Just wondering what house rules people are going to add to their games. Anything else out there?
Also, my group eliminated a bunch of system / world view issues that did not seem to work well from a logic standpoint. (Paladins and half-demons don't mix well under many circumstances.)
The one thing that I would add to the discussion is that any changes need to be clearly identified to the players.
You run the risk in 4e of having folks want to run hybrid barbarian, warlock, tieflings, etc. If you don't like that one, I am sure that you can think of your own odd combinations that are allowed by the core rules in PHB I, II & III. (Which are fine if your focus is on pushing minis through a war-game, but is harder to deal with effectively in a real role-playing setting.)
In service,
Just wondering what house rules people are going to add to their games. Anything else out there?Here are a few:
* Natural "20" always hits and does double (rolled) damage
* Morale rolls for monsters/NPCs
* Adds to the gaming world:
-- Summoning magic (I bought but have not spent any time seeing if the new rules from "something something shadows" deals effectively with this.)
-- Herbs effects (added a bunch)
-- Polymorph of items and characters (simplified, workable system)
-- Geas rules (added)
-- Resurrection and reincarnation (simplified, workable system)
-- Potions (added a bunch)etc.
In service,
I'm interested in knowing if what you did with potions added cure hp type ones withing the system. I suspect not but if you did I'd advise against it at least until you've run a campaign under the current system.
Healing and the way players handle healing in 4E is pretty unusual in terms of the meta game from what we are used to in previous editions. In pretty much every version of D&D up until 4th there was a feeling that low levels where absolutely lethal but once you got past a certian point things got a lot easier. In terms of 'simulating' fantasy fiction this really makes since. Low level schmucks die all the time in fantasy worlds - high level people have access to powerful magic to stop that sort of thing.
However 4E usually trends toward gamism instead of simulationism in these types of choices. Hence 4E reversed the standard D&D 'feel' in which low level is hard while high level is easy. Instead low level is pretty easy while the game tends to get harder as you rise in levels. I'm told that this breaks down some where past mid Paragon - the players just get so potent that it gets really tough to kill them, but at least until this point the 'feel' is easier low levels harder higher levels.
The way this is accomplished is really in the healing mechanics. At very low levels (1st and 2nd, a bit 3rd) players tend to have more healing on tap then they can use. Monster damage is not comparable to the amount of hps they get from their second winds. They have a leader usually and that is a ton of healing right there. Basically the players seem to have more healing then they know what to do with. By 3rd through 5th the dynamic starts to change again. Now the second winds are increasingly not keeping up with the damage. Using them gets more problematic since we are getting closer to a situation (common in older editions) where you could spend your round healing but then the baddie will probably do just as much damage to you in the round and you don't really get anywhere.
However what keeps this from really happening is healing potions. By 3rd they are reasonably cheap and with a 10 hp boost for the price of a healing surge they are very comparable in value to any other healing that is available in the game. At this point the players have phenomenal hps because they have access to all their healing surges via the healing potions.
By 6th and beyond this starts to break down. The problem is that the 10 hps you get from a healing potion is now really pretty significantly less then your healing surge value. Not only is this bad just on a one for one comparison but the leader in the party is getting much more potent at handing out healing powers. He'll let you use a surge with a metric but load of modifiers. The key however is that the game is balanced around this, so increasingly from 6th and beyond success in the adventure is about using your healing surges intelligently and that really means not 'wasting' them by using them for a lousy 10 hps from a potion. You can get better potions but they are so insanely expensive for such a small gain in hps that its just not worth it.
The end result is that its easy to live through 1st-2nd because you have such great healing inherent in the characters, 3rd-5th is not to tough because the healing portions are amazing but from 6th on things are getting a lot more grim. Now using a healing potion is just wrong - inefficient use of resources. Past 11th and even second winds need to be used carefully, the leader can do use that surge much more efficiently - but the leader is very limited on healing in a combat...there is just not enough to go around. For a good while there the game really starts to feel ever more difficult with each passing level. In the end its all actually pretty elegant with the game getting ever more challenging as you get higher in level and that's probably, generally, a good thing. Thus I recommend not messing with this element of the game until after you have run a campaign and have a good feel for what your changing and why you feel your changes will be an improvement.
4E
Just wondering what house rules people are going to add to their games. Anything else out there?Also, my group eliminated a bunch of system / world view issues that did not seem to work well from a logic standpoint. (Paladins and half-demons don't mix well under many circumstances.)
The one thing that I would add to the discussion is that any changes need to be clearly identified to the players.
You run the risk in 4e of having folks want to run hybrid barbarian, warlock, tieflings, etc. If you don't like that one, I am sure that you can think of your own odd combinations that are allowed by the core rules in PHB I, II & III. (Which are fine if your focus is on pushing minis through a war-game, but is harder to deal with effectively in a real role-playing setting.)
In service,
I have a lot of this sort of thing in my game as well. Quite possibly for the same reasons as you - I run a detailed homebrew that was originally conceived back in 1E days and its tends to have a lot of hold overs in terms of look and feel from the style of campaign worlds inherent in 1E.
Now, unlike you, I did eventually switch to 3rd edition and that was really the edition where I found I had to totally reimagine my campaign world because Teifling et al. where freaken everywhere so I've already dealt, one way or another, with most of the fall out from that in terms of my homebrew. That said I can't stand the art of 4E as it really makes takes these elements over the top. Since I use a lot of art in my handouts (and I do a lot of handouts) I tend to try and stick with art work (acquired usually with Google image searches) that is much more subtle. I don't mind that a player is a tiefling - but that should be a human with a few subtle trappings of ancient demonic heritage...not a big red fiend who looks more like a monster then most of what the rest of the party is fighting.
I'm also very quick to ban races that don't 'fit' as players in my campaign world. I'd say about half the races are not options for my players (especially no elves...man I hate elves).
....I did eventually switch to 3rd edition and that was really the edition where I found I had to totally reimagine my campaign world because Teifling et al. where freaken everywhere so I've already dealt, one way or another, with most of the fall out from that in terms of my homebrew. That said I can't stand the art of 4E as it really makes takes these elements over the top. Since I use a lot of art in my handouts (and I do a lot of handouts) I tend to try and stick with art work (acquired usually with Google image searches) that is much more subtle. I don't mind that a player is a tiefling - but that should be a human with a few subtle trappings of ancient demonic heritage...not a big red fiend who looks more like a monster then most of what the rest of the party is...
I feel the trace of taint of the infernal/diabolic blood can run strong or weak within any given person. A person who wants the more "mostly human with subtle trappings" is one who's taint is weak or obscured by the stronger human side where as someone who has strong tainted blood would look more akin to the 4E picutures. Basically, I think it can work both ways so long as it's described through role-play.
For my games, I'm very much against restrcting races/classes/builds because I enjoy diversity (though I don't think i'd allow Three-Kreen or Shardminds) and I'd rather not go into an argument about such-and-such race being excluded from PC-building just because I personally don't like the race or how it might affect any given game-world.
Getting back to other Homebrew rules, I've just read through the Warlock Playtest and I've decided I'm giving anyone playing a Star Pact warlock at my table the option for using Constitution or Charisma for their pact-based attacks. Also, Eldritch Blast/Strike is now a Class Feature they receive automatically that DOESN'T take away from their At-Will choices.
This strikes me as basically another way to getting to where I am going - list out 'where the weak point' is and you'll get players that focus on that. I'm personally not such a big fan because this seems to skip over the 'discovery' stage where...
I write, or rewrite most of my own monsters and I usually stick with the -2/+0/+2 spread for NADs. But the DMs in my group have gotten in the habit of writing monster defenses on index cards and clipping them to the outside of the DM screen for players to see. So a caster using the right power in my game already has an effective +2 to hit without having to figure out which defense is lowest.
Displaying monster stats was definitely motivated by speeding up combat. I tend to lose track of things amidst the chaos behind my DM's screen, so I look for ways for my players to help.
In other news, I've become a big fan of C4's house rules. C4 fixes most of 4e's big problems -- the only thing the writer hasn't done is switch to hexes. :)
In other news, I've become a big fan of C4's house rules. C4 fixes most of 4e's big problems -- the only thing the writer hasn't done is switch to hexes. :)
Well go tell him that on his thread...the guy deserves a 'pick me up' by any fan of his changes considering all his work.
In other news, I've become a big fan of C4's house rules. C4 fixes most of 4e's big problems -- the only thing the writer hasn't done is switch to hexes. :)
Care to elaborate?
In other news, I've become a big fan of C4's house rules. C4 fixes most of 4e's big problems -- the only thing the writer hasn't done is switch to hexes. :)Care to elaborate?
Apparently I've become C4's salesman. Well, I just happen to have this deluxe brochure...The Complete 4th Edition is a 4e clone, (the first, so far as I know), written to fix what WotC won't.
The biggest C4 fixes are the ironing-out of the game's wrinkled math -- so no more math holes or feat taxes, and there's an inherent bonus rule that uses enhancement bonuses. The other big change is saving throws; C4 saves are rolled at the end of the attacker's turn, and bonus saves can end most any effect. (Even UENT effects.) It's a bit more to track, but it fixes the "But I'd rather deal out UENTs than (save ends)!" weirdness.
There're also new multiclassing feats that aren't sketchy like hybriding is, and that doesn't charge feats to swap out powers like the RAW feats do. I think the other benefits of C4's MC feats might be a bit OP though; I'm looking forward to seeing what my group's power gamer does with them.
There are a few other tweaks, but that should give you an idea of what C4 is. It's also about being able to say "I play C4" rather than "I play 4e with house rules d, j, I, m, r, t, y and z." Usually I still have to explain a bit, but people are more likely to be interested in clones than my own house rules.
(If C4 weren't free, I'd say I should be getting paid for this!)
The other big change is saving throws; C4 saves are rolled at the end of the attacker's turn, and bonus saves can end most any effect. (Even UENT effects.) It's a bit more to track, but it fixes the "But I'd rather deal out UENTs than (save ends)!" weirdness.
Hm. It's a bit more to track doesn't sound good at all - one of the major problems of 4e is already the ton of fiddly bits. And this makes it even worse? So how is this a fix?
There're also new multiclassing feats that aren't sketchy like hybriding is, and that doesn't charge feats to swap out powers like the RAW feats do. I think the other benefits of C4's MC feats might be a bit OP though; I'm looking forward to seeing what my group's power gamer does with them.
Do I understand this right? Every weapon attacker can take twin strike in C4?
I've seen the math, the "Taxpertise" feats, and even the trap-builds such as Starlock players and I've never really found them to be so sub-par that it's unplayable. A lot of these problems are exacerbated over on the WotC_Character Optimization boards, but thats Char_Op for you. To them, it's cold hard numbers, equasions, and theories which often don't take into consideration the other players at your table (something 4E is programmed for). So they see the diluted numbers at Epic tier and say "With a starting 20 in your attack stat, +6 weapon, and such-and-such items you going to still have to roll a 9 or better to hit! Which is only 45% of the time while the monster has blah=blah stats and can hit you 55% of the time. That's bad math."
In reality, your going to have other variables that come into play such as other player's powers, Combat Advantage, class features that trigger on various situations, Action Points which also trigger various bonuses, etc... THOSE are supposed to be the things that tip it in the PCs favor, not numbers and precentage points.
Now, I haven't given C4 a look yet. I have a feeling his homebrew rules are expertly done and that the fixes he's installed really work well, but does it make the individual better or the team? I ask this because 4E has put a lot of effort into making everyone at the table do their job very well, but not so well that it can be accomplished by one player.
Hm. It's a bit more to track doesn't sound good at all - one of the major problems of 4e is already the ton of fiddly bits. And this makes it even worse? So how is this a fix?The other big change is saving throws; C4 saves are rolled at the end of the attacker's turn, and bonus saves can end most any effect. (Even UENT effects.) It's a bit more to track, but it fixes the "But I'd rather deal out UENTs than (save ends)!" weirdness.
Consider this statement: "(Save ends) effects are clearly intended to be better than UENT effects. Yet, in many circumstances, UENT is clearly the more advantageous. For example, a UENT effect ensures that every one of your allies can take advantage of that effect, while a (save ends) effect might require initiative juggling to last more than one turn. This issue becomes even more evident when leaders and/or high levels are involved, because all those bonus saves make (save ends) even more short-term."
Now, some gamers are perfectly happy to give up their initiative advantage to inflict a (save ends) effect just after a monster takes its turn, or to hope their daily attack misses so that its effect lasts UENT rather than until the bad guy saves. But assuming you're like me, that's a problem.
There are a few ways to fix the problem, but two of the obvious possibilities are: "UENT lasts only until the target's turn" or "saves are rolled on the attacker's turn." The first one cuts down on tracking, which would make it an ideal solution, except for a rather ugly problem: There are quite a few set-up powers that become downright useless if they don't last until the attacker's next turn. (Many of these are rogue powers that grant CA.)
The second solution creates a bit more tracking, but it doesn't obsolete a whole swath of powers. Basically it's a lesser-of-two-evils situation. I completely sympathize with not wanting to add any more tracking to 4e combat; on the other hand, the extra tracking is marginally more than the UENT tracking we already do. So it's a bit of extra tracking to fix a problem that I want fixed, so I'm happy with it.
There're also new multiclassing feats that aren't sketchy like hybriding is, and that doesn't charge feats to swap out powers like the RAW feats do. I think the other benefits of C4's MC feats might be a bit OP though; I'm looking forward to seeing what my group's power gamer does with them.Do I understand this right? Every weapon attacker can take twin strike in C4?
Yes, at the cost of two feats.
I've seen the math, the "Taxpertise" feats, and even the trap-builds such as Starlock players and I've never really found them to be so sub-par that it's unplayable.
I've never seen anyone call those things unplayable, but many of us have found them problematic in play. Discussions involving feat taxes and math glitches can get lengthy [and heated], so I suggest a new thread if you want to have one. But I assure you -- the issue isn't just theoretical, and it's not restricted to CharOppers.
Consider this statement: "(Save ends) effects are clearly intended to be better than UENT effects. Yet, in many circumstances, UENT is clearly the more advantageous. For example, a UENT effect ensures that every one of your allies can take advantage of that effect, while a (save ends) effect might require initiative juggling to last more than one turn. This issue becomes even more evident when leaders and/or high levels are involved, because all those bonus saves make (save ends) even more short-term."Now, some gamers are perfectly happy to give up their initiative advantage to inflict a (save ends) effect just after a monster takes its turn, or to hope their daily attack misses so that its effect lasts UENT rather than until the bad guy saves. But assuming you're like me, that's a problem.
But more times than not a (Save ends) effect is stronger than a UENT effect such as unconscious, dazzed, ongoing damage (the weakest IMO), and even up to Dominate. UENT effects are less serious, often incuring a penalty to attack rolls, granting CA, etc. And if your a character who specialized in adding penalties to saving throws, you WANT the monster to go next so that it burns through the First Failed Saving Throw faster.
In reality, your going to have other variables that come into play such as other player's powers, Combat Advantage, class features that trigger on various situations, Action Points which also trigger various bonuses, etc... THOSE are supposed to be the things that tip it in the PCs favor, not numbers and precentage points.
I disagree completely. Because all the things you mentioned are in addition to a well-built character. CA, AP and so on are available to e.g. both an human wizard with 18 in INT at L1 and two random feats, and one with 20 INT and accurate implement + expertise. The only difference is that one has +3 to hit.
So while the other variables are important, they don't matter, since they are not relevant to the analysis at hand.
Consider this statement: "(Save ends) effects are clearly intended to be better than UENT effects. Yet, in many circumstances, UENT is clearly the more advantageous. For example, a UENT effect ensures that every one of your allies can take advantage of that effect, while a (save ends) effect might require initiative juggling to last more than one turn. This issue becomes even more evident when leaders and/or high levels are involved, because all those bonus saves make (save ends) even more short-term."
Hmm. Well, it's a nice idea. Also the feat taxes thing, but I feel that the advantage of being able to use the CB without changes is larger than the benefits of C4 (at least those you mentioned).
Thanks for explaining it, though!
In reality, your going to have other variables that come into play such as other player's powers, Combat Advantage, class features that trigger on various situations, Action Points which also trigger various bonuses, etc... THOSE are supposed to be the things that tip it in the PCs favor, not numbers and precentage points.I disagree completely. Because all the things you mentioned are in addition to a well-built character. CA, AP and so on are available to e.g. both an human wizard with 18 in INT at L1 and two random feats, and one with 20 INT and accurate implement + expertise. The only difference is that one has +3 to hit.
I think your missing his point which was that the fact that the monsters got some inherent pluses just for existing at higher level X in to hits and defences compared to what the players got, just for existing at higher level X was not actually a problem. The players made up for the monsters advantages with their extra powers.
In other words the underlying math never needed to be addressed, either by the taxpertese feats (which is what WotC did) or by fixing the underlying numbers.
I tend to agree since the reports we are getting back from DMs that run Epic are that the players are now so powerful that the game itself is on the verge of falling apart as they obliterate anything and everything that stands in their way and the DM must, once again, work overtime (as he did in 3.5) just to make an encounter a challenge.
The net effect is that the taxpertise feats where a bad idea by WotC because they exacerbate the problem and fixing the numbers themselves is a bad idea because the monsters need every drop of help they can get and a few inherent bonuses are a good idea, if the system does not start by giving the DM such bonuses he'll just have to go off the reservation and add them himself anyway.
My experience at the table has been that the SE effects actually work better then the EoNT effects simply in terms of game flow. While its clear that an SE effect requires another step in book keeping it generally seems to me that this step is usually worth it simply because it puts the onus of the effect on the person under the effect. Its now their job to try and get rid of it and they are taking actions that will generally try and mitigate it (particularly getting saves prior to their turn coming up).
The result is that there are less instances of 'forgotten effects' which is where the game can really bog down. Alternatively there is often the problem of 'when did effect get put down and is it still in play'? Again this can slow the game down while people try and reconstruct what happened and when it happened. SE effects don't really have that, its simply more clear cut in regards to whether the effect is or is not still in play. When people are complaining about 4Es 'floating' effects and the problems with tracking them its much more the EoNT effects that they are complaining about and not the SE effects.
Also the ability to do something about such effects is actually good for the game. It adds more dynamics to it and involves more team work. EoNT effects are generally just there and can't usually be mitigated. In the end my feeling is that, while the SE effects do require a little more book keeping they bring so much more excitement to the game that they really are more then worth it all things considered while the EoNT effects don't normally have that going for them on the same kind of scale - you still have almost as much book keeping but you don't have either the dynamism in terms of tactics or just the fun of rolls being made to make them go away. At the root of it the EoNT just are not as much 'fun' at the table and, when push comes to shove, its all about 'fun' in my view.
I can't say I've ever had problems with EoNT effect creating problems in game flow past a certain point.
In the past it's been a problem when people spent a lot of time outside their turns distracted or working on other tasks (nice ways of saying "not paying damned a bit of attention unless it was their turn") however when I took steps to eliminate this it's become wholly a non-issue.
I noticed this primarily with players moving from other systems where combat was a lengthy process, and they would often spend half an hour or more between time when they were allowed input in the process, if they got any at all. (Example: last in line in initiative, several other players took long portions of time to choose and resolve issues and combat frequently ended before their turn due to one issue or another.)
My problem here is that it presumes the game is being run on fairly ideal conditions. I mean one always wants all the players to be focused all the time and there are definitely things that can be done to help that out. On the other hand I definitely don't want to be cancelling the game because one of the players was up half the night because her child was sick or that sort of thing. Last session I was in the DM was doing an excellent job but about 45 minutes after the Chinese food came I got a nasty bout of indigestion and for a good hour of the session I was a bit out of it, still making rolls when prompted and such and trying not to ruin anyone elses experience just because I have a tummy ache but not at my best. My point is the game has to function when all the players are not necessarily able to give 110% because real life muddies the water.
There are also legitimate game reasons why players need to pull their main focus from the action at the table. At this point my 12th level cleric has, counting consumables, 24 possible powers he could use during his turn and, as my turn approaches, I need to turn my focus toward what it is I am going to do on that turn by sorting through my powers and pulling up the ones I'm planning on using this turn. My goal here is to make sure that I'm keeping the pace up when my turn rolls around but that means taking my main focus off what is happening at the table itself for a few minutes while I get that organized.
My concerns on this go farther than just allowing players to more easily slip the bonds of effects applied to them (and with many groups, they have ample opportunity already) and also into allowing their foes to slip the bonds of effects the players apply. When EoNT becomes "EoNT unless save ends it" then the effects become trivial. They may work, they probably won't, especially since (as noted before) when these things really matter, such as in the case of elite and solo built foes, a save is far more likely. It encourages more mathematically minded players to just say "screw it, this does little damage, and the part I'm giving up the damage for has a slim chance of actually working, so let's just go for the power with the most damage dice." Even in the less number-crunchy players, they're eventually going to realize this is the case, and steer clear of those abilities, which seems to me to be an abject shame.Adding additional dynamism by broadening the reach of the save mechanics gets offset by the fact that it infringes on the dynamism of the other mechanics it is strongly reducing, and when players begin to realize the overall effect, they begin to steer away from all the effected mechanics, meaning that they use even less dynamic tactics. It all becomes trading off hitpoints.
This element is pretty hypothetical on both are parts. Unless we are talking about extensive house rules the base system seems destined to remain how its done for the foreseeable future. However if it where to be modified then it really comes down to a game balance issue. The powers would need to be balanced against pure HP damage even when considering the fact that saves can end the effect. In fact the problem, though increasingly addressed at this point, is more that WotC seems to have under estimated the EoNT type powers and their effectiveness while over estimating the SE powers.
Then I don't know what to tell you. I'd say that "EoNT but save ends and save ends other stuff and you can save when you normally wouldn't but do some saving when you wanna save and a save, save here and a save, save there, here a save, there a save, everywhere a save, save" is going to be a little much to keep up with if they can't handle "EoNT, or Save ends after EoNT."
The issue is that, once the SE condition gets laid down its only important to keep track of what the monsters are doing. If I'm trying to track a condition that another player has laid down I know need to be cognoscente of when his next turn is ending.
Because of what people tend to do at the table this is one of the most likely changes of game state to miss. Player X put the condition on Monster Y but often when his next turn comes up that condition is not longer of interest to him - but it may be of interest to me. Hence the problem becomes the fact that I no longer need to keep track of where I am in the initiative order and where the monsters are in the initiative order, now I also need to keep track of where player Y is in the initiative order.
The effect ends at a bad time as well in the sense that if the wizard, who laid the effect down last round, no longer cares about it he'll start his turn and go off into the flaming zone he is going to place down and then off to work out how that plays out. {resuming that Zone does not immediately effect me (and usually it never effects me at all, only enemies) then this is the perfect point in the game for me to start sorting out my powers. So often the Wizard then ends his turn and the fighter excitedly starts up his and it completely slips the wizard players mind to mention that the monsters condition has now ended, which may be a problem if I'm up after the fighter and that condition was relevant to me.
With SE I need to be paying close attention on the monsters turn but thats pretty easy, its one of the parts of the game where almost all the players are in fact paying the most attention to the table. What the monsters do significantly impacts the whole team. So SE conditions and their ending are less likely to be missed.
The result is we have two discrete mechanics who's actual effect on the game are pretty similar which itself is not ideal since one mechanic would be fine most of the time and I think the SE mechanics are generally superior for a number of reasons, one of which is tracking them.
Whut? Hypothetical how?
In that WotC won't be changing the game on account of our debate on a message board.
Again, EoNT is incredibly easy to understand. There's nothing inscrutable or confusing about it. It works exactly as the wording says. Save ends, however lokks good at a glance, but when one starts applying all the variables like initiative order, save bonuses, etc. it starts to get a lot less clear, and in the end it turns out to be worse than EoNT.
If some other even starts giving the players or monsters extra saves that is likely to be such a big deal at the table that anyone paying even rudimentary attention is likely to notice. miniatures will be moving around players will be making announcements about whether the extra save get a bonus or not etc. Its much harder to miss that the game state may be changing under this circumstance.
Thinking the designers "totally got" how "save ends" works, but were somehow mightily confused by "End of your next turn" is like assuming a guy who can design a space shuttle from scratch will be absolutely baffled by the workings of a wheelbarrow.
I said they overestimated how good SE's where while, at the same time underestimating the EoNT type powers. We see significant improvements in this regard to take this sort of thing into account partly in power errata but much more significantly in how Solo's are designed especially from MMIII on.
I'm curious, how would you overhaul the system?If I were overhauling rather than cloning, I'd have everything end on the target's turn -- whether it be a set duration effect or a save ends effect. No tracking, no confusion; the only downside is I wouldn't include set-up powers.
I'd remove almost all the EoNT type powers from the game and make practically everything a SE.
Save Ends is much more dynamic with various things that influence it. The fact that you never know whether it will be unusually short in duration or last a long time is exciting. If the big nasty solo just can't seem to stop the burning...and its been three turns now that the DM has botched that save...well that's fun. Even having one player admonishing another with "I gave you two...count them two...extra saves and you botched them both!" [Because at a Role Playing table everyone is personally responsible for the results of the little colourful randomizers they are using] is, in a somewhat perverse way, all part of the fun and excitement.
It also adds to the scene itself in terms of story, both in the fact that players and monsters can do something about save ends. Mechanical things like powers for sure but maybe even environmental things. If they are on fire or covered with Acid the DM may give a bonus to the save or immediately end the condition if the player jumps into the river (in fact when designing fire based encounters I usually eschrew the popular lava pools in favour of 20' drops to a pond because it adds more to the encounter if the players might consider jumping in to stop the flames).
Furthermore SE's work better with the imagination then EoNT. With EoNT our action hero's are checking their watch to see when the flames stop or they recover from the stunned (or when the big bad Tyrannical Lizard King does). In our simulation of high action cinematic fantasy its a lot easier to actually get inside the scene when the hero's or villains are shaking off the detrimental effects...or not. When it always ends at an exact moment in time its harder to figure out what that represents, harder to imagine that in the scene. I intuitively understand that we are fighting against the detrimental effects and we succeed or fail to get rid of them...but if its on an actual timer then its harder to grasp why its playing out this way.
While I agree that the mechanic can be evocative, I think you underestimate the effectiveness of EoNT--not mechanically, you seem to have a really good grasp on the mechanics. I mean in the sense of it being fun and evocative for players.
While the mechanic itself is simple, it helps illustrate an inevitable (if temporary) conclusion. It's pushing the villain unequivocally off balance, a flame that will burn until it's expended, a stunning blow that does leave that orc's head spinning, a power that is effective because the hero is... heroic.
There's room for them, I think.
Because of the huge flaw in the current mechanic, broadening its reach in the name of "flavor" is basically trading "flavor" for effectiveness. Trading "flavor" for effectiveness is what many people would consider to be poor RPG design. Regardless of this wholly subjective evaluation, it is also counter to 4e design principles as a whole. Granting "flavor" should go hand in hand with effectiveness, especially since it's relatively easy to provide effectiveness to go along with that "flavor" by altering numerical values.
The math does not work argument is not really that important in this case - we are talking about a full design overhaul so if there are imbalances those can be addressed within the game as a whole.
In fact what we currently have is a less then ideal solution to the problems of reliability in that moderately high level parties often deal with big time nasty solo's by layering on EoNT type effects. This is such a potent way of taking such creatures on that we see a fundamental shift in how Solo's have been designed from MMIII on just to try and keep them challenging in this circumstance. It works after a fashion but this is something of a kludge...and it was never meant to be this way, the kludge is necessary because the designers underestimated the sheer power of EoNT type powers that include dazes and stuns when they where used en masse by the party.
When the group is exploring a cavern and the DM smiles to himself and drops a huge friggen dragon miniature on the table the effect on the players should be pandemonium. The players should be freaking out. In reality what we get is a scene that looks like a SWAT team going into action.
-----------
Wizard: "That ends my turn, be advised that my stun has come to an end and the dragon has all its actions"
Fighter: "Roger, layering on a daze now...f&@* I missed!"
Cleric: "Not to worry, I've got your back...I've got a daily that stuns or dazes on a miss"
-----------
What we get is a fight where your have a friggen dragon that behaves like its drunk...unable to get any meaningful number of actions it never really threatens the party who spend the first seven rounds of combat denying it the ability to do much on its turn while they beat on it to try and drain it of 600 hps.
The end result is often crappy fights. The first time the players did it maybe they thought it was cool that a plan could come together and go off so well, the third time they pull this off its boring, its basically the epitome of grind, a monster that can't really do much to threaten you but has huge numbers of hps that you have to wade through over the course of an hour and ten minutes.
This is not the kind of fight you remember years later and talk about fondly - those battles where unpredictable with swings where one moment you think you have it all under control and the next minute the monster is rampaging all over the place and two of the PCs have gone down. If you can manage to just eke out a victory by the skin of your teeth it'll be a heroic scene worthy of legend (well among that game group anyway).
Now 4E has somewhat addressed this issue with new Solo designs and if the DM puts in some time and effort in the actual encounter design you can circumvent some of the problems here but it was never meant to be this way. The designers removed the save or suck powers from 4E in part to help insure that we got epic battles with awesome big time monsters or villains. The fact that we are right back to the place we were at in 3.5 where the DM has to carefully design the encounter so that the players don't just pile on your BBEG and ruin the climatic scene is really a crying shame. Solo's where supposed to fix this but the EoNT type powers threw a wrench into that fix.
Its possible to work out how much damage one average a character will do per round by making a mathematical calculation that takes into account average damage multiplied by percentage to hit...but we would never play the game this way, its reliable but its not fun. At their core its the very reliability of the the EoNT type powers that are what is wrong with them because, at the end of the day, reliability itself is pretty boring.
The basic idea of SE mechanics, on the other hand, can get us there. They come readily packed with high tension die rolls that can widely swing a combat back and forth putting the players and the DM on an emotional roller coaster ride. At its best that's what we want to be happening when a party of adventures meets a Dragon.
Could you please explain how? Because all changes I can think of to address the problem either wind up nullifying this change, or being nullified by other changes they entail.
I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I've been considering it for a while now, and I haven't been able to solve the problems this creates without reverting back to the original state, or something very close to it.
The question is to broad if we are talking about a complete redesign then there are to many potential avenues to take some may work others may not. Off hand maybe changing how the conditions work would be one way to address the issue, at least in part. For example redifine daze as 'loose one standard action on your turn' and redefine stun as basically Daze. Another element may be to leave things how they are with Daze and Stun, since these conditions are so potent that the fact that many enemies might save out of them easily is not really an issue, but move most of the same kind of benefits to saves either to the powers, the conditions (my personal favourite at the moment) themselves or the monsters and have them deal much more explicitly with Daze or Stun, so Solo's don't get huge save bonuses against things like ongoing damage which makes them much more useful while specifically addressing the Daze/Stun Solo issue.
I can see where you're coming from on this (aside from calling MM3 design a 'kludge') and it's a viewpoint I shared for quite some time.
There are two elements in MMIII+ design of relivence to this discussion. One element is a kludge and one nothing more then improved monster design. Essentially having Solo's deal with the issues of the action economy by being able to do more things using their move and minor, and having some powers (especially on recharge) that essentially give them a slew of actions crammed into a single power is just good monster design. It makes them more fun and exciting at the table even against a party that does not happen to have a single stun or daze type power. Big villains should do big things.
The kludge is the insertion of multiple creatures into a single creature where they do not belong simply for game balance. An Ettin has two heads - it makes sense to treat it as something that that is in essence two creatures in one body each having their own initiative. Its actually a fun encounter to deal with for the players since they have to adapt their tactics. However we see this style of mechanic shoved into all sorts of big solo's where it really does not fit in with a reasonable or classic view of how that monster behaves and its being done as an attempt to keep play balance in line. When monsters are being designed not to be true to their flavour but instead to counter optimal player strategies, and this is wide spread (a few monsters meant to yank players chains are a good thing) then we are dealing with a kludge.
So what are we left with? The encounter design itself. This is the real root of the problem, as the original design was a great concept for the system, but was poorly applied without thoughts to the whole repercussions...
What your describing I'd not call encounter design but monster deign. Your mentioning various fixes to monsters almost all of which I agree with, with the caveat that monsters need to be true to their core concepts. Sure there needs to be some account taken for what plays well at the table but I think its more important that monsters are designed true to their nature and then the players powers are designed to be cool and flavourful, for sure, but also reasonable at interacting with their likely opponents without straining the system.
Part of what I think went wrong is it feels like characters where designed and then, after that was finished, monsters where designed (obviously that is almost certianly not exactly how it went but the focus feels like it started on the players and their powers). In effect I suspect that the idea that the game was 'all about the players' (which is true of course) blinded them some what to the fact that there is no point in having awesome powers if the battles themselves are not up to snuff. At the end of the day a hero is defined by the challenges that are overcome and the monsters got something of a short shift initially and we are still being effected by that issue.
As to our dispute over the EoNT powers I'm not sure we will resolve that. I generally think that saying that the mechanic works fine under most circumstances simply does not do enough to justify its existence. That it works badly in some important encounters is only part of its problem. the bigger one is that most of the time its just not as flavourful or exciting at the table as the SE mechanics and they both are addressing the same issue. I certianly would not completely remove it from the game, because we do need variety in the powers and this is one way of having some variety, and there are some circumstances where it just makes a lot more sense the SE. However it should be an exceptional type mechanic that one comes out reasonably rarely and not something that appears so often that it can be stacked and turned into 'how the party handles Solo's'. SE in the other hand is an excellent mechanic harmed by some weak balancing issues and it is really where things should be heading (after addressing some of the balance issues).
Couple more I've thrown in. I've pretty much added a high recharge (probably 4-6) on Dragons to get a claw/claw/bite/wing buffet/wing buffet/tail slap series of attacks. Extremely powerful but classic to 2nd and 3rd edition dragons and very much one of their more defining features.
Because the raw damage output is so extreme (and pretty consistent due to the sheer number of attacks) it creates an effect where the players really need to figure out 'who's going to take the fall this round'. Pretty much no character - not even the defender - can long stand against a dragons physical suite of attacks. This does a really good job of making dragons a very interesting monster for the players to face off with since managing this element is quite challenging for players - especially in 4E where its not easy to spread the party all over the sky - some one will surely be on the ground and vulnerable.
The other house rule I'm using is I'm going to return to the 50% miss chance for insubstantial. As it currently stands the rules more or less read 'insubstantial doubles hps'. Very boring while the 50% miss chance was quite exciting in a 'your players are swearing a blue streak' kind of way. If your players are swearing about how much they hate monster X that is usually a good thing. Means the monster was memorable. Note that the net effect is mathematically pretty close to identical - its just that the 50% miss chance stands out a hell of a lot more starkly then 1/2 damage ever will. Each mechanic does roughly the same thing but one is far better then the other in terms of getting your players attention.
The other house rule I'm using is I'm going to return to the 50% miss chance for insubstantial. As it currently stands the rules more or less read 'insubstantial doubles hps'. Very boring while the 50% miss chance was quite exciting in a 'your players are swearing a blue streak' kind of way. If your players are swearing about how much they hate monster X that is usually a good thing. Means the monster was memorable. Note that the net effect is mathematically pretty close to identical - its just that the 50% miss chance stands out a hell of a lot more starkly then 1/2 damage ever will. Each mechanic does roughly the same thing but one is far better then the other in terms of getting your players attention.
That's a great idea. I'll just updated my Dark Sun Campaign's wiki to include it as a house rule.
One house rule I also used in my DS campaign is to set all HP (and therefore bloodied HP/Surges) to be only 60% of official 4E values. I used to modify the monsters, but that's too much time wasted. This is simpler and it worked quite well - now even equal-level encounters are dangerous for the optimized player chars...
One house rule I also used in my DS campaign is to set all HP (and therefore bloodied HP/Surges) to be only 60% of official 4E values. I used to modify the monsters, but that's too much time wasted. This is simpler and it worked quite well - now even equal-level encounters are dangerous for the optimized player chars...
Ouch. Does this work at all levels? For example, maybe 80% hp at Heroic tier, 70% at Paragon tier, 60% at Epic tire? Or is this a Dark Sun thing because you want it gritty?
Ouch. Does this work at all levels? For example, maybe 80% hp at Heroic tier, 70% at Paragon tier, 60% at Epic tire? Or is this a Dark Sun thing because you want it gritty?
Fights take much too long using the normal stats, and equal level or level + 1 encounters are just boring and not dangerous at all for the party. I have a long running planescape campaign, where I used to just double monster damage and half monster HP.
Now with the DS campaign, I decided to achieve the same effect but make it simpler by modifying the player's HP instead and leave the monster attacks as-is. It worked nicely. We had six fights the first session, and still spent more than half of the time in RP or exploration...
It worked nicely, quickly, and I will use this to the planescape campaign too.
Ouch. Does this work at all levels? For example, maybe 80% hp at Heroic tier, 70% at Paragon tier, 60% at Epic tire? Or is this a Dark Sun thing because you want it gritty?
Fights take much too long using the normal stats, and equal level or level + 1 encounters are just boring and not dangerous at all for the party. I have a long running planescape campaign, where I used to just double monster damage and half monster HP.
I got that reducing the players HP is much more efficient then reducing ALL the monsters HPs. This way is a clever twist.
I was just curious if it works at all levels of play. I guess, 'Yes' is the answer.
EDIT: Wait, are you reducing the PLAYERS HPs to 60% OR BOTH players and MONSTERS?
EDIT: Wait, are you reducing the PLAYERS HPs to 60% OR BOTH players and MONSTERS?
Both.
I think it's actually easier to just double all damage for PC's and for monsters. Basically, whenever damage is dealt or rolled, you keep everything on paper the same, and just double the result.
This will speed up fights a lot. The only downside for this house rule is that it makes healing a little bit less effective. But players will burn through healing surges faster, and the cleric's healing will be all that more important. Also powers that reduce your chances of being hit will be much more attractive.
I think it's actually easier to just double all damage for PC's and for monsters. Basically, whenever damage is dealt or rolled, you keep everything on paper the same, and just double the result.
This will speed up fights a lot. The only downside for this house rule is that it makes healing a little bit less effective. But players will burn through healing surges faster, and the cleric's healing will be all that more important. Also powers that reduce your chances of being hit will be much more attractive.
We double the add (or triple it for brutes) but not the dice. We used to double everything but then fought a monster which did 4d12 or somesuch and the criticals were just too devastating if we doubled all damage.
I think it's actually easier to just double all damage for PC's and for monsters. Basically, whenever damage is dealt or rolled, you keep everything on paper the same, and just double the result.
But it's not. Reducing HP is much simpler, since you simply have to calculate the bloodied value once, as it's half of the new HP, and for player's also the healing surge value. Once this is done, during the game, you can keep everything as is. I also like the side effect that number don't get inflated so much as with doubling damage.
I think it's actually easier to just double all damage for PC's and for monsters. Basically, whenever damage is dealt or rolled, you keep everything on paper the same, and just double the result.But it's not. Reducing HP is much simpler, since you simply have to calculate the bloodied value once, as it's half of the new HP, and for player's also the healing surge value. Once this is done, during the game, you can keep everything as is. I also like the side effect that number don't get inflated so much as with doubling damage.
Do you make any adjustments to resistances, regeneration or to ongoing damage?
Do you make any adjustments to resistances, regeneration or to ongoing damage?I think it's actually easier to just double all damage for PC's and for monsters. Basically, whenever damage is dealt or rolled, you keep everything on paper the same, and just double the result.But it's not. Reducing HP is much simpler, since you simply have to calculate the bloodied value once, as it's half of the new HP, and for player's also the healing surge value. Once this is done, during the game, you can keep everything as is. I also like the side effect that number don't get inflated so much as with doubling damage.
I've kept them the same. Resistances are thought to work against the 'original' damage that I use, and my players are all optimizers so they will just have to live with the increased danger from ongoing damage. Anyway, I usually try to built my encounters in a way that only one or two monster deal ongoing damage or status effects, while the rest just deals pure damage, as this makes battles quicker, too. Less micromanagement.
I've kept them the same. Resistances are thought to work against the 'original' damage that I use, and my players are all optimizers so they will just have to live with the increased danger from ongoing damage. Anyway, I usually try to built my encounters in a way that only one or two monster deal ongoing damage or status effects, while the rest just deals pure damage, as this makes battles quicker, too. Less micromanagement.Do you make any adjustments to resistances, regeneration or to ongoing damage?I think it's actually easier to just double all damage for PC's and for monsters. Basically, whenever damage is dealt or rolled, you keep everything on paper the same, and just double the result.But it's not. Reducing HP is much simpler, since you simply have to calculate the bloodied value once, as it's half of the new HP, and for player's also the healing surge value. Once this is done, during the game, you can keep everything as is. I also like the side effect that number don't get inflated so much as with doubling damage.
Cheers. We left them the same too in the interests of ease of implementation. I'm sure it makes a difference in some respects, but we havent really noticed it (we're not optimisers as a rule - or rather not very effective optimisers, anyway).
Have you found solos to be a bit weak under your scheme? We halve most creatures' hit points but only reduce solos to 80% - otherwise we found they were not quite as memorable as they should be.
How do you find the impact on the adventuring day - does it mean they stop and rest more often, or is it more or less the same (given the monsters are weaker too)?
I haven't found any significant difference - as long there are enough healing surges around, they continue, and as soon as they are all used up, they will do almost anything for an extended rest - same as before.
Have you found solos to be a bit weak under your scheme? We halve most creatures' hit points but only reduce solos to 80% - otherwise we found they were not quite as memorable as they should be.
I think what makes Solos memorable is either a nova at the beginning of the fight, or some additional non-combat challenge. Just adding more rounds to combat until it's down is boring IMO. I best like it if the Solo is defending something the players need to get to or spend time near, for arcana checks, opening a gate etc... So I half their HP like with any other monster, and I don't think the fights are less...
How do you find the impact on the adventuring day - does it mean they stop and rest more often, or is it more or less the same (given the monsters are weaker too)?I haven't found any significant difference - as long there are enough healing surges around, they continue, and as soon as they are all used up, they will do almost anything for an extended rest - same as before.
Have you found solos to be a bit weak under your scheme? We halve most creatures' hit points but only reduce solos to 80% - otherwise we found they were not quite as memorable as they should be.I think what makes Solos memorable is either a nova at the beginning of the fight, or some additional non-combat challenge. Just adding more rounds to combat until it's down is boring IMO. I best like it if the Solo is defending something the players need to get to or spend time near, for arcana checks, opening a gate etc... So I half their HP like with any other monster, and I don't think the fights are less...
I basically agree, we just found a couple of times tha, if the solo rolled a poor initiative, the entire party burning dailies, action points and possibly item powers could nearly kill it before it even blinked. I wondered whether your optimized players would be even better at that opening salvo.
We changed damage and hit points to avoid combats lasting ten rounds or more. We don't want them to only last one or two though.
I basically agree, we just found a couple of times that, if the solo rolled a poor initiative, the entire party burning dailies, action points and possibly item powers could nearly kill it before it even blinked. I wondered whether your optimized players would be even better at that opening salvo.
Yes, they are. But then, I never tell them 'that's a Solo'. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes not. And I don't use Solo's alone, despite the name. They might find out if it's a Solo or an Elite during the fight, but not from the get-go.
Also, sometimes I trick them, in that there's an obvious large or huge prime target, but the real danger is actually some controller or artillery in the back, looking small and insignificant.. :)
We changed damage and hit points to avoid combats lasting ten rounds or more. We don't want them to only last one or two though.
If they spent all their resources for that, why not. They deserve that once in a while. And going all-out nova in a situation where it's likely that there are additional fights before a short rest is risky. If they want to take that risk, it's ok if they steamroll a dragon, imho.