Thanks, TGA, fantastic thread!

I don't know to what extent your GM shares your own criticisms of the system, but if he does, you may suggest the following to him.

1. Hit point inflation:
- Cut PC and monster hp in half. PC's healing surge value is still calculated as a quarter of the (now updated) max hp number. PCs can't spend healing surges except by second wind or when a power allows one's own PC or another PC to spend a surge (the classic example being the cleric's Healing Word). The latter powers do not function outside combat or by hitting lone opponents vastly below the PC's level (so they can't ignite Healing Words by hitting helpless pets, that munchkin lot ).
- Healing surges and hp do not go back to max after a full night's sleep: after an extended rest PCs regain 1d6 surges and heal 1d6 hp per level plus their CON-modifier.
- Bring back potions of cure light wounds which PCs can use outside combat (or imbibe during combat, for a minor action); these have to be bought and also only heal 1d6 per level (and are priced by level). You can also introduce potions of cure moderate wounds and cure serious wounds, which respectively heal 2d6 and 3d6 hp per level, and have to be much more expensive and not too easy to obtain on the market to avoid re-instating 4E vanilla play style.
- To mitigate players who've become greedy healing potion grabbers, the DM might want to look for a random table on potion side effects for stuff like "PC suffers from noisy hiccups during the next 8 hours: minus 2 to all to-hit rolls, -5 to all social interaction skill checks, and minus 10 to Stealth unless someone can keep that bastard's lousy mouth shut at all times."

2. Stunts: Allow players to make up actions during combat. To succeed they have to hit the target AC or Reflex save with a basic attack (or d20 plus STR-modifier), apply difficulty modifiers from -1 to -5 or even above if the player wants to pull off some crazy. Effect: this is to be winged entirely, but as a simple base I suggest that a successful stunt causes base attack damage AND inflicts a status condition on the target as befits the player's stunt description. An example may help to illustrate:

A bandit is fighting from a tavern table. One of he PCs lunges over and pulls that bandit off his boots. (The stunt succeeds.)
Effect: bandit falls off the table, hits his elbows badly [apply base attack damage, describe how the bandit howls with pain, that sissy!], and is prone. Additionally, the bandit has to succeed on a medium DC Dexterity check or he has dropped his weapon while falling prone to catch himself: on a fail, he henceforth deals half damage with all attacks listed in his stat block.

The trick is to think outside the 'prescriptions', which should be easy enough for your DM once he's familiar with how the game rolls. E.g. don't memorize an example like this, make it up on the spot by drawing on whatever first comes to mind without thinking twice.

And please keep posting your thoughts (e.g. follow ups on magic items), they are super interesting.

Quote from: Kaldric;500098It is limiting. Intentionally so - it makes it so that directly confronting monsters is a very, very bad idea at 1st level.  And at 2nd level. And really, also at 3rd level. You're supposed to avoid the monsters, if you possibly can.

The first thing you have to do to D&D if you want to switch it from being a game 'about' adventure to being a game 'about' combat - first and foremost - you have to raise the number of hitpoints.

It's the first step in the shift from an adventure game where you'll probably fight some monsters to a monster-fighting game where you might have an adventure.

Having a ton of HP turns every encounter into a combat encounter - it's just the easiest way to deal with things. Which I find more limiting than starting with 1 hp.

I don't disagree generally.  It is true that some people wanted to play in a game that was more about combat than low HP allowed.  It is also true that some players that are content in an adventure game that did not have combat first and foremost also wanted higher HP.  I would note that raising the hitpoints is not only done to make the game 'about combat first and foremost'.  I think whether combat is first and foremost what D&D is about has more to do with the GM and the players sitting at the table.

I don't think that raising HP changed what is the easiest thing to do does not make it limiting.  If raising HP made the alternatives to combat more difficult in some way, then it would be limiting.

Quote from: Windjammer;500215Thanks, TGA, fantastic thread!

I don't know to what extent your GM shares your own criticisms of the system, but if he does, you may suggest the following to him.

I think that the DM and the rest of the group are just fine with 4e as written.  I get the impression that they would be perfectly happy playing any edition of D&D and this is the latest and so that is what they are playing.  It is only malcontents like me that hang around in dark internet dens of inequity like this and hyper analyze this kind of stuff!

Quote from: Windjammer;5002151. Hit point inflation:
- Cut PC and monster hp in half. PC's healing surge value is still calculated as a quarter of the (now updated) max hp number. PCs can't spend healing surges except by second wind or when a power allows one's own PC or another PC to spend a surge (the classic example being the cleric's Healing Word). The latter powers do not function outside combat or by hitting lone opponents vastly below the PC's level (so they can't ignite Healing Words by hitting helpless pets, that munchkin lot ).
- Healing surges and hp do not go back to max after a full night's sleep: after an extended rest PCs regain 1d6 surges and heal 1d6 hp per level plus their CON-modifier.
- Bring back potions of cure light wounds which PCs can use outside combat (or imbibe during combat, for a minor action); these have to be bought and also only heal 1d6 per level (and are priced by level). You can also introduce potions of cure moderate wounds and cure serious wounds, which respectively heal 2d6 and 3d6 hp per level, and have to be much more expensive and not too easy to obtain on the market to avoid re-instating 4E vanilla play style.
- To mitigate players who've become greedy healing potion grabbers, the DM might want to look for a random table on potion side effects for stuff like "PC suffers from noisy hiccups during the next 8 hours: minus 2 to all to-hit rolls, -5 to all social interaction skill checks, and minus 10 to Stealth unless someone can keep that bastard's lousy mouth shut at all times."

2. Stunts: Allow players to make up actions during combat. To succeed they have to hit the target AC or Reflex save with a basic attack (or d20 plus STR-modifier), apply difficulty modifiers from -1 to -5 or even above if the player wants to pull off some crazy. Effect: this is to be winged entirely, but as a simple base I suggest that a successful stunt causes base attack damage AND inflicts a status condition on the target as befits the player's stunt description. An example may help to illustrate:

A bandit is fighting from a tavern table. One of he PCs lunges over and pulls that bandit off his boots. (The stunt succeeds.)
Effect: bandit falls off the table, hits his elbows badly [apply base attack damage, describe how the bandit howls with pain, that sissy!], and is prone. Additionally, the bandit has to succeed on a medium DC Dexterity check or he has dropped his weapon while falling prone to catch himself: on a fail, he henceforth deals half damage with all attacks listed in his stat block.

The trick is to think outside the 'prescriptions', which should be easy enough for your DM once he's familiar with how the game rolls. E.g. don't memorize an example like this, make it up on the spot by drawing on whatever first comes to mind without thinking twice.

Now this is getting interesting!  I have been operating under the assumption that almost all 4e players played the game as written (or very close).  Are there people out there doing radical mods like the ones you suggest?  If so, that is an interesting thing to me.  

I am not sure how successful this kind of tinkering would be though.  The completely integrated and complex interactions of the system might be hard to change without creating game unbalancing problems.

Those are some good ideas you got there.  I wouldn't mind hearing from anyone who has done something like that with 4e and what their experience was.

Quote from: Windjammer;500215And please keep posting your thoughts (e.g. follow ups on magic items), they are super interesting.

Thanks!  I will!


-TGA

QuoteNow this is getting interesting! I have been operating under the assumption that almost all 4e players played the game as written (or very close). Are there people out there doing radical mods like the ones you suggest? If so, that is an interesting thing to me.

NO, no, no, no...

People who play 4th edition D&D do not ALL play the same.  DM's who host
4th edition D&D do not ALL DM the same either.

I have never seen any two DM's/players ever play the same and/or close to one another in 30+ years.

Now, when it comes to HOUSE RULES, I would suspect DM's are doing that but people like me play 4th edition D&D as it is written.  NO house rules, NO modifications, NO anything...

Let me make it clear that I only do ENCOUNTERS for the FLGS.

Quote from: Ram;500232I don't disagree generally.  It is true that some people wanted to play in a game that was more about combat than low HP allowed.  It is also true that some players that are content in an adventure game that did not have combat first and foremost also wanted higher HP.  I would note that raising the hitpoints is not only done to make the game 'about combat first and foremost'.  I think whether combat is first and foremost what D&D is about has more to do with the GM and the players sitting at the table.

I don't think that raising HP changed what is the easiest thing to do does not make it limiting.  If raising HP made the alternatives to combat more difficult in some way, then it would be limiting.

I agree with you to an extent, but it seems to me after playing the game for a while that there is a very specific way the designers wanted to encourage.  The very tactically crunchy, miniatures-based rules, along with the way the adventures are supposed to be structured as combat challenges leads me to believe that the vast majority of 4e games follow this very deterministic model that assumes that combat is the default response to all encounters.  I mean, as I understand it the game is supposed to be structured so that the players specifically cannot face foes that are clearly too much for them to handle by means of a straight up fight.

I will note that the inclusion of skill challenges, no matter how imperfect they are in 4e, was a nod to solutions that do not involve fighting, but that seems like an afterthought to be honest.  Like the designers went, "well we better put something in there so that you can do something other than fight".

I realize that all versions of D&D had combat as a central element of the game, but in low level play of earlier D&D at least there seemed to be more incentive to not always fight as a solution to all problems.  That, along with the real possibility that you could find yourself in over your head (Holy shit!  I that a Storm Giant??) made the choice in older D&D of whether to fight or find some other solution a real choice.  To me 4e offers a false choice: you can choose not to fight, but why bother?  The entire structure of the game is centered on you fighting and the fight being relatively "fair".  A challenge, but not an overwhelming one.  And if you do have some bad luck and get in a bind, you have plenty of hit points and healing surges to mitigate against disaster.

That is certainly one way to play, but it is not a terribly satisfying one for me personally.  I would prefer to have choices that mean more.


-TGA

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;500311NO, no, no, no...

People who play 4th edition D&D do not ALL play the same.  DM's who host
4th edition D&D do not ALL DM the same either.

I have never seen any two DM's/players ever play the same and/or close to one another in 30+ years.

Now, when it comes to HOUSE RULES, I would suspect DM's are doing that but people like me play 4th edition D&D as it is written.  NO house rules, NO modifications, NO anything...

Let me make it clear that I only do ENCOUNTERS for the FLGS.

Well of course not every one plays the game *exactly* as written, but I was wondering how many people playing 4e out there do extensive mods like the ones that Windjammer proposed.  One of the reasons I like Swords & Wizardry (and OSR in general) is that it is very much focused on the toolkit approach.

I like that because I am a hyper-analytical geek.  Most people playing D&D probably aren't, but I am curious how flexible 4e is to houseruling in the wild.  It seems to me that the interactions are so complex that anything more than modest houseruling would be difficult.  But that is just my impression, and therefore my question to the forum goers here what they had actually seen done.

I can only speak to my own experience with the game.  The group I play with sticks very close to the game as written, and any deviation is not intentional.  We don't spend a lot of time going through the exact rules because these guys have been playing the game for quite a while, but on several occasions we have stopped to look things up to get it exactly right.

-TGA

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;500330Well of course not every one plays the game *exactly* as written, but I was wondering how many people playing 4e out there do extensive mods like the ones that Windjammer proposed.  One of the reasons I like Swords & Wizardry (and OSR in general) is that it is very much focused on the toolkit approach.

I like that because I am a hyper-analytical geek.  Most people playing D&D probably aren't, but I am curious how flexible 4e is to houseruling in the wild.  It seems to me that the interactions are so complex that anything more than modest houseruling would be difficult.  But that is just my impression, and therefore my question to the forum goers here what they had actually seen done.

I can only speak to my own experience with the game.  The group I play with sticks very close to the game as written, and any deviation is not intentional.  We don't spend a lot of time going through the exact rules because these guys have been playing the game for quite a while, but on several occasions we have stopped to look things up to get it exactly right.

-TGA

Well, let me say it from this point of view.  I really do not care how people modify their games just as long as they are having fun playing.  I suppose that is the main reason to play games anyways.  

On the other hand, do not expect every player at that table to have fun if the modifications to the game have changed it to the point where it is playing something completely else.

I do not house rule games.  I play them as they are written.  If there is official errata, I, of course, will concede to that BUT I will not house rule a set of rules that work just fine.

I have known one DM in this area who had houseruled 1st edition D&D to the point it had 22 pages full pages and that included the back of the paper.  Absolutely ridiculous.  Much to my dismay, i gave him one shot and when i played the 4 hours, it was not even 1st edition as I remember it.  I have forsworn such games forever.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;500330Well of course not every one plays the game *exactly* as written, but I was wondering how many people playing 4e out there do extensive mods like the ones that Windjammer proposed.  One of the reasons I like Swords & Wizardry (and OSR in general) is that it is very much focused on the toolkit approach.

The 'deflate hp by 50%' is a houserule that's fairly wide spread. Rich Baker has never played without it, and he was one of the original designers. You see, the intent was that combats DO drag on forever - individual combat rounds fly by fairly quickly, but the intent was that each combat have plenty of rounds. Rich prefers quicker fights, whence the 50% rule. Another variant is to halve only monster hp but let monsters deal bonus damage equal to their level. That means that fights are more swingy, more lethal, and PCs are going to need their hp boosts.

Replacing surges by potions of cure wounds is simply reflavouring the system. You don't need to rewrite the math.

As for other stuff, there's my 4E Realms hex map and random encounter tables you can check out here. Using the latter fundamentally changes 4e gameplay. With creatures in the PCs' path vastly beyond their capacity they have to run for hills every now and then. This breaks the '4 encounters until we rest again' mold that players are in, so all the other stuff I do with deflating hp and healing simply rebalances the game. PCs need other resources than hp in my games - clever use of rituals for reconnaissance for one.

As for other, more radical houserules to 4E, I'd recommend Greywulf's lair, especially this series (start at bottom): http://greywulf.net/tag/1981/
He wrote that early in 2008 (iirc) and has been playing like that ever since. E.g. he does Roll 3d6 in order for stat generation! PCs in his campaign are vastly underpowered compared to 4E vanilla, but it seems they're having a blast with it. Of course 4E RAW runs on a very strict math - the whole treasure parcel system is one way to ensure that PCs get the item bonuses on their attack and defense rolls they need to 'keep up' with monsters at their level - but, come on, you're a DM of how many decades' worth of D&D experience? Screw balance, just enjoy the game.

Another thing Greywulf started to champion is random character generation:
http://greywulf.net/2010/11/greywulfs-guide-to-4e-character-generation-by-hand/
http://greywulf.net/2010/05/the-joy-of-random/
In my own campaigns too, players select a race+class combo for their level 1 characters, but when these die (when, not if), their replacement PCs are stray wanderers on the road. For the latter we roll race and regional background (FR) randomly:

Quoted20 Race
-----------
1-3 Human
4-6 Dwarf
7-8 Wood Elf
9-10 High Elf [what PHB calls 'Eladrin']
11-12 Half Elf
13-14 Halfling
15-16 Gnome
17-18 Drow
19-20 Genasi

Roll Background (follow this up by a d4 roll to select one of the regions’ backgrounds in the book [sc. 4E FR Player's Guide])
d100 Region
____________
1-3 Aglarond
4-6 Akanûl
7-9 Amn
10-12 Baldur’s Gate
13-15 Calimshan
16-18 Chessenta
19-21 Cormyr
22-24 The Dalelands
25-27 Dragon Coast
28-30 Durpar
31-33 East Rift
35-38 Elfharrow
39-49 Gray Vale
50-53 The Great Dale
54-57 High Imaskar
58-60 Impiltur
61-70 Luruar
71-73 Luskan
74-76 Moonshae Isles
77-79 Myth Drannor
80-82 Narfell
83-85 Nelanther Isles
86-88 Netheril
89-91 Thay
92-94 Tymanther
95-97 Vilhon Wilds
98-00 Waterdeep

Quote from: Ram;500232I would note that raising the hitpoints is not only done to make the game 'about combat first and foremost'. ... If raising HP made the alternatives to combat more difficult in some way, then it would be limiting.

I'd say that raising hitpoints is not 'only' done to make the game about combat - but it's probably the first thing you're going to do if that is your goal. You can't tell yourself a game is 'about' combat if all of the characters start out nigh-incapable of participating in melee, and stay that way for some time. You have to change that. You could conceivably change it for other reasons... but...

Upping the amount of hitpoints jacks up the attractiveness of combat immediately.

Some sort of balance exists between various resolutions to encounters. Upping hitpoints makes one resolution much more attractive than it had previously been, and changes that balance. It doesn't actually change the other options. It just makes them less attractive in comparison.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;500307I am not sure how successful this kind of tinkering would be though.  The completely integrated and complex interactions of the system might be hard to change without creating game unbalancing problems.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;500333do not expect every player at that table to have fun if the modifications to the game have changed it to the point where it is playing something completely else.

I've never ever DM'ed a single 4E session in my life without using stunts all over the place. Players unfamiliar with my style soon realized what they were dealing with when my NPCs started to use stunts on them. Reverse 'bandit' with 'PC' in the above example and you get the picture. Now it's not simply who rolls better, but who first hits on the nasty idea to use furniture as weapons.

And Ancientgamer1970 is completely right. There've been times when I met disgruntled players. That kind of shit doesn't fly well with the RPGA/LFR crowd, let me tell you. 'Deal base damage, knock target prone, and halves target's damage until it recovers weapon? That's effing better than most of my encounter or daily powers!' is a typical response here. To which I say, 'What, you think I shouldn't reward players with imagination because you haven't got any?'

Haha, just antagonizing. Yes, any houserules require mutual trust and shared sense of what's enjoyable.

Quote from: Windjammer;500358As for other, more radical houserules to 4E, I'd recommend Greywulf's lair, especially this series (start at bottom): http://greywulf.net/tag/1981/

This link is made of bacon and awesome.  I am scanning through it now and love what I see.  I will post again later tonight when I get chance to sit down and write down my thoughts.

But thanks!  This is exactly what I was interested in seeing!


-TGA

Hi TGA,

I've posted this link around here before, and it might interest you. It's aging a bit now, and I don't know what the current state of the game is, but it might be worth a look.

4E Hack: "Fiction First" Playtest

Talking about adjudicating stunts:

QuoteYou can safely use the high value, though - 2d8 + 5 fire damage. If Shiera had used a 7th-level encounter power and Sneak Attack, she might have dealt 4d6 (plus her Dexterity modifier), so you're not giving away too much with this damage.

It's not an unreasonable interpretation, I think, to read that as a suggestion that stunts not 'give too much away'.

Follow the suggestion or not, as you prefer. But I don't think it's outside the realm of acceptable behavior to be surprised when you include stunts that don't follow that guideline, however vague it may be.

Personally, I don't like stunt systems because they require too much house ruling.  As a player, I'm constantly wondering, "Am I going to be punished for attempting this?"  As a DM, I'm constantly wondering, "Am I going to screw up ruling this?"

I usually go with the rule of cool/good rp.

If the player describes something plausible in the setting, and it sounds cool/nifty/realistic, he gets a bonus. Isn't exactly rocket science.

I usually make my NPCs fight dirty, and I love it when my players fight dirty back.