Need critics for House Rules (D&D 3.5)

[JellyPooga]

I'm considering DMing a 3.5 D&D game with a few fairly hefty house rules and needed some opinions and suggestions on how fair they are. I will be running this game PbP, thus won't know who will be playing, so I also need peeps opinions on how enjoyable they might think using those rules will be (if I get a lot of negative response, for example, I'm not likely to attract many people to the game).

First of all, some background. These House Rules are designed with the following sourcebooks in mind:

PHB
PHB II
DMG
MM
MM III
Fiend Folio
Fiendish Codex I
Fiendish Codex II
Draconomicon
Complete: Warrior
- Adventurer
- Arcane
- Divine
- Champion
- Mage
- Scoundrel
Races of: the Wild
- the Dragon
- Stone
- Destiny
Magic Item Compendium
Spell Compendium
Unearthed Arcana
Heroes of Horror
Libris Mortis
Planar Handbook
Dungeonscape
Sandstorm
Stormwrack
Frostburn
Miniatures Handbook
Eberron Campaign Setting
Unapproachable East
Races of Faerun

I'll not be using Psionics, but non-psionic stuff from the psionic section of the SRD is also available.

The game setting is one where humans are not the "dominant race" (no race is particularly 'dominant' for that matter) and 'exotic' races are much more "normal" because it is set shortly after a ‘Golden Age’ where Gods and Men walked the earth side by side and all that kind of jazz. Magic is somewhat rarer than would be expected from a 'generic' game (casting magic is a little rarer, because races with SLAs are much more common, however magic items are few and far between).

Right, that's about as much background as is relevent (I think), so here's my proposed House Rules (NB - some of these these rules are specific to the one campaign I'm running in this setting, not for the setting in general):

1) Races
1a) All characters must have at least a +1 Level Adjustment. This may be from Race and/or a template (inherited or aquired). LA Buyback rules from Unearthed Arcana will be used.

1b) All characters must also have a randomly determined Bloodline. Generate 3 Bloodlines using the appropriate tables and choose one. If you are absolutely unhappy with all three of your rolls or have a particular character concept that either requires a particular Bloodline or no Bloodline at all, I may waive this requirement IF I think your reason is good enough (I may take a lot of persuading...).

1c) Half-Elf and Half-Orc are not Races, but inherited templates that may be added to any Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid or Giant. They grant the following traits in addition to those of their Base Race:

Half-Elf
- Type: Changes to Humanoid with the augmented subtype.
- -2 Con
- Immunity to magic sleep effects
- +1 Racial Bonus to Saving Throws vs. Enchantment spells and effects
- Low-Light Vision (x2)
- +1 Racial bonus on Listen, Search and Spot checks
- Elven Blood: For all effects related to Race, Half-Elves are treated as being Elves in addition to their Base Race.
- Add Elven to Bonus Languages
- LA: +0

Half-Orc
- Type: Changes to Humanoid with the augmented subtype
- +2 Str, -2 Dex, +2 Cha
- Darkvision 60ft
- +1 bonus to Natural Armour
- Energy Resistance: 5 to either Fire or Cold, chosen at Character Generation. Once chosen, this decision may not be changed.
- Light Sensitivity (or Light Blindness if the Base Race alreasy has Light Sensitivity)
- Orc Blood: For all effects related to Race, Half-Orcs are treated as being Orcs in addition to their Base Race.
- Add Orc to Bonus Languages
- LA: +1

1d) All Elves are as described in the PHB. The variants described elsewhere (such as in the MM) do not exist.

1e) Environmental Racial Variants, as described in Unearthed Arcana, do not exist.

1f) All Orcs are as described for Orogs in Races of Faerun. All other variants (including the 'standard' orcs in the MM) do not exist.

2) Classes and Levelling
2a) The following Classes are not available for Player Characters:
Beguiler
Cleric
Dragon Shaman
Dread Necromancer
Druid
Warmage

2b) All Prestige Classes are only available with express permission by the DM

2c) Paladins and Rangers must use a variant that replaces spellcasting.

2d) Upon reaching the required experience to gain a new level, with the exception of Bloodline Levels, you must do one of two things in order to receive any benefit from going up a level (HD, BAB, Saves, Feats, etc.):
- Find an Instructor willing and able to teach you. This generally means someone of a higher level than you in that class that you pay to teach you the next level of that class (but not neccesarily). This normally takes 1 day/(your new class level) and costs (10xInstructors Level)/day in gold pieces.
- Spend time in self training. This is generally free (apart from living costs), but takes a lot longer. This normally takes 1d6+1 days/(your new class level).

2e) Partial Base Attack Bonus and Base Saves will be used when multicasting and/or taking a PrC.

2f) Characters that start with a Level Adjustment of +1 are considered to have already ‘bought back’ their LA. To represent this, they begin play at Character Level 5 with no LA.

3) Language
3a) There are 4 tiers of comprehension: None (Tier 0), Basic (Tier 1), Fluent (Tier 2) and Literate (Tier 3).

Tier 0 (None): You cannot understand the language at all. You might know extremely basic things such as 'hello' or 'thank you', but not enough to construct sentances. Characters with this level of comprehension may not make Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate checks in this language and may suffer extreme penalties on Sense Motive checks against those using it.

Tier 1 (Basic): You are able to 'get by' using the language. You know enough to make basic requests, buy things in shops and perhaps even the odd joke. Characters with this level of comprehension suffer a -10 circumstance penalty to most Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate checks made in this language and a -5 penalty to Sense Motive checks vs. those using it. You cannot read or write at this level of comprehension.

Tier 2 (Fluent): You can fluently speak and fully understand the language verbally. No penalties to social skills. You cannot write, except perhaps your signature or mark, but may be able to read basic writing at this level of comprehension.

Tier 3 (Literate): You are fully versed in the language, including the ability to read and write. You most likely have some kind of formal education at this level of comprehension, though not by neccesity.

3b) Characters begin with one language (chosen from their Automatic Languages) at Tier 2. All other Automatic Languages begin at Tier 1. All other languages begin at Tier 0.

3c) Starting Characters have one Language Point per point of Intelligence bonus. Each Language Point may be spent to increase a characters Tier of comprehension in a single language by one. Characters may only increase the Tier of comprehension in languages listed in their Automatic Languages and Bonus Languages.

3d) Barbarians may not use Language Points to raise the Tier of comprehension to Tier 3 (Literate).

3e) Ranks in the Speak Language skill function exactly as Language Points, except you may raise your Tier of comprehension in any language. (NB - a Barbarian may take Ranks in Speak Language to raise his Tier of comprehension to Tier 3)

3f) Common and Undercommon are not languages. Those with either of these languages as Bonus Languages may replace them with another appropriate language. Those with Common or Undercommon as an Automatic Language may not replace them unless it is their only Automatic Language, in which case they may choose as appropiate language to replace it.

3g) The following languages are also available to those of certain Classes:

Thieves Cant (Bard, Rogue, Scout and Swashbuckler) : An amalgam of other languages designed to confuse or mislead eavesdroppers.

Huntsman Code (Scout, Ranger) : More often written in trail signs than spoken, this sparse language mostly concerns itself with natural dangers, game trails and the like

Battle Tongue (Any Full BAB) : A concise language that's hard to misinterpret for use in combat.

3i) The following languages have special meaning or use in society:

Draconic: The language of scholars. Magical Language (conjuration, evocation and transmutation)

Celestial: The language of the nobility. Magic Language (abjuration, divination and illusion)

Infernal: Magical Language (enchantment and necromancy)

4) Magic
4a) Spellcasters must keep track of Spell Components and Foci. Material Components without a list price cost 1cp for 10 ‘uses’ under normal circumstances. If a material component becomes available ‘in the wild’ (e.g. by encountering a cave where bats have been nesting, for bat guano), a spellcaster must make a Spellcraft check (DC: 15 + level of spell the component is used for) and spend 1 minute per spell level of the spell the component is for in order to collect the correct type of the component/refine the component for use in a spell (e.g. to collect bat guano for Fireball, a caster must spend 3 minutes harvesting and make a DC: 13 Spellcraft check). A successful Spellcraft check harvests (3d6+ ½ your Caster Level) ‘uses’ of that component. A failed Spellcraft check harvests (1d4 + ¼ your Caster Level) ‘uses’ of the component. In either case, you may obviously not harvest more components than there are available. You may take 10 or 20 on this check (increasing the time it takes to 10 minutes and 20 minutes per spell level, respectively).

4b) The Eschew Materials feat is a Metamagic feat. An Eschewed Material Spell uses up a slot one level higher than the spells actual level.

4c) In order to use Spell Trigger Items (such as Wands), a character must have the appropriate spell as a spell known or scribed in their spell book. It is not sufficient for the spell in question to merely be on the characters Spell List.

4d) A character may learn a spell that has a metamagic effect on it permanently at the appropriate level, even if s/he does not know that metamagic feat (e.g. a Sorcerer could learn Widened Fireball as a 4th level spell even though she doesn’t have the Widen Spell feat). The spell behaves exactly as if it had that feat applied to it, including with regards to Save DC (e.g. the aforementioned Widened Fireball would still have a Save DC as if it were a 3rd level spell) and the applicability of having that metamagic feat applied to it again (e.g. our Widened Fireball could not have the effects of the Widen Spell metamagic feat applied to it). Casters that cast spontaneously (like Sorcerers) do not increase the casting time for spells learned in this way.

4e) Item Creation Feats are not available to player characters.

5) Misc.
5a) Critical Failure may occur whenever a character rolls a natural 1 on a check. Whenever a character makes a check (attack roll, skill check, saving throw or caster level check) and rolls a natural 1, they must make the check again. If the second check succeeds, then the check is simply a failure (a miss, failed skill check/save). If second check fails then the character has Critically Failed.

Critically Failed Attack Rolls: This is also called a Fumble and provokes an Attack of Opportunity from all enemies that threaten you.

Critically Failed Skill Checks: The effect of these depends on the skill and circumstances (DM’s discretion).

Critically Failed Saving Throws: The effect that provoked the saving throw has twice the effect it would normally (e.g. double damage or twice the duration)

Critically Failed Caster Level Check: The effect of these is entirely at the whim of the DM and is likely to be quite random, bizarre and/or deadly.

Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?

Cheers,
JP

[Ashtagon]

Language stuff: First, "literate" and "fluent" have distinct meanings. It is quite possible to be literate in a language without being fluent, or vice versa. You might want to change your terminology. Distinguishing between the two also makes for some more interesting scenarios.

Also, what is the game effect of only "basic" ability in the language? I experimented with levels of language ability, before deciding that it is just a needless complication (beyond yes/no for each of literacy and fluency).

Critical failures: PCs make more checks than NPCs. Therefore, PCs will experience these more often. This may make the campaign not fun(tm).

[JellyPooga]

Language stuff: First, "literate" and "fluent" have distinct meanings. It is quite possible to be literate in a language without being fluent, or vice versa. You might want to change your terminology. Distinguishing between the two also makes for some more interesting scenarios.

Yeah, I did consider the possibility of being literate without being fluent verbally, but it got a little too complicated to implement it. Using the "Tier" system I have provides a little more depth to languages, restricts the polyglot society of generic D&D (where practically everyone speaks at least two languages), but is easy enough to manage.

RE: terminology - any suggestions for alternates?


Also, what is the game effect of only "basic" ability in the language? I experimented with levels of language ability, before deciding that it is just a needless complication (beyond yes/no for each of literacy and fluency).

Basic level of comprehension simply means that the character can 'get by' in the language...make simple requests, say 'please' and 'thank you', etc. but no more. I've yet to decide any mechanical penalties for it, but I suspect something like a -5 to -10 to any social skill checks to influence people in that language.


Critical failures: PCs make more checks than NPCs. Therefore, PCs will experience these more often. This may make the campaign not fun(tm).

Strictly speaking they should occur just as often as Critical Success...perhaps implementing a Crit Success for skills, saves and caster level checks to balance it would help?

Cheers for the feedback (it came quicker than I expected!).

edit: made an alteration to "Languages" to clarify the Tiers.

[lsfreak]

Critical failures:
I've never liked these, personally. It just doesn't seem right that, no matter what, the God or War (or a high-level PC) will, one in twenty times, miss hitting the peasant that upset him even though he has +200 attack. The fact that in the process of slaughtering a whole village he manages to provoke an attack of opportunity from everyone once is just completely out of place.

Spell components:
I'd look really seriously at this. The spells that have spell components versus those that don't are essentially at random. There are a few fast rules (suggestion-like spells never have components), but other than a few of those it makes absolutely no sense as to what has a component and what doesn't. I tried doing something like this an decided that for it to really work, I'd have to go through the list of every spell and figure out what spells actually warranted a spell component. They were implemented as fluff, assumed a caster would have all of them except for the ones that have a listed price. Only change that with some serious consideration (especially when you get into stupid stuff, like needing what should be incredibly rare things - like bits of a giant octopus - for a fairly common spell).

[Daracaex]

Just give the players a language table that has three columns. Then, tell them they have to make a mark in the "1st Tier" column first, then when they spend more points, let them make marks in either 2nd or 3rd tier columns. This simulates characters maybe knowing how to write in a language just fine, but suffer a heavy and maybe hard to understand accent in verbal speech, or being able to talk with a slight or no accent, but not being able to write or read. I'd say that as long as characters are trying to read a language that has the same lettering system as another they have literacy in, they can treat it as if it was simply spoken. If it uses different letters or symbols, though, literacy is required.

Yeah, it sound complicated, but I think if you get a table down and keep it handy during the game, it will turn out simple enough.

[Baron Corm]

Randomly determined bloodlines = randomly determined backstory. Wouldn't want that as a player.


2a) The following Classes are not available for Player Characters:
Beguiler
Cleric
Dragon Shaman
Dread Necromancer
Druid
Warmage

Care to explain?


Critical failures:
I've never liked these, personally. It just doesn't seem right that, no matter what, the God or War (or a high-level PC) will, one in twenty times, miss hitting the peasant that upset him even though he has +200 attack. The fact that in the process of slaughtering a whole village he manages to provoke an attack of opportunity from everyone once is just completely out of place.

His rules don't change natural 1s. Those always existed. And they exist because no matter how good you are, you are still human. The actual gods in D&D do not have natural 1s.

As for the high-level PC critically failing, with +200 attack you will not confirm your critical failure. Reread that rule.


Spell components:
I'd look really seriously at this. The spells that have spell components versus those that don't are essentially at random. There are a few fast rules (suggestion-like spells never have components), but other than a few of those it makes absolutely no sense as to what has a component and what doesn't. I tried doing something like this an decided that for it to really work, I'd have to go through the list of every spell and figure out what spells actually warranted a spell component. They were implemented as fluff, assumed a caster would have all of them except for the ones that have a listed price. Only change that with some serious consideration (especially when you get into stupid stuff, like needing what should be incredibly rare things - like bits of a giant octopus - for a fairly common spell).

Agreed 100%. Non-expensive spell components exist as flavor. Expensive spell components exist to balance; to make you think twice before casting them.

[Xefas]

It seems like a lot of these houserules add complexity for very little reason.

Starting at the bottom and going up, Critical Failures are a bad idea. Auto-missing your attack or saving throw is a bad enough penalty without adding insult to injury. And as for the two other instances, "DM's Discretion" should not be used to fill in mechanical gaps. Either use your discretion for everything, or nothing, but don't simply state it as a patch for things you can't come up with. It's a lot like saying "I'm either going to feel bad for you and impose nothing, making this rule meaningless, or I'm going to think I'm being amazingly clever and totally **** you over when you don't deserve it." I've never played in a D&D group who used Critical Failures where it wasn't a horrendously bad experience.

4d and 4e seem okay as a matter of flavor. 4c is fine too, though it severely weakens the flexibility of several classes. 4a and 4b are completely pointless and I don't see them adding anything but more bookkeeping to the game.

All of 3 makes me wonder if you shouldn't be playing "Linguists and Dialects" instead of "Dungeons and Dragons." When was the last time your gaming group sat back during a session of heavy roleplaying and said "Y'know what would have made all that exciting drama and intrigue better? Not being able to communicate with anyone. We need some kind of system that restricts our ability to interact with the world in a meaningful way."

#2 seems like a matter of taste. I don't see it making things better or worse.

You need to change 1b...badly. I have trouble putting into words the terrible feelings it evokes in me to read that. Just let them pick a bloodline they like and leave it at that.

The Half-Elf template under 1c is severely underpowered. -2 to a stat that's important to everyone all the time in exchange for a few situational bonuses? Not so attractive.

[zeruslord]

Why are you banning the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Warmage but not the Wizard, which can do anything any of these can do and a number of broken combos besides? If the goal is to create a low magic game, cutting out wizards and requiring every arcanist to pick one of the more specific classes would actually go farther towards creating a low-magic feel.

[Daracaex]

Care to explain?


Why are you banning the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Warmage but not the Wizard, which can do anything any of these can do and a number of broken combos besides? If the goal is to create a low magic game, cutting out wizards and requiring every arcanist to pick one of the more specific classes would actually go farther towards creating a low-magic feel.

When you look at that list combined with the fact that he wants no-magic variants of paladins and rangers, it becomes clear that divine magic doesn't exist in this world while arcane magic does. Also, the classes there that are not divine likely have other reasons that they don't fit with the world.



Randomly determined bloodlines = randomly determined backstory. Wouldn't want that as a player.

Actually, it doesn't affect backstory too much. I can see that this is a world where people have the blood of any number of races and they never know which ones may manifest themselves later in life. I'm sure that many of the decisions he's making would make loads more sense if he had posted the campaign setting as well.

[Triaxx]

He seems to be trying to build a Hard Fantasy game. If you'll notice, he's eliminated most healing, wiped out magical item creation, so you'll end up only with named items.

[Arcane_Snowman]

And here I was thinking that the ordinary Half-Elf was bad, this version gives you a penalty on constitution, to give you a set of mechanically unappealing and bland abilities, that's not terribly good design. :smallfrown:

If you wanted to make Arcane Magic available but limited, you could modify the Sanity Rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm) specifically for the spell casters only: Arcane Dementia you could call it, and while it should probably not be too deadly, if implemented properly it could certainly make spell casting a dangerous endeavor, that requires some consideration.

The material components rules are just additional book keeping really. Languages however makes communicating more difficult, and while it makes for better realism it could also becomes rather annoying.

If Wands now require you to have the spell, Use Magic Device becomes a neigh unusable skill.

[JellyPooga]

Critical Failures are a bad idea. Auto-missing your attack or saving throw is a bad enough penalty without adding insult to injury. And as for the two other instances, "DM's Discretion" should not be used to fill in mechanical gaps.

Are you opposed to the idea of Critical Hits as well? It's good enough that you auto hit by your reasoning, surely? DM's discretion in the case of skills and CL checks is merely there because there are so many skills and spells that it could be affecting when you crit failed that it would take an age to go through the lists and determine the precise effect it has. Even then, the list would be inaccurate, because you'd have to take into account situational modifiers. DM's Discretion is practically what makes a game a Role Playing Game and not a Wargame and I see no problem in using it.

Having said that, Crit Failures are getting a lot of bad press here, so I'll rethink my stance on including them :smallwink:.


4d and 4e seem okay as a matter of flavor. 4c is fine too, though it severely weakens the flexibility of several classes. 4a and 4b are completely pointless and I don't see them adding anything but more bookkeeping to the game.

The entirety of section 4 (with the exception of 4d) is there to limit spellcasters. In every game I've played, no-one has ever actually payed any attention to material components unless they're costly. Wizards go for months casting fireball every day and never buy more sulphur...for me, that's just too unrealistic (yeah, I know that I'm talking about magic which is inherantly unrealitic and all that). The main argument against book keeping, as far as I'm aware, is that it takes time. In a tabletop game, this is an issue because you've only got a few hours in which to play a session. This game is going to be PbP. Combats will take days to complete and rounds will take hours, not minutes. Taking a couple of seconds to do a little extra book keeping is not going to be an issue. RE: Eschew Materials - given that material components will be relevent in this game, so should EM. Hence the +1 spell level to cast.


All of 3 makes me wonder if you shouldn't be playing "Linguists and Dialects" instead of "Dungeons and Dragons." When was the last time your gaming group sat back during a session of heavy roleplaying and said "Y'know what would have made all that exciting drama and intrigue better? Not being able to communicate with anyone. We need some kind of system that restricts our ability to interact with the world in a meaningful way."

I don't like 'Common' as a language and I don't like every man and his dog being a polyglot. According to the core rules, even the most dim witted Elf speaks two entirely separate languages fluently. How many people that you know can do the same? Now how many entire cultures do you know of that are completely fluent in more than one language? Hell, I'm not even sure that everyone with English as their first language is completely fluent in it. As for literacy, this is a medieval(ish) world. Literacy was just not that common before 1900 even, let alone a few hundred years before that. Using that as a baseline, why should my fantasy world be inexplicably literate?

There are only so many languages and so many playable races. The likelihood that none of the characters speak a common language is slim and the chance that any given encounter will involve a language that none of the characters speak is also slim. Introducing rules that make the languages your character knows actually relevent is not so big a deal and might actually make for some interesting RP.


You need to change 1b...badly. I have trouble putting into words the terrible feelings it evokes in me to read that. Just let them pick a bloodline they like and leave it at that.

Yeah, I thought about that one a lot. I wanted characters to have a Bloodline because it's part and parcel of the setting that anyone with 'heroic potential' has close ties with more powerful beings (everyone else either doesn't have a bloodline or it's dormant or too weak to show). I also wanted a certain degree of randomness in it (you can choose your friends, but not your family, so they say). I wasn't completely happy with it being totally random (as you say, most people like to choose their characters abilities, not have them dictated), which is why I gave the 'roll 3, choose 1' option. I would tend to agree with you on a lot of levels for this one, but my ideas for the setting are in conflict.


The Half-Elf template under 1c is severely underpowered. -2 to a stat that's important to everyone all the time in exchange for a few situational bonuses? Not so attractive.

I thought I might get that response on this! Any suggestions for a better Half-Elf template that keeps it at a +0 Level Adjustment? I couldn't think of a penalty other than -2 Con to balance the bonuses.

RE: Rule 2a @ Daracaex: Close, but no cigar :smallamused: Players can still take Spirit Shaman, Favoured Soul, Shugenja (Complete Divine) or Archivist (Heroes of Horror) for Divine Magic.

The reason for cutting those classes (with the exception of Dragon Shaman) and forcing Paladins and Rangers to take non-spellcasting varients is becasue they're the classes that have access to their entire spell list every day. Bards, Sorcerers, Spirit Shamans, Favoured Souls and Shugenjas must select Spells Known and Wizards, Wu Jen and Archivists must keep a Spellbook. This, in conjunction with rule 4c, limits the availability of spells that can be cast by any one player. This makes spellcasters as a whole much less versatile (which was the intention). It also amplifies the difference between Sorcerer types and Wizard types (inasmuch as even with wands and such, Sorcerers are still very limited in what they can do, whereas Wizards retain the versatility that makes them shine).

Before anyone points it out, I know Spirit Shamans can change their Spells Known every day and choose from the whole Druid list, but they're limited enough for my liking (they only get a maximum of 3 Spells Known for each Spell Level after all).

I cut Dragon Shaman because if you want to be a dragon in this game, be a frickin' dragon!

As far as limiting magic goes, I might check out the Sanity or perhaps the Depravity rules, but the intention is not so much to make magic less common, but less versatile. In the setting, magic is actually very common; a large portion of the population has at least one Spell Like ability or spellcasting. As a result of this, there will be a lot less magic items floating around (why have a tool to do something you can do without it?), but the magic items that are available are much more powerful.

That'll do for now methinks, but keep it coming. I might seem to be defending my points a little too intensely, but all your comments are appreciated and taken on board (honestly!).

[Baron Corm]

Your average elf, i.e. 99% of the NPCs, will not know any languages other than Common and Elven. If you have extraordinary Intelligence, you learn more. You say that this is rare in the real world, but think about it. An immigrant coming to our country will almost definitely know both their native language and English, because they were brought up speaking their native language, but have been immersed in English. I don't see why you don't like Common as a language, when it is just another name for English. If you were talking about wild elves from the deep forest, you could and should rule that they do not know Common.

As for cutting dread necromancer and beguiler to limit versatility... that doesn't make much sense to me. The dread necromancer and beguiler are very limited to the types of spells they can choose. Any given sorcerer or wizard will have a much greater variety of spells. A beguiler might be able to choose from confuse, ray of confusion, bluff, ray of bluff, compel, mass compel, super compel, and negacompel, but a sorcerer might be able to choose from compel, fly, damage, teleport, and protect. The beguiler needs Advanced Learning to be able to do anything at all against foes immune to mind-affecting. He's not versatile in the least.

The paladin, ranger, cleric, and druid spell lists are not as limited. However, their spells are still "themed", unlike arcane ones. The paladin and cleric have buffs and heals, the ranger and druid have animal things and heals. They also have to prepare their spells each day, meaning it's all run by you before anything is cast. If you're in favor of DM discretion, it's very easy to take a quick look for any spell you think is unbalancing. All told though, I could still see you banning these last four, just giving a second opinion.

It's fine saying that you want to make casters keep track of no-cost spell components, but you are actually putting a cost to them. These two do not have to go together. I would just keep it like you have it but take away the cost. Make it so that the currency of "inexpensive material components shops" is magical favors.

[JellyPooga]

Your average elf, i.e. 99% of the NPCs, will not know any languages other than Common and Elven. If you have extraordinary Intelligence, you learn more. You say that this is rare in the real world, but think about it. An immigrant coming to our country will almost definitely know both their native language and English, because they were brought up speaking their native language, but have been immersed in English. I don't see why you don't like Common as a language, when it is just another name for English. If you were talking about wild elves from the deep forest, you could and should rule that they do not know Common.

Your analogy is slightly off. Sure an immigrant knows two languages, but he's one of a percentage of the population that does. The Elf, on the other hand, is one out of every single elf in existence. In game terms, the immigrant has probably spent skill points on Speak Language, whereas Elves apparantly have Common imprinted on them psychically in the womb (just like practically every other humanoid) or something :smallmad: (ranty bit over).

Also, comparing Common to English is also a bit off. In D&D you can go practically anywhere, even other planes of existence and about 99% of the dudes (that can speak at all) you meet will speak Common. In the real world you don't have to go too far to find someone that doesn't speak English.

To me, having Common as a language makes having any other language a pointless exercise. So what if your 18 Int character can speak Elven, Draconic, Orc and Dwarven? He's never going to use them because everyone speaks Common. I just wanted to use languages in this game to see what effect it would have on play.


As for cutting dread necromancer and beguiler to limit versatility... that doesn't make much sense to me. The dread necromancer and beguiler are very limited to the types of spells they can choose. Any given sorcerer or wizard will have a much greater variety of spells. A beguiler might be able to choose from confuse, ray of confusion, bluff, ray of bluff, compel, mass compel, super compel, and negacompel, but a sorcerer might be able to choose from compel, fly, damage, teleport, and protect. The beguiler needs Advanced Learning to be able to do anything at all against foes immune to mind-affecting. He's not versatile in the least.

The paladin, ranger, cleric, and druid spell lists are not as limited. However, their spells are still "themed", unlike arcane ones. The paladin and cleric have buffs and heals, the ranger and druid have animal things and heals. They also have to prepare their spells each day, meaning it's all run by you before anything is cast. If you're in favor of DM discretion, it's very easy to take a quick look for any spell you think is unbalancing. All told though, I could still see you banning these last four, just giving a second opinion.

I don't so much want to limit variety or theme of spells, but literally the number of spells you can cast. The Dread Necromancer, for example, has 12 spells on its 1st level spell list. That's 12 spells known at 1st level to the Sorcerers 2. Given that you can only use wands of spells on your spells known list, that gives the dread necro a lot more versatility with wands.

[Tempest Fennac]

Looking over these, I personally don't like them at all. I can't see any benefit
to forcing people to have an LA and the class changes just complicate things
needlessly. That also goes for Enschew Materials being changed (it would be
worthwhile if cheap componants needed tracking, but the fact that it increases the spell level makes it worthless to me). I also don't like Bloodlines much.

[Ashtagon]

The spell component bit looks like needless book-keeping to me. As written, 5 gp (easily within the budget of any wizard who has completed even a single adventure) bys enough spell components to last the character until he next levels up. At those prices, I wouldn't even bother foraging for spell components.

It'd be more reasonable to just assume the wizard is fully stocked with any "essentially free" component he might need, unless the BBEG has stripped the party of their gear.

[JellyPooga]

I can't see any benefit to forcing people to have an LA

The reason for both enforced LA and Bloodlines, is twofold; the first is because of the campaign setting, in which 'exotic' races are just as, if not more, common as the more mundane (read: PHB) races. The second is because the point of the campaign specifically is to have a party of 'exotics'. I wanted to run a game where none of the PC's were Elves or Dwarves or Humans but were, rather, Lizardfolk, Githzeri or Orcs, so devised a campaign setting where such a party would be considered 'normal'. In a generic setting, such a party would likely not work well and even if it did, it would be difficult to run a game for it.


That also goes for Enschew Materials being changed (it would be
worthwhile if cheap componants needed tracking, but the fact that it increases the spell level makes it worthless to me.

I've always wondered why Eschew Materials existed in the first place, given that a spell component pouch provides every component you ever need for the rest of your life (:smallannoyed:). Why even bother listing that spells have non-valued material components at all? My proposition is only that Material Components have a purpose. Silent Spell and Still Spell both effectively do the same as Eschew Materials (i.e. they remove a component from a spells equation) and they require the expenditure of a spell slot one level higher, so why not EM?

Based on the assumption that Material Components do need to be tracked, do you think that making Eschew Material metamagic and cost one extra spell level is fair (i.e. is it on par with Still and Silent Spell)? (NB- remember that I'm trying to limit the power of spellcasters somewhat with these rules)

[Tempest Fennac]

Thanks for the explanations. I just tend to nerf less common races down to LA 0 if my players want to use them (my setting has a ton of half-animal races which are quite common, and my stance is that LA and buyback just complicate things needlessly). My logic behind Eschew Materials is that it's only real finction is to allow the caster to use spells if the pouch is lost. On the other hand, Still and Silent Spell may be used in situations where eliminating the componant would be much more powerful (eg: componants without a listed prive are usually limitless so being able to cast without them isn;t that great, but being able to teleport when restrained or cast a spell without verbal componants is much more powerful). I'd keep EM as it is while keeping your componant cost rules the same.

[JellyPooga]

The spell component bit looks like needless book-keeping to me. As written, 5 gp (easily within the budget of any wizard who has completed even a single adventure) bys enough spell components to last the character until he next levels up. At those prices, I wouldn't even bother foraging for spell components.

It'd be more reasonable to just assume the wizard is fully stocked with any "essentially free" component he might need, unless the BBEG has stripped the party of their gear.

Warning: I'm about to go on a massive rant about this. Feel free to ignore it! (I wrote it intendeing only a short paragraph in rebuttal and it got a bit long)

5gp will indeed buy you a lot of spell components under my rules (5000 castings of a single one component spell in fact). However, lets assume that the only spell you want to cast is Fireball (which has 2 material components: bat guano and a pinch of sulphur) and you've bought your 5gp worth of components. That's 2500 pinches of sulphur and 2500 bits of bat poo. Let's work with sulphur and assume that it has the approximate weight and consistency of flour. I challenge you to go to the kitchen and find some flour. Now measure 2500 "pinches" into a bag/pouch. How much is there? I've not done this experiment myself, but I'm betting it's a fair amount, perhaps even enough to fill a small pouch (one that would fit on your belt, even). Now a pinch of sulphur is probably about the most space efficient Material Component I can think of and that's only half of the 5gp you've spent. Lets assume, for the sake of argument, you've managed to cram 2500 bits of bat poo in to one pouch as well.

Now lets imagine that you want to cast more than just Fireball (as most people might). Lets assume that about a third of the spells you want to cast have a Material Component and that you only need 1 component per spell that requires it. At 10th level (just to take an average of a 20 level progression), a Wizard will likely have somewhere in the region of 20-25 spells of 1st level or higher per day. Lets call it 21 for ease of calculation. So a third of that is 7. That's 7 Material Components he needs per day if he casts all those spells. Now assume that, because he likes to be prepared, all of those spells are different. That's 7 different components. Now, because he's prudent and changes his spells up to suit the situation, he uses a different set of spells each day. Assuming some of those duplicate, let's halve the amount that need components and round down, giving us a total of 10 and then halve it again because he uses about 3 'set lists' of spells. This guy has 11 different spells that each need different components and he needs to have a stock sufficient to cast them all at least once per day. So under my calculations, this guy spends 1 copper piece and he's covered more or less all the bases for one day. 1 gold piece sets him up for 100 days and 5gp gives him about a year and a half of casting every spell every day. Sounds good, right? No-one casts all their spells every day for a year and a half, he's set for life!

Now consider how much space all those components are taking up. Now consider that he's got a pouch on his belt with sufficient dividers and pockets in it to house all of those components separately such that it takes only a second or two to retrieve that component in the heat of battle with a perfect success rate. Now consider that some material components (yes, even the non-costly ones) are really very peculiar and probably require some kind of special containment to be sufficiently well preserved for use in the spell. Now consider that this is really not a very realistic situation. Now consider that a lot of spells with material components require more than one component. Then you can think about foci too. They're quite often pretty big in comparison to the material components and they've got to fit in that pouch too. Now consider quite how ridiculous the concept of a spell component pouch that contains everything you'll ever need is. Those things should be called Spell Component Backpacks and come with flatpack instructions and an allen key.[/rant]

huff huff huff....sorry about that. Spell Component Pouches have niggled me since the day I first read the PHB. It was only a matter of time before it all came out! :smallwink:

[Fiery Diamond]

I just make Spell Component Pouches cheap magical items that actually produce the components on mental command.

[JellyPooga]

After my rant yesterday, I got talking to my Pa about it (Spell Components and their Pouches) and we did a little off-hand brainstorming about wizards/magi in general, the result of which was a couple of ideas that I thought I'd run by you guys:

1) Similar to Arcane_Snowmans' idea of introducing Arcane Dementia; Arcane Wasting (or something like that). The more powerful an arcanist a mage becomes, the physically weaker s/he gets. This would pose a particular problem for Warrior-Magi as trying to balance arcane might with physical would be a challenge. This fits with the stereotype of the bookish frail wizard, mighty in arcane magic but practically helpless when his magic 'runs out'. Possibly implemented by a -1 Str penalty per spell level known (i.e. if you can cast 4th level spells, you suffer -4 Str) or perhaps -1 to a physical ability score per spell level, either random or chosen (e.g. someone able to cast 4th level spells might choose to take -2 Str, -1 Dex and -1 Con or, alternatively, just chuck it all into a -4 Str). Hell, taking that line, you could even just say -1 to any ability score per spell level known (instead of the frail wizard, you could be the grumpy unsociable wizard [-Cha] or the crazy-nuts wizard [-Wis]), kinda combining Arcane Dementia into the same equation. Also makes the prospect of becoming Undead even more tempting for powerful wizards as they would be exempt from the ability score penalties...power corrupts and all that.

2) Instead of just enforcing non-costly material components, make all spells have costly material components. This idea's a throwback from Advanced Heroquest (the GW board game) where the Wizard can can as many spells a day as he likes as long as he has the material components to do so (which are, incidentally really quite expensive). Not sure how to balance this one exactly, but I was thinking something along the lines of 1gp for spells that don't normally have a Material Component, up to 10gp for spells that have a listed non-costly Material Component (depending on what it is/how many components is requires) and increasing listed costly material components by a factor (of 2, or +50%, possibly) or a fixed figure (e.g. +10gp or +100gp). I probably wouldn't let magi cast as many per day as they have components (like in AHQ), but I might allow Wizards/Wu Jen/Archivists to cast spontaneously (i.e. they can cast any spell in their spellbook rather than having to prepare spells).

An addenda to this idea is that all spells require all components (Somatic, Verbal, Material and a Focus...the default focus would likely be a staff or wand). If that was implemented, I would also consider amalgamating Eschew Materials, Silent Spell and Still Spell into a single Metamagic Feat which allows you to remove any two components from a spell at the cost of expending a spell slot one level higher, any three for two levels higher and all four for 3 levels higher (because removing them all is tantamount to making it a Spell Like Ability). You would not be able to remove Foci or Material Components that have a listed cost.

[Ashtagon]

You might want to have a look at my fix for spell components over here: http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1616

[Arcane_Snowman]

Well, if you want it to be similar to the Arcane Dementia, but want to have it as a wasting of physical attributes you could do the following:

Have an Aftersickness Pool with a maximum number of points equal to the spell caster's Constitution score * 4 (it starts filled), whenever he/she casts a spell, reduce this pool by a number equal to the spells level, when the caster reaches 60% of the maximum he becomes fatigued, when he reaches 20% he becomes exhausted, if he reaches 0% he becomes unconscious until he has rested for 8 hours or he has regained the Aftersickness points through some other means. The spell caster regenerates a number of Aftersickness Points equal to his Character Level after 8 hours of rest.

Perhaps add something to Restoration about allowing the character to regain Aftersickness points.

[Tempest Fennac]

This alternative magic system includes fatigue and exhaustion when you use magic points: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm# .

[lsfreak]

There are two problems with the material component approach. The first is that, if you base it purely on what already has a material focus, you're excluding that some of the most powerful spells don't include them (time stop, celerity, a number of save-or-die/lose, dominations). However, if you suddenly give everything material components, you screw the players over if they end up in an odd situation (grappled, jailed, in a city where all such things are confiscated; in such a situation, other characters are at least able to get by, if not particularly well).

Physical frailty doesn't hamper casters as much as you might want it to, either. Early on it can be annoying, but later on arcane casters are well enough off that having -6Str and -4Con really isn't that big a deal. Dex hurts the most, and that's more because it makes hitting with rays harder, not anything defensive.

Instead of simply making you physically frailer, alter it to being mentally frailer. Casting powerful spells, particularly nasty spells, or having a high spell level warrants Will saves. Too many failed saves and your sanity drops, you take Wis/Int damage, you gain taint. Too many failed saves on really bad spells warrant ability drain, alignment changes, contact from evil outsiders, or permanent insanity of some kind (confusion, hallucinations, violence - explain things differently to an arcanist; while the rest of the party distrusts the town guard, the arcane caster believes the guard is after his secrets; while the rest of the party sees the traveling merchant pull out a hidden map, the arcanist sees a hidden dagger).

[grautry]

Now consider how much space all those components are taking up. Now consider that he's got a pouch on his belt with sufficient dividers and pockets in it to house all of those components separately such that it takes only a second or two to retrieve that component in the heat of battle with a perfect success rate. Now consider that some material components (yes, even the non-costly ones) are really very peculiar and probably require some kind of special containment to be sufficiently well preserved for use in the spell. Now consider that this is really not a very realistic situation. Now consider that a lot of spells with material components require more than one component. Then you can think about foci too. They're quite often pretty big in comparison to the material components and they've got to fit in that pouch too. Now consider quite how ridiculous the concept of a spell component pouch that contains everything you'll ever need is. Those things should be called Spell Component Backpacks and come with flatpack instructions and an allen key.

Here's the problem with your rant - you're basing it on assumptions of the real world. You're not basing it on D&D.

It might be problematic for a normal person to deal with components coming from a pouch with "dividers" but that's because he's not a wizard. He has not spent his entire adult life training to use spell components as efficiently and as quickly as possible.

A Wizard did. It's part of his job description. For him, managing and using his components is like writing code for a computer programmer. It's an essential part of his job that he's spent a lifetime honing and practicing.

If we assume that the 5th level is a divide between olympian/Einsteinian peak of human ability and between simply superhuman abilities(and that's fair assumption, see this (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)), then a 5th level Wizard essentially manages his components as if you had pouch-preparing talent like Einstein had for physics and spent your lifetime honing and perfecting it(or nearly so anyway). A 6th level Wizard and above does it superhumanly good.

Also, virtually any high-level Wizard will be superhumanly intelligent(if we assume that ~16-18 of an attribute is the peak of human potential in the real world, a fair assumption I think) so not only will he have the practice of a lifetime(or outright superhuman ability to manage his components) but he will also have superhuman intelligence to know exactly what he might need and how much should he buy.

Requiring for the player to manage his spell-components forgets one part - he's roleplaying a character that has skills and abilities different from his own. Requiring that the player book-keep his spell components is akin to requiring for the Rogue to know real-life lockpicking, for the Cleric to worship Thor or for the Face of the party to be really pretty and have charisma of a movie star. It's not the players' job to have the skills or attributes of the character.

If you want to nerf Wizards, then just do so in a way that doesn't punish and annoy the players for playing them. A couple of good suggestions have been thrown out in this thread already.

[JellyPooga]

Here's the problem with your rant - you're basing it on assumptions of the real world. You're not basing it on D&D.

It might be problematic for a normal person to deal with components coming from a pouch with "dividers" but that's because he's not a wizard. He has not spent his entire adult life training to use spell components as efficiently and as quickly as possible.

A Wizard did. It's part of his job description. For him, managing and using his components is like writing code for a computer programmer. It's an essential part of his job that he's spent a lifetime honing and practicing.

I actually did a few calculations after my rant and came up with an approximate figure based on my '10 components for 1cp' model. That 5gp worth of components (assuming that the pouch is free) takes up at least 2 litres of space. I don't care how efficient a system you have or how long you've been doing it, that's a)not a pouch, it's a bag and b)far too much volume to easily catalogue (and ease is a requirement...a computer programmer might be able to rattle off code while he's sitting at a desk, but I doubt he'd be so successful in an "adventuring" situation!).

Admittedly, you could argue that a wizard does not carry around that many components at any given time, but then my counter argument is when does he get them? He can't just go to Components'R'Us and pick them up free because he has a spell component pouch and you don't find crystal rods filled with phosphor (material component for Hypnotic Pattern) just lying around.


...and how much should he buy.

So when does he buy them again? and with what currency? If it's not measured in gold and silver, then what is it measured in? dreams and rainbows? It's irrelevant how high a level or how superhuman his component organisational skills are if he doesn't actually have the components to organise. Saying that these material components have no cost at all is tantamount ot saying that he pulls them out of his rear end...i.e. that they don't really exist. If you're going to have material components at all, then they must have at least a nominal cost and if they have a nominal cost then there must be a requirement to track them. Do you make your players track rations? Arrows? Wand charges? If yes then why, if you not making a wizard track components? If not, then to my mind you're eliminating a huge 'realism factor' from the game. Sure it might be tedious to track, but if a GM can pull it off, limiting those resources can become an interesting factor of play (and not just an arbitary 'nerf'). I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again; one of the biggest problems with tracking components is the time, in real time, it takes to do so. In a PbP game (which this game, specifically, is) that time factor becomes irrelevant because there is no rush to get things done. Therefore all those 'book-keeping' tasks that are normally ignored because of time constraints can, in this circumstance, be reinstated because they add a level of gameplay that you don't normally experience.


Requiring for the player to manage his spell-components forgets one part - he's roleplaying a character that has skills and abilities different from his own. Requiring that the player book-keep his spell components is akin to requiring for the Rogue to know real-life lockpicking, for the Cleric to worship Thor or for the Face of the party to be really pretty and have charisma of a movie star. It's not the players' job to have the skills or attributes of the character.

It doesn't forget that at all and it's nothing like requiring a rogues' player to know how to pick a lock. A rogue being able to pick a lock requires a certain degree of knowledge, manual dexterity and learned muscle reflex. The same can be said for a wizard casting a spell. A player does not need to know these thing himself becasue that'a part of the RP experience. However, a wizard keeping track of his material components is like asking the rogue to make sure he has a set of lockpicks. If you don't have the tools required to do a thing, you can't do it...that's not a "nerf", it's a fact (and no, I don't assume that rogues automatically have improvised tools either...if the party's naked in an empty cell, the only improvised tool they're getting is if they butcher the halfling, strip the flesh from his bones and use some of his smaller bones as picks).

@Isfreak:


There are two problems with the material component approach. The first is that, if you base it purely on what already has a material focus, you're excluding that some of the most powerful spells don't include them (time stop, celerity, a number of save-or-die/lose, dominations). However, if you suddenly give everything material components, you screw the players over if they end up in an odd situation (grappled, jailed, in a city where all such things are confiscated; in such a situation, other characters are at least able to get by, if not particularly well).

I don't think giving all spells material components is so bad a thing. A Wizard is reliant on his spellbook as it is, so in any situation where he has no gear for more than a day is going to have the same result. Having all spells have material components is only going to inflict this same restriction on all casters.

@Ashtagon:
Re-fluffing material components like that would certainly work to my mind, but doesn't inflict the same level of "oh no, I'm out of bat poo, what else have I got in here *digs around for other components* A-ha! fur and an amber rod...LIGHTNING BOLT!" :smalltongue:

[lsfreak]

I don't think giving all spells material components is so bad a thing. A Wizard is reliant on his spellbook as it is, so in any situation where he has no gear for more than a day is going to have the same result. Having all spells have material components is only going to inflict this same restriction on all casters.
A wizard is only reliant on his spell book so long as he's out of spells. A smart wizard can go days without his spellbook if he has too, provided he was smart when he first prepared his spells and provided he's not stupid (stays in town/on roads). However, if his stuff was stolen and you require material components, that would completely screw him over. Maybe you're fine with this; I wouldn't be.

The SRD says,
Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch. They say that for a reason. It's a slight restriction on when you can cast certain spells, if your pouch is stolen or you're grappled. Just like verbal component spells are useless if you're gagged or silenced, or somatic if you're bound or grappled. The fact that you happen to need certain items is fluff; material components as a part of the spell are a method of limiting spellcasting in certain situations. Changing that to be more than a small limit is significantly changing the system.

[Ashtagon]

Running with spell material components for a moment.

Typical case scenario, a 6 level wizard has 6 spells. That's 6 components. Even assuming 2 cubic inches per spell's worth, that's easy enough to fit into a belt pouch.

Worst case, 20th level wizard has, I dunno, slightly over 100 different spells memorised. that's slightly under a gallon worth of components. That's going to be awkward to sort through in the heat of battle.

By that level, we can, however, make a few assumptions. First, he probably has a least 6 belt pouches to split these between (not to mention hidden pockets sewn into his robes, sleeves, and trouser pockets). Second, he probably stores a great many of his spell components in his main backpack, rather than belt pouches. Obviously, not the ones used in the heat of battle, but he certainly won;t be prevented outside of it. Third, he has been doing this all his life, and he is at near-godlike levels of power. He knows what to expect in a fight, and he knows what spells are likely to be used in battle, even though the player doesn't. In other words, it shouldn't matter that the player isn't up to the minutiae of deciding which spell components might be needed in the fight; his character is way more competent than he is, and provided he is carrying them at all, he can reasonably expect that his (very intelligent 20th level) wizard knows enough to plan to have them in a ready pouch.

So, given a sufficiently large number of belt pouches for combat casting and a backpack for the rest, the question isn't whether the wizard can reach any specific component, but whether he happens to be carrying it at all.

As as we've already established that it is trivial to carry a day's worth of components between the various places around his body, even for a 20th level wizard, that isn't an issue. By that level, any wizard would have a bag of holding to store a year's supply (if necessary) of extra spell components, if he can't return home to restock on a long journey.

My point is this. For spell components of trivial cost, tracking component use just amounts to annoying book-keeping.