Going back to 3.5... Any ideas to 4e-ify it?

[Kerrick]

* 1/2 Sneak attack dice against "immune" foes: Pretty much, if a foe is normally immune to SA, you still get 1/2 your dice (min 1) to damage. Allows rogues to be more effective against undead, golems, and such.

I use the "resistance to crits/sneaks" rule - creatures that were immune to crits/sneaks now have minor, lesser, or greater resistance. Minor is reduce crits by x1 and 1/2 damage on sneaks; lesser is -(x2) and 1/3; and greater is -(x3) and 1/4. Oozes and elementals are still immune to sneaks because of their lack of discernable anatomy.

* Threat deals max damage, confirms deal multiplier (4e): If you roll a 20, you follow up as normal. If you don't confirm, you still deal max damage. If you face a foe immune to crits, you automatically deal max damage. (A possible side-rule: monsters ONLY ever deal max damage).

I like this. The rule I was thinking of using is that the first die of damage is automatically maxed, and you roll for the others, but this is much better - even if you don't confirm the crit, you deal max damage, so the crit AND the confirmation both mean something.

* Save-or-Die reduces you to 0 hp, dying rules kick in as normal. Saves on Ressing.

I do a variant on this - I have different death and dying rules, so a death spell drops you to a negative score depending on level and makes it so you can't recover on your own.

I don't think so; their might be exceptions, but I'm not too fond of combo-building anyways. The massive damage threshold is sort of a holdout anyways. I think it was kept to add a simulationist edge to the falling scenario, but there are too many other effects that can trigger it now. I'd make falling nastier if you are worried about that.

Someone in the House Rules came up with a new falling rule that dealt Con damage instead of hp damage. Unfortunately, it's fallen off the boards due to pruning (shame, too - he had a really good drowning variant that also dealt Con damage).

 

[Aus_Snow]

Someone in the House Rules came up with a new falling rule that dealt Con damage instead of hp damage. Unfortunately, it's fallen off the boards due to pruning (shame, too - he had a really good drowning variant that also dealt Con damage).

Jeff Wilder, perhaps --- http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3r...hr-yet-another-falling-damage-house-rule.html --- ?

By the way, it shouldn't 'fall off the boards' if you change the setting for how many pages to display in each forum, in your account settings page somewhere. You can set it to 'all' or something to that effect, which allows you to see any page, any thread, going all the way back (except for things that have been lost or archived, some of which should still be in the, well, archives.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would keep an eye on giving out more feats. Feats are more powerful in 3.5 and some of them are the equivelent of powers in 4E. Use caution in handing out new "pick whatever you want" slots of anything if there are a ton of prestige class sampling options in your game.

 

[Remathilis]

I would keep an eye on giving out more feats. Feats are more powerful in 3.5 and some of them are the equivalent of powers in 4E. Use caution in handing out new "pick whatever you want" slots of anything if there are a ton of prestige class sampling options in your game.

My group is pretty good about prestige-classes (usually 1-2, but they complete/nearly complete them before going on) so I'm not too terribly concerned about 1-level dipping.

At best, I hoped to see more "utility feats" taken (like Iron Will) since PCs would have more options to expand out. It would also possibly help some of the more feat-starved classes (paladin, rogue, or sorcerer). It might also eliminate the need to "fighter-dip". The downside is that PCs have access to power faster (at 10th level, they have 5 feats vs. 4), and it does remove a bit of allure of the fighter (whose power would become "a feat every level" roughly)

I'm still on the fence on this one...

 

[tomBitonti]

I use the "resistance to crits/sneaks" rule - creatures that were immune to crits/sneaks now have minor, lesser, or greater resistance. Minor is reduce crits by x1 and 1/2 damage on sneaks; lesser is -(x2) and 1/3; and greater is -(x3) and 1/4. Oozes and elementals are still immune to sneaks because of their lack of discernable anatomy.

Hey, that's neat.

One idea that I've been thinking about is to have the ability to critical strike be based on an appropriate knowledge or crafting skill.

I agree that creatures with no discernible anatomy should not be crittable. (Actually, that should creatures with no real anatomy, kind-of like the borg before the queen and critical junctions). If there is an anatomy that is just hidden, then a skill should come into play.

Of course, I've always had a problem with the difference between sneak attack and critical hits. To me, a critical hit is a lucky hit that managed to hit that same vital area that a sneak attack targets. What makes a rogue good at sneak attacks is that they are able to find or create moments where they can concentrate on their attack.

 

[The_Gneech]

XP Budget for 3E here...

Sword and Sorcery Saga, by John "The Gneech" Robey

-The Gneech

 

[Kerrick]

Jeff Wilder, perhaps --- http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3r...hr-yet-another-falling-damage-house-rule.html --- ?

Aha, thanks. I meant to copy that and never bothered.

By the way, it shouldn't 'fall off the boards' if you change the setting for how many pages to display in each forum, in your account settings page somewhere. You can set it to 'all' or something to that effect, which allows you to see any page, any thread, going all the way back (except for things that have been lost or archived, some of which should still be in the, well, archives.)

Oh. I'll have to fix that.

 

[Janx]

I mostly agree with Der Kluge. In 3.x, I don't see a lot of problems. Certainly the changes proposed by the OP are stuff that help Players get better PCs. It was my impression the valuable chunks of 4e were the things that make GMing easier.

Since the PCs are tough enough, I see little reason to change the rules, unless it simplifies or gets rid of dumb mechanics.


I like "Save or Die drops you to 0 HP". Makes sense.
I'm neutral with the HP per hit die. just another way to reduce randomness and whining about rolling 1s or cheating when low rolls happen.

The XP thing, meh. I give out 300 per CR. It's quick, it's easy math. If I did the quest thing, I'd hand out XP for the quest (so those with multi-class XP penalties have to deal with it). I'd give out 500xparty levelx4 for a small quest. More for a bigger quest by swapping out a different number for 500, but never more than 1000. In fact, I the following silly formula would work: X= Q*100*P*4 where Q=quest challenge level (1-10), P =party level, X= XP given to party. Giving a block of XP for the whole mission would remove combat and encounters from the players number crunching mind. Fighting more fights doesn't help them level, so they'd consider avoiding fights. Not a bad thing if you want more than hack and slash.

The second wind concept has merit. I seldom play in a group with a cleric. Relying on healing potions all the time is lame. And with a combat heavy GM, it would help.

The saving throw with best of stats makes it more complicated to build something (as multiple stats must be looked at).

The other rules ideas don't solve things that I consider problems. I have no interest in making PCs more powerful with better saves, stats, or damage.

For the guy wanting "marking" consider the Dodge feat. Make a new feat that gives a +1 to-hit instead of +1 to AC.

So what ideas from 4E simplify GMing?

 

[The_Warlock]

The "yo-yo" effect is what happens when your fighter has bull strength cast on him one round and then is struck by a shadow. (score goes up, everything adjusts. Score then goes down, and everything adjusts again, making you recalculate everything.) Pretty much, its the ultimate in bonus-stacking bane.

I debated removing actual ability "increases" for similar effects. For example, Bull's Strength grants a +2 to hit, damage, and Str checks. Bears Endurance grants +2 fort, +2 con checks, and +2 hp/hd. While on paper, it seems like the same thing (net bonuses are the same) your con score isn't actually changing, so recalculating simply becomes a couple temp bonuses.

This would be coupled with the only effects that boost ability scores being stat-boost items (gauntlets of ogre power) and level-adjusted increases (every 4 levels). No more inherents, no more temp enhancments.

The final key would be to somehow re-work poison and ability damage, but I'm not sure how.

In the end, it seems an awful lot of work. While the net benefit would be a removal of ability score bouncing up and down, the work needed to fix it far exceeds what I'd want to put in to a game I'm playing for perhaps a year more...

It's close to what I do. When True20 and Omni came out, I just went their way. I got rid of Attribute Scores completely - Attributes are just the modifiers. So, a character's Strength is a +2.

As for ability damages, poisons, and diseases, it's fairly easy. Divide their standard affect by 2 or 3 (anything with a permanent drain divide by 3), to a minimum of 1. If the division would make the number below 1, allow a save (for things without a save) or a bonus to the save (+2 to +4) to completely avoid it.

While you will still have in-combat calc, it's much faster if you don't have to rederive your bonuses from a primary stat (especially if you or any of your players are math haters). My experience is that it's just simpler in the midst of combat.

 

[mhensley]

I think getting rid of stat boosting spells and items entirely is a good idea.