| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1SabelkattenFeb 08, 2011 9:39:26 | Don't expect to get many replies, but anyway... I've updated my homepage with some new house rules and feats, some improvement to the existing things, and more fluff. In particular I'd like comments (preferably constructive comments) on the house rules and how balanced the races are. Some ideas for better fluff, more feats and racial paragon paths would be nice, too! |
| #2rampantFeb 08, 2011 20:06:53 | The rounding rule looks like asking for trouble. Sure you glean extra points out along the way, but understand that even veteran players get their math wrong from time to time, and newbies are lucky if they understand the books' math much less this kind of home brewed math. As far as the unenchantable items, does this mean the game doesn't have magic itmes at all, that they are very rare like on Athas? The rule itself is probably ok but there's some implications to having it that may or may not need to be addressed. Monk change, leaving aside issues of balance and natural weapons, the thing that bugs me is that the change is applied universally so that a Human monk is now toting +3 prof/1d4+tier damage instead of +3 prof/1d8+ ability + foci + other stuff. I'd suggest making an alternate class feature that functions similarly to weapon talents of the rogue or fighter. So a race without a natural attack can use the original version, and races with them can get a bonus. |
| #3SabelkattenFeb 09, 2011 4:21:30 | Thanks for the reply!The rounding rule looks like asking for trouble. Sure you glean extra points out along the way, but understand that even veteran players get their math wrong from time to time, and newbies are lucky if they understand the books' math much less this kind of home brewed math. Honestly, a player that can't figure out "add one to everything based on an odd stat on odd levels" shouldn't be allowed to do any of the math himself! If he can't manage that, how can you trust him to manage basic division and multiple additions? As far as the unenchantable items, does this mean the game doesn't have magic itmes at all, that they are very rare like on Athas? The rule itself is probably ok but there's some implications to having it that may or may not need to be addressed. No, it means just what it says - Unenchatable items. At least AFAIK natural weapons and improvised weapons can't be enchanted. Of course if the GM allows your fists to be enchanted that sloves part of the problem. Still leaves the idea of a fighter grabbing a chair in a barfight and thus losing combat power, or a desperate character grabbing a stone as an improvised throwing weapon and being a credible threat at level 1 but a joke at level 30. Powers like a Dragonborn's Breath Weapon is also Unenchatable, in such a case the rule would replace the normal +3 attack/+1D6 damage per tier improvement. Monk change, leaving aside issues of balance and natural weapons, the thing that bugs me is that the change is applied universally so that a Human monk is now toting +3 prof/1d4+tier damage instead of +3 prof/1d8+ ability + foci + other stuff. Ah, my bad. For some reason I've been thinking that a Monk's unarmed strike couldn't benefit from enchantements at all! Duh... That what happens when you doesn't bother to read up on classes your friends play! Well then. How does this look) Natural Weapon Combatant (Monk Feature): All your natural melee weapons now have a +3 proficiency bonus and cause a minimum of 1D8 damage. Weapons that cause 1D8 (or more) damage gain a +1 damage bonus. Any normal attack/damage improvement at higher levels is eliminated and replaced with the bonus provided by your Ki focus, if any. |
| #4rampantFeb 09, 2011 7:06:50 | Still troublesome You're trying very hard to make this complicated. Stop it. A simple +1 attack, with either a flat damage bonus or damage dice increase (think the rogue and shurikens). All the extra qualifiers and stuff are just noise. |
| #5SabelkattenFeb 09, 2011 8:59:10 | Still troublesome You're trying very hard to make this complicated. Stop it. I'm not making it complicated, I'm trying to make it work (which, as you pointed out, the first idea didn't). A flat +1 would be overpowered for any natural weapon with a +3 proficiency bonus - there just are no weapons with a +4 bonus! +1 damage/damage die increase doesn't work well for the races that has attacks that cause 1D4 damage, they're supposed to cause as much damage as other races. |
| #6rampantFeb 09, 2011 9:48:35 | I point you to the rogue. It gets +1 on attacks with daggers, which are +3 prof., for a total bonus of +4. You may have a point about damage. What this for? "Any normal attack/damage improvement at higher levels is eliminated and replaced with the bonus provided by your Ki focus, if any." |
| #7KruskFeb 09, 2011 9:58:32 | Rounding. That is fairly straight forward, but a minor/annoying change that many people will forget about or complain about doing. Attribute Independent Attacks and Unenchantable items contradict one another. The first says the expertise feats don't exist, and the second mentions rules for if you take them. Crashing- Why does the acrobatics check get harder to succeed on as you get better at acrobatics? That is stupid. (The example skill DCs in the book increase because you aren't supposed to be balancing on the same tight rope with an increasing DC as you level, but rather you balance on thinner tight ropes. If a high level guy comes back and goes on that first rope the DC doesn't suddenly get harder for him.) Have someone go through these with you and help your language. I have a really hard time reading these and it takes forever to get what you meant. I can't make out what damage you are supposed to take for falling from any height above 10-15 ft. for example. Also, how much do you take for falling 16 ft.? or 96? or 496? You specifically ask for help with your races, but they don't have stats. I can't help you then. That was a lot of feats, and I ran out of steam before looking at them. |
| #8SabelkattenFeb 09, 2011 10:44:57 | I point you to the rogue. It gets +1 on attacks with daggers, which are +3 prof., for a total bonus of +4. And fighter, as well. Which could then (using hybrid classes) end up with a +5 total bonus. Which is why I don't want to take it above +3. Sure, it's an extreme case. But DnD4 is pretty much built on extreme cases, so it's best to avoid them completely! And anyhow, can it get much simpler than "Change proficiency bonus to +3"? What this for? All attack that get +3 attack/damage per tier shouldn't get that and Ki focus bonus. So the normal bonus is eliminated. Rounding. That is fairly straight forward, but a minor/annoying change that many people will forget about or complain about doing. Players complaining about getting a +1? Well, if your players don't like it they can just ignore it! Attribute Independent Attacks and Unenchantable items contradict one another. The first says the expertise feats don't exist, and the second mentions rules for if you take them. Two different house rules. Either one can be used independently. Crashing- Why does the acrobatics check get harder to succeed on as you get better at acrobatics? That is stupid. (The example skill DCs in the book increase because you aren't supposed to be balancing on the same tight rope with an increasing DC as you level, but rather you balance on thinner tight ropes. If a high level guy comes back and goes on that first rope the DC doesn't suddenly get harder for him.) DCs get higher for the same reason - you're not supposed to be flying is the same calm air at Paragon tier as at Heroic. But I'm going to rewrite that whole rule anyway since I just saw the official errata for the old crashing rules. Have someone go through these with you and help your language. I have a really hard time reading these and it takes forever to get what you meant. Sorry, I don't have anyone to help me. That's why I post and ask about opinions! I can't make out what damage you are supposed to take for falling from any height above 10-15 ft. for example. Also, how much do you take for falling 16 ft.? or 96? or 496? Well, you usually count everything in 5' increments in DnD4... If you don't, well... The standard rounding rule says "round down", so 16-19 feet is the same as 15. Of course one line there was really horribly badly written! "1D10+1 per ten feet past the first 10" doesn't say what it's meant too! It's supposed to be read "1D10 damage, add one point for every 10 feet past the first 10 feet". You specifically ask for help with your races, but they don't have stats. I can't help you then. Huh? All of them have stats... The Dark One right on its first page, the others under the respective links. Of course I suppose I could spell out clearly that the stat blocks are under the links! That was a lot of feats, and I ran out of steam before looking at them. Well, if you didn't start looking at the races (almost all the feats are racial), then it's almost incomprehensible by default... |
| #9rampantFeb 09, 2011 12:08:03 | I don't think you can stack the rogue and fighter weapon talents. Maybe the guardian fighter talent, bot none of the others would apply. Ok the problem with using a flat +3-Prof, 1d8 damage is that it means the races with the best unarmed attacks are gonna have the least motivation to go monk. I thought the idea was to make the monk attractive to all the races. That's one of the problem with unarmed attacks a racial ability, instead of a feat ala the gnoll. |
| #10SabelkattenFeb 09, 2011 13:37:45 | I don't think you can stack the rogue and fighter weapon talents. Huh? Why not? They're all untyped bonuses, aren't they? Ok the problem with using a flat +3-Prof, 1d8 damage is that it means the races with the best unarmed attacks are gonna have the least motivation to go monk. I thought the idea was to make the monk attractive to all the races. I'm coming at it from a slightly different angle. Since all the races I've designed with natural weapons are (hopefully!) balanced with the values they have as is, giving them a significant increase as a Monk risks overbalancing things. F.ex. the Centaur's +2/1D6 kick - it's better than a normal unarmed attack (+0/1D4), so if it was to be better than normal for a Monk it should be at least +3/1D8+1. That's like dual-wielding Bastard Swords! Since the idea (AFAIK) behind the Monk's unarmed strike is to give him a credible opportunity attack without using weapons, I think it's better to limit the possible bonus to the smallest amount possible. So The Centaur doesn't get any better than a human, but at least he gets a bonus to his Quick Kick racial attack power! |
| #11SabelkattenFeb 09, 2011 16:44:57 | Made some updates. I hope the house rules section is a bit more readable now? |
| #12rampantFeb 09, 2011 19:13:36 | The main issue with making the attack/damage boosts set numbers, is that it favors certain races dramatically. For instance a race with a +2/1d4 gets major benefits, while a dude with a +3/1d6 gains comparatively little. However the problem might be intrinsic to your natural weapon implementation. |
| #13SabelkattenFeb 10, 2011 1:15:44 | The main issue with making the attack/damage boosts set numbers, is that it favors certain races dramatically. Very true. But the thing is, the Monk "weapon" is supposed to be a weapon replacement, i.e. it's intended for races that carry normal weapons. Most of the races I've designed still carry normal weapons which will in almost every case be more effective than their natural weapons. In those cases the fact that they benefit less is really an illusion since they's normally be using a real weapon anyway, just like a normal race. The whole reason I had to come up with something was because I made the Chimera race which only uses natural weapons, and needs to have it spelled out how those weapons work for a Monk! And of course if I come up with some other crazy idea later it's a good thing to have the rules laid down. Of course I could just go with specifying that the natural weapons are indeed weapons, and thus unaffected by the Monk ability. But that causes other problems with some powers and will certainly cause players to wonder why their Centaur character's kicks suddenly cause less damage than its fists! :D |
| #14LightWardenFeb 10, 2011 15:25:01 | Working our way down the line here... If you don't like Expertise, just give people a free expertise bonus to all attacks at 1st or 5th level that scales every 10 levels. Perhaps allow them to also pick up one of the advantages from books like Heroes of the Fallen Lands for free so they can have the equivalent to Crossbow Expertise or whatever. For unenchantable attacks, just use Inherent Bonuses (DMG2 or Dark Sun Campaign Guide). It will solve so many problems, especially if you allow them to be added to racial attacks instead of the normal bonus. If you don't like people being blocked out by their racial selection, just allow all races to put +2 into any two stats they want and use race for things like powers, feats and paragon paths. Problem solved. People have already talked about your rounding, attribute, monk unarmed and flying rules, so go with them. Races: Have you considered the possibility of Bloodline feats? You take one at 1st level (or when otherwise transformed, at the DM's discretion) and it modifies your character. Your fox creature totally has "bloodline feat" stamped all over it, and it gets rid of the terrible problem where you take a penalty to your defenses (something in 4e which never happens, because this is an additive edition, not a subtractive one. Things are balanced because you get to play with other things, not because you take a big penalty). You can even combine it with the Dark Sun rules for themes and allow your characters who have the appropriate bloodline to select a particular racial power in place of their normal one, provided they're from the appropriate tauric background (feline vs. dragon vs. avian vs. equine vs. reptilian or whatever). Same thing goes with your Lycanthropes (unless you want lycanthropic tauric creatures, I suppose). Shapeshift is a dangerous power if you can't cancel out of it, especially since it's nigh-useless to most characters who aren't druids. You're effectively playing real character resources (feats) for things you will probably never use. Shifters are far better at this whole thing since using their powers doesn't lock you out of most of your class features. Also, remember that there's a feat economy. You only get 18 of them over 30 levels, so spending three to make a subpar racial power into an ok racial power isn't very interesting. Same with feats that provide very corner-case benefits (why isn't the disguise bonus for shapeshifting into an animal baked into the power instead of requiring a feat?). If you're going to provide corner-case feats, provide a few corner-bonuses in one feat to make up for it. What is the point of Rear Up, and why would you spend so many feats to make a quadrupedal character slightly less terrible when bipedal? You have too many feats that give random powers to your races, especially ones that don't get any better as you level. Have you considered making them into paragon paths instead? Extra Training and Diverse Training seem ridiculously overpowered in comparison to the base game, but it's your game. Really consider why you're giving so many creatures natural weapons. They're useless to implement users, and if you're going to use a weapon-based power you probably have access to a better weapon (especially since unarmed is one of the most poorly supported weapon groups when it comes to feats). In the case of your monk example, a monk's improved unarmed strike covers kicks, punches, headbutts, elbowing, kneeing, even jabbing people with one finger if that's how you roll (for balance reasons, no matter what you're hitting someone with, you have to have one hand free). A monk centaur's kicks will use the same +3/1d8 as a monk centaur's punches or headbutts or even faffing someone with your tail. It doesn't matter, so don't get hung up on it (plus no one ever uses monk unarmed strikes anyways barring a few corner cases due to the way the class is built). |
| #15SabelkattenFeb 10, 2011 17:50:00 | Working our way down the line here... I assume you're thinking of "Attribute-independent attack rolls"? Well, it'd true I don't like expertise feats, but it's more than that (se below). For unenchantable attacks, just use Inherent Bonuses (DMG2 or Dark Sun Campaign Guide). It will solve so many problems, especially if you allow them to be added to racial attacks instead of the normal bonus. Now that you mention it I realize I'm just reinventing the wheel... I apparently just move the bonus up one level. Personally I think level 2 is a bit early to get the bonus, but of course it does make sense to go with an existing rule and just state that they get Inherent Bonuses! If you don't like people being blocked out by their racial selection, just allow all races to put +2 into any two stats they want and use race for things like powers, feats and paragon paths. Problem solved. The thing is, I like fixed racial mods - they make races different, and that's the whole point in having races in the first place! It's really just the attack bonus that wrecks things since a 1-point change is so big in combat effectiveness. Thus the "Attribute-independent attack rolls" - it's still usually beneficial to get a race the has the bonuses in the right place for a class, but it's no disaster is your fighter only has 16 STR. It really helps classes with two primary stats too since you can get by quite well with, say, 18-16 and the powers based on your lower primary will just take a small damage hit. People have already talked about your rounding, attribute, monk unarmed and flying rules, so go with them. Well, I've changed the flying rules now since I didn't like the errata either. No requirement to move? Bleh! Races: Don't have Dark Sun (or any of the other world books, for the matter. Not exactly a rich person here!), so I have no idea of how to set up a Bloodline or Theme... Anyway, about the Kitsune build(s) it's a 'port from another game system so there were a number of specific requirements. The defense penalty isn't really a problem, the whole "DnD4 doesn't do racial penalties" is just an illusion. Me and most of the people I play with are to good at math to fall for it. ;) As for the Lycantropy feats I think you missed the idea. Look at what you get: Speed, defense and skill bonuses, all for one feat! The penalty is that you lock out most of your offensive selection - but the idea is to let the player chose to drop that to get the benefits if the other things are more usefull in a given encounter. Also, remember that there's a feat economy. You only get 18 of them over 30 levels, so spending three to make a subpar racial power into an ok racial power isn't very interesting. Same with feats that provide very corner-case benefits (why isn't the disguise bonus for shapeshifting into an animal baked into the power instead of requiring a feat?). If you're going to provide corner-case feats, provide a few corner-bonuses in one feat to make up for it. What is the point of Rear Up, and why would you spend so many feats to make a quadrupedal character slightly less terrible when bipedal? You have too many feats that give random powers to your races, especially ones that don't get any better as you level. Have you considered making them into paragon paths instead? Which is the subpar power you're thinking of? Rear Up? Well, it's actually supposed to be rather bad! It's a pure bonus feature that should see very limited use (thought the damage bonus should scale with tier). I figure there are some few ways cases where it can be quite useful, but those should be few. But just one feat (Two-Legged Dancer) means a dedicated melee fighter can get a +2 damage with all attacks for almost no penalty! The disguise bonus is actually stolen from another poster. I added it since it makes sense, and I figure that, say, a Rogue or Bard Sneaky Lycantrope could go almost anywhere with an extra +10 bonus to bluff - "Never mind, it's just a stray dog..." Without the feat it would be straight bluff vs/ insight as a usual disguise. Extra Training and Diverse Training seem ridiculously overpowered in comparison to the base game, but it's your game. I asked about Extra Training in a thread a couple of months ago, and the concensus did actually seem to be that the bonus was mostly illusion, except for builds that were already underpowered. In those cases (some really extreme leaders and controllers) it was quite nice, but then we're talking about going from "bad" to "almost good"... Diverse training is a lot stronger, but IMHO the standard power swap feats are way overpriced. As is there are some combos that are real good, and most others aren't worth bothering with. But how many of the "nice" combos will gain much by having another At-Will available? Of course if someone can point out where just one feat is to cheap to get the complete power selection is too little I'll nerf it right away! Really consider why you're giving so many creatures natural weapons. They're useless to implement users, and if you're going to use a weapon-based power you probably have access to a better weapon (especially since unarmed is one of the most poorly supported weapon groups when it comes to feats). In the case of your monk example, a monk's improved unarmed strike covers kicks, punches, headbutts, elbowing, kneeing, even jabbing people with one finger if that's how you roll (for balance reasons, no matter what you're hitting someone with, you have to have one hand free). A monk centaur's kicks will use the same +3/1d8 as a monk centaur's punches or headbutts or even faffing someone with your tail. It doesn't matter, so don't get hung up on it (plus no one ever uses monk unarmed strikes anyways barring a few corner cases due to the way the class is built). Yeah, the Monk is a really odd case. But I want to cover as many bases as possible, especially since both the Gritaur and Wemic races make great Monks! The natural weapons are really a minor feature in itself (except for the Chimera, of course). But after testing other options I decided that making all the racial attack powers based on the natural weapons did actually work out best. The fact that they're mostly useless for pretty much all classes (not just implement users - other classes use regular weapons instead). The reason for giving most of the races natural weapons should be pretty obvious - they're supposed to have powers that can use them. Plus, of course, attacks from the tail square for tauric races. I'm going to have to think some more about using natural weapons while holding things in both hands. Especially for the tauric creatures it gets real wierd since they can't use hand-held weapons to attack from their tail square, but can use unarmed attacks. |