D&D 4E suggestions for 4e ideas easy enough to HR now?

[evilbob]

Actually, after further thought, I'd say that the "second wind" idea just doesn't integrate well into a 3.5 campaign. For one, it's just a boost for the sake of boosting: there's no negative to balance it (unless you give it to enemies too, which is problematic since PCs fight a lot and most enemies fight -once-, AND that's just one more thing for the GM to remember to have them do). For two, it's a complicated mechanic (i.e. not a static number that is already added into something) that just requires you to remember one more thing and do some bookkeeping. Overall, it doesn't seem worth it.

So what's this idea about triple HP at level 1? It makes a lot of sense insofar as it makes it much harder for you to just wipe a level 1 party, but is there some sort of counter-balance to that or does everyone pretty much just have (level + 2)'s worth of HP?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So what's this idea about triple HP at level 1? It makes a lot of sense insofar as it makes it much harder for you to just wipe a level 1 party, but is there some sort of counter-balance to that or does everyone pretty much just have (level + 2)'s worth of HP?

Personally, I wouldn't just triple hit points at level one. I'd give all "Heroes" a flat bonus of +20 or +30 hit points regardless of class.

As I hinted above, it helps bring hit points into a more ablative use at low levels; more of a resource to be managed across a fight. For most 1st level characters, there's little difference between "fully healed" and "unconscious or dying." There is not much resource to manage, there.

It also allows for bigger, more exciting fights. If you were to (effectively) quadruple the hit points of 1st level characters, you quadruple their combat staying power, and can get away with one equivalent-CR monster per PC instead of 4 PCs per eq-CR monster.

And finally, it smooths out the power curve at low levels. Doubling HD from 1HD to 2HD from 1st to 2nd level is a 100% increase in combat effectiveness; from 2nd to 3rd is a 50% increase, and then it starts to taper off. It's a steep curve. Going from 4HD (at 1st) to 5HD (at 2nd) is a 25% increase; from 5HD to 6HD is a 20% increase-- much smoother curve.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually, after further thought, I'd say that the "second wind" idea just doesn't integrate well into a 3.5 campaign.

With Vancian spellcasting spellcasting, it won't affect the game as much as we'd want, and with Wand of Cure Light Wounds, it will probably be barely noticeable at all. So I guess that's the really just a house rule that won't change much in a D&D 3 game (unless there are no spellcasters in the group - or only Warlocks and Binders?).

 

[evilbob]

With Vancian spellcasting spellcasting, it won't affect the game as much as we'd want, and with Wand of Cure Light Wounds, it will probably be barely noticeable at all.

Agreed.

 

[evilbob]

Another interesting idea is the thought of taking away iterative attacks. I'm guessing the advantages are that it would speed up play significantly, especially at high levels, and it would make combat less about "hit + move" or "multiple hits without moving" as your only two choices, and make you really think more about what else you'd -do- with a move action (although I can tell this plays more heavily into why you'd reduce AoO causes). The way it could work could probably be simplified to: for every iterative attack you would have had, just roll another die. Take the best result. So at high levels, you'd have 4 chances to do really well.

Two downsides that I can think of quickly are that after you get to +6 BAB you can pretty much say goodbye to critical failures (which honestly, is not that much of a downside), and the fact that most monsters do not use BAB to determine their total attacks. A monster with two claws and a bite vs. a PC with 3 iterative attacks seems fair; that same mob vs. a PC with one really good chance to hit is probably not. The PC still won't do enough damage fast enough with their single hit. In high level games (and I'm just talking about level 15ish), you're talking about taking a fighter from easily 200+ damage a round to 60. That's a really big drop off. And you're not adjusting spells, so the 15d6 wizard who is hitting 6 guys for ~50 each just got a major boost. I guess this is one of those things that makes more sense when you're talking about "minor" enemies and "major" enemies, and when there are fewer things to cause AoOs, but otherwise while a neat idea, it still seems "hard to implement."

 

[tomBitonti]

Nerf Combat Reflexes

One idea is to seriously nerf combat reflexes.

I've been considering an idea somewhat like:

1 AOO per round
+1 For Combat Reflexes (and allowing Combat Reflexes to be taken multiple times)
+1 For Declaring an "Opportunistic Attack" (using an attack action but withholding the attack until an AOO opportunity arises).
+1 for Whirlwind Attack (if you used Whirlwind attack in your last action)

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

True, but the +5 armor directly offsets the +5 weapon.
For optimum playability, I'd say there should be about a five point discrepancy between AC and Attack Bonus. Assuming equal ability scores, one character's dex bonus to defense/AC offsets his opponent's attack bonus from strength, or dex, or whatever.

I really like this idea, and am adding this into my current campaign.. but I have an issue that would need corrected... shields.

If the increase AC bonus make the difference between AB and AC fall into the 'sweet spot' of a 5 point discrepancy... then shields {specially magic shields} further unbalance this.

The options, as I see them, are:

A> Avoid magic shields, meaning a shield only adds a couple of points to the equation

B> Change the benefit of using shields
[sblock]Shield bonuses do not stack with Armor bonuses
The 'Shield' spell provides a deflection bonus

While not denied dex, you can use a readied shield* to intercept a melee attack as an immediate action, turning that attack into a Sunder attempt on the shield

Wooden shields have a hardness of 5 and 3 hit points per point of AC
Steel sheilds have a hardness of 10 and 5 hit points per point of AC
Dwarven or Mithral shields have a hardness of 15 and 5 hit points per point of AC
Adamanite shields have a hardness of 20 and 5 hit points per point of AC
Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield and +10 to the item's hit points

* Tower shields are excluded from this unique rule, which makes them most useful to lightly armored archers.

Reason:
This rule means that a shield is a valuable addition to a fighters options. A good shield can keep you alive a lot longer and provide a reason why most of the fighters in the world are 'board and sword'

Concerns: Combats can get drawn out as a good Steel shield could potentially protect against LSword attacks all day long. Perhaps need an action point to block?
Reduce the Hardness of shields by 5 points?
[/sblock]

C> ??

My next session is late in January, I appreciate help in figuring this out.

 

[Betote]

Actually, after further thought, I'd say that the "second wind" idea just doesn't integrate well into a 3.5 campaign. For one, it's just a boost for the sake of boosting: there's no negative to balance it (unless you give it to enemies too, which is problematic since PCs fight a lot and most enemies fight -once-, AND that's just one more thing for the GM to remember to have them do). For two, it's a complicated mechanic (i.e. not a static number that is already added into something) that just requires you to remember one more thing and do some bookkeeping. Overall, it doesn't seem worth it.

I've just implemented Second Wind in my 3.5E campaign and I've to say that it changes a lot, and for the better. With it, PCs can keep on fighting when the "5-minute day" is over, and the cleric isn't a walking band-aid anymore.

I use a wound system too, meaning that, if a single source deals you damage higher than your Fort Save + 10, you get a "wound". A wound means -1 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, ability checks and caster level checks.

So what's this idea about triple HP at level 1? It makes a lot of sense insofar as it makes it much harder for you to just wipe a level 1 party, but is there some sort of counter-balance to that or does everyone pretty much just have (level + 2)'s worth of HP?

I don't like the idea of empowering 1st-level characters. I believe you should have the option of being scared of 2 goblins.

 

[brislove]

@Primitive_Screwhead

I don't see a problem with shields obscuring the "sweet spot" simple because they greatly reduce the damage that the character can do (about 60%) in most cases. so a +5 heavy steel shield is a 35% chance to block effectively.

so you lose 60% of your damage for 35% chance to not get hurt. It's a reasonable trade-off as that 35% can be converted into healing spells that your cleric is using. Making it a viable party-benefit based choice, but if you clone a guy and have one of them use a +5 heavy steel shield the shield guy will almost certainly lose, because the hits he takes are bigger. With your variant I feel it makes the shield either way TOO good (against single high damage opponents) or horrible against multiple attack monsters, or multiple enemies.

Ultimately I think the variant you offered is overall beneficial to shields if used by clerics who can cast fire shield against multiple attack enemies, and just block against single attack monsters. Make the wizard take mending/repair damage spells, and heal up the adamant shield. Or if the wizard/cleric cast the mass version of fire shield on encounters when it's more beneficial everyone should have a shield.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

B> Change the benefit of using shields
[sblock]Shield bonuses do not stack with Armor bonuses
The 'Shield' spell provides a deflection bonus

While not denied dex, you can use a readied shield* to intercept a melee attack as an immediate action, turning that attack into a Sunder attempt on the shield

Wooden shields have a hardness of 5 and 3 hit points per point of AC
Steel sheilds have a hardness of 10 and 5 hit points per point of AC
Dwarven or Mithral shields have a hardness of 15 and 5 hit points per point of AC
Adamanite shields have a hardness of 20 and 5 hit points per point of AC
Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield and +10 to the item's hit points

* Tower shields are excluded from this unique rule, which makes them most useful to lightly armored archers.

Reason:
This rule means that a shield is a valuable addition to a fighters options. A good shield can keep you alive a lot longer and provide a reason why most of the fighters in the world are 'board and sword'

Concerns: Combats can get drawn out as a good Steel shield could potentially protect against LSword attacks all day long. Perhaps need an action point to block?
Reduce the Hardness of shields by 5 points?
[/sblock]

I would suggest making this something akin to the Lightsaber Block ability of Jedi in Saga. It's a talent from the LIghtsaber tree (so perhaps a feat or shared tree available to other armored Defender-typed classes). In Saga it turns the opponent's attack into an opposed roll against your Use The Force check, your success negating his attack. You can do so multiple times in one round, but subsequent attempts are at a cumulative -5.

It would, however, require a stat to base your opposed roll on. Using an opposed Attack roll is the most obvious, but you could also go with a Block skill.

So, essentially, if you hold a readied shield you can attempt a Block roll (whatever you want to use there). If your Block roll meets or exceeds the opponent's attack roll, your shield absorbs the attack (with all attendant issues, such as damaging and ruining the shield). Additional blocks in a round are at a cumulative -5 penalty.

Actually something I'd been toying with, myself.

--fje