D&D 4E D&D 4E Homebrew Rules & Changes - Looking for feedback

[AbdulAlhazred]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...st-of-good-powers-to-poach-from-other-classes

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468787-Three-Step-Role-Handbook(by-MwaO)

Those two links ought to show some of the issues. There are a lot of choices that are already worth a feat in and of themselves(Dark Blue/Sky Blue)...the Dark Blue is questionable if it costs a feat, but if it were free?

Right.

Personally I think PMC (in general, there may actually be maybe one or two options here that do work, but I doubt it) is a raw deal. You lose all the action point mechanics of a PP and in return you get to basically swap out an at-will for one of the 2nd class. Most characters use their 2nd at-will as something like a fallback (say maybe a usable ranged attack for a character that otherwise only has an RBA, or an alternative for when you feel you MUST hit against a different defense and don't really care so much about the effect). Its unlikely you'll find that trade to be worthwhile, as the AP effects of many PPs are pretty strong! Beyond that many of them have pretty decent powers too, and instead you'll have to pick powers of a lower level from your 2nd class, not BAD, and possibly as good as or even slightly better than what a PP would offer, but not distinctly so.

So, I've always thought that PMCs probably should have some slightly better sweetener. Its hard to decide what exactly that would be though. Better access to 2nd class's features might work, but that's not going to be universally true, some will be much better than others (effectively the same issue that exists with hybrids, some hybrid classes are so good that in terms of pure optimization you probably should almost always hybrid something like swordmage or wizard).

 

[MwaO]

Right.

Personally I think PMC (in general, there may actually be maybe one or two options here that do work, but I doubt it) is a raw deal. You lose all the action point mechanics of a PP and in return you get to basically swap out an at-will for one of the 2nd class. Most characters use their 2nd at-will as something like a fallback (say maybe a usable ranged attack for a character that otherwise only has an RBA, or an alternative for when you feel you MUST hit against a different defense and don't really care so much about the effect). Its unlikely you'll find that trade to be worthwhile, as the AP effects of many PPs are pretty strong! Beyond that many of them have pretty decent powers too, and instead you'll have to pick powers of a lower level from your 2nd class, not BAD, and possibly as good as or even slightly better than what a PP would offer, but not distinctly so.

So, I've always thought that PMCs probably should have some slightly better sweetener. Its hard to decide what exactly that would be though. Better access to 2nd class's features might work, but that's not going to be universally true, some will be much better than others (effectively the same issue that exists with hybrids, some hybrid classes are so good that in terms of pure optimization you probably should almost always hybrid something like swordmage or wizard).

I think that what I'd probably do is give out an AP feature based on role. So a Controller PMC might let a PC penalize a save or slide a target a small amount. A Leader PMC would grant a basic attack or let someone heal a surge/make a saving throw. Defender would mark a target with the PMC's mark and let the PC use that particular Defender's mark until EoNT. Striker would let the Striker do some extra damage. Etc...

There are definitely PMC options that work. Can't underestimate just how valuable some Heroic tier options are with classes that then on top of it have killer options available at higher levels in a way that a hybrid doesn't necessarily pull off. Most of which involve strong chassis classes with relatively weak selection who then pick up either Leader, Controller, or Striker options.

They're not usually top-tier, but any number of Str-based builds will do pretty well with Twin Strike as a base or Defenders with Booming Blade. Or picking up Warlord's Combat Commander feat(after yet another feat). Or maybe a Fighter or Battlemind with a lot of Paladin mass-marking options. Or a Defender with a Wisdom score picking up Druid for Magic Stones+Charm Beast+Infiltrating Drone+Clinging Drone+Writhing Henge+Camouflage Cloak+Bear's Strength. Think about a Fighter doing that.

Again - not fantastic top-tier. But shouldn't in many cases be all that bad.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right, the key is really that MCing in 4e is NOT bad. It got panned a lot by people that didn't seem to be able to see how good certain powers are when broken away from their class' features. Fighters with Twin Strike certainly come to mind, being able to double mark constantly and dish out exceptional damage. Heck, you can pick up a bow and at least mark two opponents, anywhere on the battlefield, which isn't bad sometimes. Its nastier in the hands of a rogue though

 

[Garthanos]

Note the reason I quoted your MC ideas in-line is because I figured it would be easier to spark conversation with a single element pulled inline...

 

[Garthanos]

I have a technique that in effect has no changes on the mechanics but gives player an in hand roll, its called players make all the rolls and they can describe their defenses too... I am a lazy DM and do not think there needs to be additional stacking of results that a composite 2D20 resolution creates.

From your house rules.

Defense / Saving Throw Changes

Ac is unaffected and is a static value as always. Fortitude, Reflex and Will are now rolled in opposition to attacks, as in other editions. Whenever an attack targets a NAD, you will be asked to make a Saving Throw: This is a D20 roll plus whatever bonus you have to a difference from various sources such as class, attribute, items ETC For example, if in the standard rules you Will defense is 16, that is a D20 roll with a +6 modifier. The attack roll and saving throw are made at the same time. If the attack roll is higher or equal to the saving throw, the attack hits. If the saving throw is higher, the attack misses.

As usual, when an effect is applied with the [Save Ends] condition, the player makes a Saving throw at the end of each of their turns. However, the DC for the Saving Throw is not 10, but is equal to the attack roll that caused the effect in the first place, and the character must roll the same defense in turn to beat the target. For example, let’s say an attack V.S Will that causes Ongoing Psychic damage results in a roll of 17 and the Will Saving throw is 15, the attack hits.

At the end of each of the victim’s turns (Taking the psychic damage at the start of their turn) they must make another Will Saving Throw and beat 17, as that is the result of the power that caused the effect. Any traits or feats that refer to bonuses to Saving Throws now simply refer to Saving Throws to remove a [Save Ends] effect and traits/feats referring to defence bonuses add to Saving Throws made to avoid attacks.

 

[Garthanos]

Here is a description of players make all the rolls from Giants in the playground..

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21037429&postcount=10

And using the 4e numbers...

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/11699/players-rolling-all-of-the-dice-in-dd-4th-ed?rq=1

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As a personal preference, and from a standpoint of game design consistency, I much prefer 4e's handling of defenses to that of 3.x or 5e either one.

Just as a simple example, the whole issue of bonuses and penalties INSTANTLY becomes confusing when the defender rolls. Now suddenly if you attack AC your enhancement bonus adds to the die roll, but if you attack FORT it DETRACTS from the die roll (or has to be used to change the target number, either way its opposite for no other reason than you happened to attack a different defense).

And if the argument is that it adds some sort of drama to combat, then why isn't AC also a saving throw? And if the defender now makes all checks, then the PCs attacks are as equally undramatic as their defenses are dramatic (assuming somehow that defensive rolls are somehow more so, a contention I would dispute to begin with). Frankly I would contend that you want to be able to make the checks that determine if your big dramatic actions (attacks) are successful or not. Defense is much more passive and there's still plenty of tension there waiting for the hammer to fall on you! Besides, 4e has tons of "no, wait, I use..." that let you escape from various fates anyway (not to mention saves, which don't SAVE you, but do get you out of trouble soon enough).

 

[Garthanos]

I think that what I'd probably do is give out an AP feature based on role. So a Controller PMC might let a PC penalize a save or slide a target a small amount. A Leader PMC would grant a basic attack or let someone heal a surge/make a saving throw. Defender would mark a target with the PMC's mark and let the PC use that particular Defender's mark until EoNT. Striker would let the Striker do some extra damage. Etc...

I like that option...

 

[Garthanos]

As a personal preference, and from a standpoint of game design consistency, I much prefer 4e's handling of defenses to that of 3.x or 5e either one.

If we start with players make all the rolls ie the players make rolls for their actions...
it actually feels consistent to me... of course then making a saving throw just a subsequent defense check for a player or a maintenance check when the enemy is try to break an effect the player created.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If we start with players make all the rolls ie the players make rolls for their actions...
it actually feels consistent to me... of course then making a saving throw just a subsequent defense check for a player or a maintenance check when the enemy is try to break an effect the player created.

Well, if you simply want only the PLAYERS to make their defenses into saves, then you're working on a consistent design principle anyway, and 'inconsistency' is just how it hangs (Anyway, it is then easy enough to just explain that monsters work different, so when the GM does stuff he does it different from the players. I don't really see that as an issue).

In the end either way is workable. I mean if people got past AD&D combat's crazy backwardness they can handle this.