So, I made a homebrew version of D&D4E, and I’m making my poor players suffer through it.
I know. I know.
You don’t need to tell me its flaws or sell me on another version of D&D (I’ve tried them), or another game (yup, those, too), or explain how there’s no audience for it or how nobody wants to play it. I know.
Still.
It’s like one of those weird-ass, chihuahua mutts looking at me with sad eyes, shivering in the cold. “Love me”, it says. “Play me. Please. I’ll let you dress me up in stupid doggy clothes and give me unnecessary hair cuts.”
Or maybe a better analogy would be more like 4E is like a run down house on some theoretical HGTV special. “I’d need to gut the skill system, and the classes have flavor and balance issues,” I’d absentmindedly mumble to cohost, “But the bones are good.”
“Are you sure?” says the theoretical cohost, “I don’t know if it’s worth salvaging. Maybe it would be easier to just get something newer. I hear they’re building some really great things over in the NEXT neighborhood, and Paizo just announced they’re coming out with…”
But no. Just hear me out. Here are what I love about 4th edition, and what did to make it work for our group.
What I love about 4E mechanics
NPCs aren’t treated like PCs
This probably grates on the simulationists like nails on a chalkboard, but I love it for two reasons. First, it makes NPC creation ridiculously easier, so as a GM, my prep time is focused on plot, tactics, and snacks. Not on the drudgery of figuring out stats for skills the NPC will never use. Second, there are a lot of powers and tactics that are fun to play against but not to play and vice versa. For example, an intimidating crowd of minions are fun to pop, but no one wants to play a minion-type character. And every party needs a healer, but you don’t want combats with dedicated healers stretching out the inevitable. Or at least, I don’t.
Combats are tactically interesting
In 4E, different NPCs will have different tactical roles and approaches, and you can easily come up with combat that requires the PCs to use different strategies at different times. It’s not just “hit it until it dies” or “buff forever and then use your strongest spell.” Figuring out different strategies and tactics is FUN. For me. Any anyone who likes tactics. YMMV.
There’s a core focus on balance and distribution
I can admit it. I have a balance and distribution obsession. Don’t look at me that way. It’s not feet or furries or cheesecake. Okay, maybe it’s cheesecake, too. (And not that there’s anything wrong with feet or furries or any other fetish.) But there’s something about a well-balanced and well-distributed system that makes me the sort of happy where I just want to sigh in quiet contemplation and lay my head on the PHB and absorb the wonderfulness.
Shhh. I’m having a moment.
Anyway, 4E isn’t perfectly balanced or perfectly well-distributed, but it tries really hard and comes close, and the bones are good. For example, the Seeker class (a 4E-only experiment in making something like a nature spirits archer that focuses on controlling the enemy instead of killing them) isn’t as strong as the other controller classes, but fixing that just requires tweaking individual class features and powers, not changing any underlying mechanics. And maybe there are too many classes that are strength-based and not enough constitution-based, but that’s a relatively easy tweak. The bones are good.
Lots of content to work with
It’s easier to edit than create whole-cloth. If I’m going through the trouble of creating a homebrew (and I am… because I can’t help myself; this is at least the sixth homebrew I’ve done), I’m going to be lazy-ish about it and adapt as much as I can.
It’s comfy-cozy
We tried out 4E when it was first released and have been playing it continuously ever since. I’ve toyed with various other systems in that time — Numenara, Iron Kingdoms, Pathfinder — and really enjoyed certain aspects of them. But I just keep wanting to come back to 4E. It’s broken in like an old shoe, and you may think it’s smelly and worn out, but it fits my foot perfectly.
What we changed
Okay, so this is a long list. And to be clear, I’m not the only one who had a hand in this; my husband Brian GMed 4E originally and started the home-ruling. I just took that inch and ran the mile with it.
- Recharge system for powers. One of the ongoing issues with D&D is the 5-minute work day. There’s a huge incentive to use up your big powers and then take a long nap to regain them. So one of the more fundamental overhauls we made was to switch everything to a recharge system where everyone rolls dice at the end of each round to see which encounter and daily powers recharge. I’m rethinking how things like end-of-turn effects worked and dealing with a lot of edge cases, but in general this has been working as intended. Also, it allows us to have really glorious end-of-campaign battles where the PCs are on the clock to save the world and they fight waves of monsters (formerly not possible because all resources would be expended).
- Math fixes on NPCs to make them lower HP, higher attack, use more varied tactics, and allowing elites and solos to act multiple times per round rather than doing multiple times the damage. RAW NPCs are boring.
- Players roll defense rather than monsters rolling attacks. This is part of a general approach to have the players be as active as possible. Also, this makes it clear to the players that the GM is not fudging the dice.
- Players automatically get a +1 to attack at 5th, 15th, and 25th level instead of an expertise feat (thus eliminating an un-fun feat tax).
- Revamped skills to provide a different, somewhat larger set of skills that we tried to make more balanced. Perhaps more significantly, we use dual-skill checks, a completely different approach to skill challenges, and have players roll skill checks against static NPC DCs rather than having NPC skills.
- Streamlined items, mostly in consolidating and balancing item types such as armor, weapons groups, etc. but also going through enchantments to remove the fairly lame ones and adding new ones where the options were limited.
- We use a hex-based battlegrid instead of squares. This makes a blasts and bursts different and requires a change to how flanking is determined.
- Removed XP. Players level up based on milestones/plot points and GM judgement.
- No alignments. Just no.
- No dim or low light.
- Created a category called Masteries that subsumed Rituals, Martial Practices, potion creation, and alchemy. Masteries use most of the rules of rituals and alchemical item creation but apply them more consistently. I also revised alchemical items to make them more useful.
- Eliminated Races as a core choice. In my homebrew campaign, all player characters in the world are human. Gasp. Non-human humanoids are mostly treated as folktales, and most people never meet one. It fits my setting, though.
- Added Themes as a core choice. I was inspired by the way Ryan Nock handled the Zeitgeist adventure path themes and reworked that idea to fit my setting.
- Systematized power sources so that they provide a third major choice (like themes) and made their options more consistent. (Previously, the Divine power source was like this — and Martial and Psionic to a certain extent — but the others were poor in power source-related content.)
- Tweaked the classes for balance, distribution, and flavor. More on this in future post(s):
- Changed to a A-shaped classes such as Cleric, Paladin, Ranger (classes that depend on two possible main stats) to V-shaped classes (relying instead on only one main stat).
- Distributed classes evenly among power sources, roles, primary stats, and secondary stats. Changed some features to accommodate these changes.
- Renamed some classes to be evocative (hopefully) and to be built on clear archetypes that are distinct from each other and to fit my setting.
- Eliminated class options to simplify character creation.
- Added some non-combat or minor features among classes to emphasize flavor.
- Created new Paragon Paths Epic Destinies (19 of each) to replace old ones. Paths and destinies now depend on theme or power source instead of being tied to individual classes or races. I mostly used old path and destiny features but revised names, flavors, and prerequisites. Converted some old path features into feats. (There were just too many before, most of which would definitely go unused since this homebrew has an expected audience of less than a dozen.)
- Added Rays as a an additional Area of Effect shape (along with burst, blast, and wall). Rays affect a line segment in one of the 6 (hex-based) cardinal directions. I don’t know why this was removed from 4E since other editions had it.
- Modified the set of damage types a bit, doing things like adding a divination type and combining enchantment and charm into one set (since most powers that have enchantment also have charm).
So, does it work?
Well, we’ve been playing with some of the changes for years, but others are new as of this latest campaign, currently just two sessions old. I’m really crossing my fingers here because this is the most ambitious jump from theorycrafting to hands-on play I’ve ever done, even including “Chickens and Chainswords” (a D&D 2.5-based homebrew that I was super proud of and dropped like a red hot poker once third edition came out).
I’ll let you know.
I was wondering if you ever considered changing the structure of
your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say.
But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect
with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or two images.
Maybe you could space it out better?
First, thanks for the positive feedback! Second, you’re right, I do tend to use all the words, and it would probably be easier to read if it were laid out with more images. I’m going to have to weigh the time I spend making images vs. how much time I have to blog overall. I’m just starting though, so I’ll be experimenting a bit with different approaches to topics and material for the next month or so until I get in a rhythm. I’ll try with more graphical elements next week – let me know you like it better.
As most of my gaming experience comes from a 2nd edition homebrew, I am curious as to what highlights “Chickens and Chainswords” contained?
Personally I think homebrews are the best as they highlight the needs of the group. While I have never played 4e, I have a few of the books. They are a fun read from time to time and have a lot of great ideas in them.
As far as I remember, Chickens and Chainswords started as some house rules to streamline the rules and remove character creation restrictions, like elves not being able to advance to higher levels or some classes being harder to get into than other. Then the desire to tweak the system spread a little broader into messing with how the non-weapon proficiencies worked and rebalancing the combat system and changing the classes. I don’t know if it had any really ideas that are worth looking up now though. I remember dropping it like a hot potato when 3rd edition came out, because it not only had much better artwork than my homebrew, it also seemed to attack the same problems I found and then replicate or improve on the solutions. Of course, eventually I started to find areas of 3rd edition (and then 3.5) that I wanted to change and so I homebrewed that, but I don’t have any cool name for that attempt.
Would you ever be will to give us some info on how you did these rules?
I really liked the systematized power sources and the masteries for instance.
Sure! Are you more interested in the methods I use or the results? I can post what I did pretty quickly (it’s already written up for my players), but explaining how I went about it would be its own article or two.
Just what you have would be awesome.
If you want to actually go through how you made the changes? That would be amazing.
I am always looking to figure out how people figure things out. It frequently gives me ideas on how to improve my own methods.
Well then I totally have to go for amazing! It may take me a week or so though. If you follow my twitter or RSS feed, you’ll get updated. I don’t have a newsletter or mailing list or anything yet.
Okay, I’ve written about how I did the power sources. So far, one long article on how I approached in in general (Power Sources 1) and then one just on divine power(Power Sources 2). If you want me to go through more, I could talk about my homebrew ALL DAY LONG! It’s like asking me about how wonderful my kids are. tldr: they’re SUPER wonderful.
[…] were trying to do. But I felt like the execution was a bit of a let down. So, as I mentioned in Yes, I hombrewed 4e, one of my goals in homebrewing my new system was to take that idea of power sources and really do […]
This was really fun and entertaining to read through as someone who also feels that EXACT same way about 4e that you described in the introduction. I mean, I was hella hard on it when it came out, but… basically 5e taught me the error of my ways… I have NOTHING good to say about 5e, except the lamest of platitudes…
Anyway, it was interesting though, because 4e is actually very contrary to how I usually prefer to run/play games, myself. For starters, while I wouldn’t touch GURPS with a 10 foot pole, I still lean heavily towards the simulationist end of the spectrum. In fact, that NPCs and monsters are handled as they are in Starfinder is one of the biggest things that keeps me from liking it as much as I want to, and when I heard that Paizo was going to be using the same general approach in PF 2e, it pretty much instantly killed any interest I had in it. I also grind my teeth whenever people refer to their characters in-universe by their class name because AGH! Class is just an abstraction, 9 times out of 10 it makes no more sense to apply that terminology in-universe than it would to refer to XP and levels! I want to consider my characters – both PC and NPC alike – as whole people unto themselves, and not merely what kind of tackle they’re swinging in combat, and at least to me, having things like skills and dozens of non-combat spells and utility-focused abilities helps the verisimilitude land much better than in systems that purport to “allow” you to “just fill it in”. (Note: I do acknowledge that there are people who feel differently on many different axes of what I just outlined, from not considering this sort of detail to actually be all that important to considering concrete mechanics to only interfere with that same verisimilitude – I do not want to insinuate that my way is the only valid one by any means, but it just doesn’t work for me. At all. Guess why I can’t stand 5e.)
And yet… the more I think about it, 4e may very well be my second favourite system only after Pathfinder itself, unseating nWoD. It’s just so… bombastic, and self-certain, and clean (for a TTRPG, anyway – throughout its entire lifetime, the same basic systems and sets of rules established in the core books apply to virtually every splatbook throughout its entire run with only errata-level alterations; if you understand the game enough to play a warlord, you understand it enough to play a runepriest or even an ardent). It’s an excellent system for a more… laidback sort of MMO-style RP – which I absolutely do not mean in a derogatory way. Like, I’ll use Pathfinder when I want to explore a diverse and nuanced world where things aside from combat are given equal importance, and explore themes and interactions. But that can be exhausting sometimes as both a player and DM, and sometimes you just wanna have a blast slaying goblins and smashing skeletons and let the RP just be more camp and high melodrama. Basically, I’ve found that 4e allows me to lose myself in the simple joy of a dungeon crawl or dramatic boss fight. …Anywho, I feel like I’ve kinda lost my thread, if I even had it to begin with (it is almost 2am at time of posting), so I’ll just end this here.
I suppose, in short, it was interesting to see how what I like about the system compares and contrasts with what you do, because there’s quite a lot of commonalities, but also several stark differences either in what we like about it or why, and they’re very interesting to think about.