Community

After This years playing 4E do you play 100% RAW? you discovered some house rules, or subtle modifications that you think suit your game style better? I was reading comments on Inherent bonuses and Rituals in the other thread and I got curious to know what major or minor tunning other people have made to D&D along the way. If you can explain why you did it and the result in you group it would be great.

Inherent bonuses and Rituals are 100% within the RAW, however I do run with several houserules in my game.  I actually play with a custom set of races / 3 new classes / different meanings for "Primal/Divine/Martial" as well as some other stuff.  Basically what I've found over ther years is to be upfront with changes you make, try to have a good idea of what it will mean for player balance and then just hold on and have fun.

I play pretty much Raw, the only house rules I have are a free feat (Heroic Bonus: +1/+2/+3 feat bonus to attacks and non AC defenses) and giving backgrounds a little more clout (backgrounds either give you training in another skill of your choice or give you a +3 bonus to a skill you already have trained).  I also generally don't allow psionics in my game and neccesitate the use of hard to find items in rituals like raise dead.  Aside from that most of my house rulings are fairly situational things, like if I want to change up the flying rules to fit a specific encounter better or something.

Also of course some changed world fluff but I don't consider most of Fluff RAW anyway, the expectation is that that stuff gets changed. 

Free expertise feat at level 1, free superior defenses at level 7.  No ravenant or monster races.

Nov 28, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

After This years playing 4E do you play 100% RAW?

For the most part, I play by RAW in terms of rules as written with one major exception: I do not use experience points for anything other than encounter design.

But I have added some table rules along the way.

• To add a bit of comic book level heroism to the game, each player is given a chit each session to which s/he can add ten to any one die roll. My players use it at times to ensure a hit, to increase damage on an area-effect power, or reserve it for that guaranteed save.
• I allow PCs to use more than one action point in an encounter, but not more than one in a round.
• All rule disputes are handled by simple majority vote at the table, and then researched later.

Mostly raw, but I have a few alterations. Like pretty much everybody.

1. Generally, I don't allow Essentials material. There are just too many books to keep track of and I'd rather not have to double check a dozen books to make sure a character is legit. Though I keep the option open that if the player can give me a reasonable argument for why I should allow something, I will allow it on a case by case basis. So far, nobody's felt the need to bother.
2. Since the campaign I'm running right now is in a setting that lacks all the races in D&D, I use homebrew races. Not that they're anything special.

Since the campaign is getting higher level, though, I've started to consider a few alterations, such as:
-Free Expertise feat for everybody.
-'Choose your own' backgrounds (basically, pick any two skills related to the character's bio, get +2 to each.)
-I've also started to consider the inherent bonus system. Since looting doesn't fit the tone of the campaign at all, it's becoming a very appealing option.

 I tend to throw out free feats (or even an extra power) every couple of levels or when something in the story warrants it - generally the feats are something story-appropriate but usually not in any way related to the character's primary combat schtick, while extra powers tend to be racial or skill powers, or something similarly interesting but not particularly powerful...
 For example, a character could earn the Linguist feat through roleplaying the effort to learn the new languages or a character with the Wizard's Apprentice or Order Adept theme could learn a cantrip or two if they wanted to...

i have a blog with a lot of my ideas. this thread is interesting to me bc recent posts have coincidentally dealt with inherent bonuses and ritual use. i like to incorporate a lot of classic edition flavor and mechanics into 4e.

regarding inherent bonuses

frothsof4e.blogspot.com/2012/11/in-searc...

this is about encouraging ritual use

frothsof4e.blogspot.com/2012/11/encourag...

I try to keep any modifications on the DM's side of the screen. Mostly it's changes to the encounter design guidelines, traps, and monster math. So it sort of straddles home-brewing & house rules.

On the player's side, I also give out an Expertise feat for free. Also, I tend to make improvised actions slightly more potent than you'd expect from DMG page 42 alone.

Lessee  here now ...
1. Inherent Bonuses in place.
2. PCs who can use rituals can use up to their level in ritual levels per day at no cost/no components -- variable cost rituals (specifically Enchant Magic Item) are exempt from this.  (e.g. A level 5 character can use 5 levels worth of rituals per day; a 3 and a 2, 5 1s, any combination).
2a. Enchanting magic items takes some effort.  If you wanna make something, expect some kind of quest to find cool stuff to make it with.
3. The only power sources are Martial, Arcane, and Psionic.
4. No tracking of ammo, food, money, or other minutia unless it becomes a plot point of some sort, at which point I will tell you in no uncertain terms that you need to start tracking.
5. There is no way to return from the dead.  When you're dead, you're gone, history, finito, yesterday's mashed potatoes.
5a. PCs only die when their HP reach their negative bloodied value.  When your HP reach zero, you're 'down'; still fully conscious, but unable to take actions.  When you fail three 'death saves', you're 'out'; completely unconscious, and unable to be healed during the combat.

Oh yes, i forgot the ritual rule.  Ritual caster have 1 free ritual every odd level of their level or lower.

It's kinda awesome if you have bardic ritualist (by being a bard or bardic ritualist mc feat), because of the free bard ritual per day thing.

Rituals are very often overlooked on 4th edition (Essentials completly ignore them), but i actually found them to be quite awesome, too bad the campaing i have sorcerer adept themed drow is on standby...can't wait for level 1 for shortening a ritual cast once per day to 1/10 of cast time (you could do some rituals as a standard action or spending an entire turn's actions on it depending on DM) 

I am enjoying reading other folks' houserules and will likely snarf a few of them for my own game after checking with my players. Especially Salla's ritual use approach!

Nov 28, 2012 -- 4:54PM, KColette wrote:

I don't allow Essentials material. There are just too many books to keep track of and I'd rather not have to double check a dozen books to make sure a character is legit.

I fnd this odd. Does this mean you don't trust your players?

In my game, I don't double-check anything. I ask them to let me have a copy of their character sheet only because I use it to tailor encounters to give PCs a chance to show off some of their more subtle items, powers, or abilities.

Looks like our group has been far more extreme than most. We've gone through a couple of different resource management systems (mostly because we tend to only have one combat per adventuring day).

First we changed daily powers into a "you can only use one per encounter" and from there moved onto a system that has encounter uses of "attack" and "utility" powers with daily powers costing two uses of an encounter power.

The next step we're taking in this regard is adjusting the pool values so that your powers have different costs based on their level (right now a level 13 encounter power costs just as much to use as a level 3 encounter power which leads to a lot of spam of our most powerful attacks); we're playing with 1/tier for encounters and 2/tier for dailies (or perhaps 2/tier for encounter and 5/tier for daily).

The biggest issue in making these changes has been handling additional powers (ex. leader healing, theme powers, powers gained from multi-class feats) and the lack of powers on some classes (psionics and some of the E-classes). Right now we're actually thinking about just standardizing the "mana/endurance" value across the board (with class feature powers like healing word tracked seperately) and letting any additional powers gained via theme, feats and so forth provide a greater breadth of options rather than more uses.

* * * *

Practically tame by comparison is that we took the values from the expected feat tax, inherant/enhancement, item and masterwork armor bonuses to attack, damage and defenses and put them onto our own advancement table with the increases spread out a bit more evenly so that characters get closer to +1/level for their attacks and defenses (as opposed to getting +2 at some levels and +0 at others).

Since we all use homemade character sheets (based on the efficient layout of the 4e monster blocks; most paragon tier characters can easily fit onto a single page) we can design the characters in the character builder equipped with non-magical weapons and armor and then, when filling in our own sheets, just add the appropriate values to each attack, damage roll, and defense.

This has served to make magic items rare and special and the most treasured ones now tend to NOT be weapons or armor. Indeed, our paragon tier game has gone old school in that our characters have become lords and ladies. Our primary and most treasured magic items are actually a series of Pouches of Shared Acquisition, which we have used to set up an effective mail service between key points in our realm (one of each of the two pouch sets hangs on a wall in our keep where a hireling is tasked with sorting the correspondence out and putting it the appropriate destination pouch) and one pouch remains with the party so that we can be informed of and respond to any issues which may come up in running our kingdom.

* * * *

Beyond those two main changes its mostly been that we've used home-brew settings created via "Dawn of Worlds" (ours have ranged from fairly standard, to one where half-elves, half-orcs, and half-dwarves dominated and humans, elves, dwarves, and orcs were nearly extinct, to another which is practically a post-apocalyptic nightmare where civilization has literally been dragged back into the stone age and the few remaining gods/primordials now exist only as physical avatars because their true forms and their astral/elemental realms were utterly destroyed in the cataclysm) and the occassional home-brew race (most notably the... thing... we're calling Blight Pixies).

Nov 28, 2012 -- 10:45PM, Salla wrote:

3. The only power sources are Martial, Arcane, and Psionic.

Interesting. How do you handle divine and primal characters? And what's the reasoning behind this houserule? (just curious)

Nov 29, 2012 -- 4:42AM, Seeker95 wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 4:54PM, KColette wrote:

I don't allow Essentials material. There are just too many books to keep track of and I'd rather not have to double check a dozen books to make sure a character is legit.

I fnd this odd. Does this mean you don't trust your players?

In my game, I don't double-check anything. I ask them to let me have a copy of their character sheet only because I use it to tailor encounters to give PCs a chance to show off some of their more subtle items, powers, or abilities.

It's not that I don't trust my current players... There are a number of reasons.

First, if I include Essentials content, the game is too bloated. Some of my players prefer having fewer available options because it makes decisions easier. (Which I find strange, but understandable.)

Second, I don't have most of the Essentials books, so I can't double check anything. And my players have a tendency to misinterpret powers. Some of them, anyway. In fact, I have one player who insists that I stat her character for her, regardless of system. (She has low self esteem, so she always assumes she'll screw something up. Even though she's one of my better players.)

Third, while none of my current players cheat, I've been in a few games (and run one) where there were players that did, in fact, cheat. I was in a 4e campaign with a guy who got away with rolling his stats, getting numbers significantly higher than he should have, while everyone else was forced to use 22 point buy. (This man is also the reason I despise the Warden class on a personal level.*) This same player was also in a Mutants & Masterminds campaign I ran, where he made Charisma his dump stat and then proceeded to pressure me into never requiring him to roll any social skills, since he was hosting Gametable. (I love online gaming, since I type better than I talk, but it does have pitfalls...)

*In a party of seven or so, his character made half the group irrelevant. I recall one session where only he, the Sorcerer's player and I showed up. I was playing a very unoptimized Brawler Fighter. The Sorcerer spent the majority of the fight unconscious, my character managed to beat ONE enemy and the Warden easily killed everything else. At level 3~4. Of course, the DM also gave him an artifact axe that was better than anything the rest of the party had...
My opinion of the Warden was further lowered when a different player told me about an incredibly game breaking Warden build that uses a hammer, essentially doing more damage than most strikers pretty much every round of combat. And they kept telling me about this build every other day. It became very hard to tolerate the class. Though I still allow the class to be played, I am incredibly paranoid about it. And none of my current group have actually wanted to play it.

And I wouldn't have minded him replacing everyone in combat if he didn't also turn every non-combat scene into something about his character. In the 4e campaign (my first 4e campaign, in fact, and the first time I'd played any roleplaying game in years. Again, it was online. Not a great first impression) several of the other players, who were friends of mine, confided in me that they didn't want to play anymore pretty much solely because they felt irrelevant. Then came the M&M campaign I ran, where the warden's player did the same thing. In fact, past the first couple of sessions, nobody even got involved until initiative was rolled.

...Incidentally, my love of M&M 2e died with that campaign. It's a testiment to how much I enjoy 4e that it remains my system of choice.

I don't use XP. Instead, I level people up when I feel it appropriate storywise.  Otherwise, I stick to RAW.  (Except for my family game, where we use inherent bonuses.)

Nov 28, 2012 -- 7:04PM, frothsof wrote:

i have a blog with a lot of my ideas. this thread is interesting to me bc recent posts have coincidentally dealt with inherent bonuses and ritual use. i like to incorporate a lot of classic edition flavor and mechanics into 4e.

regarding inherent bonuses

frothsof4e.blogspot.com/2012/11/in-searc...

this is about encouraging ritual use

frothsof4e.blogspot.com/2012/11/encourag...

Hey Frothsoth, great work on the articles. The stronghold thing you discuss makes a lot of sense to me. As you said, high level expectations are different but it´s a valid option to have strongholds as options, fot that you have to change the basic economy of the game. I like the henchmen and hireling article as well, those are very nice ideas. I think your ideas are similar to the ones presented in Mordenkainen's Emporium where they tried to bring those things back to the game.  Those are very nice options, I´m starting to use a lot. ... maybe they are in the wrong book ... they should have done a whole new book covering this stuff to 4E, old school low magic settings, strongholds and henchman... The mordenkainen's magnificent emporium seem too much like magic items exclusive, and I guess lots of people didn't even look at it. magical items with stories is also covered in the MME, pretty much pointing to the direction DDN is going.

Anyway your articles are pretty cool, keep it up.

In my online game we do the same, we level up between sessions (every character at the same time) if the characters have reached a suitable point.

Nov 28, 2012 -- 9:22PM, aaronil wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />On the player's side, I also give out an Expertise feat for free. Also, I tend to make improvised actions slightly more potent than you'd expect from DMG page 42 alone.

interested on that, can you give some examples?

Nov 28, 2012 -- 10:45PM, Salla wrote:

Lessee  here now ...
1. Inherent Bonuses in place.
2. PCs who can use rituals can use up to their level in ritual levels per day at no cost/no components -- variable cost rituals (specifically Enchant Magic Item) are exempt from this.  (e.g. A level 5 character can use 5 levels worth of rituals per day; a 3 and a 2, 5 1s, any combination).
2a. Enchanting magic items takes some effort.  If you wanna make something, expect some kind of quest to find cool stuff to make it with.
3. The only power sources are Martial, Arcane, and Psionic.
4. No tracking of ammo, food, money, or other minutia unless it becomes a plot point of some sort, at which point I will tell you in no uncertain terms that you need to start tracking.
5. There is no way to return from the dead.  When you're dead, you're gone, history, finito, yesterday's mashed potatoes.
5a. PCs only die when their HP reach their negative bloodied value.  When your HP reach zero, you're 'down'; still fully conscious, but unable to take actions.  When you fail three 'death saves', you're 'out'; completely unconscious, and unable to be healed during the combat.

Those are nice ideas. The ritual ideas is pretty nice. In our group I allow ritual casters to produce, or gather their own ritual components in their spare time, as long as they are trained in the relevant skill.
So, no cost involved. I try to make the rituals more significant in the plot over all.

About the inherent bonus, I´m totally looking forward to it to my new campaign. I know you can enable it in the CB, but can you tell me which book the actual rules are?

Nov 28, 2012 -- 2:28PM, mexrage wrote:

No ravenant or monster races.

Oww... that´s so cool... love revenant characters... LOL

Nov 29, 2012 -- 8:10AM, wrecan wrote:

I don't use XP. Instead, I level people up when I feel it appropriate storywise.

Same thing here.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 8:54AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 7:04PM, frothsof wrote:

i have a blog with a lot of my ideas. this thread is interesting to me bc recent posts have coincidentally dealt with inherent bonuses and ritual use. i like to incorporate a lot of classic edition flavor and mechanics into 4e.

regarding inherent bonuses

frothsof4e.blogspot.com/2012/11/in-searc...

this is about encouraging ritual use

frothsof4e.blogspot.com/2012/11/encourag...

Hey Frothsoth, great work on the articles. The stronghold thing you discuss makes a lot of sense to me. As you said, high level expectations are different but it´s a valid option to have strongholds as options, fot that you have to change the basic economy of the game. I like the henchmen and hireling article as well, those are very nice ideas. I think your ideas are similar to the ones presented in Mordenkainen's Emporium where they tried to bring those things back to the game.  Those are very nice options, I´m starting to use a lot. ... maybe they are in the wrong book ... they should have done a whole new book covering this stuff to 4E, old school low magic settings, strongholds and henchman... The mordenkainen's magnificent emporium seem too much like magic items exclusive, and I guess lots of people didn't even look at it. magical items with stories is also covered in the MME, pretty much pointing to the direction DDN is going.

Anyway your articles are pretty cool, keep it up.

Thanks for the feedback. I am actually working on a free 4e fanzine as well. I will post it up when its done.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 9:09AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 8:10AM, wrecan wrote:

I don't use XP. Instead, I level people up when I feel it appropriate storywise.

Same thing here.

Yeah, me too.  It make players less likely to initiate a conflict for the sake of experience points, wish doesn't make sense, some character will try to initiate conflict for other reasons, but reasons that make sense in-character

I have been making up all my own magic items for a while.  They are more potent than typical 4E magic items (I think they would count as Rares).

I make a lot of little changes to things here and there.  Some examples:

One player made a Dwarven Rogue.  I let him use a Handaxe for Sneak Attack.
Another player made a Swordmage.  I let him use a "Longhammer" (as he called it) for his implement (stats as a regular warhammer).

I make occasional big changes too.  For example, one player made a Warpriest of Avandra, and I made up all his features and powers.

Overall, I have found 4E great for making changes, both big and small.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 12:40PM, Arithezoo wrote:

I have been making up all my own magic items for a while.  They are more potent than typical 4E magic items (I think they would count as Rares).

I make a lot of little changes to things here and there.  Some examples:

One player made a Dwarven Rogue.  I let him use a Handaxe for Sneak Attack.
Another player made a Swordmage.  I let him use a "Longhammer" (as he called it) for his implement (stats as a regular warhammer).

I make occasional big changes too.  For example, one player made a Warpriest of Avandra, and I made up all his features and powers.

Overall, I have found 4E great for making changes, both big and small.

Yes, I have tailored a few magic items, but not really a lot. It has more to do with tying an item to a story other than anything else. I´m curious to know about your magic items, can you show some examples?

Nov 29, 2012 -- 7:16AM, svendj wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 10:45PM, Salla wrote:

3. The only power sources are Martial, Arcane, and Psionic.

Interesting. How do you handle divine and primal characters?

No such thing.  Divine and Primal power source classes are not an option.

And what's the reasoning behind this houserule? (just curious)

Just something I've always wanted to be able to do.  With previous editions practically requiring a cleric or druid for healing, I got tired of seeing them in every game, and all of my players were similarly sick of someone getting stuck playing one.  So, my game world has no gods and no primal spirits.

Oh, and I forgot ... like wrecan, I also do not use/award XP.  Also, there are no class skill lists or mandatory trained skills.  Instead of Arcana plus 3 off his list, a wizard is 'any 4', for example.

And there's no such thing as alignment, at all.

I encourage hybrid character cross-playability. For instance, if you play a rogue/ranger, you only have to take one feat to increase the damage die of their Sneak Attack/Quarry, you can also use them on 'off' powers. So a Sneak Attack on Twin Strike (a ranger power) is possible. I balance this by only allowing them to use one or the other for a given attack typically, unless they spend an extra action preparing (beyond the minor required for quarry).

I level when the story calls for a level, I only use XP to give them level appropriate encounters. 

I allow and encourage widespread use of alchemical and wonderous items but for magical equipment, I restrict it severely, giving out 1-2 per character. I also give each character an artifact of some kind at different points in the story though and each comes with a modified concordance system, personalities, goals, history, etc. which I've used to great success in guiding players to progress the story without having to pull too hard on the reigns. I also use inherent item bonuses, free expertise and defenses.

Thrown/Shot Weapons are must be retrieved manually, even if they are magic. The only exception is a boomerang.

Ammunition has a 50% chance of breakage, (100% chance if magical) and can be collected during or after combat as a minor action.  

I play in a modified Dark Sun setting and utilize updated rules from 2e, such as metal armour exhaustion, reckless breakage (not the kind given in 4e), severe dehydration = CE alignment for purpose of getting water, and the possibility to use arcane defiling for all arcane powers, albeit with different draw-backs from 4e. 

Added rules for more realistic carrying capacity. 

Added rules for Auto-Hypnotism and Concentration skills.

Added Blue Mage and Necromancer classes.

Used homebrew Thri-Kreen I had made before they published the DSCS 4e. 

Used homebrew Incunabula race. 

Have a race that switches from a pixie seeker to a minotaur (Yeti) warden when bloodied. 

Still can only use artifact daily powers 1/day/tier (counts against normal limit for magical items). 

Characters get a free feat per tier. 

Characters get as skills as makes sense for their character concept. 

Non-artifact magical item abilities may be applied across a number of items. So, for instance, the ranger/rogue of the party has 17 weapons, between which, he splits two magical weapon properties. His artifact is his Beast Companion. 

I created a system for Drugs in 4e, but never got it going really. The scaling math was too hard to balance effectively. I'm hoping to go back to the idea in 5e because the bounded accuracy will likely make my task MUCH easier. 

Oh, and I run a multi-party campaign, there are 13 PC's. The players gradually gain control of extra ones up to a max of 3 per player. This allows me to jump around with the narrative to keep things interesting but without just glossing over gap period in action. EX one group builds a stronghold, so while the nit an grit of that is being done, I jump to anothe group who are engaged in a quest. It works out well and keeps the style of play from stagnating. 

All this being said, I'm looking forward to the speed of combat in 5e and more narrative space than the encounter model allows. 



 

All this talk of refluffling makes me think of a character I enjoyed more than any other I've ever played.  He was a paladin named "Mani the Manhammer" and had reskinned his fists to work like a Mordenkraad.  I developed an obsession with keeping his hands clean and free (so I wouldn't be tempted to abuse the, I have my 2h weapon equipped and free hands) and then gave him a strong ukrainian accent.  It ended up being the most fun character I've ever played and a good part of it was the reskinning.  The character fought like the Pikey from Snatch (bit hard hits, not fast hits).  His abilities were things like "Jab", "Suckerpunch", "Tuesday" (Cause when they get hit they wake up on Tuesday... no not that one the other one) and "Brick on a String".

In my mind it just goes to show you how far the idea of refluffing can take you. 

Nov 29, 2012 -- 1:15PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 12:40PM, Arithezoo wrote:

I have been making up all my own magic items for a while.  They are more potent than typical 4E magic items (I think they would count as Rares).

I make a lot of little changes to things here and there.  Some examples:

One player made a Dwarven Rogue.  I let him use a Handaxe for Sneak Attack.
Another player made a Swordmage.  I let him use a "Longhammer" (as he called it) for his implement (stats as a regular warhammer).

I make occasional big changes too.  For example, one player made a Warpriest of Avandra, and I made up all his features and powers.

Overall, I have found 4E great for making changes, both big and small.

Yes, I have tailored a few magic items, but not really a lot. It has more to do with tying an item to a story other than anything else. I´m curious to know about your magic items, can you show some examples?

Sure!

Rage Drake Scale Armor: Resist 1 all, make saving throws vs fear effects at the start of your turn (and at the end), Rage (when you kill something you can make an immediate charge, but then you grant combat advantage).

Stoneheart Belt: Resist 1 slashing/piercing/blunt, +2 to Endurance checks, carrying capacity as if your Strength is 4 points higher, Feat of Strength 1/day (can be anything you can think of, default is +5 to a melee damage roll).

Ring of Second Life: +5 bonus to death saving throws, +1 healing surge, resist 5 necrotic, Daily power (spend a surge to gain temp hp equal to your bloodied value, you are dazed when they are gone).

Elemental Bracers: +1d6 on a crit, +1d6 1/encounter, +1d6 and additional effect 1/day.  All damage is of the element appropriate to the bracers.  Additional Effect: Acid (1d6 acid damage to all enemies adjacent to the target), fire (ongoing 3 fire damage), lightning (1d6 lightning damage to another target within 10 squares), cold (target is restrained).

Nov 29, 2012 -- 6:21PM, OskarOisinson wrote:

I

I allow and encourage widespread use of alchemical and wonderous items but for magical equipment, I restrict it severely, giving out 1-2 per character. I also give each character an artifact of some kind at different points in the story though and each comes with a modified concordance system, personalities, goals, history, etc. which I've used to great success in guiding players to progress the story without having to pull too hard on the reigns.

Very nice

Nov 29, 2012 -- 6:21PM, OskarOisinson wrote:

I
I also use inherent item bonuses, free expertise and defenses.

You are the second person that gives free weapon expertise and superior defenses feats, interesting. I guess mexrage does the same thing. 
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" /> 

Nov 29, 2012 -- 7:20PM, Arithezoo wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 1:15PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 12:40PM, Arithezoo wrote:

I have been making up all my own magic items for a while.  They are more potent than typical 4E magic items (I think they would count as Rares).

I make a lot of little changes to things here and there.  Some examples:

One player made a Dwarven Rogue.  I let him use a Handaxe for Sneak Attack.
Another player made a Swordmage.  I let him use a "Longhammer" (as he called it) for his implement (stats as a regular warhammer).

I make occasional big changes too.  For example, one player made a Warpriest of Avandra, and I made up all his features and powers.

Overall, I have found 4E great for making changes, both big and small.

Yes, I have tailored a few magic items, but not really a lot. It has more to do with tying an item to a story other than anything else. I´m curious to know about your magic items, can you show some examples?

Sure!

Rage Drake Scale Armor: Resist 1 all, make saving throws vs fear effects at the start of your turn (and at the end), Rage (when you kill something you can make an immediate charge, but then you grant combat advantage).

Stoneheart Belt: Resist 1 slashing/piercing/blunt, +2 to Endurance checks, carrying capacity as if your Strength is 4 points higher, Feat of Strength 1/day (can be anything you can think of, default is +5 to a melee damage roll).

Ring of Second Life: +5 bonus to death saving throws, +1 healing surge, resist 5 necrotic, Daily power (spend a surge to gain temp hp equal to your bloodied value, you are dazed when they are gone).

Elemental Bracers: +1d6 on a crit, +1d6 1/encounter, +1d6 and additional effect 1/day.  All damage is of the element appropriate to the bracers.  Additional Effect: Acid (1d6 acid damage to all enemies adjacent to the target), fire (ongoing 3 fire damage), lightning (1d6 lightning damage to another target within 10 squares), cold (target is restrained).

Cool!

I notice one item is resist 1 slashing/piercing/bludgeoning. How do you use this damage types on your game? Its not in 4E as far as I´m aware, did I miss something? 

Talking about resistance, seeing in Mordenkainen´s book, and they tried to add a few properties to armor like durable and tough, they where scratching the surface of DR with this options, have any of you guys ever tried to go further with this idea? I mean it´s nice to have durable 2 or 3, but it´s not really making a big difference in high levels. on the other hand, the game math wasn't made to support higher levels of DR... So in my mind DR is already represented by your high armor class score, every time you don´t get hit, you are receiving damage reduction... So I decided, just leave it alone, but curious to know if anybody has ever used it or somewhat tweaked it. 

I give the normal Expertise Feat for free [Weapon Expertise (Spear) instead of Spear Expertise], Improved Defenses for free. 

I play mostly RAW but have made a few changes along the way :

1) Rituals are only usable by spellcasters and depending on the key skill of each ritual not usable by all spellcasters.
2) Raising from the dead can only be performed in the sacred grounds of a temple by an NPC (PC don't have acces to this ritual). It is not automatic. The mecanic varies depending on the deity of the temple and the deity the character to be raised worshiped in life.
3) I use a houserule for non-lethal damage (In my campaign you do not have a choice when droping a creature to 0 hit points whether to let live or not - some keyword and some weapons cannot be used to inflict non-lethal damage so it's a kill if you use them to reduce a creature to 0 hit points...so players have to make serious choices when they want to capture enemies).
4) I use classes/races restrictions (even "builds" restrictions) depending on the region of the campagin setting my group plays in.
5) I designed additional powers for clerics depending on the deity worshiped to make them more specialized. This results in clerics having access to more powers than other classes but this seems coherent for characters who are infused by the seemingly most powerful beings in the cosmos.

Nov 30, 2012 -- 3:55AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 7:20PM, Arithezoo wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 1:15PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Yes, I have tailored a few magic items, but not really a lot. It has more to do with tying an item to a story other than anything else. I´m curious to know about your magic items, can you show some examples?

Sure!

Rage Drake Scale Armor: Resist 1 all, make saving throws vs fear effects at the start of your turn (and at the end), Rage (when you kill something you can make an immediate charge, but then you grant combat advantage).

Stoneheart Belt: Resist 1 slashing/piercing/blunt, +2 to Endurance checks, carrying capacity as if your Strength is 4 points higher, Feat of Strength 1/day (can be anything you can think of, default is +5 to a melee damage roll).

Ring of Second Life: +5 bonus to death saving throws, +1 healing surge, resist 5 necrotic, Daily power (spend a surge to gain temp hp equal to your bloodied value, you are dazed when they are gone).

Elemental Bracers: +1d6 on a crit, +1d6 1/encounter, +1d6 and additional effect 1/day.  All damage is of the element appropriate to the bracers.  Additional Effect: Acid (1d6 acid damage to all enemies adjacent to the target), fire (ongoing 3 fire damage), lightning (1d6 lightning damage to another target within 10 squares), cold (target is restrained).

Cool!

I notice one item is resist 1 slashing/piercing/bludgeoning. How do you use this damage types on your game? Its not in 4E as far as I´m aware, did I miss something? 

Oops, I forgot to mention that before: I brought back damage types for non-magical attacks.  Really it is for flavor more than anything, but occasionally it gives a benefit (like skeletons taking extra damage from blunt attacks, or zombies taking extra damage from slashing) or hindrance (skeletons taking less damage from piercing).

Nov 30, 2012 -- 6:55AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 3:55AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 7:20PM, Arithezoo wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 1:15PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Yes, I have tailored a few magic items, but not really a lot. It has more to do with tying an item to a story other than anything else. I´m curious to know about your magic items, can you show some examples?

Sure!

Rage Drake Scale Armor: Resist 1 all, make saving throws vs fear effects at the start of your turn (and at the end), Rage (when you kill something you can make an immediate charge, but then you grant combat advantage).

Stoneheart Belt: Resist 1 slashing/piercing/blunt, +2 to Endurance checks, carrying capacity as if your Strength is 4 points higher, Feat of Strength 1/day (can be anything you can think of, default is +5 to a melee damage roll).

Ring of Second Life: +5 bonus to death saving throws, +1 healing surge, resist 5 necrotic, Daily power (spend a surge to gain temp hp equal to your bloodied value, you are dazed when they are gone).

Elemental Bracers: +1d6 on a crit, +1d6 1/encounter, +1d6 and additional effect 1/day.  All damage is of the element appropriate to the bracers.  Additional Effect: Acid (1d6 acid damage to all enemies adjacent to the target), fire (ongoing 3 fire damage), lightning (1d6 lightning damage to another target within 10 squares), cold (target is restrained).

Cool!

I notice one item is resist 1 slashing/piercing/bludgeoning. How do you use this damage types on your game? Its not in 4E as far as I´m aware, did I miss something? 

Oops, I forgot to mention that before: I brought back damage types for non-magical attacks.  Really it is for flavor more than anything, but occasionally it gives a benefit (like skeletons taking extra damage from blunt attacks, or zombies taking extra damage from slashing) or hindrance (skeletons taking less damage from piercing).

Exactly, it´s pretty nice... I was very inclined to do it too, but didn't out of pure laziness...and you use it against armor types too?

Were I running a home game instead of LFR:

1: Inherent bonuses.

2: Free expertise/improved defences.

3: All Arms slot items provide a +1/2/3 item bonus to damage rolls.  Now, you actually have a meaningful choice between IAoP and everything else, and non-melee/ranged/staff users have a chance to get on the IBD train.

4: No XP.  Levelling done when appropriate, usually once every 3 sessions.

5: No skill lists.

6: Proper scaling for all non-weapon/implement powers.  That means +3/6/9 vs NAD, or +4/8/12 (I think that's the right maths) vs AC.

Plus a whole mess of other redesign stuff too detailed to go into here - but those are the key points.

I'm about to start up a new campaign and I'm definitely modifying the rules.
For the most part, I'm following what thespaceinvader is doing with free expertise and improved defenses.
For early levels, I'm giving the players an extra encounter power and 2 uses of encounter attack powers.  That way they can use either attack twice or both in the sameenocunter, to avoid some of the at-will grind of early levels.  This will likely go away mid-late heroic.

Even though we're palying in Eberron, where magic is all over, the real powerful stuff is rare.  I dislike the magic item arms race, so I'm working it so the weapons and items they do have will get more powerful as they level up, increasing the bonus and the ability to stack properties or powers, much like how Artifacts get more powerful at higher concordance.

I'm also goign to disallow Immediate Interrupt attacks, except those that are used as part of a Defender's mark mechanic.  However, Immediate Reactions are fine.  However, if the palyers groan or complain, I'll keep them in.  I just don't care for off-turn attacks all that much, I think it really slows down combat.

I'm all about giving out extra flavor feats, like ones that would rearly get picked, but are otherwise good to help flesh out the character concept.  I'm re-doing Dragonmarks a little- The only people who can learn the rituals listed in the feat are those with the Mark, or part of the House.  I'll also add on to the feats to give them more oomph as they level up.
Otherwise, Rituals get the free treatment much like others have listed.  Martial versiosn of Rituals are available for everyone to use, and free or surge based.

We're having Session Zero this Sunday, and I'm offering some homebrew feats and classes- like finishing up the Sentinel Seasons, with different Animal Companions, and maybe even swapping animal companions.  Beastmaster Rangers companions follow the rules for Fey Beast and Sentinel Companion.  Introducing a Shardgun (hand crossbow with a d8 damage really), and letting Swordmages use any type of weapon, not just blades.

4e is pretty easy to pick up and learn, but there's a lot of changes that can be made to make it flow better, but it works out of the box pretty dang well too. 

Nov 30, 2012 -- 9:50AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 6:55AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Oops, I forgot to mention that before: I brought back damage types for non-magical attacks.  Really it is for flavor more than anything, but occasionally it gives a benefit (like skeletons taking extra damage from blunt attacks, or zombies taking extra damage from slashing) or hindrance (skeletons taking less damage from piercing).

Exactly, it´s pretty nice... I was very inclined to do it too, but didn't out of pure laziness...and you use it against armor types too?

Nah, I don't get that fancy.  But certainly you could do it if you wanted.

Also, is it just me or have things on this forum gotten a lot more civil lately?  Much more honest and open trading back and forth of ideas between people.  I like it.

Nov 30, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Arithezoo wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 9:50AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 6:55AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Oops, I forgot to mention that before: I brought back damage types for non-magical attacks.  Really it is for flavor more than anything, but occasionally it gives a benefit (like skeletons taking extra damage from blunt attacks, or zombies taking extra damage from slashing) or hindrance (skeletons taking less damage from piercing).

Exactly, it´s pretty nice... I was very inclined to do it too, but didn't out of pure laziness...and you use it against armor types too?

Nah, I don't get that fancy.  But certainly you could do it if you wanted.

Also, is it just me or have things on this forum gotten a lot more civil lately?  Much more honest and open trading back and forth of ideas between people.  I like it.

I pin it on a number of people who have finally left.

Oh yea, I forgot.

For characters with Ritual Caster/ALchemy/Martial Practice/etc.  feats, I make up lists appropriate to their character with them before a campaign starts and then allow them to learn a ritual (or it's equivalent) for free every even-numbered level. It just makes my treasure more stream-lined. Obviously I reserve certain rituals for quests and things, but for most alchemy items and things stuff, it's much easier this way as I can just give them residuum. 

I also have my own game economics that dictate how much items sell for in a given place (something that is actually edition-neutral from 2e Dark Sun Dune Trader supplement).

I do have one house rule that I plan to implement in my next homecoming game. Versatile weapons count as Two handed weapons for small creatures for the purpose of feats prerequisites and class powers/features. Always felt that is how it should of been from the start.

In general, the number of hands you weild a weapon with should matter more than its category.  but then, that;s one of those many points I'd redesign, if I were redesigning.  Along with use/hold/wield.

Nice to see all this house rules and implementations. Definitely the Expertise and improved defenses feats for free are very popular, I can understand why.

I really dig the inherent bonuses thing, and looking forward to using alternative rewards in my next campaigns. One thing I´m not sure, is removing all the magic item bonuses... I mean some of my players really love they have a +3 sword that does something else... I was wondering... could I make MI more scarce, giving away inherent bonuses, and on top of that allow for some Mi to have it´s regular bonus. Does that sonud too much?

Another thing I was wondering....I could use grandmaster training, legendary and divine boons to replace some of the magic items allowing them to grant normal bonuses and properties, just exactly like MI, and not use the inherent bonus system? kind of mixing the systems... Just ideas that occurred to me, never really tested it... How this sounds to you guys?

Dec 1, 2012 -- 6:28AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

One thing I´m not sure, is removing all the magic item bonuses... I mean some of my players really love they have a +3 sword that does something else... I was wondering... could I make MI more scarce, giving away inherent bonuses, and on top of that allow for some Mi to have it´s regular bonus. Does that sonud too much?

Inherent bonuses do not stack with enhancement bonuses, so if you are using inherant bonuses and the character finds say, a flaming sword, the player would use the higher of the sword's bonus or the inherant bonus and its properties (i.e. inflicting fire damage) would function normally.

The really nice thing about this is that, because many weapon properties don't scale much (the enhancement bonus just gets bigger) a character could pick up a character defining item (such as a flaming sword) in heroic tier and that same item will still be just as useful to them in the epic tier.

My only house rule is that I give the PCs extra points to put into ability scores. It gets rid of the feat taxes for attack bonuses and defences even though some would, of course, decry it as power gaming.

It simply works better for the way we play and, more particularly, how I DM.

Dec 1, 2012 -- 6:28AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nice to see all this house rules and implementations. Definitely the Expertise and improved defenses feats for free are very popular, I can understand why.

I really dig the inherent bonuses thing, and looking forward to using alternative rewards in my next campaigns. One thing I´m not sure, is removing all the magic item bonuses... I mean some of my players really love they have a +3 sword that does something else... I was wondering... could I make MI more scarce, giving away inherent bonuses, and on top of that allow for some Mi to have it´s regular bonus. Does that sonud too much?

Another thing I was wondering....I could use grandmaster training, legendary and divine boons to replace some of the magic items allowing them to grant normal bonuses and properties, just exactly like MI, and not use the inherent bonus system? kind of mixing the systems... Just ideas that occurred to me, never really tested it... How this sounds to you guys?

If you break it down, you're usually looking at an avg. of +1 to attack/damage/defenses on magic weapliments, armour, and neck slot items at 3rd level and every 5 thereafter. 

For the 'expertise' and defense bonuses, I just give them in the middle of each tier. 

I haven't played 4e in a little, so I may be forgetting some minor adjustments (for instance, to AC), but this is the gist of it.

I usually just give everyone everything at once to keep it simple, and so that people at the table don't feel 'weak' or 'strong' relative to the other characters.

I do it thus:
Lvl      Bonus (Attack/Damage/Defenses)
1        
2
3         +1 (Inherent Bonus - IB)
4
5         +1 (Free Feat Bonus - FFB)
6
7
8         +1 (IB)
9
10 
11
12
13        +1 (IB)
14
15        +1 (FFB)
16
17
18        +1 (IB)
19
20
21
22
23         +1 (IB)
24
25         +1 (FFB)
26
27
28         +1 (IB)
29
30 

Dec 1, 2012 -- 6:28AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

I really dig the inherent bonuses thing, and looking forward to using alternative rewards in my next campaigns. One thing I´m not sure, is removing all the magic item bonuses... I mean some of my players really love they have a +3 sword that does something else... I was wondering... could I make MI more scarce, giving away inherent bonuses, and on top of that allow for some Mi to have it´s regular bonus. Does that sonud too much?

If you're going to do something like that, I'd recommend cutting the item enhancement bonuses down.  +0 for most stuff, and let the properties or powers on the item be the real draw.  +1 items for the more special stuff, and maybe a +2 in there somewhere for something really major.  The main purpose of the inherent bonus system is to reduce dependancy on magic items, and by making them too buff, you undermine that purpose, so while it is possible, I'd recommend a light touch.

Dec 2, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Dec 1, 2012 -- 6:28AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

I really dig the inherent bonuses thing, and looking forward to using alternative rewards in my next campaigns. One thing I´m not sure, is removing all the magic item bonuses... I mean some of my players really love they have a +3 sword that does something else... I was wondering... could I make MI more scarce, giving away inherent bonuses, and on top of that allow for some Mi to have it´s regular bonus. Does that sonud too much?

If you're going to do something like that, I'd recommend cutting the item enhancement bonuses down.  +0 for most stuff, and let the properties or powers on the item be the real draw.  +1 items for the more special stuff, and maybe a +2 in there somewhere for something really major.  The main purpose of the inherent bonus system is to reduce dependancy on magic items, and by making them too buff, you undermine that purpose, so while it is possible, I'd recommend a light touch.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I'm pretty sure the math in 4e assumes a scale of +1  from magical items/inherent bonuses every 5 levels or so. Magical abilities of the 'big 3' usually determine where, within that 5 level spread, you get the +1, but it's not like in 3e, where you actually trade the enhancement bonus for abilities. 

EX: a +1 Magic Sword would be a lvl 1-2 magic item. Whereas a +1 Vorpal Sword (which doesn't technically exist, having a lower enhancement threshold of +5 I think, but for the sake of the example, it...) would be a lvl 5 magic item. Likewise with higher level items, so a +3 Magic Sword would be like a lvl 11-12 magic item, but a +3 Vorpal Sword would be a lvl 15 magic item. Basically, you stall on getting items with better abilities til later levels OR they count for more at lower levels in terms of the parcel system, but they still always have a bonus of +1 to +6.

In 3e, it was more like +X Magic Sword OR (+0) Vorpal Sword (though, again, the 'vorpal' property actually had some lower threshold of enhancement, and so, was not typically available until higher levels).  In this method, you actually traded the enhancement bonus to hit/damage for a magical porperty, lowering the enhancement bonus. It should be noted in 3e that, although you could only benefit from up to a +5 enhancement bonus (I think that was the number), you (eventually) had a theoretical +10 bonus to work with, so you could grab a few extra properties without sacrificing enhancement. 

The reason people give out free expertise and defense boost is because about half-way through the product release for 4e, people figured out a glitch in the math for monsters, which made them slightly too deadly at higher levels if you didn't. Since this 'feat tax' was basically rendered mandatory for the sake of game mechanics, (and thus, didn't really add anything to the characterization of PC's), people started giving it out for free. 

I may be off with this as I haven't looked at the books in a while (they're currently packed away in a box I'm not about to try an dig up), but this is how I remember it working more or less. 

Dec 2, 2012 -- 1:07PM, OskarOisinson wrote:

 Correct me if I'm wrong but,  

You're not wrong, but I don't need a lesson on how 4e works.  I already know.  I'm advising Rupert on a possible house rule he was interested in.

Dec 2, 2012 -- 1:52PM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Dec 2, 2012 -- 1:07PM, OskarOisinson wrote:

 Correct me if I'm wrong but,  

You're not wrong, but I don't need a lesson on how 4e works.  I already know.  I'm advising Rupert on a possible house rule he was interested in.

Sorry, I guess I didn't quite understand what Rupert was asking and thus, what you were replying to. 

Just trying to help.

I was also directing all that more at Rupert than you, I just wanted to quote your response to he'd know what I was trying to clarify. 

Dec 2, 2012 -- 1:07PM, OskarOisinson wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I'm pretty sure the math in 4e assumes a scale of +1  from magical items/inherent bonuses every 5 levels or so.

So?  If you're using Inherent Bonuses — +1 enhancement to attacks/damage at 2nd and every 5 after, +1 enhancement to defenses at 4th and every 5 after — then, at least at those levels, the standard magic enhancement bonuses (especially for weapons) are effectively 0 anyway.  If you have a Magic Longsword +1 at level 2 or above, it's the exact same as a non-magic Longsword, down to the critical dice.  The only thing that matters, after level 1 anyway, is the properties, and if it's a step ahead or not.  If you want to call a "Level 7 magic weapon" a +1 longsword, instead, and just let the enhancement stack, then why can't you?  Sure, it's not RAW — but this thread hasn't been about RAW.

Dec 2, 2012 -- 2:45PM, swmabie wrote:

Dec 2, 2012 -- 1:07PM, OskarOisinson wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I'm pretty sure the math in 4e assumes a scale of +1  from magical items/inherent bonuses every 5 levels or so.

So?  If you're using Inherent Bonuses — +1 enhancement to attacks/damage at 2nd and every 5 after, +1 enhancement to defenses at 4th and every 5 after — then, at least at those levels, the standard magic enhancement bonuses (especially for weapons) are effectively 0 anyway.  If you have a Magic Longsword +1 at level 2 or above, it's the exact same as a non-magic Longsword, down to the critical dice.  The only thing that matters, after level 1 anyway, is the properties, and if it's a step ahead or not.  If you want to call a "Level 7 magic weapon" a +1 longsword, instead, and just let the enhancement stack, then why can't you?  Sure, it's not RAW — but this thread hasn't been about RAW.

I'm not sure I'm following you, but then again, I think I was responding erroneously to Pashalik/Rupert anyway vis-a-vis a misreading of their post. I had thought Pashalik was telling Rupert to trade enhancement for properties, which, by the math of the game in 4e, would've, eventually, serverely gimped characters in Rupert's games, but which is reminiscent of 3e, so I had thought maybe one of them had confused the two editions' rules or something. 

The way rupert had initially posed his question I guess confused me a little so I was trying to clarify the distinctions between the editions, and give the base-line for him to work from, turned out it wasn't needed I guess. 

Dec 2, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Dec 1, 2012 -- 6:28AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

I really dig the inherent bonuses thing, and looking forward to using alternative rewards in my next campaigns. One thing I´m not sure, is removing all the magic item bonuses... I mean some of my players really love they have a +3 sword that does something else... I was wondering... could I make MI more scarce, giving away inherent bonuses, and on top of that allow for some Mi to have it´s regular bonus. Does that sonud too much?

If you're going to do something like that, I'd recommend cutting the item enhancement bonuses down.  +0 for most stuff, and let the properties or powers on the item be the real draw.  +1 items for the more special stuff, and maybe a +2 in there somewhere for something really major.  The main purpose of the inherent bonus system is to reduce dependancy on magic items, and by making them too buff, you undermine that purpose, so while it is possible, I'd recommend a light touch.

All right, thanks for the advice Pashalik. I might go for something along this lines...  After looking at the rules and reading some of the comments here it makes sense that you can actually keep the enhancement bonus but it doesn't stack with inherent bonus, meaning if they get one item that is one or two steps above their level, that will still count as +1, +2 and so on... so +2 IS a big deal.

I also want a few artifacts to be part fo the campaign as well, and those are probably going to be around for a few levels when they are important to the story, then vanish. In this case I would like artifacts to play a key hole to allow the characters to face treats that would otherwise be impossible. I really used to lots of magic items, but I´m going to change this time, I plan on having one or two artifacts per tier of play, probably 8, 12 major magical items... Let´s see how this works.

thanks guys for the advice, and Oscarosinson, thanks for taking the time to breakdown the levels. =)

Nov 30, 2012 -- 2:37PM, Salla wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Arithezoo wrote:

Also, is it just me or have things on this forum gotten a lot more civil lately?  Much more honest and open trading back and forth of ideas between people.  I like it.

I pin it on a number of people who have finally left.

Personally I think it because we have the 5e general forums to let everything out in and come "home" more relaxed...

Dec 2, 2012 -- 3:12PM, OskarOisinson wrote:

I'm not sure I'm following you, but then again, I think I was responding erroneously to Pashalik/Rupert anyway vis-a-vis a misreading of their post.

Yeah, by the time I saw that, I'd already posted though, and since I'd been wanting to mention the whole "effectively +0" thing anyway, I left it as was.  No problem at all....

Though, I do have an OCD need to correct your chart from earlier....
Numbers below are using the "official" inherent enhancement bonuses from the DMG2 (p138), as well as the "unofficial" inherent expertise feat, using the original unerrata'd Weapon/Implement Expertise presented in the PHB2 (p190) with the step-ups at 15 & 25.  The inherent bonuses are all typed, and thus do not stack with the relevant magic item enhancement bonuses or the weapon/implement expertise feat bonuses, but do not carry any additional properties (other than, in the case of the enhancement bonuses, the critical dice associated with such things — 1d6 per plus).

Lvl      Bonus (Attack/Damage/Defenses)
1        
2         +1 enhancement to attacks/damage
3        
4         +1 enhancement to all defenses
5         +1 feat to attacks
6
7         +2 enhancement to attacks/damage
8        
9         +2 enhancement to all defenses
10 
11
12        +3 enhancement to attacks/damage
13       
14        +3 enhancement to all defenses
15        +2 feat to attacks
16
17        +4 enhancement to attacks/damage
18       
19        +4 enhancement to all defenses
20
21
22        +5 enhancement to attacks/damage
23       
24        +5 enhancement to all defenses
25        +3 feat to attacks
26
27        +6 enhancement to attacks/damage
28       
29        +6 enhancement to all defenses
30

Just wanted to thank the people posting their houserules, really helped me finalize my own list.

Dec 2, 2012 -- 6:44PM, swmabie wrote:

Numbers below are using the "official" inherent enhancement bonuses from the DMG2 (p138), as well as the "unofficial" inherent expertise feat, using the original unerrata'd Weapon/Implement Expertise presented in the PHB2 (p190) with the step-ups at 15 & 25.  The inherent bonuses are all typed, and thus do not stack with the relevant magic item enhancement bonuses or the weapon/implement expertise feat bonuses, but do not carry any additional properties (other than, in the case of the enhancement bonuses, the critical dice associated with such things — 1d6 per plus).

Lvl      Bonus (Attack/Damage/Defenses)
1        
2         +1 enhancement to attacks/damage
3        
4         +1 enhancement to all defenses
5         +1 feat to attacks
6
7         +2 enhancement to attacks/damage
8        
9         +2 enhancement to all defenses
10 
11
12        +3 enhancement to attacks/damage
13       
14        +3 enhancement to all defenses
15        +2 feat to attacks
16
17        +4 enhancement to attacks/damage
18       
19        +4 enhancement to all defenses
20
21
22        +5 enhancement to attacks/damage
23       
24        +5 enhancement to all defenses
25        +3 feat to attacks
26
27        +6 enhancement to attacks/damage
28       
29        +6 enhancement to all defenses
30

Yeah, thanks all you guys, this tread is being pretty enlightening to me! I dont´follow the forums regularly, so ... although I know the feats, i didn't know about so many people giving they away for free. When I saw so many of you guys repeating the same thing, I was like WTF? I researched a bit and it seems such feats were made to fix the math a little bit, and are so good, they can be considered a feat tax, making a lot of sense to allow them for free and open room flavorful feats. 

Nov 30, 2012 -- 2:37PM, Salla wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Arithezoo wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 9:50AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 6:55AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Oops, I forgot to mention that before: I brought back damage types for non-magical attacks.  Really it is for flavor more than anything, but occasionally it gives a benefit (like skeletons taking extra damage from blunt attacks, or zombies taking extra damage from slashing) or hindrance (skeletons taking less damage from piercing).

Exactly, it´s pretty nice... I was very inclined to do it too, but didn't out of pure laziness...and you use it against armor types too?

Nah, I don't get that fancy.  But certainly you could do it if you wanted.

Also, is it just me or have things on this forum gotten a lot more civil lately?  Much more honest and open trading back and forth of ideas between people.  I like it.

I pin it on a number of people who have finally left.

Exactly, the 4E forums are now a place only for people who actually care about the game ... much less attrition this way... those haters are too busy at the DDN forums =) finally!

I have a couple of house rules that I use for my campaign.  So I don't use 4 RAW.  Just some tweaks to make things more fun or interesting.

1.  Everyone gets a free expertise feat and improved defenses, at levels 1 and 5 respectively.  I want players to spend feats on fun stuff rather than have them worry about the numbers.  The expertise feat is the basic expertise feat, without any of the extra benefits, like extra damage with combat advantage.  I view those feats as having valid benefits beyond math fixes.  They are welcome to take any of the expertise feats with other benefits as part of their normal feat selection.

2.  I give an extra action point for particularly heroic actions.  If a player does something awesome or takes a big risk to be a hero, I reward them for it.  It's at my descretion, of course, but it seems to work nicely.

3.  Everyone at the table gets a playing card.  If anything at the table comes up and a player has a major problems with it, they throw down their card.  The game stops and we discuss it until resolved.  then the game resumes.  Solve problems right on the spot rather than let them fester or build up player resentment. 

4.  Everyone at my table must play a good character.  Evil or unaligned (aka evil and a jerk) just lead to party infighting.  Everyone must be good and work together.  It is a group activity after all, so everyone should be able to have fun.  Plus it gets to be a royal pain to constantly read backstabbing notes from all the players. 

5.  No one gets into my game without filling out a character questionairre.  I ask for details and things in a short list of character questions, to help with role playing.  No one gives me a hard time about it.  Actually, they really like it.  Gets them thinking about their characters.  I get a ton of backstory from my players that I can use in game.  It's great. 

I have a few house rules.

1: no essentials builds.
2: no expertise feats.
3: at levels you do not normally receive feats, you get bonus racial feats. These can only be retrained for other racial feats. If you are playing a race that doesn't have any racial feats (monsters, Shades and Vryloca from HoS), tough.
4: no hybrids

I'm thinking that house rule 5 will be :Dead Tree edition. If it isn't published in a physical, real, tangible book, it does not exist. Period. No erratta. What was printed originally is what exists. Unless there is an actual problem/conflict. Sure, some powers are broken, and others are too feeble to be worth the ink they are printed on. And we might have to actually manually flip through books rather than using either of the character builder programs. Tough. That's what we did in 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5.

Since I didn't actually post mine last time:

1.  1 Free Expertise feat and Improved Defenses, at character creation.  Most players will end up taking these anyway, and they're generally quite happy to skip ahead to the 'fun' feats.  Some players wouldn't end up taking these anyway, but I've never had them complain about getting them for free.  And if I have some of the second type in my group, I get to subtly reduce the gap between their characters' power and everyone elses'.

2. I usually give the players a few extra points for point buy.   6-10 extra points, usually.  I find it common for players to take the extra points and grab an unconventional multiclass or get a better modifier for a skill they want.  Some also feel better about unconventional race/class choices, because the extra points 'make up' for what their race isn't giving them.  

3. No raise dead.  If you die, you are dead.  If the group is really hankering to get someone back from the dead, I'll let them go on a long, awesome quest for it, like in Chrono Trigger. 

I also tend to use inherent bonuses, and to homebrew most of my monsters and loot. 

Our group typically only uses one houserule, as I don't consider inherent bonuses a houserule; they're in the DMG2, after all.  Using them is a choice of rules, not really a houserule.

In our group, when we realized that even with the errata, a Rogue couldn't use a rapier without a feat, we decided to houserule it into their arsenal.  We were rather disgusted at the incredibly short list of weaponry that the Rogue class had available, as it just seemed pointlessly limiting, and felt the inability to use a rapier denied the Rogue archetype that it felt like many of the class powers were made for--the classic swashbuckler.

Otherwise, we pretty much stick to the RAW.  We don't even use most of the errata unless we feel it benefits the game, and we tend to pick and choose what errata and what parts of the Essentials upgrades we use.  For instance, we use the Essentials rules on racial stats--that there's one defined stat bonus and a second that is a choice between two--but the majority of our rules decisions are made based on what's in the original 4e core three books.

Another vote for free expertise feat and imp. defenses (at level 1 and 11, respectively.)

28 point buy for character creation, due to a 4 player group and to improve secondary role effectiveness.

We're all new to 4e, and mostly new to tabletop gaming, and or a while we were using a rule where standing up from prone would provoke an opportunity attack from adjacent enemies.  That was due to a initial misreading of the rules ... that caused some interesting tactical options, but we dropped the rule recently.

With DM negotiation,  feats and powers that are red/purple/green in a char-op guide can be combined/tweaked, especially if they are more role-play oriented.

Edit:  Custom theme,  mixing Sorcere Adept and Scholar  for the ritual caster feat and the monster knowledge check stuff.

Nov 28, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

After This years playing 4E do you play 100% RAW? you discovered some house rules, or subtle modifications that you think suit your game style better? I was reading comments on Inherent bonuses and Rituals in the other thread and I got curious to know what major or minor tunning other people have made to D&D along the way. If you can explain why you did it and the result in you group it would be great.

I've never used any house rules per-se in 4e. You can simply play anything that is in CB and it all works like the book says.

OTOH I think you'd find that HOW the rules get used may vary a lot from what I've seen in other games. Usually when PCs take feats and powers for instance there's a good story reason why they end up with what they get. There's no rule about this, but it just works that way. For instance one of the players decided that it would be GREAT if the party took all took a tribal feat (The one that adds to everyone's HS value), so voila when they ran into an orc shaman he 'blessed' them (with a big huge fight that knocked most of them out cold, lol) and the spirit of the fire mountain made them tougher. They also hit 8th level and consequently took the feat.

Things are always like that in my games. PCs acquire or make items, get boons, etc in odd ways. Encounters are often quite an extrapolation from what you would imagine 4e design is about, etc. Many times the story implications and narrative needs of the situation mean that things work in ways that don't necessarily match with specific mechanics.

Dec 2, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Dec 1, 2012 -- 6:28AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

I really dig the inherent bonuses thing, and looking forward to using alternative rewards in my next campaigns. One thing I´m not sure, is removing all the magic item bonuses... I mean some of my players really love they have a +3 sword that does something else... I was wondering... could I make MI more scarce, giving away inherent bonuses, and on top of that allow for some Mi to have it´s regular bonus. Does that sonud too much?

If you're going to do something like that, I'd recommend cutting the item enhancement bonuses down.  +0 for most stuff, and let the properties or powers on the item be the real draw.  +1 items for the more special stuff, and maybe a +2 in there somewhere for something really major.  The main purpose of the inherent bonus system is to reduce dependancy on magic items, and by making them too buff, you undermine that purpose, so while it is possible, I'd recommend a light touch.

I pretty much scale items anyway, with rare exceptions. Honestly I play very fast and loose with the whole treasure system and the very concept of 'treasure'. If it was up to me to redesign things feats, items, boons, and treasure would all sort of meld into one nebulous category with just guidelines for DMs and players about how to mush it all around to let players tweak their characters and DMs tweak their world and story at the same time.

Anyway, I never worry about treasure anymore. PCs get the item based bonuses they need "one way or another" but its really rather trivial to make it all work as long as you're not too fixated on the exact stuff in the books. I'd say it is also a bit fuzzy what would be a 'magic item', an 'artifact' or a 'boon', hehe.

I like to have fun with the 'disease' track too, it is nice for curses and other things.

Dec 3, 2012 -- 4:35AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 2:37PM, Salla wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Arithezoo wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 9:50AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 6:55AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Oops, I forgot to mention that before: I brought back damage types for non-magical attacks.  Really it is for flavor more than anything, but occasionally it gives a benefit (like skeletons taking extra damage from blunt attacks, or zombies taking extra damage from slashing) or hindrance (skeletons taking less damage from piercing).

Exactly, it´s pretty nice... I was very inclined to do it too, but didn't out of pure laziness...and you use it against armor types too?

Nah, I don't get that fancy.  But certainly you could do it if you wanted.

Also, is it just me or have things on this forum gotten a lot more civil lately?  Much more honest and open trading back and forth of ideas between people.  I like it.

I pin it on a number of people who have finally left.

Exactly, the 4E forums are now a place only for people who actually care about the game ... much less attrition this way... those haters are too busy at the DDN forums =) finally!

Indeed. Now if WotC would just keep supporting 4e as always forever I could even thank them for taking away all the nidiots.

Dec 3, 2012 -- 6:42PM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

3. No raise dead.  If you die, you are dead.  If the group is really hankering to get someone back from the dead, I'll let them go on a long, awesome quest for it, like in Chrono Trigger. 

That sounds good, that´s like the way we have being handling it so far.

I like to play with the idea that bringing some one from the dead is extremely rare, and might cause odd consequences, like personality deviations, strange behaviours and such to a point one might think is it really worth it? to bring some one from the dead. This would happen acording to the procedure choosen, for example some weird shadow ritual would work like the one used in Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones, or Frankenstein's bride, pet cemetery, stuff like that. Maybe a true godly intervention would restore life without weird side effects, but it´s more like what makes sense to the story.

Dec 8, 2012 -- 4:41PM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

After This years playing 4E do you play 100% RAW? you discovered some house rules, or subtle modifications that you think suit your game style better? I was reading comments on Inherent bonuses and Rituals in the other thread and I got curious to know what major or minor tunning other people have made to D&D along the way. If you can explain why you did it and the result in you group it would be great.

I've never used any house rules per-se in 4e. You can simply play anything that is in CB and it all works like the book says.

OTOH I think you'd find that HOW the rules get used may vary a lot from what I've seen in other games. Usually when PCs take feats and powers for instance there's a good story reason why they end up with what they get. There's no rule about this, but it just works that way. For instance one of the players decided that it would be GREAT if the party took all took a tribal feat (The one that adds to everyone's HS value), so voila when they ran into an orc shaman he 'blessed' them (with a big huge fight that knocked most of them out cold, lol) and the spirit of the fire mountain made them tougher. They also hit 8th level and consequently took the feat.

Things are always like that in my games. PCs acquire or make items, get boons, etc in odd ways. Encounters are often quite an extrapolation from what you would imagine 4e design is about, etc. Many times the story implications and narrative needs of the situation mean that things work in ways that don't necessarily match with specific mechanics.

Exactly, this is key, HOW the rules get used, makes a huge difference imo. That´s how I envision it in my groups, everything, every feat, every boon or MI acquired must be a consequence of a story element, not the other way around.  Sometimes one player picks a feat just for the mechanical benefit, but I try to work as much as I can with him to make it work within the character's concept. That's the fun part to me. And the simple idea that some feats acquired in game simply require some kind of ritual or training are great for adding interesting story hooks.

I love your story about the tribal feats. Recently, a dragonborn paladin in our group have to face a red dragon as part of a ritual to gain his improved dragon breath... We tie the dragonborn origin and appearance with his breath type in our campaign. The player would have just  picked it up from the PHB and added it in his record sheet, but it was much more interesting the way we did. I don't do it for every feat each character acquires, but sometimes it´s pretty neat, and creates endless missions, small adventures, that can be an end on itself, or became a hook to a bigger adventure. Sometimes it can be considered rewards acording to something a character did during the adventure. My players seem to like this method a lot, instead simply picking from the book when you level.

Nov 28, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

After This years playing 4E do you play 100% RAW? you discovered some house rules, or subtle modifications that you think suit your game style better? I was reading comments on Inherent bonuses and Rituals in the other thread and I got curious to know what major or minor tunning other people have made to D&D along the way. If you can explain why you did it and the result in you group it would be great.

I'm going to make a possibly controversial statement here:

If you are playing any version of D&D 100% RAW, and I mean EXACTLY by the rules, no house rules whatsoever, not one dice-fudge or hand-wave, then you are playing it wrong.

The best rule you can use is from page 1 of the original DMG; use the rules you want.

Dec 11, 2012 -- 7:35AM, SwampDog wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

After This years playing 4E do you play 100% RAW? you discovered some house rules, or subtle modifications that you think suit your game style better? I was reading comments on Inherent bonuses and Rituals in the other thread and I got curious to know what major or minor tunning other people have made to D&D along the way. If you can explain why you did it and the result in you group it would be great.

I'm going to make a possibly controversial statement here:

If you are playing any version of D&D 100% RAW, and I mean EXACTLY by the rules, no house rules whatsoever, not one dice-fudge or hand-wave, then you are playing it wrong.

The best rule you can use is from page 1 of the original DMG; use the rules you want.

Yeah, the question goes specifically to 4E, because IME it works fine out of the box with little or no house rules. It was kind of inherent on previous editions that many things would be house ruled, and several rules where presented as optional.

Dec 11, 2012 -- 7:56AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Dec 11, 2012 -- 7:35AM, SwampDog wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

After This years playing 4E do you play 100% RAW? you discovered some house rules, or subtle modifications that you think suit your game style better? I was reading comments on Inherent bonuses and Rituals in the other thread and I got curious to know what major or minor tunning other people have made to D&D along the way. If you can explain why you did it and the result in you group it would be great.

I'm going to make a possibly controversial statement here:

If you are playing any version of D&D 100% RAW, and I mean EXACTLY by the rules, no house rules whatsoever, not one dice-fudge or hand-wave, then you are playing it wrong.

The best rule you can use is from page 1 of the original DMG; use the rules you want.

Yeah, the question goes specifically to 4E, because IME it works fine out of the box with little or no house rules. It was kind of inherent on previous editions that many things would be house ruled, and several rules where presented as optional.

This is true to some degree. I feel I don't need to many housrules fixing things. But 4e feels pretty bare bones compared to previous editions. I've caught myself trying to add more complex things into the system.

Dec 11, 2012 -- 6:06AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Dec 3, 2012 -- 6:42PM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

3. No raise dead.  If you die, you are dead.  If the group is really hankering to get someone back from the dead, I'll let them go on a long, awesome quest for it, like in Chrono Trigger. 

That sounds good, that´s like the way we have being handling it so far.

I like to play with the idea that bringing some one from the dead is extremely rare, and might cause odd consequences, like personality deviations, strange behaviours and such to a point one might think is it really worth it? to bring some one from the dead. This would happen acording to the procedure choosen, for example some weird shadow ritual would work like the one used in Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones, or Frankenstein's bride, pet cemetery, stuff like that. Maybe a true godly intervention would restore life without weird side effects, but it´s more like what makes sense to the story.

Reminds me of Pet Sematary by Stephen King.

Dec 11, 2012 -- 11:57AM, Felorn wrote:

Dec 11, 2012 -- 6:06AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Dec 3, 2012 -- 6:42PM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

3. No raise dead.  If you die, you are dead.  If the group is really hankering to get someone back from the dead, I'll let them go on a long, awesome quest for it, like in Chrono Trigger. 

That sounds good, that´s like the way we have being handling it so far.

I like to play with the idea that bringing some one from the dead is extremely rare, and might cause odd consequences, like personality deviations, strange behaviours and such to a point one might think is it really worth it? to bring some one from the dead. This would happen acording to the procedure choosen, for example some weird shadow ritual would work like the one used in Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones, or Frankenstein's bride, pet cemetery, stuff like that. Maybe a true godly intervention would restore life without weird side effects, but it´s more like what makes sense to the story.

Reminds me of Pet Sematary by Stephen King.

Yeah, I miss-spelled it there.  =)

Dec 11, 2012 -- 6:06AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Dec 3, 2012 -- 6:42PM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

3. No raise dead.  If you die, you are dead.  If the group is really hankering to get someone back from the dead, I'll let them go on a long, awesome quest for it, like in Chrono Trigger. 

That sounds good, that´s like the way we have being handling it so far.

I like to play with the idea that bringing some one from the dead is extremely rare, and might cause odd consequences, like personality deviations, strange behaviours and such to a point one might think is it really worth it? to bring some one from the dead. This would happen acording to the procedure choosen, for example some weird shadow ritual would work like the one used in Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones, or Frankenstein's bride, pet cemetery, stuff like that. Maybe a true godly intervention would restore life without weird side effects, but it´s more like what makes sense to the story.

I think this kind of thing is great RP, and quite fun, but is it really something that needs rules? I mean I'd be happy enough with some sort of 'quirks and traits' sort of thing (there are a bizillion of them around already) that you can use for ideas (if you want to roll dice, please do so by all means), but why make it seem obligatory. A lot of groups are really perfectly good with trivial death.

Dec 11, 2012 -- 6:42AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Dec 8, 2012 -- 4:41PM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

After This years playing 4E do you play 100% RAW? you discovered some house rules, or subtle modifications that you think suit your game style better? I was reading comments on Inherent bonuses and Rituals in the other thread and I got curious to know what major or minor tunning other people have made to D&D along the way. If you can explain why you did it and the result in you group it would be great.

I've never used any house rules per-se in 4e. You can simply play anything that is in CB and it all works like the book says.

OTOH I think you'd find that HOW the rules get used may vary a lot from what I've seen in other games. Usually when PCs take feats and powers for instance there's a good story reason why they end up with what they get. There's no rule about this, but it just works that way. For instance one of the players decided that it would be GREAT if the party took all took a tribal feat (The one that adds to everyone's HS value), so voila when they ran into an orc shaman he 'blessed' them (with a big huge fight that knocked most of them out cold, lol) and the spirit of the fire mountain made them tougher. They also hit 8th level and consequently took the feat.

Things are always like that in my games. PCs acquire or make items, get boons, etc in odd ways. Encounters are often quite an extrapolation from what you would imagine 4e design is about, etc. Many times the story implications and narrative needs of the situation mean that things work in ways that don't necessarily match with specific mechanics.

Exactly, this is key, HOW the rules get used, makes a huge difference imo. That´s how I envision it in my groups, everything, every feat, every boon or MI acquired must be a consequence of a story element, not the other way around.  Sometimes one player picks a feat just for the mechanical benefit, but I try to work as much as I can with him to make it work within the character's concept. That's the fun part to me. And the simple idea that some feats acquired in game simply require some kind of ritual or training are great for adding interesting story hooks.

I love your story about the tribal feats. Recently, a dragonborn paladin in our group have to face a red dragon as part of a ritual to gain his improved dragon breath... We tie the dragonborn origin and appearance with his breath type in our campaign. The player would have just  picked it up from the PHB and added it in his record sheet, but it was much more interesting the way we did. I don't do it for every feat each character acquires, but sometimes it´s pretty neat, and creates endless missions, small adventures, that can be an end on itself, or became a hook to a bigger adventure. Sometimes it can be considered rewards acording to something a character did during the adventure. My players seem to like this method a lot, instead simply picking from the book when you level.

Right. I have to admit I'm far from clever enough to work in every feat or item like this of course, but at least some of them get worked in and that adds hugely to character development. I think if I were rewriting 4e I'd break down things into more of one bigger pool, like make items and feats all a sort of "boon" type of mechanic where you basically get them on a schedule, but it is all story-oriented. It relieves a lot of design constraints for one thing. Honestly I sort of think that when people are designing an RPG they tend to imagine that everything will get used that way. 4e really doesn't present its options in a way that encourages that.

Dec 11, 2012 -- 11:49AM, Felorn wrote:

Dec 11, 2012 -- 7:56AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Dec 11, 2012 -- 7:35AM, SwampDog wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

After This years playing 4E do you play 100% RAW? you discovered some house rules, or subtle modifications that you think suit your game style better? I was reading comments on Inherent bonuses and Rituals in the other thread and I got curious to know what major or minor tunning other people have made to D&D along the way. If you can explain why you did it and the result in you group it would be great.

I'm going to make a possibly controversial statement here:

If you are playing any version of D&D 100% RAW, and I mean EXACTLY by the rules, no house rules whatsoever, not one dice-fudge or hand-wave, then you are playing it wrong.

The best rule you can use is from page 1 of the original DMG; use the rules you want.

Yeah, the question goes specifically to 4E, because IME it works fine out of the box with little or no house rules. It was kind of inherent on previous editions that many things would be house ruled, and several rules where presented as optional.

This is true to some degree. I feel I don't need to many housrules fixing things. But 4e feels pretty bare bones compared to previous editions. I've caught myself trying to add more complex things into the system.

It isn't bare bones in terms of having enough stuff. It is just easy to see it all as very mechanical and pigeon-holed. At the same time once you just stop worrying about playing like it is presented then it seems to me its a very rich system. The players have to play along with that though. I admit I have good players, a few now and then are newbies but there's a good proportion of good old reliables that like to RP and fool around with games. It may not work so well for those players that feel like they need to go 'by the book' for things like flavor.

Oh, another thing I've found myself doing sometimes.  I'll put in what I call "retroactive skill challenges".  This is where if the party spends a significant chunk of time on some RP, and more than one or two skills end up getting rolled, even if I hadn't planned for it, later I'll give them XP as though it had been a planned skill challenge.