D&D 4E My first two 4E house rules

[dm4hire]

I'm going to take it off grid and convert to inches since normally mats are one inch squares.

 

[jeffh]

Both of these just sound like an inability to let go of old mechanics, and I'm not really seeing the gain.

The save thing doesn't much resemble any existing mechanic, though, except the very narrow one for Hold Person.

And I thought I said fairly clearly where I saw the gain. Disagree if you will, but not seeing it at all seems... odd.

 

[jeffh]

If you want to change the saving throws, why not simply repeat the attack that estabilished the effect in the first place? If a wizard casts sleep on you with 1d20+5 vs. your Will, let's say 14, repeat the attack or invert it to a defense roll: 1d20 +4 (14-10) vs. 15 (10 +5).

Because that magnifies the importance of a given defence beyond reasonable limits. Same reason the designers didn't go with that system in the first place. Whereas the existing system, I suspect, overreacts to that problem by ignoring the differences between characters beyond reasonable limits. The point is to look for some sort of middle ground.

 

[DarkKestral]

it creates more tension if you don´t know whe exactly you break out.

Yeah, but if the new Sleep is any indication, the tension seems primarily to be about whether or not your daily power will actually be of any use, since it has a roughly one in 4 chance of actually sending an opponent to sleep, and I'd assume that in general, boss type enemies may often have bonuses against crowd control and save-or-die equivalents (sleep and other effects that limit or prevent opponents' actions) rendering that small chance even smaller. Per-day effects should be powerful, since it's unlikely you'll have more than 2-3 at a time, and they should generally be somewhat reliable since they are such a limited resource.

Maybe the dragon DID have a bonus, but if kobolds (which I assume were minion-class) and the dragon (which was 3 levels higher AND a solo monster) both had the same chance of falling asleep, I'm rather questioning the viability of "save ends" powers, if they're generally over in 2 rounds or less, and by 3 rounds, there's an almost 90% chance that they've ended, regardless of how strong they are intended to be. That is pretty impressively bad for a "major power." That's like saying "Hi! I'll try to kick you in the nuts, but I miss half the time, slow you down a bit most of the rest because I actually kick you in the shin, and if I'm REALLY lucky, I'll actually kick you in the jibblies and stun you for a second. But don't worry, you'll be able to come back fighting before I can run away or do anything else, either!"

If I were running it, I'd probably change the rules somewhat. Minions should probably be pretty weak against such powers (they're intentionally mooks, after all...) but elites or solo monsters should definitely have some resistances built in. For example, I'd probably give minions at least a standard minus to saves, normals would be like players or at a small minus, elites would either a small plus or be equivalent to players, and solo monsters a plus, though not one that would mean that such effects are worthless. That way, you can't rely on sleep-type effects knocking out bosses for long, (you might be able to get a round or two out of it, but by round 3, they're up and kicking your butt) but you can for mooks.

I know that if I were playing a wizard, I'd be hesitant to use the new Sleep as a per-day choice. It just seems totally underpowered. (and so far, DDXP reports seem to support the idea that it IS unless your enemies roll really poorly.)

I think this new system is a total designer overreaction to the reality of save-or-dies against bosses in 3rd ed, especially as 'exception-based encounter design' totally supports the idea of primarily using staged versions of spells against players (to minimize the chance that they totally are made irrelevant" but allowing instant-effect versions against monsters. Frankly, it looks like the designers all went and said "no, you really SHOULD just go through however much HP the monster has, even though it's probably OK to have effects that are likely to end an encounter quickly occasionally, because it's More Fun that way even if the players agree that they want it over fast." Per-day abilities, IMO, should be about that. Should they end a boss encounter in one stroke? No. That probably won't be fun for the group. But should the players have the capacity to end an encounter solely made of mooks decisively when they really want to on occasion? Probably. Players should have the chance to show off how cool and powerful they are every once in a while and the game should support that.

This, and a few other things are really making me question the design decisions behind 4e. I like the theory, but the practice seems questionable. I know a lot of people are going "Oooh.. Ahh... I like..." but I'm not. A lot of things they're doing are rubbing the wrong way so far.

 

[keterys]

but not seeing it at all seems... odd.

Effectively, as described, I see as much gain in the following rules:

After 3 rounds of combat, creatures take a -1 penalty to attack rolls due to dripping sweat. Creatures which don't sweat don't suffer this penalty. Certain creatures are 'Less Sweaty +X' and suffer the penalty after the indicated # of extra rounds.

Hindering terrain gives a variable penalty from -1 to -3 to Reflex and AC while on it due to uncertain footing. See <this chart> to reference the type of terrain you are standing on. Certain races have 'Surefooted +X' which reduces this penalty by the X.

 

[smetzger]

It strikes me as preordering a brand-new car, and making an appointment with your mechanic to replace a bunch of normal engine parts, without first getting the car and finding out if it needs those "repairs" or not.

Actually a lot of people do this. Suspension, wheels, and tires are the first. Then CAI, chip, and exhaust.