Please Critique my 10 House Rules

[im_robertb]

I tried voting for none of them, but it wouldn't let me.

~

This.

 

[Alex319]

Most of these aren't single house rules, they are whole sets of them.

You're making some sweeping changes, here- what do pcs do at will, if they have no at will powers? Just basic attacks? What about wizards, warlocks et al? Are they back to throwing a dagger once their encounters are used up?

He did say that you get to use your highest ability score for basic attacks, so wizards won't really be gimped, since they still have as good a basic attack as everyone else.

The effect on overall character "power level" is probably mixed. Player's "at-wills" get slightly less powerful because they are now basic attacks, but they do effectively get an extra encounter power. On the other hand, several classes lose "signature" at-will abilities - for example, Wizards lose their ability to throw area-effect blasts at-will, and Warlords lose their ability to grant allies basic attacks at-will.

But still, I'm not totally sure what the point of the rule is. One thing I can think of is that it might encourage more improvised actions, although if players find out which improvised actions work best and keep using them then Garthanos may be right about them being "back-door" at-wills. I would be interested to know how this rule plays out in an actual game.

 

[Sadrik]

I'd change it so that you can take an encounter power from another class and use it as a daily power.

I debated this feature, but ultimately I decided switching around to a daily made it minutely more complex an

In addition to, or instead of?

Instead of. So humans used to get 3 at-will powers now they get 3 encounter powers plus their one normal so a total of 4 encounter powers at first level.

Also if it was not completely clear HR#1 gives you essentially two bonus encounter powers but no at will level 1 attack powers.

 

[Sadrik]

Unfortunately, there's not a lot that I like about these house rules. Since you don't game with me, it doesn't really matter what I think, but for what it's worth:

Thanks for your comments.

HR#1:
I happen to like at-will powers, and would actually prefer an option to have more at will-powers, so obviously, I'm not going to like this. If you do implement it, you should consider changing the currently proposed benefit for the Pact Initiate feat. Having access to the pact boon wouldn't help a multiclassed warlock if he isn't able to curse an opponent.

Yes, the pact initiate feat was a feat that I realized after the fact that it gave an at-will as an encounter and I hastily threw the change in without double checking it first. It should give the curse ability once per encounter instead.

HR#3:
I happen to like action points because of the tactical options that they enable, so I'm not keen on removing them.

BUt for the added benefit of essentially removing that one turn haste you can recall a "daily encounter power" once.

HR#4:
Wizards already outshine clerics and paladins in Religion. Do they need to outshine druids in Nature and rangers in Dungeoneering as well? I could see a Scholar of Nature feat that could allow the PC to make Nature and Dungeoneering checks with Intelligence instead of Wisdom, though.

This HR is their too buff up the intrinsically weak dump stat that INT is. Granted with my HR#8: Fix Stat Polarity it helps too but this is to basically move all of the "knowledge" skills (as they are called in the book) under one roof and that roof is INT.

HR#5:
I'd be concerned about balance issues. Some paragon and epic feats have very nice benefits.

Please4 highlight some that you think are "out of this world" and absolutely too powerful for heroic tier. The whole point of feats is that they are underpowered and add a little bonus. Even the high level ones do the same thing. *pause* I just looked through them again and I see no feats in the PHB that I would deem as whoa, that would be too powerful in the heroic tier.

HR#6:
I like superior weapons, and I appreciate the need to balance them with a feat. Why use a +3/1d8/versatile longsword if the +3/1d10/versatile bastard sword is also a military weapon? The staff/quarterstaff and rod/club equivalence rules look okay, though.

I agree with the idea that the bastard sword is superior in every way. This is an oversight on my part thanks for pointing that out. I may have to reenact, the superior weapon restriction. My problem with superior weapons is primarily with the bastard sword I think it is a dumb restriction that you cannot use it with proficiency unless you have the feat. Remember in 3.5 you could use a bastard sword 2 handed but no one did because you have the great sword which was better. So my goal here is to lessen the restriction of the weapons.

HR#7:
Beyond allowing for different combinations of magic items, I don't see why this is an improvement over the current system.

This is also an attempt to reduce more arbitrary restrictions by clustering many jewelery-like items into one group.

HR#8 and #10:
I guess I'm still traditional enough that it bothers me a little, but if you're willing to go to such an extent, why stop there? Why should Initiative depend on Dexterity and Hit Points/Healing Surges on Constitution? Why not define six "parcels" of abilities:
1. Fortitude
2. Reflex/AC
3. Will
4. Hit Points
5. Basic attack
6. Initative
and require that each be assigned to a different ability score?

I see your idea here my only problem is that characters only have at most thee good stats without overly sacrificing character viability and since we have a game system that makes a lot of assumptions on where those stats should be we need to make sure those stats remain within a certain range. However I can see several of those things fitting into the groups as follows:
1. Fortitude/HP/Surges
2. Reflex/AC/Initiative
3. Will

Basic attacks would then be based on your classes prime stat, which could be any of the former three. Really it would be kind of neat if your class defined which stats went into which defense. For instance a paladin would have STR for FORT, CHA for REF, and WIS for WILL

HR#9:
I don't see the need for it as I usually do not encounter the grind in my games. It would actually cause most combats to play out in less time than I would like.

This is a fair analysis, the following is not an indictment of your play style, some people don't see how deep in the whole they are when they are in it. Meaning playing many other games and seeing how things are handled elsewhere you can better see the here. Really the bottom line is choice for your group and it is a matter of tastes and preferences.

 

[Sadrik]

I don't like most of your house rules, in that I wouldn't apply many of them in my own game (2 and 5 being exceptions). But in terms of the play style you are trying to create, I think several fit well and some don't:

Thanks for your comments!

I voted for this, but in retrospect shouldn't have. Your other house rules reduce the value of all ability scores (because there's more flexibility in how they apply) so Wisdom is no longer more useful than Intelligence.

See my previous post on this.

A good idea. Why not take the idea of more options at the risk of imbalance further and let characters choose any power of the appropriate tier instead of just powers of their level?

I have a list of optional house rules that I have not vetted as completely that essentially has that rule on it! your get 4 powers at level 1 and add a new power ever even level. Those powers must be of a level equal or lower than your level. Really though 4e feats are so weak that I really see no problem giving them all out at the heroic tier. Remember that characters can only have so many feats in the heroic tier. Another stipulation with that rule is that whenever possible I will try and striate the modifiers through the tiers so for example burning blood would be +1/+2/+3 and iron will would be +1/+2/+3, sly hunter would be +1/+2/+3 - you get the idea.

These changes won't make your game more fun (I think). I don't think they create a new playstyle, just more confusion.

I think you are right in the case of the magic item slots but in the case of the weapons I think thsi is a big game changer. Ignore for a moment the superior weapons rule which I may actually simply remove from these house rules. The ability for a small sized wizard to use a staff and so on down the line. These are big changes, that in my mind will make the game more fun.

 

[Sadrik]

Frankly, I don't like any of them Sorry.

It's ok, please explain though.

Most of these aren't single house rules, they are whole sets of them.

Yes, they are in many cases interdependent of one another.

You're making some sweeping changes, here- what do pcs do at will, if they have no at will powers? Just basic attacks? What about wizards, warlocks et al? Are they back to throwing a dagger once their encounters are used up?

The hope is that they will by not having scripted at-wills go back to a more 3e (dare I say "old school") feel of what you are doing without using a power. In the process, my hope is that DMG page 42 usage will increase.

Looking over the rules, there are pieces of each rule set that I liked, but I could really vote for any that I liked best.

Only need to vote for *any* that you like not just the best.

However, I think that you are going for a certain flavor in the system.

Yes I am going for a flavor in these house rules. The main parts of the rules are to loosen restrictions and to to move powers to revolve more around the encounter than the day or the at-will.

Much has already been said that I agree with. I definitely see that these rules are trying to change to a certain campaign or playstyle. Perhaps if the goals/setting were detailed, I might have some better suggestions.

I explained much of this over my last few posts.

I picked the one about Channel Divinity before I read it all the way through.

Sadly, I'm going with "I wouldn't use any of these house rules."

I think some of them are pretty ill-conceived (like removing tier requirements for feats), and some of them might be fine, but I just wouldn't enjoy.

Please explain your discontent with the channel divinity and feat tier requirements.

 

[Sadrik]

HR#3:
I happen to like action points because of the tactical options that they enable, so I'm not keen on removing them.

Also, burning your action point to haste yourself for a turn burns your resources twice as fast. HR#3 gives the ability to recall a powerful resource rather than burn more brightly. Would you argue the one turn haste is as powerful or more powerful than the daily encounter recall or less powerful? Remember this essentially opens up a epic tier wizard only feat for everyone to use...

 

[Obryn]

Please explain your discontent with the channel divinity and feat tier requirements.

Didn't we go around and around about this before? I pretty much have the same arguments as when you brought this up before.

I mean, you're pretty set in your ways about how you think things should be. Just go with it; I don't have to think they're good ideas or agree with your reasoning, though. You want things the way you want them, and you're convinced your way is objectively better. I don't agree because I don't agree with the basic principles you're coming from.

Simply put, I don't think I'd enjoy this set of house-rules either as a player or as a DM.

-O

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I don't actively like any of these HRs, but I'd give your game a shot if we met in person.

 

[FireLance]

Yes, the pact initiate feat was a feat that I realized after the fact that it gave an at-will as an encounter and I hastily threw the change in without double checking it first. It should give the curse ability once per encounter instead.

Do note that there's another feat in Arcane Power that does something similar (the curse lasts until you use it to deal extra damage once). If you don't use Arcane Power, it should be alright, though.

BUt for the added benefit of essentially removing that one turn haste you can recall a "daily encounter power" once.

Using a daily power is satisfying, but using an action point well provides a different (though not necessarily better) type of satisfaction, e.g. using one power to cluster your enemies together nicely, and then using an action point to attack them all with an area effect power. The current system allows me to enjoy both types of satisfaction.

This HR is their too buff up the intrinsically weak dump stat that INT is. Granted with my HR#8: Fix Stat Polarity it helps too but this is to basically move all of the "knowledge" skills (as they are called in the book) under one roof and that roof is INT.

Problem is, you might end up short-changing Wisdom. Perhaps a better approach might be to have Dungeoneering, Heal, Nature and Religion to use the better of Intelligence or Wisdom?

Please4 highlight some that you think are "out of this world" and absolutely too powerful for heroic tier. The whole point of feats is that they are underpowered and add a little bonus. Even the high level ones do the same thing. *pause* I just looked through them again and I see no feats in the PHB that I would deem as whoa, that would be too powerful in the heroic tier.

While I can't think of anything that is truly game breaking offhand, there are epic feats in Martial Power that allow a warlord to affect two targets with inspiring word instead of one, and which allow a character with a martial class to use second wind twice in one encounter (really good for dwarves). This effectively doubles the healing output of such characters and may require the DM to increase the challenge level at the heroic tier in order to keep fights interesting.

I agree with the idea that the bastard sword is superior in every way. This is an oversight on my part thanks for pointing that out. I may have to reenact, the superior weapon restriction. My problem with superior weapons is primarily with the bastard sword I think it is a dumb restriction that you cannot use it with proficiency unless you have the feat.

So, wouldn't a simpler approach be to allow a character with proficiency in the greatsword to use a bastard sword as a greatsword (i.e. it becomes a two-handed weapon and loses the versatile property)?