Just to give you an idea of some of the things we want to modify
Healing surges (either remove them and rework healing in general, or make their use far more limited)
Elite and Solo monsters (they dont feel very epic to us)
Treasure Parcels, and Magic Items
Rituals
We dont have everything planned out yet, but were gona start on the PH next weekend. If nothing else, ill keep you informed on how it goes =)
If you have to ask, you shouldn't be doing it.
Haha, I guess I was just looking for opinions, were pretty deadset on it, I was just curious if any other groups were doing similiar things.
How about you tell us exactly what your "style" is, and why those elements don't "fit", and we can either explain why they still work with your "style" or give you good advice (from people, including game designers, who've been playing 4E since it came out) on how to adjust it?
A couple sessions worth of playing does not give you a solid enough understanding of the 4E rules and their underlying assumptions, their logic, and how they interact with one another to go about changing them without seriously messing up game balance.
b-As implied, this system was created by a year or so of full time work by a team of expert players. This has not prevented some results a drunk who had never heard of the game would be ashamed of, but the odds are heavy that the experts have it right, or at least less wrong than whatever alternative you suggest. Mindlessly following the official rules is probably going to give you superior results, and at least will be much less effort.
c-But if you do make changes, try to make small ones that won't ruin everything, and take the attitude that each of your changes is no more than tentative, and removable at any time with fairly short notice when it starts to cause trouble [and being too good is indeed trouble].
If you have to ask, you shouldn't be doing it.
Haha, I guess I was just looking for opinions, were pretty deadset on it, I was just curious if any other groups were doing similiar things.
Well, not sure what you're doing with some of those.
I use Inherent bonuses, so I have fewer magic items to give out.
I give free ritual uses (2/day at heroic, 3 at paragon, 4 at epic) to make them more accessible and used more often (variable-cost rituals like Enchant Magic Item are not included).
I definitely won't ever mess with healing surges. One of the best things 4e did.
I definitely won't ever mess with healing surges. One of the best things 4e did.
+1. The other areas the OP names are common sources of complaints and house rules (assuming he means MM-era elites and solos, not MV-era ones). However, messing with surges, especially if you're new to 4E, is not something to be done lightly and is likely to mess the entire game up. A lot of people don't really "get" surges at first, but I would strongly urge anyone who takes one look at them and wants to make radical changes to play with them enough to get a feel for them first.
If you have to ask, you shouldn't be doing it.
Haha, I guess I was just looking for opinions, were pretty deadset on it, I was just curious if any other groups were doing similiar things.
Well, not sure what you're doing with some of those.
I use Inherent bonuses, so I have fewer magic items to give out.
I give free ritual uses (2/day at heroic, 3 at paragon, 4 at epic) to make them more accessible and used more often (variable-cost rituals like Enchant Magic Item are not included).
I definitely won't ever mess with healing surges. One of the best things 4e did.
We also loved healing surges at face value, but after playing we feel that they take away alot of the strategy in the game. As long as you can make it through a battle, you can restore to full health immediatly afterwards, so the most effective strategy becomes kill the monsters as quickly as possible. It eliminates alot of danger and threat in the game, atleast it seemed that way to us.
How about you tell us exactly what your "style" is, and why those elements don't "fit", and we can either explain why they still work with your "style" or give you good advice (from people, including game designers, who've been playing 4E since it came out) on how to adjust it?
A couple sessions worth of playing does not give you a solid enough understanding of the 4E rules and their underlying assumptions, their logic, and how they interact with one another to go about changing them without seriously messing up game balance.
Well, we definitly want a game with a little bit more challenge. Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming. Like I said, we want solo and elite monsters to feel more epic, instead of a horribly long string of pointless die rolls, just waiting for the damn thing to die heh. Also, the classes feel very bland, we arent worried about class balance as much as making each class feel unique. Thats just a starting point really, we just want a game thats more tailored and influenced by us in general, I guess hoping itll be a more rewarding experience =)
Has there ever been a game where defeating the enemy as quickly as possible isn't the best strategy?
While this is true, there are many games where killing the monster as quickly as possible regardless of the consequences (who cares if I run in like an idiot and start hacking and slashing, as long as we win I can heal up after the battle:D) isnt the best strategy. In essence, it takes the threat of your party being weathered down in a dungeon away.
In essence, it takes the threat of your party being weathered down in a dungeon away.
Not really, no. You do run out of healing surges, plus you run out of daily powers as you work your way through a dungeon. To say nothing of really tough fights where you run out of abilities to spend your healing surges during the battle.
In essence, it takes the threat of your party being weathered down in a dungeon away.
Not really, no. You do run out of healing surges, plus you run out of daily powers as you work your way through a dungeon. To say nothing of really tough fights where you run out of abilities to spend your healing surges during the battle.
I see your point, but imagine a system where your encounter and daily abilities dont unlock until you reach a certain amount of milestones (say 1 and 2, respectivly), and limiting healing surges to say , oh, 2 in between combats. That would be a system that encourages smarter playing, atleast it would seem to (we havent play tested it yet, but thats one idea we had out there)
No, that just seems unnecessarily stifling and restrictive.
Well a difference in opinions I suppose =) Though to be honest, you could be right, as I said, we havent playtested it yet.
Yes, absolutely, as long as you meet two conditions -
1) Everybody playing in your game agrees to the changes.
and
2) You have good reasons for doing it.
Finally, you must -
3) Always remember that you are not playing "4th edition", but "my version of 4th edition" when you discuss it from here on out, otherwise some people who enjoy leaving the rules as they are written might be confused.
Assuming you meet the first two conditions, then follow the third one after you're done doing the changes? Change away. Gygax was a big believer in ignoring or changing rules that didn't work for him and I tend to agree - it's one of the best things about D&D is how supportive it is of changes to the system.
That being said, you should probably give the rules as they exist a pretty fair run before you change any of them - say about 8 or 10 sessions or thereabouts. Maybe they work better than they initially appear to.
Is it ok to change the rules?
Yes, absolutely, as long as you meet two conditions -
1) Everybody playing in your game agrees to the changes.
and
2) You have good reasons for doing it.
Finally, you must -
3) Always remember that you are not playing "4th edition", but "my version of 4th edition" when you discuss it from here on out, otherwise some people who enjoy leaving the rules as they are written might be confused.
Assuming you meet the first two conditions, then follow the third one after you're done doing the changes? Change away. Gygax was a big believer in ignoring or changing rules that didn't work for him and I tend to agree - it's one of the best things about D&D is how supportive it is of changes to the system.
That being said, you should probably give the rules as they exist a pretty fair run before you change any of them - say about 8 or 10 sessions or thereabouts. Maybe they work better than they initially appear to.
Absolutly, I remember in second edition critical hits were still an optional rule (though they were mentioned somewhere in the rulebooks). Weve only played 4 sessions so far, we plan on playing one more (they were just one shots, all 5 of us wanted to try a hand at DMing the new system).
Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming. Like I said, we want solo and elite monsters to feel more epic, instead of a horribly long string of pointless die rolls, just waiting for the damn thing to die heh. Also, the classes feel very bland, we arent worried about class balance as much as making each class feel unique.
That sounds very much like you're using PHB1 & MM1 but not the more recent sourcebooks. Compared to "original" 4E, many of the "Heroes of..." classes have quite different feels, and the creatures in Monster Vault are extremely quick and threatening.
Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming. Like I said, we want solo and elite monsters to feel more epic, instead of a horribly long string of pointless die rolls, just waiting for the damn thing to die heh. Also, the classes feel very bland, we arent worried about class balance as much as making each class feel unique.
That sounds very much like you're using PHB1 & MM1 but not the more recent sourcebooks. Compared to "original" 4E, many of the "Heroes of..." classes have quite different feels, and the creatures in Monster Vault are extremely quick and threatening.
Indeed we are, we just recently picked up the dice again =)
Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming. Like I said, we want solo and elite monsters to feel more epic, instead of a horribly long string of pointless die rolls, just waiting for the damn thing to die heh. Also, the classes feel very bland, we arent worried about class balance as much as making each class feel unique.
That sounds very much like you're using PHB1 & MM1 but not the more recent sourcebooks. Compared to "original" 4E, many of the "Heroes of..." classes have quite different feels, and the creatures in Monster Vault are extremely quick and threatening.
Indeed we are, we just recently picked up the dice again =)
check out the Monster Vault in that case. most of the monsters have been updated. they hit harder, and have less hit points. Solos and Elites got some ways to shake effects, and have some extra attacks.
i would also suggest at least check out Insider for a bit, to see what else is available.
Most of the updated rules are also printed in the Rules Compendium, and if you're having trouble with regards to having "bland" classes, might I suggest that your group maximize on p.42 of the Dungeon Master's Guide?
Finally, aside from using the updated DMG rules, look at the following suggestions with regards to elites and solos in particular:
1. Never use them alone. Even if the elite has to be 1 ~ 2 levels lower than the party if you're making an encounter using the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide EXP budget system, and even if you have to lower the solo's level by as many as 4 levels, always add in at least 12 minions of the party's level or higher (preferably 2 levels higher minimum), in addition to several standard type monsters. Set the encounter level to 3 levels higher at least, 5 if you're not using the updates as mentioned
[EDIT: Remember, encounter level doesn't equate to monster level; even if the monsters are 2 or 3 levels lower, the number and variety of monsters can easily change the whole thing to the enemy's favor, especially if you have a mix of ranged minions, brutes that are higher level than players, and a controller or lurker to boot]2. Grant the monsters as great an advantage as possible. Traps, hazardous terrain, unlimited minions, flight [at heroic] or teleportation [at paragon/epic], recharge powers, action points, immediate reaction powers like auto-recharge + use dragon's breath, auto-damage auras, etc.
[ One of my favorite monsters would be from Monster Manual 3, the Rot Grub. It's been updated to deal damage as part of its aura, and the more rot grub swarms there are, the deadlier it gets (one of my friends think that when you get enough rot grubs and sick them against a level 34 deity, the deity would dematerialize the moment those rot grubs get to him/her, and yes they're really a scary bunch...) ]
3. Modify the monsters to their worst. If you don't feel like the damage is enough and can't view the above link, then either add at least 1 more damage dice per attack, or double the static damage. Better yet, add in a few things like ongoing damage (save ends), diseases, curses and other stuff that could easily kill them.
The game can easily be set to "kill", without having to change any rule at all, or even raising the monsters' level or encounter level (a striker-heavy group with no anti-mob capability in particular will be obliterated by minions [party of 5 single-target PCs vs. 25 opponents that do 5 ~ 10 damage per hit?]). It's primarily the controllers and leaders you'd have to be wary of, as well as any other character that's built to be anti-mob, and usually those are the ones who you'd want to sick your higher-than-party-level big damage brute on.
Fast forward to the session that I just got back from, and I'm running exactly one house rule (damage threshold for minions). The more you play 4e, the more you realise how well-considered the mechanics are, and how difficult it is to tinker with one component without breaking overall balance.
I'd highly recommend running a dozen or so 'vanilla' 4e sessions before you make any changes. If you still want to tear it to pieces after that and rewrite major parts of it, then I say go for it - you'll have a solid understanding of what you're getting yourself into at that stage.
Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming. Like I said, we want solo and elite monsters to feel more epic, instead of a horribly long string of pointless die rolls, just waiting for the damn thing to die heh. Also, the classes feel very bland, we arent worried about class balance as much as making each class feel unique.
That sounds very much like you're using PHB1 & MM1 but not the more recent sourcebooks. Compared to "original" 4E, many of the "Heroes of..." classes have quite different feels, and the creatures in Monster Vault are extremely quick and threatening.
I dunno, the whole "classes feel samey" complaint seems to be the most common complaint about 4e by people who haven't played much 4e.
I dunno, the whole "classes feel samey" complaint seems to be the most common complaint about 4e by people who haven't played much 4e.
Agreed. I've never felt that way. Anybody who tries to play a wizard like a fighter because he thinks they play the same is in for a rude awakening.
I dunno, the whole "classes feel samey" complaint seems to be the most common complaint about 4e by people who haven't played much 4e.
Agreed. I've never felt that way. Anybody who tries to play a wizard like a fighter because he thinks they play the same is in for a rude awakening.
Pretty much. I got that my first 4e game when I tried to play my warlord like... well, a lord of war.
First, a bit of background: We first started roleplaying with HackMaster 4e which, thanks to a screwup by WotC, is an update of AD&D 1e and 2e. Because of that we're used to playing fairly lethal campaigns with very few magic items available and tend to play that way in other systems. So I expect I probably came into D&D 4e with much the same mindset as you did.
If you want a low-magic game (as I nearly always do) simply use the inherent enhancement bonus rules from DMG2 instead of magic items. That makes the game's math work while keeping magic items rare.
As for healing surges, I didn't like them at first either but it was because I didn't really understand them. A lot of things in D&D 4e (and every other trpg I tried) are poorly named or presented and HP (and Healing Surges by extension) is one of the biggest. In many games, including D&D 4e, HP represents more than just wounds; it's also a measure of stamina, luck, and various other things that affect your ability to keep going (basing them on Con tends to confuse that). Likewise, spending a Surge doesn't mean slapping on a few Band-Aids although it likely does include tending to wounds. When you spend a surge you're catching your breath, working the kinks out of your muscles, praying, or doing whatever else you need to do to physically, mentally, and emotionally recover from your last fight and re-invigorate yourself for the next one.
On the other hand by your description it seems you had fun playing. Perhaps you should stick with it for a while and see how you feel about the system later?
If you want to play 2e, you should just play 2e, not try and simulate 2e in 4e
It also helps to make global changes that affects everyone, versus tweaking a specific class, to help maintain the balance and synergy.
The only time you should change rules is after you've had experience with them, understand the role of each individual rule, and fully comprehend what the result of changing a rule will be.
If you're new to the system, no you should not change the rules.
After you're a veteran, absolutely tweak things you don't like. But don't start your experience with a game system by trying to cram it into the square hole because that's the way you're used to playing. The results won't be good.
It's extremely useful to know how the game worked before you tinkered with it, if for no other reason than to measure how well your tinkering solved the problems you had.
Has there ever been a game where defeating the enemy as quickly as possible isn't the best strategy?
While this is true, there are many games where killing the monster as quickly as possible regardless of the consequences (who cares if I run in like an idiot and start hacking and slashing, as long as we win I can heal up after the battle:D) isnt the best strategy. In essence, it takes the threat of your party being weathered down in a dungeon away.
One big thing to keep in mind is that there is basically two tiers of HP now. Your HP is how much beatings you can take in the next minute without invoking some kind of power to recover. Your HS is your ability to recover and continue on into the next danger. In other words HP is encounter scale hit points, HS (or HS * HSV + HP) is daily scale hit points.
For example: if you imagine a boxer in the ring.. he can take only so much punishment before passing out. If he can get a few seconds to catch his breath, he can take a little more. If he can sit out for a few minutes he can be ready for another round. But there's limits to both of those before he's just flat out done for the day.
For more serious injuries, like broken bones you should probably look at the disease system and adapt it for longer term injuries. That gives you things that last longer than a day and are easier to shake off if you have great Endurance or someone around to Heal you. The cost of doing this, of course, is it means the game will focus more around convalescing and less around adventuring.
Skipping the above change for now, and just looking at the system as it is: if you use longer adventuring days the healing surge limit will come into play more often, and the result will be that those who were reckless (or unlucky) early in the day may find themselves on the brink of being incapable of fighting at the end of the day. (I've had a ranger at level 1 go into a fight bloodied because he was already out of healing surges.) That said, charging in, swords blazing, and trying to down your opponents before they can organize their response is a perfectly legit real world tactic that is generally optimal in many situations, except that we use assault weapons instead of flaming swords. In D&D that will be the best for certain characters/parties, as long as you build and coordinate appropriately. One guy charging in alone is often a death sentance for that one guy, though, or at least an invitation for a savage beating. If burning through 3-4 HS at the end of the fight to recover is no big deal, maybe it's time to extend the adventuring work day, or maybe it's okay because they specifical built the character to do exactly that. (If the defender is running out of HS it's a big problem.)
In your opinion, is it ok to change rules that you dont like? Me and some friends have reuinited for some d&d. Were used to playing 2nd edition, but we really wanted to step it up to 4th. After reading through the players handbook, we pretty much all feel that the system, overall, is far simpler than previous editions that we are used to, and play seems to be more streamlined. Weve played through a couple games, and we love the combat oriented side of things (were all about kickin ass). But weve found some things we dont like as well. Really, were far nerdier than your average group of people (we used to have a larp group o_0), and weve decided that we want to rewrite the books, one at a time, to fit our gaming style, rather than trying to make ours fit 4th edition. We want to preserve as much as possible, but make the game better suited for our group. Anyone else ever tried anything like this? We were gona start with the three core rulebooks, than start playtesting and see what happens =P
Just to give you an idea of some of the things we want to modify
Healing surges (either remove them and rework healing in general, or make their use far more limited)
Elite and Solo monsters (they dont feel very epic to us)
Treasure Parcels, and Magic Items
Rituals
We dont have everything planned out yet, but were gona start on the PH next weekend. If nothing else, ill keep you informed on how it goes =)
I don't know why you want to change healing surges. It's one of the best things to come out of 4th. I know it's vastly different from previous editions.
If your biggest problem is you can heal "between battles" then look back. players did that between battles before they just had the cleric healing them. In most games the cleric will steal the party between battles so they can use there surges with extra HPs. It's a resource you need to manage. just like before when you had to manage how many cure light wounds spells you needed.
if your new just play by the rules for a couple of months and see how everything interacts with each other.
4th is very different but I have found it to be one of the best editions. just don't get hooked on things don't seem "real" I mean we are talking about a game that involves elves fighting dragons
...
Just to give you an idea of some of the things we want to modify
Healing surges (either remove them and rework healing in general, or make their use far more limited)
...
I don't know why you want to change healing surges. It's one of the best things to come out of 4th. I know it's vastly different from previous editions.
If your biggest problem is you can heal "between battles" then look back. players did that between battles before they just had the cleric healing them. In most games the cleric will steal the party between battles so they can use there surges with extra HPs. It's a resource you need to manage. just like before when you had to manage how many cure light wounds spells you needed.
The big difference, really, is that in earlier editions the healing pool was all in the form of cure spells, which were primarily party resources, and could be bought for gold (in the form of consumables). In 4e the healing pool is primarily in the form of Healing Surges which are individual resources. Although, for better and worse, the Comrade's Succor ritual lets you rearrange surges and turn them back into something of a party resource.
I feel the OP's greatest problem is probably the MM1 monsters. They are really weak compared to the suggested guidelines for encounter difficulty.
So, OP, first get a copy of monster vault. MM3 is also ok, but the monsters are less typical for a normal campaign, so you probably want to get MV first.
After playing with MV monstes for awhile, you'll note that they hit a lot harder than MM1 monsters. A difficult encounter will actually be a threat to the PC's. You will run out of healing surges in a few fights if your tactic is not sound ("smart" as you said).
The reason why you need to have those healing surges in the game is to distinguish between classes that can take a lot of punishment and those who can't. They are a measure of long term endurance and resistance to actually getting seriously wounded (hp is not wounds, as explained earlier).
You really only get seriously wounded in my view if you go down and fail a death save. Giving everyone 2 surges per fight is not a good way to go, as you are making the classes even more similar, which is what you wanted to avoid.
The idea behind the surge and power system is that most people want the PC's to be able to tacle 3-6 fights per day and live through it. Your changes sound like they'd make the "game day" shorter since people want to start tough encounters at full hp (and that is how the encounter level and challenge system is designed).
For daily powers, the only house rule I could tolerate would be to limit daily attack powers to 1/encounter and an extra use for an Action point spent in that fight. That would limit it to max 2 dailies per fight, which prevents the supernova effect of fully loaded PC's against a single encounter in one day.
I second all the comments about healing surges being a really good system. The only problem it may sometimes have is the pacing issue of some adventuring days having only one fight - still, there are solutions to that (pacing surges based on adventure progress instead of days, or others).
I'd disagree there, you have quite limited access to healing within any given encounter, unless you specialize in it, in which case you're wasting resources in the rest of encounters.
The point is, that having one easy'ish encounter during one day is pointless, since the few surges you lose in that encounter will be recovered in the extended rest prepping for the next day.
A DM who plans to whittle down PC's resources before having his important encounters must do so with encounters during the same adventuring day, if playing by the rules in the book.
However, if I plan a wilderness trek encounter with a major adventure location reached after a couple of days of travel, with maybe one encounter per day pace during the travel, I could pace the surges so that you don't really get a true extended rest while doing this part of the adventure.
Basically I am trying to say that any kind of "random" encounter that will remain the only encounter of the day (typical in earlier editions of d&d during overland travel) will not have any resource impact on the party. Such encounters might be pointless unless well planned to be part of the plot.
Aside from that, however, there's no reason not to change things to your heart's content. It's not as if you're cutting off a foot. If your changes don't work, just change things back again.
Well, we definitly want a game with a little bit more challenge. Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming.
If more danger is what you want, then try doubling every damage roll. Fights will be shorter and PCs will feel a lot more threatened.
Steve
Basically I am trying to say that any kind of "random" encounter that will remain the only encounter of the day (typical in earlier editions of d&d during overland travel) will not have any resource impact on the party. Such encounters might be pointless unless well planned to be part of the plot.
I found them to be pointless and have no impact on resources in 3.5 either, since you just had the cleric heal you up and then get his spells back as you continue travelling. I guess it reinforced that magical healing was an absolute necessity to function in D&D back then?
Failure in the skill checks could mean that you eventually get to your destination, but not without avoiding some really nasty random encounters that the party easily dispatches, but not without causing fatigue. Effect: each failure in the skill challenge causes the party to lose 1 healing surge, and overall failure in the challenge causes the party to lose an additional healing surge (so maximum of 4 healing surges lost in this skill challenge alone).
Extended rests might be allowed, but only when sentries are placed during the night, which means additional skill checks, and additional chances of losing the benefit of the extended rest (since you only get the extended rest benefit at the end of an uninterrupted 6 hour rest, as well as the need to sleep after 24 hours).
Basically I am trying to say that any kind of "random" encounter that will remain the only encounter of the day (typical in earlier editions of d&d during overland travel) will not have any resource impact on the party. Such encounters might be pointless unless well planned to be part of the plot.
I found them to be pointless and have no impact on resources in 3.5 either, since you just had the cleric heal you up and then get his spells back as you continue travelling. I guess it reinforced that magical healing was an absolute necessity to function in D&D back then?
This.
If you have to ask, you shouldn't be doing it.
Haha, I guess I was just looking for opinions, were pretty deadset on it, I was just curious if any other groups were doing similiar things.
How about you tell us exactly what your "style" is, and why those elements don't "fit", and we can either explain why they still work with your "style" or give you good advice (from people, including game designers, who've been playing 4E since it came out) on how to adjust it?
A couple sessions worth of playing does not give you a solid enough understanding of the 4E rules and their underlying assumptions, their logic, and how they interact with one another to go about changing them without seriously messing up game balance.
b-As implied, this system was created by a year or so of full time work by a team of expert players. This has not prevented some results a drunk who had never heard of the game would be ashamed of, but the odds are heavy that the experts have it right, or at least less wrong than whatever alternative you suggest. Mindlessly following the official rules is probably going to give you superior results, and at least will be much less effort.
c-But if you do make changes, try to make small ones that won't ruin everything, and take the attitude that each of your changes is no more than tentative, and removable at any time with fairly short notice when it starts to cause trouble [and being too good is indeed trouble].
If you have to ask, you shouldn't be doing it.
Haha, I guess I was just looking for opinions, were pretty deadset on it, I was just curious if any other groups were doing similiar things.
Well, not sure what you're doing with some of those.
I use Inherent bonuses, so I have fewer magic items to give out.
I give free ritual uses (2/day at heroic, 3 at paragon, 4 at epic) to make them more accessible and used more often (variable-cost rituals like Enchant Magic Item are not included).
I definitely won't ever mess with healing surges. One of the best things 4e did.
I definitely won't ever mess with healing surges. One of the best things 4e did.
+1. The other areas the OP names are common sources of complaints and house rules (assuming he means MM-era elites and solos, not MV-era ones). However, messing with surges, especially if you're new to 4E, is not something to be done lightly and is likely to mess the entire game up. A lot of people don't really "get" surges at first, but I would strongly urge anyone who takes one look at them and wants to make radical changes to play with them enough to get a feel for them first.
If you have to ask, you shouldn't be doing it.
Haha, I guess I was just looking for opinions, were pretty deadset on it, I was just curious if any other groups were doing similiar things.
Well, not sure what you're doing with some of those.
I use Inherent bonuses, so I have fewer magic items to give out.
I give free ritual uses (2/day at heroic, 3 at paragon, 4 at epic) to make them more accessible and used more often (variable-cost rituals like Enchant Magic Item are not included).
I definitely won't ever mess with healing surges. One of the best things 4e did.
We also loved healing surges at face value, but after playing we feel that they take away alot of the strategy in the game. As long as you can make it through a battle, you can restore to full health immediatly afterwards, so the most effective strategy becomes kill the monsters as quickly as possible. It eliminates alot of danger and threat in the game, atleast it seemed that way to us.
How about you tell us exactly what your "style" is, and why those elements don't "fit", and we can either explain why they still work with your "style" or give you good advice (from people, including game designers, who've been playing 4E since it came out) on how to adjust it?
A couple sessions worth of playing does not give you a solid enough understanding of the 4E rules and their underlying assumptions, their logic, and how they interact with one another to go about changing them without seriously messing up game balance.
Well, we definitly want a game with a little bit more challenge. Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming. Like I said, we want solo and elite monsters to feel more epic, instead of a horribly long string of pointless die rolls, just waiting for the damn thing to die heh. Also, the classes feel very bland, we arent worried about class balance as much as making each class feel unique. Thats just a starting point really, we just want a game thats more tailored and influenced by us in general, I guess hoping itll be a more rewarding experience =)
Has there ever been a game where defeating the enemy as quickly as possible isn't the best strategy?
While this is true, there are many games where killing the monster as quickly as possible regardless of the consequences (who cares if I run in like an idiot and start hacking and slashing, as long as we win I can heal up after the battle:D) isnt the best strategy. In essence, it takes the threat of your party being weathered down in a dungeon away.
In essence, it takes the threat of your party being weathered down in a dungeon away.
Not really, no. You do run out of healing surges, plus you run out of daily powers as you work your way through a dungeon. To say nothing of really tough fights where you run out of abilities to spend your healing surges during the battle.
In essence, it takes the threat of your party being weathered down in a dungeon away.
Not really, no. You do run out of healing surges, plus you run out of daily powers as you work your way through a dungeon. To say nothing of really tough fights where you run out of abilities to spend your healing surges during the battle.
I see your point, but imagine a system where your encounter and daily abilities dont unlock until you reach a certain amount of milestones (say 1 and 2, respectivly), and limiting healing surges to say , oh, 2 in between combats. That would be a system that encourages smarter playing, atleast it would seem to (we havent play tested it yet, but thats one idea we had out there)
No, that just seems unnecessarily stifling and restrictive.
Well a difference in opinions I suppose =) Though to be honest, you could be right, as I said, we havent playtested it yet.
Yes, absolutely, as long as you meet two conditions -
1) Everybody playing in your game agrees to the changes.
and
2) You have good reasons for doing it.
Finally, you must -
3) Always remember that you are not playing "4th edition", but "my version of 4th edition" when you discuss it from here on out, otherwise some people who enjoy leaving the rules as they are written might be confused.
Assuming you meet the first two conditions, then follow the third one after you're done doing the changes? Change away. Gygax was a big believer in ignoring or changing rules that didn't work for him and I tend to agree - it's one of the best things about D&D is how supportive it is of changes to the system.
That being said, you should probably give the rules as they exist a pretty fair run before you change any of them - say about 8 or 10 sessions or thereabouts. Maybe they work better than they initially appear to.
Is it ok to change the rules?
Yes, absolutely, as long as you meet two conditions -
1) Everybody playing in your game agrees to the changes.
and
2) You have good reasons for doing it.
Finally, you must -
3) Always remember that you are not playing "4th edition", but "my version of 4th edition" when you discuss it from here on out, otherwise some people who enjoy leaving the rules as they are written might be confused.
Assuming you meet the first two conditions, then follow the third one after you're done doing the changes? Change away. Gygax was a big believer in ignoring or changing rules that didn't work for him and I tend to agree - it's one of the best things about D&D is how supportive it is of changes to the system.
That being said, you should probably give the rules as they exist a pretty fair run before you change any of them - say about 8 or 10 sessions or thereabouts. Maybe they work better than they initially appear to.
Absolutly, I remember in second edition critical hits were still an optional rule (though they were mentioned somewhere in the rulebooks). Weve only played 4 sessions so far, we plan on playing one more (they were just one shots, all 5 of us wanted to try a hand at DMing the new system).
Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming. Like I said, we want solo and elite monsters to feel more epic, instead of a horribly long string of pointless die rolls, just waiting for the damn thing to die heh. Also, the classes feel very bland, we arent worried about class balance as much as making each class feel unique.
That sounds very much like you're using PHB1 & MM1 but not the more recent sourcebooks. Compared to "original" 4E, many of the "Heroes of..." classes have quite different feels, and the creatures in Monster Vault are extremely quick and threatening.
Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming. Like I said, we want solo and elite monsters to feel more epic, instead of a horribly long string of pointless die rolls, just waiting for the damn thing to die heh. Also, the classes feel very bland, we arent worried about class balance as much as making each class feel unique.
That sounds very much like you're using PHB1 & MM1 but not the more recent sourcebooks. Compared to "original" 4E, many of the "Heroes of..." classes have quite different feels, and the creatures in Monster Vault are extremely quick and threatening.
Indeed we are, we just recently picked up the dice again =)
Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming. Like I said, we want solo and elite monsters to feel more epic, instead of a horribly long string of pointless die rolls, just waiting for the damn thing to die heh. Also, the classes feel very bland, we arent worried about class balance as much as making each class feel unique.
That sounds very much like you're using PHB1 & MM1 but not the more recent sourcebooks. Compared to "original" 4E, many of the "Heroes of..." classes have quite different feels, and the creatures in Monster Vault are extremely quick and threatening.
Indeed we are, we just recently picked up the dice again =)
check out the Monster Vault in that case. most of the monsters have been updated. they hit harder, and have less hit points. Solos and Elites got some ways to shake effects, and have some extra attacks.
i would also suggest at least check out Insider for a bit, to see what else is available.
Most of the updated rules are also printed in the Rules Compendium, and if you're having trouble with regards to having "bland" classes, might I suggest that your group maximize on p.42 of the Dungeon Master's Guide?
Finally, aside from using the updated DMG rules, look at the following suggestions with regards to elites and solos in particular:
1. Never use them alone. Even if the elite has to be 1 ~ 2 levels lower than the party if you're making an encounter using the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide EXP budget system, and even if you have to lower the solo's level by as many as 4 levels, always add in at least 12 minions of the party's level or higher (preferably 2 levels higher minimum), in addition to several standard type monsters. Set the encounter level to 3 levels higher at least, 5 if you're not using the updates as mentioned
[EDIT: Remember, encounter level doesn't equate to monster level; even if the monsters are 2 or 3 levels lower, the number and variety of monsters can easily change the whole thing to the enemy's favor, especially if you have a mix of ranged minions, brutes that are higher level than players, and a controller or lurker to boot]2. Grant the monsters as great an advantage as possible. Traps, hazardous terrain, unlimited minions, flight [at heroic] or teleportation [at paragon/epic], recharge powers, action points, immediate reaction powers like auto-recharge + use dragon's breath, auto-damage auras, etc.
[ One of my favorite monsters would be from Monster Manual 3, the Rot Grub. It's been updated to deal damage as part of its aura, and the more rot grub swarms there are, the deadlier it gets (one of my friends think that when you get enough rot grubs and sick them against a level 34 deity, the deity would dematerialize the moment those rot grubs get to him/her, and yes they're really a scary bunch...) ]
3. Modify the monsters to their worst. If you don't feel like the damage is enough and can't view the above link, then either add at least 1 more damage dice per attack, or double the static damage. Better yet, add in a few things like ongoing damage (save ends), diseases, curses and other stuff that could easily kill them.
The game can easily be set to "kill", without having to change any rule at all, or even raising the monsters' level or encounter level (a striker-heavy group with no anti-mob capability in particular will be obliterated by minions [party of 5 single-target PCs vs. 25 opponents that do 5 ~ 10 damage per hit?]). It's primarily the controllers and leaders you'd have to be wary of, as well as any other character that's built to be anti-mob, and usually those are the ones who you'd want to sick your higher-than-party-level big damage brute on.
Fast forward to the session that I just got back from, and I'm running exactly one house rule (damage threshold for minions). The more you play 4e, the more you realise how well-considered the mechanics are, and how difficult it is to tinker with one component without breaking overall balance.
I'd highly recommend running a dozen or so 'vanilla' 4e sessions before you make any changes. If you still want to tear it to pieces after that and rewrite major parts of it, then I say go for it - you'll have a solid understanding of what you're getting yourself into at that stage.
Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming. Like I said, we want solo and elite monsters to feel more epic, instead of a horribly long string of pointless die rolls, just waiting for the damn thing to die heh. Also, the classes feel very bland, we arent worried about class balance as much as making each class feel unique.
That sounds very much like you're using PHB1 & MM1 but not the more recent sourcebooks. Compared to "original" 4E, many of the "Heroes of..." classes have quite different feels, and the creatures in Monster Vault are extremely quick and threatening.
I dunno, the whole "classes feel samey" complaint seems to be the most common complaint about 4e by people who haven't played much 4e.
I dunno, the whole "classes feel samey" complaint seems to be the most common complaint about 4e by people who haven't played much 4e.
Agreed. I've never felt that way. Anybody who tries to play a wizard like a fighter because he thinks they play the same is in for a rude awakening.
I dunno, the whole "classes feel samey" complaint seems to be the most common complaint about 4e by people who haven't played much 4e.
Agreed. I've never felt that way. Anybody who tries to play a wizard like a fighter because he thinks they play the same is in for a rude awakening.
Pretty much. I got that my first 4e game when I tried to play my warlord like... well, a lord of war.
First, a bit of background: We first started roleplaying with HackMaster 4e which, thanks to a screwup by WotC, is an update of AD&D 1e and 2e. Because of that we're used to playing fairly lethal campaigns with very few magic items available and tend to play that way in other systems. So I expect I probably came into D&D 4e with much the same mindset as you did.
If you want a low-magic game (as I nearly always do) simply use the inherent enhancement bonus rules from DMG2 instead of magic items. That makes the game's math work while keeping magic items rare.
As for healing surges, I didn't like them at first either but it was because I didn't really understand them. A lot of things in D&D 4e (and every other trpg I tried) are poorly named or presented and HP (and Healing Surges by extension) is one of the biggest. In many games, including D&D 4e, HP represents more than just wounds; it's also a measure of stamina, luck, and various other things that affect your ability to keep going (basing them on Con tends to confuse that). Likewise, spending a Surge doesn't mean slapping on a few Band-Aids although it likely does include tending to wounds. When you spend a surge you're catching your breath, working the kinks out of your muscles, praying, or doing whatever else you need to do to physically, mentally, and emotionally recover from your last fight and re-invigorate yourself for the next one.
On the other hand by your description it seems you had fun playing. Perhaps you should stick with it for a while and see how you feel about the system later?
If you want to play 2e, you should just play 2e, not try and simulate 2e in 4e
It also helps to make global changes that affects everyone, versus tweaking a specific class, to help maintain the balance and synergy.
The only time you should change rules is after you've had experience with them, understand the role of each individual rule, and fully comprehend what the result of changing a rule will be.
If you're new to the system, no you should not change the rules.
After you're a veteran, absolutely tweak things you don't like. But don't start your experience with a game system by trying to cram it into the square hole because that's the way you're used to playing. The results won't be good.
It's extremely useful to know how the game worked before you tinkered with it, if for no other reason than to measure how well your tinkering solved the problems you had.
Has there ever been a game where defeating the enemy as quickly as possible isn't the best strategy?
While this is true, there are many games where killing the monster as quickly as possible regardless of the consequences (who cares if I run in like an idiot and start hacking and slashing, as long as we win I can heal up after the battle:D) isnt the best strategy. In essence, it takes the threat of your party being weathered down in a dungeon away.
One big thing to keep in mind is that there is basically two tiers of HP now. Your HP is how much beatings you can take in the next minute without invoking some kind of power to recover. Your HS is your ability to recover and continue on into the next danger. In other words HP is encounter scale hit points, HS (or HS * HSV + HP) is daily scale hit points.
For example: if you imagine a boxer in the ring.. he can take only so much punishment before passing out. If he can get a few seconds to catch his breath, he can take a little more. If he can sit out for a few minutes he can be ready for another round. But there's limits to both of those before he's just flat out done for the day.
For more serious injuries, like broken bones you should probably look at the disease system and adapt it for longer term injuries. That gives you things that last longer than a day and are easier to shake off if you have great Endurance or someone around to Heal you. The cost of doing this, of course, is it means the game will focus more around convalescing and less around adventuring.
Skipping the above change for now, and just looking at the system as it is: if you use longer adventuring days the healing surge limit will come into play more often, and the result will be that those who were reckless (or unlucky) early in the day may find themselves on the brink of being incapable of fighting at the end of the day. (I've had a ranger at level 1 go into a fight bloodied because he was already out of healing surges.) That said, charging in, swords blazing, and trying to down your opponents before they can organize their response is a perfectly legit real world tactic that is generally optimal in many situations, except that we use assault weapons instead of flaming swords. In D&D that will be the best for certain characters/parties, as long as you build and coordinate appropriately. One guy charging in alone is often a death sentance for that one guy, though, or at least an invitation for a savage beating. If burning through 3-4 HS at the end of the fight to recover is no big deal, maybe it's time to extend the adventuring work day, or maybe it's okay because they specifical built the character to do exactly that. (If the defender is running out of HS it's a big problem.)
In your opinion, is it ok to change rules that you dont like? Me and some friends have reuinited for some d&d. Were used to playing 2nd edition, but we really wanted to step it up to 4th. After reading through the players handbook, we pretty much all feel that the system, overall, is far simpler than previous editions that we are used to, and play seems to be more streamlined. Weve played through a couple games, and we love the combat oriented side of things (were all about kickin ass). But weve found some things we dont like as well. Really, were far nerdier than your average group of people (we used to have a larp group o_0), and weve decided that we want to rewrite the books, one at a time, to fit our gaming style, rather than trying to make ours fit 4th edition. We want to preserve as much as possible, but make the game better suited for our group. Anyone else ever tried anything like this? We were gona start with the three core rulebooks, than start playtesting and see what happens =P
Just to give you an idea of some of the things we want to modify
Healing surges (either remove them and rework healing in general, or make their use far more limited)
Elite and Solo monsters (they dont feel very epic to us)
Treasure Parcels, and Magic Items
Rituals
We dont have everything planned out yet, but were gona start on the PH next weekend. If nothing else, ill keep you informed on how it goes =)
I don't know why you want to change healing surges. It's one of the best things to come out of 4th. I know it's vastly different from previous editions.
If your biggest problem is you can heal "between battles" then look back. players did that between battles before they just had the cleric healing them. In most games the cleric will steal the party between battles so they can use there surges with extra HPs. It's a resource you need to manage. just like before when you had to manage how many cure light wounds spells you needed.
if your new just play by the rules for a couple of months and see how everything interacts with each other.
4th is very different but I have found it to be one of the best editions. just don't get hooked on things don't seem "real" I mean we are talking about a game that involves elves fighting dragons
...
Just to give you an idea of some of the things we want to modify
Healing surges (either remove them and rework healing in general, or make their use far more limited)
...
I don't know why you want to change healing surges. It's one of the best things to come out of 4th. I know it's vastly different from previous editions.
If your biggest problem is you can heal "between battles" then look back. players did that between battles before they just had the cleric healing them. In most games the cleric will steal the party between battles so they can use there surges with extra HPs. It's a resource you need to manage. just like before when you had to manage how many cure light wounds spells you needed.
The big difference, really, is that in earlier editions the healing pool was all in the form of cure spells, which were primarily party resources, and could be bought for gold (in the form of consumables). In 4e the healing pool is primarily in the form of Healing Surges which are individual resources. Although, for better and worse, the Comrade's Succor ritual lets you rearrange surges and turn them back into something of a party resource.
I feel the OP's greatest problem is probably the MM1 monsters. They are really weak compared to the suggested guidelines for encounter difficulty.
So, OP, first get a copy of monster vault. MM3 is also ok, but the monsters are less typical for a normal campaign, so you probably want to get MV first.
After playing with MV monstes for awhile, you'll note that they hit a lot harder than MM1 monsters. A difficult encounter will actually be a threat to the PC's. You will run out of healing surges in a few fights if your tactic is not sound ("smart" as you said).
The reason why you need to have those healing surges in the game is to distinguish between classes that can take a lot of punishment and those who can't. They are a measure of long term endurance and resistance to actually getting seriously wounded (hp is not wounds, as explained earlier).
You really only get seriously wounded in my view if you go down and fail a death save. Giving everyone 2 surges per fight is not a good way to go, as you are making the classes even more similar, which is what you wanted to avoid.
The idea behind the surge and power system is that most people want the PC's to be able to tacle 3-6 fights per day and live through it. Your changes sound like they'd make the "game day" shorter since people want to start tough encounters at full hp (and that is how the encounter level and challenge system is designed).
For daily powers, the only house rule I could tolerate would be to limit daily attack powers to 1/encounter and an extra use for an Action point spent in that fight. That would limit it to max 2 dailies per fight, which prevents the supernova effect of fully loaded PC's against a single encounter in one day.
I second all the comments about healing surges being a really good system. The only problem it may sometimes have is the pacing issue of some adventuring days having only one fight - still, there are solutions to that (pacing surges based on adventure progress instead of days, or others).
I'd disagree there, you have quite limited access to healing within any given encounter, unless you specialize in it, in which case you're wasting resources in the rest of encounters.
The point is, that having one easy'ish encounter during one day is pointless, since the few surges you lose in that encounter will be recovered in the extended rest prepping for the next day.
A DM who plans to whittle down PC's resources before having his important encounters must do so with encounters during the same adventuring day, if playing by the rules in the book.
However, if I plan a wilderness trek encounter with a major adventure location reached after a couple of days of travel, with maybe one encounter per day pace during the travel, I could pace the surges so that you don't really get a true extended rest while doing this part of the adventure.
Basically I am trying to say that any kind of "random" encounter that will remain the only encounter of the day (typical in earlier editions of d&d during overland travel) will not have any resource impact on the party. Such encounters might be pointless unless well planned to be part of the plot.
Aside from that, however, there's no reason not to change things to your heart's content. It's not as if you're cutting off a foot. If your changes don't work, just change things back again.
Well, we definitly want a game with a little bit more challenge. Right now the encounters that were building (by the book) feel very underwhelming.
If more danger is what you want, then try doubling every damage roll. Fights will be shorter and PCs will feel a lot more threatened.
Steve
Basically I am trying to say that any kind of "random" encounter that will remain the only encounter of the day (typical in earlier editions of d&d during overland travel) will not have any resource impact on the party. Such encounters might be pointless unless well planned to be part of the plot.
I found them to be pointless and have no impact on resources in 3.5 either, since you just had the cleric heal you up and then get his spells back as you continue travelling. I guess it reinforced that magical healing was an absolute necessity to function in D&D back then?
Failure in the skill checks could mean that you eventually get to your destination, but not without avoiding some really nasty random encounters that the party easily dispatches, but not without causing fatigue. Effect: each failure in the skill challenge causes the party to lose 1 healing surge, and overall failure in the challenge causes the party to lose an additional healing surge (so maximum of 4 healing surges lost in this skill challenge alone).
Extended rests might be allowed, but only when sentries are placed during the night, which means additional skill checks, and additional chances of losing the benefit of the extended rest (since you only get the extended rest benefit at the end of an uninterrupted 6 hour rest, as well as the need to sleep after 24 hours).
Basically I am trying to say that any kind of "random" encounter that will remain the only encounter of the day (typical in earlier editions of d&d during overland travel) will not have any resource impact on the party. Such encounters might be pointless unless well planned to be part of the plot.
I found them to be pointless and have no impact on resources in 3.5 either, since you just had the cleric heal you up and then get his spells back as you continue travelling. I guess it reinforced that magical healing was an absolute necessity to function in D&D back then?
This.