5) When a monster has the ability to inflict a condition on a PC, consider carefully the duration. If it's something that can effectively lock down that character -- like dazing or stunning -- give it a fixed duration, like until the monster's next turn. "Save ends" should be reserved for conditions that hinder or inconvenience, so that players can still do something. Under no circumstances should you have an ability that stuns with "Save ends)".

Just because the monster has additional powers doesn't mean I'm going to use them. If I went to the trouble of adding a class template, I'm probably most interested in using those powers.

If that were to happen, I could just stop using that power, and resort to using the monster as written (and as bulked up into an elite). Instead of the extra powers being problematic, they're a nice fallback.

Anyway, broken powers can happen even with premade monsters, so I already have an approach for working around that.

What makes you think I have that tendency? It sounds like you're arguing against them as a general thing, and no general thing works for everyone. I'm just thinking of them for myself.

That's not a concern for me.

As normal monsters can do the same, I already have ways to work around this.

If this were about creating monsters for other people to use, I'd tend to agree with you. But this is just for me. If my templated monster happens to have more powers than it can possibly use, I'm not going to find that confusing or frustrating, because I'm not expecting to be able to use all of those powers (though I still think, as a general thing, that a monster with a lot of powers just needs a few soldiers to run interference and buy time.)

The same point as for PCs. But did you read where I conceded that they're probably not needed for monsters to achieve the same effect?

Power points aren't saved from encounter to encounter. They come back after a short rest.

"Brutes" would probably be, at most, two per encounter, since a PC template brute is an elite. I suppose I could have a group with a lot of elite members who show up frequently, but I don't see anything wrong with shaking up the "tactical-combat-mini-game" a little with a brute who is also artillery (especially since I'm probably focused on using the artillery powers I picked out.)

Reasonable general advice, and probably good for players too. Bear in mind that I'm not really talking about inventing powers here, so everything is going to have a duration.

In reply to engine (msg # 43):

I think we might be misunderstanding each other here.  I thought we were talking about the concept of a GM altering monsters in 4th edition...an abstract concept that would apply to a hypothetical GM.  I didn't realize you were asking purely for the purpose of you as a GM using the information in your personal campaigns.  I would certainly have phrased my points differently had I realized that was the thrust of your side of the discussion.

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 44):

I'm not sure I've been consistent in my points in this discussion. I had wondered if the templates had been published, and learned that the concept was not well thought of (I've certainly never seen the approach used outside of the vampire lord in the Monster Manual). I wondered why that was and received a number of different reasons. The reasons mostly seemed valid, but fairly general, and rather worse-cased. At some point I realized that I (especially after being made aware of them) could personally side-step those concerns, in my specific case.

I'm not a powergamer, trying to squeeze as much into a monster round as possible (despite meager estimation of monster survivability being an incentive to do just that), but if I hadn't looked for advice here, it's likely that I would have perplexed and frustrated myself by hoping to use all of the template monster's powers in the encounter without planning for how to keep the monster around long enough to do that. Thanks to the advice I've received here, I know to take to heart the DMG's note that a full template need not be applied, and I can bear in mind that the point (for me) is not to load up a monster with powers, but to give it class powers and abilities, in a relatively balanced way, primarily so I can see rarer classes in (a sort of) action.

Imagine that the party is pursuing or being pursued (or both) through or throughout a region. How would you run that in such a way that:

A) The pursuit isn't the main action, but more of an overarching goal. That is, the PCs are still interacting/exploring/fighting as one would expect, but with the pursuit always in the background.

B) Skills, rituals, utility powers, racial features, class features and items can make a difference. If the PCs work to hide their tracks, sleep minimally, use wilderness knacks, set up camps magically, use magical/alchemical/mundane alarms or traps, ride mounts, etc (or if the opposition does!) this should matter, but not all of these things are easily tracked or made applicable.

C) The time spent on adjudicating aspects of the pursuit are relatively minimal. Camp or travel preparation and execution should take no more than two exchanges of posts between player and DM and no more than just a few rolls. The same for incidents that occur during rests or on the road, pertaining to the pursuit.

Normally, I'd be happy to use skill challenges for this kind of thing, but I'm not sure how to mesh those with say, an instant campsite or items or rituals that allow for a campfire to be hidden and silenced (oddly, scent is never addressed), or even mounts. Adjudicating these for the players would be tricky enough, but I also feel like I should adjudicate them for the other group(s) in the chase. It seems daunting. Is there a way to make those options meaningful, but not overly complicated?

In reply to engine (msg # 46):

I'd say ...

There would have to be enough enemies that the PCs know they couldn't just fight them all and win.  Effectively infinite enemies (though not literally, in-story), so that the PCs can win fights against groups of them without reducing the threat of the whole.

The PCs would need enough of a head start that they can conceivably hide, use stealth abilities, and make preparations.  But, not so much of a pursuit that they feel someone catching up to them is unreasonable.

While most of the pursuit should be trackers and scouts who the PCs can reasonably defeat, the PCs should know there are foes just behind those pursuers (who can't track, but can be alerted to the PCs' presence) that the PCs would probably be captured/killed by.

Skill Challenges should not describe the entire pursuit, but instead overcoming particular obstacles of the pursuit.  And, they should be designed so that failure doesn't get them "caught" but does give away their position to the trackers.  And, success shouldn't get them "away" either...it should give them enough breathing room to get some rest, at most.  (Unless you're ready for the PCs to get away...)

Terrain should be varied and meaningful, educating both skill challenges and combat maps.

And, probably the #1 thing to remember is that the PCs need to always want to get away from whatever bad thing the enemies are threatening more than they want to surrender to stop dealing with the frustrating challenges of pursuit.

It's a razor's edge of challenges that you propose.

Thanks for the reply. They are all good comments, some of which I had considered myself.


Agreed. In the event that the micro-encounters involved actually NPCs, they could be agents ahead of the group who had been contacted by magical means or by particularly fast scouts. In the case of the PCs pursuing, they could be agents left behind.


The ongoing threat might not necessarily need to be directly from the pursuit. There would be times when the PCs could reliably trust that they had a strong lead, or had shaken pursuit, but would still have to be wary of things that could interfere with their ability to flee (such as, say, pixies turning all their ritual components into cheap glitter, or their mounts being infected by local vermin or plagues). At higher levels, scrying attempts could become a constant concern.

The intent would be that they could linger in locations long enough to have some normal adventuring, especially if part of the reward would assist them in the chase. Or, sometimes they would have to linger, perhaps to wait for a pass to thaw, or a ship to leave.


Yes, or some other failure mode. Maybe the PCs have something or someone that they don't dare leave behind (or just want to tweak someone off about), like River Tam in Serenity. Ooh, extra good if the McGuffin in question either is somehow detectable, or causes problems of its own - again, like River.

That way, if they don't want to bother with defeating the pursuit, or they get some bad rolls and the failures snowball, the game doesn't simply grind to a halt with an impossible fight.


Definitely agreed. And it's clear you understand what I'm after: a long-term threat that can change in immediacy but won't resolve entirely for a little while.


And the individual mini-encounters, I think. A ship is delayed by an unexpected kraken migration (coincidence or enemy action?), a "shortcut" through the Feywild is beset by nymphs who can't take a hint, a mountain pass is thickly haunted.


Definitely. I think the players would definitely need to be brought in on this, so we could find something that they were interested in pursuing/being pursued by over an extended time. I feel like fiction holds a lot of these, though of course the author isn't necessary beholden to the wills of the characters or to random number generators.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Are there easy ways to track things like relative distances and travel rates? How does one judge how long to let an advantage matter before the other side figures out how to counter it? Like, the party acquires new and better mounts, and changes the distance to their advantage; how do I judge when the other side notices this, and counteracts, and how much counteraction they are able to achieve? I'm worried that there's no way to do that impartially unless I have a highly detailed world and essentially play out the other side on my own - and even then it won't be that impartial.

As far as relative distances, I'd just keep it abstract.  "You're pretty sure you have enough time for a long rest," or "You earned a short rest, but you can hear the hunting dogs bays echo across the hills around the valley you're in," or "You may have bested that party, but it won't be long before the scout that got away brings reinforcements."

The more literal your tracking of relative distances are, the more you constrain yourself as a GM.  And, odds are your PCs don't have a truly clear idea how far behind them pursuit really is anyway.  Nor should they.  (In fact, you should probably roll some skills that aren't skill challenge related in secret for the PCs to make sure they aren't sure how accurate their own scouting is.)

Also, it probably says a lot about the kind of campaigns I run and play in that it literally never occurred to me that you might have meant the PCs are pursuing a foe...

I think part of what I'm after here is some constraint. Specifically, I want the players to be able to constrain my options through their choices. If they decide to ride through the night, or pay extra for faster mounts, I want that to matter and for them to have some sense of that.

What I think I'd have to leave abstract would be the ability of the enemy to counter the PCs. If the PCs seemed to have a reliable means of moving faster or evading detection (say two straight days of the PCs gaining ground or going undetected) the enemies would up their game in some way. The trick would be doing this in a way that didn't completely frustrate the players. A way that they could hope to counter initially by stretching a bit, but which they would need to find a more permanent solution for (ideally via some adventuring).


I don't go for that approach, but that's a different, non-system-related discussion.


I've never seen it done myself, but it seems like a classic mission. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas pursuing the uruk-hai, for instance.

I have been trying to think of reasons a party might need to run, even when they think they could take the enemy. In general, it would be when the enemy doesn't need to kill or capture the PCs in order to win.

I think one common (almost to the point of overuse) approach is to have the heroes be the protectors of someone or something that isn't capable of engaging in a direct attack or otherwise taking care of itself. Ideally, the McGuffin in question cannot simply be secured someplace or entrusted to someone else. It should also have some capability for interfering with efforts to keep its existence and location hidden.

The One Ring/Ringbearer; the rag-tag, fugitive fleet led by the Battlestar Galactica; River Tam (River can defend herself, but it's hard to know if she'll do that, or rub soup in her hair). If they weren't guarding their charge, the good guys could be leading a charge, or at least be more free to choose their own course and pace. And of course in each of those cases the good guys would probably be killed or captured if the pursuers ever caught up, but they don't have to be. The uruk-hai capture Merry and Pippin and could have captured Frodo (it occurs to me to wonder if Saruman gave them any heads-up about the possibility of the target suddenly disappearing), without killing anyone except Boromir. The Cylons can hit-and-run. River might wander off.

Elora Danan is another good example. She has to be brought someplace, she can't fend for herself, and she has an annoying habit of making noise at inopportune times.

By the same token, the party could be pursuing enemies in charge of such a thing. It matters rather less though, because the game doesn't halt if the PCs catch up to and kill a bunch of monsters.

Also, am I missing something, or are there no rules for obscuring one's trail? Seems like Stealth or Nature, with modifiers for speed, mode of travel and terrain. Bluff could throw someone off the trail, one imagines. I guess I'd handle this with skill challenges.

In reply to engine (msg # 50):

I don't think 4th edition went into a lot of detail into what skills can do.  It pretty much said, "here are the categories; anything you can think of that counts as a skill should fit in one of these; roll as needed."

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 51):

True, though I think it's noteworthy that disguising tracks was discussed, with a table and everything, but that obscuring tracks was not. It's probably easy enough to replace the base DC to find tracks by the Nature or Stealth check of the person hiding the tracks.

Or, if I were making this part of a skill challenge, a Nature or Stealth check against a static (though possibly modified) DC.

I said something like this about 4E on a different forum. On the roleplaying side, it's rules-lite: a lot of abstraction, short lists, improvisation, and 'do what makes sense to you'. On the tactical side, though, it goes the opposite direction -- very specific terms, unambiguous rules, and no improvisation.

In combat, if the rules don't say you can do it, then you can't.

Outside of combat, if the rules don't say you can't do it, you can try.

Thereby hang unwritten volumes on the (perceived) psychology of D&D players.

Does anyone know a source for 4e-era Dragon articles or issues?

Can a stunned creature command a summoned creature or the like? A stunned creature "can’t take actions," but the summoner "needs to spend actions to command it mentally. The wording is similar to that for the beastmaster ranger, and I suspect for similar mechanics.

I suppose "no" makes the most sense, since "stunned" suggests that a person is too out of it to do anything, and can't even speak, and "spending" actions (while not defined as an action itself) could be reasonably assumed to mean "if you're capable of taking actions yourself" or to be a free action, which a stunned creature can't take.

Thought I'd ask, though.

No, a stunned creature can't take any actions, period. But most summoned creatures and beast companions have some sort of default action they take if their master doesn't (or can't) give them orders.

I know. That wasn't in dispute.


Most summons don't, though a fair number probably provide side benefits. Chalk up one for beast masters (although the beast apparently has to return to the master's side before acting independently) and druid summons.

Could we get a new topic thread? One for electronic aids? This would give us a space to discuss the Character Builder, Monster Builder, or third-party programs.

In reply to LonePaladin (msg # 59):

I loved the Character Builder and Monster Builder when it was supported.  So disappointed when they stopped... :-(

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 60):

I realize this has probably been covered elsewhere, but why did WOTC just stop supporting 4e altogether? Didn’t anyone like Paizo want to buy the rights and keep it going? It is such a fun system. It’s no more crunchy than 3.5/Pathfinder and Pathfinder is doing really well, or so it would seem...

In reply to jkeogh (msg # 61):

The simple answer is that, unlike 3.5 and Pathfinder, there is no legal free version of the rules. Anyone can make their own version of 3.5, which is what Pathfinder is, but no one could just make a version of 4th Edition, because they don't have anything to work from.

I gather 13th Age was meant to have a fair bit in common with 4th Edition. I couldn't get into all the stuff with the Icons.

All that aside, as much as some people enjoyed 4th Edition, it really is quite widely reviled. I think it partly goes back to the fact that people loved the openness and availability of 3.5, and saw 4th Edition as closed and expensive. So, there was no real point in trying to argue its merits: even if people found they enjoyed it, there was still that monetary leap to take.

I might make this its own topic:
How important do you find it as a player or a GM to keep all of the roles covered in a party?

Personally, the only group I would have trouble being in or running in would be a defender heavy group. Defenders don't overlap very well, I feel. Even more than one is likely to be a drag for one of them against a single powerful opponent, unless that opponent has a way of neutralizing defenders and having a back-up is useful. If a group really wanted to play an all-defender group, I'd probably just make the game about protecting NPCs or something.

But I've encountered people lately who request that parties they run or participate with are "balanced." Some GMs feel that this (along with the "standard" 5 PCs) makes planning a game easier for them. Others feel that it keeps game from bogging down, mainly because there's at least one heavy damage dealer, and an infrastructure to keep them alive and hitting. Without that, they feel, things go amiss.

But what about the controller? Don't get me wrong, I love controllers, and they can be clutch in some situations, but usually replacing a controller with another striker or leader is not likely to hurt a group. So, that might be another way to think of my question: why is there a need to fill the controller role? If it's merely sentimentality, hey, I get that. But I assume that's not always the case.

And of course I'm focusing a lot on combat here. Controllers tend to have access to highly useful utility powers, and many of them are also ritual casters¹, so they could prove highly useful outside combat. Then again, at least two leaders also have access to ritual casting.

So, I'd be interested in your thoughts. As long as players who want balanced parties are willing to change to fill the perceived gaps, I'm fine with it as a GM. And as long as no one forces me to play a role I don't care to play (which there usually isn't, but one does have moods), I'm okay with GM's requiring it.

¹ Seekers, hunters and (oddly but understandably) mages are the primary exceptions, though hunters do have wilderness knacks.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:11, Fri 16 Feb 2018.

As one of the DMs who likely sparked this idea for discussion, my own opinion of it has changed over the years. Initially, I put a lot of emphasis on having a group with all four roles, for pretty much the reasons you've given. Granted, when we only had the Player's Handbook that essentially meant that someone was playing a wizard.

I'm going to call that sort of party "well rounded" instead of "balanced", because the goal there is making sure you've got some of everything.

Of course, as later books came out and more classes were added, the... um, well, the role of each role blurred a bit. Some classes labeled as Controllers had good damage potential. Some Strikers could draw aggro. Some Leaders could alter the battlefield.

So, intentionally or not, the focus of building a party shifted away from the pigeon-holes of Controller, Defender, Striker, Leader. And when the Essentials line came out they pointedly veered away from it. A fighter sub-class became a Striker, as did a wizard subclass. A ranger became a Controller. A barbarian became a Defender. A druid became a Leader. And then there were the hybrid class rules.

Ultimately, it turned into "play what you want, and we'll figure it out". If everyone wants to make Striker-types, then you've got a party of glass cannons. Party of leaders? Unlikely, but doable, and good luck hurting them.

In reply to engine (msg # 63):

In my opinion, the need for all 4 traditional roles (in any edition of D&D) is directly proportional to the amount of combat in the campaign.  Specifically, if a campaign has particularly hard combat encounters, large numbers of encounters without rest periods, and/or long combats.  If any of those are a major concern in your campaign, having a team capable of coordinated tactics and covering the valuable roles is particularly important.

If your campaign is not particularly combat heavy, then role coverage isn't very important.  If you struggle to make milestones with combat in your campaign, you're probably not worrying about things like combat resource economy or role coverage.  Even very hard combats can be covered pretty readily if you're willing to throw large amounts of resources at it because you know there's unlikely to be another combat that day.  And, even if you have large numbers of combats per day, you don't use up resources that quickly if all your combats are super-easy.  And, by the same reasoning, if you don't need to try that hard to win a combat, you don't really need to be that optimised.

The same reasoning applies to the question, "How important is it to build a character optimised for combat?"  In a very real sense, it is the same question, just applied to a character instead of a team.

Now, when you play face-to-face with players and a GM you know the playstyle of, you usually have a feel for how important any of these concerns are.  But, on rpol, players can't know if the GM will throw a lot of hard combat, a lot of easy combat, or very little combat at all (per in-game day.)  And, the GM can't be sure the players will be skilled at either building characters or performing in combat.  So, both sides tend to prefer teams that can handle that uncertainty.  They want to be ready for a worst-case scenario.  After all, an early end to a campaign due to TPK isn't usually fun for anyone.

Has anyone here had any success/fun playing in the Dark Suns setting in 4e? I was curious about the Themes in particular and if there were any great stories of a party using these themes?

In reply to jkeogh (msg # 66):

I got the books and read them, and found that I still didn't understand what Dark Sun was trying to achieve. I think it made more sense back in 2nd Edition when it came across as a way to push back against many of the tropes of the game that were tired even then.

Themes seem to work well enough, though I almost always see them as just a way to tack on some extra abilities, rather than as a way to increase one's characterization. I played a character once with the Noble theme who I played as an exile from his homeland, but it didn't come up much. I couldn't even tell you what everyone else's themes were.

I think they might work a lot better in Dark Sun. I wanted to play a wilder in particular. Good luck.

In reply to engine (msg # 67):

I guess your point about themes is usually the case. Traits in Pathfinder are often treated similarly (chosen for the benefit potentially omitting the flavor that they were designed for)...

In the game I recently started -- and some of you know which one I'm talking about -- I looked over the entire list of themes, basically removing those that were specific to DS, then allowed all the rest. I intended them to be used to indicate what a character does outside the context of their race/class combination, a way to reflect their profession or way of life.

Likewise, I asked them to pick multiple Backgrounds -- and to use these as placeholders to build their actual background on. I've made notes about each, and have already started making notes on which elements might be useful for later stories.

Perhaps it's too early for you to tell, but has your intent been borne out?

I think so. We still need time for the ideas to gel, but already I'm seeing some behavior indicative of the choices made there, rather than just simply playing up to race/class stereotypes.

Yo.

You mind removing me from this? There is one of you in particular I don't like. We don't want to hear each other - that's mutual at this point.