D&D 4E [4e] Houserule Concept: Complications

[LoneWolf23]

Got an idea for a House rule for 4th edition, that I actually got from Mutants and Masterminds, but which I think could work here.

Setbacks and Complications.

A Setback is when things just aren't going the hero's way. When a hero suffers a significant failure, the player gets an Action point. Generally, a "significant failure" is a failed skill check or saving throw with the worst possible result, like a failed Will save that leaves the Paladin under the Succubus' Domination, for exemple. The DM decides if a perticular failure is Significant or not; routine failures, like missed attack rolls or suffering lesser effects from failed saves, aren't significant enough to count.

Action points acquired this way can't be used to overcome the setback that caused it. So you can't suffer a significant failure and then spend the action point you just got to avoid failing. You can spend an action point you already have, but if you overcome a setback by spending an action point you don't gain an action point for that setback, since it's not really a set back.

Complications are essentially setbacks set in advance by the players for their PCs. Some exemples:
-Addiction: You need something, either for physical or psychological reasons. You'll go out of your way to satisfy this need.
-Honor: You have a strong personal code of honor, which you can define the exact terms of with the DM. This is only a complication when it puts you in a bind or in a moral dilemma.
-Phobia: You're irrationally afraid of something. When confronted with it you have to fight to control your fear, causing you to hesitate or act irrationally (and earning an Action point.)

I like the Complications concept, if only because it encourages players to create flawed characters. Although I'd limit it to five Complications max per character, with players only being able to benefit from a single Complication once per play session.

This idea is just in the early stages of conception though, and it could definetly use some fine-tuning. What do you guys think?

 

[Garthanos]

Do the flaws need to be flaws?

I have always liked the concept of flaws - they always seemed to encourage role playing even more than the features. That said, something to consider with regards to 4th edition ... emphasizing we are playing the heros perhaps it is more important to point to the developments and improvements the character has gained while over coming the flaw or issue.

My idea for nightmares which is actually an advantage...
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/250646-race-feature-nightmares.html

Perhaps we can also wrap problems in to the powers.

For instance also thinking of a barbarian or battlerager power which involved doing more damage than normal but breaking the weapon (or forcing it to have a saving throw?) if the attack fails. Ofcourse the class I was considering it for is somewhat more competant unarmed than most (and using that power without a weapon was literally self damaging.)

 

[77IM]

Handing out hero points in Mutants and Masterminds works almost exactly like this. It works extremely well. Particularly the complications -- it's a flaw/disadvantage/drawback/whatever that only gives you points when it becomes relative (compared to other systems, like GURPS, which give you points for your flaw no matter how often it comes into play or how strict your GM is about enforcing it).

I would expect characters to wind up with slightly more action points under these rules, but I'm not sure that's such a problem. You can balance it somewhat by giving your monsters more APs, or giving out fewer APs at milestones, or something.

-- 77IM