Houserules: What works, what doesn't, what do you want to try?

[janusmaxwell]

I'm a newbie DM (very very new) and at my (much more experienced) players insistence, the Sorcerer in my first game has Intimidate, Diplomacy and Sense Motive as class skills instead of just Bluff. Though I can't remember now if I actually did tell him Sense Motive could be a Class skill with the others...

Anyway, everybody agreed that making the Sorcerer have only Bluff was stupid and I said sure. I'm curious about what other House-Rules that DM's have used that worked well, were broken as heck, or are curious to try/experiment with.

[Darrin]

I'm a newbie DM (very very new) and at my (much more experienced) players insistence, the Sorcerer in my first game has Intimidate, Diplomacy and Sense Motive as class skills instead of just Bluff. Though I can't remember now if I actually did tell him Sense Motive could be a Class skill with the others...

Anyway, everybody agreed that making the Sorcerer have only Bluff was stupid and I said sure. I'm curious about what other House-Rules that DM's have used that worked well, were broken as heck, or are curious to try/experiment with.

That's a popular houserule for Sorcerers. I would also give them a bonus metamagic, bloodline, or heritage feat at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th, to bring them a little closer to wizards.

I have about 7 pages of house rules (mostly trying to make the "filler feats" worth taking), but the one rule that keeps showing up in all our 3.5 campaigns:

Use your Ref save bonus for Initiative rolls. (I am puzzled why this never showed up in 4E, 'cuz... duh!)

[Vegan Zombie]

A house rule my group implemented to help skill monkeys was to combine several skills:

Spot + Listen = Perception (thanks 4ed!)
Hide + Move Silently = Stealth (2 rolls every time is lame)
Disable Device + Open Lock = Disable Device (locks are devices right?)

[Honest Tiefling]

I always try to work in the house rule of Athletics/Acrobatics as opposed to a crapton of other skills. Another reason to thank 4th edition.

[Jeff the Green]

Here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WS-45uC4IYfGo01FJHq2V1XWyAfF7sBUQ3H7OCi4Oh8/pub) are my houserules and preemptive rulings. Most of them just plug holes (like Darkstalker not working against mindsight), but there are a few that I think are more interesting:

Everyone gets an additional 2 skill points per level (8 at 1st).
Healers have an expanded list, cast spontaneously using Charisma, and can prepare Sanctified Spells as Arcane Preparation.
Paladins gain free devotion feats, smite per encounter rather than per day, turn as Clerics of their level, and have CL = level.
Monks flurry on a standard and have full BAB and d10 HD.
Rangers get animal companions as Druids of their level and have CL = level.
You can buy half a rank in Speak Language to gain partial competency. You can communicate or understand simple phrases with a DC 5 Charisma (to communicate) or Wisdom (to understand) check. If you fail by 5 or more or roll a natural 1 you miscommunicate or misunderstand in whatever way I find most humorous.
Force spells are all evocation, and healing spells are all necromancy.

[Coidzor]

I'm a newbie DM (very very new) and at my (much more experienced) players insistence, the Sorcerer in my first game has Intimidate, Diplomacy and Sense Motive as class skills instead of just Bluff. Though I can't remember now if I actually did tell him Sense Motive could be a Class skill with the others...

Anyway, everybody agreed that making the Sorcerer have only Bluff was stupid and I said sure. I'm curious about what other House-Rules that DM's have used that worked well, were broken as heck, or are curious to try/experiment with.

Shield bonuses to reflex saves are something I've been wanting to try out.

Getting Constitution Score to HP at 1st level ala 4e for more durable 1st level PCs is something I'm going to be trying out next game I get to run.

Giving every class access to Spot and Listen is one that I like, especially for Fighters and other guards who'd otherwise have to be Rangers or something.

Increasing Fighter's class skills to 4+int is fairly popular and if I'd want to go and extend Thug Fighters to 6+int.

I'm currently toying around with giving Reach weapons a -2 to hit against adjacent targets instead of them being completely unable to without a feat or using a Spiked Chain style weapon.

[OldTrees1]

The houserules that work are highly dependent on your group.

For my group, rebalancing houserules are largely a waste of time. This is due to my players' enjoyment not being harmed by existing imbalances nor do they exploit those imbalances.

On the other hand, customization houserules are welcomed so much that I use an "ask, but assume yes" philosophy.

So I eliminated cross class skills, multiclass penalties, and gave everyone +2 skill points. (In addition to welcoming user created feats)

[nedz]

A house rule my group implemented to help skill monkeys was to combine several skills:

Spot + Listen = Perception (thanks Pathfinder!)
Hide + Move Silently = Stealth (2 rolls every time is lame)
Disable Device + Open Lock = Disable Device (locks are devices right?)

FTFY — actually aren't all of these from PF ?

[Troacctid]

Sneak attacks and critical hits function normally against all creature types.


FTFY — actually aren't all of these from PF ?
4th edition did it first.

[jedipotter]

what other House-Rules that DM's have used that worked well, were broken as heck, or are curious to try/experiment with.

I have a bunch. It all depends on how you want the game to go.

Like;

*The fatigued condition imposes a -3 penalty to caster level and a -1 penalty to spell save DCs. The exhausted condition imposes a -6 penalty to caster level, and a -3 penalty to spell save DCs.

This nicely gets spellcasters to ''feel the effects'' of fatigued/exhaustion

*No form of metamagic reduction may reduce the spell's level below its original level

[Telok]

My favorite is to reintroduce the prep time for spells from AD&D. Add in five minutes per power point and I'm good to go.

Caster get a lot more cunning and interesting when it takes two days to renew their spells after going nova. Reserve feats are popular.

[atemu1234]

Me? I just use obvious rule patches, like fixing drown healing, but use the original rules apart from that.

Also, I like pathfinder, but hate 4e with the burning passion of a dying dwarf star.

[Ferronach]

having been both the new DM and the experienced player at some point, I have often found that generally the experienced players will let you know what the relevant rules are and how the apply. Occasionally they may try to sneak something past you so keep an eye on them. Tell them up front that you are willing to hear them out and if you feel that they make a good point or that they are able to convince you of something, you will let it fly. Don't be afraid to say no though otherwise no-one will have fun.

some house rules I have used other than the "rule of convince me" are:

if your strength is greater than 32 you can wield two-handers in your main hand or wield weapons one size category larger
everyone can get 1D4 sneak attack if they are attacking an unsuspecting enemy or successfully sneak up on the bad guy (rogues just calculate as normal)
everyone automatically speaks common
I will pass notes to a player if their character notices something that the other do not. They do not have to share that information with the party or select people if they do not want to. Players can pass me notes asking questions/declaring actions if they want.

[Aresneo]

On my group has found that works really well is having all attributes increase by 1 every fourth level instead of just one. It makes everyone better while benefiting MAD classes the most.

[Tvtyrant]

Ones I use:

I remove the grapple size restrictions. A devoted grappler should be able to grab and pin a dragon darn it.

Each player gets con mod x HD back in HP when a combat ends.

Dropping below 0 knocks you out for the duration of the fight, even with magical healing.

Crits don't do extra damage. Instead they do constitution damage.

Rogues can choose to do 1 con damage for each sneak attack die instead of d6s of damage.

Crits leave cosmetic scars that can only be removed by regeneration (but have no further effect.)

There are no fixed races. Each player can either be a human or gain mutation points and use the D20 mutations system to make their race. All of the standard races can be more or less recreated this way, and it gives adventurous characters more room to play.

Fighters get feat slots instead of extra feats. Each morning they can pick a number of feats for each slot equal to their intelligence modifier, and can switch between the ones assigned to a particular feat slot as a swift action. They can swap all of them as a full round action.

You get one AoO a round. Improved Trip now forces the opponent to make a will save to stand up (DC is the BaB of the tripper + 10).

Edit: I should mention that I used these for D&D 3.5 E6.

[Vhaidara]

You get one AoO a round. Improved Trip now forces the opponent to make a will save to stand up (DC is the BaB of the tripper + 10).

I'm sorry, but this has got to lead to some hilarious bits. Mostly because it's a Will save.
Eeyore voice: "Well, he'll just knock me down again. Guess I'll just lie here and die"

Also, it sounded really, REALLY silly until I read the bit about you using E6. Fighters are suddenly imposing DC 30 Will saves to stand up.

[Greymane]

We have a lot. There's also some very good ones in here I might want to steal.



Partial Gestalting based on class tiers: Tier 3 and 4 can gestalt with an NPC class, Tier 5 and 6 can gestalt with any NPC class or another Tier 5 or 6 class. We only got a good test of this when someone went Knight//Healer, and they did pretty well at both healing and tanking. Good stats helped too.

Two-Weapon Fighting and all its other feats are rolled up into Two-Weapon Fighting, so you aren't so feat taxed for a generally sub-optimal play style. You can also strike with both weapons as a standard action.

Ranger animal companions advance at the same pace as Druid.

Sorcerer uses the Battle Sorcerer from UA, except has no penalties to Spells Known or Spells Pay Day. Also gets Eschew Materials and a Bloodline/Heritage feat every 5 levels. As powerful as a class as Sorcerer was, nobody was playing them because Wizard was strictly better. Until we added this stuff on. Wizard is still better, but now Sorcerer is pretty attractive.

All 2+Int skill point classes became 4+Int, with the exception of classes that used Intelligence as a primary stat. Wizards, Psions, Erudites, Archivists, etc...

Most(See DM for verification) races and templates with a level adjustment have been reduced across the board by at least one.

If a character's Dexterity is naturally higher than their Strength, they get Weapon Finesse for free.



There's more, but these are the big ones. Generally it gives buffs to non-casters and tries to make them look a bit more appealing.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm sorry, but this has got to lead to some hilarious bits. Mostly because it's a Will save.
Eeyore voice: "Well, he'll just knock me down again. Guess I'll just lie here and die"

Also, it sounded really, REALLY silly until I read the bit about you using E6. Fighters are suddenly imposing DC 30 Will saves to stand up.

Haha that never really came up that way. The group all just accepted that their legs were injured and they had to shonen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84359240&feature=player_detailpage&v=i1JMWLAJA8U&x-yt-ts=1421782837#t=264) style force themselves to keep going.

Also my Fighters get nice things :smallcool:

[Curmudgeon]

Anyone may take up to 2 flaws at character creation. If a full spellcasting character takes flaws, they must be from the following limited list:

Divine Gesture (ASF for divine casters)
Methodical Magical Methods (considered flat-footed with DEX=0 on any round in which you cast a spell; may not cast defensively)
Ponderous Spellcaster (double casting time for all spells)

[kardar233]

One I've been meaning to try is based on a 4th edition hack called 13th Age:

Basically, skill checks are changed to be d20+ability+background, where Backgrounds are a replacement for skill points. Effectively, you start with a number of Background points that you use to describe your character's past: for example, I played Niall of Summer, a noble given to the Order of the White Rose in childhood who later was transported to the Fae lands and served for decades as the personal knight and bodyguard of the Lady of Summer. This gave him the backgrounds "Favourite Knight of the Summer Lady 5", "Apostate Paladin of the Order of the White Rose 4", and "Firstborn of the deRei noble family 1".

What this means is that I can add the value of any one of my backgrounds to a specific roll if I can justify it applying to that roll. If Niall is, say, subtly threatening a political opponent with violence, I can say "Niall was once chosen to be the ambassador to the Court of Winter, and knows much about the art of hiding your steel with silk." That gives me a +5 to the roll (because of the applicable background), and also has me improvising details about the setting my character comes from which the DM can note down and use ("Niall was ambassador to Winter; did he make enemies, perhaps?"). If Niall were instead researching the lineage of his political opponent to find something to smear him with, he couldn't use his Fae background as they don't have lineages, and he couldn't use his Order of the White Rose background because they're a humanitarian aid group who doesn't care about lineages or blackmail, so he'd have to dredge up what he remembers from his family before he was given to the White Rose, which is not a lot; thus, he only gets a +1 to the roll.

The scaling of background points to DCs is something to fiddle with, but I really like the idea.

[Coidzor]

Oh, right, one thing I've also been meaning to doing was adjusting the spells per day/spells known for Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters so that they're not a level behind their prepared counterparts, since I never really liked that disadvantage, especially for limiting their multiclassing and PrCing options.


Sorcerer uses the Battle Sorcerer from UA, except has no penalties to Spells Known or Spells Pay Day. Also gets Eschew Materials and a Bloodline/Heritage feat every 5 levels. As powerful as a class as Sorcerer was, nobody was playing them because Wizard was strictly better. Until we added this stuff on. Wizard is still better, but now Sorcerer is pretty attractive.

I'd been toying with the idea of most of that, though I also wasn't quite sure how far to go on that end if also bumping them so they get new spell levels at the same rate as Wizards.

[KingSmitty]

Max hit points per level seems to help keep people alive longer somehow

[hifidelity2]

A house rule my group implemented to help skill monkeys was to combine several skills:

Spot + Listen = Perception (thanks 4ed!)
Hide + Move Silently = Stealth (2 rolls every time is lame)
Disable Device + Open Lock = Disable Device (locks are devices right?)

Should that not be average not totals


Otherwise e.g.

Hide - 5
Move Silently - 5
(so sneak of 10)
And a DC of say 15

So to stand still I need to roll 10+
To move quietly but be spotted I need to roll 10+
But
To sneak along I only need to roll 5

I will therefore hop on one foot when I want to hide as I am “sneaking” (*i.e. hiding and moving)

Unless the DC for sneaking is much higher than the DC for Hiding

[big teej]

On my group has found that works really well is having all attributes increase by 1 every fourth level instead of just one. It makes everyone better while benefiting MAD classes the most.

something I'm looking at doing with an upcoming game is increasing the 4 level stat bumps to 1d4 points instead of just 1 point


I'm not at my laptop, so I don't have the Mammoth Exhaustive Houserules list that was created from reading every rulebook I've got cover to cover, fixing things I wasn't happy with as I went.

but two more that I can type out roughly verbatim from memory:

1. HP rolls at level up
- after first level (where everyone still gets the maximum possible hit points) whenever a character levels up, they roll their hit die, if they are dissatisfied with this roll, they may reduce their die-type by one and roll again. they may do this until they reach a d4

Example: Bob The Barbarian rolls a d12 and gets a 1. unhappy with his puny increase to his hp, he tries again - this time with a d10. he rolls a 2. resisting the urge to melt his dice, he tries once more with a d8 and gets an 8, joy! Bob decides to keep this and finishes leveling up. (although if he'd kept rolling low he could have kept going"


2. Knowledge skills
I'm a huge fan of using knowledge skills.

this rule is two-fold
A - any class/character that does not have any knowledge skills as class skills may add any 2 knowledge skills to their class list

B - classes that already have knowledge skills get +2 to any knowledge checks they make on those skills (but do not add additional knowledge skills to their class list)


and one I'm guinea-pigging in an upcoming campaign

Variant Rules: Class Based Defense and Armor as Damage Reduction

there is a table in Unearthed Arcana (page .... 111 if memory serves) that gives an AC bonus based on a class's level and armor proficiency (none, light, medium, heavy)

on the next page (I think) is the variant rule Armor as Damage Reduction

I am running both of these together with an additional tweak. instead of Armor splitting it's AC bonus into half AC, half DR, I am running armor as 100% DR (i.e. a chain shirt does not provide any AC bonus, but provides 4 DR)


I'm also in the process of revising my behemoth houserule list... so hopefully this thread will still be active when I finish and I can post the entire thing :nale:

[Greymane]

Oh, right, one thing I've also been meaning to doing was adjusting the spells per day/spells known for Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters so that they're not a level behind their prepared counterparts, since I never really liked that disadvantage, especially for limiting their multiclassing and PrCing options.

Yeah, technically Sorcerer doesn't really need buffs, since spells are just so good, but it's not as fun to play as other spellcasters since it has no class features and is pretty boring because of it. Especially when Wizards are better, and have more toys. And more options, because like you said, their being a level behind in casting limits their options.


I'd been toying with the idea of most of that, though I also wasn't quite sure how far to go on that end if also bumping them so they get new spell levels at the same rate as Wizards.

I was going to adjust their spell level access myself, bring it up to par with Wizards, but a few of the players balked at the buffs I was handing out to Sorcerers. You know your games and players best, if you think they need the buff, or the buff would make for considerably more interesting builds, I'd say go for it.

[Vhaidara]

Should that not be average not totals

The houserule is that there is no Hide and Move Silently, only Stealth. It is one skill that covers both of the others.

[Segev]

I generally tend to run fairly by-the-book, with an understanding that I can and will make on-the-spot calls if something seems "off." Players in my games hopefully know (because I go out of my way to tell them) that, if anything surprises them or me in their builds or the rulings I make, we can work together to fix anything this breaks in their character. (This usually comes up if something they're doing turns out to make them head-and-shoulders outshine the party, and it makes the game hard for me to balance. There will be either a house-rule to change how their combination of mechanics works, or we'll rework the character to do something less abusive. And if the former makes the character not work, we re-work it to make it work again.)

This is actually because I'm fairly lazy. The only other house rules that I usually run are things like extra skill points.

In one campaign, I had as a setting rule that EVERYBODY is gestalt, but your favored class had to be one of your two. (There were additional complications to let people get PrCs where appropriate; elves weren't screwed out of wizard PrCs, for instance.)


One thing I have always wanted to make work, but have yet to figure out a good way to get player buy-in, is a bidding-based initiative system. By "player buy-in," I don't mean "players willing to try it," but rather "players who are comfortable trying to 'go first' by announcing actions and bidding for priority." In my experience, people are not comfortable asserting initiative, instead wondering "whose turn" it is.

This has been true of multiple groups, many of whom are quite assertive players. So there's something odd in my conception of it. But it's a house rule that, if I ever figure out how to make it work, seems like fun to me. At the least, it would keep people more engaged, as any action could be their next one, rather than "wake me when it's my turn."

[Fitz10019]

No stat bumps or penalties based on race. Players should choose a race that serves the roleplay, not the build. This is related to the next one...

Point buy to start, and at every 4th level, a higher point buy budget (instead of +1 to one stat).

4th level = just enough to change an 18 to a 19
8th level = just enough to change an 19 to a 20
12th level = just enough to change an 20 to a 21
16th level = just enough to change an 21 to a 22
This helps MADs and is zero change for SADs (while both types still falling under the same rule). One of the problems with +1, if an MAD character doesn't have an 18 stat at the start and / or doesn't choose that stat for every bump, the MAD falls behind on point-buy equivalency compared to SADs.

If a class level gives you a feat, and you already have it, the class-granted feat becomes an open feat.

[Troacctid]

One thing I have always wanted to make work, but have yet to figure out a good way to get player buy-in, is a bidding-based initiative system. By "player buy-in," I don't mean "players willing to try it," but rather "players who are comfortable trying to 'go first' by announcing actions and bidding for priority." In my experience, people are not comfortable asserting initiative, instead wondering "whose turn" it is.

This has been true of multiple groups, many of whom are quite assertive players. So there's something odd in my conception of it. But it's a house rule that, if I ever figure out how to make it work, seems like fun to me. At the least, it would keep people more engaged, as any action could be their next one, rather than "wake me when it's my turn."

Something I do is I allow players to take their turns in any order, as long as their initiatives are all ahead of the monsters. It helps them coordinate tactics more easily.

That's not actually a houserule, though--it's natively accounted for in the initiative system, with delaying.

[PaucaTerrorem]

My two favorites are every class gets spot and listen. And when rolling for HP roll again if under half cause don't you hate your lvl 3 barbarian who rolls two 1's?

[Seerow]

A house rule my group implemented to help skill monkeys was to combine several skills:

Spot + Listen = Perception (thanks 4ed!)
Hide + Move Silently = Stealth (2 rolls every time is lame)
Disable Device + Open Lock = Disable Device (locks are devices right?)

I do this + give more skill points out in general.

-Knowledge, Profession, Craft, and Perform are now "Background Skills". Everybody gets 2+int background skills per level.
-You no longer gain int mod in extra regular skill points per level, but normal skills are multiplied by 1.5. (so someone with 4 skills per level gains 6 skills per level)
-Anyone with 2 skills per level without full casting progression gets a boost to 4 skills per level before the above mentioned modifier.
-You can trade out one normal skill point for 2 background skill points if desired.
-No more x4 multiplier at level 1. Adding 1 rank to a trained skill gives a +3 bonus with that skill (basically the Pathfinder rule).
-Bonus skill points (such as from human) apply to normal skills.

So a Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Druid, or Paladin all get 6 skill points per level. A Wizard, Sorcerer, or Cleric gets 3 per level. A Ranger or Bard gets 9 per level. A Rogue gets 12 per level. All of them gain 2+int background skills on top of their "real" skills.



And when rolling for HP roll again if under half cause don't you hate your lvl 3 barbarian who rolls two 1's?

One thing I've done for this is every level reroll all hit dice. If the result is greater, use that. If the result is lower, use your old result + 1. It tends to push everyone towards average after a few levels, though a really great roll can carry someone for a few levels. I do like the suggestion from Big Teej of "if you don't like your hit die roll, drop the die one and roll again"


Oh and one other thing we do to avoid accidental "oops didn't mean to kill that character like that" crits:

When a character is reduced below 0 hp, they are treated as dying. The character takes a -1 penalty to stabilization rolls for every 10 points below 0 they are. Your stabilization roll is d20+con mod. This is rolled on the dying character's turn every round. A 19 or higher means the character is stable. A roll resulting in less than 5 causes the character's condition to worsen, giving a -2 penalty to future stabilization checks. After 3 total rolls resulting in less than 5 the character dies.

[Anachronity]

Adding a few more class skills to Sorcerer is fine, but frankly I'm against the general idea of buffing up other classes to be closer to wizard. I think a good baseline of power is tier 3 or thereabouts, maybe tier 4 if you want a low-magic gritty campaign. Coincidentally Warlock and Binder (without Zercyll) are my favorite classes.

I've always wanted to try E6, but that's a pretty big house rule that you need to build the whole game around.

[Tvtyrant]

Something I do is I allow players to take their turns in any order, as long as their initiatives are all ahead of the monsters. It helps them coordinate tactics more easily.

That's not actually a houserule, though--it's natively accounted for in the initiative system, with delaying.

This seems like a good system to me. I love threads like this because they give me lots of stuff I can use for my own campaigns.

[Segev]

Something I do is I allow players to take their turns in any order, as long as their initiatives are all ahead of the monsters. It helps them coordinate tactics more easily.

That's not actually a houserule, though--it's natively accounted for in the initiative system, with delaying.

Yeah, the init system as written handles this through delaying. You're just letting them work it out less formally. The point of most initiative systems being granular enough to intersperse enemies between the PCs is that this isn't always the best tactical option.

Also, a watched a GM, once, kill a PC because he decided to just roll all the NPCs' inits on a single roll...and they all attacked one PC because he'd done something impressive.

Even if he'd been all of their target, if they'd been interspersed with the rest of the PCs, the shugenja would've had a chance to cast some healing magic in the midst of that damage. He might've lived.


Anyway, the idea behind the "bidding" system is to allow players to decide to hold back or push for initiative, to react to actions by trying to out-bid the person who declared them, and to generally keep everybody involved and interested every turn no matter whose turn it is, because they might want to react to it.

I know I've seen players, in normal initiative systems, try to react to something on another's turn. "Can I get in the way of that?" "Can I disarm him?" or the like. If the bidding system could be made to work properly, people declare intentions and start declaring reactions and try to bid for priority over the guy who's doing something objectionable to stop him.

[Coidzor]

Should that not be average not totals

Err, no. The Skills were combined. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills) You don't add someone's ranks in Hide and someone's ranks in Move Silently to get their ranks in Stealth.

[Vegan Zombie]

Should that not be average not totals


Otherwise e.g.

Hide - 5
Move Silently - 5
(so sneak of 10)
And a DC of say 15

So to stand still I need to roll 10+
To move quietly but be spotted I need to roll 10+
But
To sneak along I only need to roll 5

I will therefore hop on one foot when I want to hide as I am “sneaking” (*i.e. hiding and moving)

Unless the DC for sneaking is much higher than the DC for Hiding

We removed Listen, Move Silently & Open Lock altogether. Cross them right off the sheet. 3 less skills the skill monkeys need to max. Lets them rank some less important skills without falling behind.

edited because iPad autocorrect sucks

[illyahr]

Fighters get 4/3 BAB. Cuz, you know, they need to fight.

They also get one of each Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization, as soon as they qualify for them, as bonus feats.

[Ferronach]

I love threads like this because they give me lots of stuff I can use for my own campaigns.

Same here!
Another house rule I like to use is one I call "Pay attention or DIE!" (most of groups have short attention spans and are easily "oh look! shiny!" distracted...
The rule is as follows (during combat): If you don’t respond within a reasonable amount of time, you turn will be skipped. The second time, your turn will be skipped and the nearest enemy will get an attack of opportunity against you. Third time, you miss a turn an all enemies get an attack of opportunity against whoever they are currently fighting (even if it isn’t you).

The last part is to get the party to essentially keep eachother in line so I am not always the bad guy in the room XD

[Honest Tiefling]

What's a reasonable amount of time for you, and how often does this occur?

[gawwy]

Im in need of some turn time limiter.

In order to start the process i started using popcorn inititive (http://angrydm.com/2013/09/popcorn-initiative-a-great-way-to-adjust-dd-and-pathfinder-initiative-with-a-stupid-name/) and my groups are starting to get the hang of passing the initiative along side a rp style sentance like "x back me up here" or "y look out for that orc" one group loves it the others grumble every time a bigbad gets two turns in a row.

[Der_DWSage]

Another common houserule is condensing some of the more common feats-Power Attack is now given to anyone with strength of 13 or higher, Weapon Finesse is automatic with light weapons, Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot are wrapped up into one feat, Dodge and Mobility are wrapped up into one feat, that sort of thing.

Another one I'd like to try out is putting all spontaneous casters on the Spell Point (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) system, so they legitimately feel different from prepared casters. And I've never actually used Vitality Points, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) but I've heard good things.

[Ferronach]

What's a reasonable amount of time for you, and how often does this occur?

reasonable is situational. If they are just flat out not paying attention despite me telling them it is their turn i make the call. If the player is clearly thinking their actions through I give them more time. Reasonable is just my way of saying DM's prerogative.
As for how often, I wish I could say not very but some days we honestly spend more time B.Sing than playing but hey DnD is about hanging out and having fun so it isn't that bad unless it is just 1 or 2 players.

[Alent]

Something I'm going to be trying out when my I finally get my next campaign kicked off is dropping the +stats enhancement items and spells, and increasing the stat gains from +1 every 4 levels to +1 to two different stats of your choice every two levels. The idea is to hit a max of +10 to two stats instead of +11 to one stat and +6 to the rest.

The hope is that it will smooth out the power curve and generate some variety in magic item purchases rather than everyone gunning straight for the same +2, +4, and +6 to (primary stat) items.

Popcorn initiative looks interesting, I might try that this sunday. I'd be curious in seeing if it can create some teamwork and strategy building in an ordinarily chaotic-selfish group of murderhobos.

[Vhaidara]

Something I'm going to be trying out when my I finally get my next campaign kicked off is dropping the +stats enhancement items and spells, and increasing the stat gains from +1 every 4 levels to +1 to two different stats of your choice every two levels. The idea is to hit a max of +10 to two stats instead of +11 to one stat and +6 to the rest.

If you're completely removing +Stat items, I might even up it to two stats every level, but no stat can be more than 1/2 level higher than the starting point. As it stands, you normally end up with +41 across the board. In yours, you get +20 split between 2 stats. By making it every level, you still get +40, and it allows a good bit of spreading and padding.

I'm a bit biased in this because I favor high power PCs so that they can get away with low optimization builds.

[jedipotter]

Another house rule I like to use is one I call "Pay attention or DIE!" (most of groups have short attention spans and are easily "oh look! shiny!" distracted...
The rule is as follows (during combat): If you don’t respond within a reasonable amount of time, you turn will be skipped.

Same here! I have this as a House Rule.

The first part is you must pay attention. If you meet to gnomes, Mope and Meep and one is an alchemist and one is a thief, the player must remember this information. Or write it down. Later where the player says ''oh we go talk to that gnome alchemist'' is not good enough...that equals your character forgot the name. And no ''roll to remember''.

In combat it even more harsh: You have six seconds, from the time the DM says It is Meep's turn to act Anything, except an action, has the character confused and standing still as an easy target for that round.

[Seerow]

If you're completely removing +Stat items, I might even up it to two stats every level, but no stat can be more than 1/2 level higher than the starting point. As it stands, you normally end up with +41 across the board. In yours, you get +20 split between 2 stats. By making it every level, you still get +40, and it allows a good bit of spreading and padding.

I'm a bit biased in this because I favor high power PCs so that they can get away with low optimization builds.


As far as stats go, what I did for a long period of time was two things:
1) Increasing point buy as you level up. By level 20 characters had something like a 100 bonus to their point buy. This replaced standard level up ability score bonuses and inherent bonuses.

2) A scaling enhancement bonus to all ability scores as you level. This is a flat bonus added to scores, starting at a +1 to 1 score at level 4, and eventually scaling up to +8/+6/+6/+4/+4/+4 to various scores by level 20. Since it's an enhancement bonus it overlaps with any items, buffs, etc, that you might pick up, so those things still exist, but aren't mandatory and gradually become pretty useless to high level adventurers.


I eventually dropped it because the scaling point buy was causing confusion among a few players, but I still think the concept is sound.

[Alent]

If you're completely removing +Stat items, I might even up it to two stats every level, but no stat can be more than 1/2 level higher than the starting point. As it stands, you normally end up with +41 across the board. In yours, you get +20 split between 2 stats. By making it every level, you still get +40, and it allows a good bit of spreading and padding.

I'm a bit biased in this because I favor high power PCs so that they can get away with low optimization builds.

Hmm. Hmmmmmm. :smallamused:

I'll talk to my co-conspirator about that one this weekend. We're trying to hit a healthy medium on power levels, but I am using 3.5e 25 point buy instead of 32 point buy and encouraging MAD via homebrew, so going the +40/4 route might be more on target than +20/2.

[Vhaidara]

I'll talk to my co-conspirator about that one this weekend. We're trying to hit a healthy medium on power levels, but I am using 3.5e 25 point buy instead of 32 point buy and encouraging MAD via homebrew, so going the +40/4 route might be more on target than +20/2.

That's evil. I used 30 point buy, but also started everyone at 10s and allowed buying all the way down to 3 (NWN style). So it was effectively 42 point buy with a lot of dumping potential.

[atemu1234]

That's evil. I used 30 point buy, but also started everyone at 10s and allowed buying all the way down to 3 (NWN style). So it was effectively 42 point buy with a lot of dumping potential.

I used to use 25 pb for NPCs. And I thought that that was restrictive...

[Coidzor]

Hmm. Hmmmmmm. :smallamused:

I'll talk to my co-conspirator about that one this weekend. We're trying to hit a healthy medium on power levels, but I am using 3.5e 25 point buy instead of 32 point buy and encouraging MAD via homebrew, so going the +40/4 route might be more on target than +20/2.

So everyone's MAD and everyone has basically **** for ability scores for levels 1-3 but their ability scores increase a bit faster than the default starting at 4th level in order to (partially?) make up for the lack of stat boosting spells and items? :smallconfused:

It seems like Yakkety Sax will be playing a lot for the first half of the campaign, then. :smallconfused:

Edit: Ah, I misread it about starting at 4th instead of at 2nd. Still, if they're starting with **** ability scores then they're going to take until about level 6 or level 8 to catch up to where they would've been at 1st level for their primary ability scores.

[Alent]

That's evil. I used 30 point buy, but also started everyone at 10s and allowed buying all the way down to 3 (NWN style). So it was effectively 42 point buy with a lot of dumping potential.

Going down to 14 point buy or whatever the low power/common array is would be evil, I see this more as "iffy but well meaning" given my group is in one of those awkward early skill plateaus where the challenges we've had aren't working, and just adding to the CR isn't doing anything but bringing on the lightning tag phase earlier.

It may not work out, but we're curious to see how turning the power level down slightly affects things. We'll probably do it wrong a few times before we get it right, part of learning.

@Coldzor: For what it's worth, we usually start at level 3 or level 5, level 3 is the target this time around. I'm also limiting the MAD to 3~4 stats. Actually, is that even MAD? or do you have to hit 5~6 stats for the term to apply?

[Flickerdart]

Ability scores are more important in the first few levels than during any other time, so why is that when they should be lowest? Raise PB, bump off a few of the stat-boosting items, and off you go.

[Vhaidara]

@Coldzor: For what it's worth, we usually start at level 3 or level 5, level 3 is the target this time around. I'm also limiting the MAD to 3~4 stats. Actually, is that even MAD? or do you have to hit 5~6 stats for the term to apply?

MAD starts at 2 (Con is generally ignored, since everyone needs that).

[Flickerdart]

MAD starts at 2 (Con is generally ignored, since everyone needs that).
Not the undead, nor characters with Faerie Mysteries Initiate.

[Vhaidara]

Not the undead

Well, then it's ignored because they don't have it


nor characters with Faerie Mysteries Initiate.

Doesn't that only apply to level 1?

[Flickerdart]

Doesn't that only apply to level 1?
Nope! Shag an elf for 15 minutes and from then on you derive HP from INT.

[Alent]

Nope! Shag an elf for 15 minutes and from then on you derive HP from CON.

Do you mean CHA? I think you mean CHA.

[Vhaidara]

Nope! Shag an elf for 15 minutes and from then on you derive HP from CON.

Wait a minute...

[Troacctid]

One houserule I've been wanting to try: making a full attack is a standard action. That should give martial characters a nice boost. Casters can move and attack, so why not fighters? It's pretty dumb to force everyone and their brother to dip Barbarian just to get the basic functionality of walking and fighting at the same time.

[Alent]

One houserule I've been wanting to try: making a full attack is a standard action. That should give martial characters a nice boost. Casters can move and attack, so why not fighters? It's pretty dumb to force everyone and their brother to dip Barbarian just to get the basic functionality of walking and fighting at the same time.

Have you considered backporting the 5e rules for attacking? They're actually better than getting to full attack as standard.

[Telok]

The first part is you must pay attention. If you meet to gnomes, Mope and Meep and one is an alchemist and one is a thief, the player must remember this information. Or write it down. Later where the player says ''oh we go talk to that gnome alchemist'' is not good enough...that equals your character forgot the name. And no ''roll to remember''.

I thought this was normal. I never take notes for the players when I DM, I take notes for me. When they say "We go talk to that one guy" or "We go turn in the quest" I just respond with "Huh?"
I don't have any NPCs called "that one guy" and there are no quests. The PCs might agree to get a magic book from the lizardmen in exchange for some powerful scrolls from a sorceress named "Julia", but there isn't any "quest from that one guy".

It's even funnier when they forget the password for a paranoid secret society.

[Troacctid]

Have you considered backporting the 5e rules for attacking? They're actually better than getting to full attack as standard.
That's where I got the idea.

It seems easier to keep the full attack system rather than replacing it with extra attacks as a class feature, as a lot of other rules are based on full attacking. It makes the conversion simpler--no extra paperwork.

[jedipotter]

I thought this was normal.

The more casual games let it slide. Zack can be in the other room texting away and yell ''oh hey we go see the gnome guy''. And the DM will just say ''ok, you walk over to ''gnome guy''.

Almost all the players in my games take notes. And the ones the don't just accept ''not knowing things''.

[Alent]

That's where I got the idea.

It seems easier to keep the full attack system rather than replacing it with extra attacks as a class feature, as a lot of other rules are based on full attacking. It makes the conversion simpler--no extra paperwork.

That makes some sense. Are you going to have all the iteratives go at full BAB or stick with the down-stepping?

[Deox]

Few off the top of my head:


No rolling for stats. Everyone has an array: 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. Encourages my players to experiment freely with concepts without being bound by stats / MAD.
+1 to two stats every 4 levels; the same score cannot be the target of both increases.
Everyone receives character feats at the Fighter scale: 1st, 2nd, 4th... Allows for further customization or realization of a concept

[Tvtyrant]

No rolling for stats. Everyone has an array: 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. Encourages my players to experiment freely with concepts without being bound by stats / MAD.


I use this one too, except I go 18/16/14/14/12/10. Anyone playing something SAD isn't going to benefit overly much from the difference, but MAD characters will.

[georgie_leech]

That makes some sense. Are you going to have all the iteratives go at full BAB or stick with the down-stepping?

I've seen a variation of the DDO method that I found pretty interesting. Movement and attacking lets you make as many attacks as BaB allows, with the caveat that all after the first are at the lowest BaB (E.g. making three attacks at +11 BaB results in an attack routine of +11/+1/+1). The fluff was that while the first strike has enough momentum, you're not as steady as you could be from moving and you need to squeeze faster, weaker attacks in to get that many. Full Attacking, on the other hand, increased as the attack routine went on as you forced the enemy into a more and more unfavourable position (E.g. Full Attacking at the same +11 gets you +11/+16/+21). The result was combat that tended to be quite a bit more mobile, though beatsticks like Giants got a heck of a lot more dangerous (somewhat counteracted by other houserules). I've wanted to try something like it at some point.

EDIT: Pounce worked as it does normally without houserules, so ends up between the two in effectiveness.

[Troacctid]

That makes some sense. Are you going to have all the iteratives go at full BAB or stick with the down-stepping?

It's probably best to keep the down-stepping. Attack bonuses are so inflated in 3.5, you'd just never miss otherwise. The system's not built around bounded accuracy like 5e is.

[Coidzor]

I have run into thoughts about capping the penalty for iterative attacks at -5 for the second attack and all subsequent attacks before. So somewhere between that and the -10 one should be workable to some extent. IIRC the -15 iterative is basically worthless without buffing to high heaven or a way to use it as a touch attack(hello tripping!)

[kellbyb]

Do you mean CHA? I think you mean CHA.

Actually, it's INT.

Sauce (http://www.realmshelps.net/cgi-bin/featbox.pl?feat=Faerie_Mysteries_Initiate)

[Telonius]

Things I've been meaning to try out:

Everybody gets one bonus "+2 to two skills" feat at first level; modified so they scale with level and make the two always class skills.
Completely strip out racial hit dice for monstrous PCs.
Rework of the Paladin class. Still putting the thing together, but it has a similar feel to an Incarnum class, Charisma-based. (Still needs a lot of kinks worked out with the math, though - the AC numbers get out of hand too quickly).

[ZamielVanWeber]

Turns out one of my players didn't know that 1 round casting time didn't mean 1 full round action, so we ended up with 2 house rules to Astral Construct:
1) it is a standard action to manifest (you may still only have one at a time)
2) Ectopic Form feats give their benefits on top of normal menu choices (because that was not clear at all)

[Flickerdart]

Do you mean CHA? I think you mean CHA.
I meant INT, actually. It was a long day.

[mashlagoo1982]

Dice Rolling Method (Proficiency Rolling)
Character can opt to use 2d10 instead of 1d20 for any skill check or attack roll so long as they are trained or proficient. Using Proficiency Rolling is to represent a focus on success, but not outstanding success.

Sleeping in Armor
Character can sleep in their armor without penalty so long as they are proficient with said armor.

Meaningful Crits Only
The extra damage roll of a confirmed critical hit cannot deal less than half the number of sides on the die + 1. For example, a confirmed critical on a d6 cannot deal less than 4 damage (6/2+1). Anything less than 4 is instead brought up to 4. So, a roll of 1-4 on a d6 equals 4. This only affects the additional die rolls for damage, not the basic damage 1st roll. So for weapons that deal x3 damage, the rule would apply for the 2nd and 3rd damage roll.

[Larkas]

I've used two rules that both relate to Hit Die in previous games, and both work quite well:

1) Max HP for every level;

2) 1dX/2+X/2. Basically, you roll half your regular hit die and add half the hit die. For example, 1d8 becomes 1d4+4.

These are pretty effective for preventing anemic characters that should really be brutes.

Furthermore, I've been meaning to try these:

a) Something along the lines of Lorefinder (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389273).

b) A couple of oldschool Gestalt combinations (Fighter//Wizard, etc.) for a LA+2-like penalty. It would not really be LA+2, you would still end up with 20HD and could not buyback, and it would work as a single class for multiclassing purposes (i.e.: Class A//Class B is actually Class AB), but I think it could be interesting.

c) Using Vitality Points.

d) Going gridless (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?394359).


Use your Ref save bonus for Initiative rolls. (I am puzzled why this never showed up in 4E, 'cuz... duh!)

That's... Actually a pretty intelligent tweak o.O I guess I'd use Base Ref + Dex + Misc, but that's a pretty great concept!!!


One I've been meaning to try is based on a 4th edition hack called 13th Age:

13th Age is based on the OGL. It takes some cues from 4E, but, if anything, it's a 3.X hack.

[Troacctid]

b) A couple of oldschool Gestalt combinations (Fighter//Wizard, etc.) for a LA+2-like penalty. It would not really be LA+2, you would still end up with 20HD and could not buyback, and it would work as a single class for multiclassing purposes (i.e.: Class A//Class B is actually Class AB), but I think it could be interesting.

Along the lines of gestalting in non-gestalt games, I've been wanting to make gestalting available as a prestige class--i.e. if you have three levels in each of two base classes, you can then gestalt as the combination of both from then on out. I call it the Omni-Theurge. It's a lot easier than homebrewing new theurge classes for every possible combination of subsystems!

[nedz]

reasonable is situational. If they are just flat out not paying attention despite me telling them it is their turn i make the call. If the player is clearly thinking their actions through I give them more time. Reasonable is just my way of saying DM's prerogative.
As for how often, I wish I could say not very but some days we honestly spend more time B.Sing than playing but hey DnD is about hanging out and having fun so it isn't that bad unless it is just 1 or 2 players.

You only need to do this once, after that you only need to threaten to do it. I often rule along the lines of "Oh you're hesitating" and have their character delay their initiative. It's slightly different if they are stuck in decision paralysis because of some dilemma — I usually let them stew.

[Vhaidara]

Along the lines of gestalting in non-gestalt games, I've been wanting to make gestalting available as a prestige class--i.e. if you have three levels in each of two base classes, you can then gestalt as the combination of both from then on out. I call it the Omni-Theurge. It's a lot easier than homebrewing new theurge classes for every possible combination of subsystems!

The thing is, most basic theurges (Eldritch Knight, MT) are boring and simple to make. The ones that are worthwhile are fun (RKV, JPM, Noctumancer, Anima Mage) because they not only progress both systems, but they add abilities that cause the subsystems to interact in new ways.

[Larkas]

Along the lines of gestalting in non-gestalt games, I've been wanting to make gestalting available as a prestige class--i.e. if you have three levels in each of two base classes, you can then gestalt as the combination of both from then on out. I call it the Omni-Theurge. It's a lot easier than homebrewing new theurge classes for every possible combination of subsystems!

That's not too unlike what I had in mind, though in my proposed experiment the Gestalt would start at level 4 (i.e.: 2 levels of each class), though the first four levels are actually a non-gestalt mix of the classes that end up being equal to 2/2. Does anyone remember 3.0's multiclass first level characters? Something along those lines.


The thing is, most basic theurges (Eldritch Knight, MT) are boring and simple to make. The ones that are worthwhile are fun (RKV, JPM, Noctumancer, Anima Mage) because they not only progress both systems, but they add abilities that cause the subsystems to interact in new ways.

Then take the interesting theurges! Or just finish your theurgic build with the omni-theurge! Very basic example: Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Wizard//Cleric 4/Mystic Theurge 10. And no, I don't mean to imply that MT is an interesting theurge, it was just an example. :smallbiggrin:

[Troacctid]

There'd be no reason to use Mystic Theurge with the standard Wizard 3/Cleric 3 entry in a game where Omni-Theurge is an available option. Gestalt is strictly better, since it improves your chassis and progresses both classes' class features.


The thing is, most basic theurges (Eldritch Knight, MT) are boring and simple to make. The ones that are worthwhile are fun (RKV, JPM, Noctumancer, Anima Mage) because they not only progress both systems, but they add abilities that cause the subsystems to interact in new ways.

Gestalt gives you all the class features of your original classes. With most dual-progression builds, that's really all you want. Nobody's taking Soulcaster because they want to expend spell slots to gain temporary essentia.

[Ferronach]

I use this one too, except I go 18/16/14/14/12/10. Anyone playing something SAD isn't going to benefit overly much from the difference, but MAD characters will.

Sorry for asking a potentially stupid question, but what are SAD and MAD?

[OldTrees1]

Sorry for asking a potentially stupid question, but what are SAD and MAD?

Single and Multiple Ability Dependencies. Aka a SAD class only needs 1 stat (think Wizard which can run off 15/8/8/8/8/8) and MAD classes need multiple stats (think Monk which needs Str, Dex, and Wis minimum).

[Darrin]

Sorry for asking a potentially stupid question, but what are SAD and MAD?

SAD = Single Ability Dependency. The class/build can focus on one single ability score (such as Strength for a barbarian or Wisdom for a cleric) and ignore his other ability scores. These classes are generally thought of as "better" because buffing a single ability score requires less, resources, allowing you to devote more resources to other things. SAD classes tend to be easier to "min/max" or "optimize", as you've got only one thing you need to worry about buffing.

MAD = Multiple Ability Dependency. The class/build has to buff multiple ability scores to function competently. The poster boy for this one is Monk, as it has several class abilities that key off of different ability scores, and needs high Str along with high Dex and high Wis (among other things). From a design standpoint, this is seen as "bad design", as buffing multiple ability scores sucks up a lot more resources, and you tend to have very underwhelming payoffs.

[Ferronach]

Single and Multiple Ability Dependencies.


SAD = Single Ability Dependency. MAD = Multiple Ability Dependency.

Thank-you! Makes so much more sense now.
I was trying to figure something "Stat" and "magic" related out hahahaha

[Coidzor]

Oh, right, I just remembered, combining Precise Shot and Point Blank Shot have been houserules I've used for ages. One time we just axed Point Blank Shot as a Prereq for other feats and make Precise Shot the base feat for the archery chain. Works fairly well, makes it less onerous to be an archer because one can actually do it from level 1 without flaws or being a human or a Fighter.

[big teej]

a few feat re-writes that my group is currently guinea pigging for me

(fluff text omitted for brevity's sake... anyone who's seen me post knows how long winded I can get)


Toughness: the character will, if left alone, eventually recover from any wound that does not slay them outright. the character automitically stablilizies the round after they are reduced to negative hit points


Weapon Focus: The Character gains a scaling bonus to hit, capping at +5, increasing at the rate of +1 per level after this feat is taken. furthermore, the character gains a parry bonus to AC equal to half of their BAB

Weapon Specialization: the character may strike one additional time than normal with the chosen weapon.


the Weapon Specialization one was created..... roughly 2 hours ago? right after tonight's session ended.

[Ferronach]

One that my friend uses which can help the players out is "Hero Points"
When you level up your hero point cache is set to 4 (so you can't "save up" points).
You can use these points to do things that normally would be difficult to do.
For example, you could use a point to auto crit (or automatically roll a 20).
You can use more than one point to do things that are even more difficult to do.
For example, you could use two points in order to act out of turn and save a party member by pulling them out of the way of a ray spell.

Obviously the cost of doing 'x' is determined by the DM but the points can be a nice "rainy day" nest egg.

[Larkas]

One that my friend uses which can help the players out is "Hero Points"
When you level up your hero point cache is set to 4 (so you can't "save up" points).
You can use these points to do things that normally would be difficult to do.
For example, you could use a point to auto crit (or automatically roll a 20).
You can use more than one point to do things that are even more difficult to do.
For example, you could use two points in order to act out of turn and save a party member by pulling them out of the way of a ray spell.

Obviously the cost of doing 'x' is determined by the DM but the points can be a nice "rainy day" nest egg.

Can you expend hero points to conjure the effects of a level-appropriate spell you don't know while not being a spellcaster? Because that would be badass.

[big teej]

Can you expend hero points to conjure the effects of a level-appropriate spell you don't know while not being a spellcaster? Because that would be badass.

I'm working on a 'blood magic' thing for my setting that allows this.

in essence, blood magic allows anyone to replicate magical ability, at the cost of CON damage.

because Ebil, you can use the CON of bound captives if you know enough blood magic.

although I suppose one could also use CON of willing supplicants/helpers/idiots :smallconfused:

[Larkas]

I'm working on a 'blood magic' thing for my setting that allows this.

in essence, blood magic allows anyone to replicate magical ability, at the cost of CON damage.

because Ebil, you can use the CON of bound captives if you know enough blood magic.

although I suppose one could also use CON of willing supplicants/helpers/idiots :smallconfused:

I think the keywords here would be "helpless or willing". :smallamused:

[Ferronach]

Can you expend hero points to conjure the effects of a level-appropriate spell you don't know while not being a spellcaster? Because that would be badass.

Haven't tried it. I doubt it though unless your race has nome SLA to begin with. But hen it would probably cost all 4 points and it would be a few levels lower.

[PsyBomb]

Been looking at refining the Archetype rules for PF, it's working out at my table. Listed are the changes only

1) Some archetypes change the same class feature in compatible ways (such as both adding to a bonus feat list, or both removing different spells from a class list). These archetypes may be taken together.

2) Archetypes which are still incompatible may still be combined, but the class may only be taken up to the level before the conflict occurs. For example, if two archetypes change your capstone but have no other issues, you can combine them and take the result up to level 19.

The first refinement was made as a common-sense change. The second came about when we were making characters for P6, and realized that conflicts at level 10+ were preventing us from making a concept. Iron Skin Monk of the Four Winds is the exact example.

[Svata]

I have a bunch. It all depends on how you want the game to go.

Oh, no...


Like;

*The fatigued condition imposes a -3 penalty to caster level and a -1 penalty to spell save DCs. The exhausted condition imposes a -6 penalty to caster level, and a -3 penalty to spell save DCs.

This nicely gets spellcasters to ''feel the effects'' of fatigued/exhaustion

*No form of metamagic reduction may reduce the spell's level below its original level

Huh, those are actually fairly reasonable. I'd personally make the CL penalties less harsh, as CL is mainly used in combat for blasting, (with other things dependant on CL usually cast a ways in advance of the fight, or any fatigue/exhaustion), which is not broken at all, especially with the second rule.

[big teej]

I think the keywords here would be "helpless or willing". :smallamused:

touche

I just couldn't call to mind a single instance in any continuity I've encountered where such an individual was willing.


I mean, I'm sure examples are out there, I'd even wager I know a few, I just can't call them to mind.

[Tragak]

Since I love the idea of Paladins more than I love their "official" mechanics:

*Gain skill points from either their INT or their WIS, whichever is higher
*Adds their Paladin level as a bonus to Sense Motive checks against Evil characters
*Smite Evil, Divine Grace, and Lay on Hands are based on either CHA or WIS, whichever is higher

*Can make critical hits against Evil enemies that would otherwise be immune to precision damage
*A successful critical hit against an Evil enemy grants 1d3 extra Smite Evil attempts for that day

[Nabirius]

I play with someone who loves crits and hates the 'confirming crits' so I laid out the math of why this was way worse for players than monsters. She didn't care, so I made the following house rule as a compromise, "Natural 20's are auto-crits, anything else requires a confirmation roll" this keeps the 'specialness' of natural 20's that she likes.

The second house rule is "Defense wins on a tie" I stole this from Exalted, but it serves as my favorite way to break ties no matter the system.

The third is "Heroes never die" I stole this from Savage worlds, and only used it one campaign, but it worked well for what I needed. Basically unless the player says they are alright with their character dying the character is simply incapacitated temporarily. They may take a penalty for a session or more depending on circumstances as they recover from the physical and psychological damage done to them. This also didn't apply to NPC party members (there were 2 players and an expected party size of 5).

[NightDM]

Let's see, my group has come up with a few staple house rules that we use:

- A long and consistent one we've used is that death occurs at -CON score. It gives our higher level characters a bit more longevity.

- SoD spells/abilities don't outright kill the target on a failed save, instead they're reduced to CON-1 for hp (see above for -hp house rule); essentially allowing them a round. I guess we like having the threat of them, without the anti-climatic feeling of I failed...*mistah Kurtz-he dead* :smalleek:

- My players like rolling for stats and are not fond of PB, at the same time they want to play "heroes" so I give them a free 18 and we throw away any roll below 10. I'm not super fond of this, but my players like it and they complain less if they do happen to roll what they consider not the best stats. :smallsigh:

- I'm currently trying to figure out a good house rule for Freedom of Movement and Mind Blank, as I don't particularly like these absolute shut outs to whole areas of the game (especially the latter spell Mind Blank). I just don't know if a large bonus to the check would be best, or some other mechanic, or just leave it as is.

[georgie_leech]

- I'm currently trying to figure out a good house rule for Freedom of Movement and Mind Blank, as I don't particularly like these absolute shut outs to whole areas of the game (especially the latter spell Mind Blank). I just don't know if a large bonus to the check would be best, or some other mechanic, or just leave it as is.

Roll twice on the initial save, allow additional saves each round (or other appropriate time) after?

[Flickerdart]

Can you expend hero points to conjure the effects of a level-appropriate spell you don't know while not being a spellcaster? Because that would be badass.
I've actually been looking into that through less fiaty means - it's not exactly expensive to cast a spell every once in a while, when you need it in a pinch. Let your mundanes keep clerics with the Community domain on retainer - slap a permanencied greater status on the fighter, and then shove buffs into the pipe on request from the comfort of a castle somewhere. Maybe introduce a discount for consistent patronage.

[big teej]

- I'm currently trying to figure out a good house rule for Freedom of Movement and Mind Blank, as I don't particularly like these absolute shut outs to whole areas of the game (especially the latter spell Mind Blank). I just don't know if a large bonus to the check would be best, or some other mechanic, or just leave it as is.

if I may,

I agree that abilities that simply shut out whole areas of the game, such as the two you have described, are problematic.

however.

equally problematic is the (potential) perception on the part of the players who might feel that you are undermining/invalidating their choices.

granted, I'm probably seeing a problem where none exists, due to a... tenuously related disagreement I was reminded of recently

[NightDM]

Roll twice on the initial save, allow additional saves each round (or other appropriate time) after?

Interesting, I will bring it up with the group and see what they think. Thanks!




equally problematic is the (potential) perception on the part of the players who might feel that you are undermining/invalidating their choices.



Thanks, it's definitely something to consider! I would speak with my group about it first before establishing it as a house rule.

[Ferronach]

- My players like rolling for stats and are not fond of PB, at the same time they want to play "heroes" so I give them a free 18 and we throw away any roll below 10. I'm not super fond of this, but my players like it and they complain less if they do happen to roll what they consider not the best stats. :smallsigh:

I "usually" go with roll 4D6, ignore the lowest. Re-roll any 1s and any stat below 10. Then have the players submit scores to me and I will potentially nudge rolls 1 way or the other depending on how the rest of the group matches up.
I had a guy submit a set with 2 18s and 1 17 before. I asked him to re-roll infront of me because I did not believe him - what a mistake that was! He rolled 3 18s and 2 17s!! With my dice!! He is a good friend though so understood when I had to nerf his rolls to be closer to the party.

[Flickerdart]

Ew, rolling.

When players insist on rolling, I have everyone roll an array and then give everyone the option to pick any of the stat lines. So if your buddy across the table rolled 18, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, and you're sitting on 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 7, you can just choose to use the rolls he got instead of yours.

[illyahr]

An easy way to get consistent "heroic" stats is just 1d8+10. You get a minimum of 11 and a max of 18. No terrible scores and the values fall into the usual norms.

[Segev]

Ah, stat-rolling. I like the "matrix method," myself. It gets nicely high-powered characters while still being pretty random.

You have a 6x6 grid of stats. For each stat, roll 4d6, drop low. Take the row, column or diagonal of your choice. Arrange them to suit.

[Seerow]

One method of stat generation I've been considering trying out is a point buy that increases with your max stat.

So if you want to have an 18 you get say a 24 point buy total. For every 1 point you drop your max stat, gain +4 points. So with a 17 cap you have a 28pb, 16 cap 32pb, and 15 cap gets a 36pb. Past that point it ends up with all stats being maxed out, and the 36pb already lets you go for 6 14s, so no need to go below that.


The other possibility I've been considering is a 25 point buy with a 1d4 added to each stat (applied to each in order), capped at an 18. So pushing above a 14 is a risk of wasting stats, it generally favors MAD characters, and adds some randomness.

[Segev]

If you want the "fairness" of point-buy and the randomness of rolling, you could have everybody roll, calculate the points that point-buy would give them, and then let them spend the difference between that and whatever level of point-buy you wanted to give them.

Basically, you give them point-buy, but they roll their stats and MUST buy their stats to at least those levels, first, to start with.

[Honest Tiefling]

I was thinking of a method of generating stat by having players roll. But if they don't like their stats, they can instead opt to do a 20 point-buy. The idea being that if you roll nicely you might be able to get a decent bonus, but you aren't permanently screwed, either. I do wonder how groups tend to take the idea that anyone can get access to any other set of rolls that were rolled, however. I assumed most people like it if they are the only one able to use the set.

[master4sword]

When players insist on rolling, I have everyone roll an array and then give everyone the option to pick any of the stat lines. So if your buddy across the table rolled 18, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, and you're sitting on 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 7, you can just choose to use the rolls he got instead of yours.

I've been meaning to try this if I ever end up with a group that would rather roll than use point buy.



I was thinking of a method of generating stat by having players roll. But if they don't like their stats, they can instead opt to do a 20 point-buy. The idea being that if you roll nicely you might be able to get a decent bonus, but you aren't permanently screwed, either. I do wonder how groups tend to take the idea that anyone can get access to any other set of rolls that were rolled, however. I assumed most people like it if they are the only one able to use the set.

I've been in a (Pathfinder) game where we rolled and had a 20 point-buy safety net. Three of the four players (myself included) rolled poorly enough that we used the point-buy, and the fourth player ended up with 4 16s (2 became 18s after race). It worked decently enough.

[OttoVonBigby]

Huh, those are actually fairly reasonable. I'd personally make the CL penalties less harsh, as CL is mainly used in combat for blasting, (with other things dependant on CL usually cast a ways in advance of the fight, or any fatigue/exhaustion), which is not broken at all, especially with the second rule.

Suppose the negative impact is extended casting times??....

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I rather like Grod the Giant's houserules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329161-Giants-and-Graveyards-Grod-s-collected-3-5-revisions). I haven't actually got to play with any of his classes yet, but they look nice too.

One houserule I've been using is downgrading any creature with critical hit immunity (except oozes) to fortification generally 50%, sometimes less for some creatures (Ghouls, for example, look fairly crittable). Not having half the monster manual outright immune to your main form of damage makes being a rogue much more fun.

[Flickerdart]

One houserule I've been using is downgrading any creature with critical hit immunity (except oozes) to fortification generally 50%, sometimes less for some creatures (Ghouls, for example, look fairly crittable). Not having half the monster manual outright immune to your main form of damage makes being a rogue much more fun.
"You can't backstab it! It's a book!"
"It's got a spine, hasn't it?"

[Nibbens]

I'm curious about what other House-Rules that DM's have used that worked well, were broken as heck, or are curious to try/experiment with.

One that I use is an one shot initiative system. Every player makes an initiative roll at the beginning of combat, and I make initiative rolls at the beginning of combat. Sometimes I just roll one dice, sometimes one for each monster around - depending on how "epic" the battle is supposed to be.

Generally speaking, unless players got terrible rolls, the PC's roll higher. Which means that ALL the PC's go first, then all the monsters go and so on and so forth. But perhaps the most important thing here is that I let my players decide who goes when. This allows for interesting tactical movements and some really dramatic scenes from time to time: One that comes to mind was when I let two players go at one time - The dwarf warrior jumping off his horse, brandishing an axe at his enemy - The Sorcerer casting enlarge person while he was mid-air - and then when the dwarf landed, he was able to get an attack off in his new "enlarged" state.

All in all, it encourages creative thinking and tactical maneuvering, just remember that as a DM you have the option to do so as well.

[Coidzor]

Suppose the negative impact is extended casting times??....

That could work too, aye.

[Ferronach]

"You can't backstab it! It's a book!"
"It's got a spine, hasn't it?"

Oh my! This caused me to laugh so hard that I ended up with tears in my eyes!

[Calimehter]

"You can't backstab it! It's a book!"
"It's got a spine, hasn't it?"

Some of my Warhammer hardcover books will shed paper like leaves from a dead tree if you touch them in the wrong spot.

Reality is stranger than fiction . . . and you can crit them both!!

[Pinkie Pyro]

Spellcasters have a chance to fail a spell naturally is one my group enjoyed.

simply make them roll caster level checks to cast spells, DC = 10+spell level.
(and allow taking ten out of combat)

[Flickerdart]

Spellcasters have a chance to fail a spell naturally is one my group enjoyed.

simply make them roll caster level checks to cast spells, DC = 10+spell level.
(and allow taking ten out of combat)
Great, a check that screws over casters 50% of the time when they're weakest and stops mattering after level 17, when they are strongest.

[Alent]

Great, a check that screws over casters 50% of the time when they're weakest and stops mattering after level 17, when they are strongest.

It's a balance patch to make Truenaming viable.

[Milo v3]

Something I've thought of trying to add abit of additional customization, using the horribly imbalanced Race Points system of Pathfinder. Basically, everyone gets a small number of RP at the start of the game, and they can spend it during downtime and such to gain some minor abilities.