Any of these house rules unreasonable?

[danzibr]

I'm about to start a campaign and e-mailed my players a Word document containing character creation info, house rules and relevant plot stuff. Here are the house rules:

1) Raising the stakes. See http://esix.pbworks.com/f/RaisingtheStakes.pdf
2) Every time a d20 is supposed to be rolled (attack roll, skill check, saving throw, initiative, whatever) the player may opt to roll 2d10 instead. If this is used on an attack roll threat range is increased by 1 (e.g. if you normally crit 19-20 instead you crit 18-20).
1. This means rather than a flat 5% of getting any number you have a 1% chance of getting a 2, 2% chance of getting a 3, 3% chance of getting a 4, up to 10% chance of getting an 11, then back down to a 1% chance of getting a 20. So you're less likely to roll low, but also less likely to roll high.
3) When you make a roll you can get +1 for a flavorful description. For example, “I attack for 18” would get no bonus, “My mighty greatsword Justice reflects my thirst for vengeance as I focus on the Goblin who just struck my leg, swinging the massive piece of steel at its fear-ridden, beady eyes. I rolled an 18 for attack” would get you +1 to attack and damage (this is a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point).
4) Death at -Con score rather than -10. Disabled is extended to -Con/2 rather than just 0.
5) Imaginary WBL (wealth by level). This means we won't be getting any magic gear. When you level up you get “imaginary money.” You buy magic items which aren't consumable (like a +1 longsword). However, rather than actually getting a +1 longsword, any longsword you pick up is treated as +1.
You may change this every time your level, or more often if you run it by me.
You'll get regular gold to spend on consumables and non-magical items and things like rods.
This means the only magical equipment to be found will be unique things like artifacts.
6) Many feats (Dodge, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Toughness, Iron Will, etc.) which give flat bonuses will stack with level. Talk to me about individual feats. Dodge, for example, really sucks as written. It would be changed to a +1+1/4 levels dodge bonus to AC against all foes (so max +6 at level 20). Similarly for Weapon Focus. Feat bonuses stack.
7) Bonuses from feats are “feat bonuses” rather than their normal type (so they stack with other effects).
8) All level 0 spells may be used at-will.
9) Max hp at 1st level, ¾ after (so d4 gains 3, d6 gains 4.5, d8 gains 6, d10 gains 7.5, d12 gains 9).
10) Retroactive skill points.
11) Unlimited mundane arrows/bolts/stones.
12) Don't worry about food, you competent adventurer you.
13) No summoning unless we talk about it.
14) No cohorts/hirelings except familiar/animal companion/psicrystal/Pally mount and the like.
15) Feat every odd level, stat point every even.
16) If a feat has a required level of, say, 6, you can put off gaining your level 5 feat until level 6.
17) Include 3 things in the backstory, get +1 plot bonus to them (like Orcs killed your family when you were young, get +1 to all rolls involving Orcs).
18) Fractional saves and BAB.
1. This means instead of a Cleric getting +0 then +1 then +2 then +3 then +3 again to BAB for levels 1-5, they get +.75 then +1.5 then +2.25 then +3 then +3.75. This way a level 1 Cleric/level 1 Rogue/level 1 Monk/level 1 Bard would have a BAB of +3 rather than +0.
For saves a good save is +2+1/2 level, a bad save is +1/3 level.
19) No death from massive damage.
20) Freely multi-class.
21) 15 seconds per turn to decide what to do in combat. In combat, you don't have time to think! Make sure you make note cards or whatever for quick reference (note it's 15 seconds to decide, so if you do something complicated then the turn can be substantially longer than 15 seconds).
22) And no take-backs (in combat).
23) Familiar, animal companion, psicrystal scale with total level, not just Wizard level/Druid level/Psion lever/whatever.
24) Two Weapon Fighting turns into ITWF and GTWF as soon as you qualify; same thing goes for Rapid Shot -> Improved Rapid Shot and Manyshot -> Greater Manyshot.
25) Bows and crossbows add 1/2 Dexterity to damage.
26) Qualify for PrC's while entering. For example, if a PrC requires +6 and you have +5 BAB, you can enter it provided it gives +1 BAB at level 1.
27) Homebrew can be allowed. Just run it by me.
28) This list might grow.
Any of these sound unreasonable? Anything else I should add?

[eggynack]

I can't see anything in the list that I'd consider unreasonable, though the 2d10 choice seems kinda pointless. I can't imagine ever not rolling 2d10, and that issue is exacerbated by the expanded threat range. It just feels a bit like a choice without a decision. There are obviously a few situations where d20 could theoretically be better, but it's strictly a corner case thing. I'd probably just set 2d10 as the default, and maybe offer the d20 as an option. It's a semantic thing, but it seems to be closer to what would actually happen. Also, how does your fractional save rule interact with multiple first level bonuses? According to the actual variant's rule, multiple initial bonuses stack, which is a thing I agree with, but some people do it the other way.

[MilesTiden]

I feel like the '15 seconds to decide what to do in combat' rule is a bit unnecessarily stressful, but I wouldn't really object to it. I would imagine that, in an extremely complicated or unusual situation, that would be a bit too restrictive on the player, especially when you need to consider terrain, other PCs, and other enemies in whatever you're doing.

[Corndog]

Is unlimited cure minor wounds a good idea?
not saying it's a bad idea, I just don't know if you thought about that

[NeoPhoenix0]

Interesting, my group also has at will level zero spells, but we use the normal spells per day for things like cure minor and repair minor out of combat, and for the feat versatile caster.

[danzibr]

I can't see anything in the list that I'd consider unreasonable, though the 2d10 choice seems kinda pointless. I can't imagine ever not rolling 2d10, and that issue is exacerbated by the expanded threat range. It just feels a bit like a choice without a decision. There are obviously a few situations where d20 could theoretically be better, but it's strictly a corner case thing. I'd probably just set 2d10 as the default, and maybe offer the d20 as an option. It's a semantic thing, but it seems to be closer to what would actually happen. Also, how does your fractional save rule interact with multiple first level bonuses? According to the actual variant's rule, multiple initial bonuses stack, which is a thing I agree with, but some people do it the other way.
Yeah I was thinking pretty much everyone will do it at almost all times. Maybe removing the expanded threat range would make it less tempting.

I feel like the '15 seconds to decide what to do in combat' rule is a bit unnecessarily stressful, but I wouldn't really object to it. I would imagine that, in an extremely complicated or unusual situation, that would be a bit too restrictive on the player, especially when you need to consider terrain, other PCs, and other enemies in whatever you're doing.
I probably won't stick with that one too much. This particular party is notorious for taking forever in combat. My hope is for them to know their options and come prepared, rather than, "Hey, let me look at all my spells and pick one to cast" (not saying they exactly do that). But right, I'll be lenient especially if something throws a wrench in their plans.

Is unlimited cure minor wounds a good idea?
not saying it's a bad idea, I just don't know if you thought about that
I did not think about that, hrm. Thanks for bringing that my attention. I'm tempted to leave it as-is due to dissuading people from the 5-minute adventuring day. Something to think about.

[eggynack]

Yeah I was thinking pretty much everyone will do it at almost all times. Maybe removing the expanded threat range would make it less tempting.

2d10 is generally going to be better than d20, even without the threat range expansion. That's why I think that it'd be a good idea to set 2d10 as the default. I don't actually see the point in offering the choice, because I generally see the 2d10 thing as a way of normalizing outcomes a bit.

[Perseus]

Make sure you allow take backs if you forgot to give a specific piece of information like...

PC: what do I see?
DM: a monster with a spear
PC: I charge!
DM: you take an AoO due to his reach.
PC: but you said spear, not long spear... I take back my foolish charge that wouldn't have happened if I knew it was a long spear...

[fishyfishyfishy]

The only one I would have a problem with is number 3. I as a DM try to encourage the same thing from my players, but I feel that negative reinforcement doesn't help at all. In my game I give bonus XP and action points for things like this. If a player doesn't want to do more than say "I cast magic missile at these two orcs" I'm not going to penalize them for not using a long detailed description of how a blue white bolt of energy springs out of their hand and splits in two and buzzes around the battlefield before striking their foes.

I also use the rule of limiting the time you have to make a decision in combat. Although my rule is that once it comes to your turn, you have exactly 6 seconds to decide what to do. If you can't make a decision, you delay and make take your turn after the next person in initiative. I am lenient on those who are busy trying to look up a spell or ability in a rule book.

Edit:

Using the imaginary WBL, how would you handle someone who wanted a magical item that wasn't a weapon or armor? For example, a Wizard that wants to gain a magical staff like a Staff of Power or something similar.

[Arundel]

How high power are you planning on this game being? It kind of seems like this lends itself very well towards high optimization levels. Also, I would be careful about #3. From my experiences, I would be very hesitant to incentive the slowing of combat with describing the technicalities of every sword swing.

[Barsoom]

Nothing is unreasonable, but a lot of things are really unnecessary. Some good ideas, but mostly headscratchers of the "why does he need that?" variety.

[NeoPhoenix0]

2d10 is generally going to be better than d20, even without the threat range expansion. That's why I think that it'd be a good idea to set 2d10 as the default. I don't actually see the point in offering the choice, because I generally see the 2d10 thing as a way of normalizing outcomes a bit.

That isn't true given the choice to always use one or always use the other I would chose 1d20, actually I would always choose 1d20. First, 2d10 rolls are more likely to be around 11 than toward the extremes and the 1d20 is more likely to crit even with expanded threat range until the normal range is 14-20 or 13-20 for 2d10, see table below for percentages. You are also less likely to hit on anything with an AC of more than your to-hit bonus + 11.

Table
{table=head]% chance to threaten crit 1d20|% chance to threaten crit 2d10|critical threat range 1d20|critical threat range 2d10

5%|3%|20|19-20

10%|6%|19-20|18-20

15%|10%|18-20|17-20

20%|15%|17-20|16-20

25%|21%|16-20|15-20

30%|28%|15-20|14-20

35%|36%|14-20|13-20

40%|45%|13-20|12-20[/table]

[Kelb_Panthera]

2d10 is generally going to be better than d20, even without the threat range expansion. That's why I think that it'd be a good idea to set 2d10 as the default. I don't actually see the point in offering the choice, because I generally see the 2d10 thing as a way of normalizing outcomes a bit.

I don't know that I necessarily agree with this.

Yes it -is- technically better, on average, but only by half a point. Except for that it's simply less variable as the numbers will skew noticeably toward the middle.

Is that, necessarily, a good thing though? I was of the impression that the whole point of using dice was -for- that variability. If you really want to minimize random chance, as an individual player, there are ways within the system to do that already.

De-emphasizing that variability will make easy fights easier and hard fights harder and will have relatively little impact on evenly matched encounters. Is that really what you want?

[Big Fau]

Two points with regards to the infinite out of combat healing:


There are many other ways of pulling it off, just not as effortlessly as getting Cure Minor Wounds as a Cantrip/Orison.
Infinite healing does not encourage the 5 minute workday. It actually encourages the noncasters to keep pressing onward, as it means their primary resource is unlimited. Spellcasters and other daily limitations (and nova builds) are the real reason the 5 minute workday exists. Give the noncasters a bone and let the Cleric heal them at will.

[Malimar]

Is unlimited cure minor wounds a good idea?
not saying it's a bad idea, I just don't know if you thought about that

I tried this in my 3.5e game, and it made the game weird. HP are a resource you're meant to conserve; free unlimited out-of-combat healing for anybody who can cast Cure spells removes that aspect of the game (I might call it a minigame). Note that Pathfinder, in making this change, entirely removed cure minor wounds from the game.

I'd say either remove cure minor wounds (and repair minor damage), or make unlimited cantrips/orisons per day not apply to spells that heal HP damage.

Also, be prepared for casters to be spamming Detect Magic out the wazoo.

When I tried it, I also specified that it's only unlimited if you use the slot to cast an actual 0-level spell as an unmodified 0-level spell. If you burn two with Versatile Spellcaster, if you use metamagic reduction hijinx to cast a metamagiced 0-level spell with its spell level unmodified, or whatever, the slots actually get used up like they normally would. You might consider something like that.

[Kuulvheysoon]

You could also consider it to fulfill the same role that the Touch of Healing feat does - allow unlimited healing up to half health only. Any further attempts to heal fail.

[TuggyNE]

De-emphasizing that variability will make easy fights easier and hard fights harder and will have relatively little impact on evenly matched encounters. Is that really what you want?

You're looking at it the wrong way; a "hard" encounter, generally, is one that's about evenly matched, i.e., there's a substantial risk of death for each side. Normal encounters have a pretty slanted probability: if the party doesn't win, something went haywire. And easy encounters are even more so.

Therefore, because of your reasoning, hard fights stay about the same, normal fights get easier, and easy fights get even easier. What's more, because it's phrased as a choice, you can turn it off for really stupidly difficult fights if you like, so it's strictly superior.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You're looking at it the wrong way; a "hard" encounter, generally, is one that's about evenly matched, i.e., there's a substantial risk of death for each side. Normal encounters have a pretty slanted probability: if the party doesn't win, something went haywire. And easy encounters are even more so.

Therefore, because of your reasoning, hard fights stay about the same, normal fights get easier, and easy fights get even easier. What's more, because it's phrased as a choice, you can turn it off for really stupidly difficult fights if you like, so it's strictly superior.

I realize that being able to flip between the two options is a very good thing. I was simply questioning whether 2d10 was inherently superior to 1d20.

Also, I never used the phrase "normal fights." I said "easy" "hard" and "evenly matched." These terms are relative to each other and to the PC's, not to what's "normal".

[ahenobarbi]

3) When you make a roll, -1 for no flavor, +0 for a little flavor, +1 for flavorful flavor. For example: “I attack for 18” would get you a -1, “I slash my greatsword at the Goblin before me, rolling an 18 for attack” would get you no bonus, “My mighty greatsword Justice reflects my thirst for vengeance as I focus on the Goblin who just struck my leg, swinging the massive piece of steel at its fear-ridden, beady eyes. I rolled an 18 for attack” would get you +1 (this is a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point).
This is the difference between roleplaying and rollplaying.

I really don't like that one. I (and as far as I know other players) was extremely annoyed by one player in my group making at least minute-long description of every filesucking single roll he made. As a result we tried to avoid letting him do anything (to you know, actually get something done). DM seeing he was missing spotlight tailored some encounters for the character. During which we kinda walked out for some half and hour to talk/smoke... because nothing to do (and even in character we kept distance).

EDIT: So actually encouraging that kind of thing is Bad Idea (tm).

Also I disagree with "This is the difference between roleplaying and rollplaying."

I believe the difference is not how you describe roll results. I think it is how you choose actions. Rogue 1 will move into flanking position to get sneak attack (it knows it's beneficial, because Rogue 1 says trained in this kind of thing). Commoner 1 won't (because not trained for combat). Wizard 2 might (+1 bab meaning some combat training).

[TuggyNE]

Also, I never used the phrase "normal fights." I said "easy" "hard" and "evenly matched." These terms are relative to each other and to the PC's, not to what's "normal".

Well, OK, as long as you realize that the vast majority of fights are in conditions such that 2d10's lesser variability will be advantageous: i.e. there are very few genuinely even matches, and even fewer combats where the deck is stacked against the PCs.

[Harlot]

All of it reasonable, but intended for higher level parties, right?

I mean, at very low levels 8), 11) and 12) could and sometimes should matter.

I LOVE your 15 seconds rule and use it myself. It forces the PC's to think ahead and pay attention during battles, and makes the game pace faster.

[Zombimode]

I'm about to start a campaign and e-mailed my players a Word document containing character creation info, house rules and relevant plot stuff. Here are the house rules:
[stuff]
Any of these sound unreasonable? Anything else I should add?

Most of those fall in the categories of "good/ok, don't care/you need rules for THAT?/not my style, but wouldn't be bothered by it to much", but I have to agree with ahenobarbi that #3 is a bad decision. This rule is creating a pressure to come up with something at every opportunity. Pressure will not necessarily create better descriptions, in fact it will probably nudge the people to go over-the-top. Pressure is also something I don't want to have during a recreational activity like PnP.
Also, are you up to deliver descriptions for all your NPCs/monsters actions? Believe me, this is a daunting task, especially when some kind of pressure is involved.

Coming up with colorful descriptions also has nothing to do with roleplaying.

If you want your players to be more creative at describing their characters actions, lead by example: show them, how a good description can enhance the richness of the situation and thus the enjoyment of the game for all.

[Thrudd]

RE: Required flavor text for every die roll...I understand the idea, but this gets old really fast, as people have mentioned. Not only will it make combat longer, but it gets fatiguing for players always struggling to describe everything in such detail. D&D system is not designed for it. Sometimes "I attack the goblin" is fine. I might give a bonus for a good description, maximum of once per session for each player, but no penalties.

I would be careful with at-will level 0's. You may need to modify some of those spells. Cure minor will be spammed to get full HP in between every encounter, they will never need to use any other healing spell (and basically no one will ever die). That will need to be removed altogether, or give them a reduced list of spells they can cast at-will. Daze is another one I worry about, no attack roll, 25+ ft range, affects all the way up to 4HD. Every round one of the enemies will be losing their action. If you've got just one relatively big guy (an ogre), this could make a 1st level encounter that should be hard very easy. A house rule I have considered is giving them one lvl 0 to cast at-will, and changing daze to lvl 1, or changing it to require a touch attack at lvl 0. And definitely, at-will spells should always be cast at level 1 regardless of the caster's level and cannot be candidates for metamagic (not that it would make a lot of sense to use metamagic on most of them)

Also, you're giving them an awful lot of stat increases: every other level? With the free magic weapons, extra feats, automatic feat power-ups, extra encouraging multiclassing, and automatic HP on every level, it looks to be a very high powered campaign.
None of those things are necessarily unreasonable, as long as you realize how much potential power you're giving those players above and beyond what 3.5 already does.

[eggynack]

@ Thrudd: I don't think that the non-cure minor wounds 0th's are going to be a problem. Daze is alright, but you're only trading actions on a one to one basis, and it has a save, so the action based opportunity cost is rather high. Pathfinder uses infinite cantrips, and I don't think that system has suffered for it. They removed cure minor, but it looks like anything else you'd want to spam is intact.

[PersonMan]

I did not think about that, hrm. Thanks for bringing that my attention. I'm tempted to leave it as-is due to dissuading people from the 5-minute adventuring day. Something to think about.

To be honest, it changes basically nothing. People will rest when they always have - when the casters are out of spells. This just means more fun spells rather than "oh, I have to use X spell slots for healing, meh".

@Fluff Bonuses: Seeing as this is tabletop, I'd say that the penalty and 15-second limit are working at odds. If you have to make strategic decisions, decide your actions, communicate with allies and then make up some quick fluff for your attack, 15 seconds will get tight fast.

I'd either up it or remove the no-fluff penalty.

[Perseus]

To be honest, it changes basically nothing. People will rest when they always have - when the casters are out of spells. This just means more fun spells rather than "oh, I have to use X spell slots for healing, meh".

@Fluff Bonuses: Seeing as this is tabletop, I'd say that the penalty and 15-second limit are working at odds. If you have to make strategic decisions, decide your actions, communicate with allies and then make up some quick fluff for your attack, 15 seconds will get tight fast.

I'd either up it or remove the no-fluff penalty.

I always loved it when my Fighter/Barbarian/Noncaster type says "wtf is a spell slot, get yo ass up." Then just leave them there where they are resting.

Dangerous? Hell yeah but it usually scares casters more that their meatshield is gone during their rest haha.

Also about the healing... Make it at will, unlimited healing is not a problem if you play your monsters correctly. By correctly I somewhat mean smartly and by that I mean get evil ;)

[eggynack]

Dangerous? Hell yeah but it usually scares casters more that their meatshield is gone during their rest haha.
This would be a lot more true if wizards and sorcerers didn't have rope trick (in the sorcerer's case, likely in item form), and if druids and clerics weren't far from squishy. As is, I suspect that our noble and largely slotless caster will manage fine without a fighter hanging around.

[Ashtagon]

1 - seems ok, although note that some of the content parallels changes you made elsewhere, meaning its one or the other.
2 - As others noted, statistically, 1d20 will almost always be better than 2d10.
3 - Offer rewards, not penalties. A +1 once per encounter for a nice florid description is cool. Allowing it for every action gets fatiguing. It's not really role-playing so much as purple prose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_prose) anyway.
4 - This duplicates content from #1. My personal take on this idea is death at negative (Con score + level). No disabled condition exists, although PCs are strongly encouraged to "play dead". Any hit that causes damage while in negatives may cause a major injury (broken arm, etc.), with exact effects TBA.
5 - Seems reasonable (I p[lay low-magic, so not in a position to judge).
6 - Seems reasonable.
7 - I'd check this on a case-by-case basis. Do feat bonuses stack with each other? Because most feats are actually untyped, so by RAW stack with anything anyway.
8 - Cure minor wounds? My personal take on this is to make daily usage limit equal to primary casting ability score. That's far enough above RAW that normal usage won't be a concern, but it prevents CMW shenanigans.
9 - ok
10 - ok
11 - I'd want to track this if they are in a situation where they can' reasonably resupply.
12 - as for #11.
13 - I ban summoning (and several other spell groups, but I'm low-magic). Yours is reasonable too.
14 - good idea. Are paladin mounts acceptable? What about mundane purchased animals?
15 - This favours casters over non-casters (casters get a disproportionately large benefit out of a higher stat that melee, who need multiple stats to thrive).
16 - Seems good. I'd extend that to certain class features (such as with certain martial adept classes who can't otherwise qualify for certain manoeuvres).
17 - I think I'll steal this one for myself :smallsmile:
18 - ok
19 - ok (I play that failing a massive damage save means damage is doubled rather than instantly lethal).
20 - ok
21 - ok
22 - ok, as long as you haven't missed out critical information.
23 - They do anyway. This is not a houserule :smallconfused:
24 - ok
25 - My missile weapon fixes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189766). Making it Dex to damage makes archery SAD to an extreme (attack, damage, AND AC?), so I picked on Wisdom as the archery damage stat.
26 - I don't like this. In essence, you just modified all class entry requires to one lower point of BAB.
27 - ok
28 - rule zero :smallbiggrin:

[squera]

All the major points I had in mind were already risen (infinite healing and long description for rolling).

I would use a stopwatch app for the 15 seconds in combat, post it if you find something nice. (because we are also using a similar mechanism but we don't have a nice app)

For the rest I'd say it is a very interesting list, definitively something to steal from!

[Thrudd]

To be honest, it changes basically nothing. People will rest when they always have - when the casters are out of spells. This just means more fun spells rather than "oh, I have to use X spell slots for healing, meh".

@Fluff Bonuses: Seeing as this is tabletop, I'd say that the penalty and 15-second limit are working at odds. If you have to make strategic decisions, decide your actions, communicate with allies and then make up some quick fluff for your attack, 15 seconds will get tight fast.

I'd either up it or remove the no-fluff penalty.

My hypothetical homebrew option for mitigating occurrence of the 5 minute adventure day, and to prevent clerics from feeling like they are being forced to choose cure for most of their spell slots, is to give a healing domain cleric a 3 per day ability to cure 1d4 hp, on top of their spell slots. Other domains will have similar abilities, that I haven't laid out (in addition to having customized and slightly shorter spell lists, rather than one extra domain spell at each level). At-will cure minor just makes the adventure too easy. What stops them from refilling everyone's hp after any combat? What is the danger of getting into combat, unless the challenge is strong enough to knock out the whole party every time (or I purposefully have monsters target the cleric right away)? Having a cleric shouldn't mean that everyone is always at full HP in between fights. Of course, I like my adventures to have a slightly more low-powered feel, a more AD&D dungeon-crawly resource management game. I do want a cleric who chooses a healing domain to actually have more healing to offer, however.
For a high powered game where you don't want character death to be a possibility in most situations, maybe letting a cleric auto fill everyone's HP in between encounters is fine. My opinion is that this will lead to players not taking the threats seriously, not taking their strategy and tactics seriously, and in general just making the game too easy. But with really tough encounters occurring regularly, that could be mitigated as well.

[eggynack]

My hypothetical homebrew option for mitigating occurrence of the 5 minute adventure day, and to prevent clerics from feeling like they are being forced to choose cure for most of their spell slots, is to give a healing domain cleric a 3 per day ability to cure 1d4 hp, on top of their spell slots. Other domains will have similar abilities, that I haven't laid out (in addition to having customized and slightly shorter spell lists, rather than one extra domain spell at each level). At-will cure minor just makes the adventure too easy. What stops them from refilling everyone's hp after any combat? What is the danger of getting into combat, unless the challenge is strong enough to knock out the whole party every time (or I purposefully have monsters target the cleric right away)? Having a cleric shouldn't mean that everyone is always at full HP in between fights. Of course, I like my adventures to have a slightly more low-powered feel, a more AD&D dungeon-crawly resource management game. I do want a cleric who chooses a healing domain to actually have more healing to offer, however.
For a high powered game where you don't want character death to be a possibility in most situations, maybe letting a cleric auto fill everyone's HP in between encounters is fine. My opinion is that this will lead to players not taking the threats seriously, not taking their strategy and tactics seriously, and in general just making the game too easy. But with really tough encounters occurring regularly, that could be mitigated as well.
First of all, I hope that by, "choosing cure for most of their spell slots," you really mean, "spontaneously converting for most of their spell slots," because it makes no sense to prepare a healing spell outside of odd corner cases. Second of all, at a certain level, parties are already getting to full HP between fights. A wand of lesser vigor costs 750 GP and heals a total of 550 HP. This makes it relatively trivial to keep HP maxed out most of the time. Healing belts are also rather cost efficient, healing about 27 HP every day for the same 750 GP price. Finally, it's incredibly rare for a cleric to pick the healing domain (unless they're doing RSoP stuff), because those spells are already on their list, and many of them can be acquired through spontaneous conversion.

[Studoku]

@ Thrudd: I don't think that the non-cure minor wounds 0th's are going to be a problem. Daze is alright, but you're only trading actions on a one to one basis, and it has a save, so the action based opportunity cost is rather high. Pathfinder uses infinite cantrips, and I don't think that system has suffered for it. They removed cure minor, but it looks like anything else you'd want to spam is intact.
Pathfinder replaces Cure Minor Wounds with Stabilize- it doesn't heal but it instantly stabilizes anyone. This means it accomplishes what Cure Minor normally does without allowing endless out of combat healing.

[Perseus]

This would be a lot more true if wizards and sorcerers didn't have rope trick (in the sorcerer's case, likely in item form), and if druids and clerics weren't far from squishy. As is, I suspect that our noble and largely slotless caster will manage fine without a fighter hanging around.

There are ways around rope trick, but it is a crazy good spell.

Most DMs I know won't let it work while in a pocket dimension or the like. Also no bringing in bags of holding, handyhaversacks, portable holes, or anything else like that... Bad things happen.

[eggynack]

There are ways around rope trick, but it is a crazy good spell.

Most DMs I know won't let it work while in a pocket dimension or the like. Also no bringing in bags of holding, handyhaversacks, portable holes, or anything else like that... Bad things happen.
There are far fewer ways around rope trick than there are ways around venturing onward without party members. Also, the interactions between those items and a rope trick range from entirely unclear to completely non-existent. The former is the best case scenario, because there's no explicit RAW effect that comes from those circumstances. In the latter case, you either keep the bag of holding closed, or you bring up the fact that rope trick calls out extradimensional spaces, while a bag of holding is explicitly a nondimensional space. It actually doesn't look like any of these items would be problematic, because the portable hole, which is possibly the only item that creates an extradimensional space, only does so when the hole is placed on a surface. Thus, it looks like our wizard will be fine on all counts.

[Cheiromancer]

This is a long list. I'd try to trim it to essentials.

1. Do you mean all the rules in Raising the Stakes, or just the one section? I've never used these, but they look like fun.
2. I don't like it. d20 rolls are a the heart of the game. Replacing them with 2d10 is liable to cause all kinds of unexpected side effects.
3. Long flowery descriptions will get tedious awfully fast.
4. A decent rule that improves survivability.
5. I'd think this through more first. Some limitations are needed. Maybe only masterwork items can bear permanent enhancements, not any old stick a character picks up. Maybe only flat plusses can be added, not special abilities; otherwise it effectively eliminates most item creation feats from your campaign. Magic items found as treasure might count as half value towards WBL; you will probably want to give them kewl magic items as loot, and so won't want them to automatically swap out their abilities.
6. I don't like this one. Some feats are 'feat taxes' for prestige class entry; they are supposed to suck. Others are minor bonuses that can be granted by classes, races or magic items; they should be weaker than normal. There are lots of good feats to take, you don't have to rewrite these ones. Monsters and NPC's can't be used out of the book if you have rewritten most of the standard feats.
7. I don't like this one either. All sorts of spells, feats and class features are balanced assuming the stacking rules. Changing the stacking rules means that you've made hundreds of little changes, which is bound to result in unforeseen consequences. And for what?
8. The pitfalls of at-will cantrips and orisons have already been discussed. Why are you doing it? Are you afraid spellcasters will be underpowered?
9. If you have 4 and keep 8, you shouldn't have the survivability issues that 3/4 hit points would otherwise need to address. Is this for PC's only, or also for NPC's and monsters? Giving players the option to have average hit points instead of rolling should be sufficient.
10. A good rule. Makes it easy to build mid or high-level characters.
11. Unlimited ammo, but within reason. An archer holding a pass against thousands of orcs might run out of arrows.
12. You might occasionally want to put the PC's in a hardship setting where food is an issue; deserts, shipwreck, etc..
13. No summon monster spells? That seems unreasonable. Or do you mean planar binding and planar ally spells? If so, then good.
14. Good rule. Leadership and hirelings are a headache.
15. I don't like it. The stat point issues favor SAD characters, which are disproportionately spellcasters. Spellcasters don't need special help. You can also make great characters with the standard number of feats. This seems a pointless change.
16. Good rule. Can be done through feat retraining, but this is simpler.
17. This strikes me as awfully vague and prone to abuse. Having a backstory and motivation is good, but I don't think this is the way to do it.
18. Again, a lot of pre-made NPC's will have to be recalculated. Especially if the initial +2 in a good save only happens once. The existing ecosystem of classes and prestige classes seems to work well enough as is - why change it?
19. Ok.
20. Do you mean no xp penalty for multi-classing? That's a pretty common house rule.
21. Could be problematic if a player needs to ask questions about the current situation. Does not mesh well with 3. Can you play the NPC's and monsters that fast when players do something unexpected?
22. If you left out important information and a PC does the wrong thing, you won't let them take it back? That sounds like a recipe for frustrated and angry players.
23. Not a house rule. Familiars etc. already scale with level.
24. A good rule. You should give something extra to rangers when they would get these feats.
25. I hope you mean 1/2 their Dex bonus. No opinion on this one. I'd be curious how it works out. A SAD fighter might be a good thing.
26. This is a bad rule. There is no rhyme or reason as to which PrC's will allow early entry. It just seems like a random power-up.
27. Of course.
28. Be wary about adding too much more.

You might add a disclaimer that material from Dragon Magazine, setting specific sourcebooks and 2nd or 3rd party books will be subject to extra careful scrutiny. Also anything that appears in TO builds, is banned from Test of Spite or found on lists of commonly banned material. Rules identified as dysfunctional might well be tweaked on a case by case basis. Basically "no cheese".

Also, what are your rules about LA buyback? What templates or races are allowed? How are characters generated? If point buy, how many points?

You should make sure your players come up with reasons why they are adventuring together, and some backstory that provides plot hooks.

[ahenobarbi]

I always loved it when my Fighter/Barbarian/Noncaster type says "wtf is a spell slot, get yo ass up." Then just leave them there where they are resting.

Excellent way to ensure casters won't go out of their way to help you (out of healing magic items? good luck asking cleric to patch you up. Grappled by Mimic? Don't hope wizard will burn his last Benign Transposition to get you out...).

Or to ensure party break up (seriously who'd risk her/his/its life adventuring with someone like that).

And explaining how spell slots work isn't hard.


I would be careful with at-will level 0's. You may need to modify some of those spells. Cure minor will be spammed to get full HP in between every encounter, they will never need to use any other healing spell (and basically no one will ever die).

Not exactly true. It might be different in other groups but mine hardly ever continues without healing up completely (or almost completely). So it'd save us some money and book keeping (for wands of lesser vigor charges) and make it possible to adventure longer at low levels (when we can't afford LVWs yet) but wouldn't affect lethality.

Also you still might want to cast Heal, Restoration series, ...

But effect probably is highly group-dependent.


Also, you're giving them an awful lot of stat increases: every other level? With the free magic weapons, extra feats, automatic feat power-ups, extra encouraging multiclassing, and automatic HP on every level, it looks to be a very high powered campaign.
None of those things are necessarily unreasonable, as long as you realize how much potential power you're giving those players above and beyond what 3.5 already does.

Hmm good point. More feats, stats, BAB and saves favors casters. Maybe make it apply only to tiers >= 3?

[JusticeZero]

2) Every time a d20 is supposed to be rolled (attack roll, skill check, saving throw, initiative, whatever) the player may opt to roll 2d10 instead. If this is used on an attack roll threat range is increased by 1 (e.g. if you normally crit 19-20 instead you crit 18-20).
6) Many feats (Dodge, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Toughness, Iron Will, etc.) which give flat bonuses will stack with level. Talk to me about individual feats. Dodge, for example, really sucks as written. It would be changed to a +1+1/4 levels dodge bonus to AC against all foes (so max +6 at level 20). Similarly for Weapon Focus.Oh please. Let me pump my AC to a silly level so that I can wander into battle and tank the whole room for long enough for the wizards to sleep and regain spells. Aww, with my full plate and shield and buffs and a bunch of scaling feats and fighting defensively you hit.. 1% of the time. And if I get tired, I can pop off a few Cure Minor. They get an attack of opportunity? lol.
Can you hold? ..Ohh, yeah, I can hold.

[Perseus]

There are far fewer ways around rope trick than there are ways around venturing onward without party members. Also, the interactions between those items and a rope trick range from entirely unclear to completely non-existent. The former is the best case scenario, because there's no explicit RAW effect that comes from those circumstances. In the latter case, you either keep the bag of holding closed, or you bring up the fact that rope trick calls out extradimensional spaces, while a bag of holding is explicitly a nondimensional space. It actually doesn't look like any of these items would be problematic, because the portable hole, which is possibly the only item that creates an extradimensional space, only does so when the hole is placed on a surface. Thus, it looks like our wizard will be fine on all counts.

Except the DM tells us the rules of their game before hand so your RAW doesn't matter.

We happen to like the rule though so no complaints even from the casters.

[ahenobarbi]

Oh please. Let me pump my AC to a silly level so that I can wander into battle and tank the whole room for long enough for the wizards to sleep and regain spells. Aww, with my full plate and shield and buffs and a bunch of scaling feats and fighting defensively you hit.. 1% of the time. And if I get tired, I can pop off a few Cure Minor. They get an attack of opportunity? lol.
Can you hold? ..Ohh, yeah, I can hold.

It was always possible to pump AC high... Only there are many ways to get hurt without caring about AC.

And those rules make it possible to get reasonable AC with reasonable investment.

[Zombimode]

1
7 - I'd check this on a case-by-case basis. Do feat bonuses stack with each other? Because most feats are actually untyped, so by RAW stack with anything anyway.

Ooh, right, I wanted to comment on this one, but forgot.

Bonuses of the same type do not stack with each other, if not otherwise stated (circumstance and dodge are the only exceptions to my knowledge). Since "feat bonus" is not a thing in D&D 3.5 raw, you would have to define it.

If your Feat Bonus does not stack with itself, you will run into things like this:
Say someone with Weapon Focus wants to take advantage of his Reckless Offense feat. If both provide a Feat Bonus, only the higher, in the case Reckless Offense, would apply. This is in contrast to RAW where both would apply.

If your Feat Bonus does stack with itself, it would have very little influence on how things work, because in RAW, most feats provide an untyped bonus (that, of course, stack with all other boni, including other untyped boni), or if not provide a bonus of a seldom used type (sacred, vile, insight, etc.) and thus are at a very small risk of conflicting.

I don't know in which direction you want to go. If you want stacking, just leave things as they are.
Less stacking is not desirable in my view.

[Thrudd]

First of all, I hope that by, "choosing cure for most of their spell slots," you really mean, "spontaneously converting for most of their spell slots," because it makes no sense to prepare a healing spell outside of odd corner cases. Second of all, at a certain level, parties are already getting to full HP between fights. A wand of lesser vigor costs 750 GP and heals a total of 550 HP. This makes it relatively trivial to keep HP maxed out most of the time. Healing belts are also rather cost efficient, healing about 27 HP every day for the same 750 GP price. Finally, it's incredibly rare for a cleric to pick the healing domain (unless they're doing RSoP stuff), because those spells are already on their list, and many of them can be acquired through spontaneous conversion.

Oh yeah. I forget people just buy magic items. I suppose it is a difference in play style. My game world never has magic items for sale, and certainly nothing as useful as healing wands. I hand them out as treasure, but not in volume such that there is always one on hand, and almost never a full 50 charges. We also normally don't go much above lvl 10-12, so magic item creation by the players is not a huge part of the game, usually nobody wants to spend the XP and rarely have the amount of gold necessary. It is 750gp x the level of the spell x the caster level , which at a minimum is 5th, plus raw materials costing half of that. So minimum 5625 gold for a wand of cure light wounds, plus 149 XP. That would require a good chunk of the treasure recovered by the entire party on any given adventure at that level for just one wand. I've never had players excited about spending their XP, or spending their feats on item creation, so it has never actually come up for me.
I can see that the rules allow for such things to be available, and for parties to have access to massive amounts of healing. My own games just don't play that way, I keep it relatively low magic. Just because it's in the PHB or DMG doesn't mean you have to use it.

The OP here seems to be running a very high powered game, however. So maybe at-will cure minor won't break anything for him, it just means his players won't need to spend as much money on healing wands, and won't have to worry about healing even at level 1, which might be exactly what he wants.

[JusticeZero]

It was always possible to pump AC high... Only there are many ways to get hurt without caring about AC.

And those rules make it possible to get reasonable AC with reasonable investment.
Yes, you could pump your AC to where only one in twenty swings hits you. That is different from one in a hundred. Somewhat unreasonable builds become completely ludicrous when a bell curve is introduced, even as platykurtic a curve as 2d10.

[ahenobarbi]

Oh yeah. I forget people just buy magic items. I suppose it is a difference in play style. My game world never has magic items for sale, and certainly nothing as useful as healing wands. I hand them out as treasure, but not in volume such that there is always one on hand, and almost never a full 50 charges. We also normally don't go much above lvl 10-12, so magic item creation by the players is not a huge part of the game, usually nobody wants to spend the XP and rarely have the amount of gold necessary. It is 750gp x the level of the spell x the caster level , which at a minimum is 5th, plus raw materials costing half of that. So minimum 5625 gold for a wand of cure light wounds, plus 149 XP.

You voluntarily lower your caster level when creating wand to make it cheaper... so you can craf CLW for 375gp and 30 XP (see wands section in SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wands.htm) (or DMG)).

[ahenobarbi]

Yes, you could pump your AC to where only one in twenty swings hits you. That is different from one in a hundred. Somewhat unreasonable builds become completely ludicrous when a bell curve is introduced, even as platykurtic a curve as 2d10.

2d10 is voluntary so if enemies realize they have hard time hitting they are free to roll 1d20.

[Ashtagon]

2d10 is voluntary so if enemies realize they have hard time hitting they are free to roll 1d20.

Unless your attack roll is so advantageous that the fight is a cakewalk anyway, it will always be statistically advantageous to use 1d20 instead of 2d10.

[Vedhin]

1) My computer doesn't like this for some reason, so no comment.
2) This sounds fine, but remember that randomness favors the underdog. Typically, the underdog is not the PCs. Therefore, The PCs will want to reduce randomness as much as they can. Also, It's important to know whether a natural 2 will act like a natural 1.
3) I discourage negative reinforcement here. A better idea might be a bonus for adding flavor to rolls that in a novel would get bigger desriptions. For example, attacking a goblin shouldn't get you anything no matter how much flavor you use, but fighting the dragon should get bonuses depending on flavor.
4) Sounds fine to me, but it is another thing that helps PCs more.
5) Don't see any problem here.
6) Giving martial scaling feats is very good.
7) Sounds fine; most feats give untyped or dodge/circumstance bonuses anyway.
8) Cure Minor Wounds may be problematic, but the mentioned solutions of limiting it to halfway healing or replacing it with stabilize are good. It would probably be fine as is though.
9) Don't see a problem here.
10) This is good, it makes bookkeeping easier.
11) This is effectively true anyway.
12) This also is typically the case.
13) This is definitely fair.
14) This is also fair.
15) This doesn't sound bad, but it will make the game higher-powered. It gives casters the greatest power increase, but provides a greater benefit overall for noncasters.
16) If this is only one level it should be fine, but I advise watching this one carefully.
17) This sounds fine.
18) This is fine.
19) This is very good. That rule shouldn'y have existed in the first place.
20) This is fine.
21) I'd advise increasing the time, and increasing it further during momentous battles.
22) Make sure to allow takeback for nonsensical or msinformed actions. If the character would have known better easily, make sure the player is aware of why his character would think it would be a bad idea.
23) This is fine.
24) As before, scaling feats are very good.
25) This is good; archery typically has low damage.
26) This is another thing to watch closely. It sounds fine, but dual progression PrCs will be easier to enter by about two levels, for example. Also some classes may be self-qualifying, possibly to the point of being able to be entered at level 1. Example of self-qualification: Sumblie Chord requires and gives the Bardic Music ability. It is now open to non-bards.

[ahenobarbi]

Unless your attack roll is so advantageous that the fight is a cakewalk anyway, it will always be statistically advantageous to use 1d20 instead of 2d10.

So the effect is pro fighters fumble 5 times less when fighting easy enemies than when fighting competent enemies. Looks good to me.

[Ashtagon]

So the effect is pro fighters fumble 5 times less when fighting easy enemies than when fighting competent enemies. Looks good to me.

If it is such a cakewalk, then the extra rule is just a needless complication on what is really just a road bump (how often do you fight level-appropriate minus five monsters?). If it isn't a cakewalk, then the rule doesn't get used. Either way, it's a wasted houserule.

[ahenobarbi]

If it is such a cakewalk, then the extra rule is just a needless complication on what is really just a road bump (how often do you fight level-appropriate minus five monsters?). If it isn't a cakewalk, then the rule doesn't get used. Either way, it's a wasted houserule.

Unless touch attacks.

[danzibr]

Wow so much feedback! Some... unnecessarily negative, but still, thanks all.

I've made the following changes/clarifications:

1) Raising the stakes. See http://esix.pbworks.com/f/RaisingtheStakes.pdf
2) Every time a d20 is supposed to be rolled (attack roll, skill check, saving throw, initiative, whatever) the player may opt to roll 2d10 instead. If this is used on an attack roll threat range is increased by 1 (e.g. if you normally crit 19-20 instead you crit 18-20).
1. This means rather than a flat 5% of getting any number you have a 1% chance of getting a 2, 2% chance of getting a 3, 3% chance of getting a 4, up to 10% chance of getting an 11, then back down to a 1% chance of getting a 20. So you're less likely to roll low, but also less likely to roll high.
3) When you make a roll, -1 for no flavor, +0 for a little flavor, +1 for flavorful flavor. For example: “I attack for 18” would get you a -1, “I slash my greatsword at the Goblin before me, rolling an 18 for attack” would get you no bonus, “My mighty greatsword Justice reflects my thirst for vengeance as I focus on the Goblin who just struck my leg, swinging the massive piece of steel at its fear-ridden, beady eyes. I rolled an 18 for attack” would get you +1 (this is a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point).
When you make a roll you can get +1 for a flavorful description. For example, “I attack for 18” would get no bonus, “My mighty greatsword Justice reflects my thirst for vengeance as I focus on the Goblin who just struck my leg, swinging the massive piece of steel at its fear-ridden, beady eyes. I rolled an 18 for attack” would get you +1 to attack and damage (this is a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point).
4) Death at -Con score rather than -10. Disabled is extended to -Con/2 rather than just 0.
5) Imaginary WBL (wealth by level). This means we won't be getting any magic gear. When you level up you get “imaginary money.” You buy magic items which aren't consumable (like a +1 longsword). However, rather than actually getting a +1 longsword, any longsword you pick up is treated as +1.
You may change this every time your level, or more often if you run it by me.
You'll get regular gold to spend on consumables and non-magical items and things like rods.
This means the only magical equipment to be found will be unique things like artifacts.
6) Many feats (Dodge, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Toughness, Iron Will, etc.) which give flat bonuses will stack with level. Talk to me about individual feats. Dodge, for example, really sucks as written. It would be changed to a +1+1/4 levels dodge bonus to AC against all foes (so max +6 at level 20). Similarly for Weapon Focus. Feat bonuses stack.
7) Bonuses from feats are “feat bonuses” rather than their normal type (so they stack with other effects).
8) All level 0 spells may be used at-will.
9) Max hp at 1st level, ¾ after (so d4 gains 3, d6 gains 4.5, d8 gains 6, d10 gains 7.5, d12 gains 9).
10) Retroactive skill points.
11) Unlimited mundane arrows/bolts/stones.
12) Don't worry about food, you competent adventurer you.
13) No summoning unless we talk about it.
14) No cohorts/hirelings except familiar/animal companion/psicrystal/Pally mount and the like.
15) Feat every odd level, stat point every even.
16) If a feat has a required level of, say, 6, you can put off gaining your level 5 feat until level 6.
17) Include 3 things in the backstory, get +1 plot bonus to them (like Orcs killed your family when you were young, get +1 to all rolls involving Orcs).
18) Fractional saves and BAB.
1. This means instead of a Cleric getting +0 then +1 then +2 then +3 then +3 again to BAB for levels 1-5, they get +.75 then +1.5 then +2.25 then +3 then +3.75. This way a level 1 Cleric/level 1 Rogue/level 1 Monk/level 1 Bard would have a BAB of +3 rather than +0.
For saves a good save is +2+1/2 level, a bad save is +1/3 level.
19) No death from massive damage.
20) Freely multi-class.
21) 15 seconds per turn to decide what to do in combat. In combat, you don't have time to think! Make sure you make note cards or whatever for quick reference (note it's 15 seconds to decide, so if you do something complicated then the turn can be substantially longer than 15 seconds).
22) And no take-backs (in combat).
23) Familiar, animal companion, psicrystal scale with total level, not just Wizard level/Druid level/Psion lever/whatever.
24) Two Weapon Fighting turns into ITWF and GTWF as soon as you qualify; same thing goes for Rapid Shot -> Improved Rapid Shot and Manyshot -> Greater Manyshot.
25) Bows and crossbows add 1/2 Dexterity to damage.
26) Qualify for PrC's while entering. For example, if a PrC requires +6 and you have +5 BAB, you can enter it provided it gives +1 BAB at level 1.
27) Homebrew can be allowed. Just run it by me.
28) This list might grow.
I should also mention I'm playing with people who basically don't optimize in the slightest. It's very casual D&D. Some of these are clear power boosters (like qualify for PrC's while entering).

I will have to think about the unlimited 0-level spells some more...

[pwykersotz]

I was a little concerned with unlimited cantrips getting out of control, so I made it that each 0th level slot or cantrip prepared could be used a number of times equal to your caster level before being expended. Plentiful, but not unlimited.

[TuggyNE]

Unless your attack roll is so advantageous that the fight is a cakewalk anyway, it will always be statistically advantageous to use 1d20 instead of 2d10.

What? No, if you hit at least half the time with a d20, 2d10 will give you an advantage on this (graph (http://anydice.com/program/2644/at_least/graph)). And who goes around routinely attacking things with a 40% or less chance to hit?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, OK, as long as you realize that the vast majority of fights are in conditions such that 2d10's lesser variability will be advantageous: i.e. there are very few genuinely even matches, and even fewer combats where the deck is stacked against the PCs.This is quite noteably more game-dependent than a lot of the other things in RAW; thus my use of relative terms instead of absolutes. It's right up there with the availability of magic items and population demographics for stuff that is -very- frequently changed.


Unless your attack roll is so advantageous that the fight is a cakewalk anyway, it will always be statistically advantageous to use 1d20 instead of 2d10.

Absolute statements are almost always incorrect. This one's no exception. If you hit on less than 10-11 under the normal rules, you'll hit more often with 2d10. If you normally hit on 12 or higher you'll hit less often. The further below or above the median the greater the difference in frequency.

[Ashtagon]

Absolute statements are almost always incorrect. This one's no exception. If you hit on less than 10-11 under the normal rules, you'll hit more often with 2d10. If you normally hit on 12 or higher you'll hit less often. The further below or above the median the greater the difference in frequency.

This ignores critical hits.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This ignores critical hits.

No it doesn't. Of course it does. Why wouldn't it? Only a natural 20 is an automatic hit, regardless of a weapon's threat range. Criticals don't affect how often you hit at all.

[Ashtagon]

No it doesn't. Of course it does. Why wouldn't it? Only a natural 20 is an automatic hit, regardless of a weapon's threat range. Criticals don't affect how often you hit at all.

I'm talking about critical hits, not natural 20s. The two are not the same.

[TuggyNE]

This ignores critical hits.

Technically true, but largely irrelevant; critical hits might skew the breakeven point another point or so down, but in the end 80%+ of combats will still prefer using 2d10 because it's better.

[Spuddles]

I've played in multiple games with unlimited out of combat healing. While it takes away a little bit of tense "survival" or whatever at low levels, and having to rest multiple days before adventuring again, as soon as wands of CLW or lesser vigor are available, the party already has unlimited healing, but with more bookkeeping.

In combat, at will healing is too slow to matter and combat can still be deadly. Though with "death flags" and stuff, I am guessing combat won't be all that deadly.

How do infinite cantrips interact with Versatile Spellcaster?

[lord_khaine]

So the effect is pro fighters fumble 5 times less when fighting easy enemies than when fighting competent enemies. Looks good to me.

What is this fumble you speak off? its certainly not part of the core rules :smalltongue:


Wow so much feedback! Some... unnecessarily negative, but still, thanks all.

Well, considering that you started by rudely insulting the playstyle of about ½ the forum, then you should be happy it wasnt more negative :smalltongue:

[Spuddles]

Well, considering that you started by rudely insulting the playstyle of about ½ the forum, then you should be happy it wasnt more negative :smalltongue:

Where did he do that?

[danzibr]

What is this fumble you speak off? its certainly not part of the core rules :smalltongue:

Well, considering that you started by rudely insulting the playstyle of about ½ the forum, then you should be happy it wasnt more negative :smalltongue:

Where did he do that?
I wondered that to. Maybe what I called rollplaying? I didn't mean to use that word offensively, but perhaps some people are touchy about it.

Actually... looking back at the original post, I don't see a single sentence which a reasonable person would find rude or insulting. Unless maybe wanting to use rules slightly different from RAW is offensive?

[Perseus]

I wondered that to. Maybe what I called rollplaying? I didn't mean to use that word offensively, but perhaps some people are touchy about it.

Actually... looking back at the original post, I don't see a single sentence which a reasonable person would find rude or insulting. Unless maybe wanting to use rules slightly different from RAW is offensive?

The blue smiley face at the end of the text might mean sarcasm or being facetious.