Some 3.5 Homebrew from WotC

[Octopusapult]

So I'm flipping through some 3.5 archives on WotC between procrastinating and posting here, when I come across this two-part article.

I didn't retain much of the information from the first part (though I did read it, which now makes me want to rethink my life and lack of focus) but this section of the pt-II really caught my eye.


House Rules

Andy Collins, Senior Developer
Death Hurts: Instead of losing a level from raise dead and similar spells, characters come back to life with a permanent negative level that goes away only after the character advances in level. This ensures that characters don’t fall behind in experience and more importantly that players don’t fall behind in fun, but it preserves death as a meaningful penalty that does more than simply make the party poorer.

Chris Perkins, Design Manager
9 Levels Ain’t Enough: Chris designed his own 20-level spell system, splitting the existing 9 levels of spells into 20 levels. This does a couple of things for his world -- it generally slows down the sometimes overwhelming power of spellcasters, and emphasizes which spellcasters are good at what (cure light wounds is still level 1 for clerics but is level 2 for druids in his variant system).

Stephen “Shoe” Schubert, Developer
It’s You, Not Your Gear: Treasure is reduced 10-15% and permanent ability score boosting items are banned. Instead, characters get a stat increase at every even level (instead of every four levels) and a feat at every odd level.

Mike Mearls, Developer
Smooth HP Curve: Everyone gets slightly more hp, and hp variance is reduced. Instead of their normal Hit Die, fighters get d4+6, rogues d4+2, wizards d2+2 and so on. Normal Con bonuses apply. This allows longer encounters with a more epic feel.

Matt Sernett, Designer
Action Dice: Like Eberron’s action points system, except that whenever the players use an action point, the DM gets to add one to his pool, as well. The DM’s pool depletes over time, so he can’t just hoard them for some total-party-kill encounter. This gives encounters a very exciting give-and-take feel.

The article in it's entirety can be found here (pt1) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20051209a) and here (pt2) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20051216a) (the part I've quoted is from Pt-II)

In my analysis, Andy's submission makes for a more fun and less serious game where Death isn't that big a deal because the character will just come back like Kenny from South Park. But I do agree that something needs to be done to death other than simply making your allies spend money to bring you back.

I'm not big on magic or magic homebrew, but Chris Perkins suggestion to spread the magic levels out is REALLY intriguing... I wish I could see what he did specifically.

I typically give my players double the stat increases as it is, but Stephen has taken it a step or two further and gives out additional feats as well. The idea of perma-banning all equipment that applies stat boosts and reducing the overall treasure hordes kind of balances it out, but making money (and custom items) isn't usually hard for PCs as it is.

I kind of don't understand Mike's system, could someone help me out there? I get the premise, but I'm unclear on the math right around where he says "and so on" I'm just not spotting the pattern.

I also don't really get the idea behind giving the DM action dice pools via Matt's suggestion. I thought major villains and NPCs already got action points whenever they were introduced to a system?

Anyway, that's my two copper pieces. What do you guys think? And forgive me if this has been posted somewhere before...

[ArkenBrony]

In my analysis, Andy's submission makes for a more fun and less serious game where Death isn't that big a deal because the character will just come back like Kenny from South Park. But I do agree that something needs to be done to death other than simply making your allies spend money to bring you back.

I agree with this rule, it makes death leave a penalty, but doesn't push you back half a level permanently


I'm not big on magic or magic homebrew, but Chris Perkins suggestion to spread the magic levels out is REALLY intriguing... I wish I could see what he did specifically.

that actually sounds really cool, i may have to do a table for that


I typically give my players double the stat increases as it is, but Stephen has taken it a step or two further and gives out additional feats as well. The idea of perma-banning all equipment that applies stat boosts and reducing the overall treasure hordes kind of balances it out, but making money (and custom items) isn't usually hard for PCs as it is.

in a low magic world, like middle earth or the hyborean age, this is perfect, or in a game where magic item creation is hard to do/get


I kind of don't understand Mike's system, could someone help me out there? I get the premise, but I'm unclear on the math right around where he says "and so on" I'm just not spotting the pattern.

basically, its a d4 + what would be required for 4 to give max hit points. d4 + 8 for barbarian, d4 + 6 for fighter, d4 + 4 for cleric, and d4 + 2 for rogue. this leaves wizards with a d4, which just wouldn't work, so it is a special case where it is a d2 + 2.


I also don't really get the idea behind giving the DM action dice pools via Matt's suggestion. I thought major villains and NPCs already got action points whenever they were introduced to a system?

this is for encounters where there arent major villains, so the DM can make action points used by non leaders


Anyway, that's my two copper pieces. What do you guys think? And forgive me if this has been posted somewhere before...

i've never seen it before, and these rules are cool

[Gnorman]

As usual, the old standby rule of "Don't trust anything Mike Mearls designs" applies. That smooth HP curve actually ends up screwing the rogue, as they're the only one that can actually roll less than average. It also guarantees that the wizard will have max or near max HP.

Fighter: 7-10

Rogue: 3-6

Wizard: 3-4

I don't support rolling for stats in any case- it creates an uneven playing field. Just give them max if you want an "epic feel" or a weighted average otherwise. If you WERE going to do it, at least change the dice rolls to provide more consistent results.

d12 becomes d6+6 for 7-12
d10 becomes d5+5 for 6-10
d8 becomes d4+4 for 5-8
d6 becomes d3+3 for 4-6
d4 becomes d2+2 for 3-4

[Octopusapult]

Thanks for clearing that up for me Zetsu. The answer when revealed, will always seem obvious. XD

@ Gnorman; I agree. It's kind of a pointless houserule when a fairly traditional (and simple) fix is to just give max HD... I guess some people still value random generation, but for something important like my characters health, I'd much rather just do away with it and take max.

[SiuiS]

As usual, the old standby rule of "Don't trust anything Mike Mearls designs" applies. That smooth HP curve actually ends up screwing the rogue, as they're the only one that can actually roll less than average. It also guarantees that the wizard will have max or near max HP.

Fighter: 7-10

Rogue: 3-6

Wizard: 3-4

I don't support rolling for stats in any case- it creates an uneven playing field. Just give them max if you want an "epic feel" or a weighted average otherwise. If you WERE going to do it, at least change the dice rolls to provide more consistent results.

d12 becomes d6+6 for 7-12
d10 becomes d5+5 for 6-10
d8 becomes d4+4 for 5-8
d6 becomes d3+3 for 4-6
d4 becomes d2+2 for 3-4

I don't understand your objection. The rogue goes from having average or less HP 50% of the time to only 33% of the time, and the value of HP is sort of curved, where it's more beneficial to the party as a whole for the wizard to have 3 HP a level than it is for the rogue to have 5.

1d6+6 works for me, and is what I woul have assumed. I think 1d4+6 is fine for fighters though, an it does what it says on the tin; it reduces swing without removing it.

[Gnorman]

I don't understand your objection. The rogue goes from having average or less HP 50% of the time to only 33% of the time, and the value of HP is sort of curved, where it's more beneficial to the party as a whole for the wizard to have 3 HP a level than it is for the rogue to have 5.

1d6+6 works for me, and is what I woul have assumed. I think 1d4+6 is fine for fighters though, an it does what it says on the tin; it reduces swing without removing it.

My objection is that it removes MORE swing for the fighter and the wizard. If you're going to remove swing, remove swing equitably.

My adjustments still probably aren't perfect, but at least each class is guaranteed to roll slightly above the die's average, whereas in Mearls' version the rogue could still get a 3.

Saying it's more beneficial for the wizard to have 3 HP a level than it is for the rogue to have 5 a level, while technically true, just supports the whole "rogues can't have nice things" argument. The wizard doesn't need an HP boost.

[Just to Browse]

wizards have a 50% chance of getting max HP. Rogues have a 33% chance of rolling max HP. fighters have 25% chance of rolling max HP. Yes sir, did we mention we wanted to buff the wizard?

It was either Mearls or Cooke that wrote the Book of Experimental Might, and I remember it giving characters one feat per level and letting the wizard/sorc get an exclusive level 2 class feature that replaces their feat and gives then standard action at-will save versus stun for 1 round. That was the first thing that came to mind when I saw that.

I Shoe's and Collin's ideas, and Sernett's is OK but makes the game antagonistic. Perkins' magic system would be a bookkeeping nightmare.

[Octopusapult]

wizards have a 50% chance of getting max HP. Rogues have a 33% chance of rolling max HP. fighters have 25% chance of rolling max HP. Yes sir, did we mention we wanted to buff the wizard?

I'm alright with those numbers. But it still seems arbitrary to me to even be rolling for health. I mean I recognize that there are people who appreciate the random number generation, but I don't typically feel any better rolling my max health then I do just rewarding myself with it...


Perkins' magic system would be a bookkeeping nightmare.

But a bookkeeping nightmare that I really want to see applied for some reason...

[unbeliever536]

Perkins' magic system would be a bookkeeping nightmare.

I don't think it necessarily would; presumably you get fewer spells of each level. You have to keep track of more spell levels, but the same number of spells. While it does overall increase the bookkeeping, I'd hesitate to call it a nightmare.

[Octopusapult]

I don't think it necessarily would; presumably you get fewer spells of each level. You have to keep track of more spell levels, but the same number of spells. While it does overall increase the bookkeeping, I'd hesitate to call it a nightmare.

I don't think this is what Just to Browse meant with their post, but I feel like a lot of the "nightmare" would come from initially crafting the system in the first place and getting people familiar with it. (and justifying your new spell levels to the players.)

Because you've got an insane amount of spells to sift through and apply a level for, even before breaking into sourcebooks. Unless you develop a system that determines which spells land in which levels, but then you have to run each spell through that system each level to determine if a character is ready to cast it or not.

Not that this should discourage any of you homebrewers out there to attempt such a thing... :smallbiggrin:

[unbeliever536]

Well, yes, that would be terrible...





But it would be great when it was done, right?

[Octopusapult]

Well, yes, that would be terrible...





But it would be great when it was done, right?

Like just about any other element of life, it's Risk vs. Reward. Do you risk spending x amount of hours and sanity pouring over the books to make the system work just to have people generally decide that it's not worth it? Or do you just sit there and wonder what could have been, hoping someone comes along to do it in your stead?

Personally I have other life elements keeping me busy enough that I won't be able to make a quality homebrew myself. But I really would like to see it done.

[Temotei]

I wonder how that would change partial casters and cleric domains...I might see what I can do with this.

[Just to Browse]

Yeah octopus got what I was going for. You're effectively writing one extra spell list per casting class, since you need to write out 11 levels of stuff per fullcaster and 6 levels per quasi-caster (bard, duskblade). Not to mention new magic item cost algorithms and having to explain DCs.

I'm also not a big fan of vancian magic in the first place, so doubling the dosage doesn't sit well with me.

[Gnorman]

At a certain point, increased granularity produces diminishing returns (or none at all). I don't see the point, personally.

[SiuiS]

My objection is that it removes MORE swing for the fighter and the wizard. If you're going to remove swing, remove swing equitably.

My adjustments still probably aren't perfect, but at least each class is guaranteed to roll slightly above the die's average, whereas in Mearls' version the rogue could still get a 3.

Saying it's more beneficial for the wizard to have 3 HP a level than it is for the rogue to have 5 a level, while technically true, just supports the whole "rogues can't have nice things" argument. The wizard doesn't need an HP boost.

Okay. Well, let's look at the whole thing, all of the article. They include the True Necromancer as an example of a powerful class that is a good design.






Let that sink in.


Now, on the face of it I want to laugh and just dismiss the whole. You think true necromancer is good? I can already dismiss you as uninformed. But them I thought about it. So let's do a thought experiment, wherein we proceed assuming this guy isn't full of plop.

This means True Necromancer is a good class, which gives us a rubric for power. This means that these rules focus on fun over mastery, and work at the level of power where a druid is a woodland loner who uses his animals for accounting instead of as a power house. This means that the warlock is a viable replacement for a wizard. This means that monk isn't a bad class, just a weird one.

And yeah, from that point of view, where the wizard is in actual danger of being swarmed by goblins and then who will throw all those fireballs? Then, it's worth giving the wizard an extra hit point. The rogue already consistently out damages him, gets through locks without blowing a previous spell slot, and can wear armor! He'll be fine.


I'm alright with those numbers. But it still seems arbitrary to me to even be rolling for health. I mean I recognize that there are people who appreciate the random number generation, but I don't typically feel any better rolling my max health then I do just rewarding myself with it...

Exact opposite. I've found that consistently rolling high is cool, and distinguishes things. I've had a rogue in my games who was frail in HP and played it up, and I've had a monk in my games who competed with the other melee classes because he had con 20 and rolled max HP every time.

Admittedly, there was some stuff in the background that made the monk not automatically a joke. Still, it lent itself to creative storytelling and fun gaming experiences. That sounds like a plus to me.



But a bookkeeping nightmare that I really want to see applied for some reason...

I would think that if you are interested enough, creating the system would've fun enough to justify the time and actual use would be a bonus.



But it would be great when it was done, right?

it also wouldn't be that hard. Thise spells that seem way too weak for their level? Drop them one. Those spells that make the rest of the spell list feel like dead weight? Bump em.

[Temotei]

At a certain point, increased granularity produces diminishing returns (or none at all). I don't see the point, personally.

It's a thought exercise for me.

[Octopusapult]

Okay. Well, let's look at the whole thing, all of the article. They include the True Necromancer as an example of a powerful class that is a good design.






Let that sink in.

The rest of the article only interested me so slightly, and it is fairly old. I think it predates 4e. So maybe at the time it seemed like a good class, or maybe they just sincerely enjoy it. I love the Factotum and the Monk classes. Neither of which is Tier 1 or even 2 according to most people. But I still like them.



Now, on the face of it I want to laugh and just dismiss the whole. You think true necromancer is good? I can already dismiss you as uninformed. But them I thought about it. So let's do a thought experiment, wherein we proceed assuming this guy isn't full of plop.

This means True Necromancer is a good class, which gives us a rubric for power. This means that these rules focus on fun over mastery, and work at the level of power where a druid is a woodland loner who uses his animals for accounting instead of as a power house. This means that the warlock is a viable replacement for a wizard. This means that monk isn't a bad class, just a weird one.

And yeah, from that point of view, where the wizard is in actual danger of being swarmed by goblins and then who will throw all those fireballs? Then, it's worth giving the wizard an extra hit point. The rogue already consistently out damages him, gets through locks without blowing a previous spell slot, and can wear armor! He'll be fine.

I don't know if by "you" and "this guy" you meant me or the author of the article. If you meant me, then I'd like to point out that I hadn't said anything about the True Necromancer, and the opinions of an article produced by WotC does not necessarily reflect my own just because I linked to it.

I'm assuming you didn't mean me though, and am going to just carry on.



Exact opposite. I've found that consistently rolling high is cool, and distinguishes things. I've had a rogue in my games who was frail in HP and played it up, and I've had a monk in my games who competed with the other melee classes because he had con 20 and rolled max HP every time.

Admittedly, there was some stuff in the background that made the monk not automatically a joke. Still, it lent itself to creative storytelling and fun gaming experiences. That sounds like a plus to me.

Like I said in that post, I appreciate that some people would rather take random numbers in their characters. It's just not for me. Does that reflect on my roleplaying skills because I don't want the risk of low health in my character? No. It's just a personal preference. If my character loses an eye or even a leg, I'm going to own it. But low health is just... low health.

I could write in a heart condition or whatever, but it just comes out kind of dull... Especially when my lv-8 character suddenly starts rolling low for health and develops this "condition" but is still miles ahead of the "healthy" commoner...


I would think that if you are interested enough, creating the system would've fun enough to justify the time and actual use would be a bonus.

it also wouldn't be that hard. Thise spells that seem way too weak for their level? Drop them one. Those spells that make the rest of the spell list feel like dead weight? Bump em.


Personally I have other life elements keeping me busy enough that I won't be able to make a quality homebrew myself. But I really would like to see it done.

^^ I already said I'm not going to do it because of other projects and life obstacles. But since "it wouldn't be that hard" I guess you're signing up to take it on then? :smalltongue:


It's a thought exercise for me.

Thanks in advanced Temotei. If you make a thread or want any help with it, let me know.

[Gnorman]

This means True Necromancer is a good class, which gives us a rubric for power. This means that these rules focus on fun over mastery, and work at the level of power where a druid is a woodland loner who uses his animals for accounting instead of as a power house. This means that the warlock is a viable replacement for a wizard. This means that monk isn't a bad class, just a weird one.

And yeah, from that point of view, where the wizard is in actual danger of being swarmed by goblins and then who will throw all those fireballs? Then, it's worth giving the wizard an extra hit point. The rogue already consistently out damages him, gets through locks without blowing a previous spell slot, and can wear armor! He'll be fine.

While I can't speak for every designer, Monte Cook at least admitted to making system mastery a large portion of the 3.0/3.5 design process, in his essay about Ivory Tower game design. By that same logic, Toughness is a good feat for a wizard - it's a whole three hit points!

As I said: I never trust anything Mearls designs.

[nonsi]

Stephen “Shoe” Schubert, Developer
It’s You, Not Your Gear: Treasure is reduced 10-15% and permanent ability score boosting items are banned. Instead, characters get a stat increase at every even level (instead of every four levels) and a feat at every odd level.

I always supported this approach.
I'd take it a step further: Characters get a stat increase at every level.
To prevent things from going overboard, I'd cap racial ability limit increase to once every 4 levels, so that things don't go overboard.

[Octopusapult]

While I can't speak for every designer, Monte Cook at least admitted to making system mastery a large portion of the 3.0/3.5 design process, in his essay about Ivory Tower game design. By that same logic, Toughness is a good feat for a wizard - it's a whole three hit points!

As I said: I never trust anything Mearls designs.

How do you suppose he keeps finding work with ideas like that? HE must know someone...


I always supported this approach.
I'd take it a step further: Characters get a stat increase at every level.
To prevent things from going overboard, I'd cap racial ability limit increase to once every 4 levels, so that things don't go overboard.

I think a stat increase every level would be a little too insane. Every other isn't so much, but every level gives you 20 extra attribute points, which I feel could just get carried away too easily.

[Zelkon]

I think I'll try the 20 level spell system.

[nonsi]

I think a stat increase every level would be a little too insane. Every other isn't so much, but every level gives you 20 extra attribute points, which I feel could just get carried away too easily.

What about tomes, which grant 24?
And what about temp boosts, which can grand the same bonuses?
Those boosts are not capped by level and you don't have to wait 20 levels to get them all.

Adopting my suggestion would impose a limit on characters' stat craziness, not enhance it... and more importantly, make characters power-viable without shining like a Christmas tree... and reduce DM's fiat regarding WBL (some hand it like candy while others are stingy misers - I tasted both ends - both are bad).

[Squark]

While I can't speak for every designer, Monte Cook at least admitted to making system mastery a large portion of the 3.0/3.5 design process, in his essay about Ivory Tower game design. By that same logic, Toughness is a good feat for a wizard - it's a whole three hit points!

As I said: I never trust anything Mearls designs.

That article should be taken with a grain of salt, given that Cook demonstrates he has no idea how the MTG demographics actually work. I'm not saying they couldn't have been applied in the design process, but if they were, Cook seems to grossly misunderstand why they were applied, and the goals behind them.

[Octopusapult]

What about tomes, which grant 24?
And what about temp boosts, which can grand the same bonuses?
Those boosts are not capped by level and you don't have to wait 20 levels to get them all.

Adopting my suggestion would impose a limit on characters' stat craziness, not enhance it... and more importantly, make characters power-viable without shining like a Christmas tree... and reduce DM's fiat regarding WBL (some hand it like candy while others are stingy misers - I tasted both ends - both are bad).

If it works for you, go for it.

What I do differently is giving out 2 attribute points at every 4th, and on lv 10 & 20 I give two attribute points and two feats. It's worked for me and I've had no complaints so far.


That article should be taken with a grain of salt...

Anything WotC does in regards to D&D should be taken with a grain of salt...

[nonsi]

I think I'll try the 20 level spell system.

Sounds interesting.
Share the result with all of us.

[Octopusapult]

Sounds interesting.
Share the result with all of us.

Between Zelkon and Temotei we should get something worth reading. :smalltongue:

[Zelkon]

Between Zelkon and Temotei we should get something worth reading. :smalltongue:

First Rule: DCs are half spell level. That works, right? Only level 20 spells will get any increase.

[Octopusapult]

First Rule: DCs are half spell level. That works, right? Only level 20 spells will get any increase.

Minimum of 1?

[Zelkon]

Minimum of 1?

Yeah. That's right.

[Octopusapult]

Makes sense to me. If you want any help let me know. Otherwise keep us informed on how it goes.

[Zelkon]

Makes sense to me. If you want any help let me know. Otherwise keep us informed on how it goes.

The hardest part is that many spells are worthless; they go in the level below. However, only a few are worth pumping up to the upper level. So it's imbalanced.

[Octopusapult]

The hardest part is that many spells are worthless; they go in the level below. However, only a few are worth pumping up to the upper level. So it's imbalanced.

If you're worried about the number of spells per level being imbalanced, it might even out if you go into the sourcebooks. Then again it might not...

[Zelkon]

If you're worried about the number of spells per level being imbalanced, it might even out if you go into the sourcebooks. Then again it might not...

And then I die because there are a LOT of non-Core spells.

[Octopusapult]

And then I die because there are a LOT of non-Core spells.

Well yeah, there's also that.

Hey, you volunteered. XD