Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
My first two 4E house rules
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jeffh" data-source="post: 4096348" data-attributes="member: 2642"><p>I'm a big gearhead and tinkerer, though I've posted little proof of it here (especially lately), and so the chances of my running a game exactly as written are only slightly better than my chances of winning the upcoming US presidential election. Bear in mind here that I'm not even a US citizen. <span style="font-size: 9px">(Though by the time the election rolls around, I <em>will </em>meet the minimum age of 35... how'd that happen? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /> ) </span> While I will undoubtedly eventually do mass rewrites on the powers and so on, for now I settle for two significant, but quickly and easily expressed, changes.</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">1-2-1-2 diagonal movement, if I even use a grid. Since I find it intuitive and seem to be good at explaining it to people, I don't anticipate much slowdown or confusion resulting, and I <em>really </em>can't stand the (much more noticeable) distortion of basic math and physics involved in 1-1-1-1. Having said all that, I'd rather this thread weren't used to re-open the general debate on that; there are other threads for that. But I will make <em>one </em>point about it below, which I welcome responses to.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A change to saving throws. Right now, saves are pretty static; by default you make them on a 10 or better regardless of any other aspect of your character, and very few things seem to modify this. I'm thinking about changing both aspects of this paradigm. First, raise the DC a little, I'm thinking to 12. Second, redefine what a save is in the first place. A save is an ability check - I'm still thinking about whether that should be in the 3E sense of a check modified <em>only </em>by your ability modifier, or the 4E sense where half your class level plays into it too, but heavily leaning toward the first. Escaping constriction might be a Strength save. Seeing through an illusion? Intelligence. Toughing out a poison? Constitution. Willpower stuff would be split between Wisdom and Charisma in some manner yet to be determined. I don't think it would be a bad thing if Dexterity wasn't very involved in saves, since the score continues to have at least some of the disproportionate importance in other areas that it did in 3E, including a large role in determining whether you get into a situation where you need to make saves in the first place.</li> </ul><p></p><p>As far as the 1-1-1-1 versus 1-2-1-2 debate - and to reiterate, while <em>direct </em>responses to the following point are welcome, I'd rather the larger debate didn't spill into this thread any more than can be helped - I do have one argument I'd like to address. A couple of people have been waving around things like the Rogue's "slide an enemy two squares" power as though the inability to make full use of this diagonally were a knockdown objection to 1-2-1-2, and I don't see the problem at all.</p><p></p><p>Using the by-the-book, 1-1-1-1 system, a "slide two squares" power can put the enemy anywhere within a 5-square by 5-square area centered on its starting location, given open terrain (and the effect of more restricted terrain on my argument is minimal).[1] That means that by the book, you have 24 choices for where the enemy ends up (that includes leaving it where it is, but excludes putting it in <em>your own</em> square, which I assume won't be allowed). By my rule, on the assumption that you can move the enemy through your own square (you flip it over your head or something) but not have it end up in your own square, 20 of those 24 options are still open; the <em>only </em>ones you lose are the four corners. Yeah, I suppose it makes the exploit in question <em>slightly </em>less powerful, but I'm not seeing that the difference involves any <em>meaningful</em> loss. Especially considering that, in terms of power level, there's a certain amount of diminishing returns with the number of options. The difference between one way of using a power and two is big; the difference between 20 and 24, much less so.</p><p></p><p>(Even if you can't move it through your own square, that only costs you one option [VERY LATE EDIT: and that only if you're not on a diagonal from it], that of moving it directly opposite you from where it started; so in that case you'd have 19 options [in some cases and 20 in others], not [always] 20. That still doesn't seem like a big deal.)</p><p></p><p>Admittedly, I make some assumptions above about how involuntary sliding will work in the first place. But I think they're very reasonable assumptions. Of course, if you <em>know</em>, not just speculate, anything specific about what the final rules will say on this point, I'm all ears.</p><p></p><p>As for saves, I think the change, while it may add a bit of complexity back in and slightly magnify the punishing aspects of having poor scores in Constitution or Wisdom in some situations, also gives back a bit of individuality to characters and a bit of importance to scores that some characters may be tempted to ignore. These effects seem beneficial to me. I can see people going either way on the tradeoff, but for me at least, the side I've suggested here looks to be the more attractive of the two.</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">[1] Some people seem to assume you won't be able to slide it only one square, or slide it, say, one square diagonally and then one square horizontally; but I don't see why either of these would be the case.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jeffh, post: 4096348, member: 2642"] I'm a big gearhead and tinkerer, though I've posted little proof of it here (especially lately), and so the chances of my running a game exactly as written are only slightly better than my chances of winning the upcoming US presidential election. Bear in mind here that I'm not even a US citizen. [SIZE=1](Though by the time the election rolls around, I [I]will [/I]meet the minimum age of 35... how'd that happen? :confused: ) [/SIZE] While I will undoubtedly eventually do mass rewrites on the powers and so on, for now I settle for two significant, but quickly and easily expressed, changes. [list][*]1-2-1-2 diagonal movement, if I even use a grid. Since I find it intuitive and seem to be good at explaining it to people, I don't anticipate much slowdown or confusion resulting, and I [I]really [/I]can't stand the (much more noticeable) distortion of basic math and physics involved in 1-1-1-1. Having said all that, I'd rather this thread weren't used to re-open the general debate on that; there are other threads for that. But I will make [I]one [/I]point about it below, which I welcome responses to. [*]A change to saving throws. Right now, saves are pretty static; by default you make them on a 10 or better regardless of any other aspect of your character, and very few things seem to modify this. I'm thinking about changing both aspects of this paradigm. First, raise the DC a little, I'm thinking to 12. Second, redefine what a save is in the first place. A save is an ability check - I'm still thinking about whether that should be in the 3E sense of a check modified [I]only [/I]by your ability modifier, or the 4E sense where half your class level plays into it too, but heavily leaning toward the first. Escaping constriction might be a Strength save. Seeing through an illusion? Intelligence. Toughing out a poison? Constitution. Willpower stuff would be split between Wisdom and Charisma in some manner yet to be determined. I don't think it would be a bad thing if Dexterity wasn't very involved in saves, since the score continues to have at least some of the disproportionate importance in other areas that it did in 3E, including a large role in determining whether you get into a situation where you need to make saves in the first place.[/list] As far as the 1-1-1-1 versus 1-2-1-2 debate - and to reiterate, while [I]direct [/I]responses to the following point are welcome, I'd rather the larger debate didn't spill into this thread any more than can be helped - I do have one argument I'd like to address. A couple of people have been waving around things like the Rogue's "slide an enemy two squares" power as though the inability to make full use of this diagonally were a knockdown objection to 1-2-1-2, and I don't see the problem at all. Using the by-the-book, 1-1-1-1 system, a "slide two squares" power can put the enemy anywhere within a 5-square by 5-square area centered on its starting location, given open terrain (and the effect of more restricted terrain on my argument is minimal).[1] That means that by the book, you have 24 choices for where the enemy ends up (that includes leaving it where it is, but excludes putting it in [I]your own[/I] square, which I assume won't be allowed). By my rule, on the assumption that you can move the enemy through your own square (you flip it over your head or something) but not have it end up in your own square, 20 of those 24 options are still open; the [I]only [/I]ones you lose are the four corners. Yeah, I suppose it makes the exploit in question [I]slightly [/I]less powerful, but I'm not seeing that the difference involves any [I]meaningful[/I] loss. Especially considering that, in terms of power level, there's a certain amount of diminishing returns with the number of options. The difference between one way of using a power and two is big; the difference between 20 and 24, much less so. (Even if you can't move it through your own square, that only costs you one option [VERY LATE EDIT: and that only if you're not on a diagonal from it], that of moving it directly opposite you from where it started; so in that case you'd have 19 options [in some cases and 20 in others], not [always] 20. That still doesn't seem like a big deal.) Admittedly, I make some assumptions above about how involuntary sliding will work in the first place. But I think they're very reasonable assumptions. Of course, if you [I]know[/I], not just speculate, anything specific about what the final rules will say on this point, I'm all ears. As for saves, I think the change, while it may add a bit of complexity back in and slightly magnify the punishing aspects of having poor scores in Constitution or Wisdom in some situations, also gives back a bit of individuality to characters and a bit of importance to scores that some characters may be tempted to ignore. These effects seem beneficial to me. I can see people going either way on the tradeoff, but for me at least, the side I've suggested here looks to be the more attractive of the two. [SIZE=1][1] Some people seem to assume you won't be able to slide it only one square, or slide it, say, one square diagonally and then one square horizontally; but I don't see why either of these would be the case.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
My first two 4E house rules
Top