D&D 4E Preliminary 4E tweaks

Exen Trik · May 29, 2008

So theres going to be lots of small house rules that correct or supplement what is lacking (or perceived as so) in the core books. I thought I'd have a shake at a couple things complained about so far (and that I'll be addressing in my own games), and I'll invite you all to add your own.

I don't have the books yet myself, but two things that have some up in threads are the odd bonuses for half elves and the lack of choices of at will powers for warlocks, especially when human ones who should get an extra one.

-Half Elves get +2 Charisma, and +2 to any one other stat. Replace bonus to diplomacy with any one skill.

-Warlock At-Will Powers (for any pact):

Sickening Blast
You envelop your foe with corruptive eldritch power.
Arcane, Implement
Charisma or Constitution vs Fort
1d8 + Cha/Con damage, continuous 1 damage (save ends)
Improves to 2d6/continuous 2 damage at level 21

Frightful Blast
A dark power with a frightful visage assails your foe.
Arcane, Implement, Fear
Charisma or Constitution vs Will
1d8 + Cha/Con damage, push target 1 square
Improves to 2d6 damage at level 21

That One Guy · May 30, 2008

I think the half-elf house rule will be so widely used that if there is a 4.5 it'll probably be in it.

I don't have the books, but I think I'll make variants on the multi-class rules. For the ranger, if they want they can instead get two-weapon fighting oriented stuff so Stormwarden is a viable option. If warlocks don't have the warlock's curse as part of multi-classing then I'd say give it to them along w/ the pact power associated. Also, the pre-req for the feat should be Cha 13 or whatever stat is appropriate for the pact chosen.

I think there'll be a lot of cosmetic house rules. Like, I can't help but laugh at eyes being described as orbs (Tieflings), and I think Dragonborn need tails.

Exen Trik · May 31, 2008

That One Guy said:
I don't have the books, but I think I'll make variants on the multi-class rules. For the ranger, if they want they can instead get two-weapon fighting oriented stuff so Stormwarden is a viable option.

Well, I'd say keep the multiclassing as is, and just add a new feat for the rangers ability to use one handed weapons as off hand. Just make the ranger multiclass feat a requirement, and that should be good enough.

Szatany · Jun 2, 2008

RACES

1. I really don't like how half-elven group diplomacy was covered - too insignificant bonus to be bothered to keep track of. Hence a replacement:

Group Diplomacy ---- Half-Elf Racial Power
With a quick whisper or two you suggest a correct course for a negotiation.
Daily
Immediate Interrupt ---- Ranged 5
Target: One ally
Effect: The ally gains a +5 power bonus to a Diplomacy checks made this turn.

2. Infernal Wrath, as written, sucks. Change to +Cha attack and +Cha damage.

3. Did I mention I have situational +1 bonuses? Guess what bloodhunt does

Bloodhunt ---- Tiefling Racial Power
Smell of fresh blood in the air invigorates you.
Encounter
Immediate Reaction
Target: One creature
Effect: You make an attack of your choice (this includes using attack powers) against an enemy that just became bloodied.

4. Same thing with elven Group Awareness:

Group Awareness ---- Elf Racial Power
Using your sharp senses you point out a hidden threat.
Daily
Free Action ---- Close Burst 5
Targets: Each ally within burst
Effect: Allies gain a +5 power bonus to Perception checks until the beginning of your next turn.

FEATS

5. I'm going to change a few multiclass feats, as with the example below.

OLD: Cleric feat grants training in Religion skill.
NEW: Cleric feat grants training in Religion skill. If you already have it, pick another skill from the cleric's class skill list.

6. Dodge Giants
+4 bonus to AC and Reflex against large, huge, and gargantuan humanoids.

7. Group Insight
Either it grants a power similar to my proposals above, or I'll just ban it.

8. Improved Fate of the Void (what a sucky name!, should be Destiny of the Void or something)
The feat doubles bonuses granted by the ability (+2 per foe dropped)

9. Precise Hunter
Increase the bonus to +2.

10. Nimble Blade
Not sure, maybe "You can take a +2 bonus on attack roll, but after the attack you lose combat advantage until the beginning of your next turn."?

That One Guy · Jun 3, 2008

Exen Trik said:
Well, I'd say keep the multiclassing as is, and just add a new feat for the rangers ability to use one handed weapons as off hand. Just make the ranger multiclass feat a requirement, and that should be good enough.

You know... I bet that's pretty much how new multi-class oriented feats will work. Take the multiclass feat. Then, instead of a power-swap feat, take a feat that allows access to a build or feature option (I bet some feats of this type will be mutually exclusive). You win the cake.

It isn't a lie.

hong · Jun 3, 2008

Apparently, bull rush in 4E has the same problem as in 3E. It assumes the attacker automatically connects, so fast, dodgy types are easier to push around than big, bulky guys.

Proposed change:

When bull rushing, the defender can choose to either meet it head on, or attempt to avoid.

If the defender meets it head on, resolve the bull rush as per the book.

If the defender attempts to avoid, the bull rush is resolved as Str vs Ref. If the bull rush fails, the defender can shift to any adjacent square that is not occupied. The attacker ends up in the defender's previous space. If there are no unoccupied adjacent squares, the bull rush automatically succeeds.

mattdm · Jun 3, 2008

hong said:
If the bull rush fails, the defender can shift to any adjacent square that is not occupied.

Can, or must? Can the defender just stay there?

keterys · Jun 3, 2008

How about 'If the bull rush hits, but the attack was not sufficient to hit the defender's Reflex, the defender may choose the square it is pushed into or switch places with the attacker instead of being pushed.'

Exen Trik · Jun 4, 2008

keterys said:
How about 'If the bull rush hits, but the attack was not sufficient to hit the defender's Reflex, the defender may choose the square it is pushed into or switch places with the attacker instead of being pushed.'

So, a simultanious attack of Str vs Fort and Ref? I like it. Maybe redefine the effects a bit:
Both hit - Bull rush as normal
Hits Fort only - Target shifts on square itself in any direction, attacker takes place (couldn't resist moving, only avoid the actual pushing)
Hits Ref only - Target is pushed, but attacker stays in place (attacker connected but didn't follow through)
Misses both - No effect

keterys · Jun 4, 2008

Dunno, I like the idea that it doesn't matter if you can touch the Tarrasque, you have to get past its Fort to actually budge it.

I was mostly trying to offer Hong what felt like a cleaner alternative - not having to ask the defender how they want to defend, nor allowing bull rush to give free shifts but still allowing Reflex to count.