Few ideas for rules.

[cbbakke]

Overall I like the dnd system but would like to see a little more meat added to it for realism and seperation of classes so your guy feels more unique.

Ideas

1. At level 2 and every level there after you get 1 skill point to put in any skill the DM approves that you have used during that level. So at 10th level you would have 9 extra skill points. A sub rule to this would be these bonus points cant be more then 1/2 your level in one skill. So at 11th level you couldnt have more then 5 bonus points in any one skill. Right now you could have two people with the same stat and trained in a skill. At 11th level one is very focussed on that skill (religion for example) while the other merely dables in it. Game wise they still both have the same chance of success.

2. For every death check you have (meaning failed death check), u have a minus that number to all rolls and defenses until you have an extended rest.
Example: Bob the Rogue is knocked to -3 and the first two rounds he is down he fails his death check. The following round the healer gets him back up. Until he gets an extended rest Bob is at -2 to every roll. Kind of the effect of being that close to death.

3. When you are brought back from being unconcious you are considered dazed. Save ends. I hate when a guy gets knocked below zero, gets a heal, on his turn stands up, does an encounter power attack, minor heal, action point daily power. The negatives to rolls from rule 2 would apply to this also of course.

I also think there is some decent roleplay quality to the hero just getting to his feet and staggering around trying to fight as he continues to be dazed.

4. When doing a range attack on a person. Your allies provide cover for the target if they are adjacent to the target. If enemies block the path completely and are adjacent to the target they provide superior cover.

Why the change
a. Realism it is silly how it is now.

b. tactically is makes range even more over powered and on the other side does not allow ways for people to protect their allies.

Example. The great necro lich the party has finally found in the deep crypts. The lich has 20 minions trying to protect him from the oncoming attack. The players need hold the line and let their range beat on the lich at a mere -2 to hit.

Tactically if the lich wants to keep the front flank completely blocked by adjacent enemies, I think he should have more of a benefit. This goes for the players protecting their healer. A smart group of band guys would just range fire the healer down first and the tank can do really nothing about it.

 

[Caliban]

This should be in the house rules forum.

 

[Oompa]

And it looks like things get more complicated with those rules..

And wouldnt giving minusses to dying discourage people to have multiple encounters on the day and have them hold back in encounters..?

 

[Mengu]

1. At level 2 and every level there after you get 1 skill point to put in any skill the DM approves that you have used during that level. So at 10th level you would have 9 extra skill points. A sub rule to this would be these bonus points cant be more then 1/2 your level in one skill. So at 11th level you couldnt have more then 5 bonus points in any one skill. Right now you could have two people with the same stat and trained in a skill. At 11th level one is very focussed on that skill (religion for example) while the other merely dables in it. Game wise they still both have the same chance of success.

With a rule like this, I'd be afraid skill challenges might become a bit too easy, especially for larger parties. It also de-values skill training feats a bit. But it might be a great help for smaller parties, so for a 2-3 man group, this would be a great house rule.

2. For every death check you have (meaning failed death check), u have a minus that number to all rolls and defenses until you have an extended rest.
Example: Bob the Rogue is knocked to -3 and the first two rounds he is down he fails his death check. The following round the healer gets him back up. Until he gets an extended rest Bob is at -2 to every roll. Kind of the effect of being that close to death.

Toward the end of a fight, it already can drag on needlessly with bad rolling. I'd hate to add another penalty to make things even slower. Not a good house rule in my book.

3. When you are brought back from being unconcious you are considered dazed. Save ends. I hate when a guy gets knocked below zero, gets a heal, on his turn stands up, does an encounter power attack, minor heal, action point daily power. The negatives to rolls from rule 2 would apply to this also of course.

This gives a greater penalty to the unconscious, than already being unconscious. They usually have to pick up their weapon or implement as a minor action, stand up as a move action, and have a standard action left, so they are already essentially dazed. If they are dazed, they pick up their weapon and they are done, they fail their save, next turn they stand up and they are done, and hopefully they make their save. Meanwhile the rest of the party is wondering when they are going to join the fight. It's also rather boring for the player to not be doing anything productive.

4. When doing a range attack on a person. Your allies provide cover for the target if they are adjacent to the target. If enemies block the path completely and are adjacent to the target they provide superior cover.

This is a serious penalty for rangers, wizards, warlocks, clerics, or anyone who fires from the back row. Their encounter and daily powers suddenly become much harder to hit with. They already have very few ways to get combat advantage, so again further penalties slow combat down even further, which is not good.

Why the change
a. Realism it is silly how it is now.

There has to be a balance between realism and ease of resolution. There are already a lot of modifiers to keep in mind in the game. Adding more does not make the flow of the game any better. Try to think of the game mechanics as simply a way to resolve combat instead of a simulation of physics. The rest can be dealt with via story telling. The warlock's dire radiance may smite his foes from above them, so it has nothing to do with the fighter blocking their way. And the elf's arrows from his bow blessed by the elven witch queen, find their way around his allies, and strike his foes unerringly. Meanwhile the wizard has his allies trained so when he starts to say "Pyros Incanta" his allies know to duck behind cover instinctively.

 

[Mad Hamish]

Overall I like the dnd system but would like to see a little more meat added to it for realism and seperation of classes so your guy feels more unique.

I'm not sure that realism is ever a particularly good plan for an rpg.
It's certainly never been one of D&Ds real selling points.

I'm not sure what you mean by separation of classes here.

Ideas

1. At level 2 and every level there after you get 1 skill point to put in any skill the DM approves that you have used during that level. So at 10th level you would have 9 extra skill points. A sub rule to this would be these bonus points cant be more then 1/2 your level in one skill. So at 11th level you couldnt have more then 5 bonus points in any one skill. Right now you could have two people with the same stat and trained in a skill. At 11th level one is very focussed on that skill (religion for example) while the other merely dables in it. Game wise they still both have the same chance of success.

a) I don't think people really want to track which skills they have used at a level.
b) I don't think we really want to give rogues +5 to stealth at level 10, rangers +5 to perception, Paladins +5 to intimidate etc. It brings back the problems of cross class skills in 3rd ed
c) if a character is really focused in the skill they can take skill focus as a feat.

2. For every death check you have (meaning failed death check), u have a minus that number to all rolls and defenses until you have an extended rest.
Example: Bob the Rogue is knocked to -3 and the first two rounds he is down he fails his death check. The following round the healer gets him back up. Until he gets an extended rest Bob is at -2 to every roll. Kind of the effect of being that close to death.

I'm not really in favour of penalising the character for that.
It's another thing to track and makes the character much less effective for too long.

3. When you are brought back from being unconcious you are considered dazed. Save ends. I hate when a guy gets knocked below zero, gets a heal, on his turn stands up, does an encounter power attack, minor heal, action point daily power. The negatives to rolls from rule 2 would apply to this also of course.

I also think there is some decent roleplay quality to the hero just getting to his feet and staggering around trying to fight as he continues to be dazed.

1 round to stand up, 1 to get the weapon, 1 to move to the enemy (or force a charge) etc.
Not overly fun for the player.
Also makes them more vulnerable and likely to be sent back down immediately.

4. When doing a range attack on a person. Your allies provide cover for the target if they are adjacent to the target. If enemies block the path completely and are adjacent to the target they provide superior cover.

Why the change
a. Realism it is silly how it is now.

b. tactically is makes range even more over powered and on the other side does not allow ways for people to protect their allies.

It massively reduces the effectiveness of lazer clerics, archer rangers, warlocks and missile based rogues.
It's not like those characters are dominantly overpowered in the current system.

It's going way too far and virtually forces characters to take feats, items or paragon paths that let them ignore cover.

Example. The great necro lich the party has finally found in the deep crypts. The lich has 20 minions trying to protect him from the oncoming attack. The players need hold the line and let their range beat on the lich at a mere -2 to hit.

Tactically if the lich wants to keep the front flank completely blocked by adjacent enemies, I think he should have more of a benefit. This goes for the players protecting their healer. A smart group of band guys would just range fire the healer down first and the tank can do really nothing about it.

The tank can move in and engage and is far better off doing that than sitting back to be hit (which also means they aren't getting to do anything themselves)

 

[Syrsuro]

2. For every death check you have (meaning failed death check), u have a minus that number to all rolls and defenses until you have an extended rest.
Example: Bob the Rogue is knocked to -3 and the first two rounds he is down he fails his death check. The following round the healer gets him back up. Until he gets an extended rest Bob is at -2 to every roll. Kind of the effect of being that close to death.

3. When you are brought back from being unconcious you are considered dazed. Save ends. I hate when a guy gets knocked below zero, gets a heal, on his turn stands up, does an encounter power attack, minor heal, action point daily power. The negatives to rolls from rule 2 would apply to this also of course.

I also think there is some decent roleplay quality to the hero just getting to his feet and staggering around trying to fight as he continues to be dazed.

Death Spiral, not good.

Once the characters are falling unconscious the battle is already not going particularily well. To start applying additional penalties at that time is just going to make things worse.

Example. The great necro lich the party has finally found in the deep crypts. The lich has 20 minions trying to protect him from the oncoming attack. The players need hold the line and let their range beat on the lich at a mere -2 to hit.

Tactically if the lich wants to keep the front flank completely blocked by adjacent enemies, I think he should have more of a benefit. This goes for the players protecting their healer. A smart group of band guys would just range fire the healer down first and the tank can do really nothing about it.

The enemy's alllies granting cover is already in the rules - so this doesn't represent a change. (Although the rules don't talk about opponents granting superior cover but if there are enough opponents to block the lines to all corners one could argue that it is superior cover (keeping mind that running along the edge of an enemies square doesn't block the line.

In addition, I can see a ruling that, just as multiple squares of lightly obscured squares (which grant concealment) add up to total concealment (or at least did, pre-errata), multiple squares of cover-granting obstacles add up to superior cover.

But as for allies also providing cover - I don't see that as necessary.

But if I were to suggest/ make a change it would be this:

The 4E rules have fewer essential combat abilities tied up in feats. In keeping with this, they have essentially given all characters the ability of Precise Shot. If it is the realism which bothers you (and, as an aside, realism is one of the weakest reasons to ever make a rules change) then simply redefine what proficiency in a ranged weapon entails to also include Precise Shot. In other words, characters who are proficient in a weapon are trained in avoiding hitting their allies while those who are not so proficient are not and thus their allies will grant cover.

If it is that you think ranged attacks are overpowered (an assertion I am not sure I agree with) that is a different matter. But in that case, the argument should be made from a mechanics perspective, not through an appeal to realism.

Carl

 

[Smeelbo]

I admit that one of the first things that turned me off about 4E was the lack of skill points. In 3.5, I distributed skill points to support my character concept, including roleplaying aspects, and mourned the loss of skill points, and likewise, 3.5 multi-classing.

However, actually playing the game, I find that the simple, binary trained/untrained works well enough in practice, especially when not every player is as detail oriented and numerically inclined as myself.

I am currently loath to change 4E much, except around the margins. While I am convinced that 4E is headed towards a glorious catastrophe in a few years, ala First Edition Magic, there is enough really good work in there for now. Once most of the fundamental flaws in 4E are illuminated, I think 4.5 will be amazing.

4E is a fun enough ride for now.

Smeelbo

 

[Hypersmurf]

This should be in the house rules forum.

Swoosh!

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Rel]

2. For every death check you have (meaning failed death check), u have a minus that number to all rolls and defenses until you have an extended rest.
Example: Bob the Rogue is knocked to -3 and the first two rounds he is down he fails his death check. The following round the healer gets him back up. Until he gets an extended rest Bob is at -2 to every roll. Kind of the effect of being that close to death.

Even though I am not a fan of death spiral mechanics, this is so simple and easy to implement that I might have adopted it if I hadn't already come up with a Wounds system I like. I think your idea has merit if you are attempting to make the game a bit more harsh and gritty.

 

[cbbakke]

Thanks for the all the feedback. good and bad. A few random thoughts from reading the responses.

Range being over powered?

I dont think they are over pwoered as much as they have little tactical involvement on offense or on defense. This does add a little bit of complication to the rules but it will just make range move around a bit more to find a clear shot.

Spiral death mechanics?
The last post is accruate, I am looking for a little more gritty to the game. Our party plays the up and down game so well it is very little risk of people dying. If somebody goes down they heal him just enough to get him up. The thought is why heal him more since when he goes down the heal puts him at zero and then heals him. Effectively the heal is bigger.

Another variation could be dazed for one round per death check you have. so bad luck doesnt prevent you from acting forever.


The skill points.

Yes you can take a feat to have plus 2 to a skill but that is a very poor use of a feat generally. I still think this would allow people to add a little flavor to their guy. Sure you could end up with a rogue with a super high stealth but then he is a one trick pony. Another rogue could really focus on bluff or some other social skills. While a third could have theivery and acrobatics.