PDA

View Full Version : Some house ruling (4e).



Blazen
2010-06-19, 02:09 PM
These are a few house rules that I want to implement in my home campaign let me know you opinions please.

Dragonborn: Dragonborn's stat bonus is now +2 Cha, +2 Str or Con

Dwarf: Dwarf's stat bonus is now +2 Wis, +2 Str or Con

Eladrin: Eladrin's stat bonus is now +2 Int, +2 Dex or Con (if you select Con, you do not gain Eladrin Will)

Elf: +2 Wis, +2 Dex or Str

Halfling +2 Dex, +2 Cha or Wis

Half-Elf +2 Cha, +2 Con or int

Deva +2 Wis, +2 Int or Dex

Gnome +2 Cha, +2 Int or Con

Goliath +2 Str, +2 Con or Wis (If you select Wis you do not gain Mountain's Tenacity)

Half-Orc +2 Str, +2 Dex or Con (If you select Con you gain a +1 bonus to Ref)

Drow +2 Dex, +2 Cha or Wis

Kalashtar +2 Wis, +2 Str or Cha

Genasi: Genasi's stat bonus is now +2 int, +2 Str or Con

Tiefling: Tiefling's Stat bonus is now +2 int, +2 Cha or Con

Shadar-Kai: Shadar-Kai's +2 Dex, +2 int, or Cha (If you select Cha, you lose the Shadar-Kai's bonus to fort, but keep the rest of the winterkin feature).

Constructive criticism is appreciated. Also, I wasn't sure if this belonged here or in the homebrew section. If it is in fact in the wrong section please let me know so that I can request a move.

Zaq
2010-06-19, 02:15 PM
TBasic Action: If a character chooses to not use both their minor, and move action in a turn then they may instead make a melee, or ranged basic attack. The attack has a -2 penalty (-3 at level 11, and -4 at level 21) and still follows all other rules for non action point actions (can't be used after a charge, etc.) To use the action the player must have both, their minor and move action available to use it, there for the action may not be used while dazed, or under a similar effect.

This seems open to abuse. There are many classes who have plenty of "basic attacks" that aren't actually basic attacks. (This is a huge part of the Seeker's shtick, but they're by no means the only ones.) You should either add language stating something like "a basic attack gained in this way must be a true basic attack and not a power that may be used in place of a basic attack" (which means that this is then only useful for classes with a STR primary, Melee Training/Intelligent Blademaster, or DEX training and a projectile), or be prepared to accept this being a lot more powerful than it looks on the surface.

The rest seems reasonable enough, I guess. I'm no 4e balance master, but I do understand that basic attacks are not always basic attacks.

Blazen
2010-06-19, 02:30 PM
I made the change, and added a new feat that I forgot to put in (ranged weapon training. At first I didn't want wizards, and other classes to miss out on the ability to use this, then I realized how easy it is to abuse.

erikun
2010-06-19, 02:37 PM
Genasi - Seems reasonable, as INT/CON makes a much sense as INT/STR and it seems you're making them better Swordmages/Wizards.

Tiefling - Sounds good, making them geared more towards Warlocks.

Human - This feels a bit strong, especially when they keep the additional at-will and skill training. The Human Defense Bonus will still give them a +1 in all three defenses unless they pick the odd DEX/INT bonuses.

Basic Action - Part of 4e was encouraging characters to move around and readjust every round, given the opportunity. This just feels like it is bringing back the full attack from 3.5e, encouraging everyone to stand around and keep swinging at each other.

Getting free attack, even at-will attacks, will end encounters faster. It also seems problematic for enemy encounters, which usually have far better at-wills than party members.

I'm afraid I'm not sure which powers Zaq is referring to. I know there are several 1st level at-will powers which can be treated as a basic attack (Warlock's Eldrich Blast, for example) but not much beyond that. There are several higher level attacks that can be used during a charge, or use as an opportunity attack, but that's it.


Also, shouldn't this be in homebrew?

Zaq
2010-06-19, 02:40 PM
I confess I'm still not too fond of the "extra basic" rule because it favors certain classes well above others (for example, it benefits a Barbarian much more than an Avenger despite them both being weapon-using melee Strikers, just because of their respective primary stats... and the Sorcerer is left in the dust, unless there's already someone within reach of his dagger), but I don't think that there's a simple and elegant way to prevent both this and the previous problem I mentioned. If it works in your group, awesome, but it doesn't boil elegantly down to a nicely encapsulated rule. A case-by-case thing might work.

Thajocoth
2010-06-19, 02:45 PM
I don't like Basic Action, and I think Humans are already one of the most powerful races, and are not in need of a boost.

Instead of Ranged Weapon Training, I'd just say that Melee Weapon Training works with all non-classed Basic attacks. It's already a VERY weak feat as-is. I've never seen a reason to take it. Having it effect non-classed Ranged Basics as well would still not be enough to ever get anyone I know to take it. (And honestly, I thought it did that.)

I specify non-classed because it's obviously not going to effect Magic Missile, Eldritch Blast/Strike, Grasping Claws, ect... Basic attacks that are part of a class.

Mando Knight
2010-06-19, 02:46 PM
Whether or not the extra attack is broken, the increasing penalty to it is. Why should I get worse at making an extra attack as I get stronger?

Also, the powers that are treated as basic attacks are at-wills. They're rarely much more powerful than an actual basic attack. Restricting the attack to only actual basic attacks just makes Barbarians, Rangers, and Fighters stronger... which is wrong for balance purposes. The Striking Defender and the Thousand-Attack Striker don't need more damage output, but they get it and the Warlock, Psion, and Avenger don't.

Zaq
2010-06-19, 03:00 PM
Whether or not the extra attack is broken, the increasing penalty to it is. Why should I get worse at making an extra attack as I get stronger?

Also, the powers that are treated as basic attacks are at-wills. They're rarely much more powerful than an actual basic attack. Restricting the attack to only actual basic attacks just makes Barbarians, Rangers, and Fighters stronger... which is wrong for balance purposes. The Striking Defender and the Thousand-Attack Striker don't need more damage output, but they get it and the Warlock, Psion, and Avenger don't.

Many of the basic-attack replacements are at-wills. Not all of them are.

I point again to a very large chunk of the Seeker's powers, and (to name a few) to Hold Fast (Paladin 3), Opportunist's Rend (Fighter 7), and Leader of the Bowmen (Warlord 19). There are others.

Mando Knight
2010-06-19, 03:23 PM
The not-at-will ones are also limited-use. If you use it as part of a flurry of attacks on your turn, then use a normal basic attack as an opportunity attack (for example), then the net effect is the same as if you used a basic attack on your turn and the power as the opportunity attack. Except that it's not the same, since the flurrying attack takes a penalty while the opportunity attack doesn't.

Blazen
2010-06-19, 04:06 PM
Got rid of basic action entirely, I don't think there is any way to make it work. I made some changes to the human to try and bring it in line with other races.

erikun
2010-06-19, 04:27 PM
I can't see any reason for playing a Human now, outside of wanting an unusual stat combination. The bonus power and (to a lesser extent) bonus skill were quite useful at making them incredibly versatile at whatever class they were using. Limiting the power to 1/encounter and removing the bonus skill pretty much takes away the main reasons I would want to play a human.

Thajocoth
2010-06-19, 05:39 PM
Humans kinda need their versatile bonuses to get people to play them despite them being such a completely flavorless race.

ShaggyMarco
2010-06-19, 08:46 PM
I like what you've done with the Tiefling and Genasi. I think if you add similar versatile stat bonuses to all races being used in your campaign, then humans need a little boost, because their versatility becomes way less sexy.

I think the 2 bonuses, 1 physical, 1 mental is good. That will make their defenses a little high, so changing their NAD bonuses is a good idea. I wouldn't tank it to 1 bonus though, I would let them add +1 to any two defenses. That keeps it somewhat simple. This keeps their math, more or less, in line.

Whatever you do, don't drop the bonus at-will and the bonus skill for humans. Really, without these things, no amount of stat versatility makes humans worth playing.

Swordgleam
2010-06-19, 09:37 PM
Whatever you do, don't drop the bonus at-will and the bonus skill for humans. Really, without these things, no amount of stat versatility makes humans worth playing.

This.

I get that you feel you need to balance the extra +2 to a stat, but the extra at will and bonus skill are why you take human. There are enough races at this point that if you say, "My build needs +2 X and +2 Y from race" there is going to be at least one race with bonuses to those stats. You don't take human for the floating +2. Plus, humans don't have a racial power like the other races.

Blazen
2010-06-20, 11:51 AM
Yeah, I got rid of the human one. I figure if someone wants a special stat combo, then I'll try to find, or alter a race that provides it. I have also added a Dragonborn change.

Swordgleam
2010-06-20, 12:10 PM
I like the dragonborn one. Makes them slightly better casters (some people don't need str but everyone likes more HP) and makes the primal classes slightly better choices. Dragonborn are already really good, but I don't think you need to do much of anything to balance this out since a lot of races now have a floating bonus.

Kurald Galain
2010-06-20, 01:23 PM
These are a few house rules that I want to implement in my home campaign let me know you opinions please.
The racial mods strike me as no big deal, so I'd say go for it.


Ranged Weapon Training: This feat functions the same as melee weapon training, but for ranged weapons.
I'm curious what kind of class would be interested in this feat. It strikes me that pretty much all of them have access to either ranged class powers, or to heavy thrown weapons. It's not a bad idea but it doesn't strike me as worth spending a feat on.

Thajocoth
2010-06-21, 10:18 AM
I'm curious what kind of class would be interested in this feat. It strikes me that pretty much all of them have access to either ranged class powers, or to heavy thrown weapons. It's not a bad idea but it doesn't strike me as worth spending a feat on.

It's about as useful as the melee version, which is to say, not at all. That's why I suggest rolling them together. Even together, they're not worth spending a feat on.

Kurald Galain
2010-06-21, 10:24 AM
It's about as useful as the melee version, which is to say, not at all. That's why I suggest rolling them together. Even together, they're not worth spending a feat on.
I think the issue is that it primarily works on opportunity attacks, and at least in my experience, OAs are very rare (and so, not worth spending a feat on). I suppose swordmages may be an exception, but they already had a similar feat.

Other than that, most characters have very little reason to use a basic attack. There's charging, but most characters have no reason to charge either. There's warlords, but they can just grant the BA to another ally instead.

Blazen
2010-06-21, 02:11 PM
That feat was left over from when I had the basic action paragraph in. No real reason to remove it though. Also, Melee training is very useful for certain classes. It's pretty much a requirment for Battleminds, and Swordmages. Rangers can use it with Dex very handily. Dwarf fighters that have higher Con than strength. Pretty much any non strength based melee class.

Kylarra
2010-06-21, 02:13 PM
Swordmages have intelligent blademaster, which is better than MWT.

Blazen
2010-06-21, 05:04 PM
Um. IBM, and MWT are the exact same. How is one better than the other?

Kylarra
2010-06-21, 07:26 PM
Um. IBM, and MWT are the exact same. How is one better than the other?IBM can be used with thrown weapons.

Blazen
2010-06-23, 01:19 PM
Good point Kylarra. Hadn't noticed that. Also I went ahead and added a floating stat on all races, opinions and criticisms appreciated.

Hzurr
2010-06-23, 01:37 PM
Dragonborn: Dragonborn's stat bonus is now +2 Cha, +2 Str or Con
I'd switch Cha and Str, but that's just personal preference

Dwarf: Dwarf's stat bonus is now +2 Wis, +2 Str or Con

Eladrin: Eladrin's stat bonus is now +2 Int, +2 Dex or Con (if you select Con, you do not gain Eladrin Will)
Really? Con? That doesn't strike me as being very Eladrin-y. I'd vote Cha or Wis over Con. I've never read a discription of an Eladrin, and thought to myself, "Wow, they sound really tough!"

Elf: +2 Wis, +2 Dex or Str
Again, Str doesn't really seem to fit. I'd say Cha or Int

Halfling +2 Dex, +2 Cha or Wis

Half-Elf +2 Cha, +2 Con or int

Deva +2 Wis, +2 Int or Dex

Gnome +2 Cha, +2 Int or Con

Goliath +2 Str, +2 Con or Wis (If you select Wis you do not gain Mountain's Tenacity)

Half-Orc +2 Str, +2 Dex or Con (If you select Con you gain a +1 bonus to Ref)

Drow +2 Dex, +2 Cha or Con
I'd suggest Wis over Con, simply because of the traditional Drow Priestess thing. Possibly Int, too, since Drow are known for their cunning over their toughness

Kalashtar +2 Wis, +2 Str or Cha

Genasi: Genasi's stat bonus is now +2 int, +2 Str or Con
Good call, the Genasi always struck me as being slighty tough and martial-y, so I think Str is a good call.

Tiefling: Tiefling's Stat bonus is now +2 int, +2 Cha or Con
Possibly switch Cha and Int, but I agree with these 3 choices 100%
-----
Aside from the 3 I mentioned (Elf, Eladrin, & Drow), and the possible re-arangement of a few, I agree with pretty much all of these.

Lord Vampyre
2010-06-23, 01:49 PM
What is the thought behind penalizing the Eladrin, Goliath, and Half-Orc for making one selection over the other, when you do not penalize any of the other races?

Hzurr
2010-06-23, 01:59 PM
What is the thought behind penalizing the Eladrin, Goliath, and Half-Orc for making one selection over the other, when you do not penalize any of the other races?

Eladrin's and Goliaths take the hit, because some of their racial bonuses are key'd off the fact that they have 2 stat bonuses to the same Defense area.

(For example, since Eladrin's bonus is to Dex & Int, both of which apply to your Ref defense, they have a separate bonus to Will. Goliaths are the same way)

These rules actually give a bonus to the Half-Orc, since they have the option (that they didn't have before) to take 2 stat bonuses to the same defense area.

Blazen
2010-06-23, 02:04 PM
Eladrin: I can agree with changing Con to Wis, however the main thing I wanted with that is to make Eladrin great for both Wizards and Swordmages, but I can agree that fluff wise wisdom is preferable.

Elf & Drow: Not really sure where to go with these guys so Ill get back to you on those.

Tiefling, and Dragonborn, the stat placement of int and Cha respectively are what I feel encompass the races better than Cha or Str.

Also, Vampyre the point of the penalty is from a balance perspective. Letting them keep the +1 would give them an edge, defense wise.

Blazen
2010-07-12, 02:18 PM
Added Shadar-Kais to the list, also changed drows to cha, or wis instead of con.