Nifft's House Rules

[SSquirrel]

ouch. so a 1st level PC falls into a 10' pit and takes 20+3d10 damage? average of 36.5.

I hate to think of villagers tripping and falling flat on their face. Insta-death!

 

[Staffan]

Wouldn't that over balance them?

I'm not so sure.

At-will powers are supposed to be a little better than basic attacks. As written, Sure Strike is often worse than a basic attack.

Why would you use other At-Wills at all, when you get +2 to hit and get to add in your normal str/dex damage?

Let's look at what the fighter's at-will powers give in comparison to a basic attack (with this change):
Cleave: Strmod damage to a secondary target.
Reaping Strike: Half Strmod guaranteed damage (full Strmod with a twohander).
Sure Strike: +2 to hit.
Tide of Iron: Push 1 square and shift into that square.

Sure Strike might outcompete Reaping Strike, but the others still have their uses.

Also, compare Sure Strike to the rogue's Piercing Strike. Piercing Strike gives [W]+Dex damage, and is a weapon attack vs Reflex. AC is generally 2 or more higher than Reflex, so Piercing Strike will usually have the same chance to hit as Sure Strike (or better).

I've used Sure Strike as an example here instead of Careful Attack, but what I've said applies there as well. Probably moreso, because the Ranger has a very good at-will in Twin Strike.

 

[Zelc]

Also, compare with the Paladin power Valiant Attack and the Rogue power Piercing Strike. Sure Strike is probably a bit better than Valiant Attack since it's more consistent and triggers Combat Challenge, but Piercing Strike can easily be the equivalent of +2 or +3 to attack and triggers Sneak Attack. I think a +2 attack doesn't need to lose the stat damage bonus.

Maybe a +1 bonus instead, of +2 is too much. I haven't crunched the math yet.

ETA: Crunched the math. Reaping Strike matches Sure Strike with str damage at about basic attack's attack bonus +15 AC, and that's with a one-handed weapon. 2-handed, it's about basic attack bonus +10 AC. The higher the AC, the better Reaping Strike is vs. Sure Strike (so above that AC, Reaping is better). Sounds pretty balanced to me .

 

[PeelSeel2]

So is it the character's increased ego that makes them fall faster as they get higher in level? This house rule doesn't really make any sense to me

No matter the level, I want falls to be something a character would dread. It is a simple mechanic to allow it to remain as deadly at higher levels as lower levels. So no acceleration based on level, just a mechanic that attempts to keep the deadliness fairly consistent with level.

 

[Nifft]

Added one rule.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Piratecat]

Falling Rules:

Damage for fall: Distance fallenx2 + 3d10 for Heroic, +4d10 for paragon, and +5d10 for Epic.

Yes, deadly.

In this campaign I would only take powers that move enemies around, and I'd spend every combat trying to knock them into pits and off ledges. Heck, I might carry around a portable hole just for the combat factor.

Out of curiosity (and I don't want to hijack the thread, really, so my apologies for the segue), why make falling so much more dangerous than hideous monsters? It feels to me like you've swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.