D&D 4E My Proposed 4e House Rules (so far)

[der_kluge]

I don't have the books yet, but I do know these will be my first house rules:

Absolutely no dragonborn
Absolutely no tieflings
gnomes are a playable race.

 

[pukunui]

I don't have the books yet, but I do know these will be my first house rules:

Absolutely no dragonborn
Absolutely no tieflings
gnomes are a playable race.

Gnomes are a playable race already. In fact, I won't be surprised at all if they get the same treatment the warforged just got (that is to say, a better race write-up than the races actually in the PHB got).

 

[Blackbrrd]

I dunno. I'm wondering that myself.

There are more classes relying on charisma than int. Int is only the primary stat for one class, the wizard, while cha can be the primary stat for the paladin and warlock. Int is often covered by dex (ac, reflex defense, init), while cha and wis are about equal.

I am going to drop the dragonborn - I didn't like the fluff, but then I needed to change the stats for two other races to have more than one race with a bonus in str:

I am thinking about houseruling half-elf stats to:
+2 cha and (+2 con OR str)

I am thinking about houseruling tiefling stats to:
+2 int and (+2 cha OR str)

Both half-elves and tieflings seem to be less than popular mechanically according to a poll I ran, so this should give them a little boost.

 

[pukunui]

There are more classes relying on charisma than int. Int is only the primary stat for one class, the wizard, while cha can be the primary stat for the paladin and warlock. Int is often covered by dex (ac, reflex defense, init), while cha and wis are about equal.

What I meant was, I don't know why they made INT the dump stat for this edition and CHA the "it" stat instead.

I am going to drop the dragonborn - I didn't like the fluff

I don't have a problem with the dragonborn (aside from the stats). I can use the dragonborn but I'm going to really ramp up the "noble savage" thing and make them the primary nomadic barbarians of my world.

In fact, I don't have a problem with any of the races in the PHB. I would've liked it if they'd come up with an aasimar to go along with the tiefling, but I'm fairly happy with the one I've come up with myself (see my other thread in the house rules forum). Also, I would've liked having the druid and bard (don't really care about the sorcerer, barbarian, or monk) but oh well ...

Both half-elves and tieflings seem to be less than popular mechanically according to a poll I ran, so this should give them a little boost.

I've already got one player who wants to play the tiefling. The only thing I'm changing is that they don't all have to look the same. I think I'm going to make it that each noble house that underwent the transformation ritual got its own "look" ... and after several centuries of breeding with each other and with non-tieflings, there's now quite a variance in appearance (I think I'm basically just going to stick with past editions' descriptions of tieflings).

 

[der_kluge]

Gnomes are a playable race already. In fact, I won't be surprised at all if they get the same treatment the warforged just got (that is to say, a better race write-up than the races actually in the PHB got).

Careful. By that logic, "bugbears" are a playable race because their listed with PC stats in the MM.

No, by playable race, I mean, I will be allowing players to play them. I won't allow players to play bugbears.

 

[Piratecat]

No, by playable race, I mean, I will be allowing players to play them. I won't allow players to play bugbears.

Curtis, if you're tossing dragonborn, consider replacing them with another "tank" race like a half-orc. They fill a nice niche, even though you don't care for their fluff.

 

[pukunui]

Careful. By that logic ...

A bit of an overreaction on your part there, I think, but no matter.

No, by playable race, I mean, I will be allowing players to play them. I won't allow players to play bugbears.

OK. Thanks for clearing that up. I think we were just equivocating on the meaning of "playable race". I took it to mean "a race with stats such that a player could play one in a game", but it's obvious that that's not what you meant. Cheers.

 

[Notmousse]

I'm *hoping* I read this wrong, but here's my #1 houserule (since it looks like my players are interested in WoW now).

1 roll to hit for AoE abilities/spells/whatnots instead of rolling for *EACH* target! I mean seriously, what sense does it make for Fighter Fred in tank armor being unhurt in the middle when Ronny Rogue gets nuked in his ninja jammies at the edge?

 

[Samurai]

I'm *hoping* I read this wrong, but here's my #1 houserule (since it looks like my players are interested in WoW now).

1 roll to hit for AoE abilities/spells/whatnots instead of rolling for *EACH* target! I mean seriously, what sense does it make for Fighter Fred in tank armor being unhurt in the middle when Ronny Rogue gets nuked in his ninja jammies at the edge?

Well, you understand that this means 1 bad die roll can result in a Meteor Swarm missing everyone rather than missing 1 lucky individual who managed to dive out of the way. AoEs become all or nothing, rather than "well, I should catch at least some of them in the blast..."

 

[Notmousse]

Unless I misread (again, possible), it's not so much 'all or nothing', but 'all or half/partial' for most AoEs. Furthermore assuming a diverse range of defenses the greater odds for hitting *some* a goodly portion of the time. Best of all 1 roll is much less than several (as anyone who had GTWF would know).