[4E] Essential House Rules

[Yakk]

The skill save system is overly fiddly for the benefit.

One of the points of 4e was to reduce the amount of state stored in conditions. It fails at a number of spots (when someone invests in save-end penalties), but at least that requires investment on the part of the PC (if a PC invests in something that improves effectiveness, it is ok for there to be modest increased bookkeeping, as then the bookkeeping is bounded by the amount of investment: the "spotlight time" is paid for by the PC who buys the save penalties).

The most valuable resource the game has to dole out is time spent figuring things out at the gaming table.

[Surrealistik]

@ Yakk: The Skill Save Ends are normally for monster effects only; the DM could fiat them onto PC powers, but that would be exceptional. I should probably be more explicit about that.

In terms of taking additional time, that only really would seem to be the case if a given Skill Save Ends had multiple applicable skills to make a roll against, several of which are viable options for a player, and/or there happened to be a material action cost, so there would be deliberation involved (both of these parameters being unusual, as one applicable skill and a free action/no action cost are the default); beyond that it's pretty much a single roll, taking as much time as a normal saving throw.


@ Squiggit: This has been addressed before: http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthre...=199598&page=2

The bottomline is that MBAs are more 'nice to have' for Strikers as a rule (those strikers that actually do need them already get an improved MBA keyed to another stat), not important to their role in the same way they are for Defenders, and no, I'm not going out of my way to encourage chargecheesing any more than it already is.

[Yakk]

No: saving throws require that the player roll 1d20, and use almost always a constant modifier on it (usually +0), and you know if you succeed if you roll a 10+.

A skill save ends requires knowing what the skill save end is against (on top of the effect). You then have to look up a unique modifier (skill modifier) plus any conditionals on top of that (same as for save ends I assume -- if you have +5 vs poison, it should apply to an endurance skill save ends). Then you have to roll, add, then check against a (communicated) DC.

If that does not require at least *twice* as much table time, I'd be shocked.

The most valuable game design resource is the time of your players (and DM (whose time is even more precious, as the DM in D&D style games is a bottleneck)). Spend less of it on things that matter less, and more of it on things that matter more.

On top of that, there is time to communicate what the effect is to players, and work out how it interacts with (make a save) abilities (superior will, font of life, leader powers that grant a save) (I'd assume that it would be "anything that can trigger a save roll, can trigger a skill save roll", but again, more details to communicate between DM and Player.)

I'm basically unsure what your skill save ends adds. If the effect it is attached to is seriously cripping it *might* be worth the extra spotlight time. But then you don't really need a general rule for it, as such seriously crippling things should be the providence of solos or elites, and probably relatively unique.

[Surrealistik]

That is just incorrect; case in point would be existing Escape Ends, DC X durations which are reasonably common in MM3 monster design. I have never found these to take significantly more time to run through than save ends, and these actually feature an element of deliberation: whether to attempt the escape or not, including skill check modifiers.

Above all, I do not see any significant slowdown inherent in stating for example "Endurance Save ends, DC 20." and having the person make his roll vs a standard saving throw. The only time I can see things getting even the slightest bit fiddly is when you have a bunch of peripheral modifiers, but regular saving throws are also subject to those. Hell even communicating the basic concept is easy and intuitive (saving throws except with skills against a set DC) and baked into the wording of the duration, with the only nuance being that saving throw modifiers also apply.

Beyond this, it's worth mentioning that I did not notice slowdown during my initial playtests of the duration beyond the initial introduction of the mechanic. Though my test group was admittedly experienced with 4e, I wouldn't suggest subjecting new or fairly inexperienced players to most house rules to begin with.


As for what they add, that should be apparent: they give skills aside from Acrobatics, Athletics, Perception and Stealth value outside of niche combats and skill challenges. Sure, you can incorporate skill checks more prominently outside of combat as a means of doing this, but for those campaigns that are disproportionately combat focused (see most campaigns as 4e is combat orientated), this is a great way to reward skill investment and help players get more mileage out of it.

[Surrealistik]

Added #7 to Essential House Rules:

#7: Hidden status and/or the benefits of Hidden status cannot be used to satisfy the requirements/prerequisites for becoming Hidden or remaining Hidden.

Why? Because letting Hidden status satisfy its own prerequisites is broken and recursive and yet this is entirely legal per the RAW. On a personal note, it's truly sad that the stealth rules are so poorly worded as to require this addition.

[VeliciaL]

That is just incorrect; case in point would be existing Escape Ends, DC X durations which are reasonably common in MM3 monster design. I have never found these to take significantly more time to run through than save ends, and these actually feature an element of deliberation: whether to attempt the escape or not, including skill check modifiers.

Above all, I do not see any significant slowdown inherent in stating for example "Endurance Save ends, DC 20." and having the person make his roll vs a standard saving throw. The only time I can see things getting even the slightest bit fiddly is when you have a bunch of peripheral modifiers, but regular saving throws are also subject to those. Hell even communicating the basic concept is easy and intuitive (saving throws except with skills against a set DC) and baked into the wording of the duration, with the only nuance being that saving throw modifiers also apply.

Beyond this, it's worth mentioning that I did not notice slowdown during my initial playtests of the duration beyond the initial introduction of the mechanic. Though my test group was admittedly experienced with 4e, I wouldn't suggest subjecting new or fairly inexperienced players to most house rules to begin with.


As for what they add, that should be apparent: they give skills aside from Acrobatics, Athletics, Perception and Stealth value outside of niche combats and skill challenges. Sure, you can incorporate skill checks more prominently outside of combat as a means of doing this, but for those campaigns that are disproportionately combat focused (see most campaigns as 4e is combat orientated), this is a great way to reward skill investment and help players get more mileage out of it.

I actually like this when you write it that way. There's extra work, but it's all prep-work - figuring out skills and DCs for save-ends effects, essentially. I don't think it would slow things down at the table, and I like how it makes skills useful in combat.

[Surrealistik]

Added to Ritual mastery rules:

• Extending: They can be extended. When a mastered ritual is cast, its caster may lose any number of healing surges to extend it if it has a duration other than Instantaneous or Permanent. For each healing surge lost in this way, the ritual's duration is extended by its initial duration.
• Termination After Extended Rest: They end upon their caster's completion of an extended rest, even if extended as above. Only permanent duration rituals are an exception to this rule. For rituals with a permanent duration paid for with healing surges in this way, 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.

[Actana]

I like the improved generic attacks, but was wondering: would it be reasonable to allow Melee Training to also affect them? As it stands they're all very strength based, making them marginally useful to any other characters. Since you're already going with the free Melee Training for defenders, it could make sense to allow grabbing maneuvers to be used for a wider array of characters too.


That said, I do have my own houserule that I've been mulling over about, and would like to feedback, if nobody minds. Has to do with consumables. In a game I'm in, the DM does hand out a reasonable amount of useful consumables, but they never really get used, as it's a pain to keep track of who gets what and how many are used. As a ranger I keep track of my own ammunition, but other types of consumables are just lost into ethereal space or something.

Thus, I was working on a houserule that turns consumables and alchemical items that have a category (e.g. potions and elixirs for consumables and volatile and curative for alchemical items) as well as ammunition from single use items into daily items with limitations on how many of them you can use per day. They'd also be more expensive, on par with regular magic items.

What I'm wondering is just how exactly should they be limited? Should I rule that you could use one per tier of each category per day (so heroic characters can use 1 ammunition/day, 1 potion/day and 1 <insert category>/day), or one categorized consumable per tier per encounter (so that heroic character could use only one consumable per encounter, but no daily limit apart from the item's natural daily limitation), or limit them in some other way?

Right now I'm leaning towards the former, being able to use a single consumable per category, but the latter has its pros too, namely being able to stock up on multiple kinds of ammunition or potions for the right situation.

[Surrealistik]

I like the improved generic attacks, but was wondering: would it be reasonable to allow Melee Training to also affect them? As it stands they're all very strength based, making them marginally useful to any other characters. Since you're already going with the free Melee Training for defenders, it could make sense to allow grabbing maneuvers to be used for a wider array of characters too.

It's a good idea, and one I've actually kicked around for awhile. Added:

#7: Melee Training & Generic Attacks:

Melee Training allows a character to substitute a Melee Training attribute of their choice for Strength or Dexterity when it comes to making Generic Attacks as detailed in #5.

Why? Allows PCs other than Strength specialized builds to effectively use the new Generic Attacks.

That said, I do have my own houserule that I've been mulling over about, and would like to feedback, if nobody minds. Has to do with consumables. In a game I'm in, the DM does hand out a reasonable amount of useful consumables, but they never really get used, as it's a pain to keep track of who gets what and how many are used. As a ranger I keep track of my own ammunition, but other types of consumables are just lost into ethereal space or something.

Thus, I was working on a houserule that turns consumables and alchemical items that have a category (e.g. potions and elixirs for consumables and volatile and curative for alchemical items) as well as ammunition from single use items into daily items with limitations on how many of them you can use per day. They'd also be more expensive, on par with regular magic items.

What I'm wondering is just how exactly should they be limited? Should I rule that you could use one per tier of each category per day (so heroic characters can use 1 ammunition/day, 1 potion/day and 1 <insert category>/day), or one categorized consumable per tier per encounter (so that heroic character could use only one consumable per encounter, but no daily limit apart from the item's natural daily limitation), or limit them in some other way?

Right now I'm leaning towards the former, being able to use a single consumable per category, but the latter has its pros too, namely being able to stock up on multiple kinds of ammunition or potions for the right situation.

I like it; I would price it as a magical/wondrous item of the same level as a hard and fast rule. Keep in mind that item powers that are encounter level in power are normally set to act as dailies (the exception is Rare items). However, I would also keep the level in mind and adjust accordingly; it's hard for me to see a Potion of Healing being worth a surge expenditure for 10 HP 1/day as a level 5 item. As a level 2 or 3 item? Sure.

[Surrealistik]

Added #8 under Less Essential Houserules, Stat Save Ends; considering consolidating it with the skill check ends houserule:

#8: Defense Save Ends:

Defense saves are triggered whenever a regular saving throw would be, including by abilities that grant additional saving throws, and are subject to the same bonuses and penalties and are otherwise identical to regular saving throws with the exception that the saving creature rolls a 1d20 and adds an indicated defense against a DC equal to attack roll of the attack or effect that inflicted the effect being saved against + 10. If a defense save ends effect was inflicted by an attack with multiple attack rolls, the DC is set by the attack roll against the defense featured by the saving throw, or the highest attack roll otherwise. If that effect did not feature an attack roll, the DC is instead equal to 23 + the level of the effect’s origin. This DC might be modified by other effects at the time the attack roll is made or the effect is inflicted, such as a bonus to attack rolls.

Example: Ferrum is subject to a Thin Man's toxic spit that inflicts 5 ongoing poison damage (Fort save ends). This hit him with an attack roll of 20, setting its DC at 30 (20 + 10). As normal, whenever Ferrum makes saving throws, normally at the end of each of his turns, he makes a saving throw against this effect, rolling 1d20 and adding his Fortitude defense of 15 to it, including whatever bonuses or penalties he may have to saving throws (or his Fortitude defense). If this amount equals or exceeds the DC of 30, the effect ends.

Why? Improved verisimilitude as it allows a character's nature to play a bigger role in determining its resistance to effects; a hulking, durable warrior is more likely to shrug off a physical affliction than a sickly wizard as an example.

[Sartharina]

Added #8 under Less Essential Houserules, Stat Save Ends; considering consolidating it with the skill check ends houserule:

#8: Stat Save Ends:

Stat saves are triggered whenever a regular saving throw would be, including by abilities that grant additional saving throws, and are subject to the same bonuses and penalties and are otherwise identical to regular saving throws with the exception that the saving creature rolls a 1d20 and adds an indicated defense against a DC equal to attack roll of the attack or effect that inflicted the effect being saved against. If a stat save ends effect was inflicted by an attack with multiple attack rolls, the DC is set by the highest one unless otherwise indicated. If that effect did not feature an attack roll, the DC is equal to 16 + the level of the effect’s origin. This DC might be modified by other effects at the time the attack roll is made or the effect is inflicted, such as a bonus to attack rolls.

Example: Ferrum is subject to a Thin Man's toxic spit that inflicts 5 ongoing poison damage (Fort save ends). This hit him with an attack roll of 20, setting its DC at 20. As normal, whenever Ferrum makes saving throws, normally at the end of each of his turns, he makes a saving throw against this effect, rolling 1d20 and adding his Fortitude defense of 15 to it, including whatever bonuses or penalties he may have to saving throws (or his Fortitude defense). If this amount equals or exceeds the DC of 20, the effect ends.

Why? Improved verisimilitude as it allows a character's nature to play a bigger role in determining its resistance to effects; a hulking, durable warrior is more likely to shrug off a physical affliction than a sickly wizard as an example.

So, he saves on a 5 against an attack that beat his defense by 5? I think you need to recheck the math on this.

[Surrealistik]

Oh, good catch, forgot to add the +10 offset to account for the base defense increment.

Essentially defenses have a dice roll built into them with the base 10 defense, and attacks do not, so when they roll against a DC defined by an attack roll outcome without further adjustment, that attack roll is effectively down a d20 (it's up effectively 2 rolls to the attack's 1).


To break down the example in further detail, we basically have an L2 monster, the Thin Man, with an attack bonus of +5 vs Fort getting 15 on his attack roll for a total result of 20 and a DC of 30 vs Ferrum's 15 Fortitude; in this case a level 2 character (10 base + 2 con mod + 2 class + 1 level). Though it may seem intuitively wrong that it will take a 15+ for Ferrum to beat the Fort save, this is due to the fact that the attack roll was unusually high.

In an instance versus a character with a more typical Fort defense and a middling attack roll features, say 16 vs a 13 Fortitude defense for a DC of 26, it would take a 13+ to succeed.

[Surrealistik]

I've often considered taking a shot at chargecheesing by adding a rule that characters can only benefit from one beneficial item effect, feat, power and/or class feature per tier per charge that enhances a charge attack specifically (such as the Horned Helm, Surprising Charge, and the Lance bonus), or is specifically triggered by one (Boots of Adept Charging). Any thoughts on this?

[Yakk]

Why per tier?

[Surrealistik]

To allow Chargecheese to somewhat scale with the expected/typical power level at each tier.

[Surrealistik]

Added:

#8: Anti-Chargecheese Characters may only benefit from one beneficial item effect/property, feat, power and/or class feature per tier (Heroic/Paragon/Epic) per charge that enhances a charge attack specifically (such as the Horned Helm, Surprising Charge, Badge of the Berserker and the Lance mounted bonus), and/or is specifically triggered by one (such as Boots of Adept Charging, Iron Wolf Charge, etc).

Why? Helps address and curtail the massive, universal and centralizing optimization hegemony that charge optimization (known colloquially as 'chargecheese') permits.

[masteraleph]

Added:

#8: Anti-Chargecheese Characters may only benefit from one beneficial item effect/property, feat, power and/or class feature per tier (Heroic/Paragon/Epic) per charge that enhances a charge attack specifically (such as the Horned Helm, Surprising Charge, Badge of the Berserker and the Lance mounted bonus), and/or is specifically triggered by one (such as Boots of Adept Charging, Iron Wolf Charge, etc).

Why? Helps address and curtail the massive, universal and centralizing optimization hegemony that charge optimization (known colloquially as 'chargecheese') permits.

Ermm...I mean, I get the issue with charging, but outside of one or two options, charging basically dies as you move through Paragon and into Epic (the main option being having a way of poaching a Gnoll's Ferocious Charge/Brutal Charge). By the time a charger gets all the things you're talking about, they're being outclassed by reasonably well built sorcerers, rangers, barbarians (esp. hybrids), rogues...basically anything with multiattacks. I can see limiting them some in early Heroic, but I'd probably throw it open a little earlier.

[Darth Paul]

#2: Basic bolt and arrow ammo isn't tracked. Currency weight isn't tracked, nor are currency denominations except where necessary. Players are always assumed to have adequate basic ammo (bolts and arrows), 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.

So, Surrealistik, some of your rules are for increased verisimillitude, yet here you abandon it completely?

I do not want to be in a game where the DM will decide if I bought rations, unless I have fair warning that the situation is about to arise. Of course, since the house rule is "we assume you have enough rations" until the DM decides you don't, when will there ever be fair warning?

And when will my arrows run out? Before or after the last 50 orcs in the horde of 500 attacking my party's hastily improvised defensive position are dead? Or did I "know" that I was going to be caught by a vengeful horde and bring "adequate" ammunition, in the above case, at least 501 arrows?

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*

Then let me save that money I was going to spend on a Bag of Holding, since I can hoist 50,000 GP in a sack over my shoulder and stride from the dungeon back to town. I'll keep it right next to my endless quiver. Or is that a magic item as well?

Do melee weapons have weight, or can a PC carry three greatswords on his back, too?

Not tracking ammunition might make the game "smoother", but it decreases the drama if there's no possibility of a moment where you get down to the last arrow in the quiver and still have 2 monsters charging at you.

Arrows have a price in the PHB for a good reason. Money has weight for a good reason. It doesn't make the heroes less heroic if they are somewhat true to life. Even Legolas ran out of arrows (read the novel).

Please don't deride "tracking your ammo and weights" as "simulationist". That's what D&D is; a heroic fantasy simulation. Otherwise, we might as well not have rule books at all, and just play "Let's Pretend".

[Surrealistik]

So, Surrealistik, some of your rules are for increased verisimillitude, yet here you abandon it completely?

I care about both verisimilitude and gameplay though the latter takes priority over the former; in short, verisimilitude in this case comes at too great a cost to gameplay IMO; that said, I have it under less essential houserules because it's not nearly as important as the other ones.


@masteralph: Chargecheese is prevalent in the theory op DPR Kings list at all tiers, though I will indeed grant that there are other glaring and prevalent issues like Frostcheese, particularly when paired with at-will multiattacks; I'll address that soon enough.

[masteraleph]

@masteralph: Chargecheese is prevalent in the theory op DPR Kings list at all tiers, though I will indeed grant that there are other glaring and prevalent issues like Frostcheese, particularly when paired with at-will multiattacks; I'll address that soon enough.

Ah, got it. At this point, as long as one is making "high baseline" DPR (1/3 of standard monster HP/round), I'd sort of ignore DPR for nova potential. Chargers have serious issues in higher levels because they get one attack, and maybe an AP multiattack without the charge bonuses, which doesn't give you a strong nova. Unless, of course, you're abusing Gnoll or you're using the daily power on Boots of the Mighty Charge (in which case, it's a daily power so who cares)?

[Surrealistik]

"DPR Kings" is really more of a hold over/legacy title. I believe these builds are now judged on their normalized damage per encounter, including limited use resources like encounter powers, which are then translated into kills per encounter by dividing that damage by the average HP of a monster of that build's level.

[Laserlight]

Not tracking ammunition might make the game "smoother", but it decreases the drama if there's no possibility of a moment where you get down to the last arrow in the quiver and still have 2 monsters charging at you.

I'd far rather do it Surrealistik's way; excessive detail in a simulation slows things down and reduces Fun Per Time Spent. You probably don't, for instance, calculate "what body areas are covered by armor" and "how thick is the armor on that part" and "what is my arrow's armor penetration by range" and "how is the range affected by wind" and "the ceiling in this corridor is too low, I can't shoot that far" and "it didn't completely penetrate the armor but it's sticking iin your armor and getting in the way when you try to swing your sword left" and so forth ad nauseum.

You can get "adequate warning" by the DM simpying saying "You're getting low on arrows; you have 22 left" or "the area you're going into is desert; stock up on rations" when he wants to add that drama.

From my point of view, if I wanted to be a logistics sergeant or a bookkeeper, I wouldn't be playing D&D to do it. If that's what you find fun, go for it, but it shouldn't be a requirement for everyone.

[Surrealistik]

Anti-Frostcheese proposal:

Lasting Frost's wording changed to the following (additions in bold red, deleted portions stricken out):

Benefit: Once per turn round, the first each target without cold vulnerability you hit with a power that has the cold keyword gains vulnerable 5 cold after the attack that power resolves. This vulnerability lasts until that target takes cold damage, or until the end of your next turn, whichever comes first.


Allows AoE to squeeze utility out of Lasting Frost again while preventing it from being too powerful in terms of accumulating single target damage.

Have reservations about replacing the first with each as it may prove too powerful.

[Yakk]

Ideally, we want every hit to apply the frost, but reapplying it doesn't do anything until your next turn. The frost should deal 5 extra damage/round at most.

To that end:

Creatures hit by a Cold attack gain Lasting Frost until the end of your next turn after the power completes. If anyone tries to reapply Lasting Frost before the start of your next turn, it does not work. When you are subject to Lasting Frost, you are vulnerable 5 cold. The first time you take cold damage, the vulnerable 5 cold fades.

It needs work.

[masteraleph]

Is Lasting Frost really the biggest deal? What about Morninglord or Sarifal Feywarden, if you're looking to nerf vulnerabilities?

Also, it feels like a lot of the discussion here is revolving around reducing damage done by strikers. If you're going that far, are you going to also hobble controllers, defenders, leaders, etc.?

[Actana]

Also, it feels like a lot of the discussion here is revolving around reducing damage done by strikers. If you're going that far, are you going to also hobble controllers, defenders, leaders, etc.?

As far as I can see, it's more about eliminating (or at least reducing the effectiveness of) the few truly optimal builds, like frostcheese and chargecheese builds. While I personally prefer to apply some gentlemen's agreements on these matters and trusting my players not to abuse these things completely, I do see the reasoning behind limitations on specific rules/builds.

[Surrealistik]

Is Lasting Frost really the biggest deal? What about Morninglord or Sarifal Feywarden, if you're looking to nerf vulnerabilities?

Also, it feels like a lot of the discussion here is revolving around reducing damage done by strikers. If you're going that far, are you going to also hobble controllers, defenders, leaders, etc.?

LF is especially problematic because it's so universally accessible and centralizing like Chargecheese, so it gets a higher priority, in addition to permitting not just optimized but abusive and broken builds.

Reworded:

Benefit: Once per turn, the first Each target you hit with a power that has the cold keyword gains vulnerable 5 cold after the attack that power resolves. This vulnerability lasts until that target takes cold damage, or until the end of your next turn, whichever comes first. A creature may only be subject to the effects of this feat once per round.

[Laserlight]

A creature may only be subject to the effects of this feat once per round.

Do you mean "if the vulnerability is removed, it cannot be reapplied this round", or "only one vulnerability of a particular type [eg cold] may be in effect at a time" ?

[Surrealistik]

The former:

Benefit: Once per turn, the first Each target you hit with a power that has the cold keyword gains vulnerable 5 cold after the attack that power resolves. This vulnerability lasts until that target takes cold damage, or until the end of your next turn, whichever comes first. A creature may only gain vulnerability to cold from this feat once per round.

[Yakk]

Nix once per round clause.

Replace with "A creature cannot become vulnerable from this feat again until the start of your next turn." to make it clear when the "round" starts/ends.

"Per round" abilities typically sync with a player's turn in 4e. You don't want things to change when the round turns over.