A couple optional 3.x rules I'd like to see in 4e - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

A couple optional 3.x rules I'd like to see in 4e

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
seeker_of_truth_02
Apr 07, 2010 20:05:47 1) Flaws. I'd like to see some mechanical reason to have something wrong with your character.

2) Organizations and Factions. I realize that some people prefer this stay strictly role-playing and I realize that some will say it will make 4e even more video-gamey but I found this fun and would like to see a return.
#2
Herrozerro
Apr 07, 2010 20:42:09 Organizations and factions are already in the game.

I have seen quite a few dragon articles or other examples that use feats or paragon paths to signify membership.

White lotus is one, the guild feats are another.

As for the flaws... I dont see any more reason for this besides more bonus points for making a paraplegic, deaf and blind character with god stats or abilities because he took "flaws".
#3
RPJesus
Apr 07, 2010 21:14:50

As for the flaws... I dont see any more reason for this besides more bonus points for making a paraplegic, deaf and blind character with god stats or abilities because he took "flaws".

They already have that. It's called "Born under a bad sign" .
#4
ah_stormbringer
Apr 07, 2010 21:23:41 I hope they learned from the problems flaws caused in earlier editions. Most people took flaws to get better abilities and in this system that could cause a serious game imbalence something I don't think wizards wants to see happen to D&D again. As for organizations there are already mechanics in the game for those, they might not be hard or fixed like in third edition but they are there.
#5
laredric
Apr 09, 2010 12:20:50 1. Touchstones as treasure, and Legendary Weapons. I really miss the story aspect of those things.
2. Teamwork benefits, which we applied mostly to the enemy
#6
bone_naga
Apr 11, 2010 15:09:27 Much as I used to love flaws, I found that they were too easily abused. Characters tended to take the flaws that affected them the least, or that they would have RPed anyway just to get extra abilities. When you have an entire party of adventurers with the flaw "greed" (because who'd have thought that a group of people who alternate between mercenary duty and raiding tombs to steal treasure from dead guys would be greedy) you quickly realize that the system did not have the desired effect.
#7
GhostStepper
Apr 11, 2010 22:19:31
1. Touchstones as treasure, and Legendary Weapons. I really miss the story aspect of those things.

Have you seen the rules for artifacts in 4E? They are closer to the old legacy items than they are to the old artifacts.
#8
fjw70
Apr 12, 2010 10:15:16
Much as I used to love flaws, I found that they were too easily abused. Characters tended to take the flaws that affected them the least, or that they would have RPed anyway just to get extra abilities. When you have an entire party of adventurers with the flaw "greed" (because who'd have thought that a group of people who alternate between mercenary duty and raiding tombs to steal treasure from dead guys would be greedy) you quickly realize that the system did not have the desired effect.

In the short time I played 3.5 the DM had you roll for flaws. I never took them since I didn't want to chance getting an archer that got -2 to ranged attacks. Still I only saw flaws used as a powergaming tool.
#9
salla
Apr 12, 2010 14:57:41

In the short time I played 3.5 the DM had you roll for flaws. I never took them since I didn't want to chance getting an archer that got -2 to ranged attacks. Still I only saw flaws used as a powergaming tool.

They pretty much were. You'd always take the flaw(s) that impeded you the least. Every archer/spellcaster character I played took the 'penalty to melee attacks' flaw; all my melee characters took the 'penalty to ranged attacks' flaw, because those would never affect me. I'd usually take the flaw that penalized my strongest save, too.
#10
chanter_hound
Apr 12, 2010 15:55:24 My flaws were always -1 hp per level, and -1 ac.

My characters were generally also always reckless or ranged. I figured that, hey my character is a ranged person.. instead of taking classes on "What to do when you are are fighting in melee or getting shot at by arrows" he focused more on "Shoot more arrows! Dead things don't shoot back!"

I'd never take non-combatant, even if my character was an awsome wizard. I prefered to take one that did effect me somehow.

Course in my current game, my flaws were used to take aberrition feats to allow my character to be more cat like. Nothing like taking -1 ac, -1hp per level, -3 to bluff, handle animal, diplomacy, gather information, and sense motive, -1 to spot in bright light... just to get 25 feet dark vision +4 balance +2 listen. (Both of which don't have any ranks in them.)
#11
Nyarlathotep
Apr 12, 2010 21:52:10
The best way I have seen to work flaws is in Deadlands where you got an extra reward when flaws actually affected you and the worse the effect it had, the more of a reward you got later. It made them kind of self-policing. Admittedly, even that system was open to abuse by more unscrupulous players, but in my campaigns at least it DID encourage the players to take flaws that would actually have an effect.

I am not 100% sure how such a method could be worked in D&D but maybe it could be something like if a flaw affects the the character in a given encounter, the character gets a +1 to a +3 on the first attack of the next encounter (depending on how much effect the flaw had), or something like that.
#12
Sea-Envy
Apr 12, 2010 22:51:58 One rule that I think would have made 4E better would be the fluid initative system from Spycraft 2.0

In that system many special attacks gave a small initative penalty when attempted or a bonus when they hit or a penalty to the enemy on a hit. That way it would not get too predictable with 10 rounds of the rogue on 22 the fighter on 16 the orcs on 12 and the cleric on 8.
If your initative got way too high you had to lower you initative count and take a free standerd action

Of course that would require rewriting 80% of the attack powers but it would make combat more dynamic.

Oh and since Spycraft started out as an AEG game it also had a flaw system that gave extra EXP when the flaw became a part of the story.

And besides the Dragon articles and Guild/tribe/school feats there is also the adventuring cmpany rules for living RPGA.
#13
Ash2Dust
Apr 13, 2010 13:22:00 The way I see it with flaws:

If people want their characters to be flawed for role playing reasons, they'll just do it.

If you offer a "flaws for rewards" program in order to incentivize "proper role playing", then the people who wouldn't have flawed characters for the fun of it are either not going to bite at all or going to take the least negative flaws in exchange for the greatest benefits they can get. Either way completely negates the reasons for instituting the mechanic in the first place, so why bother?
#14
Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi
Apr 13, 2010 22:09:48
The way I see it with flaws:

If people want their characters to be flawed for role playing reasons, they'll just do it.

If you offer a "flaws for rewards" program in order to incentivize "proper role playing", then the people who wouldn't have flawed characters for the fun of it are either not going to bite at all or going to take the least negative flaws in exchange for the greatest benefits they can get. Either way completely negates the reasons for instituting the mechanic in the first place, so why bother?

But on the other hand, if you wanted a character with a flaw that seriously hampered your character, wouldn't you want something to help you catch up? Personally, I think that sort of compensation is better handled by DM fiat, since it really needs fine tuning to the situation.
#15
wrecan
Apr 14, 2010 13:55:35
But on the other hand, if you wanted a character with a flaw that seriously hampered your character, wouldn't you want something to help you catch up?

No. If I had my character cut off his own hand, I wouldn't expect the DM to give me a new feat to compensate.

If I want my character to be blind, I'll talk to my DM about it. Either...

1) my character already compensates for it and ends up being the equivalent level, or
2) my character is blind and has to deal with that drawback... probably by paying someone to cast a ritual to get rid of it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 seeker_of_truth_02 Apr 07, 2010 20:05:47	1) Flaws. I'd like to see some mechanical reason to have something wrong with your character. 2) Organizations and Factions. I realize that some people prefer this stay strictly role-playing and I realize that some will say it will make 4e even more video-gamey but I found this fun and would like to see a return.
#2 Herrozerro Apr 07, 2010 20:42:09	Organizations and factions are already in the game. I have seen quite a few dragon articles or other examples that use feats or paragon paths to signify membership. White lotus is one, the guild feats are another. As for the flaws... I dont see any more reason for this besides more bonus points for making a paraplegic, deaf and blind character with god stats or abilities because he took "flaws".
#3 RPJesus Apr 07, 2010 21:14:50	As for the flaws... I dont see any more reason for this besides more bonus points for making a paraplegic, deaf and blind character with god stats or abilities because he took "flaws". They already have that. It's called "Born under a bad sign" .
#4 ah_stormbringer Apr 07, 2010 21:23:41	I hope they learned from the problems flaws caused in earlier editions. Most people took flaws to get better abilities and in this system that could cause a serious game imbalence something I don't think wizards wants to see happen to D&D again. As for organizations there are already mechanics in the game for those, they might not be hard or fixed like in third edition but they are there.
#5 laredric Apr 09, 2010 12:20:50	1. Touchstones as treasure, and Legendary Weapons. I really miss the story aspect of those things. 2. Teamwork benefits, which we applied mostly to the enemy
#6 bone_naga Apr 11, 2010 15:09:27	Much as I used to love flaws, I found that they were too easily abused. Characters tended to take the flaws that affected them the least, or that they would have RPed anyway just to get extra abilities. When you have an entire party of adventurers with the flaw "greed" (because who'd have thought that a group of people who alternate between mercenary duty and raiding tombs to steal treasure from dead guys would be greedy) you quickly realize that the system did not have the desired effect.
#7 GhostStepper Apr 11, 2010 22:19:31	1. Touchstones as treasure, and Legendary Weapons. I really miss the story aspect of those things. Have you seen the rules for artifacts in 4E? They are closer to the old legacy items than they are to the old artifacts.
#8 fjw70 Apr 12, 2010 10:15:16	Much as I used to love flaws, I found that they were too easily abused. Characters tended to take the flaws that affected them the least, or that they would have RPed anyway just to get extra abilities. When you have an entire party of adventurers with the flaw "greed" (because who'd have thought that a group of people who alternate between mercenary duty and raiding tombs to steal treasure from dead guys would be greedy) you quickly realize that the system did not have the desired effect. In the short time I played 3.5 the DM had you roll for flaws. I never took them since I didn't want to chance getting an archer that got -2 to ranged attacks. Still I only saw flaws used as a powergaming tool.
#9 salla Apr 12, 2010 14:57:41	In the short time I played 3.5 the DM had you roll for flaws. I never took them since I didn't want to chance getting an archer that got -2 to ranged attacks. Still I only saw flaws used as a powergaming tool. They pretty much were. You'd always take the flaw(s) that impeded you the least. Every archer/spellcaster character I played took the 'penalty to melee attacks' flaw; all my melee characters took the 'penalty to ranged attacks' flaw, because those would never affect me. I'd usually take the flaw that penalized my strongest save, too.
#10 chanter_hound Apr 12, 2010 15:55:24	My flaws were always -1 hp per level, and -1 ac. My characters were generally also always reckless or ranged. I figured that, hey my character is a ranged person.. instead of taking classes on "What to do when you are are fighting in melee or getting shot at by arrows" he focused more on "Shoot more arrows! Dead things don't shoot back!" I'd never take non-combatant, even if my character was an awsome wizard. I prefered to take one that did effect me somehow. Course in my current game, my flaws were used to take aberrition feats to allow my character to be more cat like. Nothing like taking -1 ac, -1hp per level, -3 to bluff, handle animal, diplomacy, gather information, and sense motive, -1 to spot in bright light... just to get 25 feet dark vision +4 balance +2 listen. (Both of which don't have any ranks in them.)
#11 Nyarlathotep Apr 12, 2010 21:52:10	The best way I have seen to work flaws is in Deadlands where you got an extra reward when flaws actually affected you and the worse the effect it had, the more of a reward you got later. It made them kind of self-policing. Admittedly, even that system was open to abuse by more unscrupulous players, but in my campaigns at least it DID encourage the players to take flaws that would actually have an effect. I am not 100% sure how such a method could be worked in D&D but maybe it could be something like if a flaw affects the the character in a given encounter, the character gets a +1 to a +3 on the first attack of the next encounter (depending on how much effect the flaw had), or something like that.
#12 Sea-Envy Apr 12, 2010 22:51:58	One rule that I think would have made 4E better would be the fluid initative system from Spycraft 2.0 In that system many special attacks gave a small initative penalty when attempted or a bonus when they hit or a penalty to the enemy on a hit. That way it would not get too predictable with 10 rounds of the rogue on 22 the fighter on 16 the orcs on 12 and the cleric on 8. If your initative got way too high you had to lower you initative count and take a free standerd action Of course that would require rewriting 80% of the attack powers but it would make combat more dynamic. Oh and since Spycraft started out as an AEG game it also had a flaw system that gave extra EXP when the flaw became a part of the story. And besides the Dragon articles and Guild/tribe/school feats there is also the adventuring cmpany rules for living RPGA.
#13 Ash2Dust Apr 13, 2010 13:22:00	The way I see it with flaws: If people want their characters to be flawed for role playing reasons, they'll just do it. If you offer a "flaws for rewards" program in order to incentivize "proper role playing", then the people who wouldn't have flawed characters for the fun of it are either not going to bite at all or going to take the least negative flaws in exchange for the greatest benefits they can get. Either way completely negates the reasons for instituting the mechanic in the first place, so why bother?
#14 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Apr 13, 2010 22:09:48	The way I see it with flaws: If people want their characters to be flawed for role playing reasons, they'll just do it. If you offer a "flaws for rewards" program in order to incentivize "proper role playing", then the people who wouldn't have flawed characters for the fun of it are either not going to bite at all or going to take the least negative flaws in exchange for the greatest benefits they can get. Either way completely negates the reasons for instituting the mechanic in the first place, so why bother? But on the other hand, if you wanted a character with a flaw that seriously hampered your character, wouldn't you want something to help you catch up? Personally, I think that sort of compensation is better handled by DM fiat, since it really needs fine tuning to the situation.
#15 wrecan Apr 14, 2010 13:55:35	But on the other hand, if you wanted a character with a flaw that seriously hampered your character, wouldn't you want something to help you catch up? No. If I had my character cut off his own hand, I wouldn't expect the DM to give me a new feat to compensate. If I want my character to be blind, I'll talk to my DM about it. Either... 1) my character already compensates for it and ends up being the equivalent level, or 2) my character is blind and has to deal with that drawback... probably by paying someone to cast a ritual to get rid of it.