PDA

View Full Version : Do you use houserules in your 3.5 games?



Otogi
2010-07-30, 06:50 PM
And if so, is it critical to the game or just for experimentation?

Sergeantbrother
2010-07-30, 06:53 PM
My group usually uses extensive house rules that has a relatively big effect on the game.

Private-Prinny
2010-07-30, 06:55 PM
I use houserules, but every single one of them is simply in the pursuit of fun.

Prodan
2010-07-30, 06:55 PM
Everyone uses houserules.

The Antigamer
2010-07-30, 06:56 PM
I usually consolidate some skills, and give some extra skill points that can only be spent on background and knowledge skills. I also do no flaws, but a feat every odd level instead of every three. Couple more, but can't think of them right now.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-30, 06:59 PM
Some houserules are so common that most don't realize they're houserules. Like I doubt many people play Diplomacy by the book, even without realizing it (certainly not for very long, heh!). Monk proficiency with their fists is another one; I strongly doubt anyone's actually played a game where Monks were considered non-proficient with Unarmed Strike.

Xallace
2010-07-30, 07:00 PM
We don't use critical confirmation rolls. It makes the game more enjoyable for our lot.

aivanther
2010-07-30, 07:38 PM
Well, since there's usually a hefty amount of rule 0s, I'd say yes. "No you can't do any PAO and go beholder-mage, think again." "No, you can't DMM persist more than one spell." etc. Most of its to keep game from either going insane, or to keep it fun.

Interestingly enough, I'm currently in a game that uses the UA spellpoint system, and I'm actually rather enjoying it.

akma
2010-07-30, 08:12 PM
I decided to completly drop the mechnical influence of alignements. I still know what would be the alignment of each NPC, but it doesn`t have an in game effect. So that means that there are no alignment based spells, for exemple.
Also, I decided that there will be no such thing as cross class skills, and will need to update my players about it.
In addition, I decided that each cleric will be able to take each domain he pleases, even if it doesn`t neccesirly fit his god (within reason, of course. A cleric of a god of fertility couldn`t take death domain, for exemple). This is explained by the fact that gods have various powers that go beyond what they specialize, and even if they are completly incompetent in one field, they could easily get a being to supply that kind of power to them/their clerics.

Zaydos
2010-07-30, 08:21 PM
I forget half of the house rules I use or have used. Usually it's in pursuit of fun and mostly things affecting skills. For example everyone gets Speak Language as a class skill, classes that normally have it get 2 languages per rank, everyone gets Profession, and I've given wizards Use Magic Device before (not that they need it). I'll often house rule that more things can be improved familiars, and that dragons LA is reduced by 3 or 4 (Dragon Cohort feat gives you a dragon cohort with an ECL 1 higher than your CL) [nobody plays them anyway :smallsigh:].
Sometimes I do some more to reflect setting, but that tends to be bigger things.

Defiant
2010-07-30, 08:30 PM
We don't use critical confirmation rolls. It makes the game more enjoyable for our lot.

That's... amazing! I can't believe I never thought of that!

Next game I DM...

EvilJoe15
2010-07-30, 09:18 PM
The game I'm GMing right now uses many[Link (http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=98730)].

Most notably I've thrown out the normal ECL system, and implemented Frank & K's method(Explained in the link).

faceroll
2010-07-30, 09:19 PM
We don't use critical confirmation rolls. It makes the game more enjoyable for our lot.

We use that one too.

lightningcat
2010-07-30, 09:34 PM
I use so many houserules, that it almost could be a different system.
Critical confirmation, alignments, death & dying, action points, and of course the Rule 0's to keep the game fun and moving.
As I find ideas that improve my game, they get added in. Luckily, I play with guys who are used to constantly fiddling with the game.

Zeta Kai
2010-07-30, 09:38 PM
The real question is: Does anyone play by RAW? At all?

Answer: No. Even if you think that you do, you don't.

Xallace
2010-07-30, 10:04 PM
The real question is: Does anyone play by RAW? At all?

Answer: No. Even if you think that you do, you don't.

My current DM is trying. And I mean really trying; he made it a specific goal of the campaign. You can probably imagine how well this all's going.

Prodan
2010-07-30, 10:05 PM
Buckets o' healing?

Defiant
2010-07-30, 10:11 PM
Kobold gods?

Vortling
2010-07-30, 10:21 PM
I run with a few house rules but rarely anything that impacts the game in a significant manner. It does help that my players either don't optimize a lot or are of the variety that plays nice with others when they do optimize.

Marnath
2010-07-30, 10:29 PM
I have never understood where this "monks are't proficient with unarmed, lawl" business comes from. Normal people take a -4 to do lethal damage unarmed, monk can do it no penalty. Mechanically thats exactly what proficiency gets you. Besides, you hardly need another way to punish your player for being a monk :smalltongue:

DragoonWraith
2010-07-30, 10:40 PM
I have never understood where this "monks are't proficient with unarmed, lawl" business comes from. Normal people take a -4 to do lethal damage unarmed, monk can do it no penalty. Mechanically thats exactly what proficiency gets you. Besides, you hardly need another way to punish your player for being a monk :smalltongue:
Unarmed weapons are listed as a Simple Weapon. Monks do not get proficiency in all simple weapons, only specifically listed ones. Unarmed Strike is not listed.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-30, 10:47 PM
A few. Mostly bans. I have been thinking of implementing some rules from Iron heroes.

Marnath
2010-07-30, 10:49 PM
*goes and looks at his PHB again* hmm, yes.. so they are. Just because they're in the simple weapon table doesnt...but they..huh. I always assumed it was just on that chart so they wouldn't need a seperate table for it. Ok, so thats an oversight, but the monk's ability to deal lethal damage with no penalty is still like a pseudo-proficiency right? :smallredface:

Curmudgeon
2010-07-30, 10:52 PM
Common house rules cover rules flubs, convenience, neglected weapons, and realism.

Flubs:

Monks are proficient with unarmed strikes.
You can cast Feather Fall (redefined as an immediate action spell) when flat-footed.
No ranged full attacks without provoking attacks of opportunity. Going strictly by the letter of the rules full attacks (melee or ranged) never provoke, but I treat this as just sloppy work by the rules authors. Each ranged shot provokes an AoO.
Rules Compendium mashes concealment and all other miss chances together so they don't stack; however, they provide an out for the DM to modify the miss chance for specific situations. I use that DM option to modify the miss chance to be exactly what it would be without this RC "update". :smalltongue:
Bonus damage from the Factotum's Cunning Insight is negative energy damage when used with a spell or effect that deals negative levels or ability damage, making it consistent with the treatment of bonus damage from sneak attack when used with weaponlike spells.
Convenience:

Level 0 spells are always cast spontaneously.
Make Massive Damage saves only when the damage is 50+ and also exceeds half your remaining hit points.
Neglected weapons:

Treat great crossbows (Races of Stone) the same as heavy crossbows for feats and other rules that specify heavy crossbows, since

all the crossbow rules use specifics needlessly:
Choose a type of crossbow (hand, light, or heavy). You can reload a crossbow of that type more quickly than normal.
great crossbows were defined later, after these needlessly specific rules.
Great crossbows remain exotic weapons.
If you like slings: apply the Rapid Reload feat to them, just as you would to a crossbow, for free action reloading. You can also use Manyshot with slings, up to a maximum of four bullets in the sling pouch.
Realism:
Split actual movement around a non-moving move action. Example: move 15' to a door, open it, and then go through the doorway that same round using the rest of your movement. (Or walk and chew gum at the same time. :smallsmile:)
Falling damage hits a maximum of 50d6 (for falling 500') rather than the standard 20d6 of the rules for most creatures. The 20d6 limit still applies if the creature has wings.

Xallace
2010-07-30, 11:14 PM
Buckets o' healing?


Kobold gods?

I suppose I should change the sentence a bit. It goes about as well as you'd expect from people who don't frequent D&D discussion boards. :smallwink:

Last session, the DM discovered how grappling actually works.

jguy
2010-07-30, 11:15 PM
Hit points aren't rolled randomly, its half hitdice + 1. Allows for slightly better than average HP and I don't have to watch 6+ people roll 8+ dice each at the very beginning of a midlevel game.

Bhu
2010-07-30, 11:17 PM
Not really any house rules for me. It's a big enough pain to get my weekend players to remember the rules as is (along with refereeing lots of rules interpretations and arguments) that I've never felt like adding anything.

Defiant
2010-07-30, 11:56 PM
I suppose I should change the sentence a bit. It goes about as well as you'd expect from people who don't frequent D&D discussion boards. :smallwink:

Last session, the DM discovered how grappling actually works.

No-one discovers how grappling actually works.

Vantharion
2010-07-30, 11:57 PM
Speaking can be done at any time really... If the players start to talk to much I start to have their turns be spent talking... Which is quite in favor of the bugbears.

An item can be magical even if it isn't masterwork.

I'm lose on players maintaining concentration on Detect Magic. It mostly functions like the third level equivalent. Players can spend effort to focus on auras.

Identify is more or less Pathfinder identify.

"I don't care what the book says" I am the DM, I make final call. I usually make it in order of fun and balance. Rule of Fun.

I don't ever care for 'Estimated Challenge Rating'. I throw what I think is right and it usually is.

Sorcerers get Eschew Materials at first level. Heritage feats for free (It really should be a class feature IMO)

There are some things I won't let you roll saves on; Being in the middle of a fifty foot by fifty foot room when the floor just got turned to lava does NOT give you a reflex save. Especially when you only have like 8d6 HP.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-31, 12:33 AM
And if so, is it critical to the game or just for experimentation?

Minor house rules, mostly for simplification purposes, or for fixing things that seem obviously wrong.

For instance, multiclass penalties are ignored. Things like monks getting unarmed proficiency are also assumed. We also ignore RCs misguided concealment stacking. Someone using blink who is also mostly behind a tree gains the bennies of both.

Nothing huge, though. We've dabbled with homebrew items, tried out crit tables, etc, but generally, we keep coming back to the basics, and relatively little custom stuff sticks.

Popertop
2010-07-31, 01:15 AM
I would count unarmed strike as a special monk weapon.

Zeta Kai
2010-07-31, 01:49 AM
My current DM is trying. And I mean really trying; he made it a specific goal of the campaign. You can probably imagine how well this all's going.

Here's a tip: Don't go near the water, EVER. By RAW, there are no means by which you can stop drowning. It's like eating Pringles: once you start, you can't stop.

Frog Dragon
2010-07-31, 04:17 AM
We use that one too.
Ditto here. Mostly because we kept forgetting to use it and decided that no one really cares about it.
In addition, we ignore multiclass penalties, use Giant's Polymorph, use various class fixes like fax's monk. We use a different version of TWF. I ban celerity and company. There are other things too, but yeah. Lot of houserules here.

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-31, 04:25 AM
We use extensive houserules to redress the balance of 3.5 to something closer to even (for our particular paradigm) and remove a great many of the pointless or useless rules (e.g. some of the legacy rules like Massive Damage). And my homebrew world has even more to change the flavour and feel of the game.



Actually, come to that, there are no rules I have ever used in anger (wargames or RPG) that I do not use without houserules.




No-one discovers how grappling actually works.

In the words of Max Ray, "Then call me no-one!"

('Course I have the totally unfair advantage of being a 20-year Rolemaster DM. After that, nothing in 3.5 is hard...!)

DwarvenExodus
2010-07-31, 04:57 AM
An item can be magical even if it isn't masterwork.

Wai- Wu- Whuh?

*Checks PHB*

I need to have a word with my artificer.

Dr.Epic
2010-07-31, 04:59 AM
I've been using homebrewed gods for awhile now.

Frog Dragon
2010-07-31, 05:02 AM
I would count unarmed strike as a special monk weapon.
So would I. The rules don't though.

Dr.Epic
2010-07-31, 05:04 AM
I would count unarmed strike as a special monk weapon.

Why? It's not like anyone other than a monk is going to do a lot of damage with it. 1d3 for medium creatures.

Otodetu
2010-07-31, 07:20 AM
Everyone use house-rules, the big difference is the quality and insight put into these house rules.

mint
2010-07-31, 07:22 AM
My group uses a bunch of houserules. A few of them, I implemented just for the time I am filling in for the DM, to make the game easier for me to run.

- My group uses a modified skill system. Our games are very skill centric and we get to build our own suite of skills. So that's a pretty big departure from RAW.
Skills are sorted into theme groups of three. One general skill with three sub skills.

Example:
Sneak: hide, move silently, slight of hand.
On first level you put points in the subskills, second level you can invest in general skills. It alternates like that.


- Spontaneous class casting is accelerated by one level to the pace of wizards.

- Ability increments are handled differently. Ability score increases are bought with points gained on every level up. The cost for increasing an ability is equal to the current modifier sans race and tomes.

- No rolling for hp. Every level you get max hp.

And a few more in this vein.

Beelzebub1111
2010-07-31, 07:24 AM
If you roll a 20 on a crit conformation (that was already a natural 20) then you roll a third 20, You deal max damage on the crit.

Yora
2010-07-31, 07:56 AM
We play a quite casual game (regarding character builds, not roleplaying) and most players haven't played D&D before, so we really play mostly just plain vanilla core.
The biggest changes I made are limiting character classes to barbarian, fighter, ranger, rogue, and sorcerer, and only cloistered clerics (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/unearthedCoreClass.html#cloistered-cleric).
Because of the setting, the weapon list is mostly limited to swords, axes, spears, clubs, and bows, and there are no half-plate and full-plate armor, bucklers, and tower shields.
It's also an E6 game, but I don't think the characters will ever reach that much experiences for it to matter to them.

W3bDragon
2010-07-31, 08:04 AM
let's see, here are some of our house rules...

- No material components for spells, so no bat's earwax tracking

- hitpoint rolls gives a minimum of half if someone rolls less than half, first 3 levels are max

- No massive damage death, if PCs are taking enough damage to require that, they're in enough trouble already

- Sunder rules completely thrown out

- No PC crafting, period. PCs are heroes, not tailors or blacksmiths

- Some actions are converted to movement equivalent. For example, opening a door is equal to 10 feet of movement

- In combat, players get a few moments of chatter at the beginning of each round

- The Heal skill can be used to offer on-the-spot healing. Each person can receive only 1 heal check per day for this purpose. The amount healed is 1d3 for every 10 points of the rolled check

- Criticals double dice damage only, not damage modifiers

- System cheese is out, with the DM deciding what's cheese and what's not

That's some of the rules anyway. Many of them were simply holdovers from 2nd ed, which makes them easier for us to remember.

Vantharion
2010-07-31, 09:03 AM
Wai- Wu- Whuh?

*Checks PHB*

I need to have a word with my artificer.

That was my response when I found out.
I don't think something needs to be exceptional quality for it to be MAGICAL. I have easier identifying mechanics so you can have nonmagical masterwork and magical nonmasterwork items.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-31, 10:29 AM
Here's a tip: Don't go near the water, EVER. By RAW, there are no means by which you can stop drowning. It's like eating Pringles: once you start, you can't stop.

Actually, I think It's Wet Outside added 'stop someone from drowning' to the list of things a Heal check can do. But in Core, there are no ways to stop drowning.

awa
2010-07-31, 11:56 AM
now most of the games i run are massively hose ruled to the point of being barely recognizable and since every campaign is for a different setting the house rules are different to support that particular setting.

But i will share at least one that i use in all my games.
If characters have high int and or wisdom i give them non mechanical bonuses for example i often tell them your player realizes this or you feel something is unlikely and here why to represent that they the player does not have a 20+ int as a related aspect i allow player to do a small degree of retroactive planning 2 examples in a recent game were after the party split up they realized they had not set up a meeting place to find each other again and they want on an expedition with out acquiring simple mundane equipment they needed (which they would have been able to acquire for free) (this is also related to allowing party member's to talk mid combat im assuming that in the weeks or months the party have been companions they have learned to predict each others actions.
minor edit for clarity

nefele
2010-07-31, 12:39 PM
One: "RAW is a suggestion". (Read: tons.)

It's not experimentation for the sake of it, it's looking for the best way to represent mechanically what we want to play and imagine. The rules are intertwined, so it's not rare to fix something only to discover you ruined something else. But that's OK, next time you'll know how to do it better and make it work.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-31, 02:25 PM
let's see, here are some of our house rules...

- No material components for spells, so no bat's earwax tracking.

Oh yeah, we ignore that, unless the components actually cost something noticeable. So, true rez...yeah, you better have your components.

But if your DM makes you keep track of bat guano and sulfur uses left, something's wrong.

arrowhen
2010-07-31, 02:59 PM
Nah, houserules just mean even *more* rules to forget, ignore, or get wrong.

Defiant
2010-07-31, 03:00 PM
Oh yeah, we ignore that, unless the components actually cost something noticeable. So, true rez...yeah, you better have your components.

But if your DM makes you keep track of bat guano and sulfur uses left, something's wrong.

I think it's reasonable. 5gp for an eternal supply?

By RAW:


A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

I need bat guano. -> I have it (because of my pouch).
*1000 fireballs later*
I need bat guano. -> I have it (because of my pouch).

Tyndmyr
2010-07-31, 03:11 PM
Pretty much. I buy three spell component pouches at the beginning of a game, and specify where each is located. Then, forget about spell components forever afterward.

W3bDragon
2010-07-31, 03:19 PM
Oh yeah, we ignore that, unless the components actually cost something noticeable. So, true rez...yeah, you better have your components.

But if your DM makes you keep track of bat guano and sulfur uses left, something's wrong.

Yeah I was exaggerating about actually tracking stuff like bat guano, but we really don't watch components at all. If something is so expensive it would be worth remarking, then it costs a bit of exp instead. But then we rarely play at levels high enough for that to matter. Most of our games are end around 15th level tops.

Again, this house rule is a hold over from 2nd ed when we thought it was very annoying that 1 well aimed called shot to a caster's belt robbed him of his components and most of his casting.

Defiant
2010-07-31, 04:08 PM
Pretty much. I buy three spell component pouches at the beginning of a game, and specify where each is located. Then, forget about spell components forever afterward.

Exactly. One on my person, and 4 in my backpack, and I'm fine.

Skaven
2010-07-31, 07:53 PM
Some of my houserules:

Sorcerers:

*gain enschew materials for free at 1st
*Sorcerers spells known and spells per day are not modified for level 1 and 2. At level 3 they are as if they were level 4, and remain at +1 from then on. Their caster level is unchanged.
*Can select either Druid or Cleric spells to add to their spells available to learn in addition to Wizard/Sorc spell list.

Fighter types:
If you have full BaB up to your level, you gain the ability to full attack on a move. For every point of BaB less than your total level, you lose an attack on your full attack after move, so if your BaB drops to 17 at 20th level things work as they do now without the house rule.

Monks:
Can use their unarmed damage dice on monk-type weapons.
Do not need lawful alignment: any non-lawful monk is instead a 'martial artist'. No penalty for multiclassing.
Gain an attack bonus on their attacks equal to 1/4 their class level
Can use their dexterity bonus for to-hit and damage (Alleviates M.A.D)

Items:
All shields can grant cover.

Feats:
Weapon Proficiency: Martial grants all martial weapons, not just a single selected one.

Misc
Save vs Massive Damage does not exist.
Spell Resistance does not count vs beneficial spells.
Conjuration is affected by SR.

Races
If the race has both LA and racial HD, discount the LA and use just the RHD. RHD can be converted to class levels when levelling in place of gaining a level by the players choice using LA buyoff rules.

Ormur
2010-08-01, 03:24 AM
I don't have many specific houserules as cheesy and silly things can be handled by gentlemen's agreements. But there are a few that have come up.

-I use fractional bonuses but you only get +2 for the first good save.
-Teleport only works on designated teleport rings (in this campaign at least).
-Some others I probably don't realize are houserules from my first DM.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-01, 04:04 AM
I would count unarmed strike as a special monk weapon. This is a joke, right? :smallyuk:

Your house rule doesn't provide any actual benefit.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling.
...
Flurry of Blows (Ex)
When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham).
Monks aren't automatically proficient with all special Monk weapons ─ only the weapons specifically listed. So no improvement on the unarmed strike front. And unarmed strikes are already included in Flurry of Blows, so status quo there.

Harris the Ford
2010-08-01, 04:09 AM
I like creating my own NPCs and items. not really a house rule but I just had my group face off against a ranger/4 monk/2 with like 6 feats. They were suspicious and I just told them "im the DM, I can give him as many feasts as I want." of course they were rewarded accordingly.

Others I use:
no death from massive damage, that sucks.

tweaked some grapple rules, prolly not gonna use them too often.

I use skills a lot more but I also make PCs do a lot of ability checks. WIS check for tremorsense if applicable for example.


For the most part we stick by the PHB unless we need a rule on the spot then we go back and check after the session. If the houserule made more sense or was funner to play then it stays. Rule 0 is Rule of Fun.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-01, 04:32 AM
I just had my group face off against a ranger/4 monk/2 with like 6 feats. They were suspicious and I just told them "im the DM, I can give him as many feasts as I want." Another joke? :smallconfused:

Ranger 4 gets 3 bonus feats:

Track
Rapid Shot or Two-Weapon Fighting
Endurance

Monk 2 gets 3 bonus feats:

Improved Unarmed Strike
Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist
Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows
All characters get feats at levels 1, 3, 6. Humans get an extra feat at level 1. Flaws can add up to 2 additional feats.

So your Ranger 4/Monk 2 character should have had somewhere between 9 and 12 feats, not 6.

Zeta Kai
2010-08-01, 01:24 PM
feasts

Monks can't normally afford as many feasts as they want, especially those who have taken a vow of poverty. :smallbiggrin:

DragoonWraith
2010-08-01, 03:04 PM
- No material components for spells, so no bat's earwax tracking
Tracking bat's earwax would be a houserule, actually. Unless the spell calls for an expensive material component, RAW a spell component pouch covers everything. Any DM who forces you to keep track of individual components or how full your pouch is or whatever, is houseruling. And it's a pretty hideous houserule, honestly: "You can play a Wizard, but you cannot enjoy it" is basically what that rule says.

Prodan
2010-08-01, 03:07 PM
Unless you take Eschew Materials.

mabriss lethe
2010-08-01, 03:19 PM
a houserule I use a lot
-potions are consumed via a move action instead of a standard. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity with a successful dex check of 10. This keeps potions as a more viable source of buffs and emergency healing throughout a longer portion of the game.

Coidzor
2010-08-01, 03:28 PM
Hmm, all I can think of offhand is that monks are proficient with their unarmed strike and no multiclass XP penalties.

Well, that and the rather wiggy one of geting rid of sorcerers basically by making the prepared casters cast spontaneously out of their spells known. I think that was the result of a particular bookkeeping fiasco.

So far it's only really effected things by being able to pick what element of blasting is going on, and once or twice to cast remove disease/curse on the same day that the stuff is laid down. We... don't really play casters very...yeah...

Octopus Jack
2010-08-01, 03:32 PM
-potions are consumed via a move action instead of a standard. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity with a successful dex check of 10. This keeps potions as a more viable source of buffs and emergency healing throughout a longer portion of the game.

That actually seems really good, I may steal it for games I run

Evard
2010-08-01, 03:58 PM
Everyone uses houserules.

Then why do people think 3.5 is so great that you need to mod it? :P

I use houserules on things that don't make sense... Like some status effects should impose more penalties and crits are auto hits (no confirm)

FuryOfMetal
2010-08-01, 04:42 PM
a houserule I use a lot
-potions are consumed via a move action instead of a standard. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity with a successful dex check of 10. This keeps potions as a more viable source of buffs and emergency healing throughout a longer portion of the game.

Hmm i'll probably steal that as my players have a fair amount of potions right now, they just haven't needed to use any....yet:smallamused:


no critical confirmation
no infinite loops (not that my players probbaly know about or could find one)
rolling a 20 isn't an auto hit or succeed, instead it counts as a 25
rolling a 1 isn't an auto fail, but is instead counted as -5
also rolling a 1 to hit in mellee combat provokes an AoO (this might even be the normal rules, i don't know)
I'll soon be tinkering with the classes my players have taken to make it easier for them


I also allow alot rediculous actions to be taken, if you can pass the high checks i give you for it ;) We play in favor of the Rule of Fun!

:edit: I just worked out how to use the bullet points option xD go me!

Aotrs Commander
2010-08-02, 05:39 AM
Then why do people think 3.5 is so great that you need to mod it? :P

Because there are no perfect rules, and all rules need houserules. In my opinion, it is to 3.5's credit that I still think it the best frame to work from despite it's flaws.

Eldariel
2010-08-02, 07:05 AM
Because there are no perfect rules, and all rules need houserules. In my opinion, it is to 3.5's credit that I still think it the best frame to work from despite it's flaws.

Let's not forget that it's an incredibly easy platform for expansion (especially new classes, PrCs, creatures, items and so on) due to the coherent, flexible and uniform rules.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-02, 09:08 AM
Because there are no perfect rules, and all rules need houserules. In my opinion, it is to 3.5's credit that I still think it the best frame to work from despite it's flaws.
I'd take issue with the concept that all rules need houserules. There may be no perfect systems, but no system should require that its users patch it themselves before it can work.

Game Design Thread Plug (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161758)

awa
2010-08-02, 09:47 AM
a lot of house rules used by pepole are unspoken rules if one players playing an elf i wont take an elf killer prestige class and i wont try and break the game with infinite loops ect

Draz74
2010-08-02, 10:24 AM
Then why do people think 3.5 is so great that you need to mod it? :P

Because ... everyone using houserules is true to the original spirit of D&D?

Seriously. The 2e books started off by basically saying, for several pages, "If you don't houserule these rules in a bunch of places to fit your group, your campaign setting, your storyline, etc., you're doing it wrong."

It's hard to see a need for houseruling as a form of failure when it was part of the original design goals of the project.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-02, 10:46 AM
Because ... everyone using houserules is true to the original spirit of D&D?

Seriously. The 2e books started off by basically saying, for several pages, "If you don't houserule these rules in a bunch of places to fit your group, your campaign setting, your storyline, etc., you're doing it wrong."

It's hard to see a need for houseruling as a form of failure when it was part of the original design goals of the project.
But was it a bug or a feature? :smalltongue:

Merely because something was done in the past does not mean it should be done in the future; it needs a justification beyond tradition.

nefele
2010-08-02, 11:54 AM
Merely because something was done in the past does not mean it should be done in the future; it needs a justification beyond tradition.
OK, I'll give it a try. How's this for justification:

"In D&D, the crunch is intertwined with the fluff. The races have cultural racial traits (stonecunning, skill bonuses, favored enemies etc), the NPC classes correspond to a very specific feudal society, the monsters represent entities from several mythologies, the gods are real, the planes impose a very specific philosophical view of the world.

All this, mashed up as it is, can work out of the box (if you're not too particular about discrepancies here and there). It doesn't have to. The DM, the players, the group as a whole, are not obliged to follow it. They are not even supposed to follow it. It's a suggestion. The 3.5 DMG includes a chapter named "Changing the rules". Even the combat rules include several variants fot the DM to choose. And it quite explicitly encourages the DMs to screw with cosmology, races, classes, monsters, magic items etc when they make up a setting. Indeed, they are supposed to tailor the rules to their setting. Why? Because otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

Houseruling may not be strictly needed when you play a module, or an adventure you made up, but takes place in a published setting. It's totally needed once you start to homebrew - at least assuming that the changes you introduce are more significant than moving the dwarven mountains from North to East.

Roleplaying games are about imagination. The crunch, the numbers, the rules, these serve the purpose of representing mechanically whatever it is you imagined, so that you can play. If you don't limit your imagination to published modules and settings, you HAVE to houserule."

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-02, 12:00 PM
Very good - though it is also a justification for using a system which doesn't tie the crunch so solidly to the fluff in the first place :smallwink:

nefele
2010-08-02, 12:08 PM
Very good - though it is also a justification for using a system which doesn't tie the crunch so solidly to the fluff in the first place :smallwink:
I can't argue that. :smallsmile:

WarKitty
2010-08-02, 12:21 PM
My biggest one: Most skills with fixed DC's will be converted to scaling DC's. So UMD checks depend on the level of the item you're attempting to activate, Diplomacy scales more than it already does, Survival checks to avoid natural hazards vary depending on the hazard.

Zeful
2010-08-02, 01:07 PM
Masterwork weapons do not provide an enhancement bonus to attack or damage, they provide and untyped bonus instead.

I'm also working on a masterwork enhancement system to provide other bonuses rather than +1 attack and damage for 300gp so I can diversify weapons.

Vantharion
2010-08-02, 03:09 PM
Masterwork weapons do not provide an enhancement bonus to attack or damage, they provide and untyped bonus instead.

I'm also working on a masterwork enhancement system to provide other bonuses rather than +1 attack and damage for 300gp so I can diversify weapons.

I have something like that.
One of my cleric players wanted to get a spear forged (Stormlord PrC) and he wanted something special.
The spear head itself is designed to be piercing against high natural armor targets. Anything greater than a +5 Natural AC he gets an extra bonus.
It provides a balance... And considering he's been the groups healer, I've buffed him a bit more so he can see similar numbers. He understands that the semi-conditions of the better items is that he shouldn't retool towards DPS.

Aotrs Commander
2010-08-02, 06:09 PM
I'd take issue with the concept that all rules need houserules. There may be no perfect systems, but no system should require that its users patch it themselves before it can work.

Game Design Thread Plug (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161758)

As I say, in my experience, I have never encountered a single game (RPG or wargame) that has not been modified by houserules, almost always to it's improvement or to do something different that intended or both. "Need" may perhaps have been too strong a word, however. But heck, even my own damn starship rules have some elements which are technically houserules, as they aren't in the "main" rules.

Also, notably, especially in RPGs, at some point, someone will run into the point where whatever level of abtraction the rules are written to at breaks down, and you have to say "yeah, that doesn't work." So, yes, I think I can say that overall all rules will need to be houseruled at some point, by some one; even if the system doesn't require it for ever user.

Rules heavy systems like D&D require it more often, because either the designhers had an imperfect understanding of how what they had written works (3.5's initial over-valuation of BAB and spontaneous casting), or simply not considered the interactions of some parts (e.g. a lot of theoretical optimisation.)

Rules-light systems don't quite so much, because as there's just not as much there to change, the DM is making half of it up as he goes along; houseruling on the fly, as it were. (E.g more like AD&D or D6 Star Wars.) Assuming they are actually rules-light as opposed to rules-crap; simpler doesn't always mean good, of course.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-03, 01:13 AM
Also, notably, especially in RPGs, at some point, someone will run into the point where whatever level of abtraction the rules are written to at breaks down, and you have to say "yeah, that doesn't work." So, yes, I think I can say that overall all rules will need to be houseruled at some point, by some one; even if the system doesn't require it for ever user.
Notably, there are some systems which include a set of rules for resolving such situations. I prefer to think of those as "ad hoc rulings" since they're not modifying the base system but are rather used to resolve a typically one-off situation. The D&D4 DMG 42 table is a notable example of this - rather than saying "make something up" it says "make something up within these parameters."

I make this distinction because it fits the general tenor of this thread. Nobody is saying "once I houseruled that a patch of ice is a DC 10 Balance Check;" each example is about a repeatable modification of the stated (or unstated) rules of 3.5.

The belief that one must always houserule a system is much like the earlier assumption that software was designed to be hacked to fit the demands of the user; these days you can acquire software that does most anything you want and the average user no longer expects that they'll need to hack their word processor before they can use it.

Yahzi
2010-08-03, 01:42 AM
Why, yes, I do. Check out my sig.

Although the simplest and most fun house rule I use is:

Max hitpoints. For everybody. All the time. (Monsters too!)

Coidzor
2010-08-03, 01:55 AM
But was it a bug or a feature? :smalltongue:

Merely because something was done in the past does not mean it should be done in the future; it needs a justification beyond tradition.

Not really. You don't have to like that this sort of quirkiness to its nature was part of the tradition of D&D (Not sure, but I think 4e stamped that out), but something becoming part of the flavor of something for its quirkiness is just, well, how people work.

Now, blatant system errors that have to be houseruled to work at all, those are flaws, but a baseline from which each group can organically work its own stuff out is something... uniqueish.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-03, 01:58 AM
Not really. You don't have to like that this sort of quirkiness to its nature was part of the tradition of D&D (Not sure, but I think 4e stamped that out), but something becoming part of the flavor of something for its quirkiness is just, well, how people work.

Now, blatant system errors that have to be houseruled to work at all, those are flaws, but a baseline from which each group can organically work its own stuff out is something... uniqueish.
Pretty sure "desire to make a game unique to your playgroup" is a reason beyond mere tradition :smallbiggrin:

Coidzor
2010-08-03, 01:59 AM
Pretty sure "desire to make a game unique to your playgroup" is a reason beyond mere tradition :smallbiggrin:

Well then, there you go. Problem solved.

Now to eat cake.

Morithias
2010-08-03, 02:38 AM
Our group actually passed a "what you can assume" house rules, since everyone DMs.

Assumed - Rules are assumed unless DM rules otherwise.

No evil character
LA buy off is allowed
Epic level a roll of 20 = 30 and a roll of 1 = -10
If an ability system is not stated by DM use 28 point by or 4d6 drop lowest
Clerics automatically proficent with deity's favored weapon.
Cleric with war domain, gets extra martial weapon.
Flaws are allowed.
Class Varients in UA (E.g Paladin of Freedom, Rangers without Spells)
Upgrade instead of buy weapons, (E.g turning a +1 weapon into a +2 weapon costs 6000 gp)

DM Ask (Ask to use)

With DM approval, all Campaign setting based books can be used.
Psionic is allowed, if ask first.
Generic Classes
Dragon Ask
Tombs are Ask

Universal Banned (Builds cannot be used)

Persistant Time Stop
Merchant Prince Loop
Comsumative Field and Permenant Examination Combo
Factorum

Serpentine
2010-08-03, 05:18 AM
Then why do people think 3.5 is so great that you need to mod it? :PBecause it's so easy to mod :smalltongue:

I've got a bunch, many of which I've nicked from my ex (DM and BF). I've posted most of them before, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8491811&postcount=53).