How are my houserules terrible?

[GilesTheCleric]

I'm gathering up some players for a fresh 3.5 game. Unlike my usual playgroup, they'll all be newbies to 3.5, D&D, and TTRPGs. I'll be doing a session just to cover character building and basic rules before we properly start, but I'd like to make sure that my houserules are good before I send out the document to them.

What things would you do differently for your houserules for newbies? And, what are some things I missed?
Houserules will be decided on during play as things come up, except for things listed here. If you'd like to make some suggestions or changes before the game, just let me know. I'm planning on running a game where the combat encounters shouldn't overpower the party, unless you expressly go looking for a challenge. So, feel free to make your character however you like. The world will be open for you to explore as you please; there are no railroaded plots unless you ask. That said, events will happen throughout the world whether you interact with them or not, so expect circumstances to change based on both your actions and non-actions. That's it! Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.
Start at level 1.
--If there's a race with racial HD/ LA you'd like to play, talk to me.
32 point buy (DMG 169)
Starting wealth is 150 gp regardless of class, plus any one item from the MIC.
--Write how you got this item into your backstory.
Up to 2 flaws allowed (UA 91)
Up to 1 trait allowed (UA 86)
Evil allowed, but let's talk about it first.
You can start at any age category (beginning with adult).
Feel free to coordinate with the other players as to what you'd like to play.
Please do include some folks that your character likes and dislikes, and a goal or motivation (or a few) that your character has. Please also include how you came to be onboard the spelljammer ship (see below). Beyond that, however you want to write and however much you'd like to do is up to you. I'll do my best to incorporate what you give me into the campaign plot.
We'll be using Spelljammer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelljammer) for our setting (that is, effectively all the settings). Spelljammers are magical spaceships that travel between planes; you will start the game as the crew of a spelljammer ship. You may decide amongst yourselves what your spelljammer looks like, and its name. The spelljammer is a comparatively small ship, with space to comfortably fit the captain, each of you, and perhaps a few others.

Each of you are in the service of the Rational Galactic Empire aboard this spelljammer under the command of Captain Paulo de Gama (an NPC). You may have ended up onboard as a way to make extra coin; you may have been pressed into the service as a way to avoid some crime; perhaps you volunteered to make right a wrong, to continue a family tradition, or to learn new skills; however you have become a member of this crew – and how possibly temporary you expect it to be – is up to you.

The current situation, where this campaign begins: Your tour of duty (1 year) was almost at its end, until your fleet spotted a powerful force of the dastardly Angel Free Conglomerate. In response, your fleet made a valiant and prudent “tactical repositioning” further away from the AFC armada. As your ship began its jump through the phlogiston to a safer place, a passing asteroid with an unexpectedly strong magical aura unfortuitously skewed the direction of your jump, as well as those of many other nearby ships – friend and foe.

We will begin the game with the events that unfold immediately after your jump is completed. Those events should provide a good overview of the basic game mechanics, to make sure that everyone is comfortable with the rules and how to play. There will be an opportunity to change your character right after these events, so if you don't like the way it plays or if you're worried about having your character set in stone from the get-go, don't worry.
All 1st party 3.5 WotC books
All un-updated 3.0 WotC books/material
All 3.5/3.0WotC web material
No setting restrictions
--Greyhawk, Eberron, and Forgotten Realms are all fine
Dragon Compendium

3.0/3.5 Dragon Magazine by request
Path of War, other DSP books (http://dreamscarred.com/) by request
Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/) by request
1st party Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) by request
Homebrew or other publishers (AEG, Green Ronin, Mongoose, etc)
WotC-licensed 3rd party products (Dragonlance, Kamalar, 5 Rings, etc)
Dark Sun setting content
No death from massive damage
No multiclassing xp penalty
You may optionally spend 5gp per 1xp in crafting costs
You may either roll for HP increases, or take average
Death is at -con score, not -10.
No alignment requirements for any base classes, except knight and paladin
There's no special multiclassing restrictions/ penalties for monks, paladins, etc.
Pathfinder feat progression (every 2 levels: 2nd, 4th, etc)
1 feat may be retrained every 2 levels (2rd, 4th, etc) (PHB2 193)
No class retraining; rebuilds may be accomplished via in-game quests
Once a skill becomes a class skill, it is always treated as a class skill
Pathfinder skill list (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills), except:
--Concentration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/concentration.htm) is still separate.
--There is no Fly skill.
--3.5 skills that weren't migrated to Pathfinder remain the same as 3.0/3.5 (eg. Iaijutsu Focus, Autohypnosis, Psicraft, Martial Lore, etc)
--3.5 skill ranks will be used, not PF.
Mechanics broken by RAW (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267985-Completely-Dysfunctional-Handbook-3-5) are fixed with reasonable RAI.
Craft skill time requirements are reduced to make them reasonable
Grappling is buffed at higher levels to make it feasible
Sword and board is buffed to make it feasible
Smite can be used on ranged attacks
LA buyoff (UA 18)
All ACFs, sub levels, variant classes (all books)
Spelltouched Feats (UA 92; put reqs in your backstory or acquire through gameplay)
--If there's one you want later in the game, let me know.
Action Points/ rerolls (UA 122)
--Everyone will receive these for free, probably 1 per session.
--You can either reroll any d20, or receive an automatic crit (no need to confirm).
Metamagic Components (UA 139, elsewhere)
Item Familiars (UA 170)
Taint (UA 189/ HoH 62)
All of UA chapter 1
All of UA chapter 2
--except Gestalt
Leadership, Leadership-alikes
Dark Speech
Spellfire Wielder
Repeating Spell Traps
Sarrukhs
Custom Demiplanes
DCFS abuse
Epic-level content
Spell Pouch shenanigans
XP will be awarded for overcoming obstacles, whether they're combat or non-combat.
XP will be awarded for roleplay with both PCs and NPCs.
XP will be awarded for completing quest, personal, and story objectives.
XP will be awarded for acts that significantly hew to your alignment.
No crit failures, no fumbles.
Skills, items, and spells can apply to a situation if you can think of a way that they might.
Alignments are not super strict in terms of character actions.
Please don't take too long on your turn during combat.
The party decides how to deal with loot and party dynamics.
--I do recommend using a shared google doc for party loot.
New characters may enter the party at the average party level, with full WBL.
Basic game rules
--d20srd.org
Online versions of lots of 3rd edition content
--[REDACTED]
List of base classes (and where they're from)
--http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/class
Handbooks
--http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=399.0
--There's a lot of options, complexity, and opinions in these. If it's overwhelming, don't worry. Just make your character in the way that you want. There's no wrong way to create your character.
Spelljammer Construction
--http://lost.spelljammer.org/TBLIV/lsccs3e/3eShipConstruction.pdf
--http://lost.spelljammer.org/TBLIV/lsccs3e/3eShipCombat.pdf
--Not required, but if you're feeling motivated, feel free to stat out the party Spelljammer. I won't give you a gp limit, but your spelljammer is limited to a max crew of six and has five internal weapon bays, so design around those assumptions.

The first actual play session will have them starting in their spelljammer. The captain will die shortly after a jump; they will have to RP and decide what to do and how to delegate tasks. After this is complete, they will find themselves fighting off {# of Party Members +1} ships. Each of the weapons systems will present a different facet of the combat and skills mechanics (grappling, charging, ranged, melee, some skill checks). I'll balance the enemies so that they should survive. After this, they will be boarded and have to fight off intruders hand-to-hand, hopefully with additional skill checks from the environment of the ship. After victory, a space monster will be the ex machina that sends their ship plummeting toward a nearby planet. I haven't decided whether or not to add a small puzzle to the monster battle. They'll have some RP opportunities and skill checks to decide where to land and how to prep the ship for a crash, and that will be the end of the "tutorial" session.

[Khedrac]

As houserules they look fairly reasonable, but I would put a value-cap on the free MIC item.
One comment though - capping everyone at 150gp to me looks mean to martial characters (I am used to max starting gold). For example wizards usually get their spellbook for free and don't need much else. Clerics need armour and a weapon, but can usually get away with just 1 to start with. Martial characters need armour (and decent-ish armour is not cheap at 1st level) a melee weapon and a ranged weapon that can actually do damage (expensive); all of this adds up and will leave them even less able to stand in front to stop the enemy trash reaching the casters at game start.

That said, I think for players new to 3rd Ed by explicitly listing some of the available options you will just confuse them, and these are players new to TTRPGs too!

I recommend disallowing traits, flaws and age categories for people's first games - mainly this will just confuse most of them but allow someone quicker on the uptake to attempt to powergame (though they may just wreck their character, not knowing the system they don't know what does and doesn't work - think WotC designers here).
I would not allow them to choose an item from the MIC - if you want to give each character an item you think suitable. (Particularly with new players allowing choice will favour those with the time to read the book, but see comment above on price and will also favour those who have picked up more of the rules before play begins.)

Your list of allowed books is pretty large for first time players. I would suggest instead asking each what type of character they want to play, then use your knowledge to find them options that come close to this for them to choose from.

[Fizban]

Well we just had a thread about why anyone who thinks they can handle every book under the sun has no real excuse banning any possible homebrew without even looking at it aside from laziness (or at least that's my take). The rebalances section is hardly useful without any rules. I wouldn't say grappling needs a buff in the first place and making sword n' board "feasible" when you're allowing every other build under the sun is a tall order.

Essentially it reads like a high power/high-op game's source and ban list, but the surrounding information makes it sound like you're not running with high-op players, so it's kinda superfluous. In general I just don't see the need for such a detailed document for a reasonable DM with reasonable players, listing all sorts of niche allowances before anyone's asked for them just makes it all the more glaring that you've put it in stone that other allowances won't be made.

(Particularly with new players allowing choice will favour those with the time to read the book, but see comment above on price and will also favour those who have picked up more of the rules before play begins.)
Basically everything in the game favors those who have+put in the time to read the books. I agree with the sentiment though, as my second response is always "I can handle it if you want." The problem is, the more work you do for them, the less many players will be interested. You can build them a cool character but it costs them nothing and they don't even learn how to use it. Or you can force them to do it all on their own so when threatened it's their toy being threatened and they'll want to git gud to protect it. Unless they don't. Can you tell I've been a little fed up with lazy players? Just one's enough really.

[Ashtagon]

Character Creation:

As others noted, 150 gp flat rate hurts martials a lot, and most casters don't need even half this. If you are going to set a fixed gold amount, make it the average (or maximum) starting roll for their class.

The magic item really needs to be price-capped. And it's a bit weird to start with one anyway.

I'd definitely be concerned about the evil allowed bit. Having parties with dissonant goals (aka pvp) is one of the leading causes of campaign collapse.

Age categories are typically used to cheese full caster classes, which really don't need it. tbh, I usually ban them altogether. I tell PCs they can be any age they like, but it won't affect game stats.

Campaign Premise:

Having completed a one-year tour of duty on a navy vessel seems a little at odds with being 1st level. I'd change one or the other.

Allowed Sources:

I'd specifically add Dungeon Magazine #92 for the Spelljammer campaign setting supplement. There's also Dragon #339 for the Races of Spelljammer article.

Rebalances:

If playing with Spelljammer travel times as presented in the original boxed sets, there is tons of downtime for crafting. You might want to consider that (or change it) before changing crafting times.

Allowed UA/ Variant Rules:

Taint is one of those rules that, if used, you should seriously consider dropping alignment rules for. A lot of spells that interact with taint rules mirror the various alignment-interacting spells. It's also best used only if you are planning some kind of dark/edgy horror-esque campaign. ymmv.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I would look carefully at allowing Taint rules. The associated classes (Tainted Scholar, Tainted Sorcerer) are infamously broken. That's basically the only thing I could find in there that's slightly questionable.

@Ashtagon: Don't forget that most soldiers are 1st-level warriors. By being first-level 32 pb PCs, the players' characters are already well ahead of the usual. A one-year tour is nothing in that context.

[Ashtagon]

@Ashtagon: Don't forget that most soldiers are 1st-level warriors. By being first-level 32 pb PCs, the players' characters are already well ahead of the usual. A one-year tour is nothing in that context.

I guess this is a case of calibrating expectations. For NPCs, I normally take 1st level to mean "completed basic training in their chosen career path", or broadly speaking, an apprentice or university undergraduate. 2nd level is then journeyman/grad student. 3rd level for me indicates an NPC who is firmly established and qualified in their job but not necessarily on any kind of promotion track.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I guess this is a case of calibrating expectations. For NPCs, I normally take 1st level to mean "completed basic training in their chosen career path", or broadly speaking, an apprentice or university undergraduate. 2nd level is then journeyman/grad student. 3rd level for me indicates an NPC who is firmly established and qualified in their job but not necessarily on any kind of promotion track.
While that makes a lot of sense for wizards*, it doesn't match the DMG, and isn't needed to map an Earth academic career to D&D stats. The DMG assumes most NPCs will be level 1 (commoner), being a competent if boring worker, and that's enough - you only need two levels to cover all Earth humans^.

I think it's fair to say that a lot of training is retraining. A journeyman isn't level 2, they're an expert, having retrained from commoner. They level up once, when becoming a master, and that +2 synergy bonus is what makes them so much better.

Basically, there are PC-like career paths, like a wizards', and NPC-like career paths, like an Earth academics'. Although at that point, you need to treat the misjump as something of a transition, from an NPC-like career - in which a year is nothing - to a PC-like career. Essentially, the PCs are those soldiers that turned out to be heroes all along, and didn't know it :smalltongue:.



*Wizard 3/Master Specialist 3. Take Spell Focus at 3rd, enter MS & start thesis with Skill Focus (Spellcraft) at 4th, graduate with Greater Spell Focus & Arcane Thesis.
^Expert 2. Start commoner 1, take Skill Focus (bachelor's degree), retrain to expert (master's degree), level up (PhD). You have 5 ranks, +2 synergy, +3 SF, +2 Aid Another (peer review), +6 circumstance (biggest library printed in D&D, afaik, costs 20 000 gp + 1500 to house them - see SBG p. 25), +2-4 intelligence, gives a +20-+22 bonus to an academic skill at level 2.

[exelsisxax]

Would you be willing to just play pathfinder? It's a bit more noob-friendly, several of those houserules are "use pathfinder rules" anyway, and your players won't be buried under a mass of books while putting their characters together. The extreme amount of content in 3.5 is purely a disadvantage when these players haven't played ANY TTRPG before. But if you've already got monster statblocks or something, it's probably not worth your time trying to switch.

[Fizban]

Would you be willing to just play pathfinder? It's a bit more noob-friendly, several of those houserules are "use pathfinder rules" anyway, and your players won't be buried under a mass of books while putting their characters together. The extreme amount of content in 3.5 is purely a disadvantage when these players haven't played ANY TTRPG before. But if you've already got monster statblocks or something, it's probably not worth your time trying to switch.
:smallconfused:

Have you seen the pfsrd? It may not be quite as huge as all of 3.5, but it's definitely at least as huge as the amount most people actually know of 3.5. While 3.5 has a fairly small number of constantly quoted ACFs a few main feat trees, pathfinder has dozens of ACFs for every class and even longer and more convoluted feat trees full of quite possibly more trap feats than I remember seeing in 3.5. Not a reduction in complexity, just a higher power floor if you're not branching out (and a higher power balcony even if they maybe lowered the cieling a bit).

[exelsisxax]

:smallconfused:

Have you seen the pfsrd? It may not be quite as huge as all of 3.5, but it's definitely at least as huge as the amount most people actually know of 3.5. While 3.5 has a fairly small number of constantly quoted ACFs a few main feat trees, pathfinder has dozens of ACFs for every class and even longer and more convoluted feat trees full of quite possibly more trap feats than I remember seeing in 3.5. Not a reduction in complexity, just a higher power floor if you're not branching out (and a higher power balcony even if they maybe lowered the cieling a bit).

The dozens of archetypes are an improvement over 3.5, where themes most often had to be cobbled together with a string of multiclassing. A noob is going to have an easier time picking a class and DM possibly assisting with an archetype addition than the inevitable alternative of the DM constructing a 5-class build and handing it to the player. Classes getting something at almost every level also helps a lot, again so that builds are simpler and new players understand exactly what they can do.

They're noobs playing low-op, so the high floor is a good thing and the cieling is irrelevant(unless one of them is a MTG powergamer or something, then be worried). Traps aren't such an issue in that context, especially when most traps have to be built towards and won't be crippling you from first level.

[Cosi]

What things would you do differently for your houserules for newbies? And, what are some things I missed?

Some of these things feel like overkill for noobs. Pointing them to the Dysfunction handbook or mentioning Sarrukhs or spell pouch shenanigans or whatever seems likely to be pointless and potentially confusing. In general for noobs, I would probably tend towards minimizing houserules. Particularly in games where they increase the complexity of the game (flaws, traits, MIC items).


Starting wealth is 150 gp regardless of class, plus any one item from the MIC.

Obviously that needs a GP cap, and there are also some nutty items in the MIC (Amber Amulets of Vermin in particular).


You can start at any age category (beginning with adult).

First, I think allowing people to start at advanced age is stupid. It's a buff to characters who don't need it, and it's too easy to negate the penalties.

Second, I think the fact that you've mentioned starting age at all is emblematic of a broader problem with these house rules. For experienced players, questions like "can I have flaws" or "what age can I start at" are potentially important. But for new players, they're just going to end up confusing.


Dark Sun setting content

I don't have any objection to this, but I do wonder why you'd block that particular setting.


Death is at -con score, not -10.

This seems like it would almost never effect the game.


Pathfinder feat progression (every 2 levels: 2nd, 4th, etc)

I though Pathfinder was at odd levels? I also don't see the benefit from saying "Pathfinder" at all, especially as you have to spell out the feat progression anyway.


No class retraining; rebuilds may be accomplished via in-game quests

I think for new players you might want to relax this. If someone realizes that their Gish would be better as a Sorcerer/Swiftblade or Bard/Warblade or Duskblade instead of whatever it currently is, I feel like you should let them switch. I assume this is here because you disliked players constantly retraining, so I might cap it at once every four levels or something.


Craft skill time requirements are reduced to make them reasonable
Grappling is buffed at higher levels to make it feasible
Sword and board is buffed to make it feasible

I would like to see the specific changes made here.


Leadership, Leadership-alikes

What does this mean? Is charm person a Leadership-alike, or do you just mean feats?


Repeating Spell Traps

Isn't part of the premise of Spelljammer that you have civilizations build around random magical shenanigans? It seems like having The Empire walk in with some magical traps is totally reasonable. Also, the ban should probably be changed to allow fireball traps in any case.


DCFS abuse

Never ban "X abuse". It's too vague.


XP will be awarded for completing quest, personal, and story objectives.

Drop the other XP rewards, and use achievement based level ups. If you want to reward those things, use something like the organizations from the PHB II.


Alignments are not super strict in terms of character actions.

Yes they are. The incentive has just changed from "if you break your alignment you fall" to "if you don't hew to your alignment you get less XP".

Overall, it seems like you're using house rules you devised for experienced players with new players without considering the differences between their perspectives. Also, your banlist seems like it's in a bad place. You're calling out the Sarrukh (an obscure monster from a setting book), but not wish (a core spell that is at least as broken). You're also vague in a few places, which should be clarified.

[GilesTheCleric]

Quotes shortened for legibility.

value-cap on the free MIC item.

That said, I think for players new to 3rd Ed by explicitly listing some of the available options you will just confuse them, and these are players new to TTRPGs too!

I recommend disallowing traits, flaws and age categories for people's first games

Your list of allowed books is pretty large for first time players.
Yes, a cap makes sense. I'll probably just see about giving them each a hand-picked item, perhaps. I'll reduce the number of options.

Do you think that giving them an extra feat at first level would be fine? In my opinion, feats are an easy way to distinguish a character and expand their skillset, and I'd like them to start with more than what you typically get at level one, but without the complexity of teaching them both how to build a character and how to apply level ups right away. I'll reduce the number of allowed books. What about core + MIC + SC + Completes, and everything else by request?

banning any possible homebrew

The rebalances section is hardly useful without any rules. I wouldn't say grappling needs a buff in the first place and making sword n' board "feasible" when you're allowing every other build under the sun is a tall order.

Essentially it reads like a high power/high-op game's source and ban list, but the surrounding information makes it sound like you're not running with high-op players, so it's kinda superfluous.
I am definitely lazy when it comes to brew. I'm also at least passingly familiar with 95% of 1st party WotC content, so I don't expect many surprises by allowing so much. I think you're right that the source+ban list is a little superfluous, since I mostly adapted it straight from my normal houserules (for my 3.5 vet group).

Hmn, that's a good point about rebalances. I suppose instead of making mechanical rebalances, I could change the loot to effectively do the same thing.

150 gp flat rate hurts martials a lot

The magic item really needs to be price-capped. And it's a bit weird to start with one anyway. I'd definitely be concerned about the evil allowed bit.

I tell PCs they can be any age they like, but it won't affect game stats. Having completed a one-year tour of duty on a navy vessel seems a little at odds with being 1st level. I'd change one or the other.

Dungeon Magazine #92+Dragon #339 for Spelljammer; there is tons of downtime for crafting. Taint is one of those rules that, if used, you should seriously consider dropping alignment rules for.
I'll use your fix for the starting gold. To me it seems like fun to start with a cool item, and I'm hoping that it should also help them in writing their backstories. I'll remove evil, but for now I'll leave CN. You're right that I should disallow PvP; I'll add that.

Having any age but with no modifiers is smart -- I'll add that. Alright, I'll have them begin the adventure soon after starting their tour. I'd like them to start at first level so as to not have to worry about learning how to level-up right away.

Thank you for pointing out those magazines. I'll add them. However, since they are going to crash their ship at the end of the first session, I don't expect there to be any spelljamming/ huge downtime for a long while (until/ if they repair their ship).

I would look carefully at allowing Taint rules.
I think you're both right about taint. I can always add it later. The tainted PrCs are powerful, but they're balanced both by how much taint I decide to let the players have, as well as the RP requirements of having so much taint. Even if Grod's Rule says that's bad design, I think it makes those reasonable compared to the other things I banned.

Would you be willing to just play pathfinder? It's a bit more noob-friendly, several of those houserules are "use pathfinder rules" anyway, and your players won't be buried under a mass of books while putting their characters together. The extreme amount of content in 3.5 is purely a disadvantage when these players haven't played ANY TTRPG before. But if you've already got monster statblocks or something, it's probably not worth your time trying to switch.
I can think about using PF some more, but I'm not sure whether it's worth it for me to switch whole-hog. I'm not very experienced with PF, so I don't have as strong a sense of balance and expectation under that system. It also changes rules I'm familiar with in small but significant ways that will trip me up.

I run sandbox games, so I won't have too much prepared besides a few set pieces, expected nearby adventures, a calendar of world events, and NPC personality notes.

[Khedrac]

I'll probably just see about giving them each a hand-picked item, perhaps.
Definitely your best option here.


Do you think that giving them an extra feat at first level would be fine?
Yes, with the caveat that you are giving both a cheap magic item and a bopnus feat at first level.
I am not saying "don't do this" but you might just consider giving the party a bonus item such as a Healing Belt.


I'll remove evil, but for now I'll leave CN. You're right that I should disallow PvP; I'll add that.
You might be better off saying "no PVP-type characters" - CN can be far more party-disruptive than a well-played LE. Even a well-played CE might not disrupt the party if no-one is a paladin. Yes they are evil and everyone else is good, but most CEs don't steal from their friends - the guys they rely on in combat - it is suicidal.

[Ashtagon]

Since you are playing with newbies, I would just outright ban flaws and traits. It's an extra complication that isn't needed. You should be doing everything you can to reduce decision paralysis.

[GilesTheCleric]

Quotes appended for legibility.

I don't have any objection to this, but I do wonder why you'd block that particular setting.

I though Pathfinder was at odd levels? I also don't see the benefit from saying "Pathfinder" at all, especially as you have to spell out the feat progression anyway.

What does this mean? Is charm person a Leadership-alike, or do you just mean feats?

Isn't part of the premise of Spelljammer that you have civilizations build around random magical shenanigans? It seems like having The Empire walk in with some magical traps is totally reasonable. Also, the ban should probably be changed to allow fireball traps in any case.

Drop the other XP rewards, and use achievement based level ups. If you want to reward those things, use something like the organizations from the PHB II.

Yes they are. The incentive has just changed from "if you break your alignment you fall" to "if you don't hew to your alignment you get less XP".

You're calling out the Sarrukh (an obscure monster from a setting book), but not wish (a core spell that is at least as broken). You're also vague in a few places, which should be clarified.
It's my understanding that Dark Sun is not accessible via spelljamming/ planescape because of a magical Gray or fog that surrounds the plane. If I'm mistaken, I'll open it up for use.

Oops! Pathfinder feat progression fixed. I've also removed the PF reference.

Spelljammer is pretty high-tech and high-magic, you're right. However, I don't see a reason for PCs to have access to repeating spell traps unless it's a part of plot. There's few reasonable uses for them.

Milestone leveling is a neat concept. However, I personally enjoy the visceral feel of receiving more/less xp based on what I've done in a session, so I'll keep the distinct XP rewards. I have changed the alignment XP rewards, though -- that's a good point.

Wish is fine because it's GM-dependent for anything beyond free magic items/ bonuses/ copying spells. My perspective on balance and banning is one question: "Does dis/allowing this enhance the fun at the table?". Sarrukhs don't add to the fun of the game, but Wish does. Thank you for mentioning the vagueness -- I've added more specifics, and removed a lot of vague content entirely (ie. rebalacing).

I am not saying "don't do this" but you might just consider giving the party a bonus item such as a Healing Belt.

You might be better off saying "no PVP-type characters"
A healing belt or something useful is a great idea -- that saves them some wasted resources. In fact, I might just allow for free out-of-combat healing during non-time-sensitive events. My ultimate goal in giving them items was to give them something unique that's a little bit outside the usual rules -- something that's more about their past than their present.

Since you are playing with newbies, I would just outright ban flaws and traits. It's an extra complication that isn't needed. You should be doing everything you can to reduce decision paralysis.
I think you're right. I'll just go with an extra feat at first. Maybe I'll choose useful feats that would otherwise require book diving, and give it to them as a "bonus".

[Troacctid]

If you want to fix the death and dying rules, the 4e variant (http://web.archive.org/web/20110111170127/http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a) is a much better fix than increasing the death threshold by a few points.

[Fizban]

I like this (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/optional-death.html) idea over at The Alexandrian, or at least the first few bits. Death threshold goes up to your whole hit point total in negatives, and you make a fort save every round based on your negative hp to stay conscious. It's a significant change from the base rules though.

[Vaz]

As houserules look, first time round for newbies, that's a **** load of them.

There are a lot of irrelevant things in there. I can see why you're wanting to be accomodating to let people play what they want, but dude, we all started off the PHB. Basic rule of game design is Keep It Simple, Stupid. While in 3.5, that gets a bit convoluted, and lost somewhere, we're okay, because we know the system, and regularly talk it out on forums. Complete newbs don't know what a hit die is, let alone the interactions with having multiple, level adjustments, and then interactions with class levels. Just say "here is your book to build a character from", and give them either the D20srd (if you want to factor Psionics into this), or just the PHB.

Don't do point buy. It's used on forums to allow for an adequate baseline point of power, and for more aptitude appropriate challenges. Just have them roll it off. Because rolling is more fun than maths when you're new to stuff. If they roll terribly, give them a choice. Burn all of their dice rolls and start again, or stick with one bad or two bad rolls, that way you can teach them the benefits of dump stats.

I'm on the fence about flaws/traits. It's introducing too much content too soon, and isn't always accepted at other tables. Just keep it to an RP thing.

Again, on the allowed sources, it's possibly hurting mundanes, but you're dealing with new players here, not just a new group. Keep it to the PHB only IMHO.

Don't mix gameplay. It only serves to confuse people later on in time. "Here are your rules in this 300 page book, but ignore half of those, because we're using only certain bits from this 300 page book instead". Choose pathfinder or 3.5 and stick with it. You're teaching people how to play, not to play within some arbitrary tier system. As the players get accustomed to the game, and as story arcs come to conclusions, let players use the retraining system. They were a fighter, but want to now become a Duskblade? Let them either rebuilt their character, or roll up a fresh one. Far more simple instead of drowning them in ~50 base classes, probably hundreds of ACF's, ~900 prestige classes, ~4000 feats, and probably twice that in spells, as well as a billion variant other rules.

Also, don't start at level 1, start at level 3 (4 if there are sorcerers present). The characters are less squishy, get to do more than do only a single adventure a day because an Orc decided to Crit the fighter, and gives them an extra feat and level of spells.

[Powerdork]

The only real issue I see that others haven't addressed: By handing out XP for it, you're treating alignment as a goal rather than simply a descriptor.

[Fizban]

Don't do point buy. It's used on forums to allow for an adequate baseline point of power, and for more aptitude appropriate challenges. Just have them roll it off. Because rolling is more fun than maths when you're new to stuff. If they roll terribly, give them a choice. Burn all of their dice rolls and start again, or stick with one bad or two bad rolls, that way you can teach them the benefits of dump stats.
That's a pretty big assumption you're making about rolls being "more fun." Then again, if you're allowed to just keep rolling until you're satisfied, well that is a lot more fun powerful. If you want to force real simplicity and dump stats use an array.

Also, don't start at level 1, start at level 3 (4 if there are sorcerers present). The characters are less squishy, get to do more than do only a single adventure a day because an Orc decided to Crit the fighter, and gives them an extra feat and level of spells.
I would recommend against this for new players. If you've never had to survive a fight with 1HD, you'll never understand what it's like for everyone else in the world trying to survive with 1HD. If you want new players to empathize with the world, the most effective way to teach it is making them claw their way up from the bottom (if that's not enough to tame their bravado you'll need to strip their gear for a while too).

[GilesTheCleric]

If you want to fix the death and dying rules
Both the suggestions for alternate death/dying rules are pretty good. I hadn't realised that so many folks also didn't like the standard ones. I'm not sure what system I'll use -- 4e, Alexandrian, or 5e (which is something like "get three successes", I think). I might open a new thread about that.

Don't mix gameplay. It only serves to confuse people later on in time.

Also, don't start at level 1, start at level 3 (4 if there are sorcerers present). The characters are less squishy, get to do more than do only a single adventure a day because an Orc decided to Crit the fighter, and gives them an extra feat and level of spells.
Mixing gameplay is confusing, you're right. However, I think that using the PF skill system will reduce the number of unnecessary options, while keeping gameplay a bit smoother, hopefully increasing the fun. I plan to hand out character sheets with the houseruled skill system already in place, so they won't need to worry about it after they're done with character creation.

I agree that starting above level one is usually advisable, but in this case I do want to help them have a good perspective on the relative value of hitpoints, and I also don't want to teach them both how to create a character and then how to level up a character all in their very first session of the game. I do plan for them to level up once they're done with the tutorial adventure (1 session), and the first few levels should be quick anyway. Crits happen, and I'll be sure to use foes with small weapon damage ranges in the tutorial so that they won't be taken past -10 in one hit. It doesn't seem fair to them as players to take away all danger or the threat of death, though.

The only real issue I see that others haven't addressed: By handing out XP for it, you're treating alignment as a goal rather than simply a descriptor.
A poster above noted the same thing, and I've removed that XP award. However, it's still good to have a conversation about it. Maybe you see it a different way, but since in this game alignments are more like physical laws than morals, it makes sense to me for players to be rewarded for "doing well" under that system, the same as if they have overcome a fight or other challenge. However, it is a bit at odds with my preference to have looser alignment requirements in my games.