D&D 4E Running player commentary on PCat's 4E Campaign - Heroic tier (finished)

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's kind of you. I'm glad that our musings here are of some use to other DMs, and I'm having a great time planning the transition into the next tier of play. We'll probably start a new thread when we hit 11th level 5 games from now; this thread is getting long.

We're not playing this week due to Thanksgiving, so I'll muse about something else. One of the players is unhappy with their character's mechanics. Logan's player Alomir originally wanted a smart rogue, an int/dex build. That wasn't originally available so he went with the dex/str build, and mechanically his character turned out almost identical to Sagiro's.

After six or seven levels (and after a few splat books came out!) we agreed to try something else, and Logan was rebuilt as a cunning sneak. My worry at the time (which I probably kept to myself) was that it just didn't seem like a very fun build to play. Sneaks live or die based on complicated stealth rules, and they're ranged. That means either you're standing back from the melee and sniping in while effectively invisible, or the enemy sees you and HOLY CRAP AUGGH YOU'RE SCREWED because you rely so heavily on stealth. I personally think getting targetted by monsters is fun and exciting, so a PC designed to never get seen or hit wouldn't be as enjoyable for me.

It's taken another few levels before Alomir reached a similar conclusion. We love Logan's personality and backstory, though. So the question is: if a player isn't happy with their character's mechanics, how far do you go to tweak the character mid-game?

There was a time when I'd have said "You broke it, you bought it," and allowed no changes. I no longer feel that way. Storminator's MnM game has taught me that allowing flexibility in character creation and upkeep results in excited players with high buy-in. Retraining rules help a little, of course, but we are looking at something more substantial here.

And I think we have a fun solution, one that (a) makes Alomir happy, (b) makes me happy, (c) keeps Logan in the game, (d) is justifiable by the plot (you'll see in the next write-up), and (e) pushes the storyline forward in an interesting way. I'm really intrigued to see how it turns out. We'll report here.

Well, I'd put it this way, you can make a rogue with whatever attribute distribution you want, and using a variety of fighting styles. BS rogues (and RR if anyone really ever used them) are pretty well going to be DEX/STR mechanically, but a 3rd stat in INT is sure feasible. You could wrangle that to be as high as 16 starting with an ideal race, but more likely 13-14 with a minor hit on primary and secondary. Not a GENIUS rogue, but still highly intelligent.

An AD build likewise is going to likely be DEX/CHA, but you CAN skimp on the CHA and again you can swing a 13-14 INT without killing the character's combat viability.

I'd say the same thing is true with the CS rogue. I'd also say that while the CS rogue certainly is ideally mechanically conceived of as a sniper that doesn't preclude other options. Just don't choose Sharpshooter Talent to replace Rogue Weapon Talent. The character will work pretty well and has no dependency on any stat except DEX. You get a very sneaky blade wielding melee combatant who can chuck up his INT pretty much as high as he wants and not pay TOO much for it. His NADs will be less than super impressive but that's really about it. Toss your tertiary stat into CHA probably so you don't tank all the typical rogue skill choices and maybe have an option to use a power or two with riders on them but really it isn't going to be a big deal.

I mean I don't the guy's character concept fully, but it seems pretty viable. Beyond that you'd have to look to other classes, TBF ranger in particular can be easily skinned as a dual-wielding roguish type pretty easily, though you're no more likely to want to pump up his INT (well, at least it doesn't overlap with DEX for defenses and you really don't need much of that if you're pure melee). A sneaky warlord might even be interesting.

 

[Piratecat]

Thanks! I won't say yet what the transition will be. I like it, though.

 

[whydirt]

I'll be interested to see what you came up with, but I'd just allow the player to take either the Brutal Scoundrel or Artful Dodger build and substitute Intelligence for Strength or Charisma for all stat-based riders along with reskinning/reflavoring things to show a more tactical or cunning fighting style. Going with a Dex/Int build is already weakened by doubling up scores in the same non-AC defense, and I can't think of much off the top of my head that would make this too powerful for the PC.

Before PH3 came out, I made a "monk" by swapping Artful Dodger powers from being Cha-based to Wis-based, renaming Sneak Attack to Flurry of Blows (i.e. it's a strong attack, but you can only use it when your opponent is off-balance), and giving them an "unarmed strike" that was equivalent to a rogue's dagger. Obviously, it was a jury-rigged fix, but it was better than nothing!

 

[Piratecat]

And speaking of "tying things together," here's the handout I just emailed my PCs. It consists of diary excerpts that they found just now when violating Lord Tomberlin's private office.

I love handouts. Ideally this should be printed out, soaked in coffee to make it look lightly aged (or partially obscured with spilled ink to simulate the damage before they realized its significance!), and handed out at the table to be read. I wanted to give folks something to think about over the holiday, though.

[sblock=My players, please stay out]This diary answers a number of partial mysteries, such as:

- How did Cobalt come to join the Grey Guard?
- What has likely happened to Caducity Skirr?
- Why was someone helping Alene to arm the lizardmen near Floodford?
- Who was manipulating Duke Tordon to secede from Capria?

It also shows that the PCs know more than Riverlimb does about certain subjects. They know that the bogwoman was actually a rakshasa named Alene, who is in fact the fallen deva Aleph. Most importantly, they found and are carrying the sword that Riverlimb is obsessed about - and he doesn't know it!

The diary also has some foreshadowing. You'll see those wizards again.

In a nutshell, that's one way to keep long-term campaigns going and feeling fresh. Information is power. Every once in a while tie plot threads back together so that the players can see how things connect, even as more plots get opened up. We're gearing up for Paragon tier, and some of this stuff is going to resonate forward. I wanted a callback to it now, so that it's fresh in peoples' minds a year from now when it pops back up.

I also want to give the PCs a major bargaining point and see what they do with it. If they're over their head, they may be able to trade that sword for their freedom. I suspect they will have other plans in mind, though.[/sblock]

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

 

[DayTripper]

It's taken another few levels before Alomir reached a similar conclusion. We love Logan's personality and backstory, though. So the question is: if a player isn't happy with their character's mechanics, how far do you go to tweak the character mid-game?

There was a time when I'd have said "You broke it, you bought it," and allowed no changes. I no longer feel that way. Storminator's MnM game has taught me that allowing flexibility in character creation and upkeep results in excited players with high buy-in. Retraining rules help a little, of course, but we are looking at something more substantial here.

Similarly, I used to have the opinion of "you bought it so tough luck" but have shifted considerably in the 4e era - not sure if that is because of the change of edition or whether I've mellowed in my old age...

In my last campaign, I allowed the player to effectively rebuild their character mid-adventure. They were a rogue too - I wonder if its just rogues that cause this problem, something to do with how you imagine your rogue to be the coolest ever and it never quite works out as well in the rules as it does in your head/in the books/on TV/in the films? The player kept their background and class but chose a new build, new feats and new powers. Made no difference to the game mechanically - they were still a level X rogue. Nor did it make any difference to the game play - same character, same background, same santimonious & contradictory views on "property" and "ethics". The player was much happier with their new build, other PCs didn't really notice and made no difference to the campaign so why not let people rebuild whenever? Obviously this view doesn't hold for all games or all players - we all know some people who might take this generous flexibilty by the DM too far and rebuild just to exploit the latest cheese but for my players, those interested in characterisation, story and plot, I see no reason to force them to continue playing a character they've become disappointed with mechanically.

 

[wedgeski]

I agree with the general sentiment. I have several house rules which make the transition to a new character or build fast and smooth, while still trying to maintain at least a semblance of continuity in the campaign. Ultimately as a DM I put player fun paramount, way above the need for any sense of realism in the campaign, so a player who was obviously bored or frustrated with their PC could make pretty much whatever changes they wanted and I wouldn't mind. Perhaps I would draw the line at a different build every week.

 

[Blood Jester]

That means either you're standing back from the melee and sniping in while effectively invisible, or the enemy sees you and HOLY CRAP AUGGH YOU'RE SCREWED because you rely so heavily on stealth. I personally think getting targetted by monsters is fun and exciting, so a PC designed to never get seen or hit wouldn't be as enjoyable for me.

As one of your players (other campaign) that is interesting (but not surprising) to hear, the kind of build you described sounds like a blast to me, assuming one does not consistently get "outed".

I realize the irony in being the teams Fighter.

One of the things I enjoy a lot in many flavors of gaming is the perfect kill. Either a surprise strike out of nowhere, or attacking with such perfect team coordination that the opponent (despite being a true threat) never stands a chance. I love scouting/harrier parties that slowly over months whittle away *much* larger forces, while constantly fading away into the darkness. In fantasy worlds, that is often the role of those trying to tear down an oppressive tyrannical rule.

If you can do that to a worthy foe, to me is the sign of a true accomplishment, and is a lot of fun.

 

[Alomir]

I'll be interested to see what you came up with, but I'd just allow the player to take either the Brutal Scoundrel or Artful Dodger build and substitute Intelligence for Strength or Charisma for all stat-based riders along with reskinning/reflavoring things to show a more tactical or cunning fighting style. Going with a Dex/Int build is already weakened by doubling up scores in the same non-AC defense, and I can't think of much off the top of my head that would make this too powerful for the PC.

And that's almost exactly the proposal I was going to make to PC, before he suggested that I take a look at... something else

I had an 'int-based AD rogue' almost ready to go (swapping in int for cha wherever needed, and sensical - it really wasn't everywhere) - but I like where we've ended up much better. I can't wait to see how it plays out!

 

[RangerWickett]

I am a little disappointed that there's no mechanic in 4e that actually lets you kill an enemy in one hit, unless the enemy is a minion. I love the system in general, but if a PC decides to undertake an assassination mission, and he Solid Snakes his way up to the pre-established-as-being-a-badass villain, I'd like rules to give him a chance to off the guy.

Maybe a prolonged skill challenge, representing sneaking up, assessing the target, and then getting in close enough to deliver the killing blow (which is a normal attack roll with a big bonus). Mess anything up on the way in, and you alert the bad guys. Mess up the assessment, and your attack is just a crit, not a coup. Miss the attack roll, and you're going to just kill him the old fashioned way.

Has anyone actually written out something like that?

 

[Alomir]

As one of your players (other campaign) that is interesting (but not surprising) to hear, the kind of build you described sounds like a blast to me, assuming one does not consistently get "outed".

I realize the irony in being the teams Fighter.

One of the things I enjoy a lot in many flavors of gaming is the perfect kill. Either a surprise strike out of nowhere, or attacking with such perfect team coordination that the opponent (despite being a true threat) never stands a chance. I love scouting/harrier parties that slowly over months whittle away *much* larger forces, while constantly fading away into the darkness.

It's funny, that (still) sounds cool to me too! Unfortunately, after trying it for several levels, I'm forced to admit that it just wasn't working out that way in practice. I still can't quite put my finger on the exact issue; mechanically, it was working out reasonably well, but it just didn't have that feel to it.