Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 menkepht Aug 10, 2008 1:41:32	Here is the list of the house rules I will be using in my game. Tell me what you think? RACIAL CHANGES Dragonborn: May have non prehensile tails. (This one was demanded by our artist who thought the dragonborn looked funny without them). Halfling: Have low-light vision. (This one was demanded by the other players when they found out the Halfling did not have low-light vision). CLASS CHANGES (Mostly just add a feat) Cleric: Gain proficiency with Light shields. (I think they should have had them in the game to start). Fighter: All fighters gain bonus feat: Power Attack. Fighter that takes Two-handed weapon talent gains Proficiency in Plate mail and gains Toughness as a bonus feat but do not have any shield proficiencies. Paladin: Gain the Channel Divinity feat of their chosen diety. (Since they are the only class that has to pick a diety I thought this was appropriate). Rangers: Archer fighting style gains the Far Shot feat. Two-Blade fighting style gains the Two-Weapon fighting feat. Rogue: Artful Dodger: Gains proficiency with Rapier. Brutal Scoundrel. Gains proficiency with Katar. Warlock: Rods can be used as clubs. Warlock Curse can be used on any target that you can see clearly, otherwords one that does not have full cover or concealment. Warlord: Gains proficiency in Scale armor. Wizard: (Though no one in my group plays a wizard). Do not need to pick an Arcane Implement Mastery. All Wizards can use all implements as if they where mastered, but can use only one implement special ability per encounter. The second implement feat can be taken to allow them to use two implement abilities per encounter. An orb can be affixed to a staff and still be considered in hand while staff is in hand. So let me know if you think any of this is unbalanced.
#2 lolwatzors Aug 10, 2008 2:11:09	Here is the list of the house rules I will be using in my game. Tell me what you think? Okay, lets see what we have. RACIAL CHANGES Dragonborn: May have non prehensile tails. (This one was demanded by our artist who thought the dragonborn looked funny without them). Halfling: Have low-light vision. (This one was demanded by the other players when they found out the Halfling did not have low-light vision). Nothing too game changing here honestly. The tail thing doesn't really affect anything, and halfings remain the same combatively speaking. CLASS CHANGES (Mostly just add a feat) This is were real game issues become an issue. Cleric: Gain proficiency with Light shields. (I think they should have had them in the game to start). I believe one of the reasons they took away the shields from the cleric, is similiar to why they no longer have plate. Its overall impact on rules...minor, but this puts them on the same defenses proficiencies as the warlord, who does not have the clerics option for range, nor the same healing. Fighter: All fighters gain bonus feat: Power Attack. Fighter that takes Two-handed weapon talent gains Proficiency in Plate mail and gains Toughness as a bonus feat but do not have any shield proficiencies. I'd not give out power attack freely, its a pretty handy feat. As for exchanging shield proficiency feats with plate armor and toughness , intersting idea, though I think there are cetain game issues that might arise (for starters, spear/sword users will not use plate), and the point of taking up a two hander is to sacrifice durabilty to do more damage. Paladin: Gain the Channel Divinity feat of their chosen diety. (Since they are the only class that has to pick a diety I thought this was appropriate). I get your flow of logic here, and since you can use channel divinity only once per encounter, overall, doesn't affect combat. Rangers: Archer fighting style gains the Far Shot feat. Two-Blade fighting style gains the Two-Weapon fighting feat. Both rangers already recieve feats giving them benefits to their preferred fighting style. Archer rangers are really the only bow users, so they will excel over other characters without far shot already. And TWF rangers can already use non-offhand weapons in their offhand in addition to getting toughness for free. Not much reason to buff them. Rogue: Artful Dodger: Gains proficiency with Rapier. Brutal Scoundrel. Gains proficiency with Katar. Rogues already do a significant amount of damage without those weapons, though the overalll increase at low level is 1 dpr, its still 1 dpr the rogue doesn't have, and is still out damaging everyone. Warlock: Rods can be used as clubs. Warlock Curse can be used on any target that you can see clearly, otherwords one that does not have full cover or concealment. I like the rod as a club idea. However, not sure about the curse, there's probably a good solid mechanical reason its done the way it is already. Since its pretty much mechanically the same thing as Hunter's Quarry. Warlord: Gains proficiency in Scale armor. Warlords have chain, because they're not fighters. Simple as that, they're not intended to be attacked as often, so their AC is not required to be as high (you'd be surprise the impact of 1 point in 4e). Wizard: (Though no one in my group plays a wizard). Do not need to pick an Arcane Implement Mastery. All Wizards can use all implements as if they where mastered, but can use only one implement special ability per encounter. The second implement feat can be taken to allow them to use two implement abilities per encounter. An orb can be affixed to a staff and still be considered in hand while staff is in hand. I've got to say, I kinda like this one. It allows a wizard some nifty versatility (though it still does kill character variety), perhaps give them single mastery still, but that only is +1 to the relavent mastery, otherwise, I kinda like this one. So let me know if you think any of this is unbalanced.
#3 Crimson_Concerto Aug 10, 2008 3:11:24	Dragonborn: May have non prehensile tails. (This one was demanded by our artist who thought the dragonborn looked funny without them). That's not a house rule. It's just a flavor change. Halfling: Have low-light vision. (This one was demanded by the other players when they found out the Halfling did not have low-light vision). That's silly. There's no reason for Halflings to have low-light vision. They didn't even have low-light vision back in 3E. CLASS CHANGES (Mostly just add a feat) You rationales for all of these are pretty bad. There no good reason for any of these feats or extras, and all they serve to do is to give the characters more, which does in fact mess up the CR system just a tad. Also, yes, a lot of these are VERY unbalanced. Your two-handed Fighter, for example, gets two feats more than the one-handed Fighter, and the two-handed Fighter can use Power Attack much better than the one-handed Fighter can. There's absolutely zero reason to play a one-handed fighter in your game, and no, removing the two-handed Fighter's shield proficiencies is NOT a balancing factor. It would only even come close if, say, the one-handed Fighter didn't get any benefit out of Plate Proficiency or Toughness, which is clearly not the case... Summery: All of your proposed house rules are both needless and poorly justified.
#4 Novacat Aug 10, 2008 6:07:10	That's silly. There's no reason for Halflings to have low-light vision. They didn't even have low-light vision back in 3E. Actually, from the three core 3E books, the only two races not to have Darkvision or Low-Light Vision was humans and lizardfolk. Halflings had low-light vision.
#5 menkepht Aug 10, 2008 13:57:19	Thank you all for your impute. As we are all new to 4e I just wanted to toss out these ideas. (Guess now I will be tossing most of them out) I like the critique it helps me think and improve. So I will keep the racial ones for sure. Halflings always had low-light in every D&D game I have ever played, and the tail just makes the Dragonborn more balanced visually. So now the tiefling is not the only race that has to turn the chair around to sit down. Anyone remember those knee chairs where you sat on your knees. They may be the new seats in my inns, at least the fancy inns, everyone else will just have stools and benches. So so long class ones.. the rogue will be sad to lose rapier but he can take the feat later if he really misses it. Daggers and shuriken rule in rogue hands anyway..
#6 Saric Aug 10, 2008 23:41:57	Actually, from the three core 3E books, the only two races not to have Darkvision or Low-Light Vision was humans and lizardfolk. Halflings had low-light vision. Halfings did not have low light vision in 3rd edition. And lizardfolk were not included in the phb. Half-orcs, Dwarves = darkvision Humans, Halfings = normal vision Elves, Half-Elves, Gnomes = Low-Light Vision Quoted from http://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#halflings As you can see below there is no entry on low light or darkvision for the halfing. Halflings Also see the Halfling monster listing. +2 Dexterity, -2 Strength. Small: As a Small creature, a halfling gains a +1 size bonus to Armor Class, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, and a +4 size bonus on Hide checks, but she uses smaller weapons than humans use, and her lifting and carrying limits are three-quarters of those of a Medium character. Halfling base land speed is 20 feet. +2 racial bonus on Climb, Jump, Listen, and Move Silently checks. +1 racial bonus on all saving throws. +2 morale bonus on saving throws against fear: This bonus stacks with the halfling’s +1 bonus on saving throws in general. +1 racial bonus on attack rolls with thrown weapons and slings. Automatic Languages: Common and Halfling. Bonus Languages: Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, Goblin, and Orc. Favored Class: Rogue. A multiclass halfling’s rogue class does not count when determining whether she takes an experience point penalty for multiclassing.
#7 Crimson_Concerto Aug 11, 2008 2:41:47	Halflings had low-light vision. Not according to my PHB and the SRD. :D Halflings always had low-light in every D&D game I have ever played... . . . That's silly. You've been doing it wrong. ;) No, but seriously, did you guys honestly think Halflings had low-light vision? Because they really never have. I think somebody lied to you... Also, "we've always done it this way" is a pretty horrible excuse to do anything. :P
#8 menkepht Aug 11, 2008 5:39:28	Not according to my PHB and the SRD. :D . . . That's silly. You've been doing it wrong. ;) No, but seriously, did you guys honestly think Halflings had low-light vision? Because they really never have. I think somebody lied to you... Also, "we've always done it this way" is a pretty horrible excuse to do anything. :P Actually we knew they had Infravision which was turned into Low-Light in the new game. Halflings had it in original D&D and In 2.0 some halflings had infravision (Low-light). In 3.0 some halfling races had Darkvision. (Check your MM).
#9 Saric Aug 11, 2008 12:05:34	Actually we knew they had Infravision which was turned into Low-Light in the new game. Halflings had it in original D&D and in 2.0 some halflings had infravision (Low-light). Incorrect. To be precise, infravision in 2.0 was the equivalent of 3.0 darkvision since it allowed you to see in total darkness. If that were the case, why can't normal elves see in the dark but dwarves can? They both had infravision in 2nd edition but clearly were made different in 3rd edition. I'll quote the 2nd edition dmg Page 160 "Standard Infravision The easiest definition of infravision is that it allows characters to see in the dark. Nothing more is said about how it works- it simply works. Characters do not see into the infrared spectrum or "see" heat or anything else. They just see in the dark as clearly as they do in normal light. However, since it is a somewhat magical power, the range is not that of normal vision- infravision ability extends only 60 feet. Beyond this, only normal vision is allowed. " In 3.0 some halfling races had Darkvision. (Check your MM). MM races are not allowed unless your dm allows it. A typical normal halfling does not have low-light vision. And for the record, why would you first state that, infravision in 2.0 = low light in 3.0 and then say check the mm for some halfling sub-races that have darkvision?
#10 Crimson_Concerto Aug 11, 2008 15:23:08	Actually we knew they had Infravision which was turned into Low-Light in the new game. Actually, Infravision was changed into Darkvision... and not everybody kept it... Kind of like almost nobody kept their Darkvision in the transition over to 4E. Check your dwarves, for example. In 3.0 ONE halfling races had Darkvision. (Check your MM). Fixed. It's worth noting that the one subrace you're talking about was a subterranean and was basically a Halfling-Dwarf hybrid...
#11 menkepht Aug 11, 2008 16:02:03	New Feat Stout Prerquisite: Halfling Benefit: You gain low-light vision. You gain a +1 feat bonus to Perception checks. (If your DM uses it you qualify for the Deep Dweller dwarven racial feat, but no other dwarven feats). Now the character can choice to be in that 15%. Yes I am aware that the new Stout halfling are minions in the MM. but in the 2.0 the stout blooded halfling had the infravision and dwarven sight. Hmm maybe I should call it dwarven sight. LOL or Dwarven blood. Nah if I called it dwarven blood then he would want to take dwarven racial feats. Maybe I can call it Kender..?.. After all they where halflings and had infravision. The kender look more like the new Halflings anyway and the +5 to fear is kender based. Kender Prerequsite: Halfling Benefit: You gain Low-light vision You gain a + 2 feat bonus to Fear saves. So there we go they have to spend a feat like the warforged or dragonborn.