comments on some house rules

[ventu]

They are already on:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1069225

I report them here for convenience


PC Building HR:

of all the characters are being too much "equal", except in combat, but there is not much unique identity perceived as it was in 3.5

SUBPROBLEM: all are more or less equally good in the various skills. Exemple: A 10th level-warrior without training will probably outsmart a 3th-level wizard in arcana.

HR 1) Only Primary-Class-related skills (plus multiclass skills) have the +1/2xLevel bonus in skill checks. All the other have +1/3xLevel..


HR 2) Add a Paragon Feat "skill-master" with prerequisite skill-focus, which adds +2 to a particular use of a focused skill (exemple: thievery for lock-picking, perception for following tracks, stealth for moving silently, arcana for magic item identification).

SUBPROBLEM: Being able to multiclass only once and in a "weak-way" does not allow people to build well all character concepts

HR 3) Add "second multiclassing feat" available at Paragon Tier. It works as the ones in the PH, but it limits the choice of swapped power up to max 10th-level power.
HR 4) Add the "Paragon heavy-multiclass feat" which allows to use one more class feature of the second-class if the character choose Paragon Multiclassing instead of the Path

SUBPROBLEM:

Apart from combat powers and few utilities, the characters don't have much more that characterizes them.

HR 5) Instead of getting the +1 to two characteristics at some levels, the PC can choose to get only +1 to one characteristic and one more feat.

SUBPROBLEM:

Magic as we knew it seems disappeared. All non-combat spells are rituals and anybody can cast them more-or-less "equally well", but there is now very little magic useful in an encounter since the casting time of all these rituals (also silence, alarm, or tenser's disk!) is very long.

HR 6) Increase the DC in the skill-checks of all rituals by 5.
HR 7) Add the "ritual-expert feat: choose two schools of rituals (illusions, scrying..).you get +2 in the skill-checks in those schools"
HR 8) Add the "quick-ritualist feat": you can divide the casting time of a memorized ritual by 10, if you are not aided. You increase the DC of the skill check by 10 (min 10.) exemple: 1 minute becomes 1 round. You must use residuum for the ritual"
HR 9) Add the paragon "spontaneous-ritualist feat": if you are a quick ritualist, you can divide the casting time of a memorized by 50 (5 minutes become 1 round). You must use residuum for the ritual"
HR 10) "choose three rituals you master. you get +3 on the skill checks when you perform these rituals"
HR 11) anybody can memorize three rituals that can use without the ritual-book by taking the "memorized rituals" feat. Add +2 at the DC of the ritual when they are casted without the book.

COMBAT HR:

SUBPROBLEM:

It's quite difficult to kill a PC, since once they are on the ground, they can come up again or can be stabilized with a simple standard. Either you use a lot of coups-de-grace or you need to knock down -all the party-. What's more, stabilizing with a standard action is quite unrealistic.

HR 1) One character is dead when it reaches its negative HEALING SURGE value (not bloodied)

HR 2) If you score 1 or less in the dying saving throw, you're dead (unless you take the paragon "die-hard feat")

HR 3) each "closer-to-death" roll brings 5 damages.

HR 4) Stabilizing is a skill-challenge with DC 5 + the number of negative damage (min 10). Each success cancels one "closer-to-death" result and gives +2 to the next death saving throw roll. Once all the closer-to-death have been removed, the character is stable and gets up with a natural roll of 20, each round.

http://forums.gleemax.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=16489969

 

[redrover]

Some general comments:

Equality: When I run the numbers, the apprentice still wins. Arcane training equals the warrior’s entire level bonus, which leaves the Int modifiers and a +1 for level for the apprentice. My take is the apprentice will still be up by +3-4 when the smoke clears.

HR 1) This looks reasonable to me at first glance. Would be interesting to see how it plays.

HR 2) Don’t much like this one. My house rule preference is to treat Lock Pick, Disable Trap, and Pick Pocket as Trained only. If I wanted a change, I would probably replace your suggested feat with a two-parter:

1)Broad Skills: You can train only in broad skills allowed to your class.
2)Narrow Skills: A feat allows training in a narrow skill if you can’t train in the broad skill.

Tracking: I’m not really unhappy that tracking as a skill has lost prominence. I hope it goes away completely as a mechanic. Cumbersome tracking rules always slowed play, and blowing a tracking check in 3e nearly always frustrated the players and derailed the plot. The rules just got in the way.

These days, my thinking is, if the party has to follow a trail, and they have a ranger or equivalent, fine; it happens. If they don’t, they get some additional encounters or hazards, but nothing that would deny pursuit of a primary quest.

Multiclass: The core issue IMO is that it’s bad for play to let a player become good at everything, which is where a lot of multiclassing suggestions eventually arrive. That said, I think more time is needed to get used to the 4e system before tampering with this bit.

You might consider forking off a thread to discuss exactly which archetypes are most problematic to build and see how ingenious the community can be at building them. No significant comments on the HRs.

Lack of Characterization: IMO you don’t need rules for this, you just need players roleplaying. For example, OD&D, in which you could whip up a character in 10 minutes or less, produced many memorable characters. The lack of rules was liberating. Personally, I expect 4e to duplicate this effect and am looking forward to it.

HR 5) I find this idea attractive and worth testing.

Magic: Haven’t played with the magic system much. The more aggressive players locally have all abandoned the Wizard class. We have no active wizards and the party seems to be doing well enough without one. My take is, the change in how wizards are handled is the hardest part to get over about the system evolution.

Skills/Rituals: That said, I have serious doubts about using skill modifiers in house rules. This isn’t 3e. Skills are much more of a closed system in 4e, and I’m thinking they are extremely delicately balanced and not very elastic when it comes to modifiers.

In 3e, a +2 was a standard boost, +4 was a common exceptional boost, and certain racial abilities (like swimming for aquatic races) would net a whopping +8.

In 4e, there are a handful of feat modifiers at Heroic tier (two +2, the rest +1), none at Paragon, none at Epic, and magic item bonuses seem capped about +5 at Epic Tier.

My thought is that a +1 skill bonus in 4e is the rough equivalent of a +4 bonus in 3e, as much as you can compare the two systems on this topic.
So those +2s at Heroic tier are looking a bit imbalanced to me right now.


HR 6-11) These don’t do a lot for me. If I was to make a spot change, I’d be inclined to treat rituals as Trained only, pick up the +5 DC across the board, and put in a subsystem for backfires for untrained use (conceptually similar to the old “thieves using scrolls” effects of earlier editions). I’d also introduce the concept of “cantrip” rituals that are generally safe for non-casters to use—evil eye ward, a basic hedging ward, etc.

Combat: I think there is a lot to be said in support of the risk of character death as a means to heighten dramatic tension and keeping players sharp. Gung ho parties relish the rush of beating the odds.

On the other hand, the death of a favorite character has precipitated the most wrenching moments I’ve had playing the game. So I’m split on this issue. Has the game been made too survivable?

As a side issue, making a character is a chore. And character death means a lot of work creating a new one – these days I’d rather spend my time playing than making up new characters.

Maybe the game should have a subsystem for the gung ho gamers that adds a “Hurt Me Plenty” setting. Superhero games often let the GM set the campaign power level, why not develop a simple way to set the lethality level of a fantasy campaign?

HR 1-4) These seem too narrow and complicated. I prefer broader-and-simpler.