[4e] Various Homebrew Material (I've made)

[Iamnotsuicidesoldier1]

[4e] Various Homebrew Material (I've made)

So I thought I'd share with you the various homebrew stuff I've come up with, although it varies in quality from thing to thing. Some of my ideas are completely fleshed out yet and some I've halted work on as I can't decided what direction to go, and may end up splitting it in to multiple parts. But nonetheless I've been a lot more prolific than I expected, so I thought I'd share some things! Virtually all of those focuses on 4e, although I have a lot of stuff for world of darkness, too. What are some examples of homebrew stuff, you've made?

The very basic changes to the rules would be that any race can have any attributes, so a Dragonborn could have +2 dexterity and strength or a halfling +2 Strength and Con. The same applies to powers, and you can use the highest ability modifier for all racial powers instead of what's listed (so a tiefling could use strength instead of Charisma and so on for their power). I feel this makes the game a bit more balanced if you want to go with a weirder character choice, and also is more realistic since learned attributes and not just those you were born often have an impact on how you turn out. D&D is kind of racist when you think about it (but not really). The second major change to mechanics would be that your magic item bonus scales with level, instead of items. So if you had a level 4 magic weapon of some kind and were level 6, you'd get an enhancement bonus to +2, even though you'd need to be level 9 to get the +2 bonus with that item or the level 4 item itself gains a +2 bonus. Conversely a level 21 item would qualify as a level 11 if you were level 13, and so on. The scaling for enhancement bonus is instead dependent on level rather than the item, specifically +1 a level 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 26, instead of dependent on equipment. This way if you use improvised weapons, like a spear you found, or want to stick with a magic item way past it's level, you can theoretically. It's scales better and makes item choices less dependent on damage mechanics and more on special abilities.

Then, you get one free proficiency and expertise feat at character generation (for implements or weapons), as I feel it's an unnecessary feat tax that slows the game down, and two free racial feats at character creation and one more at paragon tier and epic, because those are annoying to pick up along the way. Feats can be really important or really weak, and dumber feats that are weaker but still have a cool ability might be something you want to pick up and shouldn't come at an expense to damage or critical to gameplay. This way min-maxing no longer makes the characters stale and somewhat boring. In my opinion, this sort of removes a lot of the hassle of min-maxing not by removing the ability to do so, but by maxing everyone out. That way it's an equal playing field but you still get the really cool items/feats, and it balances out well with monsters in the books (which also have scaling defenses and such). Also racial bonuses being for free means it's inherent to a race which makes race more interesting. One thing you can optionally eliminate is the level bonus to defenses, attack rolls and so on, so you're basically stuck with level 1 attributes the whole time. The only drawback to this is you'll have to self-scale leveled monsters in the books to being at appropriate bonus to hit and defenses. This simply makes the math of the game simpler and less complex, and makes drawbacks to any particular attribute or skill (such a -3 to athletics) far more significant. Also, the ability requirements for feat (strength, dexerity etc.) are almost completely removed, which means you can get plate even if you are wisdom primary, or get hammer rhythm without constitution etc.

Finally, there's the individual changes to things, which are minor. You can deal 1d6 extra damage on a charge and gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls, with the horned helm simply being eliminated from the game (as an extra item tax). The minotaur racial instead applies on a charge, and does an extra 1d6 damage and knocks the target prone, rather than being a charge attack which does 1d6 damage. The Goliath racial power can be activated as a free action on a trigger if you are targeted with an attack, so it can be activated before you are hit with an attack and work retroactively to reduce damage. Finally, Dragonborn get a lot of neat bonus feats, because I always felt the Dragonborn were awesome but a little weak. They basically enhance dragonbreath and allow you to use it more than once, causing additional effects dependent on your breath type, or the target is slowed if cold, takes ongoing damage with fire etc.

So without futher ado, here's the list! Most, but not all, can be found on my page at D&D wiki.  

[Iamnotsuicidesoldier1]

Example Homebrew Material

Death Knight
The Death Knight is essentially a striker class with heavy armor which use's minions, or a creature, to replace the hunter's quarry or warlock curse D8 of striker classes and replaces it with a secondary minion that does the same damage. The damage is low, but they can target separate creatures from you, and have their own secondary powers. It's both an advantage and disadvantage, as they have to be next to the creature you are to attack it and deal damage, and also can die which makes the extra damage go away for the rest of the encounter or depending on how many times, day. On the flip side, it's an advantage because it can soak extra damage and doesn't have to be the creature nearest to you, and I plan on developing a feat for rangers and warlocks that allows you to replace their curse or quarry with a creature, as well (although that is going to take time to flesh out).

There's also an uncompleted psionic version that's more similar to wow, and they use stance and auras to effect their damage or defense abilities.

Necormancer
Like the Death Knight, they summon a creature to fight for you, but that creature is insanely power and responsible for the bulk of your damage, dealing for instance 3d10 + Constitution with a felguard (equal to 23.5 damage on average, with enhancement bonuses) or 4d6 with a succubus, or uses a sword to do melee attacks like with binders.

Other classes
The Crusader is basically an essentials paladin remake similar to that of wow who uses seals and such to deal extra damage and has some neat buffs for other players. The Warrior and Zealot are striker variants of the Fighter and Paladin, which basically are the same classes only with less health, that use heavy armor, and have different at-wills and power to boost the average damage. This gives a heavy armor striker class that isn't essentials, with virtually the only one being the slayer and blackguard which were only kind of meh.

Races
The troll is kind of an anti-elf, they gain regeneration 1/2/3 when in combat and a few other nifty abilities. I really don't like a lot of the other races I made since they're not all that well fleshed out, but there's also an Orc
and Goblin which I felt was needed in the game. I feel like most of the races I've made are missing something. The Goblin focuses on movement and the Orc on extra health (which no other race has at character creation). A good rule of thumb is to allow them to use feats and paragon paths of an established race, such as Half-orc or Dragonborn and so on, so you don't have to rework completely new paragon paths and feats for them and things.

Feats n stuff
A feat for the dragonborn gives an extra ongoing effect to the power, and allows it to be a close burst 1, area burst 1, or close blast 3. A theme for Dragonborn, and a them for other races allows them to pick up the dragonborn racial power and have dragonborn as a secondary racial type (so they can pick up feats and things). A lot of feats are race or class specific, and contingent specifically on boosting said classes or races.

Equipment
I've been rather prolific with weapons, and have made quite a few things I feel like weren't in the original game. Once is a 3D4 axe which is a Macuahuitl, or mayan weapon and another is a craghammer equivalent for the spear and axe, known as the macana spear. There's also the Macana Mace, which basically is just a 2d4 hammer with +3 to hit. Then there's the gladius (also used in Skyrim game variants as the "Imperial Sword" ) which is a light blade that does 2d4 damage and is +3, Dagger-axe which does +3 and 2d6, and the Claymore, which allows you to half-sword and increase the damage die by one in order to remove the reach property. There's also a personal favorite, which is the Uruk-Hai pickaxe, like found in the Lord of the Rings, which is basically a craghammer equivalent only retyped as a heavy blade and pick.  

[SCN_ Grey_fox]

I am kind of confused, (just read the first post after being forced up by a neighbours band practice) Did you want us to critic your work?

If so why are you giving Dragonborn a dexterity booster shot? If you don't have the dragon magazine, it is understandable but, they already have two Dragonborn sub-species, Draconian.

Having a feat or some other ability, to change a power, for example; Ranger's melee Twin strike to work with Dexterity or Wisdom might be better than adjusting the racial stat boosters.

About the two free feats at start: I like it as it means you didn't just sit on your hands as a child, but...

What if your character already had what s/he needs; Can he use those two feats for something else(not proficiency or expertise wise), or do we have to waste them on something that is proficiency/expertise wise)?

On the same topic, just a thought; why not link the two feat types? I mean make it where you gain proficiency with all weapons/implement that fall under a certain expertise feat. OR, make it where the Expertise feat only effects one type of weapon(Expertise;Heavy blade:Longsword, for example)

The rest of that paragraph seemed gibberish to me, sorry... I will read the wiki page later thou.  

[Iamnotsuicidesoldier1]

SCN_ Grey_fox

I am kind of confused, (just read the first post after being forced up by a neighbours band practice) Did you want us to critic your work?

If so why are you giving Dragonborn a dexterity booster shot? If you don't have the dragon magazine, it is understandable but, they already have two Dragonborn sub-species, Draconian.

Having a feat or some other ability, to change a power, for example; Ranger's melee Twin strike to work with Dexterity or Wisdom might be better than adjusting the racial stat boosters.

About the two free feats at start: I like it as it means you didn't just sit on your hands as a child, but...

What if your character already had what s/he needs; Can he use those two feats for something else(not proficiency or expertise wise), or do we have to waste them on something that is proficiency/expertise wise)?

On the same topic, just a thought; why not link the two feat types? I mean make it where you gain proficiency with all weapons/implement that fall under a certain expertise feat. OR, make it where the Expertise feat only effects one type of weapon(Expertise;Heavy blade:Longsword, for example)

The rest of that paragraph seemed gibberish to me, sorry... I will read the wiki page later thou.

I don't mind critiques, I think that would be awesome! blaugh

It's really more just to talk about it, give critiques, or hear what people have to say etc.

See what other people's homebrew stuff is. The Dragonborn race is just an example; all races can use any two abilities, rather than just what they are designed with. This is so the races can fit any role more flexibly, a dragonborn can be a mage, a half-orc a sorcerer, a tiefling a fighter, without balancing issues coming in to play. I feel it's more fun that way and adds to the story element of it.

AS for the expertise feats, the reason I don't want everyone having all weapon or implement proficiencies is because I don't someone to be able to exploit dozens of different implements or weapons and get a bonus for using all of them. Like using a ki focus and then a holy symbol and then another one etc., if you want to do all that it makes sense you'd have to get a few more feats or multiclass and so on. You can likely benefit from a superior implement or weapon of some kind, and the idea is to boost the damage of all classes a bit to make things more balanced, and get the issue out of the way so characters aren't forced to make decisions between say, a weapon proficiency feat and some other feat that might be integral to their character design. A cleric with a craghammer will do 6.5 damage, rather than a smaller figure. You could make it so all classes get full free armor and weapon proficiencies, as in they are just proficient with all weapons and armor, which would make the game a bit easier to go by, but it could also break certain elements of the game, such as a warlock getting full plate being uber defensive, or certain classes starting off with overpowered armor and so on. Although given that it's just a few tax as well, it might be worth considering.

The rest is just an expansion on various game mechanic rules. Charging does an extra 1d6 damage, racial powers can use any ability instead of your highest one, certain racial powers are free actions instead of minors (particularly with the goliath), and the enhancement bonus granted by magical items is granted regardless of whether or not you even have a magic item (so instead of getting +3 to hit with a level 11 magic item, you just always get a +3 hit because you are level 11). The rest are just specific themes, races, classes, feats, and other things I made, rather than inherent changes to the rules themselves.  

[Raganui Minamoto]

>Necromancer
Alright let's see ho-
>Felguard, Succubus
I... But you said Necromancer, not some sort of Demon Summoner.

Sorry, just had to. Definitely Necromancers should do more... necrotic stuff than summoning demons. Skeletons, zombies, other undead. Maybe bloated blobs of flesh that carry horrible disease. Even little sprite things made of blood. Then similar attacks. Grinning, poison dripping skulls. Rays of blood. Many things made of bone. Could go either Striker or Controller with it, really.

Unfortunately, 4e doesn't really have any good necromancy examples to run off of to make it.  

[Iamnotsuicidesoldier1]

Raganui Minamoto

>Necromancer
Alright let's see ho-
>Felguard, Succubus
I... But you said Necromancer, not some sort of Demon Summoner.

Sorry, just had to. Definitely Necromancers should do more... necrotic stuff than summoning demons. Skeletons, zombies, other undead. Maybe bloated blobs of flesh that carry horrible disease. Even little sprite things made of blood. Then similar attacks. Grinning, poison dripping skulls. Rays of blood. Many things made of bone. Could go either Striker or Controller with it, really.

Unfortunately, 4e doesn't really have any good necromancy examples to run off of to make it.

The idea is basically a "summoner" rather than a necromancer, per say. But they have a zombie, ghouls, patchwork horrors and other such things, and the felguards, while very similar to world of warcraft, will only be the same vaguely, rather than absolutely, as storywise they are undead, rather than demon.

But basically yeah it's more demon appearing than zombie appearing for half the stuff. Also you get the choice of undead or more demon like, if you really want to go with the undead in and of itself. The term necromancer just sounds cooler than summoner, and allows them to do other things like shoot fire bolts where as summoner's only, well, summon things.  

[SCN_ Grey_fox]

Iamnotsuicidesoldier1

SCN_ Grey_fox

...

I don't mind critiques, I think that would be awesome! blaugh

It's really more just to talk about it, give critiques, or hear what people have to say etc.

See what other people's homebrew stuff is. The Dragonborn race is just an example; all races can use any two abilities, rather than just what they are designed with. This is so the races can fit any role more flexibly, a dragonborn can be a mage, a half-orc a sorcerer, a tiefling a fighter, without balancing issues coming in to play. I feel it's more fun that way and adds to the story element of it.

AS for the expertise feats, the reason I don't want everyone having all weapon or implement proficiencies is because I don't someone to be able to exploit dozens of different implements or weapons and get a bonus for using all of them. Like using a ki focus and then a holy symbol and then another one etc., if you want to do all that it makes sense you'd have to get a few more feats or multiclass and so on. You can likely benefit from a superior implement or weapon of some kind, and the idea is to boost the damage of all classes a bit to make things more balanced, and get the issue out of the way so characters aren't forced to make decisions between say, a weapon proficiency feat and some other feat that might be integral to their character design. A cleric with a craghammer will do 6.5 damage, rather than a smaller figure. You could make it so all classes get full free armor and weapon proficiencies, as in they are just proficient with all weapons and armor, which would make the game a bit easier to go by, but it could also break certain elements of the game, such as a warlock getting full plate being uber defensive, or certain classes starting off with overpowered armor and so on. Although given that it's just a few tax as well, it might be worth considering.

The rest is just an expansion on various game mechanic rules. Charging does an extra 1d6 damage, racial powers can use any ability instead of your highest one, certain racial powers are free actions instead of minors (particularly with the goliath), and the enhancement bonus granted by magical items is granted regardless of whether or not you even have a magic item (so instead of getting +3 to hit with a level 11 magic item, you just always get a +3 hit because you are level 11). The rest are just specific themes, races, classes, feats, and other things I made, rather than inherent changes to the rules themselves.

Ahh...

For 4e, I was in process of creating a psychic striker(more like Ardent, Battlemind and Psion) and a variant of the Shaman, but stopped when I couldn't think of more than 3 powers for ether one... sweatdrop

I can understand not wanting to give everyone ALL weapons/implements, and you want to lessen the feat tax(which I always felt was considerably less than in 3/3.5/pathfinder, unless if you wanted to power game), I just don't understand how granting 2 free feats of any kind at the start of the tier would equate to balance. It would mean most players get 3 feats at the start, 4 for those rakishly humans. The same boost that the weak damaging classes get from those feats the strong ones get so it doesn't grant any damage balancing.

The same argument is made on why the Avenger is such a weak striker, and the Essentials melee strikers, when someone suggests how to make it stronger. But, if the same effects can be applied to a Rogue/Ranger or other melee striker, then the class isn't stronger.

How is Powerful different than Brutal?

I don't think the Troll is an anti-elf... more like a elf who wants to be an half-orc.

Just my thoughts, I have yet to get to the classes...  

[Iamnotsuicidesoldier1]

SCN_ Grey_fox

Iamnotsuicidesoldier1

SCN_ Grey_fox

...

I don't mind critiques, I think that would be awesome! blaugh

It's really more just to talk about it, give critiques, or hear what people have to say etc.

See what other people's homebrew stuff is. The Dragonborn race is just an example; all races can use any two abilities, rather than just what they are designed with. This is so the races can fit any role more flexibly, a dragonborn can be a mage, a half-orc a sorcerer, a tiefling a fighter, without balancing issues coming in to play. I feel it's more fun that way and adds to the story element of it.

AS for the expertise feats, the reason I don't want everyone having all weapon or implement proficiencies is because I don't someone to be able to exploit dozens of different implements or weapons and get a bonus for using all of them. Like using a ki focus and then a holy symbol and then another one etc., if you want to do all that it makes sense you'd have to get a few more feats or multiclass and so on. You can likely benefit from a superior implement or weapon of some kind, and the idea is to boost the damage of all classes a bit to make things more balanced, and get the issue out of the way so characters aren't forced to make decisions between say, a weapon proficiency feat and some other feat that might be integral to their character design. A cleric with a craghammer will do 6.5 damage, rather than a smaller figure. You could make it so all classes get full free armor and weapon proficiencies, as in they are just proficient with all weapons and armor, which would make the game a bit easier to go by, but it could also break certain elements of the game, such as a warlock getting full plate being uber defensive, or certain classes starting off with overpowered armor and so on. Although given that it's just a few tax as well, it might be worth considering.

The rest is just an expansion on various game mechanic rules. Charging does an extra 1d6 damage, racial powers can use any ability instead of your highest one, certain racial powers are free actions instead of minors (particularly with the goliath), and the enhancement bonus granted by magical items is granted regardless of whether or not you even have a magic item (so instead of getting +3 to hit with a level 11 magic item, you just always get a +3 hit because you are level 11). The rest are just specific themes, races, classes, feats, and other things I made, rather than inherent changes to the rules themselves.

Ahh...

For 4e, I was in process of creating a psychic striker(more like Ardent, Battlemind and Psion) and a variant of the Shaman, but stopped when I couldn't think of more than 3 powers for ether one... sweatdrop

I can understand not wanting to give everyone ALL weapons/implements, and you want to lessen the feat tax(which I always felt was considerably less than in 3/3.5/pathfinder, unless if you wanted to power game), I just don't understand how granting 2 free feats of any kind at the start of the tier would equate to balance. It would mean most players get 3 feats at the start, 4 for those rakishly humans. The same boost that the weak damaging classes get from those feats the strong ones get so it doesn't grant any damage balancing.

The same argument is made on why the Avenger is such a weak striker, and the Essentials melee strikers, when someone suggests how to make it stronger. But, if the same effects can be applied to a Rogue/Ranger or other melee striker, then the class isn't stronger.

How is Powerful different than Brutal?

I don't think the Troll is an anti-elf... more like a elf who wants to be an half-orc.

Just my thoughts, I have yet to get to the classes...

The Demon Hunter will be psychic flavored striker technically, but won't be a psychic flavored character in the general sense that they say, call on telekenetic powers to do damage. It can be hard to come up with powers, which is why I try to have a rough concept of what I want ahead of time and base it on existing classes with various minor changes. The Demon Hunter like the Death Knight will be harder to build since it's mostly completely original, but it's still based around other class ideas.

Powerful is not much different than brutal, it's just an extra effect mechanically, also less annoying than re-rolling. And the troll is only vaguely meant to be an anti-elf, rather than a raw anti-elf. The half-orc prerequisites bonus just saves me the trouble of rewriting brand new feats for the troll.

Also, the balancing elements comes from the fact that strikers will likely already have these feats and leaders, defenders and controllers won't. Most strikers will likely already get a weapon proficiency and expertise feat, because it's absolutely necessary for damage, where as many clerics or warlords and so on will try and focus on healing or secondary benefits, or defenders will try and get defender bonuses such as toughness or improved defenses, rather than damage first. If a leader or defender doesn't get any damage feats, at higher tiers their damage will end up really low and can even be game breaking in how weak they are. As a result giving them the same feat boosts means they, along with other classes, can focus more on utility than damage, and you don't have to start the game off at really high levels in order to get the feat bonuses. It's also just to reduce the feat tax problem. If you essentially have to get these feats, they should just be built in.

To put more simply, strikers will likely get these feats anyways, and now this makes it more practical to do it as a defender, leader or controller.  

[SCN_ Grey_fox]

Iamnotsuicidesoldier1

The Demon Hunter will be psychic flavored striker technically, but won't be a psychic flavored character in the general sense that they say, call on telekenetic powers to do damage. It can be hard to come up with powers, which is why I try to have a rough concept of what I want ahead of time and base it on existing classes with various minor changes. The Demon Hunter like the Death Knight will be harder to build since it's mostly completely original, but it's still based around other class ideas.

Powerful is not much different than brutal, it's just an extra effect mechanically, also less annoying than re-rolling. And the troll is only vaguely meant to be an anti-elf, rather than a raw anti-elf. The half-orc prerequisites bonus just saves me the trouble of rewriting brand new feats for the troll.

Also, the balancing elements comes from the fact that strikers will likely already have these feats and leaders, defenders and controllers won't. Most strikers will likely already get a weapon proficiency and expertise feat, because it's absolutely necessary for damage, where as many clerics or warlords and so on will try and focus on healing or secondary benefits, or defenders will try and get defender bonuses such as toughness or improved defenses, rather than damage first. If a leader or defender doesn't get any damage feats, at higher tiers their damage will end up really low and can even be game breaking in how weak they are. As a result giving them the same feat boosts means they, along with other classes, can focus more on utility than damage, and you don't have to start the game off at really high levels in order to get the feat bonuses. It's also just to reduce the feat tax problem. If you essentially have to get these feats, they should just be built in.

To put more simply, strikers will likely get these feats anyways, and now this makes it more practical to do it as a defender, leader or controller.

Feat thing:
I see it either being; completely useless for the strikers, as they already have these feats, or provide even more damage exploits... So, we can agree to disagree on that front.  

[Iamnotsuicidesoldier1]

SCN_ Grey_fox

Iamnotsuicidesoldier1

The Demon Hunter will be psychic flavored striker technically, but won't be a psychic flavored character in the general sense that they say, call on telekenetic powers to do damage. It can be hard to come up with powers, which is why I try to have a rough concept of what I want ahead of time and base it on existing classes with various minor changes. The Demon Hunter like the Death Knight will be harder to build since it's mostly completely original, but it's still based around other class ideas.

Powerful is not much different than brutal, it's just an extra effect mechanically, also less annoying than re-rolling. And the troll is only vaguely meant to be an anti-elf, rather than a raw anti-elf. The half-orc prerequisites bonus just saves me the trouble of rewriting brand new feats for the troll.

Also, the balancing elements comes from the fact that strikers will likely already have these feats and leaders, defenders and controllers won't. Most strikers will likely already get a weapon proficiency and expertise feat, because it's absolutely necessary for damage, where as many clerics or warlords and so on will try and focus on healing or secondary benefits, or defenders will try and get defender bonuses such as toughness or improved defenses, rather than damage first. If a leader or defender doesn't get any damage feats, at higher tiers their damage will end up really low and can even be game breaking in how weak they are. As a result giving them the same feat boosts means they, along with other classes, can focus more on utility than damage, and you don't have to start the game off at really high levels in order to get the feat bonuses. It's also just to reduce the feat tax problem. If you essentially have to get these feats, they should just be built in.

To put more simply, strikers will likely get these feats anyways, and now this makes it more practical to do it as a defender, leader or controller.

Feat thing:
I see it either being; completely useless for the strikers, as they already have these feats, or provide even more damage exploits... So, we can agree to disagree on that front.

It'll free up two feats and make it so they have the feats they need at level 1, rather than having to wait until two or four to have a reasonable build.

And the idea isn't to make clerics and leader do equal damage to strikers, it's just to make it so that the base level of damage compared to creatures is met, so you aren't down a couple chances to hit or doing a little less damage.

But you're right in that it all averages out to being about the same, which was kind of my intention. A nice boost, but not a huge change.  

[SCN_ Grey_fox]

Why does most of your races have 7 to speed? Even the Uruk-hai has it, on top of a variant of the Dwarf's "I move just as fast in heavy armor" ability.