[4E] Essential House Rules

[Surrealistik]

#1: Ritual mastery, and surge powered rituals:

Mastering Rituals:

Rituals require 8 hours to learn.

When learning a ritual, a character makes a skill check against a Hard DC of that ritual's level against 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 2 hours to a minimum of 1 hour. For every 5 points he fails the DC by, the time required to learn the ritual increases by 2 hours instead. Once this time has been determined, no subsequent attempts can be made to change it (except via Aid Another or Triviality rules as below).

Aid Another: Rituals can be learned in half the normal time (to a minimum of 1 hour) 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 learned 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.

Triviality: 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).


Transcribing Rituals/Creating Ritual Books:

Rituals require 8 hours to transcribe, including for scrolls.

The time required to transcribe a ritual can be reduced as per the rules for learning them (this includes the rules pertaining to trivial rituals).


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) by losing an additional healing surge, quickening its completion with an investiture of raw life force. These surges are lost at the time the ritual's cast time starts before any checks are made on its behalf.
Greater Expediting: Once expedited, the caster may lose up to 2 additional surges to further reduce the cast time by 1 round per surge expended in this way. These surges are lost at the time the ritual's cast time starts before any checks are made on its behalf.
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.



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 or exceed 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).


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. Any healing surges above this maximum are immediately lost. Healing surges lost in this way are regained at a rate of one per extended rest per tier.


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 (you choose if there are multiple associated skills) 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: Feat Tax Fixes 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. An expertise feat gained in this way may only be retrained into another expertise feat. A defense bolstering feat gained in this way may only be retrained into another defense bolstering feat as defined here.

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: Defender Melee Training 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 and/or melee basic attacks. This feat may only be retrained into another feat of the same type as defined here.

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: Anti-Forced Movement/'Ping-Pong' Cheese A creature can only take damage from entering or exiting a zone, square, space, 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: Alternative Reward Limits 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.


#6: Anti-Intimidomancy Cheese Elites gain a +5 bonus to resist Intimidate checks and Solos gain a +20 bonus to resist Intimidate checks to force surrender if their level is equal to or greater than an Intimidating creature's. A creature gains a +2 bonus to resist Intimidate checks to force surrender for each level they're above an Intimidating creature, and for each ally it is aware of (including the creature) that exceeds the total number of enemies it is aware of.

Why? Helps reduce the impact of Intimidate optimization abuse in a way that conforms to verisimilitude. Without such rules, Intimidate optimization can easily and instantly eliminate bloodied threats en masse, including Solos and Elites.


#7: Hidden Rules Loophole Fix 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.


#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.


#9: Anti-Frostcheese Lasting Frost is reworded as follows: Benefit: Each target you hit with a power that has the cold keyword gains vulnerable 5 cold after that power resolves. This vulnerability lasts until that target takes cold damage, or until the end of your next turn, whichever comes first. When a creature gains vulnerability in this way during a turn, it cannot do so again until the next start of that turn.

Why? Prevents cumulative abuse of the feat + cold damage type combo (known colloquially as 'Frostcheese'), particularly vs single targets, leaving it powerful, particularly when it comes to AoE attacks/attacks against multiple targets, but limited.


#10: Anti-Multihitcheese You can apply positive damage modifiers, additions and bonuses to only one instance of damage per target, enemy creature or object, per action or power per round (i.e. from the turn that action or power was used until the next start of that turn). This includes extra damage from vulnerabilities.

Why? Prevents abusive synergies between damage bonuses and powers that hit multiple times such as Flame Spiral, Brutal Barrage and Twin Strike, which can normally apply those bonuses on each hit, resulting in excessive damage outputs.


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 and damage rolls for implement or weapon attacks and to all 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 other sources.

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 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.


#3: Super Minions

There is a new creature type called the Super Minion. It's worth twice as much XP as a Minion of its level. Whenever a Super Minion takes damage while unbloodied, unless that damage is equal to or greater than its Soak, it is bloodied instead of destroyed. Whenever a Super Minion spends a healing surge to regain hit points, or regains hit points equal to or greater than its Soak while bloodied it is no longer bloodied.

Soak is usually defined as the bloodied value of that creature if it were a Standard.

Why? Adds a 'happy medium' option between Standards and Minions which can exploit and interact with bloodied/unbloodied states/mechanics.

#4: Improved Generic Attacks:

Bull Rush - Attack
You hurl yourself at your foe and push it back.
At-Will ✦
Standard Action - Melee touch
Target: One creature. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. highest of Reflex and Fortitude; If this attack was made as part of a charge, increase the attack bonus from charging by +2. You automatically hit willing allies and creatures that can't take actions (make an attack roll to determine how far you push the target). The target gains a +5 bonus to its Fortitude defense and -5 penalty to its Reflex defense against this attack for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first, or a +5 bonus to its Reflex defense and -5 penalty to its Fortitude defense against this attack for each size category it is smaller than you beyond the first.
Hit: You push the target 1 square plus 1 square for every 2 points your attack roll beat the target's defense by. Each time you push the target 1 square in this way, you may shift to a space that puts the target within range and line of effect of your touch attacks with each square of this movement bringing you closer to the target. If you cannot or will not, you cannot push the target any further. If you exceed the target's defense by 5+, you can then choose to knock the target prone. You cannot shift or push the target more squares in this way than your speed.
Special: You can use this power in place of a melee basic attack during a charge.


Grab - Attack
You reach out and grasp your foe, preventing it from moving.
At-Will ✦
Standard Action - Melee touch
Requirement: You must have a hand free.
Target: One creature. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. highest of Reflex and Fortitude. You automatically hit willing allies and creatures that can't take actions (make an attack roll to determine if you immobilize a larger target if necessary).
Special: For each size category beyond the first the target is larger than you, your attack roll must have exceeded its defense by 5+, or the creature isn't immobilized by your grab, though you may still use the Hold On Tight! power as though you waived your grab's immobilization.
Hit: You grab the target until the end of your next turn, or until the target gains phasing while you don't have phasing. The target has a +5 bonus on all checks to escape this grab for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first. You can end the grab as a free action.
Sustain Minor: The grab persists per the hit clause.


Grabbed: The grabbing creature can perform the following actions against a creature it's grabbing. The Grabbed status is otherwise identical to that in the Rules Compendium.

Drag - Attack
You lurch your foe about.
At-Will ✦
Move Action - Melee touch
Target: One creature you are grabbing. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. highest of Reflex and Fortitude. The target gains a +5 bonus to its Fortitude defense and -5 penalty to its Reflex defense against this attack for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first, or a +5 bonus to its Reflex defense and -5 penalty to its Fortitude defense against this attack for each size category it is smaller than you beyond the first. You automatically hit willing allies and targets that can't take actions.
Hit: You move up to half your speed and pull the target with you. You and the target don't provoke opportunity attacks against each other for moving in this way. If you hit by 5+, or succeed on a Strength check against an Easy DC of the target's level if you automatically hit, you can move your full speed instead.

Pin - Attack
You force your opponent to the ground.
At-Will ✦
Standard Action - Melee touch
Target: One creature you are grabbing. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. highest of Reflex and Fortitude. The target gains a +5 bonus to its Fortitude defense for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first. You automatically hit willing allies and targets that can't take actions.
Hit: You and the target fall prone and neither of you can stand from prone until your grab on the target ends. You don't grant combat advantage to the target for being prone.

Hold On Tight!
Caught in your grasp, the dragon seeks to become airborne in order to shake you loose; you decide to come along for the ride.
At-Will ✦
Free Action - Melee touch
Trigger: A creature you are grabbing that is larger than you attempts to move willingly without teleporting
Target: The triggering creature
Effect: You can waive the immobilized effect of your grab on the target for the triggering movement. If you don't, the target can perform the Escape action if it spent a Standard or Move action to attempt the triggering movement. If you do, you move with the target (including vertically) and can take an opportunity attack against the target as normal if the triggering movement would provoke. You don't provoke opportunity attacks for this movement, and this movement doesn't end the grab unless you cannot move with the target, and the target ends this movement outside of your reach.


A grabbed creature can perform the Escape action:

Escape
You pry free from your opponent's grasp or slip through its fingers.
At-Will ✦
Move Action - Personal
Target: The creature or game element grabbing you
Effect: Make an Athletics check against the target's Fortitude or an Acrobatics check (or the DC provided with the Grab if any) against the target's Reflex. On a success, the target's grab on you ends and you can shift 1 square.

These rules replace Grab's 'move a grabbed target' option, replace the Escape option and redefine the Grabbed condition.

Why? Makes the Grab and Bull Rush options less situational and more interesting to use. Improves verisimilitude by preventing grabs/bull rushes on targets with phasing while you don't have phasing.


#5: Attack rolls of attacks that use neither weapons or implements and have a scaling attack bonus that's less than +3 per tier (+3/+6/+9) according to their power description now have an attack bonus that scales at a rate of +3 per tier (+3/+6/+9).

Why? This scaling is more proportionate/commensurate to the real attack bonus advancement enjoyed by weapon and implement attacks over the tiers and has been adopted by new WotC material as a new standard for implement & weapon free attacks. Unfortunately this new standard has not been applied retroactively hence the need for this rule.


#6: Skill Save Ends and Skill Save Cures:

Skill Save Ends: The DM may assign certain effects (normally monster effects) a Skill Save Ends duration. Skill Save Ends durations are identical to a (save ends) duration for all purposes and in all ways with the exception that a skill check is made against a DC in place of a simple 1d20 against a target number of 10. If this skill check is a success, the associated effect ends. These can be substituted for (save ends) durations as desired; a Skill Save Ends duration requires the following parameters: one or more skills to be checked, the action cost to use that skill (No Action by default), and the target DC for each of those skills; I recommend consulting the DC table on Page 126 of the Rules Compendium for an appropriate DC. If multiple skills can be checked to end a Skill Save Ends effect, the creature making the check chooses only one to make a skill check for. In order to make a skill check with an action cost other than No Action, a creature must be able to satisfy that cost with any actions he has remaining and available for use at the end of his turn.

While subject to a Skill Save Ends duration, whenever a creature would normally make a saving throw against an effect, including from powers and effects, that creature can make a Skill Save check as above. Checks made in this way are subject to all applicable bonuses and penalties to both saving throws and skill checks. As with (save ends), effects with a Skill Save Ends duration may have alternate ways of ending them (such as with a Skill Cure as below).

Example: Lotharos has taken ongoing 5 force damage (skill check ends, Arcana DC 21 Free Action, Endurance DC 26). When the end of his turn comes up Lotharos would normally decide to use Arcana, but he is unfortunately stunned, and so cannot expend the Free Action required. He makes an Endurance check instead, and succeeds with an Endurance check of 27 thereby ending the effect.

Skill Cures: Skill Cures: The DM may assign certain effects (normally monster effects) a Skill Cure Ends duration. Though Skill Cures effects may have other termination conditions/methods (such as save ends, or Skill Save Ends), they normally last until the end of the encounter or until ended via a successful Skill Cure. A Skill Cure Ends duration requires the following parameters: one or more skill to be checked, an action cost for each of these skills (Minor, Move, Standard, etc...), and the target DC for each of those skills; I recommend consulting the DC table on Page 126 of the Rules Compendium for an appropriate DC. If multiple skills can be checked to end a Skill Cure Ends effect, the creature making the Skill Cure check chooses one of them to make a skill check for.

By default Skill Cures require a Standard action, and that the user be within reach of the target, but as above, other parameters may be specified.

Example: Tombak has taken ongoing 10 necrotic and poison damage (Skill Cure Ends, Heal DC 21 Minor Action, Religion DC 26 Standard Action within close burst 5). His ally Melhved is 3 squares from him; too far away to make the Heal check, so she makes a Religion check instead, ending the effect with a roll of 30.

Why: Helps skills become more useful in combat and rewards their investment outside of Acrobatics and Athletics, and niche skill challenges.


#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 'Less Essential Houserule' #4.

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


#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, typically 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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Surrealistik]

Modified Mastering Rituals, added Transcribing Rituals:

Mastering Rituals:

Rituals require 8 hours to learn.

When learning a ritual, a character makes a skill check against a Hard DC of that ritual's level against 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 2 hours to a minimum of 1 hour. For every 5 points he fails the DC by, the time required to learn the ritual increases by 2 hours instead. Once this time has been determined, no subsequent attempts can be made to change it (except via Aid Another or Triviality rules as below).

Aid Another: Rituals can be learned in half the normal time (to a minimum of 1 hour) 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 learned 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.

Triviality: 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).


Transcribing Rituals/Creating Ritual Books:

Rituals require 8 hours to transcribe, including for scrolls.

The time required to transcribe a ritual can be reduced as per the rules for learning them (this includes the rules pertaining to trivial rituals).

[Surrealistik]

Added anti-intimidamancy rules:


#6: Elites gain a +5 bonus to resist Intimidate checks and Solos gain a +20 bonus to resist Intimidate checks if their level is equal to or greater than the Intimidating creature's. Creatures gain a +1 bonus to resist Intimidate checks to force surrender for each level they're above the Intimidating creature, and for each of their allies that exceeds the number of enemy creatures in the encounter.

Why? Helps reduce the impact of Intimidate optimization abuse.

[Surrealistik]

Update to the 'less essential' section:


#4: Improved generic attacks:

Bull Rush - Attack
You hurl yourself at your foe and push it back.
At-Will ✦
Standard Action - Melee touch
Target: One creature. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. Fortitude
Hit: You push the target 1 square plus 1 square for every 2 points your attack roll beat the target's defense by. You shift 1 square into the space the target left each time you push the target 1 square in this way. If you cannot, you cannot push the target any further. If you exceed the target's defense by 5+, you can choose to knock the target prone. You cannot push the target more squares in this way than your speed.


Grab - Attack
You reach out and grasp your foe, preventing it from moving.
At-Will ✦
Standard Action - Melee touch
Requirement: You must have a hand free.
Target: One creature. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. Fortitude. The target gains a +5 bonus to its defense for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first. You automatically hit willing allies and targets that can't take actions.
Hit: You grab the target until the end of your next turn, or until the target gains phasing while you don't have phasing. The target has a +5 bonus on all checks to escape this grab for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first. You can end the grab as a free action.
Sustain Minor: The grab persists per the hit clause.


Grabbed: A grabbed creature is immobilized until the grab ends. The grabbing creature can perform the following actions against a creature it's grabbing:

Drag - Attack
You lurch your foe about.
At-Will ✦
Move Action - Melee touch
Target: One creature you are grabbing. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. Fortitude. The target gains a +5 bonus to its defense for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first. You automatically hit willing allies and targets that can't take actions.
Hit: You move up to half your speed and pull the target with you. You and the target don't provoke opportunity attacks against each other for moving in this way. If you hit by 5+, or succeed on a Strength check against an Easy DC of the target's level if you automatically hit, you can move your full speed instead.

Pin - Attack
You force your opponent to the ground.
At-Will ✦
Standard Action - Melee touch
Target: One creature you are grabbing. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. Fortitude. The target gains a +5 bonus to its defense for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first. You automatically hit willing allies and targets that can't take actions.
Hit: You and the target fall prone and neither of you can stand from prone until your grab on the target ends. You don't grant combat advantage to the target for being prone.


A grabbed creature can perform the Escape action:

Escape
You pry free from your opponent's grasp or slip through its fingers.
At-Will ✦
Move Action - Personal
Target: The creature or game element grabbing you
Effect: Make an Athletics check against the target's Fortitude or an Acrobatics check (or the DC provided with the Grab if any) against the target's Reflex. On a success, the target's grab on you ends and you can shift 1 square.

These rules replace Grab's 'move a grabbed target' option, replace the Escape option and redefine the Grabbed condition.

Why? Makes the Grab and Bull Rush options less situational and more interesting to use. Improves verisimilitude by preventing grabs/bull rushes on targets with phasing while you don't have phasing.

[Yakk]

Both of those still lack the weapon and implement keywords, which makes them questionable.

You will rarely, if ever, exceed a worthy target's defences by 10, and by epic a push of 1 or 2 is pretty sad.

Here is an attempt at a Bull Rush that scales a tad better:

Bull Rush
Melee 1
Target: One creature
Attack: Athletics vs Fortitude
Hit: You push the target your strength bonus squares. For each size category the target is larger than you, reduce the amount you push by 1 square. For each square you push the target, you may shift towards the target 1 square.

Grab
Requirement: You must have one hand free, or a weapon with the Grabbing property free.
Target: One creature.
Attack: Athletics vs higher of Reflex and Fortitude
Hit: The target is grabbed until the end of your next turn, and you are grabbing the target. If the creature is a larger size category than you, you shift 1 into its space.
Sustain: Minor.

Grabbing:
When grabbing, you can take the following actions:

Release: As a free action, you may end the grab.

Follow: As a free action, if the creature you have grabbed leaves a square, you may move 1 square, so long as you stay adjacent to the grabbed target. You may even do this if the movement require a movement mode you to not possess, such as flying or swimming. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks from the grabbed target.

Drag: As a move action, you may attempt to move the target. Make an athletics vs fortitude check -- if you fail, you waste your action. If you succeed, you can move. For each size category larger than you the target is, each square of movement costs 1 additional square. Each square you move, you can pull the target 1 square.

Pin: As a standard action, you may attempt to pin the target. Make an athletics vs fortitude check. If you succeed, your effective size for the purpose of how much your grab reduces the targets movement increases by 1 category. If this increases your effective size to be greater than the target's size, you may choose to force both you and the target to become prone until the grab ends.

You are only grabbing so long as the target is grabbed. The weapon or hand you used to grab the target cannot be used for other purposes so long as you are grabbing.

Grabbed:
When you are grabbed, if the grabbing creature is your size or larger, you are immobilized. If the grabbing creature is 1 size category smaller than you, you are slowed.

You cannot be grabbed if the grabbing creature cannot take actions, or if you have phasing and the grabbing creature does not. You cannot be grabbed unless the grabber is adjacent to you, or if a smaller size category in your space. If any of these conditions hold at the end of any action, the grab cannot be established, or the grab ends.

While Grabbed, you can take the following actions:

Escape: As a move action, make an Athletics vs Fortitude or Acrobatics vs Reflex attack against the grabbing creature. On a success, the grab ends.

---

This means you can Grab a huge creature at level 1, but you don't even slow them down: Instead, this is analogous to "jumping on the creature's back". You can then attempt to pin the target with multiple pin checks, each time slowing the target down, until eventually you could hold a much larger creature on the ground.

[Surrealistik]

Actually, I agree that it needs scaling to compensate for the lack of a weapon or implement, but via the now standard +3/6/9 progression, not an Athletics check. Also agree that Bull Rush is still too weak to see any real use.

I like the 'Follow' element (though not the out of turn decision making it requires which bogs games down), and I agree that Pinning/Dragging should be separated out in order for them to apply via alternate methods of grabbing.

Beyond that though, there's some stuff I object to.

Your version of the Bullrush is far too strong in my view for strength specced characters. It's closer to a mainstay so far as at-wills go than a niche option, particularly for zone/area abuse mafias.

As for the Grab changes I have to admit personally liking, from a verisimilitude standpoint, the idea of universally making phasing creatures grab proof. From a mechanical perspective however, I have to object due to the havoc it would wreak with several prominent builds which are dependent on the grab status, and the effect it would have on alternate ways that circumvent normal limitations on the standard grab. This is to say nothing about all the various other grabbing elements, some of which probably should work on phasers (talons/traps of arcane force for example). I definitely don't like the way you reworked the impact of size differences, and the implementation of pinning.

EDIT: Alright, my second iteration:

Bull Rush - Attack
You hurl yourself at your foe and push it back.
At-Will ✦
Standard Action - Melee touch
Target: One creature. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. Fortitude
Hit: You push the target 1 square plus 1 square for every 2 points your attack roll beat the target's defense by. You shift 1 square into the space the target left each time you push the target 1 square in this way. If you cannot, you cannot push the target any further. If you exceed the target's defense by 5+, you can choose to knock the target prone. You cannot push the target more squares in this way than your speed.


Grab - Attack
You reach out and grasp your foe, preventing it from moving.
At-Will ✦
Standard Action - Melee touch
Requirement: You must have a hand free.
Target: One creature. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. Fortitude. The target gains a +5 bonus to its defense for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first. You automatically hit willing allies and targets that can't take actions.
Hit: You grab the target until the end of your next turn, or until the target gains phasing while you don't have phasing. The target has a +5 bonus on all checks to escape this grab for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first. You can end the grab as a free action.
Sustain Minor: The grab persists per the hit clause.


Grabbed: A grabbed creature is immobilized until the grab ends. The grabbing creature can perform the following actions against a creature it's grabbing:

Drag - Attack
You lurch your foe about.
At-Will ✦
Move Action - Melee touch
Target: One creature you are grabbing. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. Fortitude. The target gains a +5 bonus to its defense for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first. You automatically hit willing allies and targets that can't take actions.
Hit: You move up to half your speed and pull the target with you. You and the target don't provoke opportunity attacks against each other for moving in this way. If you hit by 5+, or succeed on a Strength check against an Easy DC of the target's level if you automatically hit, you can move your full speed instead.

Pin - Attack
You force your opponent to the ground.
At-Will ✦
Standard Action - Melee touch
Target: One creature you are grabbing. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. Fortitude. The target gains a +5 bonus to its defense for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first. You automatically hit willing allies and targets that can't take actions.
Hit: You and the target fall prone and neither of you can stand from prone until your grab on the target ends. You don't grant combat advantage to the target for being prone.


A grabbed creature can perform the Escape action:

Escape
You pry free from your opponent's grasp or slip through its fingers.
At-Will ✦
Move Action - Personal
Target: The creature or game element grabbing you
Effect: Make an Athletics check against the target's Fortitude or an Acrobatics check (or the DC provided with the Grab if any) against the target's Reflex. On a success, the target's grab on you ends and you can shift 1 square.


These rules replace Grab's 'move a grabbed target' option, replace the Escape option and redefine the Grabbed condition.

Why? Makes the Grab and Bull Rush options less situational and more interesting to use. Improves verisimilitude by preventing grabs on targets with phasing while you don't have phasing.

[Yakk]

+5 per size category makes it impossible to grab onto a creature non-trivially larger than you.

Hence the idea that "grabbing" something way larger than you actually consists of "holding onto" them.

Instead of a veto-like bonus to defences from being larger, I simply made grabbing only immobalize if they are your size or smaller.

Follow could be made automatic -- the goal is that you, as a fighter, can grab ahold of a dragon, and then that dragon can take off, and you continue being on the dragon, even though you haven't stopped the dragon from moving.

You can then attack it with your other weapon, or attempt to restrict its movement and force it to the ground through further wrestling ("Pin").

The trope of "climbing on a larger foe" should be moved out of special powers, and into a general subsystem. And Grab being both "grapple" and "hold on to" makes sense.

As a side benefit, getting out of a grab is harder -- as I wrote it, Follow works when the grabbed target is slid, pulled or pushed. It even works if the target is teleported, but you don't get to teleport (so you probably cannot move to where they arrive, unless they teleport 1 square, and you *must* end up in a valid grab location for your follow to work).

[Surrealistik]

I wouldn't be so sure about your observation on the +5 bonus being impossible to surmount. CA and a common +2 bonus to attack rolls alone compensate for one category of difference beyond the first.

Is it damned hard for a Medium creature to grab and manipulate via grab options a Gargantuan enemy? Sure, but it better be! On the otherhand, it's certainly not impossible. I prefer to give the player an option to utilize the grab mechanics effectively against bigger creatures, even if it requires some tactics, teamwork and attack pumping.

Anyways, I really want to work 'Follow' in. TBH the sheer cinematic awesome of being carried aloft by an enemy you're latched onto is probably worth the added bog down.

That aside, I'm extremely leery about allowing Follow to circumvent forced movement methods of breaking a grab. It's not too bad in the sense that forced movement still works to break them if applied to the grabber, but all the same, it's a bit of a sea change in terms of established interactions, and I'd prefer to keep those to a minimum.


Hold On Tight!
Caught in your grasp, the dragon seeks to become airborne in order to shake you loose; you decide to come along for the ride.
At-Will ✦
Free Action - Melee touch
Trigger: A creature you are grabbing that is larger than you attempts to move willingly without teleporting
Target: The triggering creature
Effect: You can waive the immobilized effect of your grab on the target for the triggering movement, if you do, you move with the target (including vertically if it flies) and can take an opportunity attack against the target as normal. If you don't, the target can make an escape attempt if it spent a Standard or Move action to attempt the triggering movement.

[Yakk]

That doesn't let a medium fighter grab a hold of a gargantuan dragon and fly aloft with any reliability.

It isn't hard to hold onto a gargantuan dragon. The hard part is immobilizing/pinning/slowing that dragon.

It isn't the first -5 penalty (which probably already brings it into the "not worth it") that makes it impossible. It is the 2nd and 3rd one (-15 to hit? Anything you can hit with a -15 to hit is not a challenge).

I'm arguing that "grab" means "place your hand or other limb on, and hold fast". For things your size, this prevents them from getting away by immobalizing them. For things larger, it possibly slows them, and it prevents them from getting away by forcing them to take you with them.

Ideally grab might even count as a basic melee attack, or be used in place of same on a charge, so you can jump on something and grab it. Because that is too awesome to be isolated to strange powers and stunts. :)

[Surrealistik]

Grabbing as far as it is defined in 4e is not only to latch onto something, but to meaningfully impede its movement with that grab. It really insinuates more of an effective grapple and is an abstraction of such.

Yes, there could be a two step process by which you first make a Dex attack to 'hit' with and establish a grab, then a Strength check to determine how effective that grab actually is at impeding the target (or worse yet, in each instance it tries to move), but that obviously involves that much more bog down.

Further, -10 is the maximum penalty that would be levied as there is no size category beyond Gargantuan.

As previously detailed -5 isn't a huge deal given two common bonuses enable the penalty to be mostly surmounted.

Ultimately, your change comes down to a fundamental redefinition of the grabbed status. I'm not looking to do this so much as I'm trying to improve the consistency of the basic grab's viability and usefulness, as well as those of grabbed's peripheral options. I feel my tweaks have succeeded in doing this while making minimal redefinitions of basic game mechanics, and interactions.


At best, I'm willing to afford this compromise, adding this to the Grab at-will hit clause:

For each size category beyond the first the target is larger than you, your attack roll must have exceeded its defense by +5, or the creature isn't immobilized by your grab, though you may still use the Hold On Tight! power when it moves willingly.

[Surrealistik]

Grab has been updated.

Grab - Attack
You reach out and grasp your foe, preventing it from moving.
At-Will ✦
Standard Action - Melee touch
Requirement: You must have a hand free.
Target: One creature. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. highest of the target's Reflex and Fortitude. You automatically hit willing allies and creatures that can't take actions.
Special: For each size category beyond the first the target is larger than you, your attack roll must have exceeded its defense by 5+, or the creature isn't immobilized by your grab, though you may still use the Hold On Tight! power as though you waived your grab's immobilization.
Hit: You grab the target until the end of your next turn, or until the target gains phasing while you don't have phasing. The target has a +5 bonus on all checks to escape this grab for each size category it is larger than you beyond the first. You can end the grab as a free action.
Sustain Minor: The grab persists per the hit clause.

[Surrealistik]

Added #5 to 'Less Essential House Rules:'

#5: Attack rolls of attacks that use neither weapons or implements and have a scaling attack bonus that's less than +3 per tier (+3/+6/+9) according to their power description now have an attack bonus that scales at a rate of +3 per tier (+3/+6/+9).

Why? This scaling is more proportionate/commensurate to the real attack bonus advancement enjoyed by weapon and implement attacks over the tiers and has been adopted by new WotC material as a new standard for implement & weapon free attacks. Unfortunately this new standard has not been applied retroactively hence the need for this rule.

[Surrealistik]

Updated Bullrush wording so that the size of the shift component is undefined, but limited to your speed. This makes it viable to use in areas of difficult terrain (before you could only shift 1 square). Also added auto-hit conditionality.

Bull Rush - Attack
You hurl yourself at your foe and push it back.
At-Will ✦
Standard Action - Melee touch
Target: One creature. You cannot target enemies with phasing if you don't have phasing.
Attack: Strength +3/6/9 vs. highest of Reflex and Fortitude; If this attack was made as part of a charge, increase the attack bonus from charging by +2. You automatically hit willing allies and creatures that can't take actions (make an attack roll to determine how far you push the target).
Hit: You push the target 1 square plus 1 square for every 2 points your attack roll beat the target's defense by. You shift into the space the target left by the most direct route each time you push the target 1 square in this way. If you cannot, you cannot push the target any further. If you exceed the target's defense by 5+, you can then choose to knock the target prone. You cannot shift or push the target more squares in this way than your speed.
Special: You can use this power in place of a melee basic attack during a charge.

[Surrealistik]

Errataed Less Essential Houserules #1 so that the enhancement bonus applies to only to implement or weapon attacks.

This is because attacks that lack these keywords are typically compensated with a scaling attack bonus, especially per Less Essential Houserules #5.

[Damon_Tor]

A while back I drew up a set of rules (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2949976) designed at bringing the Beast Master ranger up to par. I consider it fairly essential to running a beast master, at least one that uses his beast for making attacks, and not just as a mount or a flying spotter.

[Madtitan]

Re: ritual casting

Combat encounters in my game rarely last a full 5 rounds*. Per this rule, rituals would still not be used in combat unless I made an encounter that specifically required them. Would you suggest lowering the minimum cast time of rituals for my group? Perhaps to the average number of rounds (It hovers in the 3 to 4 range) of combat -1?

Or is the intent to keep in combat use very rare?

[Surrealistik]

Even with one character removed from the combat they don't last 5 rounds?

If so that would be quite unusual, given that 4-6 rounds is presumably the average combat duration WotC was aiming for.

I suppose you could always allow that player to expend up to 2 additional healing surges per the surge casting rules to further reduce the ritual cast time further by 1 round per surge spent. Given that it's impossible to regain surges spent for Surge Casting except by way of an Extended Rest, that may be an idea.

[Madtitan]

Even with one character removed from the combat they don't last 5 rounds?

That's a really good point. Since they don't use rituals, it hasn't come up. If the druid was ritual casting, combat probably would last 5 or more rounds. (Or I could create encounters to last longer, but the players stop having an optimal level of fun once the encounter powers run out - I usually stop encounters at this point if they are clearly going to win.)

I was thinking about letting ritual casters use up their move action or their standard action to keep a ritual going, possibly requiring a skill check. Their remaining move or standard action could be used to speed up the ritual or affect combat more directly (this way, interesting choices remain for the player once the ritual casting has started.)

[Surrealistik]

Playtested these a bit, considering adding them to Less Essential Houserules; thoughts?


Skill Save Ends: The DM may assign certain effects (normally monster effects) a Skill Save Ends duration. Skill Save Ends durations are identical to a (save ends) duration for all purposes and in all ways with the exception that a skill check is made against a DC in place of a simple 1d20 against a target number of 10. If this skill check is a success, the associated effect ends. These can be substituted for (save ends) durations as desired; a Skill Save Ends duration requires the following parameters: one or more skills to be checked, the action cost to use that skill (No Action by default), and the target DC for each of those skills; I recommend consulting the DC table on Page 126 of the Rules Compendium for an appropriate DC. If multiple skills can be checked to end a Skill Save Ends effect, the creature making the check chooses only one to make a skill check for. In order to make a skill check with an action cost other than No Action, a creature must be able to satisfy that cost with any actions he has remaining and available for use at the end of his turn.

While subject to a Skill Save Ends duration, whenever a creature would normally make a saving throw against an effect, including from powers and effects, that creature can make a Skill Save check as above. Checks made in this way are subject to all applicable bonuses and penalties to both saving throws and skill checks. As with (save ends), effects with a Skill Save Ends duration may have alternate ways of ending them (such as with a Skill Cure as below).

Example: Lotharos has taken ongoing 5 force damage (skill check ends, Arcana DC 21 Free Action, Endurance DC 26). When the end of his turn comes up Lotharos would normally decide to use Arcana, but he is unfortunately stunned, and so cannot expend the Free Action required. He makes an Endurance check instead, and succeeds with an Endurance check of 27 thereby ending the effect.


Skill Cures: The DM may assign certain effects (normally monster effects) a Skill Cure Ends duration. Though Skill Cures effects may have other termination conditions/methods (such as save ends, or Skill Save Ends), they normally last until the end of the encounter or until ended via a successful Skill Cure. A Skill Cure Ends duration requires the following parameters: one or more skill to be checked, an action cost for each of these skills (Minor, Move, Standard, etc...), and the target DC for each of those skills; I recommend consulting the DC table on Page 126 of the Rules Compendium for an appropriate DC. If multiple skills can be checked to end a Skill Cure Ends effect, the creature making the Skill Cure check chooses one of them to make a skill check for.

By default Skill Cures require a Standard action, and that the user be within reach of the target, but as above, other parameters may be specified.

Example: Tombak has taken ongoing 10 necrotic and poison damage (Skill Cure Ends, Heal DC 21 Minor Action, Religion DC 26 Standard Action within close burst 5). His ally Melhved is 3 squares from him; too far away to make the Heal check, so she makes a Religion check instead, ending the effect with a roll of 30.

[squiggit]

You could take the argument about defenders and MBA a step further and apply it to things like strikers too y'know: It's not the defining issue in why some of these builds are crummy but it's certainly frustrating to, for instance, be playing a rogue and essentially be presented with the choice of going brutal scoundrel or not having an MBA. Ditto for things like the Power of Skill feat tax for avengers... or assassins simply not having an MBA at all. Etc.

Secondly how are you deciding what's the primary stat for that case? Is it what's written on the card or how the player is playing the character? If someone shows you their character sheet and they want to make a tiefling chaknight would they still have to take wrath of the crimson legion in your mind?

[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/showthread.php?t=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. :smalltongue:

[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.

[Surrealistik]

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.

Yeah, fair enough, the less ambiguous the better; I was just going with existing wording conventions, but I will admit it's not totally clear whether 'next round' is meant in objective terms, or relative to when the feat effects were applied:

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 until the start of the current initiative's next turn.

[masteraleph]

Is it really that overpowered to just make it once per turn? That's an extra 5 damage per turn, instead of the 30+ you'd get with an un-nerfed Lasting Frost and a multiattacker for a round or two, or the 10 you'd get just from Twin Striking once per turn. On the one hand, I can see the appeal of weakening cold damage...but making it once per round (whatever the wording) makes it go from a feat everyone loves to something that may not be worth taking in the first place.

Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, I'd actually specify that cold damage from Frozen Whetstones does not trigger the vulnerability. It's one thing to get all the cold damage if you're blowing your weapon enchantment or Paragon Path on getting cold damage. It's another when you're stacking other types because you're a Genasi and you're using a consumable to boost your damage through the roof.

[Yakk]

tart of the current initiative's next turn.
There should be nothing that triggers off the "turning of the round".

There is nothing in 4e RAW -- per round abilities reset at the start of a particular combatant's turn if they are per-round.

As a toy example why, someone whose initiative is last in a round can become first in the next round without changing anything in the in-world fiction. But with that rule, they become able to apply a new iteration of Frost.

Adding mechanics like that is just icky.

(The closest in RAW 4e I know of are the monsters who act on fixed initiative values)

[Surrealistik]

The initiative of a turn remains constant; it doesn't matter how other initiatives change relative to it, or how it changes relative to other initiatives. The initiative of Henry's turn for example is its alone (it's the count that changes).

This is the neatest way I've found to word the feat, precedent or not. Personally I'm not averse to breaking with precedent when doing so would make for improved elucidation and wording (and as you've noted there already is reference to initiatives and initiative counts).


@masteraleph: It's not as bad, but I'd really rather not see 'Cold Mafias', hence this specific limitation.

[hirou]

Considering "Skill save ends" rule, you may be delighted by the news that it was used in excellent Zeitgeist adventure path. The encounter in question is described here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?334549-Question-about-starting-Zeitgeist/page10) (second post from the top), but briefly: boss-like sorcerer curses PCs with really nasty effects (including "you'll probably die if you attack me"), which can only be supressed by Religion checks (basically, reciting a prayer to repel a curse).

On the other topic, I'm looking for advice considering the very first rule, ritual empowerment. I understand and witness the problems that ritual system has RAW, but honestly I'm a bit afraid to allow surge-casting without limit. I DM a party with a single very cunning and optimization-centered player, who I am sure will try to exploit this for the fullest benefit (eladrin artificer with about +20 Perception and Arcana bonuses at level 8). The source of the problem is that the nature of campaign makes it relatively easy to adhere to "5-min day" policy. I think we never had a day with more than 3 encounters with risk of surge loss, so with rules as presented I can expect Traveller's camouphage (+10 Stealth), Fool's gold (self-explanatory), Hand of fate (3 answers with hand gestures), Iron Vigil (no need to actually sleep) and so on every day or for every encounter. It wouldn't be such a problem by itself (I can always up the stakes and difficulty), but it somewhat widens the gap between this PC and the rest of the party, not mechanically, but by "importance" ("I single-handedly buff the whole party each day").

I certainly consider adding rules for in-combat casting,even though it's unlikely to be used without specifically tailored encounters. I want to add surge-casting (and actually added one specific surge-cast ritual as plot device), and I'm thinking about adding one more limitation: PC can only master/surge-cast ritual if he's trained in associated skill; this makes them even more like Martial Practices. So, could anyone share the experience of using this house-rule? Did it make a party overpowered? Was it neglected? Any clever combinations that were used?

[Surrealistik]

Thanks for the feedback hirou; I'm happy to hear that you've got some mileage out of my work!


On the subject of surge casting, I think if the campaign is really such that your party can literally stop and extended rest at will, I would strongly consider adding some kind of time pressure and/or perhaps limiting surges expended via rituals to being regained at a rate of 1 per extended rest.

The surge casting rules as presented assume a standard 4-5 encounters per extended rest that are taxing, require the expenditure of daily powers and impose surge loss through damage. I suppose I could make surge recovery more draconian as above, but I somewhat doubt that it would be a good idea as it may well be an overnerf for most games/campaigns.

[hirou]

Thanks for the feedback hirou; I'm happy to hear that you've got some mileage out of my work!
Just a clarification: I'm not the author of this AP, just a DM, but it seems that authors had similar ideas to you.


perhaps limiting surges expended via rituals to being regained at a rate of 1 per extended rest.
The surge casting rules as presented assume a standard 4-5 encounters per extended rest that are taxing, require the expenditure of daily powers and impose surge loss through damage.
Thanks for the insight. The proposed scheme basically limits surge casting to 1 ritual/day "for free", and the following rituals will result in h.s. penalty, this may work. Zeitgeist has roughly "double XP rate" (actually, level ups just happen based on plot progression), and I don't want to slow that down, full lvl1-30 campaign takes a lot of our time even in this version.

[Surrealistik]

Thanks for the insight. The proposed scheme basically limits surge casting to 1 ritual/day "for free", and the following rituals will result in h.s. penalty, this may work. Zeitgeist has roughly "double XP rate" (actually, level ups just happen based on plot progression), and I don't want to slow that down, full lvl1-30 campaign takes a lot of our time even in this version.

NP, and yes, that's what it works out to effectively; if the ritual caster wants to expend additional surges, he's welcome to, but at the risk of not recovering them in time.


That aside, was thinking of a way to combat over-optimization that relies on adding static modifiers to multiple damage rolls such as Flame Spiral and Twin Strike and this wording came to mind:

"You can apply positive additive damage modifiers to only one damage roll per target, per attack power."

Any weaknesses in the wording? Anything it breaks?

[Dimers]

"You can apply positive additive damage modifiers to only one damage roll per target, per attack power."

Any weaknesses in the wording? Anything it breaks?

Well, if you want to fix some abuses that don't rely on damage rolls, like brutal barrage, you could say "instance of damage" instead. Might also want to clarify whether vulnerability is a positive additive damage modifier for these purposes; vulnerability is a very reliable route to high damage output.

Anything it breaks? Frenzied Berserker's daily20 came to mind, but no, that's fine, it's a series of separate attack powers so it still works.

[Yakk]

How about "Damage stacks on a per-action basis" instead.

A +X named damage bonus works once per action on a target on an action.
A +X unnamed damage bonus works once per named game element that produces the damage bonus on a target on an action.

Twin Strike is one action.

A power that grants OAs has multiple actions, so you don't get wonkey stacking there.

You could even extend it to resistances, and have them only apply "once per action" (ie, resist 20 cold that is consumed by the first hit, lets the second hit through).

In effect, "damage from a single action on a single target is combined into one instance for stacking, resistance and vulnerability purposes." With maybe "No action damage that occurs at a different time extends the damage instance." if you think warlock rebuke damage is too strong. That does add to bookkeeping, however.

If you do this to twin strike, I'd change it to [W]+Stat if one hit on a target, or 2[W]+Stat if two hits on the same target. Stronger than the baseline twin strike prior to optimization, but worse after.

[Surrealistik]

Best to KISS I think.

"You can apply positive damage modifiers and bonuses to only one instance of damage per target, enemy creature or object, per action or power."

Comprehensive and nerfs excess single target damage while keeping diffused/spread out damage strong.


Not sure if I want to nerf resistances; they're not really a problem whereas multihit powers are. Always best to employ as light a touch as possible.

[Surrealistik]

Added:

#9: Anti-Frostcheese Lasting Frost is reworded as follows: Benefit: Each target you hit with a power that has the cold keyword gains vulnerable 5 cold after that power resolves. This vulnerability lasts until that target takes cold damage, or until the end of your next turn, whichever comes first. When a creature gains vulnerability in this way during a turn, it cannot do so again until the next start of that that turn.

Why? Prevents cumulative abuse of the feat + cold damage type combo (known colloquially as 'Frostcheese'), particularly vs single targets, leaving it powerful, particularly when it comes to AoE attacks/attacks against multiple targets, but limited.


#10: Anti-Multihitcheese "You can apply positive damage modifiers, additions and bonuses to only one instance of damage per target, enemy creature or object, per action or power. This includes extra damage from vulnerabilities."

Why? Prevents abusive synergies between damage bonuses and powers that hit multiple times such as Flame Spiral, Brutal Barrage and Twin Strike, which can normally apply those bonuses on each hit, resulting in excessive damage outputs.

[masteraleph]

I'm curious- have you actually run the numbers to see what the effects of removing these possibilities would be?

[Yakk]

#10 breaks multi-turn daily powers that deal damage over multiple rounds. Ie, a power causes ongoing fire damage, it only triggers vulnerability once. If a power lets you deal 1d6 damage as a minor action attack once/turn, you only get to add your enhancement bonus once. Etc.

Or, you need to clarify "per action or power" if that isn't what you mean.

Or you could just make it "per action". The only hole that leaves is warlock double-tapping bonuses with their trap at-wills.

[Sol]

I fully understand the bias against starting a new thread once a dialogue has begun just because that dialogue has ventured away from the original topic, but you are very, very far away from just "essential houserules" at present. You are creating a homebrew system. There's nothing wrong with that, but the title of the thread is now misleading.

[Surrealistik]

I wouldn't say it's different enough to be considered a discrete system from 4e. There are 10 core houserules proposed, and besides them, the game and system are identical. The only thing that could be considered a systemic change among those rules would be the ritual rules.


As for your comments Yakk, I think the best way to address forms of 'breakage' which are a legitimate issue (1 / round recurring applications of damage essentially) would be to allow for 1 / round recurrence:

"You can apply positive damage modifiers, additions and bonuses to only one instance of damage per target, enemy creature or object, per action or power per round (i.e. from the turn that action or power was used until the next start of that turn). This includes extra damage from vulnerabilities."

If the wording is simplified to a 'once per action' basis, there's ambiguity as to whether something degenerate like Flame Spiral can keep recurring damage 1 / turn. To clarify this problem, is the recurring component a function of the action used to initiate the power and therefore the recurring effect? Or is the recurring component detached from the action expended to use the power? That's why I like including 'power' in the language as well, because that recurring component is clearly and unambiguously a product of the power and thus subject to damage bonus recursion limits.

[Yakk]

Then fix flame spiral. "Until the start of your next turn, the first time each enemy starts its turn adjacent to you or enters a square adjacent to you takes 1d6 damage".

Or patch zones and zone like powers separately.

I guess hellish rebuke "stacking" works sort of right in that it ends at the start of your next turn. So hellish rebuke only gets one instance of damage bonuses (and hence becomes a pretty sucky power: 2d6+stat damage if you pull off extra work).

It does mean you have to track stacking rules for all of your powers over entire rounds. (what bonuses did I apply to flame spiral?) Which seems a pain as well (more than "did this creature trigger it yet").

[masteraleph]

I'm curious whether you've actually run the numbers. Can a striker keep up reasonably with damage expectations with all of these changes?

[Surrealistik]

Made a post earlier addressing this that was eaten so I'll keep it brief out of exasperation:


On the subject of flame spiral, I would prefer to avoid piecemeal, individual case solutions in favour of more comprehensive rules. Addressing specific cases is precisely what WotC tried with zone/area ping ponging abuse and it was an abysmal half-assed disaster with many problematic powers and wombo combos remaining.

In terms of bog down and complexity, namely keeping track of who has already been subject to damage modifiers during a round, I don't agree that it would be onerous; this is largely a simple and binary metric to consider, no worse than applying a debuff that lasts a round.

As for Hellish Rebuke, the ability modifier applies during both instances of damage because the power explicitly says so; it's built in, not a bonus of any kind. Further, it's technically possible per the current wording to apply damage bonuses to both instances of damage as the limit 'resets' at the beginning of the next turn during which the power was used, while the effect of Hellish Rebuke ends at the end of the next turn. In short assuming the secondary hit was triggered, it would deal 2d6 + 2x Con mod + 1-2x damage mods depending on timing.


@masteraleph: Not yet, though I'll be looking into it for sure. That said, unless WotC's own basic design is borked, in theory this shouldn't cripple any strikers as they're supposed to rely on their striking feature and damaging powers outside of multiattack mechanics to meet output expectations. The Scout initially came to mind as a potential problem but its 'striking feature' of a secondary attack actually stems from a separate power and action entirely per its dual attack, so it would work with this without issues. Ranger seems the most likely candidate for falling short of expectations thus far given its reliance on multiattacks and terrible striking feature, at least with respect to single target damage. It is important to note that the changes have minimal impact on dispersed damage; it's focused damage that it impedes primarily.

[Yakk]

Oops, I had remembered Rebuke as "until the start of your next turn".

Which makes using Hellish Rebuke the *designed* way "attack me and I punish you" strictly worse than the cheese way "I attack you, I then self-damage to hurt you". You do have to defer your self-damage to your next turn, and you get full on bonus stacking. If you do it in response to the foe hurting you, you deal less total damage.

Sucks.