|
I saw this thread on ENWorld and thought this was an occasion for us to have a nice hypothetic conversation here on Paizo.com.
I think I wouldn't change a thing in 4E. Yet. I want to see how it plays out extensively before houseruling stuff I don't like.
But since I have to choose, so far, alignment doesn't seem to have too much impact on the powers, so I'd bring back Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good, I guess. I could survive without that houserule, though.
What about you?
I might add to this as I continue to go through the rules but at the moment my biggest pet peeve is the easy access to Raise Dead Rituals. I like my players to stay dead when I kill them.
Yeah, I'm keeping the alignments as I've always had them. I'm also rolling for HP and keeping 1-2-1 diagonals. I'm getting rid of level requirements for rings. Easy changes to make. Ack, you only wanted one!
Yeah, I'm keeping the alignments as I've always had them. I'm also rolling for HP and keeping 1-2-1 diagonals. I'm getting rid of level requirements for rings. Easy changes to make. Ack, you only wanted one!
Are there actual level requirements on the rings? I just glanced at them but their so friggen obscenely expencive that I basically don't think they need level requirements - their price tag alone should keep them out of the players hands until higher level.
The rules side of it doesn't bother me as much as what they have done to some of the monsters and the cosmology. I would leave it as it was since 2e really. Then again, I really hate change in the first place.
Are there actual level requirements on the rings? I just glanced at them but their so friggen obscenely expencive that I basically don't think they need level requirements - their price tag alone should keep them out of the players hands until higher level.
Looks like you may be right on that. I just got my books and was going off what people who already had theirs posted in the WotC forums. I can't see anything that limits you to using a ring at a certain level, as initially reported in the forums.
I don't worry about the price - you can rarely buy magic items in my homebrew world...
The only thing that's annoyed me so far is the martial classes having at-will powers. It would seem unfair if they didn't, but they've been absurd in actual play so far. Regular melee and ranged attacks no longer exist in actual play. Why would they when my characters can do special attacks every single round? It's kind of like seeing a lame fighting game where they call out their attack every single round. That's my only big pet peeve so far. My girlfriend thinks 4e is awesome though. :)
I would make all the cosmetic changes "Points of Light" specific.
In other words, monster Gnomes, 6 planes, and no rings below 11th level would be game world specific.
It would sure make converting game worlds and characters easier.
The only thing that's annoyed me so far is the martial classes having at-will powers. It would seem unfair if they didn't, but they've been absurd in actual play so far. Regular melee and ranged attacks no longer exist in actual play. Why would they when my characters can do special attacks every single round? It's kind of like seeing a lame fighting game where they call out their attack every single round. That's my only big pet peeve so far. My girlfriend thinks 4e is awesome though. :)
You can only make basic attacks A) after a charge B) on opportunity attacks and C) with the ability of some powers (ie, some powers let you or allies make basic attacks). Otherwise, you're right, you are almost always better using a power (the one other situation is a non-ranged powered class needing to hit something at range)
As for what I'd change ... like the OP it is hard to decide so early in the game. I kinda wish the alignment was just Good, Evil, and Unaligned though. I'm not sure I agree that Lawful Good and Good are different enough, although I do see the difference in Evil and Chaotic Evil.
Hmm, what else. I think the proficiency stats on weapons could vary more. Just +2 and +3 almost seems like a waste, IMO. Where are the +1 weapons?
A few abilities seem like they'll be easy to forget, but until I play I won't really call them out. I don't know that I like the auto-training of certain skills, although most of them are ok (a Cleric not trained in Religion is silly, a Wizard not trained in Arcana, but a Rogue shouldn't HAVE to be trained in Thievery, IMO)
Overall though, I'm pretty pleased with what they came up with. My first 4E campaign starts next Wednesday and I'm pumped! Human Rogue/Fighter, or Dwarf Warlord/Cleric? Who knows! :)
Looks like you may be right on that. I just got my books and was going off what people who already had theirs posted in the WotC forums. I can't see anything that limits you to using a ring at a certain level, as initially reported in the forums.
I don't worry about the price - you can rarely buy magic items in my homebrew world...
The whole ring restriction came out in a preview late last year. I'm glad they ended up taking it out, as if it had been left in I'd be decrying it now. Definitely was a bad idea (but hey, you gotta try it all ... that's what they get paid for!)
Contributor
|
The only thing that's annoyed me so far is the martial classes having at-will powers. It would seem unfair if they didn't, but they've been absurd in actual play so far. Regular melee and ranged attacks no longer exist in actual play. Why would they when my characters can do special attacks every single round? It's kind of like seeing a lame fighting game where they call out their attack every single round. That's my only big pet peeve so far. My girlfriend thinks 4e is awesome though. :)
I just think of these as being something like feats, in fact quite a lot like the combat feats from the Pathfinder Alpha. Martial at will powers are combat techniques the character can perform, but they can't do more than one at a time. You can use the one that gives you a bonus to hit, or you can use the one that gives you a bonus to damage, but not both (example taken from the dragonborn paladin pregen from KotS). If you are doing an opportunity attack or something else like that, you can'y use any of them.
It doesn't bother me from that perspective.
|
|
The only thing that's annoyed me so far is the martial classes having at-will powers. It would seem unfair if they didn't, but they've been absurd in actual play so far. Regular melee and ranged attacks no longer exist in actual play. Why would they when my characters can do special attacks every single round? It's kind of like seeing a lame fighting game where they call out their attack every single round. That's my only big pet peeve so far. My girlfriend thinks 4e is awesome though. :)You can only make basic attacks A) after a charge B) on opportunity attacks and C) with the ability of some powers (ie, some powers let you or allies make basic attacks). Otherwise, you're right, you are almost always better using a power (the one other situation is a non-ranged powered class needing to hit something at range)
When I played 4E at a Con the DM told me to think of your At-Will powers as my characters special moves - that's how you fight, use them all the time. Regular attacks are only for times when you can't use you special moves. A little video game-y but a pretty accurate description.
When I played 4E at a Con the DM told me to think of your At-Will powers as my characters special moves - that's how you fight, use them all the time. Regular attacks are only for times when you can't use you special moves. A little video game-y but a pretty accurate description.
I'd probably tell a newbie to think of them as combat techniques you'd practiced and honed. Anyone can swing a sword, but your extensive training lets YOU employ the Tide of Iron.
Anyone here a fan of the WoT books? The Blademasters in that series are always employing different Blademaster techniques like Avalanche Down Mountain or Three Strikes of Thunder against each other. That's the feeling I generally roll with re: Martial Powers.
Cheers! :)
The 'free identify' rule. It should be a ritual and not a sleep with the item and you know what it is situation.
The 'free identify' rule. It should be a ritual and not a sleep with the item and you know what it is situation.
I think the idea is something similar to earlier editions where you swing your new sword around, try on your ring, jump up and down, shout crazy command words, and think of weird shapes while waving your wand. But I can see where you're coming from.
|
This one is hard I have to admit.
Through all my peeves (many of which people have already mentioned), I'd bring back the basic attack. Fighters should have to swing their sword without an attached "power", mages should have to pull out that crossbow because they've exhausted themselves, clerics (oh especially clerics) really don't feel like clerics if they never pull out their mace and wade into combat (when all they're doing is using at-will ranged powers).
In other words, I'd eliminate the concept of "at-will" powers.
The 'free identify' rule. It should be a ritual and not a sleep with the item and you know what it is situation.
I agree with this. And in my current game I don't tell my players in metagame terms what the magic item is anyway. They learn what it can do through experimentation and use, but they don't know it's a +1 sword/+3 against gnolls. They just know that it's magical and it seems to cleave through armor and defenses better than a non-magical equivalent, and that it's magical energy seems particularly pronounced when being used against gnolls (assuming they ever try it against gnolls).
Do you really need an Tax on finding out what a magic item does? why so the pc's can go run around with either a freebie item that does it or run arround randomly trying magic items on and off to see if the dm tells them anything?
Depends on how metagamey you're comfortable or happy being. The players get a new sword, sit with it for five minutes, and know it's a +3 flaming sword? No thanks. I'm house ruling that. Magic items are mysterious and some times it takes a while to figure out what they do, and even then you may not fully understand it.
When I played 4E at a Con the DM told me to think of your At-Will powers as my characters special moves - that's how you fight, use them all the time. Regular attacks are only for times when you can't use you special moves. A little video game-y but a pretty accurate description.The only thing that's annoyed me so far is the martial classes having at-will powers. It would seem unfair if they didn't, but they've been absurd in actual play so far. Regular melee and ranged attacks no longer exist in actual play. Why would they when my characters can do special attacks every single round? It's kind of like seeing a lame fighting game where they call out their attack every single round. That's my only big pet peeve so far. My girlfriend thinks 4e is awesome though. :)You can only make basic attacks A) after a charge B) on opportunity attacks and C) with the ability of some powers (ie, some powers let you or allies make basic attacks). Otherwise, you're right, you are almost always better using a power (the one other situation is a non-ranged powered class needing to hit something at range)
Well, at will powers aren't all that "special" - they are just improved regular attacks. Sure Strike is a regular attack with +2 bonus. Twin Strike is only the ranger performing regular attacks with two weapons. Do ranger attacking with two weapons on 3.5E seem "video gamey"?
On opportunity attacks, charges and immediate actions, you can't use an at-will power simple because you can't concentrate enough to make an "improved" attack. At-will powers are similar to 3.5E full-attacks and special maneuvers that required standard actions - such as the Manyshot feat.
I would change the rules for extended rest. Instead of recovering all hp , healing surges and daily powers, everyone would recover 50% of the healing surges (round up), plus one daily power.
The only changes I'm thinking of is for the critical hit and miss decks, and how to incorporate those.
I have some good ideas for them so far though, and most of the abilities will work close to as is.
Gives you the little extra possibility when you crit now, that something cool and unexpected happens.
Yeah, I'm keeping the alignments as I've always had them. I'm also rolling for HP and keeping 1-2-1 diagonals. I'm getting rid of level requirements for rings. Easy changes to make. Ack, you only wanted one!Are there actual level requirements on the rings? I just glanced at them but their so friggen obscenely expencive that I basically don't think they need level requirements - their price tag alone should keep them out of the players hands until higher level.
There are NO level restrictions on any magical item, including rings.
Every item has a level at which the players can make the item themselves, but there is no limit on what they can use if they can find it.
While I have a number of house rules I am thinking of, the big ones are as follows:
1) Changing the powers on Magic Items from "daily" to "encounter" in almost all cases. As is, many of them are pathetically weak as Daily powers, and making them encounter powers will not upset me at all.
2) Doing some kind of "long term" wound system for people who get dropped to under 0 HP and restored. The whole "you are fresh as a daisy after having an arm lopped off with 6 hours of rest" bit still annoys me, but I don't want to change things TOO much. Still working on various ideas, but something like this is going in.
3) Meteor Swarm has an added effect of the caster being able to shift all targets in the area of effect 2 squares. That at least brings it a bit more in line with other similar level Wizard powers and does not make it completely useless compared to the same level Cleric power (which still does more damage and is sustainable).
4) Likely coming up with my own system for generating statistics. While I am a fan of random roll, I understand why it is the least desired choice now in 4e. But I also kind of dislike how point buy and array ends up with the characters all feeling very similar, stat wise. I know there is some kind of happy medium I can come up with. :)
5) Restoring a lot of the missing 3.X spells as powers/rituals. Less a house rule really, and more something on my "to create" list.
Hmmm...more than 1 thing. Still fewer house rules than what I have in 3.X (though this is NOT all of them).
|
2) Doing some kind of "long term" wound system for people who get dropped to under 0 HP and restored. The whole "you are fresh as a daisy after having an arm lopped off with 6 hours of rest" bit still annoys me, but I don't want to change things TOO much. Still working on various ideas, but something like this is going in.
I thought about that one too. Using the Warhammer Fantary Role Play critical chart was the direction I was going to take. I need to play it out some more before adding that kind of detail.
My friend who has the PH & DMG tells me that the rings were weakened.
The rings are all once a day plus some skill bonus.
Note that some have a quikened use if a milestone has been passed.
(That and sleeping with a magic item is just comedy gold!)
I think since they are so expensive they should go to 3.5 power levels when worn by someone 11th level or higher. In other words the Ring of Invisability and Free Action should become constant at that level.
It would be the Core Assumption that "Adventurers are Exceptional". The idea that PC's are a whole different animal from everything else in the game is such a drastic abstraction that it's lead to some pretty lazy game design that I don't much enjoy--creating one set of rules for the PC's and another for everything else.
There's nothing by itself that this conceit does that breaks the game. I can pretty much undo the damage as I go along. I just wish I didn't have to. I've always seen the Drizzt's as the exception in D&D, and have always felt like the vast majority of PC's and signature characters were just folk like everyone else. Giving the PC's special priviledges make what they earn not to seem like they earned it as much--cheapens it a little, and it makes the game feel a bit less real.
I would try to balance feats without relying overly much on attribute requirements, which is one of the few areas where 4e still contains newbie traps. They took 2 steps forward by removing 3e's long feat chains and then took a step backwards by using attribute requirements as a means to punish those who don't plan their characters ahead of time. I also happen to think it unduly magnifies the extremes of ability seen between characters whose ability scores are generated with the die rolling method.
I would try to balance feats without relying overly much on attribute requirements, which is one of the few areas where 4e still contains newbie traps. They took 2 steps forward by removing 3e's long feat chains and then took a step backwards by using attribute requirements as a means to punish those who don't plan their characters ahead of time. I also happen to think it unduly magnifies the extremes of ability seen between characters whose ability scores are generated with the die rolling method.
Your right but notice how often you get a new stat bonus. That will mitigate (though not eliminate) this.
4E lock characters into class archetypes too closely. Limitation like which weapons a rogue can sneak attack with and which powers you can/cannot get with multiclassing are too restrictive in my mind.
I use classes as building blocks when making characters, not molds.
Also, I'm adding a system of non-combat skills and feats to flesh out the role-playing-outside-the-dungeon bit.
Add 5 alignments to the list of things that should be restricted to that one game world.
Also, let the other game worlds keep metallic dragons and the original diety portfolios.