my roommate and goodfriend wants to DM again...last time he DMed was 2e...
Our sat night game is on it's last legs, so he asked if he could jump in with his...we said when we are done...then he hands us a list of 'house rules'
1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
2) You don't get con to hp at 1st level...instead you get con mod every level
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
5) no Dragon born
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
7) elemental weapons all add +1d4 of there lements to each damage roll
8) if your prime stat is a 18+ you gain +10% xp
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
10) no paragon multi classes
11) no epic destiniy's
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there dul heratige to fit
15) Good alignments only
16) Tougness give 5hp per tier +1 hp per level
17) unnamed bonuses do not stack for attack and damage
18) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
19) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them...
20) extended rest only restore your Con in Hp...not full
1. Pretend you have a weak immune system.
2. Pretend his game has AIDS, Hepatitis A, B and C, Anthrax, SARS, The Black Plague, Rabies, and a grenade with no pin in it. (Yes, all at the same time)
3. Act appropriately.
Get together with the group collectively and examine the houserules. If you don't like them as a group, just tell him that you don't like the houserules he has set (as some are game breakers) and won't be playing in that game. Then proceed to play your own.
a little harsh on the edges, but it gets the point across
1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
- okay as healing potions become pointless quickly otherwise
2) You don't get con to hp at 1st level...instead you get con mod every level
- will cause each combat encounter to be a TPK or near TPK for many levels, NO!
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...
- no, unless they get a static +2 to a stat
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to their dex mod
- annoying, but not world ending
5) no Dragon born
- fine as long as a MM race with STR as a primary stat is allowed
6) Dwarven weapon training and eladrin soldier give no extra proficiencies
- again, annoying but not world ending
7) elemental weapons all add +1d4 of there elements to each damage roll
- see 4 & 6
8) if your prime stat is a 18+ you gain +10% xp
- no, bad, where's my rolled up newspaper
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
- makes the multiclassing feat too good as a level 1, at least enforce the other feat restrictions for minimum level multiclass powers
10) no paragon multi classes
- why?
11) no epic destiny's
- see 10
12) everyone gains a bonus racial feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
- better for some races than others, but not gamebreaking
13) Shields can have magical pluses...
- would make shields too good for even the wizard to pass up
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there dual heritage to fit
- sure, why not
15) Good alignments only
- nothing out of the ordinary here
16) Toughness gives 5hp per tier +1 hp per level
- becomes a necessary feat if #2 exists, otherwise its too good
17) unnamed bonuses do not stack for attack and damage
- makes too many abilities useless and makes combat unnecessarily more difficult, especially at higher levels where multiple bonuses are expected
18) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
- annoying, throw in at least one magic item of level and it works
19) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them...
- I thought that went out with 1st edition, so NO! (see 8)
20) extended rest only restore your Con in Hp...not full
- annoying at low levels, gets worse each level, punishes frontliners unnecessarily, goes against the current system and I can't think of any tenable compromise here.
If you can't work it out, he can't DM and you don't want bad blood between roommates so do your best to find consensus and good luck.
But yeah, that's a bunch of crap, save for one or two rulings that I wouldn't do but can understand... If I try.
1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
Ok, no issues here, especially with:
2) You don't get con to hp at 1st level...instead you get con mod every level
Okay, this could work, but only under the circumstances that he adjusts Monster hitpoints acordingly
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...
Do they get something else to make up for it? Maybe a free weapon proficiancy (since really humans are played up for their quick learning and flexability)
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
No issues.
5) no Dragonborn
Understandable from an older DM, but as said above there should be a monsterous race with STR allowed.
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
Okay, fair
7) elemental weapons all add +1d4 of there lements to each damage roll
Hey why not? not a big change here.
8) if your prime stat is a 18+ you gain +10% xp
This is the only one that I can see that just cannot work with the new system, the only reason I think it works in second is because of the CRAZY amount of XP needed to level
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
That makes multiclass extra-awesome, if your group is powergamery, I'd recomend taking this out, if they're not then it shouldn't cause any major issues
10) no paragon multi classes
A decent balance to the above I suppose
11) no epic destiniy's
not a huge deal, but kinda sad
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
Cool addition
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
I miss this but I don't think it'll work in this edition AC and to hit are currently balanced perfectly and if you get a +5, +6 sheild it will cause issues
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there dul heratige to fit
No issues
15) Good alignments only
Sounds good
16) Tougness give 5hp per tier +1 hp per level
This will work well with 2
17) unnamed bonuses do not stack for attack and damage
I recommend he change this one, since most of them are end of turn only it's not too bad to allow
18) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
Okay this will help with 2 as well
19) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them...
This is an old system mechanic, because I'm going to get lynched for saying this I'll put in a disclaimer, when I roll it's 4D6 7 times drop the lowest Dice and drop a stat of your choice (For players that want an 8 for roleplay or something, it happens) but I say try it: I've done this in past, it's fun (sometimes)and it helps create characters you never thought of before.
20) extended rest only restore your Con in Hp...not full
I'd say if it's Con score it'd be okay so long as he also created a couple ways to increase it, but otherwise this is going to make things hard, I agree with it from a sense point of view but it doesn't work with 4E mechanics.
All in all I say that if you talk it over with him and make sure he's careful to give it a shot, some of the funest games I've ever had were 3rd/4th games run by old 2nd DMs that pretty much said "Ya, screw the rules, this is how it goes."
Show a little faith in his skill and see where it takes you, if it does work or you're not having fun after a session or two drop it, tell him, slap him around, what ever works for you, but I say give it a shot.
plan a few hours before game or on another date. Get together and logically review all of them. THen propose whether you want them as is and why, don't want them and why, or the few that you do want to test out, etc.
That's pretty much what we did and it's fine....
Sanjay
Contrary to what some others have said, this will cause a problem.
4E healing potions essentially allow you to access more surges in a combat than you otherwise would be able to, at the price of those surges being less effective.
The cap on their use is the limited number of surges.
If they don't cost surges, then you've essentially gone back to the old-E "Cure Light Wounds wand" where, as long as you have some gold to throw at it, you've got unlimited healing whenever you want it. This is something that 4E deliberately sought to avoid.
--
On the more general issue, I'm not going to beat around the bush: This guy hasn't a clue what he's doing with these proposed 'house rules'. If he's so enamored of 2E then he should run a 2E game rather than trying to run a dysfunctional 4E one (and thereafter use it as 'evidence' that 4E is bad).
One way or another, that is a terrible list of house-rules, and shows that he has no familiarity with the system at all. When 4E first came out, I promised myself that I would not play under any DM that didn't at least TRY the system by the book first, before changing anything.
He needs to play 4th ed and understand 4th ed before he can start house ruling 4th ed.
1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
2) You don't get con to hp at 1st level...instead you get con mod every level
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
5) no Dragon born
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
7) elemental weapons all add +1d4 of there lements to each damage roll
8) if your prime stat is a 18+ you gain +10% xp
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
10) no paragon multi classes
11) no epic destiniy's
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there dul heratige to fit
15) Good alignments only
16) Tougness give 5hp per tier +1 hp per level
17) unnamed bonuses do not stack for attack and damage
18) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
19) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them...
20) extended rest only restore your Con in Hp...not full
As a 4th ED DM...
1) not too overly powerful but can unbalance the game depending on how easily accessible those potions are. if you can just walk up to McMagic's and ask for a "pack-o-pots" and have the pimple faced teen hand them over, you'll never have to worry about HP ever again.
2) tell him strait up no. this is WAY too much HP for 4th. anyone with +2 or better will probably overtake the HP curve before paragon. 16 con means that by level 6 (if you don't raise it at all), you already have higher then average HP. level 30 means you should have 120 extra HP, 102 more then normal.
3) no. period. that pretty much makes humans useless. the +2 to the stat of choice was one of human's best assets. the extra feat is weaker then it was in 3rd and while the extra skill & @will are nice, it's nowhere near what other races get.
4) ehhh... i dunno. is that power daily, enc, or at will? what does he have against the attack reroll 1/enc?
5) i've seen similar houserules in 3.5 games with some core races or something along the lines of "phb only races"
6) so it makes dwarven weapon training a weapon focus with a larger spectrum and eladrin training... i don't remember, the books are at home right now. since you get extra racial feats, it's not really that bad though.
7) not too unbalancing, but muliti-hitting rangers or TWF fighters will love him... an extra 2d4 damage on dual hits? score!
8) what? why? i have to hear this reasoning. it didn't make sense to give a bonus to minmaxing in addition to the bonuses minmaxing gave you pre-3rd, and it still doesn't in 4th.
9) that's a cool rule i can live with. especially if paragon multi isn't available. i would actually love that rule for the character i'm planning on making for the 4th ed game that picks up once i'm done DMing (my group rotates DMs so we each have a chance to DM 4th).
10) paragon multi isn't overpowering and generally underpowering IMO but with #9 and most multi-class feats, it shouldn't be too missed.
11) why? in epic games, you're expected to do crazy sh*t. it's also expected that you have them to help against whatever you're fighting. i can't comment too much though, i've only had experience in heroic tier.
12) hm. that's kinda cool i guess. dunno why he thinks you need more feats though.
13) no. no. no. no. no. see: my reflex AND armor class is boosted by 2 magical objects! yay! remember that the math makes it so most of the time there is a 50% chance of hit or miss. another +6 REALLY swings that pendulum.
14) that's reasonable. honestly have nothing to say about that.
15) write down good and play your character as you would like to. no mechanical alignment anymore! more seriously though, does he fear in-fighting within the group? most of the time when i've seen this type of rule in place, it's because the DM in particular has had problems with groups not working together properly.
16) wow. con mod to HP AND thoughness add +45 at 30... wow. all i can say is be a dwarven battlerager. do it. and laugh.
17) ask him why and tell him that those unnamed bonuses are supposed to stack. that's why they're unnamed, so they stack.
18) ask him why the low money count. remember that at 3rd level that means a +1 weapon, a +1 armor & a +1 neck, or something along those lines.
19) well there goes playing the character you actually wanted to. personally, i don't mind this rule in one-shots but in campaigns where i expect to be playing the character i want... i expect to play the character i want. not to say memorable characters can happen, it's just that if you really wanted to play a wizard and you got a crappy int (below 14), then goodbye that idea.
20) well, at least potions are cheap, though it will require a LOT to regain that HP.
if you want an example a dwarf battle rager who started with 18 con (16+2 racial) and boosted it every time possible (+8) means 26, or a +8.
at level 30, you'll have an extra 240 HP +45 for toughness. almost an extra 300 hp. and that's disregarding what you would normally have. show those figures to him and let it sink in.
now he has been playing 4e...and 3e togather since 4e came out...we just ended our last 3e game in the begining of Dec...now he wanted to run this game as 2e, but none of us wanted to do thac0 again, so this we think is his way to adjust 4e more to 'his style'
most of us PCs are unsure what to do or say...he never wanted to play 4e...he didn't even want to convert to 3e...but he did roll with it, now he thinks we owe him. we are kinda unsure if we do.
He is a good friend, and normaly alittle weird, but like others said this feels like it isn't even 4e...
most of us PCs are unsure what to do or say...he never wanted to play 4e...he didn't even want to convert to 3e...but he did roll with it, now he thinks we owe him. we are kinda unsure if we do.
He is a good friend, and normaly alittle weird, but like others said this feels like it isn't even 4e...
Do you others think you owe him? He always could have opted out if he didn't like the game. I don't really see his point here, he wanted to play with his friends so he did, that doesn't mean you owe him because he didn't like the system mechanics. Likewise if no one else like his changes they are under no obligation to play it.
If you're willing to, maybe offer to play a 2e campaign with him occassaionally or on off or alternating nights, since that's what it seems like he wants to play.
If he's serious about running a 4e game than he needs to understand the system and how it's balanced to run it in a fun way.
His list proves that he is either :
a)halfed-assing it and hoping you'll let him run 2e instead or
b) doesn't understand the system
If he insists on running 4e that way, I'd insist on not playing it.
That said, here is my own point-by-point about his rules, since that looks like fun:
Show
1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
Nothing wrong with this; I'm assuming he will keep a 2e-style grip on potion handouts, in which case this is just peachy.
2) You don't get con to hp at 1st level...instead you get con mod every level
A bad case of rebalancing something he doesn't understand for arbitrary reasons. If he likes the idea of rewriting monster stats on the fly, though, he can make it work.
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...
Ridiculous. Humans are already clinging to their post as playable. I always play humans, but would not in such a campaign.
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
Sure. Elven accuracy is pretty overpowered in my opinion.
5) no Dragon born
I agree. I can't stand 'em either.
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
Fair. I would limit it to "no exotic proficiencies" because that is what bugs me about the feats, myself.
7) elemental weapons all add +1d4 of there lements to each damage roll
Unnecessary and imbalanced unless limited to "once per round", I'd say.
8) if your prime stat is a 18+ you gain +10% xp
Ridiculous, and even more ridiculous, and absurd, and kick-to-the-teeth bad. Worst rule on here, I'd say. There is absolutely no reason for this, it's an unfair rule, and it encourages minmaxing in the worst way.
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
I've got this in my own game. It's a ton of fun.
10) no paragon multi classes
Weird, given how suboptimal they are anyway, but whatever.
11) no epic destiniy's
He should try one before he knocks them, but I can understand if he wants a "grittier" game. I'd recommend he just end the game at level 20.
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
There are not all that many feats out yet. Bonus feats are kinda unnecessary unless he plans to write his own. Given the understanding he has of the system he may want to hold off on that.
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
Very poorly balanced idea.... but if he is controlling the inflow of magical items may not be as bad as some people think.
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there dul heratige to fit
Sure, it's his campaign world.
15) Good alignments only
See above
16) Tougness give 5hp per tier +1 hp per level
I'd do one or the other, not both. I'm doing the latter in my game: the decrease in sudden gains but better overall value is nice.
17) unnamed bonuses do not stack for attack and damage
He does not understand the rules well enough to do this. As many have said, they are unnamed because they are supposed to stack. Is he going to go through monster manual entries and unstack their untyped bonuses?
18) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
I've personally got no problem with this. Characters are not "entitled" to certain items per level. I hate that attitude.
19) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them...
Old skool. And ditched for a reason. if he wants to go this way, he should also allow multiple rerolls until you at least have one stat at 16. I'd just argue it with him and not play his game if he won't budge on this one. You can roll stats without making them an RP straitjacket.
20) extended rest only restore your Con in Hp...not full
Another case of not understanding the mechanics. Does an extended rest restore your healing surges? If so, just start the rest when you have a few surges left, spend them to heal to your full HP (or Full-Con), and rest to recover all your surges. This rule is completely pointless except that it will lead to a bit more Party Narcolepsy. Wee.
Nothing wrong with this; I'm assuming he will keep a 2e-style grip on potion handouts, in which case this is just peachy.
2) You don't get con to hp at 1st level...instead you get con mod every level
A bad case of rebalancing something he doesn't understand for arbitrary reasons. If he likes the idea of rewriting monster stats on the fly, though, he can make it work.
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...
Ridiculous. Humans are already clinging to their post as playable. I always play humans, but would not in such a campaign.
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
Sure. Elven accuracy is pretty overpowered in my opinion.
5) no Dragon born
I agree. I can't stand 'em either.
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
Fair. I would limit it to "no exotic proficiencies" because that is what bugs me about the feats, myself.
7) elemental weapons all add +1d4 of there lements to each damage roll
Unnecessary and imbalanced unless limited to "once per round", I'd say.
8) if your prime stat is a 18+ you gain +10% xp
Ridiculous, and even more ridiculous, and absurd, and kick-to-the-teeth bad. Worst rule on here, I'd say. There is absolutely no reason for this, it's an unfair rule, and it encourages minmaxing in the worst way.
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
I've got this in my own game. It's a ton of fun.
10) no paragon multi classes
Weird, given how suboptimal they are anyway, but whatever.
11) no epic destiniy's
He should try one before he knocks them, but I can understand if he wants a "grittier" game. I'd recommend he just end the game at level 20.
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
There are not all that many feats out yet. Bonus feats are kinda unnecessary unless he plans to write his own. Given the understanding he has of the system he may want to hold off on that.
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
Very poorly balanced idea.... but if he is controlling the inflow of magical items may not be as bad as some people think.
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there dul heratige to fit
Sure, it's his campaign world.
15) Good alignments only
See above
16) Tougness give 5hp per tier +1 hp per level
I'd do one or the other, not both. I'm doing the latter in my game: the decrease in sudden gains but better overall value is nice.
17) unnamed bonuses do not stack for attack and damage
He does not understand the rules well enough to do this. As many have said, they are unnamed because they are supposed to stack. Is he going to go through monster manual entries and unstack their untyped bonuses?
18) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
I've personally got no problem with this. Characters are not "entitled" to certain items per level. I hate that attitude.
19) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them...
Old skool. And ditched for a reason. if he wants to go this way, he should also allow multiple rerolls until you at least have one stat at 16. I'd just argue it with him and not play his game if he won't budge on this one. You can roll stats without making them an RP straitjacket.
20) extended rest only restore your Con in Hp...not full
Another case of not understanding the mechanics. Does an extended rest restore your healing surges? If so, just start the rest when you have a few surges left, spend them to heal to your full HP (or Full-Con), and rest to recover all your surges. This rule is completely pointless except that it will lead to a bit more Party Narcolepsy. Wee.
The rules are not sacred.
True, but...
Except for the areas where he clearly just doesn't get the rules well enough (2, 3, 8, 17, and 20 being the worst offenders in my opinion)...
I'd say 2, 3, 8, 9 & 12 in combination, 10, 13, 17, 19, and 20 are pretty much game-destroying. Even if I use your pared-down list, though, 25% of his house rules stem from misconceptions about the game and/or blatant silliness. That, to me, means that the whole list needs to be thrown out until he has some idea what he's doing. I completely agree, though, that the best way to get familiar with the new rules is to run (not play) a couple of short adventures.
To the OP, what makes you reluctant to have a frank discussion with the new DM about your feelings? You can just say "Look, I know you're a little out of your comfort zone with 4e, but I'm not sure the game's going to work with these changes. I'd like to see a campaign that's much closer to the published rules, at least until we're all a little more familiar with the new game." As long as you're reasonable about it rather than disrespectful, he'll probably realize that it's time to compromise. If he doesn't, he'll tell you it's his way or the highway--and as frustrating as that would be, it certainly simplifies your set of choices.
You need to polity sit your friend down and tell him: Look, we didn't want to play a 2e game, and we don't want to play a 4e game house ruled back into 2e. If you want to run a 4e game, we are interested in giving it a try. However, we are not interested in playing a game with these house rules. If you insist on including these house rules in your game, then we don't want to play your game. I'm sorry, we don't want to be rude, we don't want to upset you, but those house rules REALLY kill the fun for us. Playing a game with those house rules is not our cup of tea, does not seem like fun, and honestly, I don't see the point of playing a game that I don't find fun. I'm sorry. You are going to have to let us know if you insist on those house rules, and if you do, we are going to find someone else to DM.
End of story. Also, perhaps you guys could discuss what he is trying to achieve with his house rules, as a group discuss which goals are acceptable, and then try and communally come up with some house rules to achieve the goals which are more in line with the tastes of group.
ok, part of the problme is he was a good DM in 2e...over 10 years ago...I think 96 or 97 was the last time he ran...
now he has been playing 4e...and 3e togather since 4e came out...we just ended our last 3e game in the begining of Dec...now he wanted to run this game as 2e, but none of us wanted to do thac0 again, so this we think is his way to adjust 4e more to 'his style'
The house rules he wishes to implement do seem like he is trying to turn 4E in to 2E. I will not go into detail as others have already commented about each individual house rule. In general, these house rules indicate that this DM does not understand the reason why 4E is the way it is and he clearly does not understand the implications of the rules he has imposed. Basically, what will happen is that the party will die in the first or second encounter.
most of us PCs are unsure what to do or say...he never wanted to play 4e...he didn't even want to convert to 3e...but he did roll with it, now he thinks we owe him. we are kinda unsure if we do.
The situation is your friend wants to play game A which none of you want to do. You guys all played game B which he did not want to, but he decided to bite the bullet and go along with you guys. Now all of you want to play C which your friend does not want to play either. He decided that he will play C, but make a bunch of changes so that the game feels like A in his mind. He does not realise that by doing so, he will destroy game C.
He is a good friend, and normaly alittle weird, but like others said this feels like it isn't even 4e...
I would make sure he understand what will happen if you play with the changes. Ask him to look at the MM and see if the characters can perform adequately with only half the normal hit points. Ask him what is the prime attribute for the following classes: Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Warlock and Warlord. These classes have different options and depending on which option you choose to play, you would want a different attribute to be your best. If he says Wisdom for the Cleric, ask him why is he penalising Str based clerics. If he says Str for the Ranger ask him why is penalising archery rangers. If he says Cha for the Warlord, ask him why is he penalising Tactical Warlords.
Try to make him realise that his changes to 4E will probably upset the balance in the system. Taking away half of your hit points is a big hit. Is he willing to modify every single monster in the MM so that the play balances out?
Bottom line is that he does not want to play the 4E system. If he felt he suffered through 3E and he is entitled to making the rest of you guys suffer through a hybrid 2E/4E system that will not work, I would have an issue with it. If he is going to impose these house rules, you are probably better off playing 2E instead.
If he does not understand how bad these house rules are, just play a session and let him watch you guys get slaughtered in one or two encounters. Perhaps he will get the hint then.
The most diplomatic route would be to ask him to just try 4E as is for a few sessions. If he does not like it, then you guys can try something else then. That is the worse that can happen. The best that can happen is everyone likes it.
Why is he so against 4E? Is he just against any edition not 2E?
I've played in some great games over the years that ran on some truely bastardized & awfull looking house rules. To see them printed out would make most shudder/cry/flee. And yet they worked out just fine....
Of course I've also played in their oppisites....
But really, what's the worst that will happen? You'll spend a few sessions hanging out with your friends & playing a game (or version of a game) you discover you don't like. And then you agree to play something else.
Guess what? That's happening every day. People play 4e & decide to switch. People play other editions of D&D & decide to switch to 4e. People try out various boardgames & learn wich ones they prefer. Etc etc etc.
And yes, sometimes, every now & then, you should play games you may not completely like with your friends - just because they're your friends.
I'd say 2, 3, 8, 9 & 12 in combination, 10, 13, 17, 19, and 20 are pretty much game-destroying. Even if I use your pared-down list, though, 25% of his house rules stem from misconceptions about the game and/or blatant silliness. That, to me, means that the whole list needs to be thrown out until he has some idea what he's doing. I completely agree, though, that the best way to get familiar with the new rules is to run (not play) a couple of short adventures.
17, right, I missed 17. Technically not game destroying IMO but I doubt he's going to balance the game right to suit it, and it's just ridiculously unnecessary.
Your definition of "game destroying" and mine clearly don't coincide, though. A game can be mechanically imbalanced but still held in check by the GM: for example, enhancement bonuses on shields are hugely imbalancing in the basic ruleset, but if magic shields/armour are rarer in the setting, it's not that big a deal. That aligns more to the 2e GM-mediated balance system. Likewise, more feats are not going to destroy a game... my players get that kind of thing pretty often, and I just make their encounters slightly tougher as needed to suit. That all depends greatly on the GM's ability to adjust on the fly, and/or reliance on published info.
As for 19, while I personally dislike it, that's in no way game destroying, dude. It's the way things were done for a very long time, and much fun was had by all
And yes, sometimes, every now & then, you should play games you may not completely like with your friends - just because they're your friends.
If your friends regularly insist on forcing you to perform an activity that you find unpleasant, are they really your friends? And where does the logic that you should do something that you find unpleasant for a friend begin and end? I mean, certainly I understand the prospect of aiding a friend as a favor. But, playing a game with your friend doesn't really aid them. The purpose of games is to have fun. If his friend wants to play 2e, he should find someone to play with who likes 2e, not force people who don't to play. Honestly, the perspective that someone should do something that they don't enjoy for a "friend" just because their "friend" is their "friend" can lead to some pretty ugly places when taken to its extreme...
I would define ones responsibility to their friends not as some pleasurable activity (as defined by the friend and not the performer of said activity) that one must fulfill for their friend, but rather as the ability to understand a friend's perspective and respect it. In my honest opinion, if your friend doesn't enjoy something, its your responsibility to understand that and respect your friend's desire not to engage in said activity. It is not your friend's responsibility to engage in this activity for your pleasure. Any friend that expects me to perform some action for them just because they are a friend will quickly discover that they no longer are.
1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
this one is weird...non of us are sure what to think
2) You don't get con to hp at 1st level...instead you get con mod every level
I hate this one...but could maybe deal with it
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...
this is becuse he thinks humans are OP...
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
this is an at will power...and I guess the Accuracy is pretty Op...but I am not a fan of this...
5) no Dragon born
what ever
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
no big deal here
7) elemental weapons all add +1d4 of there lements to each damage roll
the group is divided...I personal see this as a problme...
8) if your prime stat is a 18+ you gain +10% xp
this is an old 2e rule he likes...whatever...
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
this is another one we are not sure off\
10) no paragon multi classes
this is becuse of 9...no need to do it sense you can swap at will
11) no epic destiniy's
the game he played with them he hated the idea...
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
this is suppose to replace the fact that orginaly race was suppose to matter more...
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
I am not a fan of this
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there dul heratige to fit
this I think is cool, the best of his ideas...
15) Good alignments only
what ever
16) Tougness give 5hp per tier +1 hp per level
I just don't get the upgrade...
17) unnamed bonuses do not stack for attack and damage
this is becuse he thinks leaders are too good at giving out bonuses
18) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
this is becuse he doesn't like PCs choosing items...there will be no buying/selling items eaither
19) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them...
20) extended rest only restore your Con in Hp...not full
both of these are game breaking in my mind...and a few other players...b
becuse we are roommates the guys want me to talk to him...but I think I am going to go with a suggestion from this board...
You could just roll with it & give it a try.
I've played in some great games over the years that ran on some truely bastardized & awfull looking house rules. To see them printed out would make most shudder/cry/flee. And yet they worked out just fine....
Of course I've also played in their oppisites....
But really, what's the worst that will happen? You'll spend a few sessions hanging out with your friends & playing a game (or version of a game) you discover you don't like. And then you agree to play something else.
Guess what? That's happening every day. People play 4e & decide to switch. People play other editions of D&D & decide to switch to 4e. People try out various boardgames & learn wich ones they prefer. Etc etc etc.
And yes, sometimes, every now & then, you should play games you may not completely like with your friends - just because they're your friends.
If your friends regularly insist on forcing you to perform an activity that you find unpleasant, are they really your friends? And where does the logic that you should do something that you find unpleasant for a friend begin and end? I mean, certainly I understand the prospect of aiding a friend as a favor. But, playing a game with your friend doesn't really aid them. The purpose of games is to have fun. If his friend wants to play 2e, he should find someone to play with who likes 2e, not force people who don't to play. Honestly, the perspective that someone should do something that they don't enjoy for a "friend" just because their "friend" is their "friend" can lead to some pretty ugly places when taken to its extreme...
Don't you think that's overreacting a little? The rules might be odd, but the game could still be fun. Python jokes will still be quoted. Darkness will still be attacked. It's not like he's asking them to drive bamboo splinters under their fingernails every Friday evening and calling it D&D. Sometimes we get too caught up in how and what game we're playing, I think, to recall why we started playing it in the first place.
Edit re: above post: he thinks leaders are too good at giving out bonuses?
So, then, he thinks leaders should be pointless? Their whole raison d'etre is to give out bonuses. I say with that one, nobody should play a leader. when he asks why, tell him it's because he made them pointless. Same goes for humans, actually.
Don't you think that's overreacting a little? The rules might be odd, but the game could still be fun. Python jokes will still be quoted. Darkness will still be attacked. It's not like he's asking them to drive bamboo splinters under their fingernails every Friday evening and calling it D&D. Sometimes we get too caught up in how and what game we're playing, I think, to recall why we started playing it in the first place.
No, I don't think I am overacting. If he is really a friend, then he will not take offense to being told that the rest of the group does not like the house rules, nor will he take offense to the players not wanting to play with them. He will respect their perspective, and as friends they will find some other activity that they can perform as a group. An activity that is more fun to everyone involved. There is no reason to subject oneself to an activity that one does not find pleasurable just because a friend does. The question of quantification is irrelevant. It does not matter whether it is unpleasurable to the point of driving splinters under the nails, or whether its simply a game whose rules you do not enjoy. I mean, hell, I might have friends who think that suspension is the most fun activity they can perform. I am sure they might love it if more of their friends would communally engage in the act. But the thing is, I don't like sticking hooks through my back and being suspended by them, and I won't engage in that activity just because one of my friends might. I respect my friends desire to enjoy themselves in any manner they deem fit so long as that pleasure does not come at the (undue) displeasure of others. I likewise expect my friends to respect my desire not to perform an activity I find displeasurable (whether its playing 2e or sticking hooks through my back and being suspended by them).
becuse we are roommates the guys want me to talk to him...but I think I am going to go with a suggestion from this board...
I think that CCS has the best advice here so far.
It's a game, give it a shot and try to have fun. If it doesn't work, play something else.
I do have to say, that most of those rules suck, and I would have serious doubts that I could enjoy such a game. I could live with a few of them, but the rest are just…no.
17, right, I missed 17. Technically not game destroying IMO but I doubt he's going to balance the game right to suit it, and it's just ridiculously unnecessary.
Your definition of "game destroying" and mine clearly don't coincide, though.
Probably not. I suspect you could ask five GMs which of those items are actually gamebreaking and which are merely annoying, and get nine or ten different sets of answers.
A game can be mechanically imbalanced but still held in check by the GM: for example, enhancement bonuses on shields are hugely imbalancing in the basic ruleset, but if magic shields/armour are rarer in the setting, it's not that big a deal.
That's not a good example. You're saying that enhancement bonuses on shields aren't a problem, as long as the DM doesn't use them very much. Instead of making a general rule that's rarely used, it makes much more sense (to my engineering-trained mind) to remove the general rule and just make rare exceptions.
Put another way, I don't want a system where I have to constantly prune down to keep things from getting out of control. That penalizes me if I slip up and allow something I shouldn't have, and it certainly penalizes the DMs (like the one under discussion, apparently) that don't really grasp the way various elements of the rules fit together. I'd rather have a lean, balanced system to do the work for me, so that I can concentrate on fun things like plot and narrative.
Put one more way, I love being the driver of a campaign. I don't so much love being the engine.
Likewise, more feats are not going to destroy a game... my players get that kind of thing pretty often, and I just make their encounters slightly tougher as needed to suit. That all depends greatly on the GM's ability to adjust on the fly, and/or reliance on published info.
A couple of extra feats likely won't break things, but he's effectively handing out six extra feats in the heroic tier. That's double the normal complement, and it's going to substantially increase the power level of this guy's game--unintentionally, I suspect.
As for 19, while I personally dislike it, that's in no way game destroying, dude. It's the way things were done for a very long time, and much fun was had by all
Rolling for stats is really annoying, since it not only wrecks a lot of interesting concepts but contributes heavily to power creep in a campaign. Rolling 3d6 for stats, in order, is the moral equivalent of gleefully lashing your players with a whip as they groaningly carry your sedan chair across a bed of hot nails.Don't you think that's overreacting a little? The rules might be odd, but the game could still be fun. Python jokes will still be quoted. Darkness will still be attacked. It's not like he's asking them to drive bamboo splinters under their fingernails every Friday evening and calling it D&D. Sometimes we get too caught up in how and what game we're playing, I think, to recall why we started playing it in the first place.
It won't be a horrible game, probably, but its potential good-ness is capped pretty low. My problem with it is that, intentionally or not, the DM took a shared experience and made it all about his own preferences. It's the same as when a DM carefully designs a world, and then railroads his PCs through adventures because he can't bear the idea that someone else might make changes to his beloved creation. I can sympathize with that urge, and I know a lot of DMs do it. But good DMs, I think, get past the idea of being in control of their game; instead, they cooperate with their players to make the experience better for everyone.
The real tragedy, in my mind, is that the OP's DM doesn't even know how much he's missing.
Show
1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
This is not a good idea. It sounds good at first, but it'll lead to the capability of practically infinite healing later on, which the game was not balanced around.
2) You don't get con to hp at 1st level...instead you get con mod every level
This is not a good idea. The game is not balanced around so little HP at first level or so much HP at later levels.
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...
This is a horrible idea. Is he giving them anything to compensate? Why the human hate?
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
As, what, an immediate interrupt? An immediate reaction? Either way, charging is much rarer in 4E than it used to be, since you can only make a basic melee attack at the end, so whether he realizes it or not, this is a nerf.
5) no Dragon born
That's silly.
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
This is not a good idea. Those feats were balanced around the fact that they give those proficiencies. Yes, racial feats are supposed to be better than normal feats.
7) elemental weapons all add +1d4 of there lements to each damage roll
This is not a good idea. That weapon property is not balanced to do that much more damage.
8) if your prime stat is a 18+ you gain +10% xp
This is a horrible idea. Knowingly and arbitrarily putting the party at unbalanced XP values is never good, and the game was not balanced aruond that.
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
This is not a good idea. Those feats were not balanced around being able to allow that much versatility. This makes those feats very overpowered.
10) no paragon multi classes
Why not? That's silly.
11) no epic destiniy's
This is not a good idea. Levels 21-30 are balanced around the assumption that you have some awesome epic destiny powers.
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
This is not a good idea. Many races don't have enough available racial feats to do that...
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
This is a horrible idea. The game was not balanced around characters being able to have such high AC.
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there dul heratige to fit
Why not just have both?
15) Good alignments only
That's not so much a house rule as it is a character creation guideline...
16) Tougness give 5hp per tier +1 hp per level
This is not a good idea. That feat was not balanced around granting that much HP. It becomes overpowered very quickly.
17) unnamed bonuses do not stack for attack and damage
This is not a good idea and just sounds arbitrary. And unnamed bonuses are balanced specifically to stack. That's why they're always lower values.
18) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
This is not a good idea. The game's balance expects you'll have much better gear by 3rd level.
19) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them...
I don't like this, but I guess that's more a personal thing...
20) extended rest only restore your Con in Hp...not full
Again, this just seems arbitrary.
This is not a good idea. It sounds good at first, but it'll lead to the capability of practically infinite healing later on, which the game was not balanced around.
2) You don't get con to hp at 1st level...instead you get con mod every level
This is not a good idea. The game is not balanced around so little HP at first level or so much HP at later levels.
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...
This is a horrible idea. Is he giving them anything to compensate? Why the human hate?
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
As, what, an immediate interrupt? An immediate reaction? Either way, charging is much rarer in 4E than it used to be, since you can only make a basic melee attack at the end, so whether he realizes it or not, this is a nerf.
5) no Dragon born
That's silly.
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
This is not a good idea. Those feats were balanced around the fact that they give those proficiencies. Yes, racial feats are supposed to be better than normal feats.
7) elemental weapons all add +1d4 of there lements to each damage roll
This is not a good idea. That weapon property is not balanced to do that much more damage.
8) if your prime stat is a 18+ you gain +10% xp
This is a horrible idea. Knowingly and arbitrarily putting the party at unbalanced XP values is never good, and the game was not balanced aruond that.
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
This is not a good idea. Those feats were not balanced around being able to allow that much versatility. This makes those feats very overpowered.
10) no paragon multi classes
Why not? That's silly.
11) no epic destiniy's
This is not a good idea. Levels 21-30 are balanced around the assumption that you have some awesome epic destiny powers.
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
This is not a good idea. Many races don't have enough available racial feats to do that...
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
This is a horrible idea. The game was not balanced around characters being able to have such high AC.
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there dul heratige to fit
Why not just have both?
15) Good alignments only
That's not so much a house rule as it is a character creation guideline...
16) Tougness give 5hp per tier +1 hp per level
This is not a good idea. That feat was not balanced around granting that much HP. It becomes overpowered very quickly.
17) unnamed bonuses do not stack for attack and damage
This is not a good idea and just sounds arbitrary. And unnamed bonuses are balanced specifically to stack. That's why they're always lower values.
18) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
This is not a good idea. The game's balance expects you'll have much better gear by 3rd level.
19) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them...
I don't like this, but I guess that's more a personal thing...
20) extended rest only restore your Con in Hp...not full
Again, this just seems arbitrary.
If your friends regularly insist on forcing you to perform an activity that you find unpleasant, are they really your friends?
You know, if you were going to quote me I'd assume you'd have actually read the words I'd typed....
If you look back you'll note that I said occassionally.
As in every now & then.
Not-all-the-time.
The exception to the norm.
That & you read way too much into things. Nobodies being forced to do anything. Nobody is "owed" anything.
For ex; One of my friends likes to go fishing. You know, rod, reel, bait, all of that. Catching very little & the extra work to prep what is caught.
My preffered method of fishing? A trip to the fish & seafood counter at the supermarket.
But I will occassionally join him. Afterall, I may not like fishing per se, but the companies good. And I know he appreciates it (his other usual fishing companion is his 5 year old daughter. Enthusiastic, yes. But ever take a 5 year old fishing?).
Likewise, he doesn't enjoy all of the same board games I do. But I can occasionally talk him into joining the rest of us for BG night - where we've been known to play Formula-De or Settlers of Catan (not his favorites).
We have a mutual friend who's a God awefull DM (and knows it). No, he's not ever going to improve, the years have proven that to us.... Every now & then he'll come up with something and really want to run it. And thus about every 18 months or so he'll DM for awhile. Mercifully most of his stuff ends up being short.
But we play his game and try & make it as good as we can from our end.
Why? Because wether we're playing "good" D&D, "bad" D&D, Formula-De, or even fishing, we're still doing it with our friends. And investing a bit of time on behalf of the other guys interests has never been a waste yet.
He sounds more like he wants to play 3.5 than 4E.
More like 2e. Note the return of the Prime Requisite. Because 2e loved using XP bonuses and penalties for the most random things, despite the fact that this created enormous disparities within the party and seemed to beparceled out with no regard for the behavior it was rewarding or penalizing. Have a high stat? XP bonus. Act out-of-alignment or have a character that changes alignment? XP penalty. Yes, in other words, if your character undergoes growth over a campaign, the you got punished for it.
ok I need some advice...
my roommate and goodfriend wants to DM again...last time he DMed was 2e...
Our sat night game is on it's last legs, so he asked if he could jump in with his...we said when we are done...then he hands us a list of 'house rules'
we at first thought this was a joke...but now we are not sure how to handle thiss...
Point out that 4e isn't 2e, and that it's usually best to test-drive the vanilla system first, before deciding that house rules are a particularly good idea. Most of his proposed houserules either break the system outright, or severely hamper a significant chunk of the races and classes in the game. It seems likely that he has no idea how the game actually plays, but is convinced that it needs fixing. Honestly, older editions seem to encourage this mentality pretty strongly; when a significant portion of the book is vague, equivocal, or simply unplayable, it encourages DMs to introduce a plethora of houserules on the ground floor, rather than adding ad hoc rules where necessary. With certain noted exceptions- the majority of which have already been corrected with Errata- this is not the paradigm that 4e seeks for the game, though, and it seems worth trying the game as-written before making particularly drastic changes.
That said, I personally would be very concerned about having this guy DM, since it seems pretty clear that he hasn't given the books a decent examination, or at very least, is oblivious to the design conceits that informed the mechanics of the game. It would be like hiring a mechanic who decided that the problem with your car was that it did this whole "internal combustion" thing, and that needs to be fixed.
second he has had experiance with 4e...he was part of our D&D game day group the first day it was out...wait no second day it came out friday game day was sat...
He is in an ongoing game now, and he played in our game that ran 2nd - 27th level...
I will let you guys know in a couple of days how this turnesd out
first, tommorro he agreed to talk this over and consider doing it 'slightly' diffrent...
second he has had experiance with 4e...he was part of our D&D game day group the first day it was out...wait no second day it came out friday game day was sat...
He is in an ongoing game now, and he played in our game that ran 2nd - 27th level...
I will let you guys know in a couple of days how this turnesd out
So, how much experience does he have with 4E? You make it sound like he only played once.
ok I need some advice...
my roommate and goodfriend wants to DM again...last time he DMed was 2e...
Our sat night game is on it's last legs, so he asked if he could jump in with his...we said when we are done...then he hands us a list of 'house rules'
we at first thought this was a joke...but now we are not sure how to handle thiss...
I Invoke Godwins Law: This DM is Hitler.
I doubt this DM is Hitler... Hitler's chilling out on Dracula's moon base. this DM is on earth.
Thank you for the Dr.Mcninja reference.
I still don't see why people are over reacting so much, if the DM can make it fun who cares how the rules are used (Aside from rules lawyers, but if they're going to shut down the fun for the sake of the rules, screw them.)
I just ran the best session I've ever run last night, the players were out of their seats, literally, with excitement and at least 3 of my players said that it was the best session they had ever played in; the rules in that session were disregarded as often as they were used. Stop saying that the DM doesn't know what he's talking about and give them a chance to prove himself.
Thank you for the Dr.Mcninja reference.
I still don't see why people are over reacting so much, if the DM can make it fun who cares how the rules are used (Aside from rules lawyers, but if they're going to shut down the fun for the sake of the rules, screw them.)
People who are how the rules are used aside from rules lawyers...
People who care about balance.
People who care about a smooth gaming experience.
People who enjoy the tactical aspect of D&D.
People who prefer 4e to previous editions for a reason.
The group who declined to play 2e.
People who actually payed money for D&D rulebooks. That money was spent because they would rather play the D&D rule system than freeform rp.
People who are how the rules are used aside from rules lawyers...
People who care about balance.
People who care about a smooth gaming experience.
People who enjoy the tactical aspect of D&D.
People who prefer 4e to previous editions for a reason.
The group who declined to play 2e.
People who actually payed money for D&D rulebooks. That money was spent because they would rather play the D&D rule system than freeform rp.
Stormbrand, I want to hug you for all of time and space. (You actually hit the nail on the head for another argument I'm having on a different forum about this.)
I still don't see why people are over reacting so much, if the DM can make it fun who cares how the rules are used (Aside from rules lawyers, but if they're going to shut down the fun for the sake of the rules, screw them.)
I just ran the best session I've ever run last night, the players were out of their seats, literally, with excitement and at least 3 of my players said that it was the best session they had ever played in; the rules in that session were disregarded as often as they were used. Stop saying that the DM doesn't know what he's talking about and give them a chance to prove himself.
Honestly, if this were the sort of direction that the game were going to go, it's highly unlikely that the DM would have felt the need to hand out a prepared list of houserules he's already set on including. If a DM is more interested in having fun and going with the flow, then why would the lack of a prime requisite rule -which is only relevant as a matter of bookkeeping, and even then, only if you have a particular view of how XP "should work"- bother him in the *first* place? The answer is, if fun were the goal, and fun >> the integrity of the rules, then it wouldn't matter at all.
Seriously, in my experience, when a DM -particularly one I know is less-than-familiar with DMing a particular system hands out a lengthy list of houserules on day one, it sends up a red flag for me. In my experience, these
DMs tend to have some serious control problems, and it tends to negatively impact the game. The fact that this particular DM said he was willing to "rethink" some of them is somewhat of a plus, but in my experience, any houseruling that doesn't begin with a discussion between DM and players that starts with, "So, I was thinking about [adding/removing/changing rule X]... what do you guys think? Here are the reasons why I think this could work well for us:..." tends lead the game in a bad way.
here are the rulse as they stand now:
1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
2) You get con at 1st level, but con mod after 1st level as bonus hp
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...instead they get a bonus 1st level encounter power of there class
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
5) no Dragon born
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
7) elemental weapons all add ongoing 2xteir (save ends) to there properties
8) if your prime stat is a 16+ you gain +10% xp
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
10) everyone gets seprate XP...you only get XP if you fight a monster (Engage in some way)
11) no epic at all he will end pre 20
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there duil heratige to fit
15) Good alignments only
16) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
This is not a good idea. The game's balance expects you'll have much better gear by 3rd level.
17) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them... can choose 2 scores and swap them...
We have a Human Wizard (with a 17 Int), we have a Dwarf Battle rager fighter, A half eladrin Fey lock, and me a Human Paliden/Warlord...
I rolled at the table infront of DM and other players the most kick but statss...18, 16, 11, 12, 17, 18... by taking the human bonus encounter and the free swaping with multi class I was able to 2 paly at will 1 warlord, 2 paly encounter, 1 warlord, and a paliy daily and a warlord utlitie...
as fun as my character is...I bet game doesn't make it to 6th level...
very few houserules that modify the system's mechanics work strait from the get-go.
[INDENT]1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
Unlimited healing per day. Unless the loot distribution is so unbalanced that you can't afford much of anything, buy as many healing potions as possible until he realizes that the healing surge system is in place for a reason and is essential to the game's balance.
2) You get con at 1st level, but con mod after 1st level as bonus hp
How is the DM planning to compensate for this significant advantage to the players? From what we've heard so far it sounds like he does not understand the system well enough to do that. And how is he planning to deal with characters who didn't roll well for Constitution and so are far behind the rest of the party in hit points?
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...instead they get a bonus 1st level encounter power of there class
Humans are not the strongest race in 4th edition, and this is a crushing nerf that will just get worse as the character levels and is stuck with a crappy 1st level encounter power. A totally arbitrary and extremely unbalancing rule.
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
This may not be too bad; I suspect elves will still be viable after this change. As with some of the other rules, though, I doubt the DM has a good enough understanding of the system to be making changes like this before he's even seen any play.
5) no Dragonborn
Is there a specific reason why Dragonborn do not fit well into his campaign world, or does he personally dislike Dragonborn and want to force his preference on all his players?
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
DWT and Eladrin Soldier are more powerful than an other heroic tier feat when considered in a vacuum, but they do not produce overpowered characters due to dwarves' and eladrin's other racial traits. If he really wants to nerf it anyway, suggest that he instead remove the +2 bonus and keep the proficiencies.
7) elemental weapons all add ongoing 2xteir (save ends) to there properties
And how does he intend to balance this against other non-elemental weapons? Is he looking forward to tracking ongoing damage from every single one of his players' hits?
8) if your prime stat is a 16+ you gain +10% xp
Arbitrary. Everyone should have a 16+ in their prime stat. If he wants to speed up XP gain, that's fine, but the arbitrary stat requirement reeks of idiotic 2e throwback.
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
Ridiculously unbalancing. Four feats for the price of one? Everyone has to multiclass in his game just to be viable.
10) everyone gets seprate XP...you only get XP if you fight a monster (Engage in some way)
This could possibly work. How does he intend to deal with players who lag behind from missing a few sessions and aren't having fun because of their ineffectiveness?
11) no epic at all he will end pre 20
This is fine if it is best for the campaign he's running and the amount of time he has to run it. If it's not best for the campaign and the time you guys have, and he just personally dislikes the epic tier because he doesn't want players to ever be that power, that's bad.
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
Probably not a serious balance issue. Is there a good reason for it?
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
Enhancement bonuses to AC and Ref? This will make magical armor obsolete. Magical armor only enhances AC; getting your enhancement bonus from shields will be strictly better. Knock off the bonus to Ref and I suppose this could work fine. If there a good reason for this change, however?
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there duil heratige to fit
Is there a good, specific reason for this change in the DM's campaign world?
15) Good alignments only
Is there a good, specific reason why this needs to be for the campaign he's running to go smoothly?
16) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
And how is the DM planning to compensate for this unbalancing change? By applying his intimate knowledge of the system?
17) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them... can choose 2 scores and swap them...
I'm not really sure on this one. Rolling systems can work great if everyone's willing, but I strongly dislike any rolling system that arbitrarily limits what classes you can viably play. Also, won't this generally produce ability scores lower than the 4e standard? How is the DM going to compensate for that imbalance? How is he going to compensate for some characters' having significantly better stats than others?[/INDENT]
It sounds like your DM does not understand how house rules should be developed. Throwing any change that sounds good to you into the game is a terrible idea, and this is a perfect example. Tell him to make sure every change he makes corrects a very specific problem in the system or the campaign. Make sure he can describe exactly why the change will make the game more fun for everyone. Make sure none of the changes are unbalancing. Direct him to DMG p. 189.
Our group plays 4E D & D ( our group for example plays strict 4E-i.e. playable races are in the PHB only)
DM is the abitrator of his campaign, but operates according to the groups charter.
Approved worlds are: Forgotten Realms ( for example)
Not approved Worlds: Eberron (for example)
DM original worlds are brought to the group for approval prior to campaign
All House rules are approved by the group-not the individual GM (s)
These charter rules keep individual DM's from changing the groups game with out conscent.
Ian
I'll try my hand at commentating on the updated list of house rules:
[INDENT]1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
Unlimited healing per day. Unless the loot distribution is so unbalanced that you can't afford much of anything, buy as many healing potions as possible until he realizes that the healing surge system is in place for a reason and is essential to the game's balance.
no buying items, and no creation rits...so only have what you find...
2) You get con at 1st level, but con mod after 1st level as bonus hp
How is the DM planning to compensate for this significant advantage to the players? From what we've heard so far it sounds like he does not understand the system well enough to do that. And how is he planning to deal with characters who didn't roll well for Constitution and so are far behind the rest of the party in hit points?
this was just to boost PC surviblity...
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...instead they get a bonus 1st level encounter power of there class
Humans are not the strongest race in 4th edition, and this is a crushing nerf that will just get worse as the character levels and is stuck with a crappy 1st level encounter power. A totally arbitrary and extremely unbalancing rule.
with the rest of his weird rules (and since we doubt we will make it too paragon) this seamed fair enough to us...
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
This may not be too bad; I suspect elves will still be viable after this change. As with some of the other rules, though, I doubt the DM has a good enough understanding of the system to be making changes like this before he's even seen any play.
he just thinks elves are tooo good as is...
5) no Dragonborn
Is there a specific reason why Dragonborn do not fit well into his campaign world, or does he personally dislike Dragonborn and want to force his preference on all his players?
he dislikes dragonborn...and color/metal dragons...in his game dragons are diffrent...
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
DWT and Eladrin Soldier are more powerful than an other heroic tier feat when considered in a vacuum, but they do not produce overpowered characters due to dwarves' and eladrin's other racial traits. If he really wants to nerf it anyway, suggest that he instead remove the +2 bonus and keep the proficiencies.
he thinks it is OP...infact he hats the feats..
7) elemental weapons all add ongoing 2xteir (save ends) to there properties
And how does he intend to balance this against other non-elemental weapons? Is he looking forward to tracking ongoing damage from every single one of his players' hits?
he thinks elemental auras were nerfed too much...and since we can't buy or make items...it is only what he puts in...
8) if your prime stat is a 16+ you gain +10% xp
Arbitrary. Everyone should have a 16+ in their prime stat. If he wants to speed up XP gain, that's fine, but the arbitrary stat requirement reeks of idiotic 2e throwback.
Only 2 Pcs are getting this bonus...
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
Ridiculously unbalancing. Four feats for the price of one? Everyone has to multiclass in his game just to be viable.
I sure did...
10) everyone gets seprate XP...you only get XP if you fight a monster (Engage in some way)
This could possibly work. How does he intend to deal with players who lag behind from missing a few sessions and aren't having fun because of their ineffectiveness?
no idea...he thinks no one should ever get XP if they miss a game...
11) no epic at all he will end pre 20
This is fine if it is best for the campaign he's running and the amount of time he has to run it. If it's not best for the campaign and the time you guys have, and he just personally dislikes the epic tier because he doesn't want players to ever be that power, that's bad.
us players think this is funny, we figure this game will go boom long before it matters...
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
Probably not a serious balance issue. Is there a good reason for it?
he wants "Race to matter more"
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
Enhancement bonuses to AC and Ref? This will make magical armor obsolete. Magical armor only enhances AC; getting your enhancement bonus from shields will be strictly better. Knock off the bonus to Ref and I suppose this could work fine. If there a good reason for this change, however?
again he is in complet control of our gear...
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there duil heratige to fit
Is there a good, specific reason for this change in the DM's campaign world?
He just thinks it is a cool idea...
15) Good alignments only
Is there a good, specific reason why this needs to be for the campaign he's running to go smoothly?
this he has always done...in 1e 2e and now in 4e he doesn't belive in non heroic PCs
16) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
And how is the DM planning to compensate for this unbalancing change? By applying his intimate knowledge of the system?
no idea...
17) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them... can choose 2 scores and swap them...
I'm not really sure on this one. Rolling systems can work great if everyone's willing, but I strongly dislike any rolling system that arbitrarily limits what classes you can viably play. Also, won't this generally produce ability scores lower than the 4e standard? How is the DM going to compensate for that imbalance? How is he going to compensate for some characters' having significantly better stats than others?[/INDENT]
hey I am not complaining...it did fine by me...:D
Likewise, party gaining experience together is a Must, moreso. 4th edition does not penalize character death by extremely costly resurrection for a reason. (Yeah, it sucks, but revolving door death is in place for a reason. Tell your Dm if he has problems to lampshade it and move on.
• I would play an Eladrin Fighter, specialized in self-healing, and multiclassed into Wizard, so that I could attack everyone in the fight at least once, and still survive without a dedicated healer.
• My Eladrin Fighter would be from an enchanting background, coming from a long line of master enchanters. I would therefore make it my personal life goal to discover a means of forging magical weapons and armor.
• No one is going to want to play a dedicated healer, because they'd never get any experience.
• Dibbies on the first elementally-enchanted weapon to be found/made.
• I would make my INT higher than my STR, and argue up and down that my style of fighter makes INT my "prime stat", and more useful for my job than STR, so I should get the +10% bonus. Strong fighters can learn faster than smart fighters? I think not.
• Longsword/shield fighter, wearing hide armor, to benefit from my high INT, the magical value of my armor, and the magical value of my shield, to be unhittable around 15th level, and I'll take my Eladrin Soldier feat to do extra damage with the longsword that I'm already proficient in.
• No one is going to want to play a dedicated healer, because they'd never get any experience.
intresting...we had the same idea...
We have a Human Wizard (with a 17 Int), we have a Dwarf Battle rager fighter, A half eladrin Fey lock, and me a Human Paliden/Warlord...
Back to the tradition:
Show
1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
With the controlled magic giveaway I like this. I use it in my own world. It makes healing potions serve a purpose.
2) You get con at 1st level, but con mod after 1st level as bonus hp
Has he seen a lot of troubles with players dying? I find they tend to have tons of HP already, but if he runs tough combat then this could be fine.
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...instead they get a bonus 1st level encounter power of there class
Humans are running the edge of horrible in 4e. I like them, but I'd never play them for this replacement. That's with my preference for humans in mind, too, and my relatively open mind to his mods.
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
I still agree with this one. Elven Accuracy is far and away the best racial ability, and elves are good enough already. He'll need to give them new racial feats though....
5) no Dragonborn
Still approve.
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
Still approve. I'd have them give proficiency in all nonexotic weapons, but I find it ridiculous that all Dwarf characters are wielding Executioner's Axes now.
7) elemental weapons all add ongoing 2xteir (save ends) to there properties
Fine, with his magic item giveaway system.
8) if your prime stat is a 16+ you gain +10% xp
Still retarded. Dropping the requirement doesn't help at all. Leads to player resentment and all kinds of other bad stuff.
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
Still a good houserule. Leads to a slight power increase but it makes character making a lot more fun
10) everyone gets seprate XP...you only get XP if you fight a monster (Engage in some way)
FOOLISH TO THE UTMOST. Makes it clear why none of you are playing support. Does he hate leaders, 2e clerics, etc? This rule is the most ridiculous of all of his, and of all the ones I've seen it's the only one that would stop me playing. Seriously, I'd refuse to join his game until he released this rule, as I love playing tactical support characters. Plus it will probably lead to bookkeeping bickering, and it means Controllers get assymetrical XP gain over, say, strikers.
11) no epic at all he will end pre 20
Sure, better than imbalancing epic by removing destinies. Nothing wrong with this.
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
Kinda unnecessary, but why not.
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
Not sure why he feels this needs to be declared as a house rule, since magic items can't be bought. He should just make one show up if he wants to.
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there duil heratige to fit
Might actually use this in a future campaign of mine. Fun fluff. (I'd have half-elves of both types)
15) Good alignments only
Whatever, sure.
16) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
With the added power level this should work out all right. L3 chars don't need a ton of nice equipment to compete.
17) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them... can choose 2 scores and swap them...
Not horrible. With the swap, pretty much any basic design can be done, but you have to work around flaws in other places. Not to everyone's taste but I actually think I'd have fun with this one.
With the controlled magic giveaway I like this. I use it in my own world. It makes healing potions serve a purpose.
2) You get con at 1st level, but con mod after 1st level as bonus hp
Has he seen a lot of troubles with players dying? I find they tend to have tons of HP already, but if he runs tough combat then this could be fine.
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...instead they get a bonus 1st level encounter power of there class
Humans are running the edge of horrible in 4e. I like them, but I'd never play them for this replacement. That's with my preference for humans in mind, too, and my relatively open mind to his mods.
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
I still agree with this one. Elven Accuracy is far and away the best racial ability, and elves are good enough already. He'll need to give them new racial feats though....
5) no Dragonborn
Still approve.
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
Still approve. I'd have them give proficiency in all nonexotic weapons, but I find it ridiculous that all Dwarf characters are wielding Executioner's Axes now.
7) elemental weapons all add ongoing 2xteir (save ends) to there properties
Fine, with his magic item giveaway system.
8) if your prime stat is a 16+ you gain +10% xp
Still retarded. Dropping the requirement doesn't help at all. Leads to player resentment and all kinds of other bad stuff.
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
Still a good houserule. Leads to a slight power increase but it makes character making a lot more fun
10) everyone gets seprate XP...you only get XP if you fight a monster (Engage in some way)
FOOLISH TO THE UTMOST. Makes it clear why none of you are playing support. Does he hate leaders, 2e clerics, etc? This rule is the most ridiculous of all of his, and of all the ones I've seen it's the only one that would stop me playing. Seriously, I'd refuse to join his game until he released this rule, as I love playing tactical support characters. Plus it will probably lead to bookkeeping bickering, and it means Controllers get assymetrical XP gain over, say, strikers.
11) no epic at all he will end pre 20
Sure, better than imbalancing epic by removing destinies. Nothing wrong with this.
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
Kinda unnecessary, but why not.
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
Not sure why he feels this needs to be declared as a house rule, since magic items can't be bought. He should just make one show up if he wants to.
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there duil heratige to fit
Might actually use this in a future campaign of mine. Fun fluff. (I'd have half-elves of both types)
15) Good alignments only
Whatever, sure.
16) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
With the added power level this should work out all right. L3 chars don't need a ton of nice equipment to compete.
17) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them... can choose 2 scores and swap them...
Not horrible. With the swap, pretty much any basic design can be done, but you have to work around flaws in other places. Not to everyone's taste but I actually think I'd have fun with this one.
I don't have a problem with the "no dragonborn" rule if the campaign world specifically calls for it. If, however, it is nothing more than the DM limiting his players' options just because he personally doesn't like a particular choice, that's bad DMing and a misuse of house rules. Taking away players' choices should be avoided whenever reasonably possible.
I did overreact to the changing of half-elves to half-eladrin; "he just thinks it is a cool idea" is a perfectly acceptable reason for such a change unless a player specifically wanted to play a half-elf for RP reasons.
Erk--
I don't have a problem with the "no dragonborn" rule if the campaign world specifically calls for it. If, however, it is nothing more than the DM limiting his players' options just because he personally doesn't like a particular choice, that's bad DMing and a misuse of house rules. Taking away players' choices should be avoided whenever reasonably possible.
I did overreact to the changing of half-elves to half-eladrin; "he just thinks it is a cool idea" is a perfectly acceptable reason for such a change unless a player specifically wanted to play a half-elf for RP reasons.
I'm fuzzy on the difference. If his campaign world has no dragonborn, then the campaign calls for it. I guess if there are dragonborn in his world and they simply aren't playable, he'd need a good RP reason for this, but otherwise, the campaign calls for this rule if there simply aren't dragonborn in his world. It's circular.
Put differently: as a GM who removed dragonborn myself, I can honestly say I removed them for no reason besides not liking them, mostly in terms of flavour [Additionally, lately I've felt a little more glad about this decision as I examine the rules more: I think they are a little too good relative to the other races. Feeling similarly about Elves lately as well, but not as much]. They don't exist in my world because I don't like them. My players can't play them because they don't exist in my world. I don't feel I should have to justify this further.
I'm fuzzy on the difference. If his campaign world has no dragonborn, then the campaign calls for it. I guess if there are dragonborn in his world and they simply aren't playable, he'd need a good RP reason for this, but otherwise, the campaign calls for this rule if there simply aren't dragonborn in his world. It's circular.
Put differently: as a GM who removed dragonborn myself, I can honestly say I removed them for no reason besides not liking them, mostly in terms of flavour [Additionally, lately I've felt a little more glad about this decision as I examine the rules more: I think they are a little too good relative to the other races. Feeling similarly about Elves lately as well, but not as much]. They don't exist in my world because I don't like them. My players can't play them because they don't exist in my world. I don't feel I should have to justify this further.
It's cool that you don't want Dragonborn, but what if I want to play a strong and charismatic human who was experimented on by his alchemist uncle as a child, thus giving him the strange ability to burp up some of his excess stomach acid every so often?
[INDENT]1) healing potions don't cost healing surges
Bringing back unlimited conversion of wealth to healing is a pretty bad idea; if your DM wants to get rid of the limited healing /day, there are a lot of better ways to do that, as discussed in the houserules section of these forums.
2) You get con at 1st level, but con mod after 1st level as bonus hp
Taken with the rolling thing, this has little effect beyond creating an enormous disparity between characters' durability, something which exacebates the problems created by some of the other houserules. Moreover, one fairly valid criticism I've seen of late game and games with somewhat-above-level monsters is that it can be a bit of a slog: combat drags on for too long, and once characters have expended all of their encounters and dailies, it can also be rather monotonous. If your DM plans on increasing monsters' durability accordingly, this will end up being a problem.
Honestly, I think your DM hasn't taken a good look at the rules or run the math; Con increases already increase HP at a 1:1 rate, and the overall effect is not unlike 2e's hit point progression, which was rather front-loaded, and then tapered off to a nominal HP increase at higher levels. This is a pretty good example of a houserule that seems okay unless you've actually looked at some of the math behind the game.
3) humans don't get a +2 to any 1 stat...instead they get a bonus 1st level encounter power of there class
What, does he just not like humans?! Humans are already regarded as one of the most unfortunately underpowered races in the game, as "+2 to any stat" is a strictly worse deal than picking one of the "+2 to two stats" races, a bonus at-will is on par with or strictly worse than all of the other races' powers, and the bonus feat has depreciated considerably from 3.X. Scrapping the +2 basically allows them to get an extra 1st level power that will rarely hit (thanks to having a net -4 to abilities versus EVERY RACE) and will stop being useful early in the game.
It's a shame, actually, because "+2 to any one stat" actually becomes somewhat more appealing given the rolling scheme the DM was proposing, bringing humans nearly even with the next weakest race.
4) Elves lose accuracy power for a power that when they are charged they can shift equal to ther dex mod
Elven accuracy is admittedly a rather potent power, but to be perfectly frank, the power that your DM wants to replace it with is pretty weak sauce. It's extremely situational, as charging isn't a combat maneuver that sees nearly as much use in this edition, and most monsters for whom charging *is* an integral maneuver actually have a slightly different power unique to that monster that isn't really charging. Because NPCs are different from PCs and use different rules.
If your DM is looking to change Elven Accuracy for some reason, ("too potent" is a decent one, while "too metagame-ey," another one that gets tossed around a lot isn't, as it would require a re-write of about a dozen other powers, as well) he's better off coming up with a better power. Racial powers tend to be at least somewhat potent, and vastly more general-usage than this power.
5) no Dragonborn
Meh, It's DM's Perogative to change, get rid of, or add starting races, but it's worth pointing out to him that Dragonborn are the only full race with +2 strength in the game (*especially* since he already nixed humans' +2 to any stat), meaning that getting rid of them is particularly hard on Strength-reliant classes like Fighter, and it might be reasonable to replace them with something else. Not that I'd have too much faith in this DM's homebrewing abilities, given how consequential some of his houserules are, and how overlooked that seems.
6) Dwarven weapon traning and eladrin soldier give no extra profecencies
I haven't seen anything suggesting that these feats were overpowered, especially relative to other racials; wouldn't a nerf end up making them sub-par?
7) elemental weapons all add ongoing 2xteir (save ends) to there properties
Turns elemental weapons from par for their level to extremely overpowered; ongoing damage, at will?
8) if your prime stat is a 16+ you gain +10% xp
Ordinarily, this rewards min-maxing. In this case, though, it's just rewarding luck: given the rolling scheme, which characters get to progress faster and which are left behind is an arbitrary function of who rolled what stats where. No, this is terrible, and has no effect except to expand the disparity between player abilities that's already inherent in any stat-rolling scheme.
Furthermore, it never made much sense from an RP perspective: you're stronger, so you learn better from the same encounters, which happen to be slightly easier for you (i.e, less of a challenge) because you're stronger? The fact that you're better at what you do is already represented by the fact that YOU HAVE A HIGHER STAT AND THEREFORE HAVE AN EASIER TIME BEATING THE SAME CHALLENGES. At best, this is double-dipping, and at worst, if we *really* wanted to go for "realism", you should get *less* experience, since each encounter is less of a learning experience for you. There's a reason this rule was discarded two editions ago.
9) If you take the first multi class feat you can swap powers for each class...no power swap feats needed
Pretty damn powerful. Makes a lot of the other nerfs make less sense in context.
10) everyone gets seprate XP...you only get XP if you fight a monster (Engage in some way)
Arbitrary penalty to dedicated healers, along with many other classes, and an arbitrary bonus to Wizards and any other controller that comes along. It's not terribly uncommon for the rest of the party to spend an encounter hammering at one or two hard targets, while the party Wizard deals some damage to each and every monster on the board. Basically, you're guaranteed not to see any character that isn't the Wizard get full XP for an enccounter.
Oh, Oh, and for bonus points, who ends up succeeding on more of their attacks, at the end of the day? Oh, yes, it's those guys who happen to have rolled higher stats in their primary ability on day 1. Hey, let's arbitrarily give them even *more* XP for the same encounters, why don't we?
11) no epic at all he will end pre 20
NBD
12) everyone gains a bonus racel feat at 1st, 5th and 10th level
That's actually not a bad idea. Too bad elves have no racial feats to speak of, any more, thanks to the rewrite of their power.
13) Sheilds can have magical pluses...
Obviates the need for armor, and unless monsters are modified accordingly, stacking armor and shield bonuses render PCs practically unhittable fairly early on. Worse yet, all the shield proficiency feats require considerably higher than average stats as prerequisites, once again calling attention to the rolling scheme. Once again, this affords a *huge* reward to players who got some lucky rolls on day one, and conversely, punishes characters who weren't quite as lucky by widening the party gap.
Honestly, given the sheer preponderance of houserules like this, I'm guessing he's never actually had the pleasure of trying to build encounters for a group with wildly disparate abilities. The experience alone is enough to encourage you to avoid widening any gaps within the party further. My best friend once got stuck Dming a 3.5 game with several characters that were *decent*, but not particularly optimized, a wizard who stuck to blasty spells so that he didn't need to pay attention to what he was preparing (but who didn't want to play a Sorcerer, for some reason), and a Monk who made Charisma and Intelligence his highest stats and was *surprised* when this somehow made him ineffective in combat. And when his 8 in Con meant he wilted like a flower. I can't actually repeat in this forum some of the things he said about the experience of trying to design encounters that would challenge the rest of the party without killing that last guy, outright.
14) half elf are changed to half eladrin...changing there duil heratige to fit
15) Good alignments only
meh
16) start 3rd level, but with 1st level starting money
the guy above me said it best:
And how is the DM planning to compensate for this unbalancing change? By applying his intimate knowledge of the system?
17) roll ability scores...3d6 reroll ones place as you get them... can choose 2 scores and swap them...
And, finally, the big tamale. I'll approach this from two directions: the effect on gameplay qua gameplay, and the effect on the RP elements of the game.
First, gameplay:
Crappy, crappy rule. As I mentioned above in 2,8, 10, and 13 (though, this also applies to 9), this completely screws up the party balance. The houserules for shields and multiclassing guarantee that a player who rolls well will *breeze* through encounters designed around the rest of the party, while the XP houserules guarantee that the same player will gain XP at roughly twice the rate of the other players (since more of his attacks will be dramatically more successful, and he automatically gets a +10% kicker on top of that.) There's a siginificant(0.12 for each player, out of a group of 5 players=> a 60% chance per group) chance that at least one player will end up with no stat above *12* by the original rule proposed, and even this scheme doesn't increase that chance considerably. Basically, odds are, you'll get at least one frustrated player, and a huge disparity between players' abilities pretty early into the game. Expect encounters to be either invariably lethal, or a cakewalk, depending on which one you are. (As an aside, I suspect that this is a big part of why sudden and random death was so ubqiuitous in early D&D: crummy rolling schemes like this lead to huge party disparities, which lead to dead PCs who re-rolled stats and hoped for the best. Basicially, arbitrary death and arbitrary stats that dealt out penalties for bad luck fed on each other in a sort of symbiosis, which lead to a halfway functional game, if you didn't mind not naming your character until level 3, especially if you rolled poorly.
Second, there's the RP end. I'm sorry, but even though the 2e PHB devoted a good page or so to consoling unlucky players, "don't worry, character stats may be crappy, but you can still have "personality"!, it's not especially true that rolled stats lead to better RP. In fact, since the *entire* point of RP is to take a fantasy character and project yourself into its life, and as the player control what it does, how it reacts, and so on, the fact that what your character does for a living and how much effort he devotes to varions aspects of his being is decided on a completely *random* basis effectively kills that. Under this rule, you have no real agency in *what* your character is, what his backstory is, what his skills are, how he fits into the party, or really anything else. The dice decide that for you. I'm sorry, I kow you wanted to play a travelling acrobat, but you rolled a 6 in Dex. You'll have to be a Paladin, instead. What's that, you wanted to play a crusading holy warrior that's especially suspicious of arcane spellcasters? Well, not with an 8 in each of Cha, Wis, and Strength, you're not. How about playing a Wizard, instead?
Character generation is perhaps the single most important aspect of the "RP" side of this game, and it's *highly* important that players have agency in deciding what they play. Moreso due to some of the gameplay issues of 4e, as the party roles are highly emphasized, and while an umbalanced party will still *manage*, with a struggle, in the unhouseruled game, with a DM who knows what he's doing and can adjust the encounters accordingly, it's still not the suggested way of going about things when possible.
Basically, rolled stats are generally not a good idea. Rolled stats that average to a lower point buy than the suggested one for the game? Generally a worse idea, and one made even *worse* by applying additional houserules that give extra goodies to anyone with a high stat. Rolled stats with an extremely low average, coupled with arbitrary assignment *of* those rolls to stats, that accordingly strip players of all agency in deciding what to play or what the party makeup ends up being? Quite possibly the worst idea ever.
It's cool that you don't want Dragonborn, but what if I want to play a strong and charismatic human who was experimented on by his alchemist uncle as a child, thus giving him the strange ability to burp up some of his excess stomach acid every so often?
I know you're just making one example, but I'd say that one is no different from asking for your character to be born with wings and laser eyes. No dragonborn = no dragonborn, not "dragonborn by any other name", else I'd refluff the race.
But really, what's the worst that will happen? You'll spend a few sessions hanging out with your friends & playing a game (or version of a game) you discover you don't like. And then you agree to play something else.
Guess what? That's happening every day. People play 4e & decide to switch.
But the reason they won't like this version of the game (4E) is because in this instance it is not 4E. It's some slap-dash game a guy threw together. The OP couldn't be able to judge wether he liked 4E based on this mess. It's like saying I could decide wether or not I like spaghetti if you replaced the sauce with acid and the noodles with high-voltage power cords.
I think we do disagree. I believe a DM should be as accommodating of his players as reasonably possible. If a DM thinks Dragonborn are overpowered (and understands the system well), he's justified in nerfing them. If he personally doesn't like them mechanically, he should still allow his players to play them if they want to.
If a DM who personally doesn't like Dragonborn for fluff reasons--
1. Designs a world in which dragons have been dead for a million years and anything related to them is extremely powerful, then outlawing Dragonborn is reasonable. But if a player really wants to play a Dragonborn for mechanical reasons the DM should work with him to refluff the race, whether that means designing an entirely new race with traits similar to those of Dragonborn or allowing a unique exception (ala Fenris' suggestion).
2. Designs a world in which there are no Dragonborn for no particular reason, that's fine. But if a player really wants to play a Dragonborn for fluff reasons, the DM should write them in.
As for house rules in general, I have a very minimalistic approach. If a DM believes something is overpowered--and he clearly understands the system well--he's justified in nerfing it. But house rules, especially those unrelated to campaign settings and fluff and the like, should only be implemented for very specific reasons and agreed upon by everyone in the group. Laundry lists of house rules are just a pain.
I know you're just making one example, but I'd say that one is no different from asking for your character to be born with wings and laser eyes. No dragonborn = no dragonborn, not "dragonborn by any other name", else I'd refluff the race.
So why not refluff the race? You said the problem with Dragonborn wasn't mechanical, and I can perfectly understand not wanting a bunch of Dragon people walking around, but they do fill a niche of the proud warrior race and they're the only race in the PHB that has a bonus to strength.
From a purely mechanical perspective, I don't see any reason to get rid of them, even if your world has no Dragonborn (or even no dragos). They can be extraplanar Orcs, alcehemically made super soldiers, advance soldiers for the Primordials, a race of men with a direct connection to some kind of Arcane power source, etc.
Of course your counter-example doesn't really make any sense to me either. What's wrong with a player being born with wings and shoots lasers out of his eyes? I mean, if he's refluffing a race that has wings and a racial ranged attack and the race is roughly on par with the rest with every other race, I don't see an issue. All I see are story hooks.
15) Good alignments only
- nothing out of the ordinary here
Not in 3.x, but in 4th edition the assumption is that most people are unaligned. Good means actively practicing good acts (helping the poor, saving the oppressed etc.) Most of the characters in previous editions which were CG or NG would count as unaligned, as would a fair number of those considered LE or even NE.
15's the only decent house rule on that whole list.
Not really. Given 4th edition's alignment system, it requires everyone to run a saintly character. Characters that are just decent are now "unaligned".
Not really. Given 4th edition's alignment system, it requires everyone to run a saintly character. Characters that are just decent are now "unaligned".
yes...he want good characters...that we go out of our way to help...that is part of his concept...
Requiring good characters, just makes it easier on the DM. The hope is the party won't try and kill itself, but will work towards whatever the daily good deed is.
Race restrictions, are usually to flavor their world. Even if the reason for the flavoring is just that he doesn't like the race. Which is fine, I'd rather have this information up front, then creating a character that the DM doesn't like just because of his race. I have one GM that I would never think of playing a halfling in his campaigns... Though I have played one as a character when he was a character as well, and that was fun. :D
Not in 3.x, but in 4th edition the assumption is that most people are unaligned. Good means actively practicing good acts (helping the poor, saving the oppressed etc.) Most of the characters in previous editions which were CG or NG would count as unaligned, as would a fair number of those considered LE or even NE.
Umm, no? Most of CG and NG gets lumped into Good, with Unaligned largely comprising the neutral alignments. Yes, the assumption is that most people are unaligned, but that's effectivel the same as 3e's assumption that most people- or, at least, a plurality- were neutral. If you read the description of Good, it reads pretty darn similar to how CG read in 3e. Actively taking risks and making sacrifices to help others was part of the definition of "Good" back *then*, as well.
So why not refluff the race? You said the problem with Dragonborn wasn't mechanical, and I can perfectly understand not wanting a bunch of Dragon people walking around, but they do fill a niche of the proud warrior race and they're the only race in the PHB that has a bonus to strength.
I didn't quite say that the problem wasn't mechanical. I said "I removed them for no reason besides not liking them, mostly in terms of flavour". I then went on to say that since then I've been glad about the decision: I feel dragonborn are quite head-and-shoulders above the other races in terms of racial abilities, based on seeing them in other games. It was just not a factor at the time I banned them.
Banning dragonborn doesn't mean imbalancing the game. I just made a different race of humanoids with frost-resistance related abilities and a Str and Wis bonus. They're semigiant tribals that live in the mountains. They fill the same gap, but are mechanically and fluffily completely different.
From a purely mechanical perspective, I don't see any reason to get rid of them, even if your world has no Dragonborn (or even no dragos). They can be extraplanar Orcs, alcehemically made super soldiers, advance soldiers for the Primordials, a race of men with a direct connection to some kind of Arcane power source, etc.
Any refluffed race is still going to be breathing elemental breath and stuff like that. It's still going to feel very similar. The only difference is in the description of how the character looks.
Of course your counter-example doesn't really make any sense to me either. What's wrong with a player being born with wings and shoots lasers out of his eyes? I mean, if he's refluffing a race that has wings and a racial ranged attack and the race is roughly on par with the rest with every other race, I don't see an issue. All I see are story hooks.
... perhaps the point was missed. A player can ask for anything they want; that doesn't obligate me as the GM to allow it into my game world. If I don't want a playable race with a breath weapon (as an example), I should not feel obligated to include one in my world because a player came up with a fluffy reason for it. I don't discourage my players from making up backstories, and do give bonuses related to them from time to time, but I don't appreciate them using the backstories as an attempt to include something I have specifically removed from my game.
Perhaps my attitude is slightly harsher than it needs to be, since none of my players ever wanted to play a dragonborn and now the world has been fully conceived and built without any inclusion of them. At this stage adding in something like that would seriously screw with the cosmology.
I feel dragonborn are quite head-and-shoulders above the other races in terms of racial abilities, based on seeing them in other games. It was just not a factor at the time I banned them.
I find that surprising, actually; most people generally regard Elves' mix of racial power and smaller racial bonuses as the most potent in the game; The ability to do weak elemental damage as a minor action has hardly struck me as game-breaking, either in theory or in practice. Getting a Con mod bonus to healing surge values is nice, but I'd hardly say that it does more for durability than Dwarves' minor-action Second Wind does. Taken in toto, their racial power as good, but not really any better than, Dwarves when it comes to being Fighters, and more or less run-of-the-mill for most other classes.
What makes you think that Dragonborn are overpowered? I've seriously never heard this one before.
Before you argue with me note that I have heard this and don't subscribe to this ideal, these are just the arguements voiced to me. I personally find dragonborn funny since they were, i feel, put in there for all the 15 year olds that want to play a dragon. My reasoning for this? look at the Play a ______ if you want to sections for each race
Dwarfs: Be tough, gruff and strong
Elves: Be Quick quiet and wild.
Teiflings: Be a hero with a dark side to overcome
... Play a Dragonborn if you want to
Look like a Dragon.
They're the only race that has that... you don't have play an elf if you want to: look like an elf. Or play a Teifling if you want to look like a Demon, or even play a halfling if you want to be really freaking short.
My players are almost universally kick-down-the-door players, favouring charging and smashing to planned tactics. In that kind of a group, a combat-built race like dragonborn are so much more effective than the other options as to be ridiculous. Your mileage may (and clearly does) vary; I'd say it's because of the groups you work with. I'm not asking for an errata here, I'm justifying my house rule for my own group.
Regarding elves being more overpowered than dragonborn, I've commented that I find them a bit too potent a couple times in this thread. That's why I don't think, in itself, removing Elven Accuracy is a bad change (but I doubt this GM knows the system well enough to make new feats with the charge/shift ability as a requirement).
Feh, Elves are *good*, but I'm actually not terribly sold on them being "overpowered," per se: they're right behind Halflings for Rogues, bar none best for Rangers, pretty good as Wizards and Cerics, and sub-optimal for Fighters, Warlocks, and Paladins, with the exception of a handful of builds. Better than most, but they still fail to edge out the other races outside of their niche. Personally, I haven't any problems with any of the races as-written (well, except humans and tieflings, which are rather underpowered); I was just a little surprised by Dragonborn being singled out as overpowered; they're solid at a number of things, but I've never really heard anyone argue that they really stood out, mechanically, as a race.
My players are almost universally kick-down-the-door players, favouring charging and smashing to planned tactics. In that kind of a group, a combat-built race like dragonborn are so much more effective than the other options as to be ridiculous. Your mileage may (and clearly does) vary; I'd say it's because of the groups you work with. I'm not asking for an errata here, I'm justifying my house rule for my own group.
I suppose that does make some sense. I played a Dragonborn rogue, and it was a decent, albeit *very* non-optimal choice. The Dragonbreath really only saw use as the occasional damage kicker or minion-clearer or the-other-PCs-are-dropping-zones-and-I-can't-see-the-enemies-any-more power, and I barely had a positive modifier to Con, so the other ability saw little use. OTOH, I *do* see where the ability to mass-mark with Dragonbreath could be useful for, say, the Fighter, but that's also the class that makes Dwarves' Second Wind and immovable-ness equalling appealing, too. The stats fit the Paladin better, but that also makes the Dragonbreath less useful. ::shrugs::
