Campaign Restrictions

[BardicDuelist]

How do these look for house rules and campaign restristions.
I'd like to point out that I do not like ToB and Psionics because they do not fit the flavor of my fantasy world. In other worlds and campaigns they are fine, but not in this one.

Books: Complete Arcane, Divine, Scoundrel, Adventurer, Warrior, Core, Players Handbook II, Stormwrack, Spell Compendium
No PrC with out DM approval.
Forgotten Realms (any) may be used for races ONLY, but see below.

Races: Elf (Moon, Star, Sun), Dwarf (Shield, Gold), Half-Elf, Human, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc
Magic-Blooded may be added to any character (+2 Cha/-2 Wis).

Class Restrictions: No samurai, ninja, or monk.

Bonus proficiency with one racial weapon. Humans treat firearms as martial weapons. Gnomes may chose firearms or any racial weapon.

Flaws from Unearthed Arcana may be used.
A character may take a total of three flaws.
Up to two may be taken at first level, and one more at any subsequent level.
If you choose to take less than two at first level, you may take two more at any time, but you may not take more than one at any level.

Feinting is a move action. Improved Feint makes it a swift action, anything which improves it further (like the Invisible Blade class feature) than improved feint makes it a free action (up to the number of attacks made per round). Feinting does not carry into the next round, and only applies to the next attack made after the feint.

Sudden Strike is the same as Sneak Attack in all respects.

Each character gets 4 skill points to put into any profession or craft skill related to his trade.

Characters get maximum starting gold at first level. A wizard is not allowed to sell his spellbook.

If a multiclass character has the same BAB or Save progression in any save, just follow as if he hadn’t multiclassed. (Ex. Rogue 1/Bard 1 would have BAB of +1, Fort of +0, Ref of +3, and Will of +2 but a Wizard 1/Rogue 1 would have a BAB of +0, Fort of +0, Ref of +2, and Will of +2)

Insightful Strike (as the swashbuckler class feature) may be taken as a feat. It is only usable in light or no armor.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse, BAB +3, Int. and Dex. 13+

[Assassinfox]

No Tome of Battle?

[BardicDuelist]

Not in a Rennaissance/Victorian based world. The flavor just doesn't work. I also considered banning monks and ninjas, but I allow them if the player makes them work.

[Assassinfox]

Not in a Rennaissance/Victorian based world. The flavor just doesn't work. I also considered banning monks and ninjas, but I allow them if the player makes them work.

Rapiers and fencing was still fashionable back then, right? What if someone wants to play a Diamond Mind swordsage?

Moot point, I guess. Allowing one narrow use of it would be kinda unbalancing.

[Tellah]

I'd say that the ToB classes are more flavor-neutral than the ninja, monk or samurai, but it's certainly your prerogative to decide what's in and what's out.

Also, Renaissance/Victorian? c.1300-1901? Please explain, because those are two very distinct time periods in my mind. Do you mean that you're allowing firearms? Steampunk elements? You may be interested in a new subgenre of science fiction, Clockpunk (http://davinciautomata.wordpress.com/), which applies a steampunk sort of mindset to the Renaissance.

[BardicDuelist]

Actually, it's more the literature I base it on. With magic, finding an exact technological point was difficult, so there are cultural aspects from both time periods.
No steam engines, but yes firearms and yes cannons.
It is based primairly on swashbuckling romances and Victorian horror (odd mix, I know). I've used Wilde, Dumas, Mary Shelley, and Stoaker as inspiration. The society is very decadent but fassion and art is more Renaissance.
Also, I meant to say no samurai and I've decided no ninja and monk. Barbarians are only allowed from a certain part of the world (it is vaguely Scotland inspired and is currently a series of clan wars, simply to appease a half Scotch, half Norse player of mine who would want to play a barbarian/wildernessy character).

Clockpunk was more what I was going for, but some of the societal elements from Victorian society and the magic made the word seem inappropriate to me.

AssassinFox: I was looking at allowing some characters take the feats that allow manuevers, but I decided that the feinting rule and insightful strike were more to fencing style (I fence).

Question: How is the Artificer from Eberron? I do not have the book, but one of my players does and I can procure it. Would they fit for an "emerging technology" concept? I was considering the Gnome Artificer from MoF, but this sounded interesting.

[Tellah]

Only allow the artificer if you trust the player not to be a munchkin about it. Artificers are, in my opinion, the most powerful class in the game. I've considered allowing the class but removing infusions as a method of bringing it down to earth. I really like the flavor, but it's just too good.

[Seatbelt]

I'd say that the ToB classes are more flavor-neutral than the ninja, monk or samurai, but it's certainly your prerogative to decide what's in and what's out.

Also, Renaissance/Victorian? c.1300-1901? Please explain, because those are two very distinct time periods in my mind. Do you mean that you're allowing firearms? Steampunk elements? You may be interested in a new subgenre of science fiction, Clockpunk (http://davinciautomata.wordpress.com/), which applies a steampunk sort of mindset to the Renaissance.

Renaissance in the general political/scientific sense begins around 1490. That's still broat spectrum though. Maybe he meant Enlightenment?

[BardicDuelist]

I didn't really mean a specific time era, as I don't think it is possible with the magic and various fantasy races with extra long life spans (elves, etc.). I was merely trying to give a feel for it.
I'll just describe my world as best I can:

Technology is beginning to emerge further (like in Forgotten Realms). The world is a little darker than standard fantasy and rather grim (I use HoH and BoVD quite a bit). Political corruption is the norm. Each of the standard races is a little different from in a normal fantasy world.

Elves: Elves are the epitome of decadence in this world. They are more CN than CG, and are nearly always treated as nobility. There are no longer any great elven nations, as many of the elves have left the world (Tolkien-esque passing accross sea to paradise type thing, only planar travel).

Dwarves: Dwarves are more LN than LG. They are very strictly isolationist in all things, except trade. They trade their craftsmanship for food and other agricultural supplies. Most dwarves are merchants or smiths outside of their mountain halls.

Halflings: Halflings are generally considered an underclass of wandering miscreants. They greatly resemble the "gypsy" culture, with many NPC adepts.

Gnomes: Gnomes are still tinkerers, but are generally considered mad. They tend to live on the outskirts of cities, creating marvelous inventions alongside like minded humans. They also are commonly found as go-betweens between the dwarves and humans when trading.

Half-Elves: Half-elves are almost always nobility. They are treated like elves in most places, and are only slightly less decadent.

[Ranis]

No Tome of Battle?

I agree with you, BardicDuelist. I don't allow the ToB for one reason:

I consider the ToB to be "What the fook is your anime doing in my D&D?!?!? Get it out!!!"

[BardicDuelist]

That is generally my inclination as well. If I'm a player, I just play a duskblade if I want a fighter type and ToB is allowed, but when I DM, especially in my world, I don't like it.

Psionics have too much of a sci-fi element for me, and I hate keeping track of PP to make sure that characters aren't cheeting. Spells are easy, PP is too time consuming.

[Assassinfox]

I agree with you, BardicDuelist. I don't allow the ToB for one reason:

I consider the ToB to be "What the fook is your anime doing in my D&D?!?!? Get it out!!!"

Have you read the book? Did you see any overly large eyes? Any sweatdrops? Any schoolgirls with magical powers? Any catgirls?

Oh? You didn't?

That's because ToB isn't anime! DUH!

[BardicDuelist]

Yes, I have read the book. The style of fighting is what we are saying is SIMILAR to anime. In my mind it is too close and doesn't fit the western medieval theme which I assosicate with D&D. For this world, I can't see a way it would develop.

[Goff]

That's because ToB isn't anime! DUH!

That was a bit rude. :smallannoyed:

[Ranis]

That was a bit rude. :smallannoyed:

Indeed.

I second the fact that it is extremely similar to anime, and for that reason, I don't allow it in my fantasy setting. I think it adds too much fooze to things that, in my opinion, just don't need any more fooze.

[Armads]

Feinting is a move action. Improved Feint makes it a swift action, anything which improves it further than improved feint makes it a free action (thus usable during a full attack).

This is dangerous. If someone manages to get 'above' improved feint, then they can take 20 on their bluff checks to feint.

[Epiphanis]

Most of the restrictions are good, but some notes:

1) Does feint still last into the following round? If so, one feint lasts for two attacks even at low levels. Makes for more powerful rogues.

2) I would recommend that humans either not have any racial weapon proficiency at all, or a specific proficiency depending on the region they are from. A free choice of exotic weapon makes humans, already the best race, way beyond anyone else.

3) I like the Magic Blooded concept and would make it a prerequisite for any spontaneous caster class (include Sorcerer, Bard, Favored Soul, Beguiler, Hexblade, Warlock). However, if you include any race that already has a modifier to Charisma or Wisdom, it quickly becomes cheesy (don't Star Elves get a Charisma boost? I forget).

[BardicDuelist]

It also makes introducing new players really hard. With the Complete Series and the other things I did, it's still pretty easy to hand them a PHB and let 'em play (after they read it). The other classes and that don't really have new mechanics, and the complicated feats don't come in for a few levels.

That is why I try to stick to ONE magic system (though I do allow warlocks, but my group has a general limit: no more than 3 sorcerers and 2 warlocks per player to do our best to keep them rare in our campaign worlds)

[Assassinfox]

I second the fact that it is extremely similar to anime, and for that reason, I don't allow it in my fantasy setting. I think it adds too much fooze to things that, in my opinion, just don't need any more fooze.

... because Wizards throwing out fireballs and causing instant death with just a word isn't cheesy and over the top?

[BardicDuelist]

This is dangerous. If someone manages to get 'above' improved feint, then they can take 20 on their bluff checks to feint.

You can't take 20 on a bluff check... if you could then your opponnent could take 20 on their sense motive, since it is a free action. You generally can't even try again on a bluff check, but each feint is considered a different lie.

Feinting doesn't last until the following round. It isn't necessary any more.

I changed the rule to allows you to attack up to # of attacks though.

Good point with the proficency thing. The Mage Blooded thing I didn't figure would be too bad, since only one of those choices had a Cha. or Wis. modifier. A star elf who is really good at being a bard (or even sorcerer) didn't bother me too much. I was actually worried about adding it to a halfling and getting near perfect bard stats with a decent roll.

[Matthew]

Maybe we should start a separate Thread for the continuation of a discussion of the merits of The Tome of Battle. The OP is obviously not going to use it, let's just leave it at that here.

[Assassinfox]

Maybe we should start a separate Thread for the continuation of a discussion of the merits of The Tome of Battle. The OP is obviously not going to use it, let's just leave it at that here.

I was just gonna leave it at that until the horribly stereotyped "WHOAMG! ANIME!!!!111" comment. My apologies for derailing the thread. :smallredface:

[BardicDuelist]

Thank you Matthew.

BTW: I've been updating the top with the changes I decided to make. Also, any comments on my social structure (the elves, dwarves, etc) are very welcome. This is my first world (hopefully my only) and it is very young.

[Assassinfox]

What kinds of things are the dwarves building for trade?

[BardicDuelist]

They are generally weapon and armor smiths. They export gold and other metal ore and tend to control most of the mining operations. Whereas the elves left, the dwarves just dug deeper. The times are meant to seem darker than the past (which is ironic because I'm setting after the "dark" ages). I wanted predominately human characters, so I made the other races have RP disadvantages. It was also an excuse when my players asked why these great and powerful races let the world become so bad.

BTW: The "darkness" of my world is basically the fact that human(oid) corruption and lust for power has caused evil outsiders (particularly devils) to have a field day. Artifacts like a painting which duplicates the effect of the portrait of Dorian Gray, among other things, can be found more frequently than they should. Many magic items have minor curses or are intelligent (like a ring of three wishes binding your soul to a devil, or a magic sword which imposes a diplomacy penalty).

[Assassinfox]

They are generally weapon and armor smiths. They export gold and other metal ore and tend to control most of the mining operations. Whereas the elves left, the dwarves just dug deeper. The times are meant to seem darker than the past (which is ironic because I'm setting after the "dark" ages). I wanted predominately human characters, so I made the other races have RP disadvantages. It was also an excuse when my players asked why these great and powerful races let the world become so bad.

Are the dwarves creating firearms, or is that a human-only thing?

[BardicDuelist]

It is mostly humans and gnomes who produce the firearms. Dwarves consider them dishonorable. The dwarves are very conservative. Why?