4e Fan Creations and House RulesWorking on variant powers? Statting up a PC race or your version of a monster? Creating or converting an adventure? Put it here!
I don't actively like any of these HRs, but I'd give your game a shot if we met in person.
He might have to be really liberal with improvisational maneuvering ie page 42 and let my Wizard do improvisational spell attacks since the warriors are all allowed to do it... oooops, guess that isnt on his list. No don't think I would even give it a shot, oiling up the crossbow restringing it, bang. is this the reason I chose a wizard for my character?
The only character type this is loyal to the flavor of is a Warrior. It hangs the wizard/sorceror/druid etc out to dry. Nothing prevents one from using the at-will powers to do unusual things ie invoking page 42 effects.
Im going to slow down the rising of the wall of fire (scorching burst) just a little so they have time to back out of the area its rising just in front of there feet.. that pit behind them might look comfortable in comparison can I make an intimidation roll? I guess they can stand and take the damage or dive for it.
Nothing prevents one from using the at-will powers to do unusual things ie invoking page 42 effects.
Well, characters no longer have any at-will powers, so that would certainly "prevent them" from using it the way you describe. Presumably you mean "basic attacks" here.
But in any case, why would it be harder for a wizard to use page 42 than for a martial character to? Since you get to use your highest stat for basic attacks, your basic attacks are just as powerful as anyone else's, plus you have cantrips that you can use for improvisational effects.
Since you get to use your highest stat for basic attacks, your basic attacks are just as powerful as anyone else's
It is not a question power... Basic attacks are all martial in flavor and funtion... I can improvise a nice crossbow shot with my so called wizard
using "Sadrik's neuter the wizard druid warlock rules."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex319
, plus you have cantrips that you can use for improvisational effects.
Unlike all the martial classes moves that are improviseable
(which may or may not do a little less damage)
cantrips let me improvise with something which intrinsically
never does damage (nor in RAW has actual combat benefit)
Without some basic arcane attack or ranged arcane attack or basic arcane burst area attack or similar defined wizards are either left resorting to martial flavor or making pretties on the wall.
Do note that there's another feat in Arcane Power that does something similar (the curse lasts until you use it to deal extra damage once). If you don't use Arcane Power, it should be alright, though.
No I was not aware of that feat. Since the at-will becomes a 2d10 encounter power, I don't want to give them that.
Perhaps, the feat should allow them to curse someone for the boon bonus when they die but this curse offers no bonus damage to the target this would be 1/encounter.
Actually I like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireLance
Using a daily power is satisfying, but using an action point well provides a different (though not necessarily better) type of satisfaction, e.g. using one power to cluster your enemies together nicely, and then using an action point to attack them all with an area effect power. The current system allows me to enjoy both types of satisfaction.
I agree the one round haste, is very powerful and can give you a leg up tactically when needed, no argument there. In the case of the game feel that I am going for I think that it is more important for the APs to have a different meaning. I don't want the players to struggle over the choice of burning an AP to haste or burning it to recall a daily. In this case I think thematically it should be limited to the Dailies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireLance
Problem is, you might end up short-changing Wisdom. Perhaps a better approach might be to have Dungeoneering, Heal, Nature and Religion to use the better of Intelligence or Wisdom?
Ah, see I think that WIS based skills get called for all the time (Insight and Perception) and INT based skills rarely get called for as much, this may be dependant on the game. But from my many years of gaming the most called for skill check is a perception type check. So to *balance* the stats skills I would move the "knowledge" skills under one roof. And I understand YMMV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireLance
While I can't think of anything that is truly game breaking offhand, there are epic feats in Martial Power that allow a warlord to affect two targets with inspiring word instead of one, and which allow a character with a martial class to use second wind twice in one encounter (really good for dwarves). This effectively doubles the healing output of such characters and may require the DM to increase the challenge level at the heroic tier in order to keep fights interesting.
I fundamentally believe in the sandbox approach to gaming and giving a minor leg up from accessing 21st level feats at 1st level so be it. The sandbox is out there and they can go play with those tough monsters, if they want...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireLance
So, wouldn't a simpler approach be to allow a character with proficiency in the greatsword to use a bastard sword as a greatsword (i.e. it becomes a two-handed weapon and loses the versatile property)?
I have opted to remove my superior weapons as military weapons rules. It just leads to confusion at no new play style or true diversity of options gained. Additionally I know there are new weapons out there that I have not seen yet in AV and this rule might not balance right with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garthanos
He might have to be really liberal with improvisational maneuvering ie page 42 and let my Wizard do improvisational spell attacks since the warriors are all allowed to do it... oooops, guess that isnt on his list. No don't think I would even give it a shot, oiling up the crossbow restringing it, bang. is this the reason I chose a wizard for my character?
I added in the feat that I spoke about in another thread. I'll edit my initial post with the updates. Essentially, it allows an arcane class to get a 1d8 ranged 20 basic attack that uses their prime stat. In this way arcane characters can at-will do a minor [W] like attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garthanos
The only character type this is loyal to the flavor of is a Warrior. It hangs the wizard/sorceror/druid etc out to dry. Nothing prevents one from using the at-will powers to do unusual things ie invoking page 42 effects.
This is true, but the descriptions of the powers often get in the way of page 42 effects and yes I know the descriptions have no effect on game play (and that is too bad btw).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex319
But in any case, why would it be harder for a wizard to use page 42 than for a martial character to? Since you get to use your highest stat for basic attacks, your basic attacks are just as powerful as anyone else's, plus you have cantrips that you can use for improvisational effects.
Basic attacks are effective in this version, now Gandalf can fight with his smarts and Aragorn can fight with his strength and Frodo with his quickness. It is all good, the game should not suffer because of poorly placed stats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garthanos
It is not a question power... Basic attacks are all martial in flavor and funtion... I can improvise a nice crossbow shot with my so called wizard
using "Sadrik's neuter the wizard druid warlock rules."
Unlike all the martial classes moves that are improviseable
(which may or may not do a little less damage)
cantrips let me improvise with something which intrinsically
never does damage (nor in RAW has actual combat benefit)
Without some basic arcane attack or ranged arcane attack or basic arcane burst area attack or similar defined wizards are either left resorting to martial flavor or making pretties on the wall.
I would not define them as, "Sadrik's neuter the wizard druid warlock rules" See my edited first post and see how that sits with you.
I added in the feat that I spoke about in another thread. I'll edit my initial post with the updates. Essentially, it allows an arcane class to get a 1d8 ranged 20 basic attack that uses their prime stat. In this way arcane characters can at-will do a minor [W] like attack.
Much better, my Swordmage can do some interesting things with that.
slice from a distance, or cutting the air or throwing the blade in a spinning swirl and comes back to you.
Your feat could be named Battle magic.
I think your feat needs to enable chosing a damage type when you take it. We can look at metamagic feats which are similar to weapon proficiencies ;-).
Anybody who thought it wasnt worth a feat should consider you are able to attack competently at range without a weapon or ammo, a warrior could improvise rocks to throw at range.. but he gets improvised weapon damage looses proficiency benefits etc., and you don't.
You could make the feat something you can trade in Ritual Caster for that would be fun ... Either you emphasize rituals or fast cast battle stuff.
Though it would keep arcanist casters feeling closer to the 4e classes if you simply allowed all arcane spell casting classes to use it free. You might give everybody an extra feat so for arcane casters it was just a fairly obvious choice... not the only one and everyone could see that extra feat becomes compensation for some at wills lost if they want ;-)
Or you could make it a free feat if the Arcane Caster takes Implement Dependency Flaw so they basically are truly unarmed if they aren't using an implement. There are certainly some worlds of fiction where that is a known issue. Take away the witches mage stone and she can't do any magic or atleast it all could do half damage and be at -2 on attack rolls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrik
This is true, but the descriptions of the powers often get in the way of page 42 effects and yes I know the descriptions have no effect on game play (and that is too bad btw).
I guess forcing players to come up with imaginative applications or be neutered back to only basic attack effects is an option. (I still prefer teaching them how to use the at-wills in a versatile imaginative way)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrik
I would not define them as, "Sadrik's neuter the wizard druid warlock rules" See my edited first post and see how that sits with you.
Well of course you wouldn't ;-), but you have to be goaded in to bringing in something that makes them not feel as much like another I wish I was playing 3.5 so lets rip off the wizards at low levels.
OK, now other differences aside, are you sure your numbers won't crunch in to really overly fast battles. The very fast resolution might make things feel very swingy... ie the dice become boom very few die rolls make things unpleasant, somewhat longer battles have a buffer effect on this.
Last edited by Garthanos; 15th May 2009 at 03:01 PM..
HR#3: Daily Encounter Powers
All daily powers (daily magic item, and daily utility powers too) become encounter powers and are referred to as daily encounter powers. Their first use for the day is free, after that they may be used by spending an action point. Each may only ever be used once during an encounter similar to encounter powers.
Action Points
Action points cannot be used to gain an extra standard action.
Milestones
Milestones are removed. You get 1 action point per encounter.
This is the only rule I voted for because it's close to something I use and it simplifies the game (well my version does). I have gotten rid of milestones, given the characters an action point per encounter and removed any milestone limit on the usage of magic items. Action points can still be used to take an extra standard action and daily magic items can only be used once per day so we no longer track milestones which was the goal of my changes.
As for your other changes, they are a little too deep for my likes but they may do the job you need to create the game you like. From my perspective, your rules won't simplify the game which is one of the primary things about 4e I like.
Please4 highlight some that you think are "out of this world" and absolutely too powerful for heroic tier.
Unfettered Stride lets you completely ignore difficult terrain. That circumvents a whole lot of battlefield control the DM has at his disposal.
The weapon mastery feats double your chance of scoring a crit.
Flanking Maneuver lets you move through enemies' spaces.
From PHB2: Epic Fort / Ref / Will gives you +4 to the relevant defense.
Sure, they aren't whiz-bang powerful gamebreaking feats, but these feats really alter the way the battlefield is shaped. Furthermore, many of them make older feats obsolete. Why would anyone take weapon focus at level one (+1 damage) over axe mastery (crit on 19-20)?
__________________ 4th Ed Chars Fallen:
Spoiler:
Gavin Ward - Male Human Warlord 1 - The party started a bar fight. The fellow who escaped brought his bandit buddies back and they killed Gavin (and nearly three other party members). He bled out while lying on the floor.
4th Ed Kills:
Spoiler:
Cornell Butterworth - Male Human Wizard 1 - Knocked unconscious by a kobold dragonshield the fighter ignored, then done in by the kobold wyrmpriest's acid breath.
Lithia - Female Elven Ranger 11 - Contracted mummy rot, which eventually did her in.
Brendan Stetlan - Male Human Fighter 4 - Knocked unconscious in combat, then thrown to the wolves.
Vindicator Mindartis Valenae - Eladrin Paladin 5 - Dropped by a githzerai monk (L6 elite), and killed when the rogue threw him off the balcony to try and get his body to safety.
Vongar - Male Dwarf Paladin 1 - Fell in battle after defeating Irontooth, but not his bodyguard.
Straef - Male Elf Ranger 1 - Fell in battle to Irontooth's Wyrmpriest.
Sorry to say, I didn't like any of them. I can accept some of the Int skill changes and the possibly off-hand weapons using Dex, but they came bundled with other things I did not like.
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
This is true, but the descriptions of the powers often get in the way of page 42 effects and yes I know the descriptions have no effect on game play (and that is too bad btw).
If the descriptions have no effect on game play, then how can they "get in the way" of page 42 effects?
He might have to be really liberal with improvisational maneuvering ie page 42 and let my Wizard do improvisational spell attacks since the warriors are all allowed to do it... oooops, guess that isnt on his list. No don't think I would even give it a shot, oiling up the crossbow restringing it, bang. is this the reason I chose a wizard for my character?
Why all the angst? I don't get many opportunities to game face-to-face, so when one comes up I take it. Unless the DM is an obviously unwashed obnoxious lout. If I spend an afternoon realizing the game sucks, well, I've wasted afternoons in worse ways. (I'm looking at you, Australia.)
__________________ Proud gamer of Sullivan, New York.
Death is not the end, but yet another journey--one that we all must take. The gray rain curtain of this world parts, everything fades to silver glass and then you see it--the white shore and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.
--Everything that I'd like to believe about the afterlife.
If the descriptions have no effect on game play, then how can they "get in the way" of page 42 effects?
It isnt a rational thing but it seems real.
People satisfied by having 2 vividly visualized effects and are so less inclined to try for more.
Where giving one description locks down some peoples imagination showing multiple can, I feel, free it up. As an inspiration aid, my idea is to write several alternate descriptors on the back of the at-wills power cards with blank lines at the bottom for adding more...
Earlier this post I mentioned using scorching burst, described as a wall of fire rising from the ground at your enemies feet, player improvised doing it slower/more obviously and more avoidable to get the bad guy to move even though he didn't have a spell with induced movement...
but these wont always work .. the enemy may a just take the damage being too brave or dumb to respond or get tricky and jump over the blaze or just move a direction more useful to it than you want in spite of where you attempt to herd them.
One of the alternate descriptions I give for cleave has oil splashing from a held lantern by my enemy on to his ally for the damage against the second enemy. The GM can incorporate and reward vivid appropriateness of player description in this case they might give ongoing damage deciding the second guys cloak catches fire. And the fighter doesn't have an ongoing
damage power... the oil might get in there eyes and obscure there vision a little or the cloak might be wet from the day before or the adjacent enemy is looking a different direction, ie it wont always work.. and unlikely the DM always has the bad guys carrying oil lamps or wearing flammable cloaks etc. ;-)
Why all the angst? I don't get many opportunities to game face-to-face, so when one comes up I take it. Unless the DM is an obviously unwashed obnoxious lout. If I spend an afternoon realizing the game sucks, well, I've wasted afternoons in worse ways. (I'm looking at you, Australia.)
Heh, he intentionally re-broke something that 4e fixed.
The DM implementing the above house rules(sans the arcane attack feat) is going out of his way and depriving the wizard of battle magic in the process, one of the features added to 4th edition was wizards who were able to be wizards all the time, not blow there wad once then be bored the rest of the game day (which was some times the rest of the game session)
I love wizards and hated playing one in D&D for most of the previous editions.
Much better, my Swordmage can do some interesting things with that.
slice from a distance, or cutting the air or throwing the blade in a spinning swirl and comes back to you.
Sure I think it makes more to make a slice through the air and a wave of magical energy strikes your enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garthanos
I think your feat needs to enable chosing a damage type when you take it. We can look at metamagic feats which are similar to weapon proficiencies ;-).
No I don't think so, eldritch blast does not have a damage type, so this won't too. If there is a feat to alter the damage type of your spells then this would definitely be applicable though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garthanos
I guess forcing players to come up with imaginative applications or be neutered back to only basic attack effects is an option. (I still prefer teaching them how to use the at-wills in a versatile imaginative way)
This also speeds combats so that mini bonus effects are not constantly being applied by everyone at the table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garthanos
OK, now other differences aside, are you sure your numbers won't crunch in to really overly fast battles. The very fast resolution might make things feel very swingy... ie the dice become boom very few die rolls make things unpleasant, somewhat longer battles have a buffer effect on this.
This is a concern actually,
Speed factors include:
Monster 1/2 HP
Monsters and PCs add 1/2 level to damage
More encounter powers
Recover dailies with APs
Lose at-will attacks but basic attacks use highest stat so you don't really lose out there.
Unfettered Stride lets you completely ignore difficult terrain. That circumvents a whole lot of battlefield control the DM has at his disposal.
The weapon mastery feats double your chance of scoring a crit.
Flanking Maneuver lets you move through enemies' spaces.
From PHB2: Epic Fort / Ref / Will gives you +4 to the relevant defense.
Sure, they aren't whiz-bang powerful gamebreaking feats, but these feats really alter the way the battlefield is shaped. Furthermore, many of them make older feats obsolete. Why would anyone take weapon focus at level one (+1 damage) over axe mastery (crit on 19-20)?
Excellent, they sure are not whiz-bang powerful. I am not sure that it is so automatic as to which will be taken first crit or constant damage bonus. At low levels a crit only does max damage, as you go up you do max damage plus some bonus d6s, and as you get more feats you can add on some of the feats that give a bonus when you crit. It seems totally fine to me because of the natural scaling.
Sure I think it makes more to make a slice through the air and a wave of magical energy strikes your enemy.
Well remember teleporting and dimension slicing and similar things is a big bit of the Swordmages schtick so... a lot of descriptions are not only fair game, but fit real well. The player visualizing it as aiming the weapon and having a swoosh boom sound and the blade zipping to the opponent then vanishing back to there hand is very much fair game as is slicing through the air and having a ghost of the blade appear at the target.
In fact I think "Distant Slice" just went on my list of Swordmage at-will powers, thank you... never know where inspiration comes from. I think the range will only be 10... and I might otherwise adjust but cool.
No I don't think so, eldritch blast does not have a damage type, so this won't too. If there is a feat to alter the damage type of your spells then this would definitely be applicable though.
I think you might be quite right (actuallly typeless damage or force can be envisioned to different things easier)
Also Note
Wizard has magic missile This power counts as a ranged basic attack. and
Warlock has eldritch blast This power can be used as a basic attack.
The classes which have one of these normally might be ones who get the Arcane Strike feat free so the swordmage who doesnt has to take the feat (and get a nifty ranged attack which fits his style )
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
