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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
__________________
Avatar by me. It's Incendius Darkscale, a Good Dragonborn Dragon Sorcerer, Demonskin Adept, Prince of Hell, worshiper of the Platinum Dragon (Bahamut), specializing in Fire and Lightning, wielding a staff in each hand.
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.
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.
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).
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:
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.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: [4E] Essential House Rules
