Search forums

Forums

Export thread

D&D 4e question

Nov 30, 2009#1

Math242

I used to play D&D 2.5 back in the day. Recently, a few friends decided to play again.

We bought the 4e and have been having 2 sessions. IT's been bumpy but fun. the players are total d&d noobs and i never dm'ed before but anyway i digress.

one of my players wants to dual wield. I know the 2.5 and 3e rules but i cant't figure any single reason to go dw instead of 2h or S&B except for coolness.

So i need help.

Edit: What i mean is: he's a warrior. He won't actually hit with 2 weapons except but will gain +1 damage, +1 attack in some cases and some cool dailys?

That's all there is to it?

Nov 30, 2009#2

Shawn

There are some powers that allow for two attacks. Usually they are used by rangers who tend to be more proficient at using two weapons. If your friend would like to dual wield I recommend he change his character to ranger as it caters more to that class. Fighters are Defenders in the game, and their primary use is keeping enemies from attacking other people. They are much better with a sword and shield than they are dual wielding.

Classes have their roles in the game. Defenders are the tanks. Leaders are the healers and buffers. Controllers utilize area attacks. Strikers deal massive amounts of damage to single targets.

If your friend wants to be a damage machine with two blades, he wants to be a ranger.

Please also keep in mind that I believe that people often assume that their creativity is based solely on the name of a class. For them, a ranger is always someone who hangs out in trees and shoots people with arrows. For me, I also can imagine a dual wielding, street fighter for example.

Nov 30, 2009#3

Jay

Shawnacy said:
Please also keep in mind that I believe that people often assume that their creativity is based solely on the name of a class. For them, a ranger is always someone who hangs out in trees and shoots people with arrows. For me, I also can imagine a dual wielding, street fighter for example.

Drizzt Do'Urden!!!

Nov 30, 2009#4

Shawn

SeriousJay;306657][quote=Shawnacy said:
Please also keep in mind that I believe that people often assume that their creativity is based solely on the name of a class. For them, a ranger is always someone who hangs out in trees and shoots people with arrows. For me, I also can imagine a dual wielding, street fighter for example.

Drizzt Do'Urden!!![/QUOTE]
I didn't say he had to be a drow with scimitars.

Nov 30, 2009#5

Jay

You did now.

Now he knows what to tell his friend.

Nov 30, 2009#6

Shawn

"Now the whole species consists of nothing but Chaotic Good rebels, yearning to throw off the reputation of their evil kin"
-Nale of the Linear Guild.

Nov 30, 2009#7

Jay

The drow? Hardly. It goes completely against their nature and their beliefs in their very core. Drizzt is the only one who truly left his old world and has strived to do good in the world. Reading the Dark Elf Triology would give someone a good idea on all of this.

Nale is a hack.

Nov 30, 2009#8

doomdragon6

I think they changed dual wielding rules in the latest update. Not sure though.

Nov 30, 2009#9

Math242

I'll check the Ranger more carefully then. I'm doing everything in this group even the research for their chars

any tips from DM's on how not to get crazy when dealing with players would be appreciated

Nov 30, 2009#10

Covar

SeriousJay said:
The drow? Hardly. It goes completely against their nature and their beliefs in their very core. Drizzt is the only one who truly left his old world and has strived to do good in the world. Reading the Dark Elf Triology would give someone a good idea on all of this.

Nale is a hack.

I think you missed the point.

Nov 30, 2009#11

Math242

. <------

Drows should not be PC's and that's it

Nov 30, 2009#12

Shawn

Math242 said:
any tips from DM's on how not to get crazy when dealing with players would be appreciated

Never say no.
Well... to some requests you have to say no. But I mean in a roleplaying perspective. A lot of it's improv, and in improv you build on what is given. This is a goal for the players and the DM. If a player wants to have his character do something that seems cool and within reason, let him do it. Even if there isn't rules for it, make something up. Have him make a acrobatics role to swing from a chandelier if he wants to. The more your players are allowed to flex their rp muscles the happier they will be.

Nov 30, 2009#13

Gusto

- Work your characters' backstories into the game, especially if the group is RP-heavy. I love when Shawnacy plays my character's criminal past to his advantage/detriment.

- Give every character a chance to feel like a rockstar, especially in combat. The rogue and cleric in the 3.5e game I DM are kinda underpowered, so I made a temple that emphasized disarming traps and generally being dexterous, and included a battle against several skeletal monsters that a Turn Undead was able to disable and push off a waterfall.

Nov 30, 2009#14

Chibibar

As a DM, you want to be FLEXIBLE. Also remember this rule, you can always change the rules of the game to suit your needs. Or Make it up

That takes practice. Allow your players to do some really cool heroic things and make them feel that the plot can't really proceed without everyone's input (not at the same time but you get the idea) Players WILL digress from your original story one way or another, have some backup or even "side trip" and then "steer" them into the main story one form or another. Never let the player knows that they have derail from the main story

Nov 30, 2009#15

Jay

Make them pay.

Great way to keep them in line. They want to steal from the poor? Karma can be a bitch. Player wants to rush forward? Setup ambushes, traps that discourage players who don't be careful about their exploring.

Nov 30, 2009#16

Chibibar

SeriousJay said:
Make them pay.

Great way to keep them in line. They want to steal from the poor? Karma can be a bitch. Player wants to rush forward? Setup ambushes, traps that discourage players who don't be careful about their exploring.

I do that all the time

The cool thing about being a DM and playing D&D type games is that you (the DM) can change your own story along the way. If there wasn't a trap there before when you wrote the story, put on there if needed. You can always drop NPC, items, traps, or even plot item along the way on the fly. Yea it does make DM a little harder, but sometimes a good improv can make a game REALLY fun and challenging (also it is a good way to gauge your team to see how well they do stuff. If they get their butt kick really early, might need to tone down the encounter a little.)

Nov 30, 2009#17

Gusto

Make your battles kind of scalable. Id they get through the first encounter too easily, consider adding more enemies to the second encounter. Maybe just increase the enemies' HP. You gotta kinda get a feel for this, as well as what resources the party has.

In my 3.5 game, I set up a difficult encounter (mini-bosses) but the players took it down easily using tactics I didn't even consider. However, they had to use just about ALL of their high level spells to do it, so it evened out okay.

Nov 30, 2009#18

Allen, who is Quiet

Make sure you're having fun when DMing. You're also playing the game, you're just doing it in a different way than the players. If you aren't having fun, the players aren't having fun.

Dec 1, 2009#19

Math242

thanks for the input guys, keep it coming !

i'm having fun but i feel very limited by the premade adventure i bought so we would have a tutorial.

Can't wait to set up my own campaign in the Faerun. Thinking and writing the story was the easy part. What's difficult to me is get my friends to RP (even write a god damn backstory for their char is asking too much) just a little.

Dec 1, 2009#20

Chibibar

Math242 said:
thanks for the input guys, keep it coming !

i'm having fun but i feel very limited by the premade adventure i bought so we would have a tutorial.

Can't wait to set up my own campaign in the Faerun. Thinking and writing the story was the easy part. What's difficult to me is get my friends to RP (even write a god damn backstory for their char is asking too much) just a little.

well. I have learn that some group doesn't like to RP as much so maybe put more "action" for the game. I have DM some games where practically every encounter is a fight or a puzzle with some story behind. It depends on your players. If they get bored while RP when less RP and more fights.

Maybe have a campaign where players are require to interact with NPC (you) that might get some RP going. You could mix in a little external references to get the players going (something similar like other Fantasy settings, sci-fi, anything really)

This is what I really love about D&D, you can change anything to suit your needs and the players.

Dec 1, 2009#21

Covar

Chibibar said:
Maybe have a campaign where players are require to interact with NPC (you) that might get some RP going.

Just be sure any NPC party member stays just that: an NPC. No one likes the Uber DMPC.

Dec 1, 2009#22

Gusto

Covar;307170][quote=Chibibar said:
Maybe have a campaign where players are require to interact with NPC (you) that might get some RP going.

Just be sure any NPC party member stays just that: an NPC. No one likes the Uber DMPC.[/QUOTE]

I have a set of DMPCs in my game that directly result from player RP. It's actually pretty cool.

Back in the first city the characters were in, the cleric won a drinking contest at a bar that was being run by the dwarven bartender. He then drunkenly made some offhanded comment about how all the dwarf's booze was basically like water, and the dwarf said that he'd have something better for him next time.

2 levels and like 6 sessions later, the PCs came across the dwarf in the jungle, being strangled by an assassin vine. After rescuing him and fighting the vines, the dwarf cut up the vine and put the pieces in a jar in his bag, and the PCs realized he was looking for new, more volatile ingredients to ferment.

2 more levels later and the group ran into the dwarf and two humans in a small fishing town. The dwarf was still on the lookout for new ingredients, but had to enlist the help of the humans (a bard and a sorceress) because as the jungle had proven, he wasn't cut out to solo adventure. The group teamed up with the PCs to cross a dangerous swamp, and are currently all situated in the human kingdom of Newcastle.

The bard has since joined the PCs as one character's Leadership cohort, and it won't be the last time the two parties meet.

Dec 1, 2009#23

Chibibar

Gusto;307184][quote=Covar;307170][quote=Chibibar said:
Maybe have a campaign where players are require to interact with NPC (you) that might get some RP going.

[/QUOTE]

That is pretty cool. This is a good way to "rope in the PCs" to follow the quest in case they are stuck or something. Math242 could create a DMPCs group (not powerful but strong enough to match the PC) to be as villians or even helpers to steer the PCs to the right direction.

Math242: if your players love problem solving like puzzles, traps, and riddles, you could put that stuff in the game so you wouldn't have every encounter = combat (if they don't like RP) but I'm sure you can find something your group might relate and RP more.

Dec 1, 2009#24

Covar

See that's an awesome NPC. The Uber DMPC is a truly foul creature, which is only a member of your party because the DM can't play the game by himself. The DMPC is clearly miles above the PCs and is the true focus and hero of the campaign. Note this is not to be confused with the DM's bitch slap. The DMPC does not exist to keep players in line, and is a much more permanent problem.

Dec 1, 2009#25

Chibibar

I try to avoid uber DMPC. Most of my DMPC are just like any other PC. The only difference is that since I'm playing them, I try NOT to give away too many stuff or only be with the party for a short time just to guide them in the right direction. The whole point of the game is to let the players BE the focus of the story. This is what make a good DM. It does take practice.

Dec 1, 2009#26

Gusto

Nah, my DMPCs originally existed to be rescued by the party. Now, when they're helping the party AT ALL, they're volunteering exposition/information/suggestions, or helping the party get a few more in numbers/combat situation. They all fought a 9-headed hydra together.

And they're always gonna be like 2/3rds the party's level.

Dec 1, 2009#27

Allen, who is Quiet

You can't be a GM entirely for yourself. Your players have ways they like to do things and you have to learn to accommodate. However, make sure you accommodating doesn't make things less fun for you, and therefore everybody else.

My group doesn't really roleplay. If I run a game system that assumes a lot of RPing, I have to compensate. The book assumes events like "the master sees one of the shyer maids naked." will be a jumping off point for conflict, and therefore, story. That won't happen with my group. They won't care. I have to do events like "find the ingredients for a cake and bake one in a post-apocalyptic world" to make them want to participate and get in the game.

Dec 1, 2009#28

Chibibar

Here are some tips to get your group to roleplay (at least works for me over the years)

- start with a typical item or a puzzle piece. This is a good way to start off some quests.
- start with a treasure found that could relate to the main quest
- Have NPC join the party and possible of "giving up" the party for something. This could start RP on players vs NPC/villain of some sort.
- a typical bait/trap type scenario to see if the party willing to rescue or fall into a trap. You could pre-write either way. join the bandits and marauders (DOES and CAN change alignment overtime depending on deed) or rescue and start a totally different quest

one of the fun thing is that you could give each player a "personal quest" that is only known to them and trying to complete for extra exp/item at the end of the game

Dec 2, 2009#29

ncts_dodge_man

doomdragon6 said:
I think they changed dual wielding rules in the latest update. Not sure though.

Fighters can dual wield in 4.0 - the Martial Power book has a build that dual wields.

I know this because I just built a Dragonborn fighter for my group's Eberron-setting game doing this build - it's the Tempest Fighter build that starts on page 6.

Here's some of the information about it:

Martial Power said:
When you wield two melee weapons, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with weapons that have the off-hand property.

You gain Two-Weapon Defense as a bonus feat, even if you don’t meet the prerequisites.

When wearing light armor or chainmail, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with melee and close weapon attacks when you are wielding two weapons. This bonus increases to +2 with weapons that have the off-hand property.

Here's the daily power that goes with this build:

Martial Power said:
Tempest Dance:

Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage. If you have combat advantage against the target, the attack deals extra damage equal to your Dexterity modifier.

Effect: You can shift 1 square and repeat the attack against a second target. You can then shift 1 square and repeat the attack against a third target.

I'd say this power would be great against groups of minions.

But, since a fighter is a defense role, you won't be doing nearly as much damage as a striker character when dual wielding.

Dec 2, 2009#30

Math242

i don't like this division in roles they did in 4.0

Dec 2, 2009#31

Baerdog

Why not? All they did was take the party roles that were implied in 3.5 and make them explicit.

Dec 2, 2009#32

AshburnerX

Baerdog7 said:
Why not? All they did was take the party roles that were implied in 3.5 and make them explicit.

They also pigeon holed everyone into those roles, instead of allowing generalists like before.

Dec 2, 2009#33

Allen, who is Quiet

AshburnerX said:
They also pigeon holed everyone into those roles, instead of allowing generalists like before.

Such as?

Dec 2, 2009#34

AshburnerX

Allen said:
They also pigeon holed everyone into those roles, instead of allowing generalists like before.

Such as?[/QUOTE]

Bards used to be the generalist class, with some nice group buffs on top of their utility. Experts were the non-combat class that could just about anything outside of battle, but then again, when EVERYONE can pick locks, build traps, identify mystical effects, identify magic items, and such... why even bother make a non-combat class?

Dec 2, 2009#35

Allen, who is Quiet

When you say "generalist", you appear to be referring to skillmonkeys. Which is another role.

Dec 2, 2009#36

Chibibar

Yea. 4.0 kinda made all classes into combat class.

BUT you don't have to play 4.0

or even better, you can make your own skills/spells/ and rules (once you get more experience on the game) We have so many homebrew rules for our gaming group.

Dec 3, 2009#37

Ravenpoe

It's already been stated, but it deserves to be repeated.

The number one rule of being a good DM is this: Allow your players to be awesome. In fact, encourage them to be so. Your job is to tell a story in which they are the heroes and do awesome shit. You're on their side (but never let them know this).

The rules are also just guidelines. Has the character sprung a trap that, according to the rules, would lead to the death of his character? In most cases, this is probably not the best course of action... maybe a hidden mechanism knocks him out to be kidnapped instead... now the party gets to rescue him!

Ok, that's a lame example, but I think you get the idea.

Dec 3, 2009#38

RoboKomodo

I found one of the biggest things I was worried about before I started DMing was how to communicate with the players effectively. A great way is to listen to some of the podcasts on iTunes of people playing D&D, particularly the ones from WotC with Kurtz, the guys at Penny Arcade and Will Wheaton, cause the guy DMing is, well, a professional DM.

Dec 4, 2009#39

Math242

ah thanks for the tip, i'll do that

Dec 4, 2009#40

eMagdAeH

AshburnerX;307729][quote=Baerdog7 said:
Why not? All they did was take the party roles that were implied in 3.5 and make them explicit.

Dec 5, 2009#41

Chibibar

eMagdAeH;309621][quote=AshburnerX;307729][quote=Baerdog7 said:
Why not? All they did was take the party roles that were implied in 3.5 and make them explicit.

They also pigeon holed everyone into those roles, instead of allowing generalists like before.[/QUOTE]

This is a different vein of thought, but similar idea...

4.0 really did a lot of pigeon holing that I wasn't a big fan of. I had made a Spell-Scarred subclassed DW Fighter with the idea that he was a nearly uncontrollable berserker. The DW was an aesthetic thing (again with the pigeon holing). I didn't feel like the sneaky roguish types really fit the idea I had for the character, but I ended up finding that to be effective while following the game rules I ended up needing to switch to a rogue.

Thanksfully, our DM is VERY open with the rules, and let us get away with a lot. Oh well, that's my personal gripe to it. Honestly, if it's not too late, I'd recommend bringing your group back to 3.5 for your self-written adventure. Again, this is total opinion, but I don't think I'm alone in that opinion.[/QUOTE]

What I did with my group (before we went back to 3.5) is that for magic users, I incorporate a lot of the spells that was remove and put back into the game via per encounter and per day powers. A lot of the skill checks we put back in, tweak for specialization and such.

I do love the new combat system in 4e. It makes the fight goes faster and "more epic" for the players. I know that mages get the shaft in early levels since they don't have many spells to work with or how many time they can cast, but it kinda even out at the end.

Forums