Including races and classes - making a decision I won't regret

[Zinovia]

After an on-going 3.x campaign lasting over 6 years finally draws to a close (2-3 more sessions), I will be starting a 4E campaign. Currently I'm setting up the ground rules for the game and making decisions on which races and classes to allow, as well as which house rules I'll be starting out with.

Given that we'll likely be living with these decisions for a number of years (if I do my job right and keep the players interested!), I want to make sure the decisions I make now are good ones.

Races
I have no particular issues with any of the PHB races for the most part. I will be making some minor cosmetic changes (dragonborn should have tails!), but overall they seem interesting and well-balanced with each other.

"I'm 1/8 elf on my mother's side" - I have changed the half-elf origin story because I don't like the idea of elves and humans being able to cross-breed without magical intervention. Half-elves in my world are the result of Fey tampering with the offspring of various nobles in an ancient human empire. They stole the children and would leave a changeling in its place, which "died" shortly thereafter. The children were raised in the Feywild, the magic of the place changing them to a partially elven appearance. They were taught to be good rulers, and in the use of magic, and finally returned home to rule, which they did very well indeed. Their half-elven features were passed onto their offspring, and they could have children with either elves or humans (magic trumps genetics). In time, half-elven rulers became the norm for this empire, and to this day, half-elves are seen as leaders and diplomats, and some of them feel they are members of the ruling class and *should* be in control, regardless of who actually is.

"Sure, his people burned down your village, but Ogmok here is a great guy!" - I'm not allowing monster races for that reason primarily. They are hated and feared on sight, and I don't see any need to allow people to play orcs or bugbears in my game. I'll listen to someone who really wants to do it, if they have a good justification, but otherwise, no. (oooh, she said "No" like the DMG says not to. oooohhhh.)

"Genasi - now with five fun flavors for your enjoyment!" - This is one of my big questions, do I include the genasi or not? Note that we are not playing a Forgotten Realms game. I like the elemental flavor of the race, and think having another player race with a bonus to strength is a good thing. Are they too powerful compared to the PHB races? Will people who want to play a tactical warlord or sword mage (see below) always choose them? How have they worked out for people in other games? The players are not expecting them in the game, not having seen them before, so it's entirely my call as to whether they will make an appearance.

"Shifters - Furries R Us!" - So what about these guys? I haven't played with them and the MM picture really does make me think of cute foxy faces and pinned on tails at cosplay events. Do they bring anything interesting or valuable to the game? I like the background of the genasi a lot more frankly.

Classes
Classes from the PH are all good, the question is whether to include the sword mage. No I don't have the book yet, but the information we do have on it makes it sound like an interesting defender. How balanced is the sword mage compared to other defenders? If it overshadows the fighter and paladin, I may skip it, but I like the concept and it does sound fun. I think it would appeal to a couple people in my group.

The artificer is probably a no-go. I don't care for the steam-punk flavor and don't think it will fit well into the more traditional fantasy game I have planned. How has the class played out for those who have tried it? Does it work well? How does it compare to the other leaders? Is it full of enough win that I should make room for it?

House Rules
Sunrods illuminate the same radius as torches. They are more convenient in some ways, but don't last as long and are more expensive.

Bastard Swords - I am inclined to rule that bastard swords are too heavy to be dual-wielded. I'm not doing it to be arbitrary, but for balance, as well as a slight reality-check. If there is one option that so clearly outweighs the others that everyone takes it, then it is not balanced. Yes, it takes a feat to use bastard swords, but I don't want every ranger in the game running around with two of those. Besides I *do* think they are too heavy to be dual-wielded.

Magic Item Identification - I would prefer to make this an arcana check during a short rest rather than just spending 5 minutes of quality time fondling the item in question. Seeing effects of the item when it was being used will grant a bonus on the arcana roll. I want people with arcana to have a chance to use it, and to have a better shot of knowing what an item is than Joe Fighter who used Int as his dump stat. I do approve of making identifying items easier in 4E however - say goodbye to the bag of "Identify" gems forever!

Enchant Magic Item ritual - You need to start with a "masterwork" item which will cost 1/2 the ritual component cost (and counts towards that cost). You can't enchant the rusted pot-metal sword the goblin was using, nor can your turn your favorite t-shirt into magic cloth armor (unless it's a masterwork T-shirt!).

I will allow this ritual to re-shape weapons with major limits (you can't change it to a different basic type, or change it to a type of weapon that enchant can't normally be put on). It can also be used to re-shape and re-consecrate magical holy symbols to a new deity by using a religion check rather than an arcana check.


I think that's most of it. Any thoughts?

 

[StickPerson]

I like your house rules. I took sunrods down a notch in my campaign as well; there is just something much more evocative about exploring a musty dungeon with flickering torchlight or a trusty lantern that just isn't there with a magic glow stick. Also I may consider using your rule for bastard swords (I'd like to hear a bit of debate on this one first though), as it seems like such a no brainer for nearly every two-weapon fighting ranger to take.

 

[Zinovia]

I like your house rules. I took sunrods down a notch in my campaign as well; there is just something much more evocative about exploring a musty dungeon with flickering torchlight or a trusty lantern that just isn't there with a magic glow stick. Also I may consider using your rule for bastard swords (I'd like to hear a bit of debate on this one first though), as it seems like such a no brainer for nearly every two-weapon fighting ranger to take.

Thanks. I agree that flickering torches or lanterns are more evocative, but the main reason is that sunrods were flat out better than everything else, and illuminated out to a crazy radius (20 squares). Oops, i just noticed that I said they were the same as torches in the first post. Maybe that's best, but I'd been thinking lanterns when I wrote that - the 10 square radius. We did use everburning torches in 3.x, they were minor magic items. I don't recall us having sunrods.

I'd like to get some opinions on the bastard sword rule as well, since I haven't played in a game yet where anyone is using one. I don't like limiting options that are part of the standard rules unless I have to, and it's far better to do so from the very beginning rather than having to change something after a player has gotten their heart set on it.

 

[RickVigorous]

Bastard Swords - I am inclined to rule that bastard swords are too heavy to be dual-wielded. I'm not doing it to be arbitrary, but for balance, as well as a slight reality-check. If there is one option that so clearly outweighs the others that everyone takes it, then it is not balanced. Yes, it takes a feat to use bastard swords, but I don't want every ranger in the game running around with two of those. Besides I *do* think they are too heavy to be dual-wielded.

Actually, allowing rangers to dual wield bastard swords doesn't unbalance anything. Archer rangers get longbows, which deal d10 damage with an excellent range and without a feat investment. They also only have to pay to upgrade one weapon, meaning they can spend their limited resources on better non-weapon items. They also get prime shot, which is entirely closed off to melee attackers.

Melee rangers, on the other hand, may or may not want to invest in bastard swords. If you're playing against type and go with a low Dex, battle axes and warhammers both deal equivalent damage and have better paragon-tier feats (Hammer Rhythm, in particular, is good for people who make many attacks/round). The scimitar is also a viable option for aspiring stormwardens, thanks to its high crit ability and Scimitar Dance. Basically, you can be a bastard-sword wielding ranger, but this means you'll lose out on some extremely useful abilities, and all you get in return is a d10 of damage (matched by the hammer, axe, and bow rangers) and a +3 proficiency (matched, in many cases, by the archer's prime shot). And you have to invest an extra feat, which slows down access to standbys like the Two-Weapon Fighting chain, Weapon Focus, Lethal Hunter, etc.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

On bestial races, I've seen them done two ways that avoid the "Why is my bloodthirsty ogre so WELCOMED here?" problem.

1) Disguise, disguise, disguise.

2) This one was REALLY odd. A character who normally wants to do nothing but hack and slash came up with this idea when he wanted to play a gnoll - he WOULD be the stereotypical bloodthirsty, bone-snapping gnoll...on a tight leash. Literally, one of the other characters would keep him on a leash and muzzle until fightan time came along. it was...interesting, to say the least, but it worked.

As for shifters, I haven't seen their 4e treatment, but 3e Eberron had them as much less cutesy stuffed creatures and far more bestial animalistic people. Less furry, more were-creature barbarian.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

In the two games I'm in, both of my characters are monstrous.

They're also both set (nominally) in Eberron, so that's not nearly as big a deal as it could be. The bugbear rogue, in particular, is from Sharn and his current ambition is to be the New Cyrean town's primary legbreaker.

The minotaur battle cleric in our New World campaign is less sensical, but on the other hand his name's Ferdinand del Toro, and I can make handwaving motions about how he's from Droaam and wound up in Breland at the end of the war and blah blah blah.

Brad