Introducing New House Rules

[Wik]

So, I have a list of house rules I want to introduce to my game. My worry is, though, some of these house rules will change current PC builds - after all, if you build a character around the idea that a skill check can do X, and you make it so that X is no longer available as an option, it could ruin a character's usefulness.

I was thinking of introducing the rules next session (as next session, regardless of what I decide to go with, the PCs will be entering a new world, so it makes sense to do it now), and while doing so, allowing players to tweak their characters with unlimited power/feat retraining options.

However, I think that might be a bit too powerful, since most of my house rules will only modify the game in small ways.

The house rules I have in mind right now are:

1) Average healing rolls for any healing power made between encounters

2) Average damage rolls for any secondary attack (ie, A Sorcerer's Wild Magic at-will, or a ranger's second twin strike attack)

3) Monster Knowledge Checks do not grant a huge amount of monster knowledge, but instead more "flavour" information (I *HATE* monster knowledge checks, and want my GM freedom)

4) Rules that make no sense thematically will be ignored (ie, if you're prone, you don't grant cover to allies behind you vs. ranged attacks)

5) Flavour of powers will be considered for "stunting" purposes

6) No takebacks on moves (ie, you count as you move, and you can't try out multiple pathways). This will be coupled with a time limit on your action consideration (but not action resolution, of course).

7) I'm also thinking of introducing backgrounds (in a FR manner), but tying backgrounds to the Sigil Factions - once PCs join a faction, they'll get a minor benefit.

8) POSSIBLY changing leader abilities that say "ally" to include the leader as well. Still in consideration.

 

[aboyd]

Depending upon your players, you're going to have to take it in one of many different directions. I play in one campaign where these rules would be taken in stride, and nobody would change much of anything unless the new rules directly ruined an aspect of their build. And even then, they'd only change what they have to. It's a pretty good group.

I have another group which contains a min/maxer. He's not a munchkin -- he's not breaking rules or deliberately misinterpreting things incorrectly to gain advantage. However, he will take any game mechanic you introduce and push it to the maximum allowed. I had said at one point that if he hired a bard to assist him with the "marketing" of his character, he could use that as an "aid another" attempt when he was rolling up his weekly pay. He took that new game mechanic and hired 20 bards, had them stage an opera, and expected to get 20 "aid another" checks to stack, sending his weekly pay skyrocketing to a game-breaking level. If it worked, no adventurer would have done any adventuring. There would be hundreds upon hundreds of bards in any given town, all staging operas and symphonies and plays, all sucking so much money out of the local economy that almost immediately, the whole planet's financial stability would collapse.

Based upon what you said in your #4 change, it sounds like you have at least one player who is willing to bend the rules to unrealistic levels.

With players like that, any change you introduce will be an excuse to maximize everything possible. If you allow unlimited changes, even for things unrelated to your house rules, you may expect that someone(s) will go nuts with changes. They may even try to make changes that are unrealistic, such as swapping in a bunch of higher-level feats and omitting their necessary lower level feats. Stuff like that.

So to me, having learned my lesson, I would say that changes are fair only for things that are directly affected by the new house rules. Of course, some of your changes are quite broad. If the ranger doesn't like the new average for his twin strike attack, you may have to let him swap the whole thing.

Finally, as for house rule #6 (no takebacks on moves) I think that's almost micro-manage-ish in execution. I mean, it's so unnatural, you will have to watch the battlemat like a hawk and you will have to constantly shut down your players as they violate that rule over and over again. So I would say, make it more like chess, where the rule is that the move ends "once you let go of your piece." That's not only more realistic, so that players are more capable of complying, but it's also a rule that other people use in other games, which will be a selling point. Your players may find it to be "fair" in that sense, and help you to enforce it. Of course, they're going to enforce it on you too, so make sure whatever you decide, you can live with it.

 

[On Puget Sound]

the "no takebacks" rule will probably help them more than hurt them. They each have one character, whose powers they know well. You have to play a dozen NPCs a night, with powers you may not have read through more than once, PLUS track all the conditions, bonuses and penalties on everyone. Will you really always remember that if that monster shifts, two players will get basic attacks on it, it will take 5 radiant damage, and will be at -2 to hit?

This seems like a GM vs player, adversarial, "gotcha!" kind of rule.

 

[Destil]

Both average roll rules shouldn't affect the game from a statistical standpoint.

#3 I'd think is a good example that allowing people to retrain skills for free should be allowed. Monster knowledge checks are pretty annoying!

For #5 are you suggesting that the flavor may be considered as part of the effect. I think if you're going to do that I'd be sure to let the players re-flavor their powers to some degree if desired (and then stick to the new flavor). I played in a session where I was constrained to the default PHB write-ups of all of my powers, and it was pretty annoying as they just didn't fit the way I saw them working, but it had never been an issue before.

#6 may be a good idea, sounds like your combats are dragging out over rules minutia and take backs as other players chime in...

The last one is a pretty big change in some cases and no change at all in others. I'd look at things on a case by case basis, myself..

 

[Kzach]

I highly advise against house rules.

Unless your group is very like-minded and has been together for a long time, it has been my experience that house rules do more harm than good.

Oh sure, everyone is all happy and positive about them at the start... until something happens that negatively affects one of them and then the real drama's begin.

Using RAW is just easier and less frustrating. At least then players don't have anyone to blame but the system itself.

 

[delericho]

I only bring in new rules at the start of a new campaign (this also includes adding new supplements, as well as House Rules). This follows an experience of switching edition in mid-campaign that proved to have... complications.

That said, if I were running a campaign that was intended to run for a long time (more than a year), I might well consider making rule changes in mid-stream.

In this case, I would first discuss the proposed changes with the players. If they object (possibly if only one player objected), I wouldn't press ahead with the change. Assuming the players were okay with making the change, I would also give the opportunity for them to tweak their characters in light of the changes - if I nerf weapon X, a PC who uses this weapon may well want to switch; if I boost ability Y, someone might want to redo their character to take advantage of this.

(The one restriction I would put on this is that the PC has to remain fundamentally the same - Bob the Barbarian cannot suddenly become a halfling rogue, for example. That said, I always allow a player to retire a character and bring in a new one, so that's not much of a restriction - if Bob's player really wants to play that halfling rogue then he can.)

I haven't commented on your specific proposed changes - I don't know 4e well enough to really do so.

 

[Fanaelialae]

4) Rules that make no sense thematically will be ignored (ie, if you're prone, you don't grant cover to allies behind you vs. ranged attacks)

Be careful with this one, as what makes sense to you may not make sense to someone else (or vice-versa). I've got no issue with your prone example (it affects both sides equally) but I'd recommend you be careful. Try to avoid using this as an excuse to start nerfing the PCs' powers. (Sorry but you can't trip that ooze even though you just hit with a tripping power Mr Fighter, nor can Mr Rogue sneak attack that titan despite that he has combat advantage since all he can reach is the thing's ankles which clearly don't contain vital organs.) Remember the advice from the DMG (try to say yes rather than no).

Though admittedly, every group is different, I suspect it might not go over well. Players expect their powers to work unless the creature in question has a specific counter (ie, fire resistance).

6) No takebacks on moves (ie, you count as you move, and you can't try out multiple pathways). This will be coupled with a time limit on your action consideration (but not action resolution, of course).

I foresee the possibility that turns will drag (insofar as the time limit allows) as the players try counting the distances in their head or count "range" to their target instead of "movement".

If your concern is that the players aren't always returning their figure to its original starting point when they try a new pathway (which is the only reason I could think of for this rule), I'd instead suggest ruling that they can't move their figure when testing a path (count the squares with your finger instead) or place some marker under their figure (even just a small scrap of paper) that doesn't get moved until the move is finalized (thereby noting the fig's initial position).

8) POSSIBLY changing leader abilities that say "ally" to include the leader as well. Still in consideration.

This one certainly shouldn't draw any complaints from your players, but I'd be careful regarding it nonetheless. When we first started playing 4e the guy who played the cleric didn't realize that Sacred Flame couldn't be used on himself. When I caught the error, it seemed to make a big difference in the cleric's potency (he seemed noticeably less self-sufficient and thus more reliant on the rest of the party). That's just my (one) personal experience with it, but I'd recommend doing this one as a test run (mention that you'll see how it plays and then decide whether to make it an official house rule or revoke it).


I'd recommend letting them retrain within reason. I think it would be preferable letting a player change a bit more than is absolutely necessary, than having them feel like you're trying to "screw them over" with these house rules.

Also, I realize this is rather common advice, but try a "sanity check" to make certain that you have a solid reason for implementing these house rules and that they do what you intend without unintended consequences (I mean no offense by this, it's simply that I've met more than one DM who essentially ruined the system they were using, for essentially no better reason than "I think it should work like this instead").

 

[Imban]

1) Average healing rolls for any healing power made between encounters

Shouldn't significantly change things.

2) Average damage rolls for any secondary attack (ie, A Sorcerer's Wild Magic at-will, or a ranger's second twin strike attack)

There are a few things in the rules that cause this to stop working, like vorpal weapons, but it shouldn't significantly change things unless they pick one of those up.

3) Monster Knowledge Checks do not grant a huge amount of monster knowledge, but instead more "flavour" information (I *HATE* monster knowledge checks, and want my GM freedom)

I dunno, if I have a high level of knowledge about monsters that eat me, shouldn't I at least know whether it's going to be breathing fire or ice at me in the next few seconds? You might get some complaints here.

4) Rules that make no sense thematically will be ignored (ie, if you're prone, you don't grant cover to allies behind you vs. ranged attacks)

This is a houserule? I always assumed that it was a GM's job to strike down nonsense. On the other hand, some people seem to think 4e is designed around all sorts of nonsense being perfectly acceptable because "the rules is the rules", so you might get a player rebellion here. Depends on your group.

I mean, take Fanaelialae's post above - tripping an ooze is nonsense, but apparently in 4e it's supposed to be perfectly acceptable. (The last time I threw something out over "nonsense" in my games, though, was almost a year and a half ago when someone tried setting a meteor hammer against a charge. Even with magic that lets you do it with "any weapon" it defied belief, sorry. )

5) Flavour of powers will be considered for "stunting" purposes

I'm not sure what this even means. On the other hand, players who are already trying things not in the rules are less likely to complain about #4.

6) No takebacks on moves (ie, you count as you move, and you can't try out multiple pathways). This will be coupled with a time limit on your action consideration (but not action resolution, of course).

Can be kinda whiny and micro-managey, so you might just want to go with "no takebacks once a move is completed" or something less annoying.

7) I'm also thinking of introducing backgrounds (in a FR manner), but tying backgrounds to the Sigil Factions - once PCs join a faction, they'll get a minor benefit.

Try and make sure the Faction benefits are at least somewhat balanced, but really, PCs hardly ever complain about good things for them.

8) POSSIBLY changing leader abilities that say "ally" to include the leader as well. Still in consideration.

I'm fairly sure that this would make the game explode, sadly.

I highly advise against house rules.

Unless your group is very like-minded and has been together for a long time, it has been my experience that house rules do more harm than good.

Oh sure, everyone is all happy and positive about them at the start... until something happens that negatively affects one of them and then the real drama's begin.

Using RAW is just easier and less frustrating. At least then players don't have anyone to blame but the system itself.

Man what

Are you from a different planet where tabletop RPGs haven't always been about house ruling?

In this case, I would first discuss the proposed changes with the players. If they object (possibly if only one player objected), I wouldn't press ahead with the change. Assuming the players were okay with making the change, I would also give the opportunity for them to tweak their characters in light of the changes - if I nerf weapon X, a PC who uses this weapon may well want to switch; if I boost ability Y, someone might want to redo their character to take advantage of this.

I would suggest this, however. Players should get some input on the house rules - before the game, they have a much easier time of giving input by playing or not playing, but when the rules are changed mid-game... well, you don't always want to drop out of a game you were having fun in.

(The one restriction I would put on this is that the PC has to remain fundamentally the same - Bob the Barbarian cannot suddenly become a halfling rogue, for example. That said, I always allow a player to retire a character and bring in a new one, so that's not much of a restriction - if Bob's player really wants to play that halfling rogue then he can.)

I always allow a player to retire a character, at least. I rather like character continuity, and while I've got no problems with a player ceasing to play a character they're tired of, doing it too goddamn often - along the lines of 3 times in 5 sessions or more frequently - will cause me to just ask you to not make another character and instead leave. Of course, I wager that this is because I've had problems with two people who did that, whereas for most people it's just a hypothetical that isn't going to come up. I base this, of course, on how no one else I ever played with created and discarded characters during a game like that, and how I've played with quite a few other people.

 

[delericho]

I always allow a player to retire a character, at least. I rather like character continuity, and while I've got no problems with a player ceasing to play a character they're tired of, doing it too goddamn often - along the lines of 3 times in 5 sessions or more frequently - will cause me to just ask you to not make another character and instead leave.

Indeed. The reason why I didn't mention the "3 times in 5 sessions" case was primarily because I consider that a 'problem player' issue, and my response would generally be as you describe. (The only time I've seen this behaviour was precisely due to a problem player.)

That said, there does exist the possibility that a player is just having problems finding a character they can gel with in the current campaign, and so they go through a period of swapping characters often. So, if any of my current group were to do such a thing, I'd give them plenty of slack. But then, that's because I've gamed with those same guys for years, and so I know they're not problem players.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I mean, take Fanaelialae's post above - tripping an ooze is nonsense, but apparently in 4e it's supposed to be perfectly acceptable. (The last time I threw something out over "nonsense" in my games, though, was almost a year and a half ago when someone tried setting a meteor hammer against a charge. Even with magic that lets you do it with "any weapon" it defied belief, sorry. )

(Obviously) I don't think it's nonsense to trip an ooze. I think that too often people jump to "that doesn't make sense" without ever taking the time to consider "how could this make sense?".

A fighter fighting a gelatinous cube, for example, could trip it by slicing through it at an angle causing it to "fall apart" (effectively tripped) until it can reform itself as a move action. It's like rapidly slicing a block of jello at a 45 degree angle with a sharp knife.

For a less cube-like ooze, the fighter hits it so hard that it splatters all over the walls (effectively tripped) and has to reform before it can be considered fully functional.

Honestly, I can't fathom the thinking that a formless cell colony with perfect locomotive and sensory capabilities is fine, killing that ooze using nothing but a pointy stick is perfectly sensible, but once you use the status effect prone it enters the realm of nonsense.

4e basically accepts what it is- a fantasy game- and accepts that you can justify near anything in a fantasy setting if you bother to try. I think that that's partially at the heart of the "say yes" rule. I think the DM's job is less about "striking down nonsense" than creating fun.