1. Tossing out classes. Since everything is compatible nowadays, you may as well give players the freedom to fully design their class. Choosing as they like between, feats, utility powers, daily powers, etc. from any class they like as long as they meet the level requirements.
2. Going to make some more powers that aren't so combat oriented (Elliestra knows that D&D was too combat-oriented before, and they made it even more combat oriented in 4E.... )
3. Vorpal... you know what? Yea, it's auto-death again. Oh, and whenever used, it will make the sound "snicker-snack".
4. "Mithril" will henceforth be known as 'Fool's Mithril'. True Mithril will drop weight of any armor down to negligible, and increase armor by an additional 10 in addition to giving damage reduction. Oh, and it will be among the most expensive addition you can make to an item -magic enchantments not excluded. Significantly more expensive than a lot of magical enchantments. After all, it has to be mined from on the deepest of mines, crafted by the greatest of the greatest of the dwarves, a single chain shirt of the stuff being enough to buy you an entire kingdom (AKA, mithril will finally be back to how originally described when presented in 'the hobbit'.)
5. Godhood? Yea, it's no longer coming nice and neat for you at 30th level just because you took a feature.You're going to have to get creative and convince the gods to let you join them.
6. You know what? Chaotic Good is back. And to prove the point, the campaign I run will be about the characters trying to stop a Hitler-like regime (whose leader will be lawful evil). Because lawful evil people (like Hitler) have always been ridiculously more evil and destructive than the chaotic evil ones could ever dream of being(like that one psychopath serial killer who only managed to kill around 5+ people... what was his name? Oh yea, Jack the Ripper).
2) No restrictions on trained skills. All skills are class skills.
3) No limit on magic item daily powers, except that only one magic item can be used per round. Use the stuff you have.
That's all I have, so far.
1. Tossing out classes. Since everything is compatible nowadays, you may as well give players the freedom to fully design their class. Choosing as they like between, feats, utility powers, daily powers, etc. from any class they like as long as they meet the level requirements.
I'm not convinced this is a good idea. I don't think classes are so much designed to be comparable to one another, as being comparable to classes of their particular archetype.
For example, I don't think it's a balanced idea to hand out Striker abilities, like the Curse, Quarry, and Sneak Attack.
-wrecan, you friendly neighborhood forum lead[/highlight]
1: No dragonborn. Well, maybe for the GM as NPC villains, but that is about it.
2: Elardrin? That teleport thing is gone. Have to come up with something to replace it, probably something that still fits the "maigcal creature" motif.
3: Add back a ton of the spells missing from the wizard class, both as powers and as rituals (probably the second most time consuming thing to do).
4: Some kind of wound mechanic, healing to full after 6 hours is not utterly horrid, but it needs some tweaking. If you got knocked to 0 HP, 6 hours of rest should not have you fresh as a daisy....
5: New classes. Druid for sure, possibly some others, and several Paragon Paths. (this is probably the big time eater to create)
6: Meteor Swarm: The caster can shift any/all target(s) in the area 2 squares.
7: Some kind of feat for the Divine casters to let them turn undead more than once. Seems kinda weak right now.
8: Some kind of secondary skills/background systems to incorporate crafting rules.
9: Possibly changing half elves stat bonuses
10: Increasing the list of rogue weapons usable for sneak attacks and their powers a bit.
11: More divine powers for paladins and priests, even as feats
12: A paladin mount feat
13: A familiar feat for wizards and warlocks
14: Wizards and other casters take casting penalties for wearing metal armor. Probably something that makes the saves easier for targets to make. No wizards in plate mail, even if they DO spend the feats on it...
15: Arcane and Divine source powers all have somatic and verbal components, so restraining hands and gagging them keeps them from casting (nothing in the RAW right now shows they need to have hands/mouth free to cast, which is kinda dumb. And with some players, better to spell out that you can not do something than leave it open ended)
16: Possibly giving fighters one more trained skill.
If you exceed your movement while jumping you fall prone. This is the stupidest thing I have ever read in a D&D book (not really, but it's in the same ballpark). I will rule that you complete your jump and then stop, but you can't jump just to get extra movement. I mean, do you really think that if you run 5 squares and jump a 2 square pit that you will inexplicably fall right over the middle of the pit because you exceed your movement...please.
How bout you make a great leap over the 2 square pit and tumble to a stop on the other side? A character with 5 squares of movement (25ft) should be able to make a running jump (10ft start still?) and still have movement left to land on his feat on the 5th square. If he is exceeding his movement with a run, or would have ended his move in the air above the pit, it's sensible to have him finish the jump but fall prone (tumble to the ground, catch the edge of the pit and pick himself up and over, etc).
1) Use a different array Ability Scores are : 18 18 17 17 16 14.
And we are going to play (with a 3 member party) 2 levels above default - The characters will be 3rd for a first level encounter/adventure.
We plan on playing things pretty strait besides that.
Other things in mind for the future:
1)Some sort of gestalt - likely applying the Class template from the DMG for the second class.
2)Maybe -multiple paragon paths (one professional, one racial like in the warforged article (depending on if more racial paragon paths are released).
We like all the new races, and the alignment system, so that isn't going to change.
Should the Green Ronin Advanced Players Guide (or whatever they plan to call it) comes out as described, that will be grabbed, and used. Monks!!
2) Meteor Swarm is a Cleric 29 known as "Divine Fire", Astral Storm is a Wizard 29 known as "Starstorm Omega".
3) Blade Cascade gives you a cumulative -2 penalty to hit after each hit, until the end of your turn.
4) An expanded language sub-system so that while communication is possible in common, it's not at all desirable if you can avoid it.
How bout you make a great leap over the 2 square pit and tumble to a stop on the other side? A character with 5 squares of movement (25ft) should be able to make a running jump (10ft start still?) and still have movement left to land on his feat on the 5th square. If he is exceeding his movement with a run, or would have ended his move in the air above the pit, it's sensible to have him finish the jump but fall prone (tumble to the ground, catch the edge of the pit and pick himself up and over, etc).
Well if a person can only move 5 squares in 6 seconds, then it stands to reason that in that 6 seconds he would not be able to move 7 sqs. So what should happen if he attempts to do so (by jumoing over a chasm)?
Well first he can only move 5sq in 6 seconds, that would be 10 sqs in 12 seconds, so to be fair he would have declared a movement that would take 2 rounds to complete. He should be able to make the jump, however his next turn begins with him completing that jump and moving the remaining 2 sqs.
The ruling, as I see it, is to prevent a player from exceeding his movement within a single round. If the player attempted to move beyond his movement within a single round to jump the chasm (say to get through the door on the other side which is closing during this round) then he should not be able to move further then he is able, by rushing such a jump he is literally trying to move further then he is capable of moving and should fail.
But the DM and player should be wise enough to realize the difference between an action that takes several rounds (such as moving across a terain over multiple rounds) and attempting to move beyond your maximum movement within a single round.
4) An expanded language sub-system so that while communication is possible in common, it's not at all desirable if you can avoid it.
"We am thy freighter...Ursva, six weeks out of Kronos. Over. We is condemning food...things and...supplies."
Lt. Cmd. Uhura, --"STVI:TUC", Stardate 9523.8
1. Tossing out classes. Since everything is compatible nowadays, you may as well give players the freedom to fully design their class. Choosing as they like between, feats, utility powers, daily powers, etc. from any class they like as long as they meet the level requirements.
An interesting idea. But how will you deal with class abilities? How will you deal with HP and proficiencies? Skills?
2. Going to make some more powers that aren't so combat oriented (Elliestra knows that D&D was too combat-oriented before, and they made it even more combat oriented in 4E.... )
Hmm, like a power that lets you get swift boost in speed, or to do a spectacular jump, or what do you mean?
6. You know what? Chaotic Good is back. And to prove the point, the campaign I run will be about the characters trying to stop a Hitler-like regime (whose leader will be lawful evil). Because lawful evil people (like Hitler) have always been ridiculously more evil and destructive than the chaotic evil ones could ever dream of being(like that one psychopath serial killer who only managed to kill around 5+ people... what was his name? Oh yea, Jack the Ripper).
Okay, I know that this is just personal reflections and opinions, but... First, I'd put Hitler as more Neutral Evil than Lawful Evil. Just because you rule a Lawful Evil nation (at the time), you don't have to be Lawful yourself. Hitler did what he thought he could get away with, lying and breaking laws (I presume) if he felt like he would benefit from it. The avarage nazi soldier might be Lawful Evil, though.
Also, Lawful Evil being more evil than Chaotic Evil? The way I see it, Lawful Evil is more like "I do things that helps my cause, but I have some rules that I follow, and perhaps value honor too." while Chaotic Evil is like: "Hey, I'll torture that guy, that seems like fun. Oh, and why not burn down that village and watch all the destruction and chaos? Great fun!"
Not that all Chaotic Evil is worse than all Lawful Evil, though.
1) Bring back die rolls for hit points at each level. Sorry, but I don't like the fact that there is a set number every time you advance. I'll keep the "Con score +" mechanic for first level, as monsters are definately too tough to just have anywhere from say 1-16 hp at first level. (I'm from the old school though, and can't wrap my head entirely around the idea of a fighter possibly having as many as 33 hp at first level.)
2) Use the 3.5 experience point totals for advancement. They made it a lot easier to advance in level this time around (3.5 required 6000 xp to make 4th level. 4e requires 3,750.)
3) Add in more languages from 3.5 to give more depth.
4) Thought of one more: I use an 82 point buy for stats. All stats start at 0, and it is paid on a 1:1 basis (An 18 in STR costs you 18 points). It keeps things balanced, as it's difficult to have really high scores in one area without sacrificing something else you need.
Otherwise, I like the new alignments. I can already tell I'll have a lot of unaligned players at my table. I like the classes and races as is, although I think it would be difficult to play with a group composed of five dragonborn, all with different breath weapons. And, monsters I really want to bring in that haven't been already been included I can make myself with the rules in the DMG, at least until they make an appearance in another book later.
2) Use the 3.5 experience point totals for advancement. They made it a lot easier to advance in level this time around (3.5 required 6000 xp to make 4th level. 4e requires 3,750.)
This would only be true if monsters kept the same experience values, which they haven't.
4) An expanded language sub-system so that while communication is possible in common, it's not at all desirable if you can avoid it.
I've actually done that. In the end, it restricted roleplaying to the few players that knew the language. Sure, it's realistic, but is it fun?
I've actually done that. In the end, it restricted roleplaying to the few players that knew the language. Sure, it's realistic, but is it fun?
You could just do something as simple as either providing bonuses to social interaction skills when not using Common. Or rule that you can only use the full range of the skills benefits or you can only apply your Charisma modifier to social skill checks when not using Common.
You don't need to go into full-on conlanguage mode even if you did want more 'realism' in your langauges. It can be handled on the mechanical side, and there is at least some value of entertainment to be had from elaborate games of telephone used when 'translating'.
2. Halflings go back to being their 3.5 3 foot selves
3. Elves back to humanoid instead of fey
4. Ditch Eladrin, bring elves more in line with the 3e High/Grey/Wood trio of subraces
5. Put racial age rates back where they were.
6. Definately going to mess around with paragon paths
7. Ditch the "Level 30, gone from campaign" thing, possibly the entire Epic Detiny bit. Houserule stuff for levels higher than 30
Will be edited as I read more of the book.
3) No limit on magic item daily powers, except that only one magic item can be used per round. Use the stuff you have.
I agree and disagree. I think once per day is far too restrictive. I'd say give everyone 1 extra use per day for free (2/3/4 heroic/paragon/epic), with a feat to increase that. Perhaps make the "recharge magic item with healing surge" idea into a feat or ritual.
I've actually done that. In the end, it restricted roleplaying to the few players that knew the language. Sure, it's realistic, but is it fun?
It was fun for us in Conan, but that game is built on a disconnected, wild, uncommunicative world. In D&D, it's a bit different.
Pick and stick: pick your at-will/encounter/daily those are your powers for the duration of the adventure*
*Unlearn what you have learned: when your character levels up, they may exchange their at-will/encounter/daily for a different power from the same chart.
Cleric: "Oh great Raven Queen, the quest the king sent us on is far different than what we were told it would be and I need different powers to keep my friends alive, please open your wings to me that I may pluck different feathers from your gracious down."
basicly this means the players have to keep thir powers at least until the next level, making power choices very tactical for their group.
I'm assuming you want some constructive criticism and suggestions, or?
An interesting idea. But how will you deal with class abilities? How will you deal with HP and proficiencies? Skills?
Class features will basically be something you choose at the appropriate level. Like "I choose the class features of class 'A' at first level, and later, at choosing paragon, I can choose a paragon set of class features, or another base set of class features." As for HP, I'll probably just take the average HP and everyone gets that.
Hmm, like a power that lets you get swift boost in speed, or to do a spectacular jump, or what do you mean?
I was thinking more story-line oriented. Like a class feature of 'merchant nobility' that gets you 'free' money once a day, a 'first impression' one that's useable once an encounter (not neccesarrily combat encounter) to give a boost to charisma-based skills, etc.
Okay, I know that this is just personal reflections and opinions, but... First, I'd put Hitler as more Neutral Evil than Lawful Evil. Just because you rule a Lawful Evil nation (at the time), you don't have to be Lawful yourself. Hitler did what he thought he could get away with, lying and breaking laws (I presume) if he felt like he would benefit from it. The avarage nazi soldier might be Lawful Evil, though.
Actually, when you read his biography and read what those who followed him believed, and understand his background, his es absolutely lawful evil. Hitler didn't break that many laws, the only ones he really broke were those put on Germany by other countries (which Germany, by right of being a seperate country, is not obliged to follow). In fact, Hitler had a mental disorder that led him to be the 'most perfect and correct' of whatever occupation he went into. It should be noted that most of the books that hitler references for his actions described the struggle of countries as the struggle of different races. It was his duty, in his mind, to further the **** race when he took over germany. He even did so despite the fact he wasn't exactly the model of an ****. That's a very lawful way to act. He was quite literally ruling 'by the book'.
Also, Lawful Evil being more evil than Chaotic Evil? The way I see it, Lawful Evil is more like "I do things that helps my cause, but I have some rules that I follow, and perhaps value honor too." while Chaotic Evil is like: "Hey, I'll torture that guy, that seems like fun. Oh, and why not burn down that village and watch all the destruction and chaos? Great fun!"
Not that all Chaotic Evil is worse than all Lawful Evil, though.
Let me put it this way. Chaotic evil generally destroys, kills, etc. For the purpose of taking out compitition, survival, and 'getting things out of the way', and maybe fun.... it's more instinctual the way they do it. In a lot of ways, it's a very predator and natural-ish way to act. Lawful evil on the other hand plans it's evil. Takes steps to make sure it won't be stopped. It has to fully consider the ramifications of its actions of evil before doing them. As a result, not only do they do evil, they do their best to avoid natural consequences for their actions as well as generally fully comprehend what they're doing.
Which is more evil
A. killing a man to see him die,
or
B. killing a man while knowing that he has a family to feed and that the man just wants to do the right thing and want to help society, but you're going to kill him anyway just because you think he might slow your rise to power?
Technically Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good haven't gone anywhere if you actually read the write ups. It is more that Neutral Evil and Neutral Good have. "Good" is Chaotic Good, and "Evil" is Lawful Evil, with a bit of overlap into neutral territory. As it was, there was never really any concrete distinction between Chaotic G and Neutral G, and the same applies for LE and NE. Altruistic Good and Self-Serving Evil were wrapped up into one alignment, where 'Cultural' Good and Entropic/Destructive Evil were kept distinct.
I see a lot of difference between Neutral Good, Lawful Good, and Chaotic Good.
An example of each...
Lawful Good - The New York cop who specifically went in to stop homocides and child abuse.
Neutral Good - The average jane in Amsterdam who goes about her daily life, and volunteers at the soup kitchen weekly, but generally ambivalent politics.
Chaotic Good - The Chinese teenager who protests the oppression the people suffer at the government, knowing that the act could very well end his life.
Also, the way they set it up, I'm kind of philosophically opposed to as well. It makes it sound like chaos is more evil than law. (Anarchy vs the 'perfect law' society in Orwell's 1984... I'll take Anarchy over that any day.)
2. Power names and descriptions are examples. A character who has a power simply does something that produces that effect. What it is and what he calls it is up to him. Given the low number of powers a character has, and the current relatively limited number of classes, I think this is a necessary step to allowing customization of your character's flavor.
3. I am considering changing Elves back to their original height (4'5 to 5'5 for most Elves, and about 4'3 to 5'3 for Drow, which are said to be smaller and leaner). This was a source of too many funny jokes, and too many cutesy Drow for me to let it go.
Does the Chinese teenager not care for his family, and is the Dutch mom actually incapable of standing up to a corrupt government? What makes the Chinese boy 'chaotic' and what makes the Dutch mom 'not lawful, not chaotic', and what makes either of them 'good'?
Where is the disconnect? Deed, or thought? So when the Chinese boy overthrows the government and sets up a new society with him at its head, is he no longer 'Chaotic'? If he always had thoughts about a rightfully ordered and just society was he ever 'Chaotic'?
Is this psychology, is it fate? If the Chinese boy had been born in the egalitarian, multicultural, free and proud Netherlands would he have been a dissident, and would the Dutch woman have just quietly gone about her apolitical life under Maoist tyranny?
The way you view 'Chaotic' or 'Neutral' isn't implicit in the actual text of any PHB. You are essentially making a non-rule as what you are houseruling against isn't actually in the text of the new edition and you are bringing 'back' alignments that never existed as you describe them.
Nothing compels my Chaotic Good character to protest a tyrannical Communist government, and nothing compels my Neutral Good character not to.
In fact, if you take a '60s radical planting bombs in the US and traveling to Cuba to get marching orders and advice from Leonid Brezhnev's network, and then transplant them to Moscow chances are you just had a major alignment shift from very Chaotic, to very Lawful.
This is especially apt considering you are defining Law versus Chaos in political and not personal terms. A Cop is Lawful, a rebel is Chaotic, and a citizen is Neutral. The chinese kid defects to NY, becomes a cop and he is now LG instead of CG? Interesting.
2) Multiclassing feats are not necessary to go into the Paragon multiclassing, and Paragon multiclassing is getting an overhaul. It looks to me that Paragon multiclassing was an afterthought and it doesn't work nearly as well as it should.
3) Domains and deity powers will be created to work with Channel Divinity to better differentiate clerics of different deities.
4) Similar systems to Channel Divinity will be put in place for other classes to represent wizard orders, warlock pact secrets, thieves guilds, etc.
5) You can multiclass into 2 classes: 1 with the feats, 1 with Paragon multiclassing.
Those are all for now, though when I get the books I'll probably have more.
Any type of fluff is mutable. If you want to say that your full-plate looks like chain, or call your wizard a sorceror, no one will care. I don't really consider this a house-rule (since it has no mechanical implications), more of a reminder.
Alignment is what happens when planets form an interesting geometric shape. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your moral outlook.
You don't heal to full during an extended rest, but you do recover all your surges and can use as many of them as you want.
Created a feat allowing characters to take "at will" powers as a multi-class, in addition to encounters, utilities and dailies. Considering one for class features too.
Initiative uses the higher of Int or Dex.
Paladins have a Sense Evil ability that basically works like the "I feel the presense of the Dark Side" thing that Jedi do. It has no mechanics per say and pretty much operates by DM fiat; it can't normally be used on a specific person and can be thrown off in various ways. It's based on what the paladin defines as "evil", and does not imply that good and evil are in any way objective.
Stuff to think about:
Creating an injury system, either based on the disease mechanics or on the SWSE condition track. (Probably hurts PC's more than NPC's)
Giving characters their Con mod in HP every level. (mostly to balance out with the above)
Steal the refresh mechanic for encounter powers from ToB (can see major balance issues here. Also not sure if it would be the Warblade's or the Swordsage's method)
Steal "non heroic levels" from SWSE for an in-between minion and monster status.
Allow multi-class feats to be taken multiple times and in multiple classes.
Tweak various powers, feats, features etc. when/if problems appear.
I've actually done that. In the end, it restricted roleplaying to the few players that knew the language. Sure, it's realistic, but is it fun?
None of my players really roleplay in the first place. They mostly attack "Monsters" on sight, despite the fact that they play monstrous races anyways.
And I said that communication is possible using Common (which everyone and their dog knows), just not desirable. Would you rather speak in a pidgin of english, or actual english?
2) No Eladrin. Not because their power is broken, or whatever people call things they don't like these days, but because I think the idea of elves that are literally fairies a little fruity for me. I haven't bothered to include them in my setting, because I don't care for having a race of higher-than-thou elves rubbing elbows with prettier-than-thou elves. If a player wants to play as one, that's fine, but I'll make fun of them for it. ;)
3) Players roll for stats, and then all use the same results, arranged as they want. Point-buy is really wierd to me, and it's not much fun playing second fiddle to the guy who rolled three 18s and two 17s when you've got a bunch of 10s and 12s.
4) Fluff is mutable! I know that some of the more pedantic people get into arguments over whether or not the fluff does X, Y, or Z, but to me, fluff is just that. It doesn't affect a thing, and can do whatever you want. If your eldritch blast is a hideous mind-curse, a purple spiraling beam of death, or a two-handed hadouken, or even all three of those things at different moments, I don't even care. If you're having fun and I'm having fun, describe your powers in the way that is most amusing for the both of us.
Other than those three tiny nudges, I'm in love with 4e.
2) A thought I'd had runs thusly; rather than switching out powers at high levels (gaining high level powers but sacrificing low-level powers), you accumulate said higher-level powers as you gain levels without losing your previous choices, but at the end of an extended rest, you select four of your encounter/daily powers from the list that you can use until your next rest - these represent those that you have practiced during your morning meditations/sparring/etc.
3) I like the Eladrin, but I'm going to make them villains, a la Hellboy II.
Thoughts?
SK
1) I am very seriously considering applying a characters' Con mod to hp every level (and to opponents!).
A player of mine doesn't like the "heroes at 1st level" feel given by so many beginning HP, so I'm considering adding this feat:
Noncombatant
You didn't start out as a rough-and-tough mercenary, or a legendary burglar, just an average joe who picked up a sword and went out to make his destiny.
Prerequisite: May only be taken at 1st level
Benefit: Instead of gaining your normal starting HP of 1st level HP + Con score, you gain later level HP + Con modifier. For instance, a rogue with Con 10 normally gets 12+10=22 HP at first level, but the same rogue with this feat would get 5+0=5 HP at first level.
In exchange for lower starting HP, you add your Con modifier to HP at every level after 1st.
Special: Characters starting at a level above 1st may not take this feat retroactively.
So basically you exchange lower HP in the beginning for higher HP later on; a character with 12 starting Con should pull ahead around level 24 and a character with 20 starting Con should pull ahead around level 6, with scores in between pulling ahead in that range, assuming they don't boost their Con as they level.
Seriously: That would be waaay swingy.
And you hope to god that you don't get hit for the first 3 or four levels...
Seriously: That would be waaay swingy.
Hey, I'm not the one who wanted to be weaker at 1st level, and that's the version he liked best (:looloo
, so....You think I should bump up the HP a bit anyway? I suggested keeping base HP and just replacing Con score with Con modifier (among other ideas), but he didn't like it.
However the other thought would be base hp equal to your constitution. That would give the low con classes incentive to have at least a decent con score.
I'd definitely go with the replacing con score with modifier...
However the other thought would be base hp equal to your constitution. That would give the low con classes incentive to have at least a decent con score.
Sounds good; I'll run that and the score->modifier ideas by him again and see if he prefers either of those.
Ooo, where to start...
1: No dragonborn. Well, maybe for the GM as NPC villains, but that is about it.
2: Elardrin? That teleport thing is gone. Have to come up with something to replace it, probably something that still fits the "maigcal creature" motif.
3: Add back a ton of the spells missing from the wizard class, both as powers and as rituals (probably the second most time consuming thing to do).
4: Some kind of wound mechanic, healing to full after 6 hours is not utterly horrid, but it needs some tweaking. If you got knocked to 0 HP, 6 hours of rest should not have you fresh as a daisy....
5: New classes. Druid for sure, possibly some others, and several Paragon Paths. (this is probably the big time eater to create)
6: Meteor Swarm: The caster can shift any/all target(s) in the area 2 squares.
7: Some kind of feat for the Divine casters to let them turn undead more than once. Seems kinda weak right now.
8: Some kind of secondary skills/background systems to incorporate crafting rules.
9: Possibly changing half elves stat bonuses
10: Increasing the list of rogue weapons usable for sneak attacks and their powers a bit.
11: More divine powers for paladins and priests, even as feats
12: A paladin mount feat
13: A familiar feat for wizards and warlocks
14: Wizards and other casters take casting penalties for wearing metal armor. Probably something that makes the saves easier for targets to make. No wizards in plate mail, even if they DO spend the feats on it...
15: Arcane and Divine source powers all have somatic and verbal components, so restraining hands and gagging them keeps them from casting (nothing in the RAW right now shows they need to have hands/mouth free to cast, which is kinda dumb. And with some players, better to spell out that you can not do something than leave it open ended)
16: Possibly giving fighters one more trained skill.
Wow, most of those actually remove fun from the game instead of adding fun, which is what house rules are for. I'm glad you're not my DM. Have fun.
1)
3) I like the Eladrin, but I'm going to make them villains, a la Hellboy II.
Thoughts?
SK
I thought about eliminating the Eladrin all together from my realm, but I hate to restrict players from taking a race they may want to play. So instead I dropped all the fairy-fluff and altered their appearance to resemble the elves in Hellboy II, and made their backstory as an offshoot of elves who left the forests long ago to better pursue magical studies. A few centuries ago their once great culture (complete with flying cities, powerful magic, and the like) was decimated by [something]. The decedents of the few survivors live amongst the humans and hobgoblins (the two major civilized races in my realm, and generally, although not always, antagonistic against each other). Of course all the great power has long been lost, and only a trace of their magical knowledge remains (ie, the teleportation, etc).
...I did consider making them villains in my realm, but again, I didn't want to restrict the players choices away from any of the core races/abilities.
2) spells level up, Things that do damage (1d6) would level up damage every few levels. So magic missile (2d4) would go up to 3d4 at 6th level, 4d4 at 11th, 4d6 at 20th level and 5d6 at 30th. This would have to be modified per spell :P after playtesting.
3) I might just take out the entire fighter class powers, and use the 3.5 fighter. I don't like the idea of a fighter having to use powers PER DAY.
4) Monsters might get less HP, right now a freaking kobold has like 39 HP, crazy stuff. It would take maybe 6 rounds to down one kobold when the max non crit damage of a level 1-2 PC is 10-15.
5)Those Feyrace is gone, toasted, they are way to close to elves.
6)Might bring multiple attacks back and change Action points, and instead use them like 3.5 Eberron.
7) Bring back more non-combat spells (Charm person) as Encounter powers.
8) might let wizards know daily spells and just prepare them like normal 3.5
EDIT: 9) DRUIDSSS!!!
EDITEDIT: 10) I would also like familiars or atleast some "Summon elemental" spells for wizards and warlocks. Like at first level it would be a encounter to summon this little minion of element that does maybe 1d6+3 damage or something. Then at higher levels he gets stronger. Should not be hard to convert the Elemental tables from the MM 3.5
Thats all I got right now
3) I might just take out the entire fighter class powers, and use the 3.5 fighter. I don't like the idea of a fighter having to use powers PER DAY.
You realize this would make fighters stupid, underpowered, and boring just like in 3.5 right?
Fae=/=Cutesy
My eledrin are warmongers with a propensity for fire magic. Just to show tmy players that fey characters can be cool.
1) no alignments really unless player wants a strict code they follow. If not, you are like people in real life..no alignment (ie. people do what they feel will benefit them in the long run, but without really analyzing good, evil or being truly neutral). A buddhist monk on the other hand may be truly neutral or the dahli lama, etc...whatever...so the choice is there...good/evil really have no meanings without eachother, so what may be good in one town is evil in the next. players must deal with this, deal with different laws, beliefs, etc and manage it. You could have a 'good' person who believes some tenants of asmodeus (think of a person in real life who has a bit of a dark side to them, etc).
2) wizard = totally house ruled with our own magic system. a freedom based system where they can essentially pull as much energy from the essence of magic in the D&D universe (based on how we treat magic in our fluff), and do whatever really, but at a cost.
3) wild mage made truly wild..totally customized, even more than the above. friends love it
4) at each lvl, classes gain con bonus to hp as well as the set total so more hp than normal 4E but much less still than 3.5E.
5) extra attacks are back but still testing at level 15 or level 21 for 1 extra attack for non wizard classes.
6) changed racial stats for monstrous races (minotaurs, etc) to what makes more sense for them.
7) classes converted in (ie. wild mage, swordsage, bard, barbarian (these until official versions come out))
8) using 2E combat/tactics & spells/magic detailed crit hit system for limb loss, etc.
9) redone cleric partially so they have a new dynamic for truly channeling power of their god. players say the cleric actually feels like what they envision.
10) any class can have a god...a fighter can worship bahamut. every god, good, evil, etc gives benefits/penalties. so a fighter worshipping bahamut will gain different abilities at level 1, 5, 11, 15, 21, 25, 29 than a paladin or wizard who worships bahamut. Priests still get the most benefits from this though.
11) monsters changed following similar design concepts. for example, i have a spreadsheet with tons of powers i envision chaotic demons having ....(we use demons, devils how they are represented in 2E btw)...so every planar creature is bascially rewritten as desired.
12) non mage/cleric have thier power table adjusted a bit.
13) our own exp system
14) fluff changes
15) items changed (ie. vorpal has a chance for insta death still)
16) two weapon fighting feat works as it should....it's really using 2 weapons instead of a retarded +1 damage. Any non wizard can take it. )
I am sure i am missing some of the changes....
It's a lot...and has taken quite a while in the tail end of using 3.5E and 4E now to finish all the work that was needed...but it's worth it.
Sanjay
(In a more cosmopolitan setting aka one where monsters can be player characters)
1. No experience points for kills.
2. Shooting first, throwing the first punch, ambushing unsuspecting monsters, etc. may win you the battle, but it gives the other party a 'self-defense' clause for combat and gets the party on the wrong side of the law.
3. Lots of experience points for good roleplaying.
(Amazing how quickly the powergamers and munchkins, once they realize they're two levels behind the rest of the party, start to actually roleplay instead of just killing everything they see and numbercruch.)
Edit: Oh, and also adding in a LOT of non-combat oriented feats and class features.
Edit 2: Oh, and a few more I'm considering trying or have tried.
One, return to skill points. Number of trained skills you get at first level via rules, you instead get twice that many skill points a level. (No more trained gives +5 and always have 1/2 level)
Two, no more healing surges. Healing takes time or heal checks.
Three, adding a new skills. The skill list now reads as follows:
Acrobatics
Arcana
Athletics
Beauty [Ability: Cha] (added to solve a few arguments about Charisma, and appease a few female players.
Bluff
Combat [Ability: Player's Choice] (really, REALLY speeds up combat, and lets characters get back to the plot.)
Diplomacy
Dungeoneering
Endurance
Heal
History
Insight
Intimidate
Nature
Perception
Religion
Stealth
Streetwise
Tactics [Ability: Wis]
Thievery
Beauty
How sexy/handsome you look. May be used to boost diplomacy on someone who could find you a potential mate equal to its amount (negatives for being another species). Seduction checks are also possible (again, limited to people you'd consider you a potential mate). Flaunt checks are also possible to humiliate other characters of the same gender and draw romantic attention away from them and towards yourself.
Combat
When a combat situation would occur, everyone rolls combat, adding any modifiers (situational, from tactics, & weapon level). Each side totals their numbers together. The side with the highest total wins combat.
If your side wins by more than 30, you win without problems. No fatalities or damage.
If your side wins by 20-29, half the party has taken damage equal to half hp max. The party members with the lowest rolls are the ones who took the damage.
If your side wins by less than 20, your side wins but everyone in party takes damage. Lowest rolls in party half take 3/4th max HP in damage and are unconcious. Highest rolls in party take 1/4th max HP in damage.
Tie: DM decision based on situation, or everyone on both sides takes 1/4th max HP in damage.
If your side loses by 10 or less: Party escapes, 3/4th max HP in damage to all party members. Lowest half of rollers are unconscious (and dragged away by other party members). If you're unconscious and party members opt out of the option to drag you away, treat you as if your party failed by more than 10.
If your side loses by more than 10, the party is unconscious. The winning side may do with you as they please (kill, leave unconscious and for dead, eat - usually reserved for animals -, capture, put into prison, make you into slaves, etc.)
Tactics
When an entire group will be involved in the same skill check and can talk it over ahead of time (such as stealth, combat, thievery, diplomacy, heal, etc.) the party may designate one character as leader. That leader may then rolls tactics. 1/5th the total (round down) is added to everyone's checks in the chosen skill for the given encounter/operation/etc.
1 - I miss my characters
2 - I miss the rules I've played for years and I am familiar with
3 - this new stuff doesnt make sense, Im going to change so that it looks like what I had
... WHY PLAY IT THEN?
the house rules I have in mind have more to do with the in mechanics of the game as it is, if I want to play a wizard 3e estile, I play 3e...
********************************************************
My changes:
1 - Sneak attack, hunter quarry and Warlock's curse dont work the way I want them, Sneak attack is plain killer at 1.2lvl and just a lame over 6lvl, hunter quarry... I dont know... and (even tough I havent played high levels yet) I dont see how does the warlock manage to be a real striker over lvl 11, his powers keep doing 1d10, 2d6 and so
the change will be to give a number of dice based on the power used, so a lvl1 power would deal 1d6 aditional damage, a lvl3 would deal 2d6, a lvl 7 3d6 and so on, Im not sure about the exact amount but some of the like
2 - Im going to split the fighter into Protector/Defender and Warrior, giving the first one a shield theme (like in Druaga no to) and turning the second one into a battelfield controler.
3- yes, skill lists suck, if we are not going to keep track of skill points, why keep trak of the calss list?
4- hmm I liked the idea of the healing surges recovery in long rests, it wont alter a lot the game mechanics as it is, as just one day would recover you entirely and adventures that still have the fight once every several weeks of travel or investigation wont notice it but frantic deep dungeoncrawling will, which is what it should do
5 - Im makind some new weapons and armor like chaimail shirt, (+4 CA leather, heavy) carapace armor (+6CA hide, heavy), padded vest (+2 REF cloth) and some others of the like
This was the best time, so we did; I an happy the new rules are easier to use than 3.5E and gives more freedom than 4E (in some ways, even easier than 4E as well).
Sanjay
1. Alignments are gone. Leave that section blank. What about clerics and paladins, though? See #2.
2. No divine power source. The world has no gods (though it does have religion), and the world does not operate in such a fashion as to have divine powers.
3. No PHB/MM races except Dragonborn; I'll be making my own. Dragonborn are also not recommended as the world's 'big bads' are dragons and their ilk.
2) No Eladrin. Not because their power is broken, or whatever people call things they don't like these days, but because I think the idea of elves that are literally fairies a little fruity for me. I haven't bothered to include them in my setting, because I don't care for having a race of higher-than-thou elves rubbing elbows with prettier-than-thou elves. If a player wants to play as one, that's fine, but I'll make fun of them for it. ;)
Speaking of fluff, I have a different perspective to offer on the Eladrin. The elves-as-fairies schtick is only problematic, I think, if you're basing it on the modern conceptions of fairies. Y'know, pixies - cutsey, funny, friendly little things. The way that fairies were handled in previous editions of D&D, granted, but still feeling like something out of an animated children's movie. From what I've seen, however, 4E fey were reimagined along the lines of traditional Irish faeries, the sidhe. These were NOT nice characters. The more benevolent of them liked to lure people away and trap them for decades or centuries in their places of power, or kidnap children and twist them into caricatures of the faeries themselves. The ones that weren't so friendly would ride out on the Wild Hunt, tracking mortals and stealing them away for an eternity of servitude to the Unseelie court.
So, if you think of the fey as adorable and friendly, then I can't blame you for the Eladrin-hating. I recommend going the other way, though, because the sidhe would make amazing characters and diabolical villains and fascinating encounters. Most Eladrin PCs wouldn't have this mentality, as they aren't steeped in the magic of the Feywild in the same way, but it could easily be brought out and enhanced. And their more powerful cousins, the faerie lords of the Feywild, would be perfect for emphasizing this sort of subtle menace.
4e is different and the vast majority of rulings in these postings are just pulling out of the new mechanics some things that are pretty specific to being 4e. It's cool if you don't like it, but seriously, why not just stick to what you like and go with 3e?
Beauty
How sexy/handsome you look. May be used to boost diplomacy on someone who could find you a potential mate equal to its amount (negatives for being another species). Seduction checks are also possible (again, limited to people you'd consider you a potential mate). Flaunt checks are also possible to humiliate other characters of the same gender and draw romantic attention away from them and towards yourself.
Just a thought here, but you should consider adding a Comliness attribute like in old 1e, and alter this skill to simple Seduction (based on Com). Point Buy system won't work anymore, but you can always add points to account for Com or you can roll it while still using Point Buy with the rest of the stats, or always figure out some other creative way to account for the extra stat. Since it's pretty much completely a fluff stat, our DM has us just roll a d20 and modify it by race and Cha. It's kinda fun to play really low Com scores, particularly if you have a decent Cha score (Quasimoto who speaks so eloquently if someone actually bothers to listen to him), or vice versa with a low Cha and a high Com (if someone is drop-dead gorgeous but totally tongue-tied and unable to carry a conversation to save his/her life - or maybe just so self-absorbed/narcissistic that no one wants to be around him/her).
If you can find a copy of 1e Unearthed Arcana, check out the section on Comliness (which, btw, is affected by race and by Charisma). When I dig up my copy I'll try to send you the info on the text for Comliness.
PS - LOL @ the cockblocking section of the skill!
Just a thought here, but you should consider adding a Comliness attribute like in old 1e, and alter this skill to simple Seduction (based on Com). Point Buy system won't work anymore, but you can always add points to account for Com or you can roll it while still using Point Buy with the rest of the stats, or always figure out some other creative way to account for the extra stat. Since it's pretty much completely a fluff stat, our DM has us just roll a d20 and modify it by race and Cha. It's kinda fun to play really low Com scores, particularly if you have a decent Cha score (Quasimoto who speaks so eloquently if someone actually bothers to listen to him), or vice versa with a low Cha and a high Com (if someone is drop-dead gorgeous but totally tongue-tied and unable to carry a conversation to save his/her life - or maybe just so self-absorbed/narcissistic that no one wants to be around him/her).
If you can find a copy of 1e Unearthed Arcana, check out the section on Comliness (which, btw, is affected by race and by Charisma). When I dig up my copy I'll try to send you the info on the text for Comliness.
PS - LOL @ the cockblocking section of the skill!
Well, I personally consider it more than fluff (but... then again, I consider most of combat fluff, as the part of D&D that's interesting is the storyline. The old traditional fantasy stories are more about learning, manipulating, and outsmarting the monsters and creatures faced, rather than overpowering them.)
But yes, Beauty definitely has it's... alternative uses, lol.
1. Dragonborn get the boot. Possibly tieflings as well
2. Halflings go back to being their 3.5 3 foot selves
3. Elves back to humanoid instead of fey
4. Ditch Eladrin, bring elves more in line with the 3e High/Grey/Wood trio of subraces
5. Put racial age rates back where they were.
6. Definately going to mess around with paragon paths
7. Ditch the "Level 30, gone from campaign" thing, possibly the entire Epic Detiny bit. Houserule stuff for levels higher than 30
Will be edited as I read more of the book.
Why play 4e? I mean no offense, but honestly, what does having dragonborn, tieflings, and eladrin in the phb hurt? two of them already existed, and now are just races rather than halfbreed freaks, and the eladrin/wood elf system is both representative of elves in most fiction, and it works just fine mechanically.
I'm not trying to attack you, i just want to know your motivations for these changes.
I'm guessing that the halflings bit comes mostly from that being "the way it's been" for so long? i can handle that. i disagree on both premise and conclusion, but i see the logic. the other things i just really don't understand where having more options is outwayed by anything negative about the races involved.
the list of knowledges will be:
Knowledge: beurocracy(same as Saga skill of same name)
knowledge: History
Knowledge: Nature
Knowledge: Fey(this covers everything about magical creatures, magic in general, maybe even gods. it is basically a skill that covers all the other knowledge skills when they specifically pertain to things magic)
Knowledge arcana? not sure yet if i should keep this and split the magical knowledge stuff or what.
Knowledge (technology) things like mechanics(at the level the DnD world has them), alchemy, metalurgy, etc)
i might be missing a couple. probably figure out a way to add in the sciences.
all of these can give a situational bonus to another, related skill check. In addition, every class has a number of trained skills plus int mod. It is incredibly annoying that a high int character does so little good if he isn't in a class made for int.
Re-introduce int mod based number of languages.
im sure there are many more im forgetting.
Change the elf ability, Wild step, to Forest Walk.
1. All alignments are back. I have been playing DnD since 1st edition. While some in this thread argue that there is little difference between NG & CG, LN & N & CN, or LE & NE, all those alignments have been specifically and quite adequately differentiated over the years. There is also tons of lore, planes, political systems based on those alignments. I saw their removal as needless and damaging. This houserule has no effect mechanically. NG & CG are still "good", the neutrals are still "unaligned", etc. for game mechanic purposes. However there is a vast difference between a LN regime and a CN one and blanding them into the catch all of "unaligned" seems lazy at best.
2. On the character advancement table change any word that says "replace" to the word "gain". I am sorry, but it make no sense to me that a wizard can only learn Wall of Ice spell if they give up the Acid Arrow spell they have been using for 14 levels. (I am not talking of retraining, which I view as an entirely different thing.) This change, mechanically, allows the player to retain the lowest 1-4 encounter/daily powers he has (depending on his level) and does not make him sacrifice them to gain higher level powers he should have gotten simply by leveling. Playtesting shows that the actual power increase as a result of this is marginal, however flexiblity and character flavor is enhanced.
3. Multi-class swap feats are altered slightly. When you take a multi-class swap feat, you do not lose the power you originally had, however both the old and new powers use is retricted. In the case of a encounter power, when you use one of the two powers during an encounter, you cannot use the other power during the same encounter. Similarly with dailies, when you use one power during the day, the other power is locked out for that day. Utility powers are a bit quirky as you can swap a daily for an encounter or vice versa, but the mechanic holds true. If you use the encounter utility first in a day, you can continue to use that power during successive encounters but the daily is locked. Alternatively, if you use the daily utility power first in the day, the encounter power is locked for that day. This house rule adds flexibility to a character, but does not increase the characters power.
4. Paragon Multi-classing: When you gain a normal encounter power at 13 and 17, a normal daily power at 15 and 19, or a normal utility power at 16, (see houserule 2) you may choose a power from either of your classes. This does not carry on into the epic levels. This does increase the power of Paragon Multi-classing but still amounts to a net loss over normal paragon paths.
That is the sum total of my house rules other than individual judgement calls to plug holes in the multi-classing/paragon path system. (ie.. Yes if, your a Wizard of the Spiral Tower you can use longsword as an implement even if your not specialized in an implement.) But that kind of stuff is just common sense.
This will be the first campaign that my party is using 4E. As such, I am generally loath to implement house rules and prefer to use the system RAW to properly see how it works. There are alot of parts to the system I might have changed, however I felt that doing it blind without properly playing the system was unfair. After using the system for a while, I saw that many of the changes I might have made were unnecessary. There are couple of changes I made from the beginning, as I saw them as grevious errors in design.
1. All alignments are back. I have been playing DnD since 1st edition. While some in this thread argue that there is little difference between NG & CG, LN & N & CN, or LE & NE, all those alignments have been specifically and quite adequately differentiated over the years. There is also tons of lore, planes, political systems based on those alignments. I saw their removal as needless and damaging. This houserule has no effect mechanically. NG & CG are still "good", the neutrals are still "unaligned", etc. for game mechanic purposes. However there is a vast difference between a LN regime and a CN one and blanding them into the catch all of "unaligned" seems lazy at best.
2. On the character advancement table change any word that says "replace" to the word "gain". I am sorry, but it make no sense to me that a wizard can only learn Wall of Ice spell if they give up the Acid Arrow spell they have been using for 14 levels. (I am not talking of retraining, which I view as an entirely different thing.) This change, mechanically, allows the player to retain the lowest 1-4 encounter/daily powers he has (depending on his level) and does not make him sacrifice them to gain higher level powers he should have gotten simply by leveling. Playtesting shows that the actual power increase as a result of this is marginal, however flexiblity and character flavor is enhanced.
3. Multi-class swap feats are altered slightly. When you take a multi-class swap feat, you do not lose the power you originally had, however both the old and new powers use is retricted. In the case of a encounter power, when you use one of the two powers during an encounter, you cannot use the other power during the same encounter. Similarly with dailies, when you use one power during the day, the other power is locked out for that day. Utility powers are a bit quirky as you can swap a daily for an encounter or vice versa, but the mechanic holds true. If you use the encounter utility first in a day, you can continue to use that power during successive encounters but the daily is locked. Alternatively, if you use the daily utility power first in the day, the encounter power is locked for that day. This house rule adds flexibility to a character, but does not increase the characters power.
4. Paragon Multi-classing: When you gain a normal encounter power at 13 and 17, a normal daily power at 15 and 19, or a normal utility power at 16, (see houserule 2) you may choose a power from either of your classes. This does not carry on into the epic levels. This does increase the power of Paragon Multi-classing but still amounts to a net loss over normal paragon paths.
That is the sum total of my house rules other than individual judgement calls to plug holes in the multi-classing/paragon path system. (ie.. Yes if, your a Wizard of the Spiral Tower you can use longsword as an implement even if your not specialized in an implement.) But that kind of stuff is just common sense.
Your game is going to break down in half. Just thought I'd warn ya.
Your game is going to break down in half. Just thought I'd warn ya.
Yoiur off the cuff, armchair opinion is noted. However I have already thoroughly playtested these changes and the only balancing required was a slight increase to the encounter difficulties.
Yoiur off the cuff, armchair opinion is noted. However I have already thoroughly playtested these changes and the only balancing required was a slight increase to the encounter difficulties.
No, I mean it. Why do you think epic trick is awesome? Because it doubles your daily power usage. Now, imagine everyone under the constant effect of an Epic Trick.
Trust me here. Encounters are supposed to last, theoretically, nº of encounter powers + 3-4 for a reason. Your characters are going to be brutally strong with the variant you introduce there. This is not off-the-cuff, armchair opinion, as you dismissively call it. This is me repeating Word of God.
No, I mean it. Why do you think epic trick is awesome? Because it doubles your daily power usage. Now, imagine everyone under the constant effect of an Epic Trick.
Trust me here. Encounters are supposed to last, theoretically, nº of encounter powers + 3-4 for a reason. Your characters are going to be brutally strong with the variant you introduce there. This is not off-the-cuff, armchair opinion, as you dismissively call it. This is me repeating Word of God.
Epic trick does alot more than that, however the return of dailies does under my rules does make this trick stronger. I was aware of that. Under my system, you would have two extra dailies at 21st level. If you consider retaining your two lowest dailies as "brutally strong", you and I have vastly different ideas of the term.
Your not repeating the "Word of God" your repeating the "Word of WotC" who also says that the DM is God.
And yes, I dismiss your opinion as off the cuff and armchair since you read my house rules and simply thought "that'll never work" without seeing the rules in action. I should also point out that I did not post these rules for critique. I have done sufficient testing that these rules are acceptable to me as a DM and that is all that matters. The thread was titled "House rules You'll Make" so I posted my rules for other DM's to use or not as they saw fit. If I wanted opinions, I would have posted them in their own thread saying "What do you think of this?" I presume you will not be using my house rules. That is all good since you are God in your house.
Epic trick does alot more than that, however the return of dailies does under my rules does make this trick stronger. I was aware of that. Under my system, you would have two extra dailies at 21st level. If you consider retaining your two lowest dailies as "brutally strong", you and I have vastly different ideas of the term.
Your not repeating the "Word of God" your repeating the "Word of WotC" who also says that the DM is God.
And yes, I dismiss your opinion as off the cuff and armchair since you read my house rules and simply thought "that'll never work" without seeing the rules in action. I should also point out that I did not post these rules for critique. I have done sufficient testing that these rules are acceptable to me as a DM and that is all that matters. The thread was titled "House rules You'll Make" so I posted my rules for other DM's to use or not as they saw fit. If I wanted opinions, I would have posted them in their own thread saying "What do you think of this?" I presume you will not be using my house rules. That is all good since you are God in your house.
Actually, I did see 'em. Can you say "trying a 4th edition gestalt"? I used the exact same basic system. And my players tore through encounters of seven levels higher than them without breaking a sweat.
So yeah, shut yer jawbox, young 'un, and let the people who know what their talkin' about offer some criticism.
Actually, I did see 'em. Can you say "trying a 4th edition gestalt"? I used the exact same basic system. And my players tore through encounters of seven levels higher than them without breaking a sweat.
So yeah, shut yer jawbox, young 'un, and let the people who know what their talkin' about offer some criticism.
Actually, I am 46 years old and have been playing DnD since 1979 and DMing DnD since 1983. So take your insulting comments and your unwanted criticism and put them where I cannot politely say on these boards. I won't see this thread hijacked any further, so your welcome to get the last word in if that is really important to you.
Actually, I am 46 years old and have been playing DnD since 1979 and DMing DnD since 1983. So take your insulting comments and your unwanted criticism and put them where I cannot politely say on these boards. I won't see this thread hijacked any further, so your welcome to get the last word in if that is really important to you.
Credentials matter exactly squat here, what matters is the criticism. I'm actually not hijacking, even, because, see, even the description of the board says, "here, everything is PEACH". Thus, since I am PEACHing, I'm doing nothing wrong.
1) Rods can be used as clubs..
2) Orbs can be affixed to a staff and be considered in hand when wielding the said staff .. but caster must pick which he is using as his implement.. Can't use both..
3) Dragonborn can have tails if character wishes to have one.
4) Tiefling may have non-human like feet (cloven, clawed etc).
New Feats for Halfling
Kender (You have some fey blood and gain low-light vision, you also gain an additional +2 bonus to save vs fear effects)
Stout (You have some dwarven blood and gain low-light vision, you also qualify for Deep Dweller feat)
Deep Dweller - Dwarf (you gain darkvision and +2 perception bonus to spot unusual stone work).
That's all I got so far..
Other new rule: Minions have normal HP, but they die whenever hit by an attack roll for any amount of damage.
Uh they do that now with only 1 hP..
If you wanna give them full hp let them go to 0 and to make them more fragile give them the zombie flaw.. a critical strike automatically kills them..
Most of the flavour has been taken out of the ranger, and i think this would bring some of it back without unbalancing things in combat.
I might also bring back something like favoured enemies, maybe an extra bonus to hunter's quarry against your favored enemy. Possibly add your wisdom as well as strength or dex to attack and damage rolls against that enemy?
Rangers get animal companions again, but they are more passive. bonuses to survival, nature, dungeneering, perception checks when in the appropriate enviroment, abillity to scout ahead and inform the ranger of the terrain and enemy possitions, maybe able to keep watch at night.
Most of the flavour has been taken out of the ranger, and i think this would bring some of it back without unbalancing things in combat.
I might also bring back something like favoured enemies, maybe an extra bonus to hunter's quarry against your favored enemy. Possibly add your wisdom as well as strength or dex to attack and damage rolls against that enemy?
While the favored enemy bit sounds pretty rad, Rangers are already at the top of the charts when it comes to damage. Non-damage bonuses, like tracking them & defenses when fighting them sound more appropriate- just make sure you help out your other strikers, too.
Yes this power duplicates the half elf ability but is restricted to the class chosen by the feat, yes half elf stacks with this so a half elf with multi class to rogue to riposte twice in an encounter.
Rangers get animal companions again, but they are more passive. bonuses to survival, nature, dungeneering, perception checks when in the appropriate enviroment, abillity to scout ahead and inform the ranger of the terrain and enemy possitions, maybe able to keep watch at night.
Most of the flavour has been taken out of the ranger, and i think this would bring some of it back without unbalancing things in combat.
I might also bring back something like favoured enemies, maybe an extra bonus to hunter's quarry against your favored enemy. Possibly add your wisdom as well as strength or dex to attack and damage rolls against that enemy?
I'd erase this, because animal companions will make a return with Martial Power.
And Xeorsos, I like your change there, maybe a ranger can give his party members a boost to damage against his favoured enemy?
You have spent a great deal of time studying your enemy, and as a result you are able to give your allies a tactical edge against that enemy. All allies who can hear and understand you gain +x to attack and defenses against your favoured enemy
I'll probably make the bonus go up at the same progression the old one did, and the ranger himself would get a signifigent bonus to tracking and defenses like you suggested.
What about special attacks that you can only use against your favoured enemy? just throwing ideas out there now.
Also I'm bringing Bards back myself if they aren't in a book by the time i start a new campaign. I think i'll just make them a hybrid of leader and controller abillities already found in the books. I haven't worked out the details yet though.
Ok, animal companions are coming back, that's great, but until the book comes out I'm still gonna house rule it.
And Xeorsos, I like your change there, maybe a ranger can give his party members a boost to damage against his favoured enemy?
You have spent a great deal of time studying your enemy, and as a result you are able to give your allies a tactical edge against that enemy. All allies who can hear and understand you gain +x to attack and defenses against your favoured enemy
I'll probably make the bonus go up at the same progression the old one did, and the ranger himself would get a signifigent bonus to tracking and defenses like you suggested.
What about special attacks that you can only use against your favoured enemy? just throwing ideas out there now.
Also I'm bringing Bards back myself if they aren't in a book by the time i start a new campaign. I think i'll just make them a hybrid of leader and controller abillities already found in the books. I haven't worked out the details yet though.
I like the idea of giving your allies a bonus as well, but with the way scaling works I probably wouldn't increase the bonus over the course of leveling. Here's how I would write it up:
Favored Enemy (choose one: ...)
You gain a +2 power bonus to defenses and skill checks when dealing with your favored enemy. Allies that can see and hear you gain half this bonus to damage rolls and defenses when dealing with your favored enemy. You automatically do your Quarry damage on a critical hit against a favored enemy. This use of Hunter's Quarry does not count toward the amount of times you can use it per turn.
At level 8 you gain an additional favored enemy. You can choose not to gain another favored enemy and instead increase the bonus granted by one of your favored enemies by an additional +2. You gain another favored enemy at 16 and 24.
Special attacks are probably a bad idea if they don't do anything against regular enemies. Having a moderate damage power that does AMAZING damage when used against your favored enemy would be fine, though.
2. Tieflings: Take one sign of Infernal ancestry. It can be horns OR tail OR cloven hooves OR red skin OR small non-functional wings OR whatever you can think of. As long as it's easily noticeable.
3. Half-Orcs: brought back as PC race. In an area where humans and orcs come into contact on a regular basis, there's a small but stable population of Half-Orcs.
4. Halflings are Hobbits. My group has always thought of them that way, might as well make it so. Furry feet and all.
5. Feats: At odd-numbered levels, get a combat-oriented Feat. At even-numbered levels, get a non-combat oriented Feat OR training in a Skill.
6. Consider giving extra spell/spell-like powers to dragons, at least at adult level and up. Dragons are intelligent and there's no reason they can't learn these things. This way you won't get PCs going, "Oh that's a green dragon, it does X ..." instead they'll be wondering *which* green dragon it is ... Is it the one that turns invisible to sneak up on you, or is it the one that webs opponents so it can "play" with them? Increase XP to compensate.
About races, the new races rock ! I can't comprehend how you can't like them. Unless your tring to be different and closed-minded. D&D is spost to be fun and verity = fun, its that simple.
I like races so much that I've created a few for 4D, they fit well in my campaign world I've made. I think that races like orcs, minotaur and ect are a little too much though.
As a DM, the most fun I have is when my players are having more fun the me.
- Little DM Chick
I like the idea of giving your allies a bonus as well, but with the way scaling works I probably wouldn't increase the bonus over the course of leveling. Here's how I would write it up:
Favored Enemy (choose one: ...)
You gain a +2 power bonus to defenses and skill checks when dealing with your favored enemy. Allies that can see and hear you gain half this bonus to damage rolls and defenses when dealing with your favored enemy. You automatically do your Quarry damage on a critical hit against a favored enemy. This use of Hunter's Quarry does not count toward the amount of times you can use it per turn.
At level 8 you gain an additional favored enemy. You can choose not to gain another favored enemy and instead increase the bonus granted by one of your favored enemies by an additional +2. You gain another favored enemy at 16 and 24.
Special attacks are probably a bad idea if they don't do anything against regular enemies. Having a moderate damage power that does AMAZING damage when used against your favored enemy would be fine, though.
I like it.
rather a lot actually.
another idea i had though was to replace the whole thing with something like the favored enviroment from the 3.5 unearthed arcana book.
I spent some time today thinking of stuff for a bard, i'll try to post some of soon. It basically translates some stuff from noble talent trees(inspiration, leadership and noble dueling style) from Star Wars Saga and leader/controller stuff from other DnD classes.
7. a. All player dice rolling happens on the table, where either another player or the DM can see it (not that they have to, but they should be able to). DM rolls can happen in secret. (We used to have a player who insisted on rolling teeny tiny dice in a box lid held up next to his chest and tilted so nobody else could see them clearly. Is it any wonder that this player claimed a statistically unlikely run of critical hits and high rolls?)
b. Dice rolled to generate a character must be verified by the DM or another player (because of the same player who caused rule a.)
b. All critical hits must be verified by someone else. (Still because of the same player.)
c. No rolling in advance until you get one you like and then "saving" it for the next time you need a real roll. (This one was because of a different player.)
d. Roll all the dice required at the same time; this eliminates rolling a die at a previously rolled die that came up low in the hope of knocking it over to a higher number. (Same player as in c. *rolls eyes*)
e. Re-roll dice that fall on the floor or are cocked. (Muffled voice from under the table: "It's a 19, can I keep it?" Same player as a., natch.)
More house rules, and these we've been using for some time now:
7. a. All player dice rolling happens on the table, where either another player or the DM can see it (not that they have to, but they should be able to). DM rolls can happen in secret. (We used to have a player who insisted on rolling teeny tiny dice in a box lid held up next to his chest and tilted so nobody else could see them clearly. Is it any wonder that this player claimed a statistically unlikely run of critical hits and high rolls?)
b. Dice rolled to generate a character must be verified by the DM or another player (because of the same player who caused rule a.)
b. All critical hits must be verified by someone else. (Still because of the same player.)
c. No rolling in advance until you get one you like and then "saving" it for the next time you need a real roll. (This one was because of a different player.)
d. Roll all the dice required at the same time; this eliminates rolling a die at a previously rolled die that came up low in the hope of knocking it over to a higher number. (Same player as in c. *rolls eyes*)
e. Re-roll dice that fall on the floor or are cocked. (Muffled voice from under the table: "It's a 19, can I keep it?" Same player as a., natch.)
Wow, some group you've got there. Sounds like you could condense all your rules into a single one:
7. Don't be an idiot who tries to cheat die rolls.
DoctorBadWolf - I like your concept of a Bard. Saric has a Bard floating around the forums that we're using in our game. You might check it out.
Also, is your name a Doctor Who reference? I bet it is.
WIS modifier equals the number of extra powers you may have above and beyond the ones listed. (Not playtested yet, but it looks viable on paper. Combined with the above, it should be interesting to see what the wizard is like.)
2. I will now add in options that do not benefit the characters in any way mechanical way but still eat up resources, because I want a system for mundane things instead of plain old role-playing.
3. I will now axe the skill challenge system. Heaven above that we have a system in place of plain old role-playing.
4. I will now redo the ability system for the fighter. Because instead of having a plethora of mildly interesting attacks that he can do from time to time, I want him to have only one attack that is only somewhat interesting which he can do ad nauseam. He is also supposed to be good at everything.
5. While we're at it, I'll redo the wizard spell-list and system on top of it. Because the Vancian was so useful and made so much sense that I feel that it needed another edition to torture. I also like to watch people cry.
6. Here is where I give the characters some small options that do not affect the game much overall.
7. Here is where I give the characters some small options that do not affect the game much overall.
8. Here is where I give the characters some small options that do not affect the game much overall.
9. Here is where I am forced to re-do the entire monster selection because for some unknown reason the characters are now ridiculously over-powered.
10. Some general acceptable house-rulage.
11. Here I wonder why I paid a hundred bucks for these three books when I have to house-rule them to death to make them playable. Just like 3.5. My Illithid Warlock/Rouge/Scout would like to grapple the Troll now.
1. Tieflings, Dragonborn, and Elandrin are all axed. Because playable versions of popular concepts are sins not to be tolerated. At all. I also hate them with a deep in-bred prejudice that I will not define most likely based on my poorly gained and misinformed pre-conceptions of what a fantasy world should be like. We only play Tolklien in this house.
2. I will now add in options that do not benefit the characters in any way mechanical way but still eat up resources, because I want a system for mundane things instead of plain old role-playing.
3. I will now axe the skill challenge system. Heaven above that we have a system in place of plain old role-playing.
4. I will now redo the ability system for the fighter. Because instead of having a plethora of mildly interesting attacks that he can do from time to time, I want him to have only one attack that is only somewhat interesting which he can do ad nauseam. He is also supposed to be good at everything.
5. While we're at it, I'll redo the wizard spell-list and system on top of it. Because the Vancian was so useful and made so much sense that I feel that it needed another edition to torture. I also like to watch people cry.
6. Here is where I give the characters some small options that do not affect the game much overall.
7. Here is where I give the characters some small options that do not affect the game much overall.
8. Here is where I give the characters some small options that do not affect the game much overall.
9. Here is where I am forced to re-do the entire monster selection because for some unknown reason the characters are now ridiculously over-powered.
10. Some general acceptable house-rulage.
11. Here I wonder why I paid a hundred bucks for these three books when I have to house-rule them to death to make them playable. Just like 3.5. My Illithid Warlock/Rouge/Scout would like to grapple the Troll now.
Lawl.
This is exactly what I think as I'm reading through this thread. Houserules to improve the mechanical efficiency of the system (pushing it higher or lower in power) seem fine to me, but guys- this is 4e, not 3e. Stop trying to make it 3e! The edition still exists; play it.
We've kept the sling-staff, and after seeing RW demonstrations with various forms of it, we have concluded that it is a viable weapon in a dungeon environment. In fact, after seeing several RW demonstrations of many historical weapons, we're expanding the weapons list, but still grouping them like 4e does. The hard part is how the damage die have changed for only some of the weapons, and how to make each weapon attractive to a player in it's own way.
My players want a little more in the line of shield choices. Bucklers, tower shields, etc. I'm working on it. Sometimes they get a little carried away, especially after a marathon of medival documentary watching (no, you guys can't buy a portable gibbet!).
I don't like house rules too much, unless all your players like the rule. House rules in 3D can be way too abused. House rules can really reflect what kind of person the DM is. Very picky and closed-minded or way too open minded. I've known both. Remember if your making a house rule for 4D, don't try and make it like 3D.
About races, the new races rock ! I can't comprehend how you can't like them. Unless your tring to be different and closed-minded. D&D is spost to be fun and verity = fun, its that simple.
I like races so much that I've created a few for 4D, they fit well in my campaign world I've made. I think that races like orcs, minotaur and ect are a little too much though.
As a DM, the most fun I have is when my players are having more fun the me.
- Little DM Chick
I can see the point. With the group I run, we will come to a consensus on any house rule before adopting it, and then we also write them on a flip chart pad for all to see (as some of us had previously had issues with house rules which seemed to waiver when expedient for the DM).
Aside from a higher stat array because it's a smaller group, here's one we adopted after a particularly frustrating evening, strewn liberally with much red-faced, fist-shaking profanity:
*Action Point Alternative Use: Once per encounter as an immediate reaction, instead of using an Action Point in the typical fashion, you can instead use it to reroll a failed use of a Daily Power. The new roll is used to determine the outcome.
*This rule also applies to Elite and Solo monsters.
Now, I know that generally the Daily Powers have a "miss" effect built in, presumably to offset the infrequency with which you can use it, but it was mutually agreed that getting that "extra chance" with your big guns added fun to the game - even if it's just a chance which quickly evaporates when you roll crappy *again*. Plus it seemed balanced by the fact that Elites and Solos get the same benefit.
1. Tieflings, Dragonborn, and Elandrin are all axed. Because playable versions of popular concepts are sins not to be tolerated. At all. I also hate them with a deep in-bred prejudice that I will not define most likely based on my poorly gained and misinformed pre-conceptions of what a fantasy world should be like. We only play Tolklien in this house.
2. I will now add in options that do not benefit the characters in any way mechanical way but still eat up resources, because I want a system for mundane things instead of plain old role-playing.
3. I will now axe the skill challenge system. Heaven above that we have a system in place of plain old role-playing.
4. I will now redo the ability system for the fighter. Because instead of having a plethora of mildly interesting attacks that he can do from time to time, I want him to have only one attack that is only somewhat interesting which he can do ad nauseam. He is also supposed to be good at everything.
5. While we're at it, I'll redo the wizard spell-list and system on top of it. Because the Vancian was so useful and made so much sense that I feel that it needed another edition to torture. I also like to watch people cry.
6. Here is where I give the characters some small options that do not affect the game much overall.
7. Here is where I give the characters some small options that do not affect the game much overall.
8. Here is where I give the characters some small options that do not affect the game much overall.
9. Here is where I am forced to re-do the entire monster selection because for some unknown reason the characters are now ridiculously over-powered.
10. Some general acceptable house-rulage.
11. Here I wonder why I paid a hundred bucks for these three books when I have to house-rule them to death to make them playable. Just like 3.5. My Illithid Warlock/Rouge/Scout would like to grapple the Troll now.
awwwww darn you
i was literally reading this and coming up with all the sassy things i was going to put in this exact format hitting on the same general concepts you did including a variant on "Here is where I give the characters some small options that do not affect the game much overall." over and over againMy Consolodated Multiclass patch (in sig).
An expanded version of the 3.5 Monk conversion guidelines that is balanced through level 30 (called a Streetfighter).
A playable race based on Trolls.
Offhand, I can't think of anything else - although there are a handful of powers I might consider tweaking before allowing in the game. Mostly stuff from Dragon magazine - they don't proofread sufficiently for consistancy in language.
As a whole I prefer to ease into houserules until I feel I have a thorough grasp of the system - even minor rule changes can have unpredictable effects on the mechanics of a system.
Is there a reason you limited to only the Daily powers? I was going to steal it, but let it apply to Encounter powers as well. That way they'd have to make a choice. "Yeah, I could really use that Encounter power again, but do I want to waste it in case I miss with my heavy hitter?"
Funny you should mention that.
For whatever reason, I ended up *not* including in my previous post that I (too) was originally leaning toward allowing the alternate use of the action point for a flubbed Encounter Power as well. Oddly enough, it was actually the players who thought we should limit it to just Daily Powers. Then too though, there was discussion last session about their satisfaction with that decision, so who knows ... it may end up expanding to include Encounters Powers too. *shrug*
Again, if that's the consensus, it will apply to Elites and Solos the same way.
:evillaugh
2. I added a ton of classes and races.
Wow, some group you've got there. Sounds like you could condense all your rules into a single one:
7. Don't be an idiot who tries to cheat die rolls.
DoctorBadWolf - I like your concept of a Bard. Saric has a Bard floating around the forums that we're using in our game. You might check it out.
Also, is your name a Doctor Who reference? I bet it is.
Of course.
Didn't I mention?
I'm brilliant. :D
1) Extended rest has nothing to do with sleeping. You gain the benefits of an extended rest after every fifth encounter.
In one of the prerelease podcasts, the designers talked about making it so the players didn't have this urge to sleep after every fight. They then did nothing about that issue, leaving all the PCs a bit... narcoleptic. But this is an easy fix.
I can now tell a story that spans several months in the game world, or one that spans a full day of fighting, and combat doesn't get all hincky from one style to the next. (I can always extend combats per rest for dramatic effect if a day/week/month is supposed to be exhausting). Also, the players don't get to use their best toys every fight, so there's some resource management, but I'm not completely stringing them along through at-will only fights either.
The 5 enc. per rest might need to inch up as we go up in levels, but it's a pretty solid ratio for the Heroic Tier.
2) The Wintertouched/Frost Weapon/Lasting Frost Combo doesn't work.
Do I need to explain?
*If something's worked its way into every melee build, something's gone horribly wrong.
*I like the non-frost weapons in the game when they're worth reading.
*I like combat advantage to be a tactical part of the game, not just automatic.
Magical weapon properties for keyword purposes count for abilities and attacks but not for feats. (Can not get auto Ca, and the like for having a Frost weapon with Lasting Frost, and Winter touch.) They deal the damage type listed but do not add the keyword change for feat purposes.
That's my ruling on the subject. Phrased the way it is so you don't have people picking up Astral Fire for an additional bonus to damage etc etc as well as to prevent future issues.