House Rules
- Thread starter Immolate
- Start date
RangerWickett
Legend
I suspect I'm going to have a rule that says "If the game requires you have a 'power' to do something that is obviously possible in the real world, you can attempt that action without the power, though you take a penalty."
For instance, it looks like disarming someone requires a power, as does tripping. I'd let people at least try to do those things, just at a penalty.
For instance, it looks like disarming someone requires a power, as does tripping. I'd let people at least try to do those things, just at a penalty.
Irda Ranger
First Post
This is true for the most part here as well. I certainly won't be changing how combat or class powers or races work. My primary "house rule" will be figuring out how to run the Verrik and Mohj.Piratecat said:
I have a pretty well developed system for earning and handing out XP though, so I'll have to read the full rules before I make that decision. But the new "Quest XP" rules seem so close to what I've been doing for a while that it may make no practical difference.
The only "big" change is that I'm keeping the Thievery skill out of my game. WotC fixed the "somebody needs to play the Cleric" problem pretty well, but the "someone needs to play the Thief" problem is still around. 4E has already come half way to my position though, by allowing rolls other than Thievery to defeat traps; I'm just taking this step to its logical conclusion.
Irda Ranger said:
That's a good point. Rogues, like Paladins, aren't appropriate for every party or campaign. You can live without a paladin, easily enough, but in 3.5, the rogue is sometimes difficult to replace. In our current campaign (just turned one-year-old and close to finished), our rogue died at about the half-way mark. The player rolled up a fighter and we've been rogue-less since. It's a 'gooder' than average party, and we don't miss the sinister aspects, but we do miss the skills.
Celebrim
Legend
I have no plans on running 4e, but if I did I'm sure I'd acquire house rules.
However, I think it is too early to say exactly what those rules would be. Some things that I thought would obviously require house rules turn out once I've seen the fuller rules to have the very sort of rules I thought would need implementing. In other cases, the rule turned out to be different than orginally 'advertised'. In most cases, I'm not sure how changes would really interact with each other.
Some parts of the new system I like and have definately inspired me to question my own assumptions. Some parts I really dislike. My main concern ultimately with 4e is the triviality with which it approaches being wounded, its lack of long term effects, the gamism of the skill system, the narrowness of the classes, its lack of fundamental differences in your power sources, the fact that gameplay doesn't evolve to reflect the increasing power level of the players, plus alot of other minor points. Some of that is so hard wired into the system that it will be hard to change.
I can see ignoring some rules and adding in some others. But I'm not entirely sure what those rules would look like at this point. Ultimately though, the majority of 4e rules describe the classes in great detail, and that part is hard to change or ignore.
However, I think it is too early to say exactly what those rules would be. Some things that I thought would obviously require house rules turn out once I've seen the fuller rules to have the very sort of rules I thought would need implementing. In other cases, the rule turned out to be different than orginally 'advertised'. In most cases, I'm not sure how changes would really interact with each other.
Some parts of the new system I like and have definately inspired me to question my own assumptions. Some parts I really dislike. My main concern ultimately with 4e is the triviality with which it approaches being wounded, its lack of long term effects, the gamism of the skill system, the narrowness of the classes, its lack of fundamental differences in your power sources, the fact that gameplay doesn't evolve to reflect the increasing power level of the players, plus alot of other minor points. Some of that is so hard wired into the system that it will be hard to change.
I can see ignoring some rules and adding in some others. But I'm not entirely sure what those rules would look like at this point. Ultimately though, the majority of 4e rules describe the classes in great detail, and that part is hard to change or ignore.
lots...
we have lots of house rules.
After discussions with players for what to do in 4E, these came about due to several factors.
Most were due to our unhappyness since 2e or 3e with certain aspects and us just not spending the time to create the house rules earlier. Due to the main switch now, it's the best time forus, while everyone is converting their character over to 4th. 2nd, regardless of whether people have played it or not, there are things people say, that we know are in the rules, etc that players don't like, even stuff that i don't care about but they aren't happy about. I have no issues modifying it, so I will. With all the years of DM'ing, and all the experience houseruling stuff, making up new races, etc....not worried and I know the impacts won't be big, if any.
Currently, an NPC that has joined the party is a testbed for a couple of the larger house rules and it appears to be going quite well. I will make a bit of an adjustment now in my spreadsheet and then preview with the party.
THe house rules we have coming:
1) magic works differently...VERY differently. We have a wildmage in our party so some house ruling is needed for him regardless. We were never happy with casters, especially clerics. Don't envision clerics the way they are done in D&D. Currently, there is a movanic deva as an npc in the party... I have changed all the deva's powers and am using our new cleric system for him (since I envision a true cleric would have powers similar in method). Only minor adjustments now, but I am doing the final write up. Wizards will be the same way, but still getting through some of the stuff for them. THey require more work although the preview stuff my players saw, they loved it and are very happy. Again, it's more of what they've always wanted a wizard to be. The wizard will be a challenge. The wild mage was much easier... Also, wrote up a Dark Sun defiler, similar in concept to the 3.5E version in dragon magazine but using our new spell system. Expect the mage to be done in june or july.
2) monsters. I LOVE wotc concept of how monsters should have their own powers. not the same spells as players, and long list of powers that don't make sense for them. However, IMHO, they didn't take the concept far enough. I had been doing this already since we use lots of planar stuff (Since we play in my modified Planescape campaign anyways). For example, I expect Tanar'ri to be, essentially, all similar in ways to a wild mage IF they use any type of magical ability. Truly powerful, but chaotic and random. As well, I think they should harness some of that power if they are within the abyss. What I have thus done, so far, Devils, demons, angels, slaadi, dragons, etc...I have made a spreadsheet with tons of types of abilities/powers, spells (taken from sources that talked about unique spells that those creatures had + more), etc and now am going through and figuring out which ones belong to which creature. For example, I envision devils harnessing hellfire. Hence, all devils of a certain power can unleashe hellfire and/or use it to enhance themselves. Pit fiends can create hellfire coming from their bodies so you better not be too close!!! THey can also unleashe beams of them like a hellfire warlock. THey can do other stuff as well, but you get the idea. My friends saw a taste of this in a fight some time ago with a yugoloth...and they thought it was very cool and different. THis will still take time for me to finish. Angels are easier so far since back in 2E, they had lots of powers that were unique to them, example, the aasimon distress call and celestial reverie...so stuff like that we like. So we add stuff like that to our list and decide, which should have that type of power. So far, IMHO, the coolest are the Solar, the Marilith, the Balor, and Bulezau. Dragons are coming along well too. For them, it's just having some unique dragon spells IF the dragon is also a caster + a few powers that may be interesting (we like the silver dragon's powers in 3.X)....
3) critical hits. Since 2E, we've been using the detailed crit hit system from Combat & Tactics and Spells & Magic. It makes for very bloody/violent, and in a way, realistic battles....friends like it too since it works both ways. THis won't change so we will use this. We have a small access program friend made so that we can use it very quickly so that is good.
4) tons of spell changes (ie. fireball for us is an explosion, so it causes lots of damage to areas and in our games, players have been known to blow up pillars to bring down upper floors of a tower, etc...makes for VERY unique encounters and it's alot of fun).
5) we have a lillendi in our party....so will need to do whatever is needed to bring her into 4E...not a problem. Been creating/recreating races since back in 2E. it will be fun. Although our barbarian, bard characters (she's the bard), and swordsage...still thinking what to do there but will probably just make a few small adjustments, and have them use their current stuff and modify on the fly. Done it before...whatever, not a big deal.
6) TWF will give an extra attack, but I do like the getting rid of iterative attacks. again, this is due to how our players do a lot of differnet stuff in fights. Getting rid of stuff like TW style will severly change that. We modified combat to give a very cinematic feel long time ago. from tests in 4E, ours still appears a lot more cinematic anyways so we will keep to that.
7) our roleplaying style is much more hardcore...will keep that. As well, traps are much more hardcore. Design them to 'work', and then players have to think for real, on how to solve/get past them. As we have seen in our games, it has helped a few players who were more shy, and unsure of themselves, learn and get better, and 1 of them, we are so happy, has gotten much better at solving puzzles, riddles, and even critical thinking for solving general problems. This will stick around although it's more work for me (the DM)...I like it.
8) god system...of all of them, this is what I've always wanted in D&D and no edition has done it to this detail (2E legends and lore started it though). We wanted gods to make a true difference. The way our players roleplay, you can see if they take a god, it truly means something. Also in mythology (hindu, christian, greek, whatever) there are examples of non-"holy types" who believe and have strong faith (not just priests for example). What I have done but this is still far (july probably) from completion. Written every god in the core 4E, + a few others we want to add since we use them or like them..and any that players may want....ANYONE can decide to follow a god. Right now, in our party, one of the characters (long story) is a follower of asmodeus, but no one else knows that. SHe was a rogue and is now a warlock. THe way the rules work, each god has a bunch of powers/benefits/drawbacks, etc. However, this list changes based on the class and possibly race. Example: a warrior who worships bahamut would get a whole bunch of different powers at level 1, 11, and epic 21-25 for example, compared to a cleric who worships bahamut. SOme may be similar or same of course. THe concept is to truly make choosing a god and roleplaying it well (this is important) very important and unique. THis also fits into our new clerical power/magic system. To balance though, have come up with unique powers for players who decide they don't want a god or even roleplay someone who believes that gods are just powerful beings but not truly divine in the 'real world' sense. That has been harder to do but have finally got it down i think
In the end, our campaign style is so different, hasn't been a system that we haven't changed alot to get it to work for us....but I think it's quite rewarding
I think the god system, many people here may think is interesting
Sanjay
we have lots of house rules.
After discussions with players for what to do in 4E, these came about due to several factors.
Most were due to our unhappyness since 2e or 3e with certain aspects and us just not spending the time to create the house rules earlier. Due to the main switch now, it's the best time forus, while everyone is converting their character over to 4th. 2nd, regardless of whether people have played it or not, there are things people say, that we know are in the rules, etc that players don't like, even stuff that i don't care about but they aren't happy about. I have no issues modifying it, so I will. With all the years of DM'ing, and all the experience houseruling stuff, making up new races, etc....not worried and I know the impacts won't be big, if any.
Currently, an NPC that has joined the party is a testbed for a couple of the larger house rules and it appears to be going quite well. I will make a bit of an adjustment now in my spreadsheet and then preview with the party.
THe house rules we have coming:
1) magic works differently...VERY differently. We have a wildmage in our party so some house ruling is needed for him regardless. We were never happy with casters, especially clerics. Don't envision clerics the way they are done in D&D. Currently, there is a movanic deva as an npc in the party... I have changed all the deva's powers and am using our new cleric system for him (since I envision a true cleric would have powers similar in method). Only minor adjustments now, but I am doing the final write up. Wizards will be the same way, but still getting through some of the stuff for them. THey require more work although the preview stuff my players saw, they loved it and are very happy. Again, it's more of what they've always wanted a wizard to be. The wizard will be a challenge. The wild mage was much easier... Also, wrote up a Dark Sun defiler, similar in concept to the 3.5E version in dragon magazine but using our new spell system. Expect the mage to be done in june or july.
2) monsters. I LOVE wotc concept of how monsters should have their own powers. not the same spells as players, and long list of powers that don't make sense for them. However, IMHO, they didn't take the concept far enough. I had been doing this already since we use lots of planar stuff (Since we play in my modified Planescape campaign anyways). For example, I expect Tanar'ri to be, essentially, all similar in ways to a wild mage IF they use any type of magical ability. Truly powerful, but chaotic and random. As well, I think they should harness some of that power if they are within the abyss. What I have thus done, so far, Devils, demons, angels, slaadi, dragons, etc...I have made a spreadsheet with tons of types of abilities/powers, spells (taken from sources that talked about unique spells that those creatures had + more), etc and now am going through and figuring out which ones belong to which creature. For example, I envision devils harnessing hellfire. Hence, all devils of a certain power can unleashe hellfire and/or use it to enhance themselves. Pit fiends can create hellfire coming from their bodies so you better not be too close!!! THey can also unleashe beams of them like a hellfire warlock. THey can do other stuff as well, but you get the idea. My friends saw a taste of this in a fight some time ago with a yugoloth...and they thought it was very cool and different. THis will still take time for me to finish. Angels are easier so far since back in 2E, they had lots of powers that were unique to them, example, the aasimon distress call and celestial reverie...so stuff like that we like. So we add stuff like that to our list and decide, which should have that type of power. So far, IMHO, the coolest are the Solar, the Marilith, the Balor, and Bulezau. Dragons are coming along well too. For them, it's just having some unique dragon spells IF the dragon is also a caster + a few powers that may be interesting (we like the silver dragon's powers in 3.X)....
3) critical hits. Since 2E, we've been using the detailed crit hit system from Combat & Tactics and Spells & Magic. It makes for very bloody/violent, and in a way, realistic battles....friends like it too since it works both ways. THis won't change so we will use this. We have a small access program friend made so that we can use it very quickly so that is good.
4) tons of spell changes (ie. fireball for us is an explosion, so it causes lots of damage to areas and in our games, players have been known to blow up pillars to bring down upper floors of a tower, etc...makes for VERY unique encounters and it's alot of fun).
5) we have a lillendi in our party....so will need to do whatever is needed to bring her into 4E...not a problem. Been creating/recreating races since back in 2E. it will be fun. Although our barbarian, bard characters (she's the bard), and swordsage...still thinking what to do there but will probably just make a few small adjustments, and have them use their current stuff and modify on the fly. Done it before...whatever, not a big deal.
6) TWF will give an extra attack, but I do like the getting rid of iterative attacks. again, this is due to how our players do a lot of differnet stuff in fights. Getting rid of stuff like TW style will severly change that. We modified combat to give a very cinematic feel long time ago. from tests in 4E, ours still appears a lot more cinematic anyways so we will keep to that.
7) our roleplaying style is much more hardcore...will keep that. As well, traps are much more hardcore. Design them to 'work', and then players have to think for real, on how to solve/get past them. As we have seen in our games, it has helped a few players who were more shy, and unsure of themselves, learn and get better, and 1 of them, we are so happy, has gotten much better at solving puzzles, riddles, and even critical thinking for solving general problems. This will stick around although it's more work for me (the DM)...I like it.
8) god system...of all of them, this is what I've always wanted in D&D and no edition has done it to this detail (2E legends and lore started it though). We wanted gods to make a true difference. The way our players roleplay, you can see if they take a god, it truly means something. Also in mythology (hindu, christian, greek, whatever) there are examples of non-"holy types" who believe and have strong faith (not just priests for example). What I have done but this is still far (july probably) from completion. Written every god in the core 4E, + a few others we want to add since we use them or like them..and any that players may want....ANYONE can decide to follow a god. Right now, in our party, one of the characters (long story) is a follower of asmodeus, but no one else knows that. SHe was a rogue and is now a warlock. THe way the rules work, each god has a bunch of powers/benefits/drawbacks, etc. However, this list changes based on the class and possibly race. Example: a warrior who worships bahamut would get a whole bunch of different powers at level 1, 11, and epic 21-25 for example, compared to a cleric who worships bahamut. SOme may be similar or same of course. THe concept is to truly make choosing a god and roleplaying it well (this is important) very important and unique. THis also fits into our new clerical power/magic system. To balance though, have come up with unique powers for players who decide they don't want a god or even roleplay someone who believes that gods are just powerful beings but not truly divine in the 'real world' sense. That has been harder to do but have finally got it down i think
In the end, our campaign style is so different, hasn't been a system that we haven't changed alot to get it to work for us....but I think it's quite rewarding
I think the god system, many people here may think is interesting
Sanjay
StarFyre said:
Ah critical hits. We've been using the various iterations of Arms Law since way back in OD&D. We started with the Arduin stuff, but it was so deadly that we backed off of it.
Our current method is that, if a critical hit is confirmed, we then roll a six-sided die. A six indicates that the crit is Arms law, or a one and a six if the character has improved crit. Since Arms Law contains five columns (A-E), we roll a twenty and use an even distribution, then a percentile dice to determine the nature of the hit. Most Arms law crits wind up being fairly innocuous--perhaps a small amount of added damage or a minor stun effect, but some are quite deadly. Whatever the effect, it is added to the normal crit damage. Of course the monsters get to use it too with the same rules.
It adds to the excitement level of the game know that, no matter how wimpy your opponent, or how god-like you are, a single hit can kill you without recourse. The odds are long, but it can happen. Good times.
Xethreau
Josh Gentry - Author, Wanderer
I predict that I will have the following house rules
- Less strict power sellection: For characters converted from 3.5, power selection restrictions to achieve that blend will be lax
- One attack roll: AoE's will use one attack roll
- Fan-brewed material is GO! upon DM approval
- Less strict power sellection: For characters converted from 3.5, power selection restrictions to achieve that blend will be lax
- One attack roll: AoE's will use one attack roll
- Fan-brewed material is GO! upon DM approval
