Campaign House Rule setup [PEACH]

[p.d0t]

This is basically intended for a PHB-only home game. Any advice/suggestions are much appreciated.

-----

Ability Score Generation:
29-point buy

Allowed Classes:

Barbarian
Bard
Monk
Ranger
Rogue
Paladin


Alignment Mechanics:
Lawful characters gain the Fighter's bonus feat and BAB progressions.
Characters who are not lawful or chaotic can choose one of the above benefits, or one Armor Proficiency feat or Shield Proficiency feat for which they meet the prerequisites.

Skills:
All classes add the Fighter's class skills to their class skill list.
You may add one skill of your choice to your character's class skill list.
The minimum class modifier for generating skill points is increased to 4+[INT or WIS]

Feats:
Ability Score prerequisites for feats can be ignored.

Ability Modifier Changes:

Use STR or CON for Hit Points and Fortitude
Use DEX or CHA for Initiative and Reflex
Use INT or WIS for Skill Points and Will
Use STR or DEX for melee Attack and Damage rolls
Use CON, DEX, or WIS for Max DEX bonus to AC
Use INT or WIS for trained skill checks with Knowledge skills from your class list


Races:
Ignore the racial ability score modifiers; instead, gain a +2 to one ability score of your choice.

[Xerlith]

Power-attacking neutral (Full BAB) bard with Dex/Cha focus tells me it might be a bit too powerful.

[Satyrus]

I have to agree with Xerlith. Certain class combinations will benefit much more from your rules than others.

Also, do chaotic characters gain no additional benefits?

It might help if we knew more about why you are giving the bonuses for alignment. What do you want to accomplish?

[p.d0t]

Basically I just want the selected classes to run at about tier 3 or 4 levels of competence, with as few houserules as possible. Most of the ability score stuff is intended to fix the MAD problems some classes have (monk in particular). I also want to discourage my players from being chaotic, because then they just act like asses.

The melee change was a last minute idea; would free weapon finesse for all/some classes be a better option? Is the option for full BAB too powerful for particular classes?

[Xerlith]

Well, DEX instead of STR to attack and damage IS effectively Weapon Finesse+. And it's okay, that is something that should be done by default. Now then the problem is that some classes still are going to be sub-par. If you're houseruling anyway, let the players use one of the complete PHB fixes found on this forum instead of the default classes. Off the top of my head I remember Zman having done a quite decent one.

[The Dragon]

I don't see chaotic benefits listed, am I blind?

On the overall balance, a lot of the tricks that are staple from d&d characters to have will be unavailable. Take care when using flesh to stone or ability drain/ability damage/energy drain as a gm.

That said, it sounds like fun. Just note that monsters assume you have access to magic in the party, so either work around that in monster selection, give them access via scrolls or an npcs(an npc is probably a bad idea though, the über DM pc trope is hard to avoid here) or have the characters lead a tough life, where dead is dead soon as you can look a medusa in the eye.

[Cloud]

...Having bonuses for more lawful characters because chaotic ones are jackasses would seem to indicate maybe you have a problem with your players, I think it would be better to sit down with them and discuss what alignment actually means instead of slap a house rule like that on. Particularly since normally it's lawful characters that seem to clash with players (a chaotic stupid/evil character will quickly get killed/removed from the group, a lawful stupid/judgmental character is just...urgh. Insert something about law and it meant to be tempered by mercy and that stuff for your average adventurer here, full on judge mode lawful neutral I find is very disruptive to game play).

To be honest if you're disallowing the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard, probably for being too powerful, I'd also ban the Monk and Paladin for being too weak (more so in a core only environment)...though that would leave you with a lot of classes not left. Certainly as has been suggested if you're open to house rules already, there are many well done revisions to the PHB classes though. Also as a player it's a shame that many archetypes aren't available, I mean if I want to play an arcane spellcaster I don't take wizard or sorcerer because of how powerful they are, but I could take beguiler, dread necromancer, or warmage, not an option in a core only game.

If it's core only because that's the only book you own, more than reasonable, but I'll point that the entire SRD is freely avaible (adding psionics), and also leave this link here.
http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=513
If it's a matter of balance though...core is probably the least balanced part of the game, and I'd probably at least allow some of the other classes to allow players to choose other archetypes. (Druids and Clerics might be OP, but one could play a Healer, Shugenja, or Spirit Shaman for example).

On the rest of the houserules themselves I'm a fan of reducing MAD, but some of the abilities don't make sense. Why for example is charisma initiative or reflex? Str or Dex for attacks rolls and damage seems fine, and save wise I'd probably link it so that it was str/con for fort, dex/int for reflex, wis/cha for will. The rest though aren't bad...they just don't seem to make much sense (on int vs. wisdom for trained skills, I tend to let rangers, druids, cleric etc. use wisdom for knowledge skills they're meant to be good at).

[p.d0t]

Just note that monsters assume you have access to magic in the party, so either work around that in monster selection, give them access via scrolls or an npcs(an npc is probably a bad idea though, the über DM pc trope is hard to avoid here) or have the characters lead a tough life, where dead is dead soon as you can look a medusa in the eye.

Absolutely; a low-magic party implies a low-magic campaign with low-magic enemies.
Using level/ability drains is a pain in the ass under the best of circumstances, I personally wouldnt ever use stuff like that.


...Having bonuses for more lawful characters because chaotic ones are jackasses would seem to indicate maybe you have a problem with your players, I think it would be better to sit down with them and discuss what alignment actually means instead of slap a house rule like that on. Particularly since normally it's lawful characters that seem to clash with players (a chaotic stupid/evil character will quickly get killed/removed from the group, a lawful stupid/judgmental character is just...urgh. Insert something about law and it meant to be tempered by mercy and that stuff for your average adventurer here, full on judge mode lawful neutral I find is very disruptive to game play).

The point of the bonus is mostly to help out Paladins and Monks, but also to increase the likelihood of PCs being on the same page.
My own experience with my specific playgroup is that bad behaviour has less to do with the player themselves and everything to do with the character's alignment; I've had more problems with Chaotic than with Lawful or Evil, but ymmv.



To be honest if you're disallowing the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard, probably for being too powerful, I'd also ban the Monk and Paladin for being too weak (more so in a core only environment)...though that would leave you with a lot of classes not left. Certainly as has been suggested if you're open to house rules already, there are many well done revisions to the PHB classes though. Also as a player it's a shame that many archetypes aren't available, I mean if I want to play an arcane spellcaster I don't take wizard or sorcerer because of how powerful they are, but I could take beguiler, dread necromancer, or warmage, not an option in a core only game.
What, no love for bards? :smallfrown:
As I mentioned, I'm trying to make some simple changes that will mostly help out Monks and Paladins, but also eliminate the need for Fighters, since they are so bland and generally just as bad, if not worse.



If it's core only because that's the only book you own, more than reasonable, but I'll point that the entire SRD is freely avaible (adding psionics), and also leave this link here.
http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=513
If it's a matter of balance though...core is probably the least balanced part of the game, and I'd probably at least allow some of the other classes to allow players to choose other archetypes. (Druids and Clerics might be OP, but one could play a Healer, Shugenja, or Spirit Shaman for example).

The problem with the group I play with is that most of the people have no interest in branching out beyond core, or even delving deep into vancian casting, but our DM is pretty insistent (read: lazy) on only using modules from Living Greyhawk without doing anything to balance it around the party. That playstyle almost demands powergaming and tier 1 classes, but our party currently consists of Monk, Fighter, Warlock, Bard, and Cleric (I'm the cleric, but I'd probably be just as happy as a Healer.)

I'm trying to offer an alternative that would be more suited to the group; I personally would probably have more fun playing in this setup that in the one we're currently playing.



On the rest of the houserules themselves I'm a fan of reducing MAD, but some of the abilities don't make sense. Why for example is charisma initiative or reflex? Str or Dex for attacks rolls and damage seems fine, and save wise I'd probably link it so that it was str/con for fort, dex/int for reflex, wis/cha for will. The rest though aren't bad...they just don't seem to make much sense (on int vs. wisdom for trained skills, I tend to let rangers, druids, cleric etc. use wisdom for knowledge skills they're meant to be good at).

Not that I particularly worry about what ability scores do "making sense," but basically;

CHA for ref/init = "Charisma as luck" and it's mostly meant to make Charisma more useful/less of a trap for classes that rely on it/normally wouldn't have high DEX (specifically Paladin, to a lesser extent Bard)
CON/WIS for AC = "Constitution as natural armor" and/or "Wisdom as precognition". Mostly intended to help Monks, although it'll benefit most classes somehow. Basically my hope is that this will produce a more even level of ACs across the party, thus making it easier to balance fights around.

[The Dragon]

Are you planning to GM this yourself, or will you continue with the other DM?

If you're stepping up yourself, I suspect you might not need houserules, you can just adjust the ecounters to your party.
That said, I don't think these changes will hurt that much, either.

If, on the other hand, the current GM is going to continue onwards with greyhawk modules, I honestly don't see it changing much. You're going to have some bigger numbers, but lack of flight, scrying and teleporting will still remain a problem.

As I've been playing the chaotic evil leader of a thieves guild chapter lately, where the group aligment where more or less neutral with a (admittedly only sporadically expressed) conscience, I can attest that chaotic and evil is only a problem if the chaotic and evil playing players decide that they want it to be(stupid evil, chaotic stupid). Chaotic means not giving a damn if you break the law, a contract, a deal, or a mutual agreement.

Evil means that you want to get ahead, the consequences others suffer be damned. It also means that saving random people in danger isn't a motivation.
None of the above means not caring about consequences. As such, you don't stab townspeople at random, loot banks and generally cause mayhem unless you can obviously get something of high value out of it and has a high chance of getting away with it.

Your group could benefit a lot from changing its playstyle of chaotic and evil. Done well, it really brings a lot to your gaming experience that you don't get in a lawful/good group.

Of course, you can just decide to stay away from those alignments, and it will serve just as well. these rules are probably good for that.

[p.d0t]

Are you planning to GM this yourself, or will you continue with the other DM?

If you're stepping up yourself, I suspect you might not need houserules, you can just adjust the ecounters to your party.
That said, I don't think these changes will hurt that much, either.

If, on the other hand, the current GM is going to continue onwards with greyhawk modules, I honestly don't see it changing much. You're going to have some bigger numbers, but lack of flight, scrying and teleporting will still remain a problem.

Naw, I would be proposing this as something I would GM. Our current GM is pretty anal retentive and has banned almost everything but core and never wants to stray too far from Living Greyhawk rules regarding anything. This level of modification is right-out for what he runs.

[Cloud]

...Wait, so, these rules are for if you DM? ...Are you sure they'll even read your house rules if they won't venture outside of the most broken and restricting part of 3.5, even when its venturing to just the SRD?

Anyway, back to the house rules themselves, any reason why 29 point buy instead of 28 or 32? In any case the minimum point buy I'd use is 32, in general lower stats just hurt the mundane characters, in as low as 22 point buy a caster will just buy a 14 con and 18 casting stat and live on that. I could really see going as high as 35 or more if you're not tier 2 or 1 casters, but if the players are all newish I'd get them used to the normal point buy and 32 points, as least that's still an option in the DMG.

I still think the alignment based bonuses when you're not even pretending to give comparable bonuses to each one is still really bad design and intent to cover something that's a much larger problem, but it's your call. What about the Bard and Barbarian that can't be lawful, which in something that's either insulting or amusing, I guess ironic, can't use heavier armour because of their class features, not lack of proficiencies.

[p.d0t]

Anyway, back to the house rules themselves, any reason why 29 point buy instead of 28 or 32? In any case the minimum point buy I'd use is 32, in general lower stats just hurt the mundane characters, in as low as 22 point buy a caster will just buy a 14 con and 18 casting stat and live on that. I could really see going as high as 35 or more if you're not tier 2 or 1 casters, but if the players are all newish I'd get them used to the normal point buy and 32 points, as least that's still an option in the DMG.
The game we're currently in uses 29 points (why? I don't know) and the resulting arrays seem pretty good. I figure with the other changes to ability scores and racial modifiers, you won't need to have high numbers in as many places. Hopefully that would translate to not needing a much higher point buy.



I still think the alignment based bonuses when you're not even pretending to give comparable bonuses to each one is still really bad design and intent to cover something that's a much larger problem, but it's your call. What about the Bard and Barbarian that can't be lawful, which in something that's either insulting or amusing, I guess ironic, can't use heavier armour because of their class features, not lack of proficiencies.

I guess I could just word it differently, being like "class A gets X benefit; P.S. No Chaotic," but I chose to have fewer rules that are broadly applicable, rather than spell out the benefit to each class on a case-by-case basis. And I'll admit the non-lawful bonuses produce some useless/trap options that way, but they aren't mandatory.

To your point, if you want to make a spell-focused Bard, you wouldn't take the Armor Proficiency, and the BAB or Fighter Feat bonus might not be broadly applicable. However, if you want your Bard to be a frontline fighter, then that's what they're there for.

On the other hand, Bard is the highest-tier class allowed in this setup to begin with, so I don't feel like they're being hurt by benefitting less from this house rule; they don't need as much help.

Likewise, the Barbarian already has full BAB, so they likely would opt for the Fighter Feats, although they could take the Armor Proficiency (at the expense of their bonus movement). Again, it's not a mandatory nerf; the player making the character has to weigh the tradeoff.

I should add that I had intended the "bonus Armor Proficiency feat" be Armor or Shield proficiency, I'll edit that in to the OP.

[The Dragon]

I don't think you should let people take armor proficiency witha single category in exchange for figter feat progression.
That's a worse trap than animal affinity.

I was going to qualify that statement with "if the character in question wants to pick up even a single feat on the fighter bonus list over their career.", but looking at the playable classes, that's everyone.

Armor proficiency is a trap, because you traded eleven feats for one.

[p.d0t]

Ok, how about these changes:

...

Ability Scores:
32-point buy
Ignore all racial ability score modifiers
Ignore all ability score prerequisites for feats

Allowed Classes:

Barbarian
Bard
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue

Class Changes:

When rolling HP, reroll any 2s until a different result is achieved; treat rolls of 1 as maximum die value.
All classes gain the Fighter's bonus feat and BAB progressions, as well as the Weapon Finesse feat. Ignore all fighter level requirements for feats. Multi-class characters retain full BAB progression.
Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers gain Tower Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat.
Paladins must be Lawful but do not have to be Good; their Detection and Smite class features can be used on any opposed alignment.
Paladins who cease to be lawful do not lose their paladin spells or abilities, but may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin.
Monks may 5-ft. step as an immediate action, and may use flurry of blows as a standard action. They also gain an enhancement bonus to attack, damage, and AC equal to 1/4th their Monk level (minimum +1).


Skills:
All classes add the Fighter's class skills to their class skill list.
You may add one skill of your choice to your character's class skill list.
Multi-class characters add the class skills from all of their classes to their class skills list.
The minimum class modifier for generating skill points is increased to 4+[INT or WIS]

Ability Modifier Changes:

Use STR or CON for Hit Points and Fortitude
Use DEX or CHA for Initiative and Reflex
Use INT or WIS for Skill Points and Will
Use STR or DEX for Melee Damage rolls
Use CON, DEX, or WIS for Max DEX bonus to AC
Use INT or WIS for trained skill checks with Knowledge skills from your class list