Hit Points and Condition Track
I've always liked the Star Wars SAGA condition track better than the bloodied status in 4E; using the condition track it's within the realm of possibility to defeat an enemy in a combat situation without first bludgeoning them to death with large chunks of wood and metal. It also gives you the option of elaborating upon abilities triggered by the bloodied status, with each tick along the condition track giving PCs or monsters a different ability for that encounter. Or not, the system works well enough without it.
Monsters and the Condition Track
Minions - no change; one-hit kill
Normal - normal condition track, cannot recover in combat
Elites - normal condition track, must spend full round action in order to recover one step
Solos - condition track as PCs
For the particularly brave houseruler, it may be possible to play the game without hit points and rely solely on the condition track. This would require more changes to the system than I'm willing to make at the moment, so I'll just throw the idea out there.
Issues: Weapons don't do as much damage in D&D as they do in SAGA, so the condition track may not even come into play without some further tweaking. I am loath to increase weapon damage, so instead of one attack being required to push a character down the condition track, it is instead the sum of damage done to that character in a single round. Of course, this is more math than may be strictly necessary but I've yet to come up with a simpler solution.
Armor
Armor works differently in my version of the rules. For one, there is no Armor Class. Like in the SAGA rules, the difficulty in hitting someone is based on their reflex defense and armor instead contributes to Damage Reduction (DR), which reduces damage from weapons. The DR value is not divided by different classes of armor, but instead is based on the weight of the armor.
Armor bonus to DR = +1 per 10 lb
Every 20 lb reduces movement by 1 square, increases skill penalty by 1
Every 10 lb increases REF penalty by 1
0-20 lbs = Light, 21-40 = Medium, 41+ = Heavy
50 lb armor would have +5 DR, -2 movement, -2 skill penalty, -5 REF
Cost = 10 gold per 10 lb
Customizations
Weight Reduction: subtract 10 lb from the weight of the armor, retain DR bonus, cost = base cost X 3, weight cannot be reduced to less than 5 lb Disguised Armor: Light Armor may be hidden under civilian clothing
Quick Removal: armor may be removed at a rate of 10 lb per one full round, base cost X 2
Players may normally remove pieces of armor, at a rate of one minute per 10 lb
Issues: One obvious problem that occurs is quality of materials used in armor construction; 70 lb of cloth is not going to provide the same amount of protection as 70 lb of steel. I made the assumption of a certain level of technology and common sense, and while this won't make a difference in the mechanics of gameplay, it is the purview of the DM to make sure that nothing completely ridiculous happens in his game. I've also yet to really sit down with the cost and weight rules, so they may need some work.
Weapons
This was a bit more difficult than my armor system and I've come up with two separate systems. One thing that is common to both systems is the idea of bonuses to attack rolls and damage rolls, which different weapons have in different proportions. An ax is balanced very differently than a sword; one is designed to deal more damage at the cost of accuracy and the other is designed the other way around. Another commonality is the special rules for certain weapons, namely daggers and crossbows.
System 1
Each weapon group has a set dice used for variable damage and is differentiated by properties and differences in proportion to attack and damage roll bonus, which are further differentiated according to weapon type.
Light Weapons - base damage = 1d6
Heavy One-handed Weapons - base damage = 1d8
Heavy Two-handed Weapons - base damage = 1d10
Simple Weapon proficiency bonus = +3
Military Weapon proficiency bonus = +4
Superior Weapon proficiency bonus = +5
Weapon properties = +1; high crit and reach = +2; thrown weapon every 5 squares = +1
Players add the number of proficiency bonus points to either attack rolls, damage rolls, or properties
Eg. A bastard sword would count as a heavy one-handed, military weapon with the versatile property and a proficiency bonus to attack rolls of +2 and bonus to damage rolls of +1
Special Rules
Dagger - 1d4 damage, +3 prof bonus to attack rolls, if used against grabbed opponent it ignores armor bonus to DR
Crossbows don't have an at-will attack; instead they have a powerful per-encounter attack with a bonus to damage and no bonus to attack.
Crossbow = 1d12 + 2 damage
The idea for the crossbow being an encounter attack was derived from the idea of another forum member, whose name I regret to say I've forgotten, for early gunpowder weapons.
Javelin - if attacker moves at least 2 squares in the direction of the target before making a ranged attack, he gains a +2 bonus on his attack roll
Buckler - treat as light shield; you cannot hold anything in your shield hand, gain an improvised attack once per round with the buckler as a minor action
Issues: The most immediate issue I can see is the exclusion of specific weapon types; what is to distinguish a one-handed, heavy weapon as a sword or ax or hammer? I would say the distribution of attack/damage roll proficiency bonuses, but what is to prevent a player from saying their superior, two-handed, heavy hammer has a +4 to attack rolls and only a +1 to damage rolls? Or give said hammer the reach or ranged property? Further refinements are definitely needed, perhaps a further categorization of weapons into hafted, bladed, and polearm. There is also the role that powers play in the game. I haven't completely digested all the powers available and as such I don't know whether they will be weakened or strengthened by the new rules.
I'll write up my second variation on the weapons system later.
Some houserules I came up with over the course of a week. Outside a few limited tests, I've yet to attempt anything close to a systematic experiment using these rules, hence the title above.
Hit Points and Condition Track
I don't know the condition track system, so I won't comment on this.
Armor
Armor works differently in my version of the rules. For one, there is no Armor Class. Like in the SAGA rules, the difficulty in hitting someone is based on their reflex defense and armor instead contributes to Damage Reduction (DR), which reduces damage from weapons. The DR value is not divided by different classes of armor, but instead is based on the weight of the armor.
Armor bonus to DR = +1 per 10 lb
Every 20 lb reduces movement by 1 square, increases skill penalty by 1
Every 10 lb increases REF penalty by 1
0-20 lbs = Light, 21-40 = Medium, 41+ = Heavy
50 lb armor would have +5 DR, -2 movement, -2 skill penalty, -5 REF
Cost = 10 gold per 10 lb
Customizations
Weight Reduction: subtract 10 lb from the weight of the armor, retain DR bonus, cost = base cost X 3, weight cannot be reduced to less than 5 lb Disguised Armor: Light Armor may be hidden under civilian clothing
Quick Removal: armor may be removed at a rate of 10 lb per one full round, base cost X 2
Players may normally remove pieces of armor, at a rate of one minute per 10 lb
Issues: One obvious problem that occurs is quality of materials used in armor construction; 70 lb of cloth is not going to provide the same amount of protection as 70 lb of steel. I made the assumption of a certain level of technology and common sense, and while this won't make a difference in the mechanics of gameplay, it is the purview of the DM to make sure that nothing completely ridiculous happens in his game. I've also yet to really sit down with the cost and weight rules, so they may need some work.
In my opinion, this system makes armor more of a hindrance then a protection tool. For every +1 DR you give your enemies a +5% chance to hit you. For every +2 DR you reduce your movement and affected skills by -1.
The highest level of mundane armor you can get would be:
210gp 60lb(costx3 10lb weight reduction) +7 DR, -3 move, -3 skills, -6 reflex
The most effective armor would be:
30gp 5lb (costx3 weight reduction, min 5lb) +1 DR
To me, it's better to not get hit at all than have a minor reduction in damage. While +7 DR looks good against an attack that does 1d8+2, it's less appealing against an attack that does 5d10+7; in the second case, I would rather have a 30% less chance of being hit at all over a few points of DR.
Also, how does the DR from armor interact with current abilities that target reflex but aren't physical attacks. For example, would a spell that does fire damage have it's damage reduced by the armor, or are you simply giving your enemy a better chance at hitting you with the spell by wearing armor.
Another thing to consider: I've found 4ed combat to be more mobile than in previous editions and taking a penalty to movement can be a pretty big problem, especially for a defender-type character who would be more likely to wear heavier armor.
Considering that the game is currently balanced for attacks that target AC and attacks that target reflex to be separate, I'd recommend taking a long look at how rolling AC into reflex will affect the game as a whole.
Weapons
System 1
Each weapon group has a set dice used for variable damage and is differentiated by properties and differences in proportion to attack and damage roll bonus, which are further differentiated according to weapon type.
Light Weapons - base damage = 1d6
Heavy One-handed Weapons - base damage = 1d8
Heavy Two-handed Weapons - base damage = 1d10
I've seen this type of thing work in other systems.
Simple Weapon proficiency bonus = +3
Military Weapon proficiency bonus = +4
Superior Weapon proficiency bonus = +5
Weapon properties = +1; high crit and reach = +2; thrown weapon every 5 squares = +1
Players add the number of proficiency bonus points to either attack rolls, damage rolls, or properties
Eg. A bastard sword would count as a heavy one-handed, military weapon with the versatile property and a proficiency bonus to attack rolls of +2 and bonus to damage rolls of +1
This part isn't clear to me. For example, the current bastard sword is a superior weapon, iirc, so you are changing it to a military weapon and then how are you coming up with your bonus spread. Could a bastard sword not also be versatile and +3 to damage, in other words, how do you decide how the bonuses are split up?
Special Rules
Dagger - 1d4 damage, +3 prof bonus to attack rolls, if used against grabbed opponent it ignores armor bonus to DR
Interesting. See my discussion about armor above for my doubts about the usefulness of the grab ability.
Crossbows don't have an at-will attack; instead they have a powerful per-encounter attack with a bonus to damage and no bonus to attack.
Hand Crossbow = 1d8 + 2 damage
Crossbow = 1d12 + 2 damage
The idea for the crossbow being an encounter attack was derived from the idea of another forum member, whose name I regret to say I've forgotten, for early gunpowder weapons.
I think this is a really bad idea as you could hurt rogues who may want to run with the hand crossbow; that or your rogues will start with ridiculousness like carrying 5 or 6 hand crossbows around.
Javelin - if attacker moves at least 2 squares in the direction of the target before making a ranged attack, he gains a +2 bonus on his attack roll
Buckler - treat as light shield; you cannot hold anything in your shield hand, gain an improvised attack with the buckler as a minor action
I dislike both of these. The javelin thing because it makes it better than other throwing weapons, and the buckler thing because you can easily get a free second attack every round, great for the fighter who wants to keep those marks up. (Or, if you didn't move, take a standard action for a power, then 2 minors for 2 more attacks)
Issues: The most immediate issue I can see is the exclusion of specific weapon types; what is to distinguish a one-handed, heavy weapon as a sword or ax or hammer? I would say the distribution of attack/damage roll proficiency bonuses, but what is to prevent a player from saying their superior, two-handed, heavy hammer has a +4 to attack rolls and only a +1 to damage rolls? Or give said hammer the reach or ranged property? Further refinements are definitely needed, perhaps a further categorization of weapons into hafted, bladed, and polearm. There is also the role that powers play in the game. I haven't completely digested all the powers available and as such I don't know whether they will be weakened or strengthened by the new rules.
I'll write up my second variation on the weapons system later.
If you start dividing weapons up into hafted, bladed, and polearm, wouldn't it be simpler to just keep the existing weapon system? Also, what about bows and throwing weapons such as the shuriken, any changes there to balance with your new system?
An overall assessment: I think your changes aren't well thought out nor do I feel they bring anything terribly interesting to the game as a whole; I'd go so far as to say, in the case of armor, they change the system in ways that will cause problems.
One of the things I always ask when looking at house rules to create is: is this something you want, or is this something that you and your players want? If it's the former, it may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but if your players aren't interested then will you even get a chance to use the rules? If it's the latter, then I wish you luck in playtesting your changes.
The other thing I like to ask about house rules is: is this necessary? Is this rule fixing a problem with the game or just change for the sake of change? While I can understand your desire to use a condition track to add more depth to combat, I fail to see how modifying the armor or weapon systems will contribute anything to the game. If I might ask a question: what is it about the RAW armor and weapon systems that you dislike that you feel you need to rewrite how they work?
In my opinion, this system makes armor more of a hindrance then a protection tool. For every +1 DR you give your enemies a +5% chance to hit you. For every +2 DR you reduce your movement and affected skills by -1.
The highest level of mundane armor you can get would be:
210gp 60lb(costx3 10lb weight reduction) +7 DR, -3 move, -3 skills, -6 reflex
The most effective armor would be:
30gp 5lb (costx3 weight reduction, min 5lb) +1 DR
Point taken. However, this is a first go of what I'm hoping will be a more comprehensive system; the rough edges will be smoothed out eventually. As far as armor and mobility goes, these problems can be fixed through any combination of new feats, special materials, enchantments, or tweaks to the system.
To me, it's better to not get hit at all than have a minor reduction in damage. While +7 DR looks good against an attack that does 1d8+2, it's less appealing against an attack that does 5d10+7; in the second case, I would rather have a 30% less chance of being hit at all over a few points of DR.
Damage reduction in D&D has always had this problem. At higher levels, unless you had an obscenely high DR there was simply no point in having it. The concept itself is sound but the execution is, to put it mildly, flawed. A fellow player is coming up with an armor system that calculates DR on a per dice basis rather than a straight subtraction from total damage. This comes with its own problems and we'll see what the tests show.
Also, how does the DR from armor interact with current abilities that target reflex but aren't physical attacks. For example, would a spell that does fire damage have it's damage reduced by the armor, or are you simply giving your enemy a better chance at hitting you with the spell by wearing armor.
Armor reduces damage from weapons, as described in the system, enchantments notwithstanding. A problem, and one I've been thinking on for some time. But it's not insurmountable problem and will be fixed with time and experimentation.
I've seen this type of thing work in other systems.
So much for originality.
This part isn't clear to me. For example, the current bastard sword is a superior weapon, iirc, so you are changing it to a military weapon and then how are you coming up with your bonus spread. Could a bastard sword not also be versatile and +3 to damage, in other words, how do you decide how the bonuses are split up?
It is a superior weapon in the book, but I wrote it up as a military one, though it could be written up as a superior weapon with a commensurate increase in cost. A bastard sword as a 1d8 one-hander with +2 to attack, +1 to damage, with the option of wielding it two-handed for an extra +1 damage is fairly accurate as to its use. As far as the bastard sword you wrote up, the bonus point spread is arbitrary at this point until I can get to it. The idea, as I've stated in the original post, is that weapon damage is based on balance, hence the division of weapon groups into bladed, hafted, and polearm.
I think this is a really bad idea as you could hurt rogues who may want to run with the hand crossbow; that or your rogues will start with ridiculousness like carrying 5 or 6 hand crossbows around.
Which will be quashed by any DM worth his salt. But I do understand your concerns regarding the hand crossbow. I don't consider it a very important part of my system, so I'll leave it as it is from the PHB.
I dislike both of these. The javelin thing because it makes it better than other throwing weapons, and the buckler thing because you can easily get a free second attack every round, great for the fighter who wants to keep those marks up. (Or, if you didn't move, take a standard action for a power, then 2 minors for 2 more attacks)
Making the javelin better than other thrown weapons was the point; the cost, weight, and limited range of such weapons will keep them in limited use. Good call on the buckler though. I have no problem with a sword and board fighter getting an improvised, 1d4 dmg attack every round, but I didn't think about forgoing an action to get more than one.
If you start dividing weapons up into hafted, bladed, and polearm, wouldn't it be simpler to just keep the existing weapon system? Also, what about bows and throwing weapons such as the shuriken, any changes there to balance with your new system?
The possibility occurred to me, and I suppose I'll find out when I've finished it.
There are no planned changes to the ranged system beyond what I've already laid out.
An overall assessment: I think your changes aren't well thought out nor do I feel they bring anything terribly interesting to the game as a whole; I'd go so far as to say, in the case of armor, they change the system in ways that will cause problems.
Thank you for your honesty.
One of the things I always ask when looking at house rules to create is: is this something you want, or is this something that you and your players want? If it's the former, it may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but if your players aren't interested then will you even get a chance to use the rules? If it's the latter, then I wish you luck in playtesting your changes.
This is something my group and I feel almost compelled to do, no matter how smooth the existing system may be. Of course, we all have our own ideas as to how any system should be changed, so any alterations are slow if they even occur at all.
The other thing I like to ask about house rules is: is this necessary?
No more necessary than any other houserule.
Is this rule fixing a problem with the game or just change for the sake of change? While I can understand your desire to use a condition track to add more depth to combat, I fail to see how modifying the armor or weapon systems will contribute anything to the game. If I might ask a question: what is it about the RAW armor and weapon systems that you dislike that you feel you need to rewrite how they work?
Perhaps the biggest problem I have with the weapon/armor interaction in D&D is the fact that once a target number is reached on an attack roll, it suddenly doesn't matter how much armor you're wearing, you'll be taking as much damage as the fellow wearing a loincloth. It makes for a simpler, faster system but it's always bugged the hell out of me. No doubt I may scrap my idea and just play the RAW game, but if there is the possibility of improvement then I have to look for it.
Thanks for the analysis, you've pointed out some holes in my system which was exactly what I was looking for. Keep it up.
