Dungeons & Dragons 4e advice

[Cairhiin]

I don't think you quite understand..

My every-turn ability will be Hypnotism. Hypnotism forces the enemy to attack itself or an adjacent target with a +4 bonus. That means that the DM makes the monster roll the attack with a +4 bonus. Since he rolls behind the screen, a lot of my power is in the DM's hands. With most DMs, this is fine, but I'm afraid about this one.

My daily power, the one I've focused my items and stuff around, is a simple slow (save ends) that has bonuses after he fails his first save. I give the target a -4 to his saving throw, requiring him to roll a 14 or better to succeed. The DM makes the saving throw. Not me.

To be honest I think you should talk to your DM. I'm a DM of a 4e DnD game myself and I personally would never disadvantage my players like that. If you feel your DM isn't fair on you, you need to address that, and express your concerns. Especially because you are normally the GM, and you finally catch a break and get to play. Explain to your DM that you are there to have fun and that his job is to provide a frameset for that fun, not dominate his players and frustrate them.

Talk to your DM, and play that Wizard. My advice.

[Sunseeker]

The OP's problem isn't with DND or the game, it is with the GM - getting a system you can enjoy even with a cheating GM, now that's advice IMO.

Apparently ou enjoy 3.X/Pathfinder. Great so do I.

Apparently the OP enjoys 4e and hey so do I.

At the moment the OP is playing 4e. So telling him that the solution to his DM problem is to play a different edition SOLVES NOTHING. It's bullshit edition warring.

[Tankitbetter]

I'd honestly say Wizard if you had a choice in it (meaning neutral DM). Only speaking from 3.5 experience here. Not sure how the Bladesinger changed in 4.0

I never played one in 3.5 - in 4e, they are melee medium damage targets with soft control (every-turn slow or prone or something similar) and an incredible amount of single target burst damage. They also are quite tanky.

---------- Post added 2013-02-18 at 07:40 PM ----------

Okay, first; Are you sure this isn't just your innate role of DM causing you to feel that you are being picked on because you are not behind the Screen?

I actually thought this too until two other players in the game mentioned it separately that they thought he was being a bit unfair.

---------- Post added 2013-02-18 at 07:42 PM ----------

To be honest I think you should talk to your DM. I'm a DM of a 4e DnD game myself and I personally would never disadvantage my players like that. If you feel your DM isn't fair on you, you need to address that, and express your concerns. Especially because you are normally the GM, and you finally catch a break and get to play. Explain to your DM that you are there to have fun and that his job is to provide a frameset for that fun, not dominate his players and frustrate them.

Talk to your DM, and play that Wizard. My advice.

I am afraid that the DM will say "fine, you DM then!" and then my brief respite will be even briefer. =/

[Gemini Sunrise]

I never played one in 3.5 - in 4e, they are melee medium damage targets with soft control (every-turn slow or prone or something similar) and an incredible amount of single target burst damage. They also are quite tanky.

Sorta liked them as just offshoot Fighter/Wizards (Song of Celerity was so cool), but I guess it's alright that they made it an actual class.

[Telwar]

First, in general, go for the full wizard. It's got pretty much the most support of any class, probably having nothing to do with the name of the company.

However, the player feels that after 5 years, he finally has power over me and he seems to be taking advantage of it.

See, when I did that, I just focus fired the old DM a few times. But to be fair, it was a Shadowrun game, and the old DM did play the mage, and, well, "geek the mage first."


If you're absolutely worried that he's going to fudge rolls so they always miss or always save, well, he *probably* won't do that, but you'll want to keep an eye out to see if they're missing each other or saving too often. If they are, and he isn't bitching about wasting perfectly good attack rolls ("Gah! Minion crit!" is a constant refrain from one DM), then you might want to have a talk.

[Tankitbetter]

First, in general, go for the full wizard. It's got pretty much the most support of any class, probably having nothing to do with the name of the company.



See, when I did that, I just focus fired the old DM a few times. But to be fair, it was a Shadowrun game, and the old DM did play the mage, and, well, "geek the mage first."


If you're absolutely worried that he's going to fudge rolls so they always miss or always save, well, he *probably* won't do that, but you'll want to keep an eye out to see if they're missing each other or saving too often. If they are, and he isn't bitching about wasting perfectly good attack rolls ("Gah! Minion crit!" is a constant refrain from one DM), then you might want to have a talk.

fuckinghateminioncrit....

Thanks for the advice. I've been leaning wizard anyway because if I went bladesinger, it would be more striker than controller, and I'd like to do some controlling.

[Sunseeker]

I actually thought this too until two other players in the game mentioned it separately that they thought he was being a bit unfair.

The DM has the right to make their rolls in secret. But the DM only has powers because the players allow him. If you collectively ask him to roll in the open, maybe he will. No guarantee.

I am afraid that the DM will say "fine, you DM then!" and then my brief respite will be even briefer. =/

Well, I guess it'll just prove he's the dick we all think he's being.

[Tankitbetter]

The DM has the right to make their rolls in secret. But the DM only has powers because the players allow him. If you collectively ask him to roll in the open, maybe he will. No guarantee.


Well, I guess it'll just prove he's the dick we all think he's being.

Good point on #1.

On #2, that may be, but that wouldn't solve the problem

[Cairhiin]

I am afraid that the DM will say "fine, you DM then!" and then my brief respite will be even briefer. =/

That sounds like a lose lose situation, even if you were not to play the Wizard. The DM could easily just fudge the rolls of the monsters, and still make your life a living hell independent on what class you play.

[Deleted]

fuckinghateminioncrit....

Thanks for the advice. I've been leaning wizard anyway because if I went bladesinger, it would be more striker than controller, and I'd like to do some controlling.

As an advice out of experience against cheating DMs always play the most self sustainable class you can, cleric or druid would be my choice, but if you really have made up your mind on those classes I'd say wizard. Except I'd advise using spells with no save as much as you can, playing an enchanter usually requires a very good relationship between player/DM.

[Tankitbetter]

As an advice out of experience against cheating DMs always play the most self sustainable class you can, cleric or druid would be my choice, but if you really have made up your mind on those classes I'd say wizard. Except I'd advise using spells with no save as much as you can, playing an enchanter can usually requires a very good relationship between player/DM.

If he turns out to really, really fuck me and nothing will change his mind, I will bite the bullet and DM again.

[Sunseeker]

That sounds like a lose lose situation, even if you were not to play the Wizard. The DM could easily just fudge the rolls of the monsters, and still make your life a living hell independent on what class you play.

In such a situation, I'd play a character whom I have control over all the rolls, or at least the majority.

It may not "balance out the party" or have a lot of control effects, but you'd be firmly in control of what your character does.

[Tankitbetter]

In such a situation, I'd play a character whom I have control over all the rolls, or at least the majority.

It may not "balance out the party" or have a lot of control effects, but you'd be firmly in control of what your character does.

I know, but I really wanted to play super-cc-dude. I guess I'll look through the Wizard again and see if I can find another build I like.

[chibichibiko]

It might not make sense for you to make the monster's saving throw, but it certainly makes sense to see that monster's saving throw (unless you set a precedent for opaque saving throws/monster attacks when you were DM). It would, I think, also make sense for you to make a charmed/dominated monster's attack rolls too.

Personally, I suggest complete roll transparency. It's actually quite simple for a DM to fudge an encounter without fudging rolls. All it takes is changing monster behavior/decisions or adjusting the battlefield.
Want players to have to retreat? set up a snowball mechanic that they can observe getting more difficult over time.
Need to give a player a break after (s)he's had crappy luck (near death, public shame, or hasn't hit anything all game, etc)? Make the monster's tactics change, not his numbers: Provoke an AoO or two; Make the monster demand a surrender; Change the battlefield; Hell, when the party is all but defeated have a monster turn on his friends to try to steal their share of treasure. Or, shit, pull a rabbit out of the hat in a way that doesn't involve lying to the players. All a DM has to do to ruin combat for everyone is make them feel like it's all pageantry, and the easiest way to do that is by rolling behind a screen.

On topic: You need to solve the issue of trust before you can play a controller. Controllers usurp the DM's ability to do things with their monsters. They limit DM choices. If you're really, really good at optimization/controlling and the party is very tactically minded, there's some combat encounters that are the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. If you feel that a DM is willing to fudge rolls to 'maintain a sense of danger' or some silly concept like that, then you know that (s)he will invalidate a controller's addition to the group, because that role, more than any other, can change the level of danger in any given round of combat.

[Tankitbetter]

It might not make sense for you to make the monster's saving throw, but it certainly makes sense to see that monster's saving throw (unless you set a precedent for opaque saving throws/monster attacks when you were DM). It would, I think, also make sense for you to make a charmed/dominated monster's attack rolls too.

I did. I rolled everything behind the board. Occasionally, during good or bad streaks, I would reveal my rolls by lifting up my DM screen just so players knew I was being fair.

On topic: You need to solve the issue of trust before you can play a controller. Controllers usurp the DM's ability to do things with their monsters. They limit DM choices. If you're really, really good at optimization/controlling and the party is very tactically minded, there's some combat encounters that are the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. If you feel that a DM is willing to fudge rolls to 'maintain a sense of danger' or some silly concept like that, then you know that (s)he will invalidate a controller's addition to the group, because that role, more than any other, can change the level of danger in any given round of combat.

I am thinking I am going to turn "Controller" in to "Soft controller with AoE" simply due to this fact.

[OrcsRLame]

I probably can't offer much help since I'm a 3.5 player, but I'll do my best. Is damage reduction still a thing in 4e? Because if it is, and you're a melee heavy party like you say, I'd go with the wizard. It's been my experience in other versions that rogues do more damage on paper, but they're easy to focus down, and enemies with DR or enemies immune to sneak attack, (elementals constructs and undead go lololol@you) cause your damage to tank, while a well played wizard can keep right on melting faces.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

[Pachycrocuta]

Sounds like your friend is a massive dick and really shouldn't have the "power" of the DM, if he lets it go to his head and abuses it (which it sounds like he did/does). Honestly, if none of the others in the group want to DM, and the only other choice is a power-hungry dick, I would suck it up and DM instead of playing for that guy. Sure, you might get more enjoyment from playing, but I wouldn't call playing for such a person as enjoyment.

As for class choice? Can't help you with that one, as I feel Wizards of the Coast practically destroyed D&D when they went with 4th edition. But that is not for here, so I will leave it at my advice about the DM. But I always did like the wizard, second only to the druid.

[Telwar]

I probably can't offer much help since I'm a 3.5 player, but I'll do my best. Is damage reduction still a thing in 4e?

In place of 3/.5-style DR, in 4e there are vulnerabilities and resistances. Like, say, an angel might have Resist 5 to Fire and Radiant, so it takes 5 less damage from a fire attack. Something with vulnerability will take that much extra damage, so something with, say, Vulnerable 15 to Radiant will take 15 more points of damage from an attack that does Radiant damage.

Resistances aren't thrown around quite as much as DR was. They're out there, but they're not terribly common. Vulnerabilities are less common, and mostly found on undead. Blanket immunities are incredibly rare, much less so than in 3/.5.

---------- Post added 2013-02-18 at 07:02 PM ----------

If you're looking for character types that don't involve save-by-fiat but fit the idea of controlling, you can try:

Mage (Pyromancer): BURN! BURN EVERYTHING!!!!!! Downside is that the rest of the party will whine when you get one of them in the explosion, but they shouldn't've surrounded themselves with monsters, now, should they? White Lotus Expertise and War Wizardry (at paragon) will help there, as will telling them to stop whining and just get some Fire Resist. That you're breaching with Gift of Flame, but hey.

Warlord: Focus more on buffing and granting attacks than healing. Works very, very well if the rest of the party has good basic attacks. If they don't...well, let's just say when I tried this, we had a much easier time when the fighter was there than when he was out. Mine was ranged, but one option I was looking at was taking reactive encounter attack powers so you could spend your standard actions granting attacks or charging.

Invoker: The second-best controller in the game! Go summon angels to do your bidding. I'd think Covenant of Wrath for more healing surges (so your angels will last longer). Take some party-friendly bursts/blasts so you can scratch the meleers' backs repeatedly without them whining. You'll want at least a 13 Str so you can buy Scale armor, and focus on your defenses so your angels are harder to hit.

Sorcerer: Well, monster death is the best form of control. I've had a decent storm sorcerer who had a lot of not-terribly-unfriendly AoE, and my current fire elementalist sorcerer is great fun. Same "Wah, wah, you took half my health with that hit" downside, with slightly more damage/hit.

Ranger (bow): Oh, hell, just Twin Strike everything to death with a bow. Take an elf with a 20 Dex, 16 Wis, and a 13 Con and you're off and running.

[Tankitbetter]

Thanks for the advice, all. I ended up rolling a stupid-ac monk with some self-heals via items and multi-class. I agree with the person above me who said "Go self-sufficient" and I'll still be a great minion popper and have decent soft CC.

[Tankitbetter]

Update 2/25
Looks like I'm DM'ing. My monk, who was fighting on a 4-square wide icy bridge that the DM railroaded us to, rolled a nat 1 on his acrobatics check. He fell off the bridge and died. No chance to save myself. My teammates, including a telekinetic psion, couldn't respond. Just a death despite having an obscene acrobatics check. Fuck this.