Sometimes you have an idea while you’re playing and you think: “Man, this would make a great house rule.” And then you suggest it to the table and they shoot it down as dumb or too complicated or just unnecessary. And in most cases their feedback was bang on the money. However, every once and a while an idea that’s shot down refuses to die. Even though your immediate peer group thinks it’s a bad idea you’re convinced that it has merit. It is with this in mind that I’m writing this, the first of what I hope will be a series of articles, about house rules in 4e D&D.
Let me lay down some ground rules. None of these ideas have been play-tested. These are just some random thoughts for a guy who’s been playing D&D for 20+ years. Some of my ideas may seem really out there, and that’s ok. The purpose of this series is to get other DMs and players thinking and talking about these ideas. I’m looking for brutal honesty. If you don’t think my new rules will work, let me know why. And if you think they’ll work better with a few tweaks then please share your ideas. In the end the whole point of this is to come up with new and creative ideas for making D&D more fun.
Automatic Success
Proposal
Once per gaming session each player at the table has one “Automatic Success” in the bank. At any point during the game you can choose to use your automatic success to accomplish whatever you’re attempting. You must declare your intent to use this before any dice are rolled. The result is never treated as a critical success.
Balance
Each time a PC uses his Automatic Success, the DM gets a re-roll that has to be used before the start of that players next turn.
Notes
My original thought was to give the DM an automatic success every time the PCs use one, but that could be detrimental to the party. This way the DM gets something and has a very limited time in which to use it. This will force PCs to give it some serious thought before they use this benefit.
Reverse Failure
Proposal
During a skill challenge, a PC may opt to reverse a failure the party incurred earlier in the skill challenge. If successful, it will not count towards the number of overall successes required to overcome the skill challenge, but it will allow the party to get back one strike.
Mechanics
On your turn, you declare that your intention is to reverse a failure rather than earn a success. You then describe how you’re going to eliminate the strike. In social settings a failed Bluff or Diplomacy check may be reversed by using Intimidate on the PC who earned the failure, thereby gaining face in the eyes of the person you’re trying to impress. A failed Athletics check may be eliminated with an Endurance or Heal check made on the person who earned the failure.
Balance
Removing a failure should be reactionary and quick. Therefore, I’d deny any attempts to assist on these checks. Should there be a limit to the number of times a failure can be reversed? A difficulty 5 skill challenge would allow 5 opportunities to fix your mistakes, difficulty 4, 4 opportunities, etc.
Notes
Should a failure to reverse a failure count as another strike? Or should it be like a secondary skill check and count as neither a success nor failure?
What do you think of my first two proposals? Do these sound like house rules you might consider using in your game? We want your feedback.
View Comments (20)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 2 3 Next »I think both items you suggest here can simply be used with action points, let them spend a action point to reverse a failure or gain a automatic success. If your worried that they will use this all the time don't be. Most players really want that extra action against the big bad monster so they save up, they have all sorts of feats that trigger when they spend action points in combat. So your giving them something powerful by letting them spend action points, but the cost to the player is on par to the reward.
House Rule: when rolling for ability scores, reroll any single die that comes up 1 or 2. this gives the players an ability range of 9-18 (before ability modifiers of course).
this has nothing to do with the above house rules but i thought i'd post it.
as for "Should a failure to reverse a failure count as another strike? Or should it be like a secondary skill check and count as neither a success nor failure?" it should not count as neither a success nor failure, so yeah like a secondary skill check, i think.
I have a massive article on houserules, and I was wondering if I could link yours there, as it seems interesting. Though the "balance" portions of this sort of bug me, it's still an interesting rule.
@mike
I like the suggestion to charge action points to try these new rules. If a Fighter saved his automatic success for the use of a Daily power that does 4[W] damage, it makes sense to charge him something. Would you still give the DM a re-roll? I’m thinking no, probably not.
Good suggestion.
@Dungeon
If you're rolling for attributes, then this is certainly an option. When I used to roll attributes (with AD&D and early 3e, I allowed 1s to be rerolled). The result is that the PCs are much more powerful at 1st level and rarely have anything below average. If the DM is ok with this, I don't see a problem. Just keep in mind, powerful NPCs that are supposed to be at an equal power level to the PCs will likely be rolled up using the same house rule.
@Wyatt
Please feel free to link to this article. In fact, if you want to leave another comment linking to your page, that's cool with me.
What part of the "balance" section don't you like? I included it because I wanted to provide some rationale for why I think these rules will work.
I think it's unneeded.
The DM has unlimited power. The idea of "giving him" a reroll feels off to me, because I don't think it's necessary to create more rules to "balance" a houserule. But this is where I differ from the vast majority of people who play 4e, most of whom I disagree with, so you can just blow me off as a lunatic and go on with whatever you were doing.
Link is here: http://spiritsofeden.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/wyatts-4e-houserules/
I had a similar idea a while back... After talking it out on ENWorld for a bit this is what I came up with.
1. Every player get a token of some sort. At any time, they can give the token to the DM and declare the result of any die roll.
2. At any time, the DM may hand back a token to a player. When he does, he may declare the result of any die roll being made by or against the player's character.
With the understanding that the DM can and should use his half at the most inopportune time.
Asmor.. that is evil! I love it!
As far as a re-roll goes, I'd almost suggest taking the action point idea a step farther and letting the PCs use their healing surges as a re-roll. I'd rule they have to use the second roll regardless of its outcome. Could someone use 5 surges as re-rolls? Sure. Of course when they are in their 4th straight combat and out of healing surges they may regret it!
I don't really see a need for the entire half that involves the DM using tokens or action points (or anything) to change a roll, because the DM can always change rolls or even decide not to roll at all. Also I strongly agree with Wyatt about not using a new rule just to balance the house rule, if it needs balancing then the rule itself needs work instead.
@Wyatt
My reason for giving the DM a re-roll was to try to maintain balance. It didn't seem right to just give the PCs a new power or ability (such as an automatic hit) and not have a down side. The idea of charging an action point or a healing surge is a good suggestion I hadn’t though of. I appreciate the feedback, that's why I posted the article int he first place.
@Asmor
I really like this idea. It's simple and balanced. Great idea.
@Suddry
I hadn't considered "charging" the PCs for rerolls, but I like it. Whether it's a healing surge or an action point, it still gives the PCs a down-side for using it. Good idea.
@Bartoneus
It sounds like I'm getting the same reaction from you and many other readers as I did from my table: let’s not create new rules if they're going to make the game more complicated.
I’m just looking for a way to avoid the situation where one bad roll screws up everything. I'd like there to be some mechanic for allowing a reroll in that critical scenario where rolling a 1 just sucks.
@ Ameron
how about this house rule: when a character rolls a natural 1 they add all the usual modifiers and add their character level. if the total is higher than a certain amount (DC 20 or higher) they fail at whatever they're doing, but don't Epicly fail. so at higher levels rolling a 1 isn't as devistating.
I feel this can save a group of characters in a long-time campaign.
what do you think?