http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1067230
How would you feel about your character having efectively half HP?
do you feel that monsters have too many HP?
do you think that Combat takes too long and you would want more (rules, thats it) for RolePlay?
this is the base:
BLOODIED status:
+when hit while bloodied you fall prone
+you can't charge or run
+you take a -2 penalty to all attacks & skill checks
+while bloodied you can't spend healing surges on your own (you need someone else to activate your healing surges)
+ bloodied mosters could count as defeated (depending on the monster)
(dragonborn and other would keep fighting)
this would give in for the diference of actually killing something and defeating it
it would give more importance to the bloodied value and the use of the second wind as a tactical resource
EDITED:
changed the healing surges idea
That rule heavily favors the monsters, and makes a lot of abilities less attractive such as Tiefling and Dragonborn racial abilities that are keyed off being bloodied or having a bloodied opponent... no point in having those abilities if enemies are "defeated" at the point of being bloodied.
As noted, too many effects are keyed to the Bloodied condition to simply rule a bloodied foe "defeated".
I don't understand the "effectively half HP" comment. Each PC starts with full HP, right? You're simply not allowing them to fully heal via spending healing surges between encounters OR to heal past their bloodied value using things like Healing Word?
You realize that the new healing rules are a Very Good Thing, and that this concept is a major core assumption of the game's balance?
Bloodied is a tactical condition, and deciding when to use your Second Wind is a tactical decision. But disallowing the use of Healing Word and healing potions?! Sorry... that's like telling a 3.5 cleric he can't spontaneously cast a Cure spell, or telling a 3.5 rogue he can't quaff a potion of healing.
Let's break out the standard house rule litmus test:
Will the use of these rules increase the amount of fun experienced by everyone at the game table?
I say no, it would not. I know I wouldn't play at this table.
A better way to shorten combat is to have everyone 1) know what they're doing, and 2) pay attention & stay focused.
I find the things that waste time the most are when people's attention wanders off and they goof around instead of thinking about what's happening on the table right now - and when they simply don't know even the basics of how the mechanics in combat work. The need to make a cheat sheet and power cards so they don't have to go look-up and refigure their attacks each time as if they'd never done it before. The need to not wait until their turn comes up to even consider what they're going to do.
I'm not saying make it gosh-awful work - just put a bit more effort into getting the mechanical part 2nd nature and smooth.
Hammergun time would ensue very quickly at most tables if this was proposed.
note: any time I think of a house rule, I think of it as "what would I do where I at the table with this DM?"
I would say "Give me that screen and make a character, I'm running this show now, and we are playing by the book."
Let's break out the standard house rule litmus test:
Will the use of these rules increase the amount of fun experienced by everyone at the game table?
I say no, it would not. I know I wouldn't play at this table.
To be fair, his impetus behind such a rule - making combat go faster - would increase the amount of fun for players (well, most anyway). However, I agree this attempt is doomed to failure.
There's too much based off the bloodied condition - at the least you'd have to re-calculate everyone's new bloodied state from their half-hp totals, and honestly I don't even think that will keep it balanced.
Cal-ViGu said it best - at this early stage it's best to just make sure everyone's focused. Long combats may be a problem, but there just hasn't been enough play-testing of 4e to make such a drastic change and expect it to work.
This is the type of rule that I typically respond to the DM with "Run by the book or I'm not playing."
That rule heavily favors the monsters, and makes a lot of abilities less attractive such as Tiefling and Dragonborn racial abilities that are keyed off being bloodied or having a bloodied opponent... no point in having those abilities if enemies are "defeated" at the point of being bloodied.
Agreed.
Sorry, hate it.
If you want combats to be faster and deadlier, you could just flip a coin and the losing side wipes.
If you don't want monsters to die at 0 hit points, then they don't die at 0 hit points. You can roll death saves for them if you want or just give them like 5 rounds before dying. For story reasons, they are alive as long as the players make an effort to heal them ASAP.
Keep in mind that the "killing blow" can be chosen to actually just knock the enemy out rather than killing it, and an enemy could surrender or flee at any point during a fight; you aren't forced to have them all fight to the death.
Repeat, until you and your players are all comfortable with the rules and things go smoothly. Give your players something for participating... maybe not full XP from all the battles, but something nice, say experience for two or three encounters and a couple treasure parcels.
second: I know this would change a lot of things in the game, but I dont see how a +1 to hit is so much more atractive than an efective +3 to hit (for dragonborn)
as a matter of fact this houserule is beeing designed for the DM that runs one of our games, Im the pally and I tank solo so... believe me I wouldnt be the happiest here, but he seems to be soooo damn anoyed by the healing surges concept...
and I understand that the most general answer (lemme DM) looks like the most appropiate, Im usualy the DM and he is playing for two othe groups in a big campaign of his, but he hasnt taken the screen since 2e (overwhelmed by 3e) and I apreciate that he takes it
Just another question....
as a player? what bothers you if the monsters take 10 in everything?
I see that it is the same if you beat his attack or if he beats your defense...
besides I dont have to tell you "yes, he rolled over your pasive perception, he sneaks past you" you can see you failed... or succeded
and during combat you would be much more present... I have to answer a lot "no, you cant roll anything to avoid beeing hit, he rolled hig, eat your dmg"
what bothers you if the monsters take 10 in everything?
I see that it is the same if you beat his attack or if he beats your defense...
Because in the case that the monster is not rolling to hit and I'm not rolling to defend, all he has to do is miss me once and I will know he'll never hit me, so I won't be afraid of him or careful about him at all. Provoking OAs? Who cares, it's not like it'll hit me. On the flip side, and more importantly, all he has to do is hit me once, and I can be sure that he will hit me every subsequent time he attacks me.
If no rolling is happening, then the effect of the attack remains constant and reliable, and this is bad. D&D battles shouldn't be so predictable.
second: I know this would change a lot of things in the game, but I dont see how a +1 to hit is so much more atractive than an efective +3 to hit (for dragonborn)
It's not a +1 to hit vs a +3 to hit. It's a +1 to hit without taking a bunch of sucking vs a +3 to hit with a bunch of sucking. I'll take the one that involves not sucking, thanks.
as a player? what bothers you if the monsters take 10 in everything?
What's the difference between being hit 55% of the time vs being hit 100% of the time?
Not everyone's going to like 4e's abundant nonmagical healing, nor are they going to like D&D's tradition of no wound penalties. This doesn't make them a bad DM, just a DM that's going to have a lot of work ahead if they want to turn D&D into a system they can enjoy.
Fact of the matter is, 4e's healing surges and bloodied value come part-n'-parcel with the rest of the rules. If you try a "quick fix" like this it's doomed to failure. The best idea is to try and either find a fluff way to rationalize it (maybe every PC is trained in a little healing magic that's just inherent to the setting - enough to use surges) and run enough fights with your PCs that they get quicker at it.
If your DM really feels they have to remove surges and apply penalties when bloodied, let them know that it's going to seriously mess with things (for example, bonuses on attack are rare in 4e, and penalties even more so - thus a -2 is more brutal than in previous editions).
Because in the case that the monster is not rolling to hit and I'm not rolling to defend, all he has to do is miss me once and I will know he'll never hit me, so I won't be afraid of him or careful about him at all. Provoking OAs? Who cares, it's not like it'll hit me. On the flip side, and more importantly, all he has to do is hit me once, and I can be sure that he will hit me every subsequent time he attacks me.
If no rolling is happening, then the effect of the attack remains constant and reliable, and this is bad. D&D battles shouldn't be so predictable.
What's the difference between being hit 55% of the time vs being hit 100% of the time?
Im sorry, no you have it wrong, with that idea, if your RAW AC was 21, its now11+1d20
YOU ARE ROLING AGAINST THE ATACKS!!!!
My understanding of the rulens and changes in the rules do cover the fact that dice need to be rolled in order to have random hits.... for chaimail's sake, some of my houserules might be awful but not THAT blind
the question is what would bother you "not take 10 when defending" not just have autodefense or autoimpact!!
also, the main problem sees to come fron the "you cant heal" rule whow if I just blow that part?
If you keep the healing surges that may solve the lion's share of the problem, but the defeated-at-bloodied thing still causes worry. There are just too many monsters and PCs with abilities keyed off of themselves or an opponent getting bloodied. Like I said, at the least you'll want to just halve everyone's hp and recalculate their bloodied status for the new total - but there is no guarantee this will work out for you. For example, monsters with really brutal damage-dealing ability will be more likely to drop a PC (of course the same is true for the PCs). Powers that work off losing or gaining a specific number of hit points (like healing surge-boosting stuff, or the blood mage pp abilities) will fluctuate in strength.
It would be an interesting experiment, though.
and yes, I refered to the defensive roll from 3e's Unearthed Arcana
now, the diference between a dragon, a dragonborn (would keep fighting frenzied to death or it would be something special if they dont)
creatures that have bloodied efects would keep fighting a little longer, and that would make it special
if you just cut in half the HP (that has been suggested before and that's what made me think on change the bloodied effect just halve the life wasnt enough, besides you have to recalculate, where my system doesnt require to write down anything) damage would mean a lot and you wouldnt have the other half to compensate
EDIT: I would never actually use this rule, but its probably better and more effective than this proposed houserule. :D
If you want the PCs to kill things a bit quicker, then a houserule that gives them a +1 bonus to damage rolls every 2 levels may be a good way to do it. It's not incredibly high, so there's less chance of it unbalancing things and it makes damage symmetric with skill checks and attack rolls, so it's relatively simple.
I think monster damage is just about right. If you increase it any more, it can be a lot more deadly to the PCs.
If you want the PCs to kill things a bit quicker, then a houserule that gives them a +1 bonus to damage rolls every 2 levels may be a good way to do it. It's not incredibly high, so there's less chance of it unbalancing things and it makes damage symmetric with skill checks and attack rolls, so it's relatively simple.
I thought on that one before, its easy (just use the column on the right for Ab.Mods), gives some beef to the players... but it is just more powergame, if all houserrules are made so that the game is easier and easier... it looses the feeling of Rplaying.. doesnt it?
Im playing now a campaign (WoD) where we are powerless humans and the enemy are damn freakin' Vampires full of powers and we can do nothing but runing or try to survive and it is beeing one of the funiest campaigns we are playing
sometimes I want to play/run one of those campaigns where you are the hero, but etting to it hurts, sometimes its too much to just camping in the dungeons and smashing some skulls, there are videogames for that...
OK so the actual houserule thread is overhere for discussion:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1067230
How would you feel about your character having efectively half HP?
do you feel that monsters have too many HP?
do you think that Combat takes too long and you would want more (rules, thats it) for RolePlay?
this is the base:
BLOODIED status:
+when hit while bloodied you fall prone
+you can't charge or run
+you take a -2 penalty to all attacks & skill checks
+while bloodied you can't spend healing surges on your own (you need someone else to activate your healing surges)
+ bloodied mosters could count as defeated (depending on the monster)
(dragonborn and other would keep fighting)
this would give in for the diference of actually killing something and defeating it
it would give more importance to the bloodied value and the use of the second wind as a tactical resource
EDITED:
changed the healing surges idea
It looks like an interesting set of rules for a grittier, higher-stakes-in-combat game. Is that the sort of game you want to play?
I remember when I was playing the HERO System that they came up with a rules subset for "street-level" games, where being hurt had more severe consequences. It reflected a non-superheroes genre. Getting shot really hurt and disadvantages you in all sorts of ways. Entirely bogs down a superhero game not only with book-keeping but with it being out of genre. The key is GENRE. What sort of game do you want to play? Compare that with what sort of game your DM wants to run.
These house rules have a certain intent that leads to a certain flavour in gameplay. Obviously a non-heroic/non-cinematic sort of game when it comes to combat. It's harder to get into the spirit if you come to the game looking for a more cinematic experience. It really works only if everyone wants to play that kind of game.
How would you feel with this hoserule as a player?
I would get the feeling that the DM doesn't want to play D&D 4e at all, because he's trying to make the system do something it's not ment to do. If the DM really wanted these elements to be a part of combat I would suggest that we play another system altogether.
It looks like an interesting set of rules for a grittier, higher-stakes-in-combat game. Is that the sort of game you want to play?
If it is, then this type of house ruling isn't the way to do it. There are plenty of other systems that accomplishes it much more effectively.
But it strikes me that you're relying too much on making a global mechanic change for something that really should just be a case by case decision. I think it makes things far more interesting to look at the situation you've planned out and figure out if fighting to the death is appropriate in that situation rather than be forced into "well this monster has bloodied effects so he'll keep going".
This also ties into making the combats more interesting in general by making them be about more than walking bags of XP with no motivations. Get in the heads of your bad guys and figure out if they're brave or cowardly, have a lot to live for or have nothing to lose, or whatever, and then make their actions reflect that.
As a player, I'd far rather end up having to chase after the bad guy, or have him live to fight another day, because it made sense for his actions, than to simply be faced with a completely arbitrary situation that was determined by his statblock and had nothing to do with the story.
As a DM, then I'm free to make some goblins (for example) cowardly and that will surrender begging for mercy or simply flee, but I can also have the party run up against fanatical ones that will fight to the last man, and it's purely based on what I feel is appropriate.
In terms of speeding up combat, I'd say get the players more comfortable with the rules as a better starting point. If they spend too long coming up with actions (and are familiar with them) then go for a time limit on their turns. Or, if you're finding combat takes too long and is boring your players then de-emphasize combat.
but seriously just learn the rules and combat can go fast.
AAAGGGGGHHHHH IT BURNS US!!!!!
but seriously just learn the rules and combat can go fast.
Holy thread-omancy, Batman!
AAAGGGGGHHHHH IT BURNS US!!!!!
but seriously just learn the rules and combat can go fast.
Agreed.
1st level encounters may seem to take a bit longer - but that's becuase they're really equivalent to a 5th level encounter in previous editions (in terms of the capabilities of the players and their foes). Once your group is comfortable with the rules, it plays pretty fast.
They are better than other people, when others can't go on at a bloodied value, the hero still does even though he knows he is close to death. He doesn't get knocked down whenever he is hit, he is a hero.
I come from Traveller where a PC only has an average of 21 hit points, they don't often increase at ALL, and the average weapon does 5d6 or 6d6 in one shot.
Prepare slings and arrows, detractors.