[4E] Essential House Rules

[Surrealistik]

Also posted on OOTS, but I don't think linking there is permitted so I'm reposting here. Hopefully this will prove useful for current and prospective 4E D&D DMs.

#1: Ritual mastery, and surge powered rituals:

Mastering Rituals:

When learning a ritual, a character makes a skill check against a hard DC of one of that ritual's key skills (the character's choice). For every 5 points he exceeds the DC by, the time required to learn the ritual decreases by 1 hour to a minimum of 1 hour. For every 5 points he fails the DC by, the time required to learn the ritual increases by 1 hour instead.

Rituals can be mastered in half the normal time (normally 4 hours) if the person learning the ritual benefits from a successful Aid Another attempt on the skill check to master that ritual by another creature who has already mastered it. On a failure, the ritual takes twice as long to learn as the student is mislead and confused. Only one creature can use Aid Another in this way.

Rituals half a character's level or less are considered trivial for that character and can be learned in the duration of a short rest without a check (5 minutes).


Surge Casting:

Mastered rituals that are half the caster's level or less (rounded down) count as being memorized and have the following properties:

Memorized: They don't require a ritual book, spellshard or any other such receptacle to use for the caster.
Surge Spending: Their component costs can be paid for by losing a healing surge rather than the normally required cost.
Faster Cast Time: They can be done within the duration of a short rest (or 5 minutes/50 rounds), or half their normal cast time (minimum 1 minute/10 rounds, unless their default cast time is less, in which case it doesn't decrease), whichever is faster.
Expediting: They can be cast in 5 rounds (expedited) before making any skill check associated with them by losing an additional healing surge, quickening its completion with an investiture of raw life force.



Variable Cost Rituals:

Special rituals with variable costs like Raise Dead are either excepted from being paid for with surges (DM's discretion; they may be expedited), or value healing surges at 5 GP * 5/50/500 per tier (so 25 GP for a heroic character per surge, 250 GP / paragon surge, 2500 GP / epic surge). A character spending surges in lieu of components must equal the component cost with surges spent in this way. The latter option permits use of variable cost rituals with healing surges without allowing for abuse of rituals such as Raise Dead, given the exceedingly high cost of its components.


Focuses and Wealth Creating Rituals:

Focuses, and the component costs of any ritual that creates a permanent item or effect with a defined monetary value (such as Brew Potion or Enchant Magical Item) can _never_ be paid for in this way with healing surges (but they may be expedited). For rituals with a permanent duration paid for with healing surges, you must lose a healing surge to sustain it at the end of each extended rest, or its effects end. A ritual sustained in this way for a year and a day becomes permanent.


Healing Surges Lost to Ritual Casting/Sustaining:

Any creature that loses healing surges to sustain or cast rituals with this rule supplement cannot have more healing surges than their normal allotment of healing surges per day minus any healing surges lost in this way until the end of their next extended rest. Any healing surges above this maximum are immediately lost.


Cooperative Casting:


Subtract the number of creatures that unsuccessfully used Aid Another to assist in performing a ritual from those that did so successfully.

If this difference is positive, divide the casting time by 1 + this difference. Otherwise multiply it by 1 + this difference (as a positive number).


Note that any character using Aid Another in this way will be preoccupied for the full duration of the ritual.

The casting time of a ritual cannot be reduced to less than 5 rounds in this way. These casting time modifiers apply before all others.


Rituals Without Skill Checks:

For rituals with no skill check, you instead make a skill check against a Hard DC of that ritual's associated skill and level. If your check succeeds, you can reduce the casting time of that ritual by 20% of its post-modifier cast time, plus another 20% for every 5 points your check exceeds this DC to a minimum of 5 rounds. Failure by 5 or more points means you take twice as long to perform the ritual instead.


Why?

This allows for the more consistent application and utility of rituals, particularly at the lower levels by making them practical to use and affordable, while simultaneously retaining definitive limits on their frequency of use. It also helps with issues of purchasing insufficient quantities of the needed reagent/component type. In the context of a 'work/adventuring day' it further presents a risk vs reward component, and introduces resource management depth to the game, particularly for casters with smaller healing surge pools (like the Wizard); the healing surges they spend could make all the difference between life and death. Lastly, it makes all rituals benefit from having a high score in their associated skill, rendering ritual casting more consistent and 'fair'.

Overall, this would neatly solve and address the problem of rituals rarely seeing use because of uncertain utility and prohibitive and recurring costs (especially at the lower levels) which are highly unpopular or even truly untenable for most players and campaigns, as well as no check rituals completely failing to reward/penalize high or low skill checks. It also makes them situationally but potentially useful in combat encounters given the 5 round cast time floor, perhaps permitting an interesting scenario where the party wizard struggles to conjure an escape portal while he's defended by his allies.

#2: Each player gains one free expertise and one free defense bolstering feat of that player's choice. The defense feat chosen must permanently and unconditionally increase at least one defense.

Why? Both Expertise and defense boosting feats are required to keep pace with monster defense and attack roll progressions; these are universal feat taxes.

Further, these feats are so powerful relative to other feats of the same tier (particularly by Paragon) that they are de facto feat taxes.


#3: Each defender that has a primary ability other than strength gains a free Melee Training or other feat that enables them to substitute their strength with their primary ability score for the attack rolls of opportunity or melee basic attacks.

Why? Precludes non-strength defenders from suffering an unnecessary feat tax in the form of Melee Training and equivalents. These feats are required if the defender wants a strong opportunity attack, which is essential for the role.


#4: A creature can only take damage from entering or exiting a zone, square, aura or area once per turn.

Why? Prevents degenerate forced movement combos accumulating massive amounts of automatic damage (see Storm Pillar + readied forced movement as an example).


#5: PCs are only allowed one (1) slotless Alternative Reward item (boons, grandmaster training, etc...) per tier.

Why? Generally, these items are incredibly and disproportionately powerful for their cost and rarity. Coupled with the fact that they're slotless, they're far too strong to be permitted without any such limiter.


If I'm missing any other high priority/important house rules, be sure to let me know.


Less Essential Houserules:

Though not as critical to an enjoyable 4e experience as the above changes, I find the game does work better with these additions:

Added the following under "Less Essential Houserules":


#1: PCs have a +1 innate enhancement bonus to all attack rolls, damage rolls, and defenses at level 5. This bonus increases by +1 every additional 5 levels thereafter. PCs further have bonus critical damage dice equal to +1d6 per enhancement bonus gained in this way. These bonuses overlap but do not stack with enhancement bonuses from magical gear.

Why? Allows PCs to viably use a broader variety of gear in combat, notably increasing player options without penalizing and disincentivizing investments in primary gear overtly. Normally secondary gear sets far too fall behind to be useful at higher levels, which results in stagnant, fixed loadouts.


#2: Basic, mundane ammo isn't tracked. Currency weight isn't tracked, nor are currency denominations except where necessary. Players are always assumed to have adequate food and water unless in situations where these essentials are scarce at which point it's up to the DM to decide what rations the PCs have unless they've undertaken especial efforts to stock sustenance.

Why? Prevents the game from being bogged down in pointless, simulationist minutiae. Most games follow this rule in practice anyways.

[Gort]

Both good rules.

[Belobog]

#2: Each player gains one free expertise and one free defense bolstering feat of that player's choice. The defense feat chosen must permanently and unconditionally increase at least one defense.

Why? Both Expertise and Defense boosting feats are required to keep pace with monster defense and attack roll progressions; these are universal feat taxes.

You might want to go further on this: Give Weapon/Implement Expertise (all), and the Paragon/Epic Defenses feats when appropriate. Maybe even Melee Training (player's choice), for tanks if no one else.

[Surrealistik]

You might want to go further on this: Give Weapon/Implement Expertise (all), and the Paragon/Epic Defenses feats when appropriate. Maybe even Melee Training (player's choice), for tanks if no one else.

I made it a defense feat of the player's choice because players may want to go for the Superior Fortitude/Will/Reflex line instead of the Improved Defenses feat. Likewise, there are now specific Expertise feats (e.g. Light Blade Expertise, Orb Expertise) that offer secondary benefits.

[Kylarra]

I'd probably throw in melee training feat of choice and one trained skill from their backstory just for fun.

[Belobog]

I made it a defense feat of the player's choice because players may want to go for the Superior Fortitude/Will/Reflex line instead of the Improved Defenses feat. Likewise, there are now specific Expertise feats (e.g. Light Blade Expertise, Orb Expertise) that offer secondary benefits.

That makes sense. My concerns were for 'fixing the math' that those feats claim to do, and thus focusing on making sure that the math doesn't change with weapon choice, and that no defenses don't fall behind. You know your group, though, and the offer of a selection is probably a better idea.

[Kurald Galain]

While giving a free Expertise feat is probably the most common house rule ever, I don't agree that giving a Defense feat is either a priority, or even necessary in the first place.

Why? Well, if you don't give them for free, every character (except Lazylords) will eventually take the Expertise feat, usually around the end of heroic tier. On the other hand, if you don't give them for free, many people won't bother ever picking up Improved Defenses, because it isn't all that impressive for many kinds of character.

If you take an average level-11 character, it'll have seven feats; almost universally, Expertise will be one of those; and also almost universally, Imp Defenses will not be, because there are many better feats.

[Surrealistik]

While giving a free Expertise feat is probably the most common house rule ever, I don't agree that giving a Defense feat is either a priority, or even necessary in the first place.

Why? Well, if you don't give them for free, every character (except Lazylords) will eventually take the Expertise feat, usually around the end of heroic tier. On the other hand, if you don't give them for free, many people won't bother ever picking up Improved Defenses, because it isn't all that impressive for many kinds of character.

If you take an average level-11 character, it'll have seven feats; almost universally, Expertise will be one of those; and also almost universally, Imp Defenses will not be, because there are many better feats.

And yet it is rated light blue to gold in paragon and up for virtually every class in the game, and is about universally agreed as necessary to have NADs keep pace with monster attack bonuses. While Heroic characters may well not take ID, most characters will take it at some point in Paragon. At the very least, it will be taken/retrained into by Epic (unless the Superior line is being pursued). Ultimately it is a feat nearly every build in the game will choose at some point. It tends not to be picked as early as 11 because there's usually a super high priority Paragon feat or two that must be taken ASAP (such as Lasting Frost or Spell Focus).

[Jaidu]

Not necessarily essential, but almost every game in which I play has decided that readying an action does not move initiative. First, it seems like already using your standard for an immediate action is enough of a trade-off. Second, it makes a bit more bookkeeping for a DM. Third, it kind of lowers incentive to ready over delaying. Fourth, if the trigger of the readied action doesn't happen, the character wastes their entire turn.

[Surrealistik]

Not really a change I'd be adverse to, but changing your sequence doesn't matter too much after the first round. Also, there are plenty of incentives for readying over delaying, especially if you have any 'at the end of turn' effects outstanding.

[stainboy]

Not necessarily essential, but almost every game in which I play has decided that readying an action does not move initiative. First, it seems like already using your standard for an immediate action is enough of a trade-off. Second, it makes a bit more bookkeeping for a DM. Third, it kind of lowers incentive to ready over delaying. Fourth, if the trigger of the readied action doesn't happen, the character wastes their entire turn.

You can use this to burst down enemies by taking two actions without giving them a chance to react in between (three with an action point).

That's completely fine if your group doesn't abuse it, just saying.

[Yakk]

Ready lets you:
1> Do part of your action before hand, such as getting into a better position, healing an ally, etc
2> React to someone's turn in the middle of their turn

[tcrudisi]

Ready lets you:
1> Do part of your action before hand, such as getting into a better position, healing an ally, etc
2> React to someone's turn in the middle of their turn

3> Apply Sneak Attack damage twice. Move into place, Minor for Low Slash + sneak attack, Standard for Readying whatever at-will for whenever whoever goes next does whatever they tell you they will do (make sure it's an ally and the trigger can be something as easy as "they attack" or "they move".) Since you are attacking on someone else's turn... sneak attack!

[Surrealistik]

Added the following:

#3: Each defender that has a primary ability other than strength gains a free Melee Training or other feat that enables them to substitute their strength with their primary ability score for the attack rolls of opportunity or melee basic attacks.

Why? Precludes non-strength defenders from suffering an unnecessary feat tax in the form of Melee Training and equivalents. These feats are required if the defender wants a strong opportunity attack, which is essential for the role.

[Whybird]

Talk during combat: Less a house rule and more a clarification -- you can talk combat tactics OC as much as you like during anybody's turn provided it doesn't start slowing things down, but you can't use that free talk to persuade another character of something. So "Ready an action to attack him once he's flanked; I'm going to move into that square on my turn" is fine, but "No, stop it -- if you kill him the Duke will never help us again!" isn't.

Why? IC, this represents the fact that the characters have been together long enough to know how to co-ordinate as a team without needing to talk about it. OC, a character's ability to fight well shouldn't be hampered by their player's knowledge of the combat system.

[Surrealistik]

Added the following house rule. Found this one to be especially important when using rarity rules. I think even this may be too lenient; restricting the # of alternative rewards to one period may be better still.

#5: PCs are only allowed one (1) slotless Alternative Reward item (boons, grandmaster training, etc...) per tier.

Why? Generally, these items are incredibly and disproportionately powerful for their cost and rarity. Coupled with the fact that they're slotless, they're far too strong to be permitted without any such limiter.


Also updated the Ritual Casting houserule with Cooperative Casting:

Cooperative Casting:

Divide the casting time of rituals by one plus the number of creatures that successfully used Aid Another to assist in a ritual performance, then multiply the casting time by one plus the number of creatures that unsuccessfully use Aid Another in this way. The casting time of a ritual cannot be reduced to less than 1 minute in this way. These casting time modifiers apply before all others.

[Siegel]

Talk during combat: Less a house rule and more a clarification -- you can talk combat tactics OC as much as you like during anybody's turn provided it doesn't start slowing things down, but you can't use that free talk to persuade another character of something. So "Ready an action to attack him once he's flanked; I'm going to move into that square on my turn" is fine, but "No, stop it -- if you kill him the Duke will never help us again!" isn't.

Why? IC, this represents the fact that the characters have been together long enough to know how to co-ordinate as a team without needing to talk about it. OC, a character's ability to fight well shouldn't be hampered by their player's knowledge of the combat system.

All combat happens in a zone of muteness? Why can't i talk to my buddys especially if it is just one short sentence?

[Ashtagon]

All combat happens in a zone of muteness? Why can't i talk to my buddys especially if it is just one short sentence?

Other characters aren't actually announcing their actions -- they are just doing it. If you are paying enough attention to the others that you can study what they are doing and shout instructions to them, you're probably not paying enough attention to your own actions to do something yourself.

[Siegel]

Other characters aren't actually announcing their actions -- they are just doing it. If you are paying enough attention to the others that you can study what they are doing and shout instructions to them, you're probably not paying enough attention to your own actions to do something yourself.

So you just don't like roleplaying in your combat?

[Tegu8788]

There's a difference between the OOC "I use Twin Strike on those goblins." and the IC "I fire a pair of arrows at the goblins in the back." OOC you ask who needs healing, IC you just heal. The concept I believe is that the characters know their own abilities and those of their allies so well that they can interpret what each other needs, and they see things that we don't, while at the same time only the players are aware of the system rules. Talking is a free action, and as such can happen any time, but if you interrupt another player's turn with a ton of dialogue that's rude, and slows the game down.

[Ashtagon]

So you just don't like roleplaying in your combat?

Nothing quite like an ad hominem attack at the end of the day :smallsigh:

[Surrealistik]

For all the (heated) discussion of this houserule, I chose not to include it because it doesn't really seem to fit the criterion of being 'essential'. Houserules here generally tend to address fundamental design/balance flaws.

[Shatteredtower]

It's interesting how often "essential" house rules change mechanics for the players, rather than adjusting encounters to fit what they've brought to the table.

All combat happens in a zone of muteness? Why can't i talk to my buddys especially if it is just one short sentence?

If it's not your turn, such dialogue should be treated as reactive, not active. If the result changes another player's action, I see no issue with it costing you one action from your next turn.

[Surrealistik]

Even if you're willing to rebalance mobs to scale with default attack/defense progression thereby obviating the need for #2, you're not about to address the issues these other house rules cover.

Also I'm toying with the idea of limiting free/no actions to 1/turn from the same named game element as a response to item swap cheese and abusive infinite and near infinite free/no action chains.

[fallenwarrior]

The rules on free actions have changed slightly. Now the rule is:

Free actions take almost no time or effort. You can take as many free actions as you want during your or another combatant’s turn. There is an exception to that rule: A creature can take a free action to use an attack power only once per turn.

That means that all you really need to do is say that all granted attacks are free actions unless specified otherwise in the power. I'd also make an exception when the granted attack is achieved by someone else sacrificing their action (eg, Commander's Strike).

I'm not sure you need to limit no action effects the same way. Could you give me an example where that would be necessary, given the above house rule?

Doing damage to yourself doesn't count for recharging powers or generating attacks (unless that is specifically an effect of the power you are using).

Among other things, this should remove the loophole of dragonborn characters damaging themselves to recharge their dragon breath.

Vulnerabilities only trigger 1/turn

This one is controversial, but I think it's necessary given how many people are using attack powers which allow more than one attack per round (eg, Twin Strike). The basic idea is similar to your rule #4.

[Surrealistik]

I'm not sure you need to limit no action effects the same way. Could you give me an example where that would be necessary, given the above house rule?

I'm aware of the limitation on free action attacks. My concern is with, as a solitary example, unlimited free action item swapping via the Disembodied Hand/Rakshasa familiars (which is not subject to the attack limitation). This can be problematic in that a player can receive a disproportionate benefit from a lot of cheap but cumulatively very powerful items (Staff of Aversion, Orbs of Nimble Thought, Orbs of Mental Constitution, etc).

As for problems with no action attacks, some examples from the Handbook of Broken (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22591997/Handbook_of_Broken_discussion_thread):

Spam of KingsThe Sword of Kings feature of Legendary Sovereign assumes that all weapon encounter attack powers have attack rolls. Power Strike (or some of the attack power Subs from the Iron Warrior theme) would beg to differ. You never attack: therefore you can't miss. So infinitely use one power on a hit.

Scion of World EndingScion of Sacrifice has a level 16 feature to allow you to use an at-will power whenever you drop below zero. You know that's gonna be trouble. Attack yourself (Throw and Stab, or various AoE at-will powers have been suggested), have enough resistance that you will kill yourself very very slowly, some way of healing regularly (like a staff that heals you when you kill a monster), add something else to move around a lot (Mobile Warrior), and destroy the world.

Bag of Rats can be argued to address this however.


Doing damage to yourself doesn't count for recharging powers or generating attacks (unless that is specifically an effect of the power you are using).

You can rules lawyer this into oblivion with existing restrictions by citing the 'Bag of Rats' rule from the DMG, P40:

When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target—or reducing a target to 0 hit points—the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats.

Vulnerabilities only trigger 1/turn

This one is controversial, but I think it's necessary given how many people are using attack powers which allow more than one attack per round (eg, Twin Strike). The basic idea is similar to your rule #4.

I'm not sure whether I'd call this one 'essential', in that the rule doesn't address a fundamental design/scaling flaw or prevent something from bending/breaking the game. Multiple exploitation of vulnerabilities is certainly powerful, and can be cheesy, but it's rarely if ever a show stopper.

[fallenwarrior]

I'm aware of the limitation on free action attacks. My concern is with, as a solitary example, unlimited free action item swapping via the Disembodied Hand/Rakshasa familiars (which is not subject to the attack limitation). This can be problematic in that a player can receive a disproportionate benefit from a lot of cheap but cumulatively very powerful items (Staff of Aversion, Orbs of Nimble Thought, Orbs of Mental Constitution, etc).

I think a lot of that problem would go away if you just say you must be wielding the item for at least 1 round to gain its benefit.

Mind you, that brings Mage's Weapon abuse to my mind. A rule like item encounter and daily powers can only be used once, even if you have multiple items with that power, until the power is recharged should cover it.

Spam of Kings

You're right. This needs 2 fixes IMO. 1) The suggested house rule on the handbook of broken seems to fix the problem with this specific power.

2) Add a rule that encounter and daily powers can only be used at most 1/turn, even if they aren't expended.

Scion of World Ending

Bag of Rats stops this already, but my suggested house rule about self damage would also apply.

You can rules lawyer this into oblivion with existing restrictions by citing the 'Bag of Rats' rule from the DMG, P40.

Bag of Rats doesn't really address the dragonborn breath recovery situation, since it talks about hits or reducing a target 0 hp. It would cover it if you add "take damage from a target" to the line. Which is more or less what my house rule is about.

I'm not sure whether I'd call this one 'essential', in that the rule doesn't address a fundamental design/scaling flaw or prevent something from bending/breaking the game.

I'll agree with that, but I think it's still a useful house rule which cuts down on some of the power of multi-attacks.

[Surrealistik]

I think a lot of that problem would go away if you just say you must be wielding the item for at least 1 round to gain its benefit.

Mind you, that brings Mage's Weapon abuse to my mind. A rule like item encounter and daily powers can only be used once, even if you have multiple items with that power, until the power is recharged should cover it.

You're right. This needs 2 fixes IMO. 1) The suggested house rule on the handbook of broken seems to fix the problem with this specific power.

2) Add a rule that encounter and daily powers can only be used at most 1/turn, even if they aren't expended.

Keep in mind that these are individual examples. I like my fix in that it is universal and addresses virtually all such issues, with minimal exceptions that require DM adjudication (either because it's too lenient, or too constricting).

Bag of Rats doesn't really address the dragonborn breath recovery situation, since it talks about hits or reducing a target 0 hp. It would cover it if you add "take damage from a target" to the line. Which is more or less what my house rule is about.

It does in the sense that the Breath power needs to hit to deal damage of its type.

[fallenwarrior]

It does in the sense that the Breath power needs to hit to deal damage of its type.

It depends on how the breath weapon is being recharged. If the character is using the Ancient Soul + Nusemnee's Atonement combo, then the hit is on an ally. You could go with a bag of rats ruling on that, but to be consistent you'd need to apply that rule every time friendly fire occurs.

On the other hand, my proposed house rule covers the situation without needing to do that.

[Surrealistik]

It depends on how the breath weapon is being recharged. If the character is using the Ancient Soul + Nusemnee's Atonement combo, then the hit is on an ally. You could go with a bag of rats ruling on that, but to be consistent you'd need to apply that rule every time friendly fire occurs.

On the other hand, my proposed house rule covers the situation without needing to do that.

That would be a definite Bag of Rats instance, and I don't see the problem/flaw with the rule when consistently applied since it's specifically orientated for abusive situations where you derive a benefit from attacking an ally (or other nonthreatening target) and covers these contingencies well. Of course, there are exceptions where you are explicitly and obviously meant to gain a benefit from targeting/hitting an ally, Coordinated Explosion being one; in these cases it doesn't apply.

[fallenwarrior]

That would be a definite Bag of Rats instance,

Bag of rats covers hits and when you reduce a target to 0. As written, it says nothing at all about a PC taking damage. The only hit we're concerned about in the above situation is when the character hits an ally. If you apply bag of rats to that, to be consistent you need to apply bag of rats every time an ally is hit, because they don't represent a meaningful threat to the character. I don't think that's what the bag of rats rule intended, and I don't think it's a good thing for the game, either.

Instead, you can house rule it so that it includes the PC taking damage. At that point, you can bring up bag of rats when that happens, rather than on the hit.

[Surrealistik]

Bag of rats covers hits and when you reduce a target to 0. As written, it says nothing at all about a PC taking damage. The only hit we're concerned about in the above situation is when the character hits an ally. If you apply bag of rats to that, to be consistent you need to apply bag of rats every time an ally is hit, because they don't represent a meaningful threat to the character. I don't think that's what the bag of rats rule intended, and I don't think it's a good thing for the game, either.

Instead, you can house rule it so that it includes the PC taking damage. At that point, you can bring up bag of rats when that happens, rather than on the hit.

Right, so what's the problem with applying BoR every time an ally is hit with the caveat of leniency when game elements that explicitly grant benefits from hitting allies (rather than 'creatures') feature, keeping in mind that BoR only features when a benefit is derived from attacking a target that poses no threat? Why is employing this caveat worse off than one that considers damage?

[fallenwarrior]

Right, so what's the problem with applying BoR every time an ally is hit with the caveat of leniency when game elements that explicitly grant benefits from hitting allies (rather than 'creatures') feature, keeping in mind that BoR only features when a benefit is derived from attacking a target that poses no threat? Why is employing this caveat worse off than one that considers damage?

The problem is, where is the benefit from the hit? Yes, there is a benefit when the damage is transferred, but that occurs after the hit is resolved.

[Surrealistik]

The problem is, where is the benefit from the hit? Yes, there is a benefit when the damage is transferred, but that occurs after the hit is resolved.

The damage is a function/product/outcome of the hit, which in turn is addressed by BoR. It's easy to rule that you are effectively deriving a benefit from hitting an ally, even if the benefit comes from a specific sub-outcome of that hit.

[Yakk]

It's interesting how often "essential" house rules change mechanics for the players, rather than adjusting encounters to fit what they've brought to the table.
Yes, because not every PC will bring something to the table that needs adjustment to.

Most players (tm) aren't going to be using corner cases in builds -- heck, most rangers I've played with haven't even worked hard at boosting their static damage bonus to the stratosphere, which was an obvious bit of charop that people spotted moments after 4e hit the shelves.

Adjusting the parameters of the monsters to deal with players isn't ideal if such adjustments cause non-corner-case player builds to break. So scaling monster HP up so that high-op characters still take a reasonable amount of time to kill monsters just means that low-op characters are crappy.

If, on the other hand, we address the high-op corner case (static damage stacking with multiple attacks, vulnerability exploitation, etc) such that the corner case is "less far" from the low-op case, and adjust monsters (or don't) so that they work with the low-op to the (strongest remaining) corner cases, we don't require that all players build high-op characters.

[Surrealistik]

Updated the Ritual Casting houserules:


Added additional clarification.
Changed the floor for ritual cast times to 5 rounds. This allows for limited in-combat use of some rituals that can make for interesting situations: defending the party Wizard from waves of enemies as he conjures a portal to escape for example.

[Thajocoth]

Here's one:

Arrows and other ammunition do not need to be counted. Money has no weight. Specific coinage does not need to be kept track of.

This is just to make the game smoother. Decreased needless number crunching. A player may choose to do otherwise, but when I'm DMing, I do not want to keep track of these things, so I don't care what the players do. If a ranger is using a ton of arrows, maybe by epic tier I'd assume they picked up a second quiver off a dead enemy at some point. *shrug*

[Surrealistik]

Added the following under "Less Essential Houserules":

#1: PCs have a +1 innate enhancement bonus to all attack rolls, damage rolls, and defenses at level 5. This bonus increases by +1 every additional 5 levels thereafter. PCs further have bonus critical damage dice equal to +1d6 per enhancement bonus gained in this way. These bonuses overlap but do not stack with enhancement bonuses from magical gear.

Why? Allows PCs to viably use a broader variety of gear in combat, notably increasing player options without penalizing and disincentivizing investments in primary gear overtly. Normally secondary gear sets far too fall behind to be useful at higher levels, which results in stagnant, fixed loadouts.


#2: Basic, mundane ammo isn't tracked. Currency weight isn't tracked, nor are currency denominations except where necessary. Players are always assumed to have adequate food and water unless in situations where these essentials are scarce at which point it's up to the DM to decide what rations the PCs have unless they've undertaken especial efforts to stock sustenance.

Why? Prevents the game from being bogged down in pointless, simulationist minutiae. Most games follow this rule in practice anyways.

[Tegu8788]

Removing minutia is always good in my book.

Besides the crit die addition, is there a reason you don't suggest just having inherent bonuses always on?

[Yakk]

I find the inherit bonus system crude. It is obviously a patch replacing magic items.

I'd rather fix the system math myself.

[neonchameleon]

1: Extended Rests take more than 8 hours. Normally a long lazy weekend and access to appropriate resources (a safe-ish environment to recover surges (friendly settlement or the like). Cuts any silliness and makes the story flow more neatly.

2: Weapon breakage from Dark Sun. It's just fun.

3: Don't bother tracking arrows.

[Surrealistik]

Removing minutia is always good in my book.

Besides the crit die addition, is there a reason you don't suggest just having inherent bonuses always on?

The scaling is much more generous with inherent bonuses because they're meant to explicitly replace magical items, whereas my approach is more meant to allow greater diversification in terms of magical item use, so the incentive for upgrading magic items and using fully upgraded items in the latter case is more compelling by comparison, albeit not nearly obligatory (as is usually the case).

[Yakk]

So, instead of inherent bonuses, I'm tempted by a presumed competence rule.

Attack modifier: Level+2, plus proficiency and superior implement and class bonuses. Attributes no longer apply. Expertise feats grant a flat +1 to hit (they do not scale), and if you have a tier-appropriate magic tool (weapon or implement) you get another +1 to hit (the enhancement bonus does not apply).

AC:

MW armor that adds to AC is banned. Item bonuses to AC are banned.

If you are wearing level-appropriate magic armor, you gain a +1 enhancement bonus to AC.

Your AC in heavy armor you are proficient in is the base AC of the armor, plus your level. A feat bonus to AC can also apply. Enhancement bonuses to heavy armor grand a bonus to your resist all.

Your AC in light armor you are proficient in is the base AC of the armor, plus 3/4 your level, plus the higher of your dex or int bonus. Enhancement bonuses on light armor can be used once per encounter as an free interrupt to boost your defense against 1 attack targeting AC.

Magic Neck items: Magic necklaces grant temporary HP equal to twice their enhancement bonus every time you take a short rest or spend a healing surge.

Magic Weapons and Implements: Only grant a scaling enhancement bonus to damage rolls.

Fort, Reflex, Will:
Other than the below, item and enhancement bonuses to Fort, Reflex and Will are banned. Feat bonuses to Fort, Reflex and Will never scale (they act as if you where level 1 for the purpose of bonuses to Fort, Reflex and Will), and Epic Fort, Reflex and Will feats are banned.

You also gain modest bonuses from level-appropriate magical items. Neck items grant bonuses to Fort, Reflex and Will. Level-appropriate heavy armor grants a bonus to Fort, as does a belt level-appropriate belt. Level-appropriate helms grant a bonus to will, as does level-appropriate cloth armor. Level-appropriate boots grant a bonus to reflex, as does level-appropriate leather or hide. (note that this caps out at +3 from level-appropriate items, and gaining these bonuses at level 30 requires level 30+ items).

MW armor can grant bonuses to NADs even if it is not level-appropriate. Similarly, some MW armor grants resist all.

Your base Fort, Reflex and Will is equal to 10 plus the sum of the bonuses on the two stats plus 1/2 your level. On top of this, you gain a +3 bonus at level 10, 20 and 30 (note that these are the levels where magic items from the previous 10 levels stop giving their +2 bonus).

Level-appropriate means "item with the same value in the 10s digit as your level". This means a level 30 character needs level 30+ items to get these bonuses.

So a level 1 one-handed talent fighter with 18 str 18 con 10 int 8 dex 14 wis 10 cha wearing scale armor with a heavy shield, Axe Expertise:

ATK: 1+3(base)+1(talent)+2(prof)+1(expert)=8
AC: 20
Fort: 10+2 (class)+8(attribute) = 20
Reflex: 10-1+2 = 11
Will: 10+2 = 12

At level 30 wearing level 29 and under gear, plate spec feat, +2 feat bonuses to every NAD, and shield-to-Fort and shield-to-Will feats:

28 str, 28 con, 12 int, 10 dex, 16 wis, 12 cha
ATK: 30+3(base)+1(talent)+2(prof)+1(expert) = +37
AC: 10+30+8(plate)+1(feat)+2(shield)=51
Fort: 10+9(base)+18(stats)+2(class)+2(feat)+2(shield)+15 (level)=58
Reflex: 10+9(base)+1(stats)+2(feat)+2(shield)+15(level)=39
Will: 10+9(base)+4(stats)+2(feat)+2(shield)+15(level)=42

Analysis:
Heavy armor AC goes up by 1 per level naturally. Feats and items can grant another +2.

Light armor AC goes up by 26-27 over 29 levels, plus 1 from feats, but you get that free miss once per encounter.

Heavy armor ends up being easier to keep up with your AC than light armor, which I'm also ok with: light armored defenders tend to overcompensate for their lower base AC anyhow.

ATK goes up by 1 per level naturally. Feats and items can grant another +2, and accurate weapons a +3 instead of a +2, and accurate implements another +1.


NADs go up by 24 over 29 levels from the per-level bonuses. Your stats go up by a total of +24 over 29 levels, which boost your NADs by an average of +4 each, so you hit +28 over 29 levels "naturally". Feats can grant another +2 to each.

NAD can diverge due to double-dip stat increases, which makes you nearly immune to attacks against that NAD. The cost is that your other NADs suffer from this neglect. I'm ok with a character becoming effectively immune to attacks on one NAD at the cost of other NADs being vulnerable.