Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="redrover" data-source="post: 4419639" data-attributes="member: 70799">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.</blockquote>

Verification