4e houserules for more versimilitude

[Satyr]

It seems that there are not that many houserules for 4th edition yet, which is understandable, but also unfortunate. Even though I was very sceptical when I started playing 4th edition games, the system has the great advantage that it works, and works quite well. Still, I had the impression that the simulation aspect of the game was pitifully neglected for the game and there are several rule elements which re a hindrance for the game’s verisimilitude. This is probably not a great problem for many people. But for my group, immersion and plausibility is more important than other aspects of the game and so we sat down and discussed how we would change the rules as minimally and elegant as possible to make it more believable and get rid of the elements we did not like.
Now, we have playtested these houserules long enough to make sure that they work well enough for us, but I am still quite curious to get the feedback of other people. So here they are, our 4th edition houserules for greater verisimilitude.


Hitpoints and Healing
The believable representation of injuries was never a strength of D&D, but it got worse with the 4th edition. Injuries are just completely insignificant, which is somewhat sad, because this destroys both the plausibility of the gameplay and a source of roleplaying suspense. So we tried to change this to make it more believable.

1st, Hitpoints are renamed into Stamina. The Stamina is calculated exactly as the hitpoints were before, but it is not the amount of wounds and injuries the character can suffer, but more a representation of the character’s condition, endurance, resourcefulness with his physical capabilities to make it more believable, that the Stamina of a creature is completely regained with sufficient sleep, which just fails when you of hit point loss as open, bleeding wounds. SO, what goes up and down in the game is the character’s Stamina. which is regained through taking a break, breathing deeply perhaps eating a bite and spending a healing surge.

Loss of Stamina are not necessarily injuries, it is heavier breathing after dodging an attack, running out of breath in a fight, scratches and bruises under the armor etc.

Apart from the Stamina, characters have a number of wound points equal to their Constitution score + half of the character level. When the character runs out of Stamina (which was formerly when the hitpoints reached 0), all additional damage are subtracted from the wound points, until those reach 0. In this case, the character is dead. Additionally, every critical hit also deals one point of wound point damage.

Injuries heal much slower than Stamina. Every character must make a Constitution check (Difficulty 20) per day, to heal a point of injury damage. A successful heal check (DC 20) allows a second roll for the regeneration, as does the use of any form of healing powers.
While the character is injured (has not the full amount of injury points), they have only half of their usual healing surges. If they are severely injured (less than half of their total injury points left), they also suffer a –2 penalty to all their rolls.

Optional Extra Gritty Special Rule: Instead of every critical hit, every single [W] of damage deals also one point of injury damage or twice that many in the case of a critical hit. With this rule, people can die before they run out of Stamina and Constitution suddenly becomes extremely important for almost any character.
I love this rule and I am very willing to use it, because i think that the game's suspense in fights profits greatly from the increased deadliness.

So instead of one column of hitpoints, the character has now two values – one of them works exactly as the hitpoints before, the other one is the simulationist addendum and will increase the general deadliness of the game.


Encounter Powers
Encounter Powers leave a slightly bitter taste in the mouth. Certainly, it is fun when you can use a special power to decide a battle but on the other hand it is a bit stupid when a fighter suddenly seems to forget his secret strike after using it. It is obvious that you need some kind of limitation for powers like this to have a certain degree of resource management and it is probably quite important for the balance of the game, but it is still silly that you can not repeat an effective attack within a combat. So, we tried to come up with a rule, which does not soften up the limitation of encounter powers while still circumvents this break of verisimilitude.

Surprisingly, the renaming of the now Stamina was quite helpful for this. It is not that hard to explain how a special maneuver also represents an additional effort, and that this effort can be quite straining as in costing the character’s Stamina. So we came up with a solution: You can reuse any encounter power as often as you want, but doing so will cost you Stamina points. It is actually as if you deal damage to yourself to regain one of the already used encounter maneuvers. The lost Stamina depends on the category of the power – heroic tier powers cost 1d8 points of Stamina to regain, Paragon Tier Powers 2d8, and Epic Tier powers 4d8 Stamina points.

This makes characters more versatile and therefore more powerful, which hopefully acts as a counterbalance to the increased danger through the new injury rules. Still, regaining encounter powers through this way is linked to a certain risk and sacrifice, which can contribute to the game’s suspense.


Minions
Again, minions are mostly renamed and used a little bit different. Now, they are called cowards, and they will flee immediately when they are hit, no matter how significant the injury was. If they are unable to flee, they will fight desperately to their death, but will run on the first chance or they beg for mercy as if they were bloodied and successfully intimidated.
Fleeing enemies are treated exactly like beaten enemies for the purpose of XP gain, but perhaps they regroup and ambush the characters again (not very likely since they are cowards and will try to avoid any as many risks as possible, but still…).
Mindless creature minions like many undeads will be treated as before.

The reason for this houserule is not necessarily foremost the game’s verisimilitude, but mostly because minion massacres and goblin or kobold genocide is just not heroic. Reaping through hordes of helpless and faceless victims – and most minions are nothing more than that – is not heroic, it’s just mass murder. No one of us was comfortable with the idea of slaying of waves and waves of cronies, so we came up with the coward explanation to not think of our characters as maniac psychopaths.

[Daracaex]

I found a bunch of smaller house rules here (http://wyattsalazar.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/wyatt-brand-4e-house-rules/).

I like the first three and could see myself using them, but, especially if you're using the "optional extra gritty special rule," suddenly only having half of your healing surges if you get hit seems very crippling. Especially since you made it so hard to regain wound points. I'd make it a bit easier to regain those wound points and pull the "half healing surges" down to when you're at half WP and -2 to attack at 1/4 WP. Someone would need to playtest these to make sure, though.

[Satyr]

We did playtest them. But I think we do not fight as often often as it is intended in the rules and we waned to create an appeal to avoid combats if possible. In the existing form the risk of a fight is just too low, which is not good for the game's drama or suspense.

And I forgot a houserule.

Hobby Skills.
Hobby skills are meant as a wy to individualise the different characters and give them additional traits that represent individual interests and strengths. Everything can be a hobby skill which is not covered by a real skill or a similar already existing trait. Examples for hobby skills would be Cooking, Weapon Lore, Board Games, Heraldry, Play Instrument or other sils which have more impact on the character than a regular use in the game.
Hobby skills work exactly like regular skills, but they have a more limited application. You can create skill chalenges for them, you can focus in a hobby skill (perhaps you want to become a legendary cook or something).

Under fitting circumstances, a Hobby skill can give you a +2 synergy bonus to skill checks when the check is related to the hobby skill - perhaps your cooking skill grants you a bonus to taste the poison in the meal bcause you know how this should taste or your knowledge about military procedures is helpful to alanyse the commando structure of an invading hobgoblin army.

Every character starts with 2 + Intelligence Modifier Hobby skills. You can trade one hobby for a skill focus on a hobby skill. Every 5 levels afterwards, each character gains either a new hobby skill or a skill focus in one of his existing hobby skills.

[Samurai Jill]

It seems that there are not that many houserules for 4th edition yet, which is understandable, but also unfortunate. Even though I was very sceptical when I started playing 4th edition games, the system has the great advantage that it works, and works quite well. Still, I had the impression that the simulation aspect of the game was pitifully neglected for the game...
That is deliberate. 4e is Gamist, not Simulationist, and it does it's intended job very well. Misguided attempts at inserting 'realism' back into what is already a very polished game is only likely to upset the delicate balance of tactical play.
If you want a simulationist rule set for a simulationist game, do NOT- I repeat DO NOT use D&D: Gritty, realistic combat is handled better in something like Burning Wheel or the Riddle of Steel.

[RPGuru1331]

I'm sorry, but you really just seem to be playing the wrong system to begin with...

[Satyr]

That is deliberate. 4e is Gamist, not Simulationist, and it does it's intended job very well. Misguided attempts at inserting 'realism' back into what is already a very polished game is only likely to upset the delicate balance of tactical play.

I know. Which is one of the reasons that these changes are very superficial and are mostly changes of terms, not actual rules. They are not meant to male the game gritty or realsitc, only a bit more bloody and faciliate the suspension of disbelief and characterisation of the PCs without changing anything significant.


If you want a simulationist rule set for a simulationist game, do NOT- I repeat DO NOT use D&D

After two and a half year, our version of 3.5 turned out to be much closer to the grittier aspects of the sword and sorcery genre. We were almost finished with a very complete homebrew of the system, covering almost all aspects of the game when the 4th edition was announced. Our homebrew is in fact a low magic, gritty and much more realistic version of D&D. We paused our efforts then and tried to test the neew edition first, before we take this up again. This playtesting led to the mentioned houserules above.
And really, everty campaign should have its specific houserules to adjust to its specific plot and atmosphere. For us, the somewhat bloodier injury rules and the cease of the minion massacre were important for this specific campaign. That is all.

It is not impossible to make this change, but sometimes it is questionable if it is worth the effort. I think with enough time and willingness you can adjust almost any system to almost any style of playing. It is only a question of creativity and determination. And sometimes, it is just pointless.

[Samurai Jill]

I know. Which is one of the reasons that these changes are very superficial and are mostly changes of terms, not actual rules. They are not meant to male the game gritty or realistic...
Of course not. In order to do that, you'd have to rewrite the damn thing from scratch. And with respect, you ARE changing significant things. Taking ages to heal is a significant change. Not having to wade through hordes of cannon-fodder- arguably one of the main attractions of the game- is a big change.
And what about the potential for abuse from clerics 'healing' stamina to allow you to spam encounter powers? There is a real danger here that anyone adopting your modifications, in the mistaken belief they are harmless, will literally wind up doing more harm than good.

After two and a half year, our version of 3.5 turned out to be much closer to the grittier aspects of the sword and sorcery genre.
Which means that you've probably spent two-and-a-half years writing what BW or tRoS could have given you straight away. I appreciate that you've invested a lot of effort in this, but your talents could really be better spent elsewhere.

It's like you're trying to retrofit a monster truck to look and drive like a lamborghini. ...Why not just start with a genuine lamborghini?

[Satyr]

And with respect, you ARE changing significant things. Taking ages to heal is a significant change

Maybe. We had just the impression thqat the game is to easy and tried to make it a bit more interesting by increasing the risk. The easier approach would be to half the number of healing surges by default (or reduce their effect to temporary hitpoints or something similar) but that would only answer one of our problems.
And it is not ages. Even if you are almost hacked into pieces, it arely takes more than a week or two until you are as good as new. It is still very quick, only without forcing the players to not think much about the details.


Not having to wade through hordes of cannon-fodder- arguably one of the main attractions of the game- is a big change.

That depends greatly on taste. For me, that is no attraction, it's an attrocity. I don't want to play a genocidal slaughterer. Putting a whole squadron of enemy foot soldier into flight feels much morel like a heroic game and effectively, the main difference is the amount of bodies lying around.


And what about the potential for abuse from clerics 'healing' stamina to allow you to spam encounter powers?

That was intended in the frame that this would make playing the cleric quite boring, which makes it quite unlikley in this specific group. So you could either contribute yourself or recharge your comrades so that they contribute instead of you? Not very likely.


Which means that you've probably spent two-and-a-half years writing what BW or tRoS could have given you straight away.

Not really. Every system has a unique and often specific style of gameplay that strongly influence the way the game is played. Even when you cover a very specific genre or even the very same setting with different rules, the game experience will differ almost completely.
Our D&D homebrew (we normally call it Serpents and Sewers, because it's not really D&D without an alliteratition) plays very differently from other games with a similar scope (my references in this case are mostly Gurps and Harnmaster and to a lesser extend the Unisystem). And while I don't know Riddle of Steel, I read Burning Wheel and was not impressed much. And yes, the relation between effort and usability of adaptations and houserules is almostt always debatable.


I appreciate that you've invested a lot of effort in this, but your talents could really be better spent elsewhere.

Houseruling and Homebrewing can easily becoem a self-accelerating process. Once you have started to adjust the system to your needs or desires, you will find more and more aspects of the game that need reforms or addendums which would make the game more likeable. Besides, we just stole many ideas and adjusted them. And once you started, you need more and more adjustments to rebalance the whole thing or implement the changes consequently.


It's like you're trying to retrofit a monster truck to look and drive like a lamborghini. ...Why not just start with a genuine lamborghini?

Naah... it's more like starting with a monster truck and jury rig it into a transforming robot with incredible tap dancing abilities and a rocket launcher in the crotch. The point is not to create yet another low magic, gritty fantasy system but to develop a gritty, low fantasy version of D20. And to create more layers of character cration to offer more versatility and multidimensional characters.

[Samurai Jill]

And it is not ages. Even if you are almost hacked into pieces, it arely takes more than a week or two until you are as good as new...
The game includes daily powers for a reason. You're supposed to be doing multiple counters per day. Something which is also, in all likelihood, intimately tied to other aspects of game balance.

That depends greatly on taste. For me, that is no attraction, it's an attrocity. I don't want to play a genocidal slaughterer.
Then you picked the wrong game!

That was intended in the frame that this would make playing the cleric quite boring, which makes it quite unlikley in this specific group. So you could either contribute yourself or recharge your comrades so that they contribute instead of you? Not very likely.
Entirely likely if you are trying to win the encounter. You seem to have a poor understanding of what Gamism is actually about. Gamist players are often perfectly happy to use repetitive, uninteresting tactics if it yields consistent advantage. That's the main sign that your System Is Broken. Besides, what if the cleric just heals himself?!

Not really. Every system has a unique and often specific style of gameplay that strongly influence the way the game is played.
I agree. And D&D's has nothing whatsoever to do with simulation of reality. In order to overhaul the system sufficiently that it encouraged simulationist, rather than gamist play, you would need to rewrite it completely from scratch.

And while I don't know Riddle of Steel, I read Burning Wheel and was not impressed much.
I'll freely admit that Burning Wheel could stand to be streamlined substantially, and tends to pigeonhole non-human characters, but are you actually going to tell me, with a straight face, that 4e D&D is actually closer to your ideal system in this regard? I mean, did you play it?

Houseruling and Homebrewing can easily becoem a self-accelerating process.
It doesn't matter how much it 'self-accelerates'. Starting with a system better suited to your main priorities will logically reduce the distance you need to to go in the first place. Ergo, less effort tweaking, more time playing.

...And once you started, you need more and more adjustments to rebalance the whole thing or implement the changes consequently.
See- this is a frank confession that you wind up rewriting the whole system from scratch. Again, that's a clear sign you picked the wrong system in the first place.

The point is not to create yet another low magic, gritty fantasy system but to develop a gritty, low fantasy version of D20. And to create more layers of character cration to offer more versatility and multidimensional characters.
Then why on earth would you start with D20?!

[Satyr]

The game includes daily powers for a reason. You're supposed to be doing multiple counters per day. Something which is also, in all likelihood, intimately tied to other aspects of game balance.

Yes. But for what we did with the game this is not that relevant. You can have a multitude of encounters per day independently from the number of healing surges.

And there is a huge difference between whatever the creator intended, the final result and how this final result is implemented in the game. Only because something is supposed to work in a certain way, it is not authoritative that it does actually working as intended or that a different application of the same tool is not even more effective.
I actually do not feel obligated to play in the one authorised way, only because it is somewhere in a book, when I find a style which is more pleasurable for me or my group.


Then you picked the wrong game!

Why? Because I feel a certain discomfort eith a certain, minor detail of the game and can handwave it away with a minor change of terminology and effect?


Entirely likely if you are trying to win the encounter. You seem to have a poor understanding of what Gamism is actually about. Gamist players are often perfectly happy to use repetitive, uninteresting tactics if it yields consistent advantage. That's the main sign that your System Is Broken.

We did not create specific houserules for the generic gamist player. We created specific houserules for a specific group. I understand that these rules are not easily transferable, and I wouldn't recommend to transfer them when it is likely that a rule like this will be abused. Within the very limited range in which we tested the rules, they worked fine.



Besides, what if the cleric just heals himself?!

Then I have a character who can use his favorite power every other round and a rest of the party who is slightly annoyed that the cleric is so egoistic. Social dynamics and responsibilities take over from here.


I'll freely admit that Burning Wheel could stand to be streamlined substantially, and tends to pigeonhole non-human characters, but are you actually going to tell me, with a straight face, that 4e D&D is actually closer to your ideal system in this regard? I mean, did you play it?

Okay, I think we have different approaches in this regard. I don't try to find an ideal system. I certainly doubt that there is an ideal system for me, only systems which work in a specific setting or campaign and support the intended atmosphere, moot, etc. I do not try to reach a certain abstract idealised perfection of a roleplaying game. I try to adlust an existnig and played system to the subjective whim and prefernces of my group.
And no, I think that D&D 4e is very limited and as overspecialised as a coala bear, but right now I play in this campaign, I have to deal with specific problems and come up with solutions or ignore them (the third option, end the campaign right in the middle is not an option). There is no search for perfection.


It doesn't matter how much it 'self-accelerates'. Starting with a system better suited to your main priorities will logically reduce the distance you need to to go in the first place. Ergo, less effort tweaking, more time playing.

See- this is a frank confession that you wind up rewriting the whole system from scratch. Again, that's a clear sign you picked the wrong system in the first place.

When you try to develop a playable version of D20 within the objectives of what the game should be able to deal with, basing the whole thing on D20 is a necessity.
We never intended to create a completely new system, we intedned to create a specific form of D20, which worked well enough. Actualy, not starting with D20 would be very counterproductive with this objective.
I konow, the system is not intended to mirror real conflicts, and surprise, our version does't so either. It is still a much more gritty apporach to it with less flashy magic, and it works quite well in its framework.
And I probably understand something else under 'rewriting the system from scratch' than you. There were at least three versions of D20 based low fantasy games with a sometimes completely different approach to magic or how magic works and which form it takes - Iron Heroes, Conan D20 and Midnight - which are all quite different from the original D20. Would you describe a game like Conan D20 as a complete new write-up? In that case, yes, our version is pretty much a complete new game based on similar mechanics. If you just see it as another take on the same game with a specific approach (s I do), it is just another variety.

[Daracaex]

OK! How 'bout we put up another house rule?

Who Picked Up the Bodies?
When an enemy dies, most groups just remove its mini from the board. But the bodies are still there, aren't they? Instead of simply removing the enemy mini, the square in which it is killed becomes difficult terrain.

This is easier to use with a digital map system, but if you have things to easily mark difficult terrain in any medium, it's not that hard to implement. And before people get on me about realism, yes, this drifts toward that side of things, but it also introduces another element to factor in when thinking of tactics. Maybe the party want to move the bodies out of the way now so they can make a swift retreat should they need to later.

[Samurai Jill]

Then I have a character who can use his favorite power every other round and a rest of the party who is slightly annoyed that the cleric is so egoistic. Social dynamics and responsibilities take over from here...
We did not create specific houserules for the generic gamist player. We created specific houserules for a specific group. I understand that these rules are not easily transferable, and I wouldn't recommend to transfer them when it is likely that a rule like this will be abused. Within the very limited range in which we tested the rules, they worked fine.
Then with respect, I would suggest that there is very little point to posting these rules for a general audience. I don't think other GMs are prepared to make the extensive modifications to play that you are apparently willing to undertake, and adopting these rules with such evident potential for abuse could be dangerous for most groups using 4E, which are, in fact, Gamist players.

If you just see it as another take on the same game with a specific approach (s I do), it is just another variety...
Okay, I think we have different approaches in this regard. I don't try to find an ideal system.
Given your willingness to spend two-and-a-half years tweaking an existing rule-set to your own tastes- to the point where it's barely recognisable as the original product- I would say you clearly do try to find an ideal system. Since you are considering switching from 3E in the first place, I would strongly suggest NOT switching to 4E. Finish tweaking 3E instead, or move to a completely different system designed to support a simulationist creative agenda.

When you try to develop a playable version of D20 within the objectives of what the game should be able to deal with, basing the whole thing on D20 is a necessity.
Simulationism is not within the objectives of what 4e should be able to deal with- That's your fundamental problem here: Trying to make 3e or 2e more realistic... that I could understand, since their designs were clearly incoherent to begin with, and you already have a lot of effort invested in cleaning it up. But 4e, is a well-honed, purring engine of serial destruction- it's good at it, and doesn't pretend to support much else. For the love of Gods, please leave it alone and use something that actually supports your underlying objectives.

Look, I understand that old habits die hard, but wading into 4E with the intent of turning it about 180 degrees is going to mean months upon months of unfocused, unsatisfying play as you iron out all the features that bug you about the system, and then iron out all the inconsistencies that result from the absence of features you ironed out- and in 4E, that's going to be about 95% of the game.

EDIT: I'm sorry if I came off as heavy-handed, but the real problem is that you basically don't want to play D&D, and just don't realise it.

There, I'm done...

[KKL]

You know OP, if you wanted harder encounters to simulate life or something like that...why don't you raise the EL of your fights instead of introducing this odd system in the first place?

[Meek]

You know OP, if you wanted harder encounters to simulate life or something like that...why don't you raise the EL of your fights instead of introducing this odd system in the first place?

This, really. Though I disagree strongly with browbeating the OP for his house rules. I thought this was a friendlier message board than that.

[RPGuru1331]

This, really. Though I disagree strongly with browbeating the OP for his house rules. I thought this was a friendlier message board than that.

I'm not sure the above qualified as browbeating so much as an impassioned plea to the OP to save himself 2 and a half years of effort. He really, really is starting fromt he wrong system here.

[KKL]

This, really. Though I disagree strongly with browbeating the OP for his house rules. I thought this was a friendlier message board than that.

Don't look at me, I just find the rules to be a bit clunky. If he wants to use them, it's his deal entirely.

[Satyr]

Then with respect, I would suggest that there is very little point to posting these rules for a general audience. I don't think other GMs are prepared to make the extensive modifications to play that you are apparently willing to undertake, and adopting these rules with such evident potential for abuse could be dangerous for most groups using 4E, which are, in fact, Gamist players.

I was looking for feedback, and in this regard, this thread was much more rewarding than I originally thaught. Obviuosly, a more positive feedback would be more flattering, but I am quite grateful for the onest critics. I can see the reason for the critics, even though they do not always fit into the specific situation of this gaming group.

And no, we wil probably not invest as much time and effort in D&D 4. For this work, we are too indiffernet to the system.

It is not like we don't play other systems or adjust them as well.

Given your willingness to spend two-and-a-half years tweaking an existing rule-set to your own tastes- to the point where it's barely recognisable as the original product- I would say you clearly do try to find an ideal system. Since you are considering switching from 3E in the first place, I would strongly suggest NOT switching to 4E. Finish tweaking 3E instead, or move to a completely different system designed to support a simulationist creative agenda.

I think there is a difference between the strive for perfection and the idea of consequent and trial and error based improvements. The long time it took us to develop D&D 3.5 into the system we wanted to have was mostly caused by the playtesting and the fact thet D&D is one of the games we play only infrequently.
It is very unlikely that we switch from D&D 3 to 4 - it has too many of the traditional D&D dead weight of relic rules ands enough newedition specific problems. I don't think that it is a bad system, it is just not a very good one for us.
Still, to come to this conclusion you have to play beforehand. I think that critics should be based on first hand experiences, and there is not much rong with giving a system a benefit of doubt.
I only ind it more difficult to use stricxtly the rules as written, instead of houserules. I think I have never mastered a game without adjusting the rules to the intent and flavor of the specific campaign, and I have not much problems to implement these adjustments. I just like the idea that the rules are adaptated to the campaign, not vice versa.


For the love of Gods, please leave it alone and use something that actually supports your underlying objectives.

Again, this is an ongoing campaign to get an impression of the system,and it is not very likely that we wil take it up after the end of the campaign, because for this, the system is not convincing enough (again, for us; this is a completely subjective position and I do not want to make absolute statements about the 4th edition).

[Samurai Jill]

Well then, good luck and have fun.