PDA

View Full Version : Suggested houserules (3.5)



xanaphia
2008-12-28, 11:33 PM
I am planning to start a new campaign. What house rules should I use?

Our games are usually mainly RP based but with occasional combat. I would rather fighters not be useless. Any ideas?

Tsotha-lanti
2008-12-28, 11:35 PM
House rules are, by definition, created by a specific group to change the game to suit their style, usually by addressing specific perceived problems. It is therefore impossible to answer your question, at least on the information you have provided.

supermrjmt
2008-12-28, 11:36 PM
Our DM likes to have clerics spontaniously cast their domain spells rather than cure/inflict ones. It makes clerics more unique.

RebelRogue
2008-12-28, 11:41 PM
Basically, you probably don't need any! Most real-life parties really don't encounter the problems so intensely magnified by many people on this forum.


Our DM likes to have clerics spontaniously cast their domain spells rather than cure/inflict ones. It makes clerics more unique.
Well, there's a Feat for that if you really want it...
Edit: Or is there? I think it read it the other way around. Anyway, that sounds like a power boost the cleric doesn't really need!

KKL
2008-12-28, 11:43 PM
Houserule: Replace Fighters with Warblades.

But really, I don't have houserules, aside from "2+Int skill points become 4+int"

The_JJ
2008-12-28, 11:47 PM
But she said suggested. Let's be helpful and not quibble over gaming terminology.



... What? You want me to help? I don't really do 3.5 in RL.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-12-28, 11:51 PM
But she said suggested. Let's be helpful and not quibble over gaming terminology.

Suggesting house rules for problems the group may not have is not really sensible.

If this were RuneQuest, I'd have at ton of suggestions (since the Booke of Tentacles rules for shamanism and wizardry, for instance, are strictly superior to the ones in the rulebook), but it's a different kind of beast.

Chineselegolas
2008-12-28, 11:55 PM
Monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes
Don't do Diplomacy by the book
Druids have to take a variant that gives up one of their abilities

thegurullamen
2008-12-29, 12:05 AM
For tomes of houserules, look into Paizo's Pathfinder or FaxCelestis' d20Rebirth (in the homebrew section). The latter is incomplete, but what is done looks nice.

Unearthed Arcana's another tome-y route, but I'm sure you've looked into it already. (IF not, look at the supplemental or optional rules section of the http://www.d20srd.org .)

Really, those cover the majority of the houserules I've encountered, but other examples are

-Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader replace the Fighter/Monk/Paladin respectively
-Sorcerers can Quicken spells
-rewriting the Summon Monster/Nature's Ally selections
-NO BOOK OF EXALTED DEEDS/VILE DARKNESS

Curmudgeon
2008-12-29, 12:09 AM
Here's what I use. The first 3 fix obvious rules goofs, the following 4 are for convenience, and the last 2 for realism.

Monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes.
Each ranged shot of a full attack provokes an attack of opportunity. (The actual rule says no full attacks provoke AoOs, without distinguishing between melee and ranged attacks.)
Feather Fall, redefined as an immediate action spell, can be cast while flat-footed.
All level 0 spells are cast spontaneously.
Apply Rapid Reload and Manyshot to slings (to a maximum of 4 bullets in the sling pouch).
Feats and item properties that work with heavy crossbows work the same with great crossbows (Races of Stone).
Make massive damage saves only when the amount also exceeds half your remaining hit points.
Falling damage caps at a maximum of 50d6 (actual terminal velocity).
You can split an actual move around a non-moving move action, such as walk to a door, open it, and continue through. (Or walk and chew gum at the same time. :smallsmile:)

supermrjmt
2008-12-29, 12:09 AM
For tomes of houserules, look into Paizo's Pathfinder or FaxCelestis' d20Rebirth (in the homebrew section). The latter is incomplete, but what is done looks nice.

Unearthed Arcana's another tome-y route, but I'm sure you've looked into it already. (IF not, look at the supplemental or optional rules section of the http://www.d20srd.org .)

Really, those cover the majority of the houserules I've encountered, but other examples are

-Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader replace the Fighter/Monk/Paladin respectively
-Sorcerers can Quicken spells
-rewriting the Summon Monster/Nature's Ally selections
-NO BOOK OF EXALTED DEEDS/VILE DARKNESS

The PH2 gives you the option to do that in place of a familiar.

Innis Cabal
2008-12-29, 12:15 AM
Get rid of Death from Massive Damage. Its an awful way of dealing with truama.

At the start of play, 50 HP will outright kill you. Late play it bogs the game down to a point its just obscene.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-29, 12:16 AM
The PH2 gives you the option to do that in place of a familiar. Not exactly. You gain the ability to apply metamagic rapidly 3 + Int bonus times per day. That works with all metamagic feats, and isn't the same as generally allowing Quicken Spell to always work.

Sorcerers should just take Rapid Metamagic and be done with it, IMO.

ericgrau
2008-12-29, 12:24 AM
I am planning to start a new campaign. What house rules should I use?

Our games are usually mainly RP based but with occasional combat. I would rather fighters not be useless. Any ideas?

Like Tsotha-lanti said, the best are none or else by your preference.

Beware of someone who blanketly says something major should always be changed. I hear about trouble-free games all the time with both fighters and casters. Most problems seem to be in theory, and are the exception not the rule. The best thing you can do is stick to core and allow all non-core material on a case-by-case basis. That's where most serious problems come from.

For the fighter do make sure you give appropriate WBL with a mix of +X gear (not just one strong item, as this will give less bang for the buck). To keep him interesing/fun, check out the rules on combat modifiers, readied actions (to disrupt the caster for example :smallbiggrin:) special attacks (sometimes even if you don't have the feat), dungeon features and environment/terrain features. That'll help strategy, and strategy is fun. Try kneeling (+2 AC) behind cover (+4 AC) and firing arrows at range before closing to melee, for example. If the opponent doesn't do the same, he'll quickly find pain. Standing still out in the open and hitting stuff isn't just boring, it's often bad strategy too.

Innis Cabal
2008-12-29, 12:26 AM
Not exactly. You gain the ability to apply metamagic rapidly 3 + Int bonus times per day. That works with all metamagic feats, and isn't the same as generally allowing Quicken Spell to always work.

Sorcerers should just take Rapid Metamagic and be done with it, IMO.

They shouldn't have to take a feat to be a just OK class imo. That should be house ruled as a Level 1 ability of the same name. The PH2 option is an insult to the class in and of itself.

Its not even close to game breaking. So your Sorcerer can quicken spells! OH NO, he's still got less options then wizards. If you ask me, the rules should be switched. Wizards can't quicken cause casting the reworded spell takes longer to cast.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-29, 12:34 AM
OH NO, he's still got less options then wizards. I'm sure you meant to write "fewer" in place of "less". Right? :smallsmile:

A Sorcerer who can -- on the fly -- decide to throw any of their metamagic feats into their spell mix seems to me to have more options than Wizards, who are stuck with whatever metamagic choices they happened to prepare for the day.

Also, it's never a good idea on these boards to use Wizards as your standard of comparison "to be a just OK class". That type of statement necessitates increasing your fire insurance coverage. :smalleek:

Grail
2008-12-29, 12:41 AM
A real simple one that I use for HP.
1s on d6 become 2.
1s and 2s on d8 become 3.
1s, 2s and 3s on d10 become 4.
1s, 2s, 3s and 4s on d12 become 5.

Reduces the chance of losing out and rolling well below average, which for combat monkeys is important. At low levels especially, this becomes vital.

Innis Cabal
2008-12-29, 12:47 AM
No, I didn't, I meant to write The Wizard.

And I didn't call Wizard an "O.K" class. I called the sorcerer class just O.K. For the record, I still think most of the UBER class's are only uber in theory, since most sane DM's have the power of the NO Stick(tm).

But back on topic.

Your telling me a sorcerer with fewer spell options then the wizard casting two of his six spells for lets say...level 3(Lets say he casts two fireballs)....today, tommorow and next week has -more options then the wizard who can cast two fireballs today, tommorow he gets to cast a Prismatic Wall and Flesh to Stone and next week he gets to cast one magic missle and a wail of the banshee. None of this is subject to how things actually work in the rules, its all really just the point that no matter how many spells a sorcerer can dump his meta-magics on, the wizard can dump them on the same spells today and change them tommorow.

But lets look at this from a fluff perspective to? A sorcerer's magic is in his blood, altering a spell from that should be second nature, it shouldn't even make him bat an eyelash once he's practiced it enough.

But a wizard has to -change- the spell. You can only get better through practice, and even then, every morning you have to sribe the spell differently then it is normally.

So what does that leave us. Well, again sorcerer should be able to meta on the fly, it's not all that unbalancing and would make them different then a watered down wizard. But a wizard? Oh boy. This just opens up alot of feats and maybe some "Balance" to the wizard. Wizards take longer to memorize their metamagic spells and because they are longer to say, full round action to cast a spell, so no quickens. You can make feats to get read of these.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-29, 12:50 AM
The problem with wizards and sorcerers and metamagic is those darned metamagic rods. Wizards normally can't apply metamagic on the fly at all, but the rods let them do it for no increase in casting time. Sorcerers can normally apply metamagic on the fly with an increased casting time... and the rods also let them apply metamagic on the fly with an increased casting time. The justification given for this is that sorcerers need longer to apply metamagic to their spells.

Does anyone else see a problem with that reasoning? It's like barring wizards and sorcerers from using helms of teleportation, because a wizard or sorcerer has to expend a spell slot to teleport...

My suggested solution: Ban metamagic rods. Casters are powerful enough without them. Failing that, limit their use to spontaneous casters. As it is, they let prepared casters horn in on spontaneous casters' rightful turf. :smallmad:

Edit: Banning the Quicken Spell feat probably makes the game more balanced at high levels, too. While we're at it, ban Natural Spell too if you're not changing the Druid.

thegurullamen
2008-12-29, 01:30 AM
(Looks up.)

What hath I wrought?

Enough Sor/Wiz bickering.

Back on the REAL topic, look at the early sections of the PHBII for some good alternative class features.

Another minor houserule is that you can take a +2/+2 skill feat (like Acrobatic or Stealthy) but apply the bonuses to any two feats of your choosing. There's a joke thread about this somewhere, but it's not a bad idea overall.

Unless you take ADD or Holy Diver. Or Sneaky Surgeon.

Paramour Pink
2008-12-29, 01:53 AM
Fluffy feats and skill points. (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Mechanically_Fluffy)
Giant's Diplomacy Variant. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html)
Monks being given full BAB.

Those are the houserules that I've come across and like so far.

PinkysBrain
2008-12-29, 03:01 AM
Since you mention fighter I assume it's a core only game (otherwise why make a pure fighter?).

You can always make up the difference with powerful custom magic items with spell abilities ... with some exceptions the standard magic items with spell abilities in D&D tend to be a bit meh because they all take standard actions. Sure they can still be powerful but they don't tend to synergize with the character's own abilities, rather they replace them. Swift activation suits the fighter much better (boots of speed are one of the rare examples of a good spell ability item).

Since it's a RP game I assume the players won't mind if you occasionally skip the random loot table and throw them some custom loot which specifically suits their characters.

PS. I agree with simply banning metamagic rods.

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-29, 03:03 AM
These are the houserules which I use: http://mydndgame.com/?action=campaign-view&campaign=203 (I also ban BoED and BoVD due to hating the fluff in those books). I'd probably let Monks have full BAB as well.

The Antigamer
2008-12-29, 03:34 AM
I like combining Jump Climb and swim into athletics to free up skill points. Oh, and having a once a class skill, always a class skill policy. I'm also considering giving each PC 4 + int skill points each round just to spend on knowledge skills.

Telonius
2008-12-29, 05:44 AM
Some of my standard houserules:

Weapon Finesse does not have any prerequisites.
Natural Spell does not exist.
Monks get full BAB.
Sorcerers get free Eschew Materials.
Bards and Barbarians can be lawful; Monks can be chaotic; add the Freedom, Tyranny, and Slaughter Paladin variants.
Each adventurer is issued a Handy Haversack free of charge.
Vorpal weapons don't exist, unless I'm sending you against the Jabberwocky (which will be an epic-level foe).

There are other random little ones, but those are the most mechanically important.

Epinephrine
2008-12-29, 09:02 AM
Some of our house rules:

No Wildshape druids - shapeshift, the UA variants, etc.

Tumbling has a DC of 12+ the opponent's reflex save, must be rolled against each foe. Without this characters with decent dex and tumble don't ever take an AoO, from mid levels onward.

Casting Defensively likewise has a DC of 12+opponents Reflex save+spell level, and must be rolled against each foe. Without this the concentration checks become pretty much automatic for casters (DC 15+spell level when you've got at least level+3 as a modifier?). Choosing to stand in front of an armed enemy to cast is risky.

The ability requirements for feats are pretty optional. For most combat feats I allow the player's combat stat to substitute for the required stat.
i.e., Power Attack, which requires 13 Strength could be taken with a 13 Dex if one had Weapon Finesse, or with a 13 Wisdom if one had Inutive Attack.
Logic being roughly -
Strength = substitute accuracy for power
Dexterity = try for more difficult shot to weak spot
Wisdom = take a gamble based on understanding your foe's movement, try to use his movement against him

I don't see much point in most of the ability requirements anyway. You don't have to be that superior an intellect to learn how to disarm a foe or trip them, for example - or to practice fighting defensively - yet all these require 13 Int.

Triaxx
2008-12-29, 09:20 AM
Skill Focus may be taken as a +3 bonus for a class skill, or to make a cross class skill into a class skill.
All weapons are one die larger than stated, with Great Axes becoming 2d8 weapons.

Sir Giacomo
2008-12-29, 09:35 AM
I am planning to start a new campaign. What house rules should I use?

Our games are usually mainly RP based but with occasional combat. I would rather fighters not be useless. Any ideas?

I think for a start you can get by without houserules - in RP based campaigns you may wish to play without the diplomacy skill, though.
When combats start to become one-sided and/or boring, you can check whether it's because the characters are too weak/strong, or if there is any particular rule that bothers you. Then just leave that out.

Since you say "occasional combat", it could mean that only once every session (or even rarer) or once per gaming day there is a combat. This greatly favours classes that have a limited amount of power per day - like spellcasters. So you could think about either reducing their spells per level or that they can only recover them 1/week to reflect the frequency of combat in your game.

- Giacomo

Murphy80
2008-12-29, 10:15 AM
- all skills cost 1 skill point (max ranks still apply)
- half orc have a -2 (chr or int), players choice



Here's what I use. The first 3 fix obvious rules goofs...

Monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes.
Each ranged shot of a full attack provokes an attack of opportunity. (The actual rule says no full attacks provoke AoOs, without distinguishing between melee and ranged attacks.)
Why isn't a humanoid prof with it's unarmed attack? Where does it say a dog is prof with it's bite? It's not listed in the dog entry.

Check out this thread, it turns into a discussion on ranged full attacks and AoO;
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1120580

Curmudgeon
2008-12-29, 10:26 AM
Tumbling has a DC of 12+ the opponent's reflex save, must be rolled against each foe. Without this characters with decent dex and tumble don't ever take an AoO, from mid levels onward. Generally these are the characters with low AC and HP, so why is it a bad thing that they don't take AoOs from movement? There are plenty of ways (Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit feats, Thicket of Blades stance) to generate AoOs even with awesome Tumble skills, so I'm wondering why you see the need for this house rule?

Curmudgeon
2008-12-29, 10:44 AM
Why isn't a humanoid prof with it's unarmed attack? It is proficient with unarmed attack -- unless it has class levels. The Monster Manual says this:
Humanoid Type

Traits: A humanoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.
Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class.
So a humanoid without class levels is always proficient with unarmed attacks. Humanoid Monks, of course, have class levels, and the Monk class lists neither "unarmed strike" nor "all simple weapons" in their "Weapon and Armor Proficiency" section.

Epinephrine
2008-12-29, 12:30 PM
Generally these are the characters with low AC and HP, so why is it a bad thing that they don't take AoOs from movement? There are plenty of ways (Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit feats, Thicket of Blades stance) to generate AoOs even with awesome Tumble skills, so I'm wondering why you see the need for this house rule?

Well, the old DC15 rule makes anyone safe if they can manage to get +14 in tumble (or less even, just not as safe). We just felt that as your opponents increase in deadliness the odds of tumbling by them successfully should be smaller. The old rules preclude the need for further investment in the skill, while most skills require continued investment to be useful.

At 12+Reflex save, fighter types with poor reflex saves still remain easy to tumble by, compared to rogue-types (and finesse fighters) who would be better able to counter the tactics to which they are accustomed. Even a good reflex save only grows at 1/2 point per level while the skill grows at a point per level, so one does become more safe with continued investment.

Sure, they may have lower AC and HP, but they also have more skill points - making this change has put tumble more firmly into the hands of the skill-based characters, and makes it less accessible to the average fighter/mage. It's an advantage to swashbuckler/swordsage/rogue types, as they become harder to tumble by (a tactic that a DM may use to get enemies into flanking positions, for example).

It hasn't hurt things so far - it makes it a bit more risky to just tumble willy-nilly through a combat (which is as we think it should be), but in return rewards the high reflex save fighter types by making it harder to bypass them.

Prometheus
2008-12-29, 12:38 PM
A great non-ToB Fighter variant is found here (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Fighter). Fax Celestis is a well-known homebrewer on these forums and his other variants are very good as well - I especially suggest the Paladin.

Again, use the Giant's Diplomacy Rule (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) and you can do a similar thing with Intimidate checks.

I also rule that taking a Skill Focus in any skill permanently makes it a class skill (for example, a vampire sorceress who has put effort into hunting wilderness creatures via Survival check). LA-Buyoff (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/reducingLevelAdjustments.htm). There should be some sort of variant on the traditional craft rules (craft-points, or a simpler "DM says how long it takes, what it costs, and what you need to roll" rule). Transportation-magic and food/water-magic are curbed in some settings.

Satyr
2008-12-29, 12:59 PM
I find the following houserules recommendable, since they deal with the stuff which is important for me – heroic characters gains a justified bonus, while the cowardly spellcasters are hit with the morning star of nerf, while the verisimilitude of the system is increased.



The Gift of Magic: Mundane Characters are created as Gestalt characters; full spellcasters are created as standard characters. Characters with only weak magic like Paladins or Rangers count as mundane for this purpose. Mundane characters may not multiclass into a major spellcasting class; vice versa, this is possible but the character will always stay a standard character with only a single class tree.

Favorite class bonus: Instead of a penalty for multiclassing, a character who follows his or her favorite class, gains an additional hitpoint or skill point per class level. Multiclassing penalties are not applied.

Combat Experience: All Characters gain a Bonus to their defense based on experience; a more experienced combatant does not only learn how to hit but also how to anticipate, dodge and parry incoming attacks. The Defense Bonus is unnamed and added to any defense, even if the character would lose his or her other defense bonuses. The value of the bonus depends on the character's BAB. For every four points of BAB, the character gains a +1 bonus to the Defense.

There is no such thing as free lunch magic: All Spellcasting requires a Concentration check fot a succesful cast against a DC of 10+Spell levelx5. If the check fails, the spell is delayed until the check succeeds. If the check fails with a margin of 5 or more points, the spell is fizzled instead. Defensive Casting doesn't exist. Instead, any damage is added to the Casting check's DC.
Instead of the arcane failure chance, spellcasting checks suffer from armor penalties.
A natural one on the spellcasting check is a botch with drastic consequences for the caster (e.g. damage-inducing spells hit himself).
The combat caster feat negates the usual -4 penalty to casting under high pressure and risk, e.g. in combat situations.
With a Ritual (takes at least a number of minutes equal to the spell's level), the caster can take 20 on the spellcasting check.

Armor Protection:Armor does not only increase the AC but also grants a DR/- equal to its AC bonus. Only suicide candidates and mages would fight voluntarily in a combat without armor.

Die, die, die my Darling: The massive damage threshold is replaced with 50% of the character's hit point total.

Cut them into pieces: All characters use all of their iterative attacks on a Standard attack action. A full attack action allows an additional attack with the highest attack bonus.

Eloel
2008-12-29, 01:11 PM
Satyr, that set of rules, pees all over magic-users, and puts mundane characters over them to beat them up as they're bored, too much nerf for magic/buff for mundane, that it's not even funny.

arguskos
2008-12-29, 01:13 PM
Satyr, that set of rules, pees all over magic-users, and puts mundane characters over them to beat them up as they're bored, too much nerf for magic/buff for mundane, that it's not even funny.
Honestly, I sorta agree.

I can see the checks for casting; or the gestalt=mundane, single=casters; but not both at once. That makes casters just pathetic. :smallfrown: Sad blaster mages are SAD...

Epinephrine
2008-12-29, 01:13 PM
I find the following houserules recommendable, since they deal with the stuff which is important for me – heroic characters gains a justified bonus, while the cowardly spellcasters are hit with the morning star of nerf, while the verisimilitude of the system is increased.

Wow - you nerfed casters a lot. Overkill for my games - heck, trying to cast a 5th level spell requires a DC 35 concentration check. If you make it to higher levels it just gets silly.

I like this though:


* Favorite class bonus: Instead of a penalty for multiclassing, a character who follows his or her favorite class, gains an additional hitpoint or skill point per class level. Multiclassing penalties are not applied.

Otogi
2008-12-29, 01:21 PM
I made a few houserules to change the half-elf, half-orc and orc more playable.

Half-elves

-Gain a bonus feat. Not eclipsing humans to much, but at least giving them a power boost.

Half-orcs

-Modifiers are +2 STR and -2 INT. Everytime I've seen a half-orc played or in any kind of fiction, they don't seem less confident or personal. Infact, they always seemed overconfident and over personal.

- +2 Intimidate and Survival. It's the only ways that a half-orc can survive in this world. Beside, I always found it odd that every other race besides half-orcs had skill modifiers

- A lesser form of rage that gives a +2 to Strength and Constitution instead. Doesn't stack with barbarian's rage. The "bonus feat" ability.

Orcs

-No longer have light sensitivity. Never understood how they could always be warring with the common races durring the day time and still have this. Matter a fact, don't they live on the surface?

-+2 damage vs. elves of all kinds. Makes sense considering the backstory.

Kesnit
2008-12-29, 01:22 PM
Favorite class bonus: Instead of a penalty for multiclassing, a character who follows his or her favorite class, gains an additional hitpoint or skill point per class level. Multiclassing penalties are not applied.

How do you handle PrC's, esp PrC's related to favored class? (i.e. An elf Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster)

Satyr
2008-12-29, 01:43 PM
Satyr, that set of rules, pees all over magic-users, and puts mundane characters over them to beat them up as they're bored, too much nerf for magic/buff for mundane, that it's not even funny.

With the much scarcer magical items in my typical campaigns, these rules do not even manage to put most mundane characters on par with spellcasters, since the latter ones are not nearly as dependant from their cool stuff. It may seem that the rules are slightly unfair, but only because the stndard rules for spellcasters are so extremely unfairly onesided.



I can see the checks for casting; or the gestalt=mundane, single=casters; but not both at once. That makes casters just pathetic. Sad blaster mages are SAD...

It is really not that complicated to boost a skill. Mundane Gestalt characters are still weaker than single class casters as soon as 4th level spells are available. It's not my fault that the class balance of the core classes is that bad, but it would be my fault if I enforce that injustice to my players.



Wow - you nerfed casters a lot. Overkill for my games - heck, trying to cast a 5th level spell requires a DC 35 concentration check. If you make it to higher levels it just gets silly.

A wizard learns level 5 spells at level 9. This relates to 13 ranks in concentration, add a +2 ability bonus to it and a skill focus, purchase an item that increases your concentration by +5, and you have a 40% chance to cast the spell immedeately, and only a 35% to completely waste the spell. You will also always succeed in the spell when you take the time.
And yes, there is no reason whatsoever why level 9 spells should ever be used outside of a ritual. From the flavor of them, most of them require a lengthy ritual to be authentic to the game's atmosphere (a Gate without a pentragram drawing, dozens of candles and ritual incantations is too dull and plain dor my games).


How do you handle PrC's, esp PrC's related to favored class? (i.e. An elf Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster)

On a case by case decision, mostly to the favor of the player. I would have no problem to replace the standard favorite classes with more general domains (e.g. the topics of the different complete splat books). Elves would have the favorite class "arcane" which would cover wizards as well as sorcerers and even bards, dwarves would have "warrior" and could be fighters as well as barbarians; some classes like Bards and Paladins would probably fall under two categories, but that isn't necessarily bad, as it increases the choice of players.

arguskos
2008-12-29, 01:55 PM
It is really not that complicated to boost a skill. Mundane Gestalt characters are still weaker than single class casters as soon as 4th level spells are available. It's not my fault that the class balance of the core classes is that bad, but it would be my fault if I enforce that injustice to my players.
...so, your solution is to lock the fun of casting spells in a closet that you can only peek through the keyhole of? I'm sorry, but really, playing a Full Plate Fighter means that you rule this universe. Your caster foes are going to fail to get their spells off rapidly frequently, meaning you'll close instantly and breach their VERY low massive damage thresholds in one swing.

I respect your group's opinion on this, but I think that the wizard being told that 30% of the time he is useless isn't that fun. Really. Why even PLAY a caster? Just play a Ranger//Swordsage or something, and laugh at the poor idiot wizard who can barely cast Magic Missile while you are awesome.

It just seems like a massive amount of overkill to treat casters SO badly. At LEAST give them the gestalt, while keeping the Concentration checks (which are brutal, given that you said yourself that magic items are very scarce in your games). Not every caster is hyper-worldbreaking-evil-powerhungry. Some just wanna blow stuff up (not that big a deal really).

Matthew
2008-12-29, 01:59 PM
If I run D20/3e these days, I tend to use a lot of house rules:



1) Power Attack being shifted down to 1:1 for all weapons, coupled with 1.5 Strength Bonus to AB and DB (minimum of +1 Bonus, so -1 becomes 0, 0 becomes 1, etc..) for Two Handed Weapons (but only Two Handed Weapons). In higher powered games all weapons get 1:1.5 or 1:2 from power attack.

2) Combat Expertise as a Bonus Feat for all Martial Classes,

3) Weapon Finesse applies to all weapons.

4) Dumping of Iterative Attacks in favour of an Extra Attack at their Full Attack Bonus when they reach Base Attack Bonus 11 .

5) Strength Bonus applies to Bow AB and Thrown Weapons (does not stack with Dexterity)

6) Full Strength Bonus to Off Hand Attacks

7) Adios retarded Race Weapons

8) Clerics learn spells like Wizards

9) Only Spells on my list are available.

10) Great Swords do 1D12 Damage

11) Critical Hits are gone, many weapons move up a Damage Die.

12) Elves get automatic Proficiency with Short Swords, Long Swords, Short Bows and Long Bows.

13) Spears and Long Spears can be used One Handed (but do 1D6 Damage)

14) Tower Shields are Two Handed Weapons

15) Armour doesn't reduce Movement Speed, only Running Speed [i.e. no armour/light armour = x4, medium armour = x3, heavy armour = x2].

16) One Handed or Light Weapons used Two Handed move up a Damage Die (i.e. 1D6 becomes 1D8, 1D8 becomes 1D10, etc...). Conversely, Two Handed Weapons used One handed move down a Damage Die (i.e. 1D12 becomes 1D10)

17) Shields grant a Block Manoeuvre as an Immediate Action

18) Orcs are just another word for Hobgoblin. Half Orcs undergo significant reforms...

19) Monks get full Base Attack Bonus progression, amongst other things

20) Saving Throws become +1 per Character Level for all Classes and Prestige Classes

21) Skill Focus becomes +4 and can be bought in stages; other Skill Boosting Feats are removed.

22) Two Speed weapons means two extra attacks, haste has a similar effect.

23) Dwarves lose Giant Dodge Bonus, but are proficient in picks, axes and hammers

24) Half Orcs and Half Elves get the human bonus feat and set skill bonuses.

I think I got rid of the concentration skill last time round as well, so that any interrupted spell is immediately cancelled and lost.

Eloel
2008-12-29, 02:10 PM
It is really not that complicated to boost a skill. Mundane Gestalt characters are still weaker than single class casters as soon as 4th level spells are available. It's not my fault that the class balance of the core classes is that bad, but it would be my fault if I enforce that injustice to my players.

Would you mind some kind of a 1v1 battle? Any level you choose, with a DM that's fair enough. I'll use the mundane guy, you use a spellcaster.

Edit: I didn't want to sound rude, rereading it made me feel like I was being rude, sorry if I was.

arguskos
2008-12-29, 02:15 PM
Would you mind some kind of a 1v1 battle? Any level you choose, with a DM that's fair enough. I'll use the mundane guy, you use a spellcaster.

Edit: I didn't want to sound rude, rereading it made me feel like I was being rude, sorry if I was.
Hell, I'll run it, using Satyr's houserules, as they are written right there. I want to see this, since it would be great to see rules like these (bandied about a lot, but never really seen in action) function.

NOTE: Though I have some misgivings about the rules as shown, I'd be happy to put my opinions aside to see how they work. It would be excellent to see.

Satyr
2008-12-29, 02:17 PM
...so, your solution is to lock the fun of casting spells in a closet that you can only peek through the keyhole of? I'm sorry, but really, playing a Full Plate Fighter means that you rule this universe.

No, I try to pretend the overkill of spellcasters which regularly reduces heroic characters to pure meat shields and mere observers of the wizard's awesomeness. A full plate fighter is a solid character instead of a liability. And it has never appeared to me that it should be any way else.


Your caster foes are going to fail to get their spells off rapidly frequently, meaning you'll close instantly and breach their VERY low massive damage thresholds in one swing.

Spellcaster foes rarely appear alone in my games. I like to play the opposition as smart and ressourceful, not as idiots who have no other purpose than being slain by PC's.
So, I expect the players to cooperate and likewise, their opposition will also work together to save their lives.


I respect your group's opinion on this, but I think that the wizard being told that 30% of the time he is useless isn't that fun. Really. Why even PLAY a caster? Just play a Ranger//Swordsage or something, and laugh at the poor idiot wizard who can barely cast Magic Missile while you are awesome.

Have you ever played a Standard D&D fighter in a campaign of 13th + level? It is sheer greatness if you do not feel useless 90% of the time, while the cleric and druid are better in your core competence and this competence is not even very helpful.
And we play without the Tome of Battle. Too flashy for our tastes.


It just seems like a massive amount of overkill to treat casters SO badly. At LEAST give them the gestalt, while keeping the Concentration checks (which are brutal, given that you said yourself that magic items are very scarce in your games).

Rarer magical items are a much stronger drawback for mundane characters than for spellcasters. The gap between them actually grows when convenient items become rarer.

And we also use additional feats for spellcasters which are a bit helpful for them, but really, this is not a turnover of the class balance; the characters grow much closer in power, but still the wizard rules surpreme.

Eloel
2008-12-29, 02:26 PM
No, I try to pretend the overkill of spellcasters which regularly reduces heroic characters to pure meat shields and mere observers of the wizard's awesomeness. A full plate fighter is a solid character instead of a liability. And it has never appeared to me that it should be any way else.



Spellcaster foes rarely appear alone in my games. I like to play the opposition as smart and ressourceful, not as idiots who have no other purpose than being slain by PC's.
So, I expect the players to cooperate and likewise, their opposition will also work together to save their lives.



Have you ever played a Standard D&D fighter in a campaign of 13th + level? It is sheer greatness if you do not feel useless 90% of the time, while the cleric and druid are better in your core competence and this competence is not even very helpful.
And we play without the Tome of Battle. Too flashy for our tastes.



Rarer magical items are a much stronger drawback for mundane characters than for spellcasters. The gap between them actually grows when convenient items become rarer.

And we also use additional feats for spellcasters which are a bit helpful for them, but really, this is not a turnover of the class balance; the characters grow much closer in power, but still the wizard rules surpreme.

For your convenience, if you accept the challenge, I won't use ToB, nor will I use magical items.

arguskos
2008-12-29, 02:30 PM
No, I try to pretend the overkill of spellcasters which regularly reduces heroic characters to pure meat shields and mere observers of the wizard's awesomeness. A full plate fighter is a solid character instead of a liability. And it has never appeared to me that it should be any way else.
I would agree. However, your rules make them insanely powerful, thus my concern.


Spellcaster foes rarely appear alone in my games. I like to play the opposition as smart and ressourceful, not as idiots who have no other purpose than being slain by PC's.
So, I expect the players to cooperate and likewise, their opposition will also work together to save their lives.
While that's all well and good, a single good round of arrows to the face can cripple/kill your caster outright. And with the fighters all being gestalt, the odds of someone being a master archer are vastly greater than normal. Sure, spellcasters should be smart and resourceful, but when they can't even get a minor protective spell off w/o a chance of massive failure... they are bound to seem weak or gimped.


Have you ever played a Standard D&D fighter in a campaign of 13th + level? It is sheer greatness if you do not feel useless 90% of the time, while the cleric and druid are better in your core competence and this competence is not even very helpful.
And we play without the Tome of Battle. Too flashy for our tastes.
About the fighter, yes. I've played a Fighter in 3.5 Core-only from 1 to 20. I was the most powerful member of the party, because I knew what I was doing. The Cleric spent his time protecting the group, healing us, or aiding me in combat. The Rogue was a sneak attack machine, and dealt great damage. The Wizard solved the things we couldn't (flying enemies in particular were his specialty; Bands of Iron is great). No one dominated any single encounter, we worked as a team, and we all had fun.

Oh, and I don't use ToB either. I personally can't stand it, a position for which I've been flamed a number of times on this forum. I applaud someone else not liking it and being brave enough to say it out loud.


Rarer magical items are a much stronger drawback for mundane characters than for spellcasters. The gap between them actually grows when convenient items become rarer.

And we also use additional feats for spellcasters which are a bit helpful for them, but really, this is not a turnover of the class balance; the characters grow much closer in power, but still the wizard rules surpreme.
I agree with the magic items weakening the mundanes. However, the point remains that a wizard vs. a fighter in your system=one dead wizard and one happy fighter.

I think that what you are doing is admirable, but I feel it has gone somewhat overboard with the nerf stick. I think that the fun in playing a wizard is gone, since you no longer can be the guy who looses Magic Missiles all over the place, or the cunning illusionist who uses his spells to trick and deceive (since how can he, when his stuff fails so frequently?). I feel that something needs to go, be it the gestalt or the concentration checks, and I've not heard a convincing argument for it. Sure, in THEORY, they could work out fine. But really, WHY play a wizard in a system that is built to penalize you for doing so? That's my question. It doesn't make sense, no one is going to enjoy playing a character who 30% of the time just stands there like a ninny doing nothing because his spell failed.

Like I said before, it's a great goal, but I think it's overly harsh to one side, and far too generous to the other. A bit of fiddling though, and I think you have a great plan.

If you are interested, I would be pleased to expound upon any point you wish, since I really think your houserules have the potential to become a great and fair fix for all involved. :smallbiggrin: (Certainly better than mine, which you'll note I haven't posted... because they fail at life... :smallannoyed:)

Temp.
2008-12-29, 03:24 PM
I don't think I can fairly say I play 3.5 anymore. My group has sorta bastardized more gaming systems than I knew existed.

Anyway... if you've experienced balance issues in your games and you're playing 3.5, it might help to flat-out drop the Core casting system in favor of Psionics and Tome of Battle.

Newbies in my games have generally had an easier time remembering a limited number of Powers than memorizing a massive list of spell abilities. Augmenting Powers is also a bit more intuitive than juggling Metamagic and spell slots. Tome of Battle is great for newbies starting at level 1, but terrible if a new player is expected to build a higher-level character.

Because the two systems are pretty self-contained and self-optimizing, older and newer players will tend to stay pretty well balanced.

...But this is all under the impression that you are facing balance issues in your games. Honestly, you probably won't; these boards tend to exagerrate the imbalance of actual gameplay.

Satyr
2008-12-29, 03:46 PM
Would you mind some kind of a 1v1 battle? Any level you choose, with a DM that's fair enough. I'll use the mundane guy, you use a spellcaster.

An arena battle is not really a good way to show an overall usability of a character; not all obstacles in an adventure are fights, not all chalenges can or should be solved with violence. Not all character actions have even to do with heroic stuff. Yes, in an Arena situation, with no other people involved, no time for preparation, no teamwork, and the sole purpose of killing each other, a determined and well build fighter is very likely to shred a wizard to pieces - as it should be.

A fighter can fight. That his sole purpose, and with two skill points per level and no class features whatsoever, he can't do much else. Fighting is everything he can, or should be able. It is truly perverted, when so,meone else would be better than him in his core function, especially because it is mostly the only thing the fighter can do. The wizard has no such limit. Yes, he can contribute in a fight, but this is neither his core competence nor the only thing he can do -but besides from doing many things that are traditional parts of other character's competences - finding and opening secret doors, killing angry hobgoblins, run away really fast, convincing other people that he is their best friend etc. - the wizard can do many, many things the fighter, the rogue or the barbarian can only watch in awe.

It is not valid to reduce a character's competence to his prowess in battle but to the amount te character can contribute to the game, on the amount of how much the character requires the help and assistance of others or how good the character can solve other problems. And in this regard, a wizard is almost unbeatable.


I would agree. However, your rules make them insanely powerful, thus my concern.

Innsanely powerful? Insaney powerful is a character which is untouchable, can rain death from a place his enemy can't reach, while his servants block any access and harass the daring foe. A fighter in heavy armor will kill many. many mooks, and yes, he is certainly a dangerous foe. But do you really want to complain that a fighter is competent in a fight? What else should he be able to do?


While that's all well and good, a single good round of arrows to the face can cripple/kill your caster outright. And with the fighters all being gestalt, the odds of someone being a master archer are vastly greater than normal. Sure, spellcasters should be smart and resourceful, but when they can't even get a minor protective spell off w/o a chance of massive failure... they are bound to seem weak or gimped.


Archery looks powerful, until you see that a complete form of combat can be stopped by a single level 3 spell. Yes, should better make that spell work, but if it works, the archer is more or less useless.



About the fighter, yes. I've played a Fighter in 3.5 Core-only from 1 to 20. I was the most powerful member of the party, because I knew what I was doing. The Cleric spent his time protecting the group, healing us, or aiding me in combat. The Rogue was a sneak attack machine, and dealt great damage. The Wizard solved the things we couldn't (flying enemies in particular were his specialty; Bands of Iron is great). No one dominated any single encounter, we worked as a team, and we all had fun.

Which shows that you have a full functional group. Congratulations, this is a luxury not everyone can afford. And it is certainly also a question of taste (and how much time your players spend in character optimation forums). I, for example, are a terrible powergamer, because when I build characters, I rarely focus on the character's power and more on a well-rounded and deep personality. That's why I like Gestalt games - it allows me more leeway for the character depth, without completely crippling the character.

But I have also two players in my group whoare both better and more emphasized on character optimation than the rest, and for those these house rules are invaluable to establish a certain feeling of blance.


Oh, and I don't use ToB either. I personally can't stand it, a position for which I've been flamed a number of times on this forum. I applaud someone else not liking it and being brave enough to say it out loud.

It is not a particularly bad book, I just do not like the style; a tome of battle with a true grit flavor instead of the flashiness would be more to my taste.


I agree with the magic items weakening the mundanes. However, the point remains that a wizard vs. a fighter in your system=one dead wizard and one happy fighter.

I don't think that combat is the only important feature. And I think that a fighter should be the magnum opus in a fight. That is his only purpose. He will neither be a socialite character nor a smart one, but when swords are drawn and blood is spoiled, the fighter should be the one the other characters can trust and who is able to fulfil his core competence role.

Tormsskull
2008-12-29, 04:32 PM
Satyr, I need you and a couple of other like-minded people to drop everything you're doing and go develop a table top RPG. I'd love to find a system that brings to life everything that you're saying (dare I say an old school D&D approach?) And make sure whoever you get to draw the pictures makes them realistic instead of cartoony.

I would totally buy that system.

kalt
2008-12-29, 04:38 PM
If someone wants to play a fighter I would strongly push them towards a ToB class. This tends to make the fighter a little more fun to play if you are playing a drawn out campaign and they also are a little more on par with a spellcaster.

*Edit* Crap I didn't read that you couldn't use ToB. Well one thing that I tended to like about second edition that was lost in the later ones is that the classes weren't really balanced and they still aren't but they actaully leveled at ifferent paces! This I think is a really good way to possibly beef up a weaker class and to slightly curve a more powerful one.

Eldariel
2008-12-29, 04:40 PM
An arena battle is not really a good way to show an overall usability of a character; not all obstacles in an adventure are fights, not all chalenges can or should be solved with violence. Not all character actions have even to do with heroic stuff. Yes, in an Arena situation, with no other people involved, no time for preparation, no teamwork, and the sole purpose of killing each other, a determined and well build fighter is very likely to shred a wizard to pieces - as it should be.

The better way to test characters' abilities is to build a gauntlet of appropriate level encounters (a mix of all types - social, environmental, combat, stealth, survival) with an even balance of all of them, estimate how each character would fare in each (not play each out; too much variance involved in die rolls) and see which did better in the grand scale of things. This is what Char Ops uses.


Also, props for the houserules. Those sound like a great starting point. Although I'd personally lower the base spellcasting DC to 10+2xlevel (due to the other modifiers mounting up real fast; just remove skillboosting items from Concentration and 10+2xlevel is plenty) to avoid the Truenamer phenomenon. Overall, I'd avoid forcing every caster to pick Skill Focus: Concentration, maximizing Con and doing all sorts of silly stuff just to go about their basic class functions; feats should be additional abilities, not things your class needs to exist (plenty of other work needs to be done here in Core too).

I'd probably instead allow full attack make an extra iterative (at -5) to encourage moving in combat; an extra attack at highest bonus is so huge that characters are still heavily penalized for moving during fight, so while full attack should be slightly better, I at least personally find it shouldn't be so much better that Fighters are best off standing still. Takes a tactical layer away from melee. I'd also make all iteratives happen at -5, to make them more worthwhile instead of a game of "roll the 20". Makes BAB matter more too.

Also, I prefer just making more racial substitution levels to using favored class bonuses; that way you can give boons to every class a race favors (for example, Elven Rangers are at least as common as Elven Wizards, but present rules state that only one is the FC) instead of just one, and engineer those boons for the class in question. Much better solution to the problem, in my experience.

RebelRogue
2008-12-29, 05:25 PM
About the fighter, yes. I've played a Fighter in 3.5 Core-only from 1 to 20. I was the most powerful member of the party, because I knew what I was doing. The Cleric spent his time protecting the group, healing us, or aiding me in combat. The Rogue was a sneak attack machine, and dealt great damage. The Wizard solved the things we couldn't (flying enemies in particular were his specialty; Bands of Iron is great). No one dominated any single encounter, we worked as a team, and we all had fun.
We only played until level 13 or 14, but I've had pretty much the same experience (it was a three character party with the cleric/rogue rolled into a Shadowbane Stalker).

Frankly, Satyr, your proposal seems utterly absurd to me!

xanaphia
2008-12-29, 06:09 PM
But she said suggested. Let's be helpful and not quibble over gaming terminology.

Damn. I really need to change my username to something masculine.

xanaphia
2008-12-29, 06:13 PM
Here's what I use. The first 3 fix obvious rules goofs, the following 4 are for convenience, and the last 2 for realism.

Monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes.
Each ranged shot of a full attack provokes an attack of opportunity. (The actual rule says no full attacks provoke AoOs, without distinguishing between melee and ranged attacks.)
Feather Fall, redefined as an immediate action spell, can be cast while flat-footed.
All level 0 spells are cast spontaneously.
Apply Rapid Reload and Manyshot to slings (to a maximum of 4 bullets in the sling pouch).
Feats and item properties that work with heavy crossbows work the same with great crossbows (Races of Stone).
Make massive damage saves only when the amount also exceeds half your remaining hit points.
Falling damage caps at a maximum of 50d6 (actual terminal velocity).
You can split an actual move around a non-moving move action, such as walk to a door, open it, and continue through. (Or walk and chew gum at the same time. :smallsmile:)


I'll use these.

Yes, my game is core + MM 2 and 4. I already use the Giant's Diplomacy and Polymorph. It never occurred to me that Monks weren't proficient with their own hands. My players' only experience of monks was fighting a level 5 monk at 3rd level and creaming it, so no-one plays as them.

Also, I play arena battles out of game all the time. At level 5, wizards cream fighters. Fly, glitterdust, then Summon Monster and scorching ray until they die. Druids are pretty damn dangerous too. Fighters are just underpowered.

Satyr, very nice houserules. I would change it so that the concentration check only applies in combat, so you can be an illusionist and trick people without screwing up all the time.

Eloel
2008-12-30, 12:08 AM
The better way to test characters' abilities is to build a gauntlet of appropriate level encounters (a mix of all types - social, environmental, combat, stealth, survival) with an even balance of all of them, estimate how each character would fare in each (not play each out; too much variance involved in die rolls) and see which did better in the grand scale of things. This is what Char Ops uses.


My challenge stands, and I'm OK with this one too.

Vortling
2008-12-30, 12:34 AM
My personal houserules are as such.

Weapon Finesse has no requirements and neither does Intuitive Attack (one of the few things worth keeping from BoED)

There are no alignment restrictions for base classes

Multiclass penalties are dropped completely

Everyone receives a free skill of choice to add to their class skill list.

Everyone receives +1 skill point per level, regardless of class, race, or int.

Leewei
2008-12-30, 12:39 AM
Bluff skill convinces someone that you believe what you're saying rather than they believe it. Stupid NPCs will likely believe you when bluffed. Canny NPCs will merely think you're nuts or misled if a bluff is not believable, but you make a high DC roll due to glibness or the like.

Diplomacy skill allows you to dictate a course of action an NPC will take given their attitude (DC:15), or attitude with a one-step adjustment DC:25. Friendly NPCs can be "pushed" for more help or better rates. Hostile NPCs can thus be coerced into attacking in a tactically unsound fashion.

Creatures with the Earth subtype gain immunity to petrification. This is primarily to prevent the utterly silly concept of petrified Earth Elementals and Xorn.

% miss chances are determined on a 2nd d20 roll rather than percentiles. 1-4 misses with Concealment; 1-10 misses with Total Concealment; 1-15 misses with Total Concealment + Incorporeal and so on. This allows multiple attacks to resolve far faster in situations where these factors apply.

When confronted by multiple creatures with gaze or appearance-related attacks, all such attacks after the first are counted as if the viewer is averting eyes. The reason is the viewer is either so absorbed in one such attack that they are looking elsewhere than subsequent attacks. Averting eyes or closing eyes is an Immediate Action.

arguskos
2008-12-30, 12:41 AM
I could quote your wall of text back at you Satyr, but I'm tired, so I'll just sum it up this way:

1. I think your goal is admirable and the tone excellent.
2. I do think you went overboard somewhat on the nerf of casters and the buff of non-casters.
3. I personally feel that somewhere between your rules and D&D 3.5 is best. Perhaps a lower Concentration check, as Eldariel suggested, would feel better.
4. I acknowledge that it's your game, so I'll wisely bow out while I still can. :smallannoyed:

Let's merely part ways here, and agree to differ?

EDIT: I do feel the need to address this one point though (spoilered for neatness)



Innsanely powerful? Insaney powerful is a character which is untouchable, can rain death from a place his enemy can't reach, while his servants block any access and harass the daring foe. A fighter in heavy armor will kill many. many mooks, and yes, he is certainly a dangerous foe. But do you really want to complain that a fighter is competent in a fight? What else should he be able to do?
Your fighter can do all these things. Archery, heavy armor (with your DR rule), Leadership. These things all make the fighter far more capable than a wizard. I don't see how you can fairly deny that combat is a major part of the game, and by extension, a character. Yes, fighters SHOULD dominate combat, but shouldn't everyone have something to do in and out of combat? Wizards in combat get basically squat, and fighters out of it get squat too. I think the best solution is not to limit one overly, but buff the other in it's weak spot (eg. buff fighter's ability to solve issues and be vital out of combat). However, this is merely my approach, so feel free to ignore.

Eloel
2008-12-30, 12:55 AM
The real problem is, a monk 20//fighter 20 gestalt, or hell, a monk 20 build with no gestalt, can beat the wizard with the fixes Satyr suggested.

arguskos
2008-12-30, 01:00 AM
The real problem is, a monk 20//fighter 20 gestalt, or hell, a monk 20 build with no gestalt, can beat the wizard with the fixes Satyr suggested.
Dude, in gestalt, a fighter//rogue, monk//whatever, swashbuckler//whatever, etc can all take out even a guarded wizard. And yes, that is as it should be. But... with such a low massive damage threshold, ease of hitting, ease to reach said wizard, no combat w/ a caster is an issue.

But, yes, it's true that combat=/=all of D&D. And yes, outside of the combat arena, the wizard is still alright... except when he casts his vital Divination spell, and it fumbles... :smallsigh: I really do love the idea, just think the execution is a bit harsh. :smallredface:

Starscream
2008-12-30, 01:52 AM
Here's one I thunk up that I may use next time I DM a campaign:

I have never really liked the fact that choosing a race makes so little difference in the long run. In early levels it matters, but by the time you hit mid to high levels the bonuses you get from your choice of race are nearly meaningless compared to those you get from spells, items, and class features.

So I think I'll let everyone start with 3 levels from the appropriate "racial paragon" class for free. They will basically all be level 4 characters, but still count as level 1 for xp purposes. Since you'd expect most adventurers to be the most exceptional members of their society, it sort of makes sense.

That way the choice of race will make a bigger long term difference because it will significantly affect things like starting HP, attack bonuses, skills, saves, etc. It will also add flavor, because the different races will really "feel" different. Elves will feel more elvish, dwarves will be more dwarven, etc.

It will also make the half-races more versatile because they can take levels of either of their heritages' class. So a half-orc raised by orcs (takes levels in the orc paragon class) will be different than one raised by humans (human levels).

I think the one exception to this will be that I won't allow the paragon classes to grant caster levels. That seems like it could be unbalancing (well, more so than the rule is otherwise). No level one wizards who cast as level three wizards just because they are elves. Since everyone is still getting something for nothing, I don't expect anyone will complain.

Seeing as everyone is an ECL 4 character, without losing anything in the process, I think it would also encourage players to take a race with a level adjustment because it wouldn't require giving up as many class levels. Monster classes could also be used. Overall I think it would stop every party from looking and feeling solely defined by their class choices after a while.

I'm sure there would be some balance issues, but I can cross that bridge when I come to it.

Mr. Zook
2008-12-30, 02:01 AM
I don't believe (but I could be wrong) orb of force allows for SR, DR or energy resistance, which is WAY over powered, and should probably be fixed. Really, only use houserules to fix in games issues that come up.

xanaphia
2008-12-30, 02:42 AM
Remember that Satyr agrees that the fighter should own the wizard in a fight, because that's what they're for. I personally love those rules, apart from the complexity brought in by gestalt. The only thing is that the wizard also screws up outside of combat, with Charm and Detect Thoughts and Scry. But my fix would fix that, where the Concentration check is only in combat.

Through the suggestions one by one:

Weapon Finesse has no requirements and neither does Intuitive Attack (one of the few things worth keeping from BoED)

Never heard of Intuitive Attack (core, remember). I think that Weapon Finesse is fine the way it is, and I like the rogue having to wait.

There are no alignment restrictions for base classes
I agree completely. Done.

Multiclass penalties are dropped completely
I never used them anyway.

Everyone receives a free skill of choice to add to their class skill list.
Why is this?

Everyone receives +1 skill point per level, regardless of class, race, or int.
Again, why?

Bluff skill convinces someone that you believe what you're saying rather than they believe it. Stupid NPCs will likely believe you when bluffed. Canny NPCs will merely think you're nuts or misled if a bluff is not believable, but you make a high DC roll due to glibness or the like.

That's a good idea. I'll use it. So would Diplomacy help to convince them that you are correct?

Diplomacy skill allows you to dictate a course of action an NPC will take given their attitude (DC:15), or attitude with a one-step adjustment DC:25. Friendly NPCs can be "pushed" for more help or better rates. Hostile NPCs can thus be coerced into attacking in a tactically unsound fashion.
I already use the Giant's Diplomacy rules.

Creatures with the Earth subtype gain immunity to petrification. This is primarily to prevent the utterly silly concept of petrified Earth Elementals and Xorn.
I think I would have said this anyway.


% miss chances are determined on a 2nd d20 roll rather than percentiles. 1-4 misses with Concealment; 1-10 misses with Total Concealment; 1-15 misses with Total Concealment + Incorporeal and so on. This allows multiple attacks to resolve far faster in situations where these factors apply.
Good idea.

When confronted by multiple creatures with gaze or appearance-related attacks, all such attacks after the first are counted as if the viewer is averting eyes. The reason is the viewer is either so absorbed in one such attack that they are looking elsewhere than subsequent attacks. Averting eyes or closing eyes is an Immediate Action.

What about multiple attacks from the same creature?

TempusCCK
2008-12-30, 02:42 AM
I'm a Wizard-hater, but I must say, I love Satyrs houserules.

In the gauntlet described, the Wizard will still be the victor, he has the ability to solve puzzles abstractly, he has a spell for every situation, and he's incredibly SAD.

The only place where the Wizard will not be able to undo the fighter is in personal combat, which, as Satyr said, is how it should be. I'm not sure I like how high the spell DC is. However, I do see the benefit, Wizards will stay out of the way, they will run, they will hide, they will think carefully when using their spells, and they will use spells creatively, and if they don't, they'll suffer.

It puts the power of the Wizard into the players hands to do it correctly, instead of just handing the player a neatly wrapped package of Own and calling it a character class. If they do it correctly, they will still dominate most encounters, just will be less effective in the straight up killing variety.

Eloel
2008-12-30, 02:54 AM
Another big problem is, that the Monk has more skillpoints than Wizard does, therefore being better than the wizard under more cases. As I've already said, I'd like to join such a gauntlet (including any and all challenges, including traps, social stuff and combat), against any arcane (or divine) spellcaster, if anyone wants to do it. (we'll use Satyr's rules as-is, and the sparseness of magic items could be represented by, well, no magic items whatsoever for either character.)

Some may call me arrogant, but those rules are TOO unbalanced againt the wizard that it's not even funny.

TempusCCK
2008-12-30, 02:58 AM
If no one else volunteers, or would like help, I'd gladly aid in moderating/designing said gauntlet. If arguskos and I work on it, being as he is anti-those rules and I am pro, it will give something of a balance to the issue.

As well, if Satyr doesn't want to participate, I will make up a fighter to compete with you using his rules...

arguskos
2008-12-30, 03:00 AM
If no one else volunteers, or would like help, I'd gladly aid in moderating/designing said gauntlet. If arguskos and I work on it, being as he is anti-those rules and I am pro, it will give something of a balance to the issue.

As well, if Satyr doesn't want to participate, I will make up a fighter to compete with you using his rules...
I can provide advice and suggestions, but actually running it? Probably not (I looked at my schedule and I've got some rough stuff soon). However, if this happens, I will definitely be happy to provide a differing voice from the DM's perspective. Just lemme know (PM's are best). :smallbiggrin:

TempusCCK
2008-12-30, 03:06 AM
We'd need combatants first, but I have a few ideas which would be able to put both through their paces.

arguskos
2008-12-30, 03:08 AM
We'd need combatants first, but I have a few ideas which would be able to put both through their paces.
Sounds good. Just lemme know when stuff falls together. :smallbiggrin: I'll think up some stuff (maybe some good ol "complete the objective").

Prometheus
2008-12-30, 03:46 AM
I was actually just thinking about making a dungeon that is a serious of challenging and varied gauntlets for the PbP. I could help with the dungeon design or alternatively be the DM for the actual event. As for the rules introduced, they seem to make sense that a fighter should be better than a wizard but the wizard more useful still - but given how it is difficult for D&D characters to defend each other, it seems that there would be a concern with wizards surviving combat. So I am kind of neutral on them I guess.

ozgun92 volunteered (quite enthusiastically) to be the "fighter" (or other nonmagic) and Satyr hasn't had the opportunity to respond to the new challenge. There still needs to be a "wizard" (or other spellcaster)

Is 10% WBL a reasonable guideline for a low magic setting? Since for 4th and 5th level spells were mentioned earlier, does level 8 seem appropriate? How will the success of the gauntlet be measured? - I propose that the challenges get progressively harder and the character that travels the farthest wins (in the event of a tie, another gauntlet is introduced). Each character would get X (probably 1) golden keys which they could use to skip a challenge (to simulate reliance on other party members or to prevent the game from being tripped up by something stupid).

Eloel
2008-12-30, 03:53 AM
I would abide by any rules, but I was kinda expecting a 20-level challenge, I'll go by any level though as I've said over and over again.

Leon
2008-12-30, 07:08 AM
Make Read Magic a "Universal" Spell
Allow Divination to be a banned school
Ban Natural Spell or Enforce Shapeshift as the Standard

Satyr
2008-12-30, 07:28 AM
Satyr, I need you and a couple of other like-minded people to drop everything you're doing and go develop a table top RPG. I'd love to find a system that brings to life everything that you're saying (dare I say an old school D&D approach?) And make sure whoever you get to draw the pictures makes them realistic instead of cartoony.

Very flattering. Thank you.
The houserules above are only a shortened and simplified version of the much larger homebrew D20 version my group and I developed right before 4th edition was announced, which lead to an interruption of the development. It includes new write-ups of all core book species and the most common alternative PC races without the standardised discrimination of “monster races” (including a slow progression over time) and personal traits describing cultural, environmental or social background replacing different varieties; many overworked base classes (including a handful of completely new ones, and eliminating dead levels), heroic paths as an additional layer to give the character more substance (see signature), a bit more complex rules of combat (mostly based on class features for combat characters), magical rules more similar to a Suisse Army Knife and less like a ‘I win’ button (you can always replace powerful spells with weaker ones and use your cantrips at will), and a reformed skill system (combining a reduced skill list with more importance of ability bonuses and generally more skill points, so that characters can actually learn something more than only the obligatory basic skills).
When I am back home next year, I could post it, but it is mostly a work in progress. Without the progress in the moment.


The better way to test characters' abilities is to build a gauntlet of appropriate level encounters (a mix of all types - social, environmental, combat, stealth, survival) with an even balance of all of them, estimate how each character would fare in each (not play each out; too much variance involved in die rolls) and see which did better in the grand scale of things. This is what Char Ops uses.

This, for example would work much better, but I can make the predictions without many problems: With enough preparation, the wizard wins all situations except the direct combat; without preparation, he has significant problems. Magic is a great tool for planning and preparation, but does not work well under high pressure. Social situations depend much on the general prestige of the class (are wizards regarded as pure geniuses and everyone wants to be one? Or are wizards forced to live in disguise or face the wrath of angry mobs and a nice place on a pyre.), and are therefore trickier to simulate.


Also, props for the houserules. Those sound like a great starting point.

It’s the other way round. It is the very simplified and reduced form of the more comprehensive conversion mentioned above. Probably a too strong version for its intend, because some of the balancing countermeasures which actually lead to benefits for spellcasters were not included, mostly because they are a tad more complicated, like a more focused spell specialisation / spell school focus which grants bonuses.


Frankly, Satyr, your proposal seems utterly absurd to me!

Different experiences and expectations will automatically lead to different results and evaluations; I do not claim that my ideas are particularly superior to any one else’s and certainly, some of the ideas are strongly influenced by personal taste and preferences. My house rule suggestions certainly work better for some people than for others. That is always a question of taste and preferences, not overall quality.


Satyr, very nice houserules. I would change it so that the concentration check only applies in combat, so you can be an illusionist and trick people without screwing up all the time.

That is actually an excellent idea, we do this through rituals and the way of taking 10/ 20 parallel to the standard skill rules.


I could quote your wall of text back at you Satyr, but I'm tired, so I'll just sum it up this way

I fear that this one is even longer than the text before.


1. I think your goal is admirable and the tone excellent.
2. I do think you went overboard somewhat on the nerf of casters and the buff of non-casters.
3. I personally feel that somewhere between your rules and D&D 3.5 is best. Perhaps a lower Concentration check, as Eldariel suggested, would feel better.

Like I said, these house rules are not the essence of what is all important to me, but a very brief and obviously a bit clumsy version of it. Eldariel’s suggestions, for example, could be an alternative, which is probably better than my suggestion.


Let's merely part ways here, and agree to differ?

I do not proclaim to have the solution for all problems and I have never wanted to imply that my draft is the only true idea. Really, I found this discussion very helpful for the design and mood of my own games.

I think the best solution is not to limit one overly, but buff the other in it's weak spot (eg. buff fighter's ability to solve issues and be vital out of combat). However, this is merely my approach, so feel free to ignore.

No, this is actually the solution for one of the core problems of D&D and I see it very similar to you; but I think that this requires a lot more effort than a small houserule. It requires probably a more or less complete rework of all base classes, which is a Sisyphus experience.


ozgun92 volunteered (quite enthusiastically) to be the "fighter" (or other nonmagic) and Satyr hasn't had the opportunity to respond to the new challenge. There still needs to be a "wizard" (or other spellcaster)

I could, but I am a notoriously bad powergamer and at the moment at my girlfriend’s place where I don’t have any books, so we would have to wait until next year,


Is 10% WBL a reasonable guideline for a low magic setting.

As a rule of thumb, I use magical items with a total level equal to the character level for permanent items, and an equal amount for consumable items, but every character should also have a defining artefact or legacy item. Every character should have his personal Excalibur.

Telonius
2008-12-30, 08:28 AM
Here's one I thunk up that I may use next time I DM a campaign:

I have never really liked the fact that choosing a race makes so little difference in the long run. In early levels it matters, but by the time you hit mid to high levels the bonuses you get from your choice of race are nearly meaningless compared to those you get from spells, items, and class features.

So I think I'll let everyone start with 3 levels from the appropriate "racial paragon" class for free. They will basically all be level 4 characters, but still count as level 1 for xp purposes. Since you'd expect most adventurers to be the most exceptional members of their society, it sort of makes sense.

That way the choice of race will make a bigger long term difference because it will significantly affect things like starting HP, attack bonuses, skills, saves, etc. It will also add flavor, because the different races will really "feel" different. Elves will feel more elvish, dwarves will be more dwarven, etc.

It will also make the half-races more versatile because they can take levels of either of their heritages' class. So a half-orc raised by orcs (takes levels in the orc paragon class) will be different than one raised by humans (human levels).

I think the one exception to this will be that I won't allow the paragon classes to grant caster levels. That seems like it could be unbalancing (well, more so than the rule is otherwise). No level one wizards who cast as level three wizards just because they are elves. Since everyone is still getting something for nothing, I don't expect anyone will complain.

Seeing as everyone is an ECL 4 character, without losing anything in the process, I think it would also encourage players to take a race with a level adjustment because it wouldn't require giving up as many class levels. Monster classes could also be used. Overall I think it would stop every party from looking and feeling solely defined by their class choices after a while.

I'm sure there would be some balance issues, but I can cross that bridge when I come to it.

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure about starting them out with three levels. An alternative would be to treat the Paragon levels as an automatic Gestalt at level 1, 8-ish, and 16-ish. That would solve the "casting over spell level" problem, since it'd only be casting on one side of the gestalt progression. It would also make the race differences matter more over time.

ericgrau
2008-12-30, 10:37 AM
Remember that Satyr agrees that the fighter should own the wizard in a fight, because that's what they're for. I personally love those rules, apart from the complexity brought in by gestalt. The only thing is that the wizard also screws up outside of combat, with Charm and Detect Thoughts and Scry. But my fix would fix that, where the Concentration check is only in combat.

Through the suggestions one by one:

Weapon Finesse has no requirements and neither does Intuitive Attack (one of the few things worth keeping from BoED)

Never heard of Intuitive Attack (core, remember). I think that Weapon Finesse is fine the way it is, and I like the rogue having to wait.

There are no alignment restrictions for base classes
I agree completely. Done.

Multiclass penalties are dropped completely
I never used them anyway.

Everyone receives a free skill of choice to add to their class skill list.
Why is this?

Everyone receives +1 skill point per level, regardless of class, race, or int.
Again, why?

Bluff skill convinces someone that you believe what you're saying rather than they believe it. Stupid NPCs will likely believe you when bluffed. Canny NPCs will merely think you're nuts or misled if a bluff is not believable, but you make a high DC roll due to glibness or the like.

That's a good idea. I'll use it. So would Diplomacy help to convince them that you are correct?

Diplomacy skill allows you to dictate a course of action an NPC will take given their attitude (DC:15), or attitude with a one-step adjustment DC:25. Friendly NPCs can be "pushed" for more help or better rates. Hostile NPCs can thus be coerced into attacking in a tactically unsound fashion.
I already use the Giant's Diplomacy rules.

Creatures with the Earth subtype gain immunity to petrification. This is primarily to prevent the utterly silly concept of petrified Earth Elementals and Xorn.
I think I would have said this anyway.


% miss chances are determined on a 2nd d20 roll rather than percentiles. 1-4 misses with Concealment; 1-10 misses with Total Concealment; 1-15 misses with Total Concealment + Incorporeal and so on. This allows multiple attacks to resolve far faster in situations where these factors apply.
Good idea.

When confronted by multiple creatures with gaze or appearance-related attacks, all such attacks after the first are counted as if the viewer is averting eyes. The reason is the viewer is either so absorbed in one such attack that they are looking elsewhere than subsequent attacks. Averting eyes or closing eyes is an Immediate Action.

What about multiple attacks from the same creature?

I love how most of the house rules you're taking here and from Curmudgeon are just making things what they were intended to be anyway, rather than making sweeping changes. So I agree with 90% of what you got; just wanted to say that before I nit pick.

The multiclass xp penalty is a balancing factor to keep people from cheesing out multiclassing. Ya, it's harsh, but basically it's just 1 step short of banning awkward multiclassing all together. No one is ever supposed to take the penalty, unless they're desperate. Just look at the abuse people already try with prestige classes which don't have this penalty. OTOH leers from the DM work too.

Similar to that "house rule" for bluff (I think that's what a bluff is anyway), I'd make diplomacy only good for getting others to agree to reasonable propositions, and their disposition is altered only in regard to the proposition. i.e., you can only use diplomacy to be a diplomat. This makes fixed DCs reasonable, since both sides benefit (though one side might benefit more). But if you're going to replace the original rules for this and polymorph, the Giant is probably one of the better people to go to.

There are already rules for averting your eyes to a gaze attack. It says there's a 50% chance that you accidentally look anyway each time the attack requires a save. If you close your eyes you're 100% protected, but with obvious drawbacks.

I agree that satyr's house rules are a bit harsh; they might take wizards out of the game altogether if nobody wants to live with it and IMO hurting variety is a bad idea.

Eldariel
2008-12-30, 10:45 AM
The multiclass xp penalty is a balancing factor to keep people from cheesing out multiclassing. Ya, it's harsh, but basically it's just 1 step short of banning awkward multiclassing all together. No one is ever supposed to take the penalty, unless they're desperate. Just look at the abuse people already try with prestige classes which don't have this penalty. OTOH leers from the DM work too.

The thing is, the rule doesn't accomplish its goal. As you said, Prestige Classes bypass the rule and thus, the rule loses most of its efficiency. Also, because of the favored class rules and the fact that you only dip 1-2 levels most of the time anyways, no well built multiclass character actually takes the penalties. So all it does is force people to dip even more; the polar opposite of what it wants to do, which is to restrict dipping. The intent is clear, but the rule doesn't accomplish the intent; it's a poorly written rule.

My suggestion is to wreck the whole XP penalty rules, support favored classes through either some level-by-level bonuses or racial substitution levels (I prefer latter for reasons stated before) and leave multiclassing restrictions up to DM adjudication. DMs are fully capable of that and since multiclassing is an organic entity, the restrictions need to be organic too; that's one of DM's principal roles is in the game, to set the restrictions rules cannot cover due to the fluid nature of the problem, and the fact that what would be totally ok for one character is broken or senseless for another.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-30, 10:57 AM
I am planning to start a new campaign. What house rules should I use?

Our games are usually mainly RP based but with occasional combat. I would rather fighters not be useless. Any ideas?
My Tome of House Rules (http://lukebuchanan.com/TS_Tome_of_House_Rules_3e.pdf) might give you some ideas. To make fighters not suck in a rp-oriented game, a couple simple solutions come to mind:

1. No cross-class skills. For anyone. They're useless anyway.
2. Everyone gets at least 4 + Int skill points per level OR
3. Everyone gets an additional 2 skill points per level (8 at 1st).

Hope that helps,
TS

Eldariel
2008-12-30, 11:16 AM
1. No cross-class skills. For anyone. They're useless anyway.
2. Everyone gets at least 4 + Int skill points per level OR
3. Everyone gets an additional 2 skill points per level (8 at 1st).

I personally take a step forward. +4 skillpoints for everyone, +2 more for those that are inexplicably really behind. And expand skill choices to cover a variety of archetypes for Fighters at least (Swashbucklers, Archers, Dervishes, etc. are all Fighters too).

Starscream
2008-12-30, 02:03 PM
Interesting idea, but I'm not sure about starting them out with three levels. An alternative would be to treat the Paragon levels as an automatic Gestalt at level 1, 8-ish, and 16-ish. That would solve the "casting over spell level" problem, since it'd only be casting on one side of the gestalt progression. It would also make the race differences matter more over time.

True, and I considered doing something very like that. The problem is that while it works for the races that have paragon classes, it doesn't work for anything more exotic. Basically I'd be punishing my players for not choosing core races, when my goal is to reward them for putting more thought into their racial selection.

So I'm giving them three free levels, which can be used to improve their race only, not their class. They can take paragon levels, monster levels, or just spend it on offsetting a race with a level adjustment.

The main problem is that they will be more powerful than most level one characters. I can either set them against level one encounters, which will get slaughtered with no effort, or I can pit them against higher level encounters, which will make them level faster than most groups. I don't think they'd complain about that.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-30, 02:43 PM
I personally take a step forward. +4 skillpoints for everyone, +2 more for those that are inexplicably really behind. I'm not a fan of that sort of change, because it makes the really skillful classes (Rogue, Scout, Uncanny Trickster, Dungeon Delver, Exemplar, Nightsong Infiltrator, Spymaster) so much less special. Suddenly a Barbarian at 8 skill points is 2/3 as good as a Scout at 12 skill points. And a Wizard will have more than half as many skill points as a Rogue.

If you want to award more skill points it's much fairer to make it more proportional. Otherwise you're going to give a relative bigger boost to the specialist classes like Wizard and Cleric, who really don't need such power-ups. How about
2 skill points -> 4 (+2, x2)
4 skill points -> 7 (+3, x 1.75)
6 skill points -> 10 (+4, x 1.667)
8 skill points -> 13 (+5, x 1.625)
If you want to give (say) Fighters another +2, that's fine.

Eloel
2008-12-30, 02:59 PM
I would say 1.5x or 2x to all should be better. Rogue is an archetypical Skillmonkey. A skillmonkey should have more (alot more) skill points than a "normal" character. 3-6-9-12 /level should work better, as a fighter has never been supposed to have all the skills maxed anyway. That's still my 2 cp, and doesn't have any effect on anything...

Toliudar
2008-12-30, 04:40 PM
Last RL campaign, we experimented with replacing the d20 roll for skills and ability checks with a 3d6 roll. An idea I cribbed from someone on these boards (thank you, whoever that was). It reduces the randomness, while still giving a chance for exceptional results. We like it.

Satyr
2008-12-31, 04:48 AM
I once had the idea that every character does not only gains his normal skill points but an additional amount of skill points which are allocated by the GM and represent specific experiences the character has made, ignoring class skills and limitations but are based on what have happened in the last adventures. After a number of Wilderness travels, every character gains additional skill ranks in Knowledge (Nature) and Survival, wild horse chases leads to bonuses to Ride and researching old magical secrets can bring a bonus to Decipher Script, Knowledge (Arcane) and Spellcraft.
I have never tested it, but I think this would be awesome, as it shows environmental learning and makes the characters more to products of thei specific experiences.

Tormsskull
2008-12-31, 06:58 AM
The thing is, the rule doesn't accomplish its goal. As you said, Prestige Classes bypass the rule and thus, the rule loses most of its efficiency. Also, because of the favored class rules and the fact that you only dip 1-2 levels most of the time anyways, no well built multiclass character actually takes the penalties.


I think this is largely due to the fact that many DMs are apparently very liberal when it comes to multiclassing. The idea of a dip really should be discouraged most of the time, unless it is brought on by a specific in-game event. A player looking at a class and thinking they want this particular ability therefore they will take one level is not an in-game event.

The same goes for prestige classes. A character who meets the prereqs for a prestige class, levels up and takes a level in a PrC without any in-game event occuring really is missing out on a lot of the fun of D&D.

With the above two things in consideration, the current penalty/favored class system actually works quite well, IME.

This all consider a non-hack n slash game of course. Hack n slash games none of the above would apply.

PinkysBrain
2008-12-31, 07:30 AM
So basically it becomes a game of who can convince the DM to shape the story for him at the right time and who can't? This has the same problem as rolling for stats.

Playing a year(s) long campaign with one character with lucky stat rolls who was always in the right place at the right time to take the uber PrCs will grind on some people ... some can enjoy playing the incompetent sidekick, some can't.

Hacking and slashing occurs in all games and they are not the only parts of D&D which take dice rolls either.

Eldariel
2008-12-31, 07:52 AM
I think this is largely due to the fact that many DMs are apparently very liberal when it comes to multiclassing. The idea of a dip really should be discouraged most of the time, unless it is brought on by a specific in-game event. A player looking at a class and thinking they want this particular ability therefore they will take one level is not an in-game event.

The same goes for prestige classes. A character who meets the prereqs for a prestige class, levels up and takes a level in a PrC without any in-game event occuring really is missing out on a lot of the fun of D&D.

That's assuming that characters are a sum of their classes. Which, I find, is not the optimal way to present them. I find it's the abilities, not the class names, that define what the character is.


With the above two things in consideration, the current penalty/favored class system actually works quite well, IME.

This all consider a non-hack n slash game of course. Hack n slash games none of the above would apply.

Don't forget that you'd get exp penalties for most in-story multiclassing, because if you take levels according to story, chances are they won't be advanced equally which leads to exp penalties. Also, if levels are tied to the story, you don't actually need the class limits.

So not only do they limit the way you're suggesting classes should be taken, they also limit the way I'm suggesting they should be taken and they do nothing to stop dipping, while punishing further development of a class (for example, a Dwarf Cleric who, due to story events, begins to revere nature and becomes a Druid would be severely punished for many levels). I really fail to see what benefits those rules have. Provide me with one example, where they accomplish something positive.

They don't:
1) Stop dipping
2) Stop excessive multiclassing
3) Stop multi-PrCing

They do:
1) Hinder organic character development
2) Make Dwarf Clerics somehow worse off than Dwarf Fighters
3) Hinders character builds that focus on one class or while advancing another (for example, 2 levels of Barbarian for every level of Fighter for a wild man who's recieved a little formal training in weapons)

I just wish to know what good do they do? Just one thing. If DM already retains the ability to say "no" to some choices during level-ups, I don't see them serving any purpose whatsoever.

Murphy80
2008-12-31, 11:26 AM
I once had the idea that every character does not only gains his normal skill points but an additional amount of skill points which are allocated by the GM and represent specific experiences the character has made, ignoring class skills and limitations but are based on what have happened in the last adventures. After a number of Wilderness travels, every character gains additional skill ranks in Knowledge (Nature) and Survival, wild horse chases leads to bonuses to Ride and researching old magical secrets can bring a bonus to Decipher Script, Knowledge (Arcane) and Spellcraft.
I have never tested it, but I think this would be awesome, as it shows environmental learning and makes the characters more to products of thei specific experiences.
There is a game system that does this, but I can't remember the name. Every time you use a skill, you gain a point in that skill. When you accumulate enough points, the skill goes up. Arghh, I wish I could remember....

Leewei
2008-12-31, 08:28 PM
There are already rules for averting your eyes to a gaze attack. It says there's a 50% chance that you accidentally look anyway each time the attack requires a save. If you close your eyes you're 100% protected, but with obvious drawbacks.Absolutely true. The house rules I was proposing were specifics added to the actions described in the MM and DMG. Averting or closing eyes was not specifically noted by action type in the write-up -- I houseruled it as an immediate action. Likewise, even if you were flat-footed and unable to avert eyes, I added text stating that you were considered to be averting eyes against every gaze attack past the first one, mainly to keep a party from getting toasted when jumped by a few Bodaks.

Multiple gaze attacks from the same creature resolve as normal, unless a PC is capable of declaring an immediate action to avert or close eyes.