PDA

View Full Version : Houserules (3.5)



Dusk Eclipse
2010-02-22, 11:53 AM
I've got some houserules that I wan't the playground to check

First: Two-weapon fighting line allows you to make more than one attack as a standard action (TWF two attacks, ITWF three attacks GTWF four attacks) does this make TWF more viable?

Second: well basically every one gains the benefit of able learner for free, IE once a class skill always a class skill for max ranks and cost

Third. Skill points are retroactively gained, if you increase your INT score by level up bonus or a tome you gain the skill points you would have missed.

So those are some of the houserules my group plays with, are they balanced? OP not whortwhile?

Pluto
2010-02-22, 12:20 PM
First: Two-weapon fighting line allows you to make more than one attack as a standard action (TWF two attacks, ITWF three attacks GTWF four attacks) does this make TWF more viable?
It does.
It's kind of quirky when the BA 16 TWF guy gets an extra 3 attacks, but it's a good rule.

Out of curiosity, how do you deal with AoO's?


Second: well basically every one gains the benefit of able learner for free, IE once a class skill always a class skill for max ranks and cost
GOOD.
Less paperwork and tallying is a beautiful thing.


Third. Skill points are retroactively gained, if you increase your INT score by level up bonus or a tome you gain the skill points you would have missed.
Err.
If you don't mind digging through books and tallying up the skill points a character missed, this is fine.

The only problem I can think of is that it gives a funky method of retraining. (That's not a bad thing, but it's the only abuse I can see.)

Dusk Eclipse
2010-02-22, 12:24 PM
What do you mean on AoO if somepne provokes he only recieves one attack.

And the retroactive skill, has only come up when creating PC above of level 1, (mostly Wizards increasing their INT) so no problem

valadil
2010-02-22, 12:25 PM
TWF. Okay. As long as there's still a reason to full attack I don't have a problem with this. If I were playing with this rule I'd probably go for one of those ranger/scouts I've heard so much about.

Able learner. Check. I've done this before. It's fine. TBH I think a lot of players conveniently forget when their multiclass skill points don't quite line up right.

Retroactive skill points. Also fine. I've seen a lot of games do this unintentionally by starting at high level. Characters with tomes and stat bumps in intelligence usually just count their final score when coming up with skill points. It's not worth the effort to figure out what level they were when they bought that tome. I see now reason why characters who start at level 15 should have more skill points than those who played from 1-15.

KurtKatze
2010-02-22, 12:33 PM
TWF:
Are the bonus attacks from the TWF tree on a standard action Off-Hand ones? So you apply the lower str bonus? I think that would make sense.

For the skills:
<3 the idea! We will start a campaign, entering with level 10 and i have a wizard for that... i had to calculate and paperwork as if in public administration to get those int boni from lvl 8 and the lost knowledge skills from incantatrix and Fatespinner all calculated truthfully and correct -.-'

These rules are absolutely neat!!

Dusk Eclipse
2010-02-22, 12:35 PM
TWF:
Are the bonus attacks from the TWF tree on a standard action Off-Hand ones? So you apply the lower str bonus? I think that would make sense.

These rules are absolutely neat!!

First of all thanks and Yes normal Penalties from TWF apply towards standar action attacks

Godskook
2010-02-22, 01:17 PM
The two skill oriented ones are extremely minor, and give non-int-casters a better reason to increase their int score.


First of all thanks and Yes normal Penalties from TWF apply towards standar action attacks

1.That's not exactly what he asked. If "M=main hand attack" and "O=offhand attack", he's asking if the standard action attack routine is "M1, O1, O2, O3" or something else?

2.The TWF houserule is the one that most mucks with game balance. It might be ok, but you're actually changing how the game as a whole works a little. Fighters can now easily make multiple attacks without charging. A less 'sweeping' TWF change I've seen is one that rolls all of the TWF into a single feat.

Draz74
2010-02-22, 01:32 PM
So wait. A level 11 Fighter with GTWF, who moves and then attacks, gets only one attack with his primary weapon, but gets three attacks with his off-hand weapon? :smallconfused:

Lin Bayaseda
2010-02-22, 01:40 PM
1. I endorse practically anything to make TWF more viable. Both weapon-and-shield style and two-handed-style got huge boons between 2e and 3e (having a shield add +2 to AC, and having a two-handed weapon deal x1.5 STR bonus damage), while two-weapon-style was only weakened (penalties start at -6/-10? oh my!). Anything to give poor Drizzt a chance is good.

2. I agree with this, it makes sense and is simple.

3. Raising your CON score does get you all the hit points for the previous levels retroactively, so why shouldn't raising your INT score give you all the skill points retroactively? I agree with this, as long as the INT raise is permanent, and not temporary as a result of a spell or item. Otherwise, it's just too abuse-prone (borrow item, put item on, take item off, instant retraining), and too bookkeeping-intensive.

sonofzeal
2010-02-22, 01:43 PM
I've got some houserules that I wan't the playground to check

First: Two-weapon fighting line allows you to make more than one attack as a standard action (TWF two attacks, ITWF three attacks GTWF four attacks) does this make TWF more viable?

Second: well basically every one gains the benefit of able learner for free, IE once a class skill always a class skill for max ranks and cost

Third. Skill points are retroactively gained, if you increase your INT score by level up bonus or a tome you gain the skill points you would have missed.

So those are some of the houserules my group plays with, are they balanced? OP not whortwhile?

First - it's still inferior to a two handed weapon (THW) in pretty much all ways, unless you have a good source of bonus damage. Neither allows you to use a shield, damage output stays the same (big dice + 1.5 str = small dice + str + small dice + 0.5 str), but you basically just end up paying feats for the luxury of making all attacks at a -2. You've made it more effective for the precision-damage folks, but it's still horribly flawed for everyone else.

Second - I approve!

Third - Beginning of the day, I put on my Circlet of Intelligence and gain max ranks in three skills (say, Hide, Move Silently, and Search). I sneak around, find a trap, but don't have Disable Devise. I take off my circlet, lost those ranks, and when I put it back on I choose Disable Devise, Open Lock, and Sleight of Hand. You'll have to prevent this, if you want this rule to work.

Dogmantra
2010-02-22, 01:58 PM
Third - Beginning of the day, I put on my Circlet of Intelligence and gain max ranks in three skills (say, Hide, Move Silently, and Search). I sneak around, find a trap, but don't have Disable Devise. I take off my circlet, lost those ranks, and when I put it back on I choose Disable Devise, Open Lock, and Sleight of Hand. You'll have to prevent this, if you want this rule to work.

He already has. You only get retroactive skill points from a level up or a tome - something permanent.

Draz74
2010-02-22, 02:02 PM
Also,


Second: well basically every one gains the benefit of able learner for free, IE once a class skill always a class skill for max ranks and cost

Those are two different things you just described. Able Learner fixes a skill's costs even if it's still completely a cross-class skill. Does your houserule do that, or does it affect only multiclass characters? Needs clarification.

In either case, I don't see any major issues with this houserule, but I do see a few minor issues. Some PrCs that require multiclassing could be a little easier to enter than intended, for example, such as Arcane Trickster. (Though in that case, that's probably a good thing.)

Also, anyone wanting to play a Chameleon might be annoyed that they have to take such a "useless" feat as Able Learner when this houserule is in effect.

Curmudgeon
2010-02-22, 02:15 PM
These are decent house rules. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree now has a reason to exist, and you've reduced bookkeeping while still leaving an incentive to take at least a dip into classes with lots of skills.

Superglucose
2010-02-22, 02:17 PM
Let TWF types make two attacks on a standard action (I don't know if they can or can't by RAW but I know some people don't let them and really... you should let them).

EDIT: If they have able learner for free, why would they need to waste a feat as a prereq for a PrC?

Dusk Eclipse
2010-02-22, 02:26 PM
Well, I am slighty ashame regarding houserule #1 since it was introduced to our table at my petiton ( I usally play Dual wielders) so heh that house rule was for my benefit, (though ouw newest player also likes this houserule)

And maybe my wording concerning houserule #2 was a bit off, this was meant to help multiclass characters to enter Prg class more easily, and maybe it is worthy to say we houseruled this before anyone in the group knew about able learner or chameleon.

ericgrau
2010-02-22, 02:35 PM
1. TWF is already only a hair behind THF even w/o bonus damage or effects (tripping, spell storing, etc.). Unless you allow uberchargers, this will let TWF get out of hand. The real solution for TWF is some kind of bonus damage or triggered effect. Even w/o this, anything beyond a small increase in damage would go too far.

2. Max ranks already work this way. It's cost that able learner overcomes. This really depends how much use skills get in your campaign. For most DMs, it won't make a big difference.

3. Like #2, a minor difference.

Shorter answer:
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

Eldariel
2010-02-22, 03:14 PM
1. TWF is already only a hair behind THF even w/o bonus damage or effects (tripping, spell storing, etc.). Unless you allow uberchargers, this will let TWF get out of hand. The real solution for TWF is some kind of bonus damage or triggered effect. Even w/o this, anything beyond a small increase in damage would go too far.

Huh? The changes he's suggesting only bring TWFers about up-to-par with THFers in terms of functionality. By default, even with bonus damage, the fact that you can't move and attack with more than one weapon makes TWF look silly, as that means you have feats that effectively do nothing.

There's so much more to the deal than just the fact that TWF has to invest 3 feats while THF invests none and TWF gets -2 to attacks for its trouble. There's absolutely no way a TWFer will outfight THFer as long as following is true:
- You need immense Dex for TWF-feats
- You need to spend multiple feats just to keep up on iteratives (this isn't so relevant in Core since Core-feats mostly suck, but as soon as feats that do something are brought into play, it becomes a huge opportunity cost; and even in Core, it's only a non-issue for Fighters)
- You don't gain full benefit off Haste/extra attacks
- You can't move and attack efficiently


TWF and THF are about equivalent when TWF costs a feat and takes -2 to hit, while being otherwise equivalent to THF (getting attack with both weapons while moving and attacking, not having to spend extra feats to gain iteratives off-hand, being able to use Dex for To Hit by default, etc.).

ericgrau
2010-02-22, 03:35 PM
Two attacks is not a small increase in damage over 1 attack. It is a large increase. TWF vs THF damage estimates without house rules include all costs.

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-22, 03:36 PM
It is when you have far less to hit and damage on the attacks. How are you dealing w/ the MAD issue?

ericgrau
2010-02-22, 04:43 PM
Barring uberchargers the penalties and benefits even out leaving TWF only a little worse. Most real gamers who have tried it post their confusion on the matter as they don't even notice a difference between TWF and THF. You get more damage from more hits, strength damage is the same, and you lose a little damage from spending gold on gloves of dexterity, the -2 to hit and 2 magic weapons instead of 1. Without ubercharger feats like shocktrooper, the AB penalty cancels out most of the benefit of power attack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87339), or later even makes it a net disadvantage. That's before bonus damage or attack triggered effects; such builds already have a net advantage over THF without any house rules. The OP's house rule runs the risk of making TWF always better than THF with or without bonus damage or effects, or if uberchargers are allowed it means TWF is still worse than THF (as nothing else martial can even compare to an ubercharger), and he's only hanging bait for a trap.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 05:37 PM
Two attacks is not a small increase in damage over 1 attack. It is a large increase. TWF vs THF damage estimates without house rules include all costs.

Two attacks with lower weapon die, a penalty to hit and a lower strength modifier is not a large increase over 1 attack.

Curmudgeon
2010-02-22, 05:47 PM
Two attacks with lower weapon die, a penalty to hit and a lower strength modifier is not a large increase over 1 attack.
In fact, it takes one martial + one light weapon with TWF to get exactly the same Strength multiplier as the two-handed attacker gets without spending any feats.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 06:03 PM
TWFer fans remind me of monks.

"but...but...four attacks!"

Dusk Eclipse
2010-02-22, 06:05 PM
TWFer fans remind me of monks.

"but...but...four attacks!"

Hey! there is no need to be rude.

I know that TWF is subpar comparing it to THF, but it is FUN, and I am the only optimizer in my group (and at best and average one) so my group doesn't have a problem with it.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 06:19 PM
No insult intended. Fun, enjoying the mental image, etc are all valid reasons to take TWF. I've done it myself.

But the simplistic "this gets twice as many attacks, so it must be better" sort of logic tends to come up far, far too often as a reason. Plus, it let me quote Oots.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-02-22, 06:22 PM
Yeah I was joking too, either way, All extra attack are of-hand right?
would it be too unbalancing if ITWf let you do two main hand attacks and one ofhand? and GTWF giving you two Main hand and two off hand attacks?

oh and the DM and I go for te agreement if you use it I can use it too, so I don't think it will be unbalance in our campaing, since he has access to the same tactics as me or my party.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 06:40 PM
Yeah I was joking too, either way, All extra attack are of-hand right?
would it be too unbalancing if ITWf let you do two main hand attacks and one ofhand? and GTWF giving you two Main hand and two off hand attacks?

oh and the DM and I go for te agreement if you use it I can use it too, so I don't think it will be unbalance in our campaing, since he has access to the same tactics as me or my party.

It's probably fine as it is. A little weaker than THF, but not crazily so. If anything, instead of messing with the number of attacks, Id suggest messing with the to hit bonus further. It's more granular, and doesn't affect combat time the way iteratives do.

Partysan
2010-02-22, 06:59 PM
I like 2. and 3. one and in fact have played that way for a time.

Nr. 1 bugs me. Allowing for both hands on a standard attack for TWF is great, but allowing iterative attacks on a standard action only for TWF strikes me as odd. Why can one make more attacks with his offhand (while attacking with the primary hand, too) than someone only attacking with the primary hand? Using two weapons does not make the single weapons faster. Let them have one standard and one offhand attack on a standard action and let them get the attacks for improved and greater TWF at the appropriate BAB levels, that's a lot more convincing. An offhand attack on AOOs and charges would be a nice extra feat, or you could put it on top. But iteratives should either be restricted to full attacks or be available to single weapon users (and primary weapons), too.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 07:03 PM
I believe there are ways to do that with single weapons as well. Typically by getting extra move actions, etc.

If it's an extra feat, I wouldn't worry overly much about it. TWF already eats feats.

Eldariel
2010-02-22, 08:12 PM
Barring uberchargers the penalties and benefits even out leaving TWF only a little worse. Most real gamers who have tried it post their confusion on the matter as they don't even notice a difference between TWF and THF. You get more damage from more hits, strength damage is the same, and you lose a little damage from spending gold on gloves of dexterity, the -2 to hit and 2 magic weapons instead of 1. Without ubercharger feats like shocktrooper, the AB penalty cancels out most of the benefit of power attack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87339), or later even makes it a net disadvantage. That's before bonus damage or attack triggered effects; such builds already have a net advantage over THF without any house rules. The OP's house rule runs the risk of making TWF always better than THF with or without bonus damage or effects, or if uberchargers are allowed it means TWF is still worse than THF (as nothing else martial can even compare to an ubercharger), and he's only hanging bait for a trap.

You're missing out on a number of factors here. Two-Handed damage gets 1½ Str. TWF gets 1 Str and ½ Str, respectively. That evens out. One-handed and light weapon lead to effective 1 point increase in damage over a two-hander (e.g. 19-20/x2 weapons give 1d8 and 1d6 for TWF and 2d6 for two-hand), but already at Large damage categories, the two-hander pulls out ahead due to larger size increases (1d10+1d8 vs. 3d6). Enlarge Person is eminently available. Just saying.

So Two-Hander already deals more damage by default, assuming buff availability. And we didn't even account for the -2 To Hit from TWF yet. Now, with pure PA, that comes out at about 4 damage (at worst, assuming the To Hit is unnecessary). Of course, with multipliers it's more. Here we have two-hander having spent one feat doing 3d6+1.5*Str+4 vs. TWFer having spent three feats doing 1d10+1d8+1.5*Str damage. And this picture doesn't account for the fact that TWFer will frequently be unable to use his second weapon at all, nor the fact that once Haste becomes available, TWFer only gets 1d10+1*Str extra from it vs. THFer's 3d6+1.5*Str+4 extra.


Greater Magic Weapon will give TWFer a bit more mileage, but not enough to make up for the deficit he's in. Further, all To Hit enhancers are more powerful for THFer due to the modular nature of Power Attack. TWFer will also gain more mileage out of weapon enhancements, but will pay more for them; generally two-hander is about one/third ahead in enhancement. If we assume average of +2.5 damage per enhancement (what unconditional +1 gives you (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/weapons.htm#collision); accounting for the times conditionals aren't usable, they all come out at about the same), you're looking at ~+10 damage on level 20, and less every level up until then.


In other words, assuming you were able to full attack every turn and both required the same contribution, they would be about even. TWF gets more mileage out of GMW & base weapon enhancements, but pays more for the enhancements, and THF gets more mileage out of Haste. TWF lacks last iterative off-hand (pointless IMHO; it should be there as it has no reason not to - this is a slight point in favor of the THF as Power Attack makes it unlikely to hit anyways, but due to the immense damage every hit on this level does, that extra chance to roll a 20 is worthwhile) and has a generic -2 to hit, along with inability to deal massive damage when buffed or vs. low-AC opponents. TWF has slightly higher base damage die, but lower when Enlarged, and gets more mileage out of every source of bonus damage you have though. The upsides and downsides about cancel each other out.


Now though, comes the part where TWF has a ****ton of downsides without a single upside:
- You lose almost half and again as much damage as TWF whenever you move and attack.
- Your Attacks of Opportunity are only ~60% as powerful.
- You lose two feats for no gain whatsoever (yes, this is huge).
- You "lose" tons of stats into getting that 19 Dex for Greater TWF. This leads to lower Str and weaker character overall.

These issues are the ones you need to fix to balance it out. If you keep an eye on it all game, you'll notice just how much damage TWFer loses out on due to these factors.

If you make TWF equivalent to THF in terms of moving attacks (give the first off-hand), make them equivalent in terms of feat cost (combine TWF-chain into one feat, no need to give ITWF and GTWF extra abilities; there are other TWF feats to pick if you want to pay more for better TWF abilities) and enable Dex-focus (standard Dex to attack for finessable weapons, some way to acquire Dex to damage), they'll be quite equal.

As it stands, due to the listed factors above, no matter how you look at it, THF comes out vastly ahead. And people not noticing it? Well, they might not if they don't look. Blind people will miss it, but anyone who actually pays attention will notice.


@OP:
I honestly suggest a simpler fix of removing ITWF and GTWF, combining them to TWF-feat and then enabling one attack with both hands after movement/charge with TWF-feat too; it's probably alright to leave AoO TWF up to a separate feat though combining it to this wouldn't hurt either.

GTWF and ITWF are illogical feats in the first place; they're feats in a feat chain with greater prerequisites and lesser gains. Attacks at penalties compared to attacks at full bonus? WTF? Yeah, take 'em out, combine to TWF, call it a day. If you wanna let people full attack after movement, give that ability to everyone and abolish Full Attacks entirely or make them miss out on only last iterative while moving or something. Don't give TWF preferential treatment here.

Otodetu
2010-02-22, 08:54 PM
1. Sort off: you can get two attacks with two weapon fighting as a standard action, no more, and you apply your full strength to your off-hand. (Also remember to compare a character with two-weapon fighting to a character with power attack and a two-handed weapon, both have expended a feat on their fighting style but by core two-handed weapon and power attack is superior) (And you fail if you try to power attack with a light off-hand weapon...)

2. No.

3. Yes; this is so obvious that I am surprised it's not core. Any permanent increase to int grants you the skill points. (if you take of your headband of int, you lose access to the skills you gained from it, and if you later gain a permanent bonus to int you get them back.)

Myou
2010-02-23, 09:43 AM
1. Sort off: you can get two attacks with two weapon fighting as a standard action, no more, and you apply your full strength to your off-hand. (Also remember to compare a character with two-weapon fighting to a character with power attack and a two-handed weapon, both have expended a feat on their fighting style but by core two-handed weapon and power attack is superior) (And you fail if you try to power attack with a light off-hand weapon...)

2. No.

3. Yes; this is so obvious that I am surprised it's not core. Any permanent increase to int grants you the skill points. (if you take of your headband of int, you lose access to the skills you gained from it, and if you later gain a permanent bonus to int you get them back.)

Headbands of Intellect aren't permanent bonues so they don't give skill points to begin with. Ruling otherwise is too open to abuse anyway.