Most Common House Rules?

[RexDart]

I think most every DM uses some house rules, and every version of D&D has supported or encouraged this to some degree.

But I was wondering, are there any specific house rules for 3.5 that are particularly common or prevalent, that almost everyone uses, or rules almost everyone tinkers with?

[JNAProductions]

I think most every DM uses some house rules, and every version of D&D has supported or encouraged this to some degree.

But I was wondering, are there any specific house rules for 3.5 that are particularly common or prevalent, that almost everyone uses, or rules almost everyone tinkers with?

Multiclassing XP penalties. They're usually houseruled away entirely.

[gijoemike]

50% of the die + 1 instead of rolling for hp. So many groups and GM's I know hate how rolling for HP can mess up a character. So a barbarian would get 6+1 or 7 hp per level. Wizards get 2+1 or 3 per level. All of this is prior to adding one's con modifier to to total.

[Maat Mons]

I've known a lot of people who handle critical hit damage by rolling once and multiplying it, rather than by rolling multiple times.

[loky1109]

I've known a lot of people who handle critical hit damage by rolling once and multiplying it, rather than by rolling multiple times.
It can be mistake, not houserule.

[Particle_Man]

Do non standard ability score rolling rules count? It has gotten so that it is rare for me to find either point by or one of the listed methods of rolling them.

[Zancloufer]

Fractional BaB/Saves?

I didn't realize it was an optional/non-standard rules for years. Not sure how wide spread it is but I could see it easily being interpreted that way by accident.

[Thurbane]

Ignoring multi-classing restrictions for Monks and Paladins is a big one.

[Calthropstu]

My house is generally well behaved. I do wish it would stop eating people, but it does spit them out so it's all good.

[Thurbane]

Reducing the ability mod penalties for Half-Orcs: in our game, they get +2 Str, -2 Int or Cha (player's choice).

[Smegskull]

-Con score till death instead of -10 HP.
Fumble rolls.

[Biggus]

Reducing the ability mod penalties for Half-Orcs: in our game, they get +2 Str, -2 Int or Cha (player's choice).

I've never seen that one before (not that it's a bad rule). I've seen a few people give half-elves extra skill points (as humans) though.

[Particle_Man]

Fumble rolls.

Oh right, that is the one I keep running into. It seems like every DM in my area likes those except for me.

[Zombimode]

50% of the die + 1 instead of rolling for hp. So many groups and GM's I know hate how rolling for HP can mess up a character. So a barbarian would get 6+1 or 7 hp per level. Wizards get 2+1 or 3 per level. All of this is prior to adding one's con modifier to to total.

FWIW the correct and official (in that this method is used on npc and monster statblocks in books and published adventures) is of course 50% of the die +0.5, with "elite" creatures (that includes the PCs) having their first hit die maximized.

[Khedrac]

I don't think ignoring multiclass penalties is as common as people on these boards think - I have never met it off the boards...
(That doesn't stop it being a good rule, just not as common as expected.)

I would go with the half +1 for hit points as potentially the most common rule.

Another very common one is all characters get the same xp - it makes the bookkeeping so much simpler (again, not one you would expect from the boards where people commonly use schemes to catch up after sacrificing xp).

Another is not using 'death from massive damage' - though I think most people don't realise that it is the standard not an optional rule (my groups usually use a 1-round stun instead of death).

Another (usually through ignorance) is keeping lore monster knowledge checks at DC 10+ hit dice - I only found out in the last couple of months that MMIV or MMV formally changes it to 10+CR (but who reads the introductions o the later monster books anyway?)

[loky1109]

Reducing the ability mod penalties for Half-Orcs: in our game, they get +2 Str, -2 Int or Cha (player's choice).

I instead give them weapon familiarity with "orc" weapons (double axe, for example).


-Con score till death instead of -10 HP.
Fumble rolls.

O! It's House Rule. I forgot it.

[Saintheart]

My house is generally well behaved. I do wish it would stop eating people, but it does spit them out so it's all good.

So you haven't got it
... fully ...
... housebroken?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_chvKNYtmvt0/TUO4643zUgI/AAAAAAAAADM/2pKa047JeS0/s1600/csi_miami_yeah.jpg

[Particle_Man]

Wasn't there a variant in 1st edition Unearthed Arcana that introduced average hit points?

[Starbuck_II]

In Pathfinder:
Elephant in the Room feat tax changes (free Power attack/Deadly aim, etc).
Skeletons/Zombies are like 3.5 versions in that they don't do anything without orders (in canon Pathfinder, they try to attack humans if not ordered otherwise).
3.5 reach corners (in canon Pathfinder, reach doesn't work right in corners)

D&D:
Monks/Pals can multiclass freely.
No XP penalty for multiclass
Dodge is always +1 dodge no targeting.
Undead creation isn't evil by itself, the useage can be.
Deathwatch and other non-evil useage spells aren't evil unless user wants them to be (for +1 from evil domain).
Favored Souls have Knowledge: Arcana as a class skill AND Knowledge: Religion (currently FS don't know religion).
Chill Touch deals cold damage instead of negative energy (since it panics undead, undead being immune to cold isn't a factor)
Everyone gains simple proficiency with unarmed Strike (still nonlethal and provokes without feat Improved Unarmed Strike)
Virtue cantrip is 1 temp +1 per 2 caster level.

[Yora]

Multiclassing XP penalties. They're usually houseruled away entirely.

The first thing that came to mind when I saw the thread title.

Multiclass penalties are ignored so universally that I never saw them mentioned in character build discussions. Not only does everyone ignore them, everyone also assumes that everyone else ignores them as well. (Unless they actually forgot they existed in the first place.)

[Karl Aegis]

Adding a spell to a Dread Necromancer's Spell List adds to their Spells Known. I've never actually seen a sound argument for this rule.

[Tzardok]

Adding a spell to a Dread Necromancer's Spell List adds to their Spells Known. I've never actually seen a sound argument for this rule.

I thought there is no difference with the Dread Necromancer between Spells Known and Spell List. Just like with Beguiler and Warmage.

I don't get to play a lot, but every play I participated in over the last few years shifted the Healing subschool and spell in it into Necromancy. No idea wether that's common.

[Godofallu]

Most of them were already said but i'll repeat what I remember using a lot.

No tracking exp just level up every X sessions. No multi-class penalties or favored class.

For starting attributes point buy is very common in my experience. For starting HP I see a lot of average +.5 or maximized for the first 3,4, or 5 levels.

A lot of the terrible races get homebrew versions that are actually not terrible. Like a Lizardfolk that isn't 2 RHD + 1LA.

A lot of terrible PRCs get new requirements to make them viable. So not forcing you to take 5 terrible feats to enter.

I see a lot of flaws being allowed, but I do push for them as more feats = more fun in my eyes. I also see a lot of pathfinder feat progression even in all 3.5 games.

I see a lot of bans involving Tome of Battle which sucks IMO. A lot of bans involving spells outside core or only a few books allowed for spells. Which again sucks IMO.

I don't see massive damage being a thing generally.

I see a lot of raise dead/resurrection spells not forcing the -1 level. As people just commit suicide when resurrected and re-roll a not broken character when you enforce that. I thinkt here is a lot of room for an improvement there.

[Biggus]

Not allowing multiple powers on a magic item seems to be a common one, judging by the number of references I've seen to something "taking up an item slot".


I don't think ignoring multiclass penalties is as common as people on these boards think - I have never met it off the boards...
(That doesn't stop it being a good rule, just not as common as expected.)


Wow, really? I've never played with anyone who enforced it.

[Elves]

The first thing that came to mind when I saw the thread title.

Multiclass penalties are ignored so universally that I never saw them mentioned in character build discussions. Not only does everyone ignore them, everyone also assumes that everyone else ignores them as well. (Unless they actually forgot they existed in the first place.)

They're a bad game rule and also an example of how not to prevent something. Either disallow something or don't; don't throw in inconveniences to try to fudge over the reality of the system you've created. It's a form of indecision. If the designers didn't want heavily multiclassed builds, they shouldn't have implemented free multiclassing.

[Calthropstu]

So you haven't got it
... fully ...
... housebroken?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_chvKNYtmvt0/TUO4643zUgI/AAAAAAAAADM/2pKa047JeS0/s1600/csi_miami_yeah.jpg

No need to brake my house, it doesn't move.

[TIPOT]

They're a bad game rule and also an example of how not to prevent something. Either disallow something or don't; don't throw in inconveniences to try to fudge over the reality of the system you've created. It's a form of indecision. If the designers didn't want heavily multiclassed builds, they shouldn't have implemented free multiclassing.

I've seen games that have disallowed any multiclassing that would mean you'd suffer from the penalties. Honestly they're not that hard to follow when you remember that prestige classes aren't counted towards it.

[Quertus]

IME, "no XP penalty", "no death from massive damage", "no drown healing", "no infinite" are the most common.

[Melcar]

Most of them were already said but i'll repeat what I remember using a lot.

No tracking exp just level up every X sessions. No multi-class penalties or favored class.

For starting attributes point buy is very common in my experience. For starting HP I see a lot of average +.5 or maximized for the first 3,4, or 5 levels.

A lot of the terrible races get homebrew versions that are actually not terrible. Like a Lizardfolk that isn't 2 RHD + 1LA.

A lot of terrible PRCs get new requirements to make them viable. So not forcing you to take 5 terrible feats to enter.

I see a lot of flaws being allowed, but I do push for them as more feats = more fun in my eyes. I also see a lot of pathfinder feat progression even in all 3.5 games.

I see a lot of bans involving Tome of Battle which sucks IMO. A lot of bans involving spells outside core or only a few books allowed for spells. Which again sucks IMO.

I don't see massive damage being a thing generally.

I see a lot of raise dead/resurrection spells not forcing the -1 level. As people just commit suicide when resurrected and re-roll a not broken character when you enforce that. I thinkt here is a lot of room for an improvement there.

How do you then track the exp cost for item creation?

[Shpadoinkle]

How do you then track the exp cost for item creation?

Most tables seem to ignore that, too.

[rrwoods]

The DM of my main game does *essentially* milestone leveling. We track XP but it’s just a progress tracker. Characters can still spend XP, and if there’s a character that’s a different level, we reverse engineer the increased amount by looking at the encounter table and scaling.

[Thurbane]

I don't know if this is only our table, but Improved Toughness counts as Toughness for all req purposes.

[RexDart]

Sounds like the "No XP penalty for multiclassing" house rule may be nigh-universal.

For those that have that house rule, do you basically ignore the "favored class" concept as a result? Because it's really only relevant to the multiclassing rule, my DM added an interesting house rule: favored classes get 1 bonus skill point for every level in the race's favored class (4 as a once-in-a-lifetime bonus for the first level in a favored class), and a racial feat every 5 levels in a favored class. And humans consider all classes favored classes to reflect their versatility.

Another big one that I haven't heard of anyone else using, is essentially eliminating class skills. (Technically, each character has a pool of 20 class skill slots that they may use to define the class skills for their character, but unless a character has a ton of extremely unconcentrated skill points, "non-class skills" will not be a factor.)

[Rebel7284]

No need to brake my house, it doesn't move.

Depends on the observer, right? It's moving around the earth as the earth spins, and around the sun, and around the middle of the milky way, and away from the center of the big bang. It's a lot of movement!

[Quertus]

Depends on the observer, right? It's moving around the earth as the earth spins, and around the sun, and around the middle of the milky way, and away from the center of the big bang. It's a lot of movement!

Now I'm trying to imagine a world where the house is motionless to the observer, regardless of the observer.

If I can't sleep tonight, it's all your fault! :smalltongue:

[Elves]

For those that have that house rule, do you basically ignore the "favored class" concept as a result? Because it's really only relevant to the multiclassing rule, my DM added an interesting house rule: favored classes get 1 bonus skill point for every level in the race's favored class (4 as a once-in-a-lifetime bonus for the first level in a favored class), and a racial feat every 5 levels in a favored class. And humans consider all classes favored classes to reflect their versatility.
Favored class is weird to begin with because they encourage you to dip the class, not focus on it. I guess the idea is that every orc should take a barbarian dip? Makes a certain sense, but doesn't do what it sounds like it does.

I think racial sub levels are a great way to do the favored class concept. PF's favored class bonuses are basically the same thing but I think the sub level format is more versatile.

Giving racial abilities that complement a class also works (eg, elf weapon proficiencies do nothing for a fighter) but can be too heavy handed -- as most stat adjustments are.

[Mnemnosyne]

How do you then track the exp cost for item creation?
That's the problem I've had with many games that do it that way. As far as I've experienced, they simply do not consider this at all! It's as if many DMs and players just don't ever consider item creation or spells with xp costs. I can only surmise that at a lot of tables, the players simply don't ever try item crafting.

[Thurbane]

That's the problem I've had with many games that do it that way. As far as I've experienced, they simply do not consider this at all! It's as if many DMs and players just don't ever consider item creation or spells with xp costs. I can only surmise that at a lot of tables, the players simply don't ever try item crafting.

We've never had any magic item crafting in any of our games, and we use the standard XP system.

Mostly because our games don't tend to be very sandbox-y, and never seem to involve much downtime.

[Elves]

you can just do 1xp=5gp for item crafting

[Karl Aegis]

I thought there is no difference with the Dread Necromancer between Spells Known and Spell List. Just like with Beguiler and Warmage.

Unless you are choosing spells that you already have in your Spells Known to add to your Spell List with Advanced Learning or avoid Advanced Learning entirely your Spells Known and Spell List will never be the same.

[Tzardok]

I have no idea what you want to say. I only know what the Dread Necromancer class has to say on the topic:


[...] When a dread necromancer gains access to a new level of spells, she automatically knows all the spells for that level given on the dread necromancer's spell list. Dread necromancers also have the option of adding to their existing spell list through their advanced learning ability[...].


[...] Once a new spell is selected, it is added to that dread necromancer's spell list and can be cast just like any other spell she knows. [...]

In short, a dread necromancer's spell list is identical to his Spells Known and if you add to the list, you also add to the Known Spells.

[Melcar]

That's the problem I've had with many games that do it that way. As far as I've experienced, they simply do not consider this at all! It's as if many DMs and players just don't ever consider item creation or spells with xp costs. I can only surmise that at a lot of tables, the players simply don't ever try item crafting.

Right, that's what I thought too... like why would you not want people to have a numerical amount of exp in a game where its used as currency for so many things?


We've never had any magic item crafting in any of our games, and we use the standard XP system.

Mostly because our games don't tend to be very sandbox-y, and never seem to involve much downtime.

I assume some campagns are like that sure, but I feel sorry for you for lack of downtime. At least at our table its an important thing for building depth/reality to a character... Like no one can realistically just be super active 12 hours per day evevry day... But each to our own i guess.


you can just do 1xp=5gp for item crafting

I guess, but I kind of feel that detatches too much from ancient lore... like the reason the Mythallars were so popular back in the day, was because they could "run" permanent magic items without the need of life force i.e. Con/exp...

You also run into the fact that via crafting, 50gp worth of golf can be turned into 150gp worth of coins, as per the crafting rules. Or go amok with the Fabricate spell. Ergo free items...

[Psyren]

In Pathfinder:
Elephant in the Room feat tax changes (free Power attack/Deadly aim, etc).

This is the big one for our group - they're in my sig assuming the link still works

[Starbuck_II]

Also, I think ID Rager archetype needs a boost so while raging you get 2 Slams (1d6 damage) and DR 1/slashing per level (phantoms get DR 5/slashing outright at 1st, so this slowly gets it then more past level 5).

The slams are because most of phantoms abilities rely on slams that ID rager doesn't get.
Sure, you could be an alchemist for a slam or Synergist but that seems off of an requirement to use own abilities.

[sreservoir]

IME, "no XP penalty", "no death from massive damage", "no drown healing", "no infinite" are the most common.

The first three of these, I think, are less often explicit houserules, and more just frequently ignored mechanics that nobody seem to want, or even remember without someone bringing them up most of the time.

[Quertus]

The first three of these, I think, are less often explicit houserules, and more just frequently ignored mechanics that nobody seem to want, or even remember without someone bringing them up most of the time.

Although possibly true, remember, I am a player/GM in almost every game I'm aware of, so, IME, it's a house rule, not a mistake, because I'll ask about it rather than let it go unquestioned.

[Batcathat]

Although possibly true, remember, I am a player/GM in almost every game I'm aware of, so, IME, it's a house rule, not a mistake, because I'll ask about it rather than let it go unquestioned.

I can understand the first two, but out of curiosity... are there actually games where "no drown healing" need to be stated? That feels less like an obscure or impopular rule and more like "insane RAW-bull**** that doesn't make any sort of sense".

[Remuko]

I can understand the first two, but out of curiosity... are there actually games where "no drown healing" need to be stated? That feels less like an obscure or impopular rule and more like "insane RAW-bull**** that doesn't make any sort of sense".

i mean if its rules legal and not explicitly disallowed you should be able to do it, so I can see why someone might find it funny and decide to exploit it if its not disallowed explicitly.

[Batcathat]

i mean if its rules legal and not explicitly disallowed you should be able to do it, so I can see why someone might find it funny and decide to exploit it if its not disallowed explicitly.

Yes, I suppose so. The reasonable GM response would probably be "They die. Because you're drowning them."

[Khedrac]

i mean if its rules legal and not explicitly disallowed you should be able to do it, so I can see why someone might find it funny and decide to exploit it if its not disallowed explicitly.


Yes, I suppose so. The reasonable GM response would probably be "They die. Because you're drowning them."

Yes, a lot of DMs (like me) will say to many of the "exploits",, "yes, you can twist the wording to that interpretation, but that's not what the english naturally means therefore it does not work" - they won;t see it as a house rule because they disagree with the rules interpretation that claims it works in the first place.

For drown healing, one of the counter arguments is "it says the target's health drops to 0 therefore they don't gain hit points if below 0". (I give this as an example not to start a rules debate - and I think I have misquoted the rule there so it's not a good one for a rules debate.)

Result is that Batcathat is right - the DM's won't say "no drown healing" because they don't see the need as to them it is not a house rule. There's a difference between a house rule (deliberately changing the rules) and a disagreement on what the rules are (GM's ruling is what matters, appeals should be brought after play so as not to derail the game).

[sreservoir]

Yes, I suppose so. The reasonable GM response would probably be "They die. Because you're drowning them."

Best I can tell, the RAW answer is, instead: they die two rounds later anyway, because there's no cure once they've started drowning.

(I've never been able to find the alleged use of the Heal skill to cure drowning. It's not in Core, it's not in Stormwrack. It may well be a myth born of wishful thinking.)

[Karl Aegis]

I have no idea what you want to say. I only know what the Dread Necromancer class has to say on the topic:





In short, a dread necromancer's spell list is identical to his Spells Known and if you add to the list, you also add to the Known Spells.

So a Dread Necromancer 1/ Bard 16 with Scribe Scroll can create a Scroll of Finger of Death because it has the minimum caster level from Bard and the Spell Known from Dread Necromancer.

The rules text does not support that interpretation. The Dread Necromancer does not actually have access to 7th level spells at 1st level. The Spell List is gained entirely at 1st level. The Spells Known do not. Advanced Learning does not say it adds a Spell Known, so it does not add a Spell Known.

[RandomPeasant]

So a Dread Necromancer 1/ Bard 16 with Scribe Scroll can create a Scroll of Finger of Death because it has the minimum caster level from Bard and the Spell Known from Dread Necromancer.

I'm pretty sure that's not how creating magic items works. Our hypothetical Dread Necromancer/Bard couldn't create Staff of Inflict Light Wounds with a caster level of 16 because you can't mix and match like that, and we all agree she knows that spell.

I also don't understand how you think this follows from the other side's position. The plain English reading of the "Spellcasting" ability seems to me to suggest that the Dread Necromancer knows all spells on her list of levels she can cast. I think there's a solid argument for e.g. Versatile Spellcaster shenanigans not working, but I don't see a way to argue that you don't learn spells added to your list without arguing that Advanced Learning is dysfunctional (because all it explicitly does is add things to your list).


The rules text does not support that interpretation. The Dread Necromancer does not actually have access to 7th level spells at 1st level. The Spell List is gained entirely at 1st level. The Spells Known do not. Advanced Learning does not say it adds a Spell Known, so it does not add a Spell Known.

What is your interpretation of "can be cast just like any other spell she knows" that is compatible with spell not becoming a Spell Known?

[Karl Aegis]

What is your interpretation of "can be cast just like any other spell she knows" that is compatible with spell not becoming a Spell Known?

Can be cast without preparing it ahead of time. Like a Sorcerer.

[Tzardok]

And how do you cast it if you don't Know it?

[Ghen]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but the most common house rule I see is that monks are given proficiency with unarmed strikes.

[Tzardok]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but the most common house rule I see is that monks are given proficiency with unarmed strikes.

Don't they already have it? I mean, there's a whole long paragraph in the monk description on what counts as unarmed strikes for them and what they can do with it.

[Quertus]

I can understand the first two, but out of curiosity... are there actually games where "no drown healing" need to be stated? That feels less like an obscure or impopular rule and more like "insane RAW-bull**** that doesn't make any sort of sense".


i mean if its rules legal and not explicitly disallowed you should be able to do it, so I can see why someone might find it funny and decide to exploit it if its not disallowed explicitly.

Princess Bride says drown healing is cool :smallwink:


(GM's ruling is what matters, appeals should be brought after play so as not to derail the game).

I'm not a fan of rails and Railroads - "derailing" the game is my main goal in life. :smalltongue:


I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but the most common house rule I see is that monks are given proficiency with unarmed strikes.

It did come up. And, even so, I failed to include it in my list. :smallredface:

[RandomPeasant]

Can be cast without preparing it ahead of time. Like a Sorcerer.

Then don't you agree with the other guy? Advanced Learning is phrasing that as a consequence of adding that to the spell list.

[loky1109]

I see this often.

flat-footed == denied dexterity bonus to AC

[Biggus]

Don't they already have it? I mean, there's a whole long paragraph in the monk description on what counts as unarmed strikes for them and what they can do with it.

By a literal reading of the rules, they don't, as it's not on their list of weapon proficencies. Unarmed strike is listed on the table of simple weapons.

I suspect WotC never bothered to errata it because it's so blindingly obvious that they're intended to be proficient, but according to strict RAW, they're not.

[Ghen]

Don't they already have it? I mean, there's a whole long paragraph in the monk description on what counts as unarmed strikes for them and what they can do with it.You're correct in that the book has a lot to say about what they can do with unarmed strikes, but most of that deals with damage whereas proficiency is an attack roll thing. I think it's commonly accepted that their lack of proficiency is an oversight by the developers; I've never played in a game where they are not given proficiency.
It did come up. And, even so, I failed to include it in my list. :smallredface: Hmm... sorry, I must have missed it.

[Elves]

Or maybe an unintentional hint to not play single classed monks, which hardly anyone does.

[Tzardok]

Well, I always assumed that the feat Improved Unarmed Strike replaces Profeciency with Unarmed Strike. Only now that I re-read it I see that it doesn't say what I thought it said. Well, I'll just keep that as a houserule. *shrug*

[Calthropstu]

I see this often.

Ha. My character is a ball that rolls. I'd like to see you catch him with flat feet..

[Karl Aegis]

And how do you cast it if you don't Know it?

Your class feature says you can cast it without preparing it ahead of time.


Then don't you agree with the other guy? Advanced Learning is phrasing that as a consequence of adding that to the spell list.

No. You can't establish the general rule by looking at a specific exception to the rule, anyways.

[Tzardok]

Your class feature says you can cast it without preparing it ahead of time.


I have a feeling you do not know what Spells Known means. It's not a different word for prepared spells, that I can assure you of.

[RandomPeasant]

No. You can't establish the general rule by looking at a specific exception to the rule, anyways.

But that's not what it is. The text doesn't say "you can cast it even though you don't know it", it says "you add the spell to your list" and then talks about the spell as being one of your spells known. I don't see a way to parse that which is compatible with adding spells to a Dread Necromancer's spell list not making them spells known for her, unless there is some other rule that has not been brought up.

[Raven777]

FWIW the correct and official (in that this method is used on npc and monster statblocks in books and published adventures) is of course 50% of the die +0.5, with "elite" creatures (that includes the PCs) having their first hit die maximized.

FWIW the even more mathematically accurate formulation is the average roll of the die rounded up.

[Kaleph]

For me, besides "no death by massive damage", the fact that prestige classes should advance monster spellcasting (IIRC that's not how it works by RAW). I agree that healing-by-drowing is borderline and doesn't necessarily need a house rule.
The same for monks and unarmed strikes - every creature is proficient with its natural weapon, and that should include also unarmed attacks. Maybe.

[Calthropstu]

For me, besides "no death by massive damage", the fact that prestige classes should advance monster spellcasting (IIRC that's not how it works by RAW). I agree that healing-by-drowing is borderline and doesn't necessarily need a house rule.
The same for monks and unarmed strikes - every creature is proficient with its natural weapon, and that should include also unarmed attacks. Maybe.

Death by massive damage is EXTREMELY rare. In order for it to happen, you have to: take damage equal to half your max hp (minimum 50 damage) in a single shot.
Fail a very easy to make save.

If you take 50 damage and survive, odds are you can make that dc 15 fort save. Sure, nat 1 etc is a thing. But not many creatures, spells or abilities to 50+ damage to characters in one shot, fewer still to characters with fewer than 100 hp. By the time you have monsters doing 50 damage, you have characters well boyond 100 hp.

The conditions to meet the save requirement are incredibly high.

[Kaleph]

Death by massive damage is EXTREMELY rare. In order for it to happen, you have to: take damage equal to half your max hp (minimum 50 damage) in a single shot.
Fail a very easy to make save.

If you take 50 damage and survive, odds are you can make that dc 15 fort save. Sure, nat 1 etc is a thing. But not many creatures, spells or abilities to 50+ damage to characters in one shot, fewer still to characters with fewer than 100 hp. By the time you have monsters doing 50 damage, you have characters well boyond 100 hp.

The conditions to meet the save requirement are incredibly high.

It happened to us once, namely to a 12th level barbarian. It felt so...wrong...that we immediately houseruled it out, in order not to make ot happen again.

[tyckspoon]

The same for monks and unarmed strikes - every creature is proficient with its natural weapon, and that should include also unarmed attacks. Maybe.

Not all creatures are proficient with natural weapons, actually - it's a trait of the Type. Most of the 'expected to be vaguely humanoid' Types (fey, outsiders, monstrous humanoids..) actually just say something like 'proficient with (simple/martial) weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry' (which covers any natural weapons they.. uh.. naturally.. have so you don't get the Monk Unarmed Strike issue for racial claws or horns or whatever.) That's why Druid specifically calls out that they are proficient with the natural weapons of anything they Wild Shape into, the expected player races don't get generic natural weapon proficiency.

The 'proficient with anything in their entry' clause could reasonably be stretched to cover Monks with Unarmed Strike, because if you wrote up a monster entry for a Monk it would have Unarmed Strike as at least one attack option.. but Humanoids don't even get that. It's just 'Simple weapons or by class'.

[Elves]

What's even the point of the massive damage rule? It seems like a simulationist impulse ("no one should survive that") but the save isn't especially hard to make, so...

[Thurbane]

What's even the point of the massive damage rule? It seems like a simulationist impulse ("no one should survive that") but the save isn't especially hard to make, so...

Ended up in us one-shotting a pretty powerful red dragon in RHoD, after our Warmage hit it with a Sudden Empowered Orb of Cold, and it rolled a 1 or 2 on it's save. Was kinda sweet, TBH.

Still, your point is valid...but it does sometimes make for amusing theatrics. :smalltongue:

[Calthropstu]

Ended up in us one-shotting a pretty powerful red dragon in RHoD, after our Warmage hit it with a Sudden Empowered Orb of Cold, and it rolled a 1 or 2 on it's save. Was kinda sweet, TBH.

Still, your point is valid...but it does sometimes make for amusing theatrics. :smalltongue:

If you do 150 damage to a creature with 300 hp, it HURTS. Shock is very much a thing. A massive jolt to someone's system can kill them. I see nothing wrong.

[Maat Mons]

I've never seen a rule that the damage needs to exceed half your max HP to trigger the massive damage save.

[Elves]

That's PF I think. Boggles me why they didn't just get rid of the thing.

[Karl Aegis]

But that's not what it is. The text doesn't say "you can cast it even though you don't know it", it says "you add the spell to your list" and then talks about the spell as being one of your spells known. I don't see a way to parse that which is compatible with adding spells to a Dread Necromancer's spell list not making them spells known for her, unless there is some other rule that has not been brought up.

Class abilities that add to a Spells Known List say they add to a Spells Known List. Fiendish Sorcery on Page 103 of Heroes of Horror, the same book Dread Necromancer is in, says it adds to a Spells Known List. Advanced Learning on Page 86 does not say it adds to a Spells Known List. Therefore, Advanced Learning does not add to a Spells Known List. The House Rule is Advanced Learning adds to a Spells Known List, and other things add to a Spells Known List.

[Ghen]

What's even the point of the massive damage rule? It seems like a simulationist impulse ("no one should survive that") but the save isn't especially hard to make, so...It's probably one of the few things keeping epic level monsters from wiping out civilization. No matter how many hit points you have, or how beefy your regeneration etc., there's always that chance that someone could get a lucky hit on you and have a 5% chance of killing you outright.

[Calthropstu]

That's PF I think. Boggles me why they didn't just get rid of the thing.

Well damn. So it is. Well, found a new 3.5 houserule...

[RandomPeasant]

Class abilities that add to a Spells Known List say they add to a Spells Known List. Fiendish Sorcery on Page 103 of Heroes of Horror, the same book Dread Necromancer is in, says it adds to a Spells Known List. Advanced Learning on Page 86 does not say it adds to a Spells Known List. Therefore, Advanced Learning does not add to a Spells Known List. The House Rule is Advanced Learning adds to a Spells Known List, and other things add to a Spells Known List.

Advanced Learning explicitly says that the spell "can be cast just like any other spell she knows". What is the reading of those words that is compatible with the spell not being a Spell Known? How can it be that we refer to "other spells she knows" when talking about a spell she does not know? Alternatively, what is the rule that says it is something other than adding the spell to the Dread Necromancer's spell list (which is the thing Advanced Learning says it does) is what causes it to become a Spell Known?

Talking about some other ability is a red herring. Things are worded in lots of different ways in 3e, because it does not have an established style guide or strict rules engine. Advanced Learning does the things it says it does. If some other ability says it does something different, that doesn't matter. It's a different ability, it's allowed to do different things. What matters is A) the text of the ability in question B) any general rules that provide context for that ability.

So again: what is the reading of the Dread Necromancer's Advanced Learning ability that does not imply that the spell becomes a Spell Known?

[Karl Aegis]

Advanced Learning explicitly says that the spell "can be cast just like any other spell she knows". What is the reading of those words that is compatible with the spell not being a Spell Known? How can it be that we refer to "other spells she knows" when talking about a spell she does not know? Alternatively, what is the rule that says it is something other than adding the spell to the Dread Necromancer's spell list (which is the thing Advanced Learning says it does) is what causes it to become a Spell Known?

Talking about some other ability is a red herring. Things are worded in lots of different ways in 3e, because it does not have an established style guide or strict rules engine. Advanced Learning does the things it says it does. If some other ability says it does something different, that doesn't matter. It's a different ability, it's allowed to do different things. What matters is A) the text of the ability in question B) any general rules that provide context for that ability.

So again: what is the reading of the Dread Necromancer's Advanced Learning ability that does not imply that the spell becomes a Spell Known?

That is a simile, a form of figurative language. Figurative language is not literal.

You add to a Spells Known List by learning a new spell.

Advanced Learning doesn't even add to the Dread Necromancer's Spell List. Gaining a Class Feature changes the character, not the class itself.

You don't need to imply anything from rules. Look at the rules and do as they say. The rules are expressly stated.

[Kaleph]

Not all creatures are proficient with natural weapons, actually - it's a trait of the Type.

I just realized that it's probably a pf-only thing, which I assumed it existed also in 3.5. So I guess it's now in my list of "most common house rules".

[PoeticallyPsyco]

By a literal reading of the rules, they don't, as it's not on their list of weapon proficencies. Unarmed strike is listed on the table of simple weapons.

I suspect WotC never bothered to errata it because it's so blindingly obvious that they're intended to be proficient, but according to strict RAW, they're not.

Looking at the proficiencies of monster types, it looks like RAI is that everyone is proficient with all their natural weapons, which would include unarmed strikes. That's how I've always reasoned it, anyway.

EDIT: Looks like I'm late to the party with this insight. Ah, well.

[Tzardok]

That is a simile, a form of figurative language. Figurative language is not literal.

You add to a Spells Known List by learning a new spell.

Advanced Learning doesn't even add to the Dread Necromancer's Spell List. Gaining a Class Feature changes the character, not the class itself.

You don't need to imply anything from rules. Look at the rules and do as they say. The rules are expressly stated.

The problem is that you do not do as the rules say. The class states that the character can cast any spell that is on their list on the levels they have access to. Advanced Learning states that the additional spell is added to that character's list and can be cast just like any other spell on the list. That only allows two valid interpretations: Either Spells Known are for a Dread Necromancer identical to their list, or (which is functionally the same) Dread Necromancers do not need a seperate Spells Known thing and simply cast from their personalized list, which is what everybody was going with anyway until you started to insist that a Dread Necromancer had a seperate Spells Known trait and that a houserule was needed to achieve what the class already did and everybody else understood.
Now how about you go read what the Dread Necromancer says for a change and stop harping about what you think it says in this thread?

[Mordante]

50% of the die + 1 instead of rolling for hp. So many groups and GM's I know hate how rolling for HP can mess up a character. So a barbarian would get 6+1 or 7 hp per level. Wizards get 2+1 or 3 per level. All of this is prior to adding one's con modifier to to total.

I have never seen this. What we normally is the first 2 to 4 levels everyone gets max HP. After that we roll.

[Mordante]

I've known a lot of people who handle critical hit damage by rolling once and multiplying it, rather than by rolling multiple times.

We play like that. It safes a lot of time. There really is no point in rolling again.

[Mordante]

Fractional BaB/Saves?

I didn't realize it was an optional/non-standard rules for years. Not sure how wide spread it is but I could see it easily being interpreted that way by accident.

We don't do that in my group, most players find it over complicated.

[Mordante]

That's the problem I've had with many games that do it that way. As far as I've experienced, they simply do not consider this at all! It's as if many DMs and players just don't ever consider item creation or spells with xp costs. I can only surmise that at a lot of tables, the players simply don't ever try item crafting.

I have been playing D&D for a few years now anything from lvl 1 to lvl 17 characters. I don't think I have had someone create a item, use a scroll or pearl of power.

Creating items takes a lot of time, time that can be spend adventuring or getting drunk in a bar.

[RandomPeasant]

That is a simile, a form of figurative language. Figurative language is not literal.

So rules don't count if they use "like" or "as" in them? Can you point me to the place where it says that? Because this seems like pretty desperate reaching to avoid admitting that the ability does not work the way you're insisting it works.


Advanced Learning doesn't even add to the Dread Necromancer's Spell List. Gaining a Class Feature changes the character, not the class itself.

Again, what do you possibly think phrases like "a dread necromancer can add a new spell to her list" and "it is added to that dread necromancer's spell list" mean if not that the spell is added to the Dread Necromancer's Spell List? Is there some other list that is neither her list of spells known nor her spell list to which the spell is added? Is the phrase "spell list" a metaphor for something other than her spell list?


You don't need to imply anything from rules. Look at the rules and do as they say. The rules are expressly stated.

Yes, and they expressly state that the spell is "it is added to that dread necromancer's spell list". Yet you have expressly stated that this is not what happens.

[Maat Mons]

If you roll critical hit damage multiple times, it makes the results cluster more towards the average. If you roll once and multiply, it makes extreme results more common. It changes the whole shape of the probability distribution.

[AnimeTheCat]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but the most common house rule I see is that monks are given proficiency with unarmed strikes.


By a literal reading of the rules, they don't, as it's not on their list of weapon proficencies. Unarmed strike is listed on the table of simple weapons.

I suspect WotC never bothered to errata it because it's so blindingly obvious that they're intended to be proficient, but according to strict RAW, they're not.


Not all creatures are proficient with natural weapons, actually - it's a trait of the Type. Most of the 'expected to be vaguely humanoid' Types (fey, outsiders, monstrous humanoids..) actually just say something like 'proficient with (simple/martial) weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry' (which covers any natural weapons they.. uh.. naturally.. have so you don't get the Monk Unarmed Strike issue for racial claws or horns or whatever.) That's why Druid specifically calls out that they are proficient with the natural weapons of anything they Wild Shape into, the expected player races don't get generic natural weapon proficiency.

The 'proficient with anything in their entry' clause could reasonably be stretched to cover Monks with Unarmed Strike, because if you wrote up a monster entry for a Monk it would have Unarmed Strike as at least one attack option.. but Humanoids don't even get that. It's just 'Simple weapons or by class'.

I'll give my 2 cp on this.

Unarmed Strikes are not weapons. Here's my evidence to support this:


Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, headbutt, or other type of attack. A small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the improved unarmed strike feat can deal lethal damage or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
An unarmed strikes is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat (page 102) to apply your dexterity modifier instead of your strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike

So, an unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and it's damage is considered weapon damage, but this verbiage is not like any other actual weapon anywhere in the game. If you look at other weapons that deal nonlethal damage, such as the whip or sap, they don't say "The damage is considered weapon damage", they just leave it as "Deals nonlethal damage". Furthermore, there's these two lines to consider:

Weapon Categories
Melee and Ranged Weapons: Melee weapons are use for making melee attacks...

Standard Actions
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.

Melee Attacks: with a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet...

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and headbutts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

So, Melee weapons are for making melee attacks. Unarmed strikes are distinctly not melee attacks, as they get their own distinct section in the attacks section. If an unarmed strike does not meet the requirements to be considered a weapon, there is no proficiency penalty for using one without being proficient, as it isn't a weapon so you don't need proficiency.

The worst case scenario is that unarmed strikes are improvised weapons, but that doesn't track either because improvised weapons aren't getting their own whole series of paragraphs in the combat section. Before someone mentions that the unarmed strikes sections don't mention anything about proficiency, neither do the melee attacks section. The only place proficiency is discussed is the weapons section, of which I'm asserting that unarmed strikes are not. They may be considered weapons for damage and feats, but are not themselves weapons.

I'll also just end this by saying that I think at some point someone went looking for problems with the game, and started finding them everywhere because they were specifically looking for problems, not solutions. I think the logic follows for all of this stuff without any sort of mental gymnastics because I assume the system functions, I don't assume that it is nonfunctional. Call it a fallacy or whatever, but the rules as they exist support unarmed strikes not needing any sort of proficiency, because they are not weapons, they are unarmed strikes, and they aren't used to make melee attacks (as melee weapons are), but for making unarmed attacks. Melee weapons are for Melee Attacks, unarmed strikes are for unarmed attacks.

[Tzardok]

@AnimeTheCat

Wonderful explanation for what I believed, but never before was able to put into words. Thank you. :smallsmile:

[Quertus]

If you roll critical hit damage multiple times, it makes the results cluster more towards the average. If you roll once and multiply, it makes extreme results more common. It changes the whole shape of the probability distribution.

"GM, I'm not going to roll 3d6 for stats - I'm just going to roll 1d6, and multiply the result by 3, OK?"

[Ghen]

"An unarmed strikes is always considered a light weapon" seems to undermine the whole argument rather than support it to me, but whatever. If characters don't need proficiency to fight unarmed, it sure would make barfights less expensive for the owners of the establishment. Breaking off a chair leg for an improvised weapon suddenly makes a lot less sense if it means you'll be missing more often than everyone else.

[AnimeTheCat]

"An unarmed strikes is always considered a light weapon" seems to undermine the whole argument rather than support it to me, but whatever. If characters don't need proficiency to fight unarmed, it sure would make barfights less expensive for the owners of the establishment. Breaking off a chair leg for an improvised weapon suddenly makes a lot less sense if it means you'll be missing more often than everyone else.

It goes on to expand on considering it a light weapon, such as for Weapon Finesse.

As for bar fights, it depends on whether you want to deal lethal or nonlethal damage. If you want to deal lethal damage without proper training, you'll take a -4 penalty, just like if you were using a broken bar stool or bottle. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[Thurbane]

Interesting to see the amount of crossover between a Common House Rules thread and the Dysfunctional Rules threads.

Thanks WotC. :smallbiggrin:

I always wondered why, if they actually cared about the product, player base and avoiding looking foolish, they didn't just recruit a small core of playtesters from various online D&D forums. Most would be happy to do it on a volunteer basis, and it would pick up far more rules conflicts and unintended consequences than having a massive, faceless staff who all had slightly different understandings of the basic and specific RAW.

Still, as a corporate entity, WotC ultimately has one goal: profit for the shareholders. Pump out product, and hope for sales.

I like to think, though, that the individual devs (or at least most of them) cared about the game and the player base...

[Maat Mons]

I've long had the suspicion that no one involved in 3rd edition playtesting actually understood that their job was to seek out problems.

I'm imagining the hypothetical scenario of the optimization community being brought in to help with 3e playtesting. And the only outcome that seems remotely likely is the people at Wizards telling them to "stop trying to break the rules."

I wonder what would happen if you went up to a software tester at work and angrily told them to "stop trying to crash the program." Actually, no I don't wonder. They'd definitely laugh in your face.

[Elves]

And the only outcome that seems remotely likely is the people at Wizards telling them to "stop trying to break the rules."
That's what happens in 5e today, so...

[tyckspoon]

I've long had the suspicion that no one involved in 3rd edition playtesting actually understood that their job was to seek out problems.


A lot of the original references are disappearing into the abyss of internet rot (blogs and forum posts that no longer exist, interview transcripts posted to defunct websites, etc) but.. basically this. The system was not playtested with the purpose of banging on the walls and trying to find out what happened if you tried to walk through the edge of the world or bought 9,999 chickens into the dungeon with you. It was playtested primarily with the goal of checking to see if the new rules could be used to play a game that felt a lot like 2nd Edition (..well. For whichever version of the game you thought 2nd Edition was, there were a lot of variants of D&D and options books that significantly changed it.)

[RandomPeasant]

Where it was playtested, 3e was playtested pretty well. It's just that A) 3e was only aggressively playtested at very low levels and B) they stopped playtesting by the release of 3.5. So if you look at stuff like "how do skills work at 3rd level" or "how balanced are classes at 2nd level" or "does multiclassing produce sane results at 4th level" or "does a 1st level party fit to the encounter guidelines properly", the answers are all positive. The issue is that as you get out of that level band stuff starts breaking. Multiclassed characters stop being level-appropriate. Mages diverge massively from mundanes. WBL falls behind necessary gear. The skill system goes nuts. But the things that WotC did test, they tested well enough to ensure they aren't broken.

[Karl Aegis]

The problem is that you do not do as the rules say. The class states that the character can cast any spell that is on their list on the levels they have access to. Advanced Learning states that the additional spell is added to that character's list and can be cast just like any other spell on the list. That only allows two valid interpretations: Either Spells Known are for a Dread Necromancer identical to their list, or (which is functionally the same) Dread Necromancers do not need a seperate Spells Known thing and simply cast from their personalized list, which is what everybody was going with anyway until you started to insist that a Dread Necromancer had a seperate Spells Known trait and that a houserule was needed to achieve what the class already did and everybody else understood.
Now how about you go read what the Dread Necromancer says for a change and stop harping about what you think it says in this thread?

My copy of Heroes of Horror says Spells Known do exist and the Dread Necromancer can cast spells they know. Your copy must be different.


So rules don't count if they use "like" or "as" in them? Can you point me to the place where it says that? Because this seems like pretty desperate reaching to avoid admitting that the ability does not work the way you're insisting it works.

Again, what do you possibly think phrases like "a dread necromancer can add a new spell to her list" and "it is added to that dread necromancer's spell list" mean if not that the spell is added to the Dread Necromancer's Spell List? Is there some other list that is neither her list of spells known nor her spell list to which the spell is added? Is the phrase "spell list" a metaphor for something other than her spell list?

Yes, and they expressly state that the spell is "it is added to that dread necromancer's spell list". Yet you have expressly stated that this is not what happens.

Advanced Learning modifies the character, not the class.

Spells known are drawn from the class, not the character.

[Ghen]

Karl Aegis, Tzardok, RandomPeasant and whoever else weighed in on this.

The discussion has played out. Can't we all just agree to disagree and move on? It's obvious nobody is changing anyone's mind here and that's okay. I've never read into Dread Necro or this feat but I'm considering house-ruling them out just to avoid the headache lol.

[Tzardok]

Don't worry; I'm sick of beating my head against this specific wall. Let him believe that he's won; I won't waste anymore time arguing.

[RandomPeasant]

My copy of Heroes of Horror says Spells Known do exist and the Dread Necromancer can cast spells they know. Your copy must be different.

Okay. You agree they can cast spells they known. Therefore, for them to be able to cast spells from Advanced Learning, they must know those spells. So where is the text that says that something other than adding the spell to their list is what causes them to start knowing it?

[Quertus]

Spells known are drawn from the class, not the character.

… are you sure? When Quertus learns Magic Missile, that becomes a spell known, as part of the character, not the class, right? Am I misunderstanding your statement here?

[Calthropstu]

My copy of Heroes of Horror says Spells Known do exist and the Dread Necromancer can cast spells they know. Your copy must be different.



Advanced Learning modifies the character, not the class.

Spells known are drawn from the class, not the character.

I looked up dread necro and 2 online sources had the same thing. It mentions spells known and "like a sorcerer" which has a spell known list, but no spell known list is provided. Looking closer, there is this line:

When a dread necromancer gains access to a new level of spells, she automatically knows all the spells for that level given on the dread necromancer's spell list.

If you truly want to be an obnoxious prick, you could split hairs and state "you only get that access when you gain the new spell level and so adding to the list doesn't trigger knowing the spell." Technically accurate, and solveable by negative levels and restoration.

A bit silly but...

[RandomPeasant]

I actually think that's a perfectly valid interpretation of the rules. A very literal reading of the spells ability suggests that you only get the "learn the spells on your list" effect when you level up. That would stop the "learn spells added to your list" stuff Karl claims is not RAW, and also things like Versatile Spellcaster. But, crucially, it would make Advanced Learning dysfunctional. Unless you're willing to bite that bullet, I don't see how you can get adding spells to a Dread Necromancer's list to not make it possible for her to cast them. Because that's the effect Advanced Learning has, and that's the result it produces, and no one has yet produced any rules that get around this. So until Karl can do that, I don't see that it's worth engaging with him anymore. Maybe he is right, but if he can't prove he's right by quoting the rules (especially when the other side has), that's not meaningfully different from him being wrong.

[RedMage125]

I'm actually surprised to learn that one of my house rules is so common.

I do max hp at level 2, and after that let them roll, with a minimum of (avg +0.5).

The only other surprise was the person who said that they had never encountered people NOT using multiclass penalties. I have only seen someone USE them once. And that guy, during the course of the campaign. Said he was going to never use that rule again, because it was such a pain for calculating xp.

I have a few house rules, but I don't know how common they are:

I adopted 4e's rule on healing from negative hp. Which is, as soon as healing is applied, hp starts at 0 and then adds the healing.. So, let's say Fighter has -7 hp. Cleric uses Cure Light Wounds, but rolls a 1, so a max cure of 6. Instead of being at -1, that fighter is now at 6 hp. This means the cleric player does now feel they wasted their turn, and the Fighter does not spend another round of combat doing nothing.

I also use PF rules for item creation, even running 3.5e, just because spending xp is trash. I get the theory behind it (investing your personal energy), but it's a mechanic that does not add to fun.

[Karl Aegis]

Okay. You agree they can cast spells they known. Therefore, for them to be able to cast spells from Advanced Learning, they must know those spells. So where is the text that says that something other than adding the spell to their list is what causes them to start knowing it?

The clause is: "Once a spell is selected, it can be cast" (Heroes of Horror, Page 86). There is no mystery as to why they can cast it, they just can.

[rel]

I'm actually surprised to learn that one of my house rules is so common.

I do max hp at level 2, and after that let them roll, with a minimum of (avg +0.5).

The only other surprise was the person who said that they had never encountered people NOT using multiclass penalties. I have only seen someone USE them once. And that guy, during the course of the campaign. Said he was going to never use that rule again, because it was such a pain for calculating xp.

I have a few house rules, but I don't know how common they are:

I adopted 4e's rule on healing from negative hp. Which is, as soon as healing is applied, hp starts at 0 and then adds the healing.. So, let's say Fighter has -7 hp. Cleric uses Cure Light Wounds, but rolls a 1, so a max cure of 6. Instead of being at -1, that fighter is now at 6 hp. This means the cleric player does now feel they wasted their turn, and the Fighter does not spend another round of combat doing nothing.

I also use PF rules for item creation, even running 3.5e, just because spending xp is trash. I get the theory behind it (investing your personal energy), but it's a mechanic that does not add to fun.

We've always used multiclass penalties.

That healing from negatives rule seems like it would result in a lot of characters with die hard...

[Zarvistic]

The clause is: "Once a spell is selected, it can be cast" (Heroes of Horror, Page 86). There is no mystery as to why they can cast it, they just can.
Are you roleplaying The Riddler?

[Thurbane]

I do so love when the back and forth on a particular rules argument between a small handful of posters people completely derails an otherwise interesting thread.

[umbergod]

Removing the spellcaster requirements for taking ranks in craft (alchemy) is a big one for me

[ciopo]

Removing the spellcaster requirements for taking ranks in craft (alchemy) is a big one for me
The what now

[Arkhios]

I don't think ignoring multiclass penalties is as common as people on these boards think - I have never met it off the boards...
(That doesn't stop it being a good rule, just not as common as expected.)

Wow, really? I've never played with anyone who enforced it.

Same here. The only place where I've ever seen or heard this house rule being mentioned or used is right here on this forum, and not all that often.

Personally, I don't mind using the rule. But then again, I'm of the same opinion as my usual DM: Pathfinder is D&D 3.5 for babies. :smalltongue:
From a character development point of view I'd say multiclassing XP penalties is as good a way to enforce restrictions to the amount of classes you can have as any.

[Tzardok]

The what now

I think umbergod got confused about the fact that most (practically all) alchemical items require being a spellcaster in addition to having ranks in craft (alchemy).

[AnimeTheCat]

I think umbergod got confused about the fact that most (practically all) alchemical items require being a spellcaster in addition to having ranks in craft (alchemy).

That is incorrect. The crafting rules specifically state that you must be a spellcaster to use Craft (Alchemy):

Special:...
To make an item using Craft (alchemy), you must have alchemical equipment and be a spellcaster.

[Tzardok]

That is incorrect. The crafting rules specifically state that you must be a spellcaster to use Craft (Alchemy):

But they don't state that you need to be a spellcaster to take ranks in craft (alchemy). You just can't craft anything with those ranks if you aren't.

[AnimeTheCat]

But they don't state that you need to be a spellcaster to take ranks in craft (alchemy). You just can't craft anything with those ranks if you aren't.

oh, right. forgive me. I'll tell everyone that I had it wrong this whole time and that they could have put their multitude of extra skill points in to a skill they can't use. They'll be sure to thank me. /s

[Tzardok]

Every day a good deed. :smallamused::smalltongue:

[RandomPeasant]

The clause is: "Once a spell is selected, it can be cast" (Heroes of Horror, Page 86). There is no mystery as to why they can cast it, they just can.

{Scrubbed} The line you appear to be quoting from (as it is the only one in Advanced Learning that includes the phrases you are using) is "Once a new spell is selected, it is added to that dread necromancer's spell list and can be cast just like any other spell she knows.". You are quite correct that there is no mystery here, but that's because the line explicitly says that the spell A) is added to the spell list and B) is therefore a spell known. This is, notably, the opposite of your position.

{Scrubbed}


I do so love when the back and forth on a particular rules argument between a small handful of posters people completely derails an otherwise interesting thread.

{Scrubbed}


From a character development point of view I'd say multiclassing XP penalties is as good a way to enforce restrictions to the amount of classes you can have as any.

{Scrubbed}D&D character classes don't perfectly represent character concepts. If your concept happens to involve multiple base classes, that shouldn't result in a penalty for you.

[Gnaeus]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} D&D character classes don't perfectly represent character concepts. If your concept happens to involve multiple base classes, that shouldn't result in a penalty for you.

And for the most part (old argument I know) the people who want 7 classes are the people who need 7 classes. Druid 20 or Wiz 5/prc1 5/prc2 10 were never impacted, and are still stronger than the fighter/ranger/Barbarian/cleric/hexblade/kensei/…..

[ciopo]

it's funny when actual dips (1/2 levels) don't actual incur multiclassing penalties, unless there is a runaway base class (that isn't the favored).

[Starbuck_II]

I'm actually surprised to learn that one of my house rules is so common.

I do max hp at level 2, and after that let them roll, with a minimum of (avg +0.5).

The only other surprise was the person who said that they had never encountered people NOT using multiclass penalties. I have only seen someone USE them once. And that guy, during the course of the campaign. Said he was going to never use that rule again, because it was such a pain for calculating xp.

I have a few house rules, but I don't know how common they are:

I adopted 4e's rule on healing from negative hp. Which is, as soon as healing is applied, hp starts at 0 and then adds the healing.. So, let's say Fighter has -7 hp. Cleric uses Cure Light Wounds, but rolls a 1, so a max cure of 6. Instead of being at -1, that fighter is now at 6 hp. This means the cleric player does now feel they wasted their turn, and the Fighter does not spend another round of combat doing nothing.

I also use PF rules for item creation, even running 3.5e, just because spending xp is trash. I get the theory behind it (investing your personal energy), but it's a mechanic that does not add to fun.

Wait, max at 2nd, but not at 1st?

Huh, healing negative ruling from0 seems weird, but cool idea.

[Efrate]

I think every DM i have had has used multiclass xp penalties. Including PrCs. Reason i try to stick to human or use base +1 PrC. Most my players never prc so I have not had to do it. I do not think I would however.

[ciopo]

I think every DM i have had has used multiclass xp penalties. Including PrCs. Reason i try to stick to human or use base +1 PrC. Most my players never prc so I have not had to do it. I do not think I would however.

so he houseruled that PrC incurs multiclass penalties? ouch

[RandomPeasant]

And for the most part (old argument I know) the people who want 7 classes are the people who need 7 classes. Druid 20 or Wiz 5/prc1 5/prc2 10 were never impacted, and are still stronger than the fighter/ranger/Barbarian/cleric/hexblade/kensei/…..

Yeah. I actually meant to mention that (though as noted, going all in on dips avoids the issue). The base rule also doesn't stop PrC dipping, which is honestly probably more of a thematic fail than base class dipping. Lot easier to explain "I'm a woodsman and also a berzerker" than "I'm a member of these eight specific organizations, none of which I have interacted with in-game".

[Calthropstu]

But they don't state that you need to be a spellcaster to take ranks in craft (alchemy). You just can't craft anything with those ranks if you aren't.

I was going to make a crafty comment, but decided to utilize my ranks in kraft(cheese) to make a joke.

[Thunder999]

The difference between not being able to craft and not being able to take the ranks does matter, it means if you're starting with a level of rogue for arcane trickster or similar you can still put 4 ranks in at level 1 even though you're not a caster yet.

[Kaleph]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Actually it's more two posts per page too much.

[Calthropstu]

oh, right. forgive me. I'll tell everyone that I had it wrong this whole time and that they could have put their multitude of extra skill points in to a skill they can't use. They'll be sure to thank me. /s

Actually, there is a use for craft alchemy outside of crafting. You can identify alchemical concoctions.

[Thurbane]

Actually, there is a use for craft alchemy outside of crafting. You can identify alchemical concoctions.

Several of the Combat Trapsmith's traps have crafting reqs of Craft (alchemy) ranks.

[ciopo]

mentioned recently in another thread, and makign this tangentially a houserule , don't know if common, but :

horses occupying 2 squares and not 4 :D

[RandomPeasant]

IIRC, that's how it worked back in 3.0. I'm not entirely certain why they changed it. There are a number of things that were changed from 3.0 to 3.5 for no particular reason, and I imagine that many people who started with 3.0 default to the version they learned initially.

[Maat Mons]

3.5 got rid of all non-square creature spaces. I think it was aimed at simplifying things. 3.0 non-square-spaced creatures had a sort of pseudo "facing" mechanic, in a system that otherwise didn't track which direction anyone was turned. Personally, I was happy to no longer have to remember the special rules for moving and turning that used to exist for those unusually-spaced creatures.

[Tzardok]

IIRC, that's how it worked back in 3.0. I'm not entirely certain why they changed it. There are a number of things that were changed from 3.0 to 3.5 for no particular reason, and I imagine that many people who started with 3.0 default to the version they learned initially.

I would guess for simplicity's sake. In 3.0 every creature bigger than medium had their own area, which could differ quite a lot even in the same size (I think I remember a Gargantuan worm thing with an area that had one 2 fields long side). In 3.5 that's a lot more unified. Also it doesn't force you to use the rules about where a creature is facing. If a horse takes 2 fields, the long sides have to be the sides of the animal and the rider needs to face, logically, one of the short sides. With a 4 field horse, a rider could look and turn in any direction without having to leave his horse's area and spending movement, just like a character on foot can.

[ciopo]

When I first read about "horses take 2x2 squares" about couple hours ago, I promptly asked about it on the group chat with the people I play 3.5 with, they directed me to check in the mosnter manual, they were adamant its 1x2.

I checked in the monster manuals, both 3.5 and 3.0, but I can't find mention of it.

I didn't dig too deeply tho.

[Tzardok]

When I first read about "horses take 2x2 squares" about couple hours ago, I promptly asked about it on the group chat with the people I play 3.5 with, they directed me to check in the mosnter manual, they were adamant its 1x2.

I checked in the monster manuals, both 3.5 and 3.0, but I can't find mention of it.

I didn't dig too deeply tho.

Every creature has an entry in it's description called Face/Reach. In 3.0 Face gives the length of the sides of the area the creature fills. The horse's entry, for example, says 10 ft. by 5 ft. In 3.5 all Face entries have only one number, as the areas are always square, so the horse's entry simply says 10 ft.

[Arkhios]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} D&D character classes don't perfectly represent character concepts. If your concept happens to involve multiple base classes, that shouldn't result in a penalty for you.

Splitting your focus has to have consequences. Whether it's being worse at what your class A, B, or C might be at higher level than a mix of classes A, B, and C at an equivalent character level, or taking a small penalty to your ability to divide your acquired experience. My point is that some multiclass combinations are better than some single classes are, but to keep that from getting out of hand (in effect, from cherry-picking all the best parts from a ridiculously numerous and often inherently strange combination of classes), threat of slowing down your experience gain is a good way to enforce you to think whether and when you should multiclass.

What I'm NOT saying is that optimization would prevent roleplaying, or other way around. But, I'm saying that there are written-in implications in your chosen classes, and try as you might, some of them just don't mix well in a way that makes sense.

Besides, I love the extra challenge of trying to avoid the Exp Penalties when I'm building characters, even if only for fun.

I also don't care if this is a topic that has been discussed to death and the "wise and experienced" forumites have reached some arbitrary consensus. It's my opinion, and I'm entitled to have one.

But, you do you, I guess. Doesn't mean I'm wrong if you don't agree with me, and vice versa.

[Thurbane]

As mentioned, in 3.0 horses were specifically 1x2. Here's a snapshot of of templates from A&EG (we printed and laminated these for use in our games):

https://i.imgur.com/hz5kRGa.png

In 3.5, horses were explicitly 2x2, like all other large creatures.

https://i.imgur.com/dvaISBa.jpg

[rrwoods]

try as you might, some of them just don't mix well in a way that makes sense.
True! Those are the ones where the class features don’t complement one another.

[Batcathat]

Splitting your focus has to have consequences. Whether it's being worse at what your class A, B, or C might be at higher level than a mix of classes A, B, and C at an equivalent character level, or taking a small penalty to your ability to divide your acquired experience. My point is that some multiclass combinations are better than some single classes are, but to keep that from getting out of hand (in effect, from cherry-picking all the best parts from a ridiculously numerous and often inherently strange combination of classes), threat of slowing down your experience gain is a good way to enforce you to think whether and when you should multiclass.

While I agree that some class-combinations make very little sense from an in-universe perspective, I'm not sure this is the best sollution as it punishes the combos that make perfect sense equally.

[sreservoir]

3.5 got rid of all non-square creature spaces. I think it was aimed at simplifying things. 3.0 non-square-spaced creatures had a sort of pseudo "facing" mechanic, in a system that otherwise didn't track which direction anyone was turned. Personally, I was happy to no longer have to remember the special rules for moving and turning that used to exist for those unusually-spaced creatures.

In exchange, 3.5e introduced the "squeezing movement" mechanic, so now you can fit any large creature into 2x1, at a penalty. They're, uh, not necessarily fully thought out, though? You kind of get the impression that nobody in testing really tried bringing their mule into a dungeon, equipment entry notwithstanding.

[Particle_Man]

I don't know if this counts as a house rule, but one common rule I have encountered is a blanket "no evil player characters". And yes I am familiar with the defence of evil PCs on these message boards - I am talking about what I encounter a lot in games I play or run.

[Thurbane]

My usual guideline when I DM, unless it is specifically an evil-themed campaign, is no Evil or CN characters (CN is too often played as Evil-lite).

Additionally, no True Neutral characters unless you are a Druid, or a divine caster who worships a True Neutral deity.

To be honest, these rules are pretty redundant anyway, since my players don't generally roleplay as problematic characters, and I don't use alignment as a straight jacket for characters to dictate their actions.

[NullInternet]

Additionally, no True Neutral characters unless you are a Druid, or a divine caster who worships a True Neutral deity.
If I may ask, why bar True Neutral? I mean, someone's character genuinely might not be all that strongly aligned towards either end of either axis.

[Thurbane]

If I may ask, why bar True Neutral? I mean, someone's character genuinely might not be all that strongly aligned towards either end of either axis.

I think it's because myself and a couple of others in my gaming group started in 1E, and I'm pretty sure that was a rule back then (only Druids could be True Neutral). It kind of just stuck with us.

TBH, I'm not sure it serves any purpose other than flavour/nostalgia.

[RexDart]

IIRC, the 1e rule was "Druids may only be True Neutral," not "Only Druids may be True Neutral."

[Thurbane]

IIRC, the 1e rule was "Druids may only be True Neutral," not "Only Druids may be True Neutral."

So that may have also been a house rule for us, even back then. On closer inspection, looks like the restriction was only for Clerics:


* a cleric cannot be true neutral unless of the druid subclass

Although, there is this (section on Druids):


They are the only absolute neutrals (see ALIGNMENT), viewing good and evil, law and chaos, as balancing forces of nature which are necessary for the continuation of all things

...so it's pretty easy to see where we got the idea from.

[Particle_Man]

Sort of a Venn diagram with an outer circle of true neutral containing an inner circle of Druidic absolute true neutral. Outside of the outer circle you may find clerics. 😀

[Starbuck_II]

My usual guideline when I DM, unless it is specifically an evil-themed campaign, is no Evil or CN characters (CN is too often played as Evil-lite).

Additionally, no True Neutral characters unless you are a Druid, or a divine caster who worships a True Neutral deity.

To be honest, these rules are pretty redundant anyway, since my players don't generally roleplay as problematic characters, and I don't use alignment as a straight jacket for characters to dictate their actions.

Why not evil?

[Calthropstu]

Why not evil?

Most players, especially back in the day, wanted to play heroic high fantasy, which was derailed by having evil party members.

I have only seen a few people who could play evil and not be total douchenozzles to the rest of the people at the table.

To be honest, any table I have been at that permitted evil characters turned out to be pretty awful.

[GeoffWatson]

If I may ask, why bar True Neutral? I mean, someone's character genuinely might not be all that strongly aligned towards either end of either axis.

In 1e True Neutral was for crazy hate-all-extreme-alignments characters, who were supposed to switch sides to attack whichever of the extreme alignments was winning. This was extremely stupid, and usually ignored, but comes up occasionally. (eg the big bad in Record of Lodoss War was this type of Neutral.)

[Efrate]

I get restricting alignments to the goods and LN. It forces engagement. You cannot do evil lite CN, or I do not care I am TN, so you have at least alturism as good, or a code of honor to not just murder hobo everything. And stops the edgelord my character does not know them he would never work with them, so that character goes off and dies alobe.

I have seen even good RPers and players gey sucked in by 'my character is TN so he would not care a random village is being attacked. Does not affect him unless he is there.' Which is a way to really kill a lot of plot hooks. For any RP or social heavy game where the best answer is not I kill it with fire! I see a point.

If players are that uninterested or engaged with stories an ooc conversation about improvements is likely necessary, but if running a module it can be much harder especially if they missed that one clue or NPC. Nothing wrong with playing kick in the door murder hobo style games, but deeper stuff oft needs a seperate mentality and precludes certain alignment.

Also for house rules, generally no infinite no arbitrary, and a tacit agreement to not destroy or disjunct on both sides. Also whatever my players try to pull I can generally allow, but they know thay if they do it so can I, and I will likely do it better.

[Batcathat]

I have seen even good RPers and players gey sucked in by 'my character is TN so he would not care a random village is being attacked. Does not affect him unless he is there.' Which is a way to really kill a lot of plot hooks. For any RP or social heavy game where the best answer is not I kill it with fire! I see a point.

I think the question is whether it's the players' obligation to bite at any plot hooks or the GM's obligation to create plot hooks that make sense for the characters in the party. It probably doesn't have an easy answer (or rather, the answer is probably "a bit of both") but banning any characters that aren't goody two shoes enough seems odd to me. But to each their own, I guess.

[Tzardok]

I agree with Batcathat. Some time ago I played a NE bard in group of mostly good and neutral characters and we meshed quite well. My character was kept in-line by promisses of riches and by his pride: he fancied himself the leader of the group and the only one who could keep "those morons" on target. No need for murder hoboing.

[Calthropstu]

I get restricting alignments to the goods and LN. It forces engagement. You cannot do evil lite CN, or I do not care I am TN, so you have at least alturism as good, or a code of honor to not just murder hobo everything. And stops the edgelord my character does not know them he would never work with them, so that character goes off and dies alobe.

I have seen even good RPers and players gey sucked in by 'my character is TN so he would not care a random village is being attacked. Does not affect him unless he is there.' Which is a way to really kill a lot of plot hooks. For any RP or social heavy game where the best answer is not I kill it with fire! I see a point.

If players are that uninterested or engaged with stories an ooc conversation about improvements is likely necessary, but if running a module it can be much harder especially if they missed that one clue or NPC. Nothing wrong with playing kick in the door murder hobo style games, but deeper stuff oft needs a seperate mentality and precludes certain alignment.

Also for house rules, generally no infinite no arbitrary, and a tacit agreement to not destroy or disjunct on both sides. Also whatever my players try to pull I can generally allow, but they know thay if they do it so can I, and I will likely do it better.

TN would most certainly care that a villiage was being attacked. Where TN stops caring is when it comes out that the villiage elder had a baby dragon killed and the dragon parent set these bandits to enact revenge. These guys brought this upon themselves is most definitely a tn way of thinking.

TN is MOST PEOPLE. People care about justice, people care about laws, people care about death and destruction and will generally take actions to prevent it. Depending on scale, they may even give their lives.

TN is not "I don't care." TN is "I care and will help, but I have a family to take care of back home."

[Efrate]

From SRD on Neutral:

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Emphasis mine. Helping others is good. Neutral has NOTHING to do with that. Most people want to look out for themselves, their family and get through to tomorrow. It stops there. Unless it is going to affect them directly they just go on with THEIR life. They have no duty, desire or what-have-you to help a random village that is not theirs. Asking more than that is the purveyance of good not neutral. They might hope something gets done, but they have no incentive or inclination to help unless its directly affecting them. A good(not the alignment good) idea is not to get involved in problems that are not yours. Not to risk your life to help others. Most people fall into that. Hence why most people do not seek fame and fortune as adventurers.

I see prohibiting that attitude as reasonable for people you want engaged. They have no reason to assist or help unless its directly in their sphere of influence. Again ideally this is handled ooc and falls on the shoulders of players and DMs, and they work together to make it not matter, but it is just a way to help enforce status quo.

[Tzardok]

Every neutral character that goes on adventures will have something to motivate them; otherwise they wouldn't go on an adventure. It would just be something more personal than, for example, "Help the needy". It is the player's duty to develop and communicate this motivation. It's the DM's duty to engage it. That's not any different from characters of any other alignment.

[Calthropstu]

Every neutral character that goes on adventures will have something to motivate them; otherwise they wouldn't go on an adventure. It would just be something more personal than, for example, "Help the needy". It is the player's duty to develop and communicate this motivation. It's the DM's duty to engage it. That's not any different from characters of any other alignment.

I" adventure because I want to live a grand lifestyle. I want to matter. I want people to respect, adore and even fear me because I have gotten strong. I don't want to change the world, I just want a piece of it to call my own."

"I adventure because I want to see the world and beyond. I want to see all the things I read about for myself."

"I adventure because it's my job."

"I adventure to keep my family safe, and someone has to kill those monsters or they will one day destroy the town."

"I adventure because I want to eat lots ofdelicious foods from all over the world!"

All of these are TN motivations. They don't need special engagement.

CN is just as easy to engage. The Journey of Elaina is a good example of a TN bordering on CN adventurer.

[RexDart]

There are a lot of good guides to playing alignments properly without being stupid about it here:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread

[Tzardok]

I" adventure because I want to live a grand lifestyle. I want to matter. I want people to respect, adore and even fear me because I have gotten strong. I don't want to change the world, I just want a piece of it to call my own."

"I adventure because I want to see the world and beyond. I want to see all the things I read about for myself."

"I adventure because it's my job."

"I adventure to keep my family safe, and someone has to kill those monsters or they will one day destroy the town."

"I adventure because I want to eat lots ofdelicious foods from all over the world!"

All of these are TN motivations. They don't need special engagement.

CN is just as easy to engage. The Journey of Elaina is a good example of a TN bordering on CN adventurer.

Exactly. None of those motivations cause the character to inherently go "I don't care about your plothook". If the player still goes for "I don't care" just "because I'm True Neutral", then the player is doing it wrong.

[RandomPeasant]

Exactly. None of those motivations cause the character to inherently go "I don't care about your plothook". If the player still goes for "I don't care" just "because I'm True Neutral", then the player is doing it wrong.

Sure, but the player is still doing that. The point of alignment (insofar as it has a point at all) is to be a roleplaying aid. If True Neutral consistently fails to do that, it's reasonable to ban it even if it could theoretically be used in a positive way. The rules exist to help imperfect people create a better gaming experience. Saying "user error" when the rules produce bad results is only so useful. If something produces the same user error consistently, it is in fact broken, even if it can be used correctly.

[Batcathat]

Sure, but the player is still doing that. The point of alignment (insofar as it has a point at all) is to be a roleplaying aid. If True Neutral consistently fails to do that, it's reasonable to ban it even if it could theoretically be used in a positive way. The rules exist to help imperfect people create a better gaming experience. Saying "user error" when the rules produce bad results is only so useful. If something produces the same user error consistently, it is in fact broken, even if it can be used correctly.

It depends. If all the plot hooks are of a "go play hero out of the goodness of your heart" nature, I don't think the problem is the alignment. Or at least, no more than a Good alignment is the problem if the GM is offering nothing but "do bad things to people for money" hooks.

Then again, I'm of the opinion that alignments generally are somewhere between worthless and actively harmful as roleplaying aids, so I suppose I might not be the right person to speak on the matter.

[rel]

To be honest, any table I have been at that permitted evil characters turned out to be pretty awful.

Ironically, every table I've seen where the GM has banned certain alignments has turned out to be pretty awful.
Different strokes I guess.

[Arkhios]

To be honest, any table I have been at that permitted evil characters turned out to be pretty awful.

Ironically, every table I've seen where the GM has banned certain alignments has turned out to be pretty awful.
Different strokes I guess.

Incidentally, for both reasons, I've decided to leave out the whole concept of alignments in my games. I let players play their characters as they please, and the world reacts accordingly.
For example, if you decided that your character is an ass-hat, the world reacts appropriately and pays back in kind.

[rel]

Incidentally, for both reasons, I've decided to leave out the whole concept of alignments in my games. I let players play their characters as they please, and the world reacts accordingly.
For example, if you decided that your character is an ass-hat, the world reacts appropriately and pays back in kind.

I am increasingly convinced this is the best approach.

[Tzardok]

I personally like the Great Wheel and the idea of alignments as forces acting in the world too much to ever give up on alignments.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I am increasingly convinced this is the best approach.

I'm not sure about that, just for the mechanical crunch of it. Lots of abilities only work if the opponent is of another alignment, or differently according to the alignment. Having an alignment must not be a strict rule on what your character can or can't do, and anybody should be able to change the alignment of their character as they see fit, but having one is an interesting guideline on how your character feels to start roleplaying and invest yourself more than just Door-Monster-Treasure.

In both my last campaigns, there were evil characters in the party (one LE and one CE, of which one was me). That created tensions in the group, sure, but it was interesting tension, with good roleplaying and arguments in-character coming from it, not just "I kill the other party member just because he's a paladin".

About other houserules that I have seen quite a bit, I like the "metamagic reducers can't make you cast a spell higher than what you could have anyway". An arcane thesis invisible quickened fireball takes a 5th level slot, but cannot be cast before level 13

[Batcathat]

I'm not sure about that, just for the mechanical crunch of it. Lots of abilities only work if the opponent is of another alignment, or differently according to the alignment. Having an alignment must not be a strict rule on what your character can or can't do, and anybody should be able to change the alignment of their character as they see fit, but having one is an interesting guideline on how your character feels to start roleplaying and invest yourself more than just Door-Monster-Treasure.

I agree that there can be mechanical benefits from alignments, but I really doubt it helps roleplaying much. In my experience, the definition of each alignment is either narrow enough to be a straitjacket or too vague to really say anything meaningful about the character. If anything, I feel like it decreases initiative to actually create a unique character ("What's your character's personality?" "He's Chaotic Evil"). I'd rather each player take the time – even if it's as little as 30 seconds resulting in a single sentence – to come up with an individual description of their drive and morality.

But we probably shouldn't turn this into yet another "why alignments are good/bad" thread. Despite being a relative newcomer to the forums, I feel live I've participated in roughly a billion of those. :smallamused:

[Efrate]

The metamagic reducers thing I have seen used every time if someone takes persistent spell/DMM. Reduce all you want, you gotta have the ability to have the slot of the modified level available at least. So You can persist 3rd level spells max at level 17. You can cast it out of a third level slot with your reducers but if you do not have a the ability to have a 9th level slot you cannot persist it.
Same with most mailman stuff.

[Quertus]

But we probably shouldn't turn this into yet another "why alignments are good/bad" thread. Despite being a relative newcomer to the forums, I feel live I've participated in roughly a billion of those. :smallamused:

And that's just another reason why alignment is terrible - it leads to thread damage.

I'm not sure which I've seen more commonly: alignment restrictions, "no Paladins, no Kender", or no alignment.

But regarding alignment having mechanical value: would it still have the same mechanical value if it simply represented team jerseys, and my murderous hedonist was on the side of the Angels, while my orphanage benefactor chose team Lawful Evil for their benefits package?

[Beni-Kujaku]

And that's just another reason why alignment is terrible - it leads to thread damage.

I'm not sure which I've seen more commonly: alignment restrictions, "no Paladins, no Kender", or no alignment.

But regarding alignment having mechanical value: would it still have the same mechanical value if it simply represented team jerseys, and my murderous hedonist was on the side of the Angels, while my orphanage benefactor chose team Lawful Evil for their benefits package?

Pretty sure that debate belongs in another thread

[rel]

Alright, to bring things back on topic while remaining at least somewhat relevant, a house rule that is gaining popularity at my tables is

The alignment, racial and roleplay requirements and restrictions on classes, PRC's and feats are ignored.
You can have evil paladins, chaotic monks, non-elven arcane archers, red wizards who have never heard of Thay, dragonmarked characters that aren't even from Eberon, etc.

Has anyone else seen this sort of rule?

[Elves]

Alright, to bring things back on topic while remaining at least somewhat relevant, a house rule that is gaining popularity at my tables is

The alignment, racial and roleplay requirements and restrictions on classes, PRC's and feats are ignored.
You can have evil paladins, chaotic monks, non-elven arcane archers, red wizards who have never heard of Thay, dragonmarked characters that aren't even from Eberon, etc.

Has anyone else seen this sort of rule?

Setting specific fluff should absolutely be ignored outside that setting, unless it relates to a setting-specific mechanic (action points for Eberron).

[Thurbane]

Setting specific fluff should absolutely be ignored outside that setting, unless it relates to a setting-specific mechanic (action points for Eberron).

Agree 100%.

[Particle_Man]

Alright, to bring things back on topic while remaining at least somewhat relevant, a house rule that is gaining popularity at my tables is

The alignment, racial and roleplay requirements and restrictions on classes, PRC's and feats are ignored.
You can have evil paladins, chaotic monks, non-elven arcane archers, red wizards who have never heard of Thay, dragonmarked characters that aren't even from Eberon, etc.

Has anyone else seen this sort of rule?

I have seen a version of this with respect to races, if you have a background justifying it. So a dwarf that was raised by elves could be an arcane archer, for example.

[RexDart]

I have seen a version of this with respect to races, if you have a background justifying it. So a dwarf that was raised by elves could be an arcane archer, for example.

My DM has an interesting way of handling this that's either more or less restrictive, depending on how you look at it. Apart from a dozen base classes that are available to all, a bunch of base classes are race-restricted. For example, in his campaign, only dwarves can normally have the Artificer class. The exception is humans, who (due to their adaptability) are eligible for every racially-restricted class.

[RedMage125]

We've always used multiclass penalties.

That healing from negatives rule seems like it would result in a lot of characters with die hard...

No, because most people don't like that feat. When the party Frenzied Berserker got Deathless Frenzy, though, I made the point that he needed to be healed all the way up through negatives until he was above -10 for that to work on him. Which my player agreed was fair.


Wait, max at 2nd, but not at 1st?

Huh, healing negative ruling from0 seems weird, but cool idea.
Max at 1st isn't a House Rule...


My usual guideline when I DM, unless it is specifically an evil-themed campaign, is no Evil or CN characters (CN is too often played as Evil-lite).


Gosh, Thurbane, who hurt you? This just makes me want to bring one of my CN characters to your table, so you can see how it's not alignment that was the problem. it was a jerkbag player who wanted to use alignment as a scapegoat for his jerkbag behavior.

For example, Clain Windsong, CN Elf Bard. Clain wants to write the greatest epic ballad of all time, which will be repeated through the ages. And stories of heroes conquering evil are always the most popular. So he prefers to adventure with the righteous, heroic types. But there's a key difference. he doesn't actually care about other people that much. He wants the reputation, the fame, the recognition.
Orcs are raiding the nearby town? Clain would be the first person to volunteer the party to help. Town would like some help fixing buildings afterwards? No thanks. Clain is also a free spirit in other ways. He does enjoy wine, women and song. And he is fully aware that he has left a slew of half-elven illegitimate children in his wake. But in his words, "no one writes heroic ballads about responsible fathers who stayed at home and raised their children". He wants Glory, and he wants to be a part of Saving the World, or some kind of Defeating Evil. But in his heart of hearts, he really does not care about looking after people, making sure they are safe, happy...any of that.

Efrate posted the SRD's stance on Neutral. Clain still prefers Good over Evil in others. neutral tends to be a little selfish. Like most characters neutral on this axis, he would make sacrifices for those close to him. But not for strangers (unless it's VERY public). When it comes to "selfishness", the real distinction between Neutral and Evil is that he would prefer to not harm others, even if it means not getting his way. Evil characters don't care who they hurt in their selfish desires. Clain would refrain from such, and indeed, would be put off if someone suggested he do something like that.

That's just one of my favorite characters who happens to have that alignment.

[Tzardok]

When I read posts like yours, RedMage, I'm really disappointed that this forum doesn't allow you to give Likes to posts. That was very nice. :smallsmile:

[Particle_Man]

There are great players that can play any alignment without disrupting the game for others. There are jerkbag players that will disrupt the game regardless of what alignment they play. But there is a third group of players that will be disruptive to others if they play evil alignments (and in some case CN alignments) and not disruptive (or not as disruptive) otherwise. Presumably this third group is numerous enough that many DMs have decided that the “no evil” and in some cases “no CN” house rules are warranted. It is why in my circles it is one of the most common house rules.

[RandomPeasant]

But there is a third group of players that will be disruptive to others if they play evil alignments (and in some case CN alignments) and not disruptive (or not as disruptive) otherwise.

Exactly. Like I said earlier, the rules exist to help imperfect people run better games. If a rule leads to players causing problems, it is at least as likely that the problem is that the rule creates bad expectations as that the players are problem players. Most people do not want to cause bad gaming experiences. But most people do not have a great intuition for what will or will not lead to a bad gaming experience. So we have rules that try to lock people out of paths that tend to be disruptive, even if they might not be in the hands of perfect players.

With alignment specifically it's kind of silly to get mad about it, because alignment is not really well enough defined that you can have a CN character who absolutely could not have been CG. It's not like Thurbane is banning Bards or something, just write "G" instead of "N" and proceed to watch it have absolutely zero consequences on how you play your character.

[RedMage125]

When I read posts like yours, RedMage, I'm really disappointed that this forum doesn't allow you to give Likes to posts. That was very nice. :smallsmile:
Aww...thank you.


With alignment specifically it's kind of silly to get mad about it, because alignment is not really well enough defined that you can have a CN character who absolutely could not have been CG. It's not like Thurbane is banning Bards or something, just write "G" instead of "N" and proceed to watch it have absolutely zero consequences on how you play your character.

This is a 3.5e subforum, and alignment is absolutely that well defined.

And why would I make the character CG? He literally does not meet the defintion of "Good" in the PHB: "'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

The point is that alignment is not what creates problems at a table. It's jerkbag players and jerkbag DMs. And people like that will use any excuse to avoid being held responsible for their jerkbag behavior. Chaotic Neutral characters are explicitly NOT people who disrupt things as some kind of campaign of anarchy. Nor are they just a s likely to jump off a bridge as cross it (PHB, page 105). Chaotic Neutral characters are not the problem. Players who are looking to be disruptive and obnoxious for attention are.

[RandomPeasant]

The point is that alignment is not what creates problems at a table. It's jerkbag players and jerkbag DMs.

You could make this argument about anything. There is nothing in the game, indeed in any game, that no player (or DM, as applies) can use correctly That doesn't mean we don't ban things. Because there are things that people are more likely to use incorrectly than correctly. If a player is disruptive when allowed to play CN and not when they aren't, CN is the problem, not the player. If getting to write "CN" on your character sheet is so important to you that you need to kick people out of the group who weren't causing problems when it was banned, the jerkbag player is you.

[RedMage125]

You could make this argument about anything. There is nothing in the game, indeed in any game, that no player (or DM, as applies) can use correctly That doesn't mean we don't ban things. Because there are things that people are more likely to use incorrectly than correctly. If a player is disruptive when allowed to play CN and not when they aren't, CN is the problem, not the player. If getting to write "CN" on your character sheet is so important to you that you need to kick people out of the group who weren't causing problems when it was banned, the jerkbag player is you.

Hard disagree.

If a particular player is only a problem when "CN" is on his character sheet (and especially if he constantly wants to make CN characters unless forbidden), then that player is absolutely the problem. The only difference is that his understanding of what CN is and is not is so flawed that he views it as an excuse for his bad behavior. He just feels like he needs his behavior to be excused to do it. Someone who is constantly of the mindset "I want to be disruptive to the other players at my table and my DM and engage in obnoxious (attention-seeking) behavior. But I also don't want people to hold me responsible for what I do, and that desire is stronger."...is not a good person. That person is going to jump on any OTHER excuse for bad behavior, even if it isn't alignment. That they view alignment as a carte blanche for said behavior doesn't mean alignment is the problem. Hold people accountable for their choices and actions. If someone breaks your leg with a crowbar, would you claim crowbars are the problem? Would you sue the crowbar? Or accuse the manufacturer of causing you harm?

And how would my character's alignment "kick someone else out of the group"? Especially when I demonstrated quite clearly that a CN character can absolutely mesh VERY well with a group of Good characters?

I mean, if you have such a problem player, and make a rule that THAT PERSON cannot make CN characters, because they'll use it as an "excuse" for bad behavior, fine. That's putting the blame where it belongs and attempting to mitigate problems. It doesn't mean any particular alignment is the issue.

[RandomPeasant]

If a particular player is only a problem when "CN" is on his character sheet (and especially if he constantly wants to make CN characters unless forbidden), then that player is absolutely the problem.

Imagine you have a player who really likes Incantatrixes. They're his favorite characters, and he knows all the ins and outs of building them, so he's able to play them to the full extend of their (very impressive) power. If you let him, he'd play an Incantatrix every game. Suppose that the rest of the group plays characters of more modest power, like Rogues, Warblades, and Sorcerers. Should you A) ban the player or B) ban Incantatrix? Now suppose you have a long string of players like this. They're fine if you ban power options, but if you don't the play characters that stomp all over the group, because allowing those options makes them think the expected power level is high.


The only difference is that his understanding of what CN is and is not is so flawed that he views it as an excuse for his bad behavior.

Or, maybe rules that people have been arguing about since Bush was president aren't clear just because they're clear to you. Food for thought, maybe.


And how would my character's alignment "kick someone else out of the group"? Especially when I demonstrated quite clearly that a CN character can absolutely mesh VERY well with a group of Good characters?

Well, your solution is "unban CN, ban the players", so it would be those players. You know, the ones you called jerkbags.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Imagine you have a player who really likes Incantatrixes. They're his favorite characters, and he knows all the ins and outs of building them, so he's able to play them to the full extend of their (very impressive) power. If you let him, he'd play an Incantatrix every game. Suppose that the rest of the group plays characters of more modest power, like Rogues, Warblades, and Sorcerers. Should you A) ban the player or B) ban Incantatrix? Now suppose you have a long string of players like this. They're fine if you ban power options, but if you don't the play characters that stomp all over the group, because allowing those options makes them think the expected power level is high.

Or, maybe rules that people have been arguing about since Bush was president aren't clear just because they're clear to you. Food for thought, maybe.

Well, your solution is "unban CN, ban the players", so it would be those players. You know, the ones you called jerkbags.

The solution is not to ban the player, but to make them understand that having such a behavior is detrimental to the group. You talk to them about why playing CN characters the way they do leads to not so fun games, or about how a strong character can outshine the rest of them. The problem is not incantatrix, it's not CN, it's how that particular player plays the incantatrix or plays Chaotic Nitwit when you allow Chaotic Neutral. If you can't make them understand why it's bad, then you can ban the problematic part of the game for that person, not everyone. You shouldn't punish anyone for the behavior of someone else, and Chaotic Neutral is a very intersting alignment for a lot of characters, so preventing people from playing these characters (or pushing them to just label these characters Chaotic Good when that doesn't define them) doesn't make much sense. Being Chaotic is not a problem. Being Neutral is not a problem. So why would being Chaotic Neutral be?

[RandomPeasant]

The solution is not to ban the player, but to make them understand that having such a behavior is detrimental to the group.

Again, this applies to anything you could ban. If you want to take the stance that there are no bad rules, only bad players, that's fine. I don't agree with it, but I think it's defensible and internally consistent. My argument is with Red Mage acting like banning an alignment is some horrible aberration when it's no different from banning any of the dozen other things you can ban with no-one batting an eye. No one says "who hurt you" when you ban planar binding.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Again, this applies to anything you could ban. If you want to take the stance that there are no bad rules, only bad players, that's fine. I don't agree with it, but I think it's defensible and internally consistent. My argument is with Red Mage acting like banning an alignment is some horrible aberration when it's no different from banning any of the dozen other things you can ban with no-one batting an eye. No one says "who hurt you" when you ban planar binding.

No one does? I probably would. I would not be as insistent as for an alignment, just for the fact that a character is not different whether you ban Planar Binding or not. Even if your concept is "mad mage who likes to enslave Outsiders", there are other ways to do so, the Nar Demonbinder will work almost the same, and there are other Calling spells. On the other hand, an alignmnent is not just a mechanical thing, it is what your character is, and banning an alignment is just banning one whole kind of character concepts, that just can't be replicated in other alignmnents, while any purely mechanical rule can be replicated with more work.

[RandomPeasant]

No one does? I probably would. I would not be as insistent as for an alignment, just for the fact that a character is not different whether you ban Planar Binding or not.

It seems like it's the other way around to me. If your character concept is "uses planar binding", banning planar binding stops that. But your character concept isn't "is Chaotic Neutral", even if your character has that alignment. It's that your character is "like Han Solo" or "like Jack Sparrow" or whatever your touchstone for Chaotic Neutral is. And you can still play a character that way if the alignment is banned. There aren't alignment police who will arrest you if you don't roleplay right.

[Batcathat]

It seems like it's the other way around to me. If your character concept is "uses planar binding", banning planar binding stops that. But your character concept isn't "is Chaotic Neutral", even if your character has that alignment. It's that your character is "like Han Solo" or "like Jack Sparrow" or whatever your touchstone for Chaotic Neutral is. And you can still play a character that way if the alignment is banned. There aren't alignment police who will arrest you if you don't roleplay right.

So... ban Chaotic Neutral but let people play exactly as they would have as a Chaotic Neutral character? Is the idea to prevent a certain kind of player to use being CN as an excuse to screw up the game? Somehow I doubt banning the alignment but telling them "portray your character however you want to" would make them behave.

[Raven777]

And you can still play a character that way if the alignment is banned. There aren't alignment police who will arrest you if you don't roleplay right.

That's the thing that weirds me with alignment bans. Whatever one writes down on their character sheet, alignment is ~90% roleplay. One can't ban "opposes established order", "is a staunch individualist", "usually priorises his own well being", "usually disregards the well being of others". So why ban the shorthand to describe these ("Chaotic Evil")? What one can do through the exercize of Session Zero is make sure everyone at the table collaboratively creates characters that have motivation and desire to adventure together from day one. Maybe the Chaotic Neutral, sticky fingers Rogue is the Paladin's sibling, whom their mother made him promise to keep safe. Maybe the Lawful Evil Sorcerer feels they have a life debt to the Chaotic Good Cleric. Maybe the True Neutral Bard considers them all his friends, and feels he's the only one who can keep these self-serving or selfless idiots from collectively biting more than they can chew.

I would definitely also raise an eyebrow at spell bans, especially something with such iconic flavor potential as Planar Binding. It would mean that the DM does not trust the player to play responsibly with one of the genre's core tropes. The assumption that a player would de facto call an Efreet and go for Wishes could be interpreted as lack of respect (or trust) for the player's agency. It means that from the start the DM expects trouble. Why? It puts an adversarial slant on the DM / player relationship that, probably, does not enchance the game and does not need to be.

[rrwoods]

Somehow I doubt banning the alignment but telling them "portray your character however you want to" would make them behave.
I think you might be surprised by some players, then. There are definitely players for whom this will not work. Maybe even a large majority! But I have personally met and played at the same table as players for whom this is a perfect solution.

And they aren't jerkbags.

[Tzardok]

I have a feeling the alignment discussion has outlived itself.

[Particle_Man]

I think you might be surprised by some players, then. There are definitely players for whom this will not work. Maybe even a large majority! But I have personally met and played at the same table as players for whom this is a perfect solution.

And they aren't jerkbags.

Agreed. "No evil" is not only a common house rule, it is even suggested in the game text itself: "LG (and the other non-evil alignments) is the best alignment you can be" vs. "LE (and the other evil alignments) is the more dangerous alignment you can be.

And I have seen the same players in a "no alignment game" make their prisoners eat broken glass, and then in a "no evil" game acted in a way such that I could eat lunch while DMing. So Dming really goes easier for me when I ban evil from the table, with the exact same group of players. So the theory that "characters that act badly if allowed to play evil will act badly regardless" is simply empirically false, according to the players I have Dm'd.

[RedMage125]

RandomPeasant, I am moving the order of your quotes around for more coherent responses.



Well, your solution is "unban CN, ban the players", so it would be those players. You know, the ones you called jerkbags.
When did I ever advocate "ban the player"?
*looks back at previous posts* Nope. Not once. Which means, if "banning a player" has been the fuel for your vehemence this whole time, I regret to inform you that you have been titling at windmills.

I said hold the person accountable. We all share a hobby, and I would actually be very reticent to just ban a person from my table. I advocate talking to the person, explaining what they do that is problematic and why. Engage in reasonable discussion. Clear things up. In this example, the hypothetical individual clearly does not understand what Chaotic Neutral means by 3.5e definitions. Perhaps explain to him/her. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't allow players to use a CN alignment to play 'Evil Lite'". That's not even really a house rule, because, if anything, it's just more strict enforcing of what the alignment rules from the PHB and DMG are. Especially if you've told the players "no Evil characters this game. If your alignment shift to Evil, your character becomes an NPC".

Now, if the player absolutely fights you and continues to engage in disruptive behavior that makes the game less fun for the other players, then yes, it may be time to consider kicking the player from your game. But you engage in reasonable discussion about the issues first.

If you think "being held accountable for your actions" = "kicked out of the game", then I have no help for you.


Imagine you have a player who really likes Incantatrixes. They're his favorite characters, and he knows all the ins and outs of building them, so he's able to play them to the full extend of their (very impressive) power. If you let him, he'd play an Incantatrix every game. Suppose that the rest of the group plays characters of more modest power, like Rogues, Warblades, and Sorcerers. Should you A) ban the player or B) ban Incantatrix? Now suppose you have a long string of players like this. They're fine if you ban power options, but if you don't the play characters that stomp all over the group, because allowing those options makes them think the expected power level is high.
Well, with Incantatrix specifically...I do not DM Forgotten Realms, and I ban all setting-specific character options in my home world. No Eberron, no FR, no Dragonlance. That applies to races, classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, magic items, you name it.

Now, Forgotten Realms is, as a setting, more prone to "high magic". A lot of the magical options are WAY more powerful. This includes not only PrCs like incantatrix, but also a lot of the FR-specific spells*. To my way of thinking, the yardstick one uses to gauge "balance" is different in Forgotten Realms. If, for some reason, I was going to DM a FR game, I would not ban it, no. But there are a lot of other high-end magics that will be used against the party as well.

*On that note, I actually DO have a default "Red Light" policy on spells from the Spell Compendium. namely because that books is mostly spells from all the FR sources, just stripped of FR names, if applicable, and converted to "core". Red Light means "Run the spell you want past me in advance. Give me time to look it over and make a call. But if you ask me on the spot during a game, the answer is likely 'no'." I mean the SC does have a few good ones in there. To include spells from the Complete books with errata included. Those usually get approved. I'm also a big fan of Revivify.

In terms of the broader scope of what you are asking, I again, talk to my players. The last time I ran 3.5e was when I had a group that was down for me to run Age of Worms. now, i had been wanting to run this for a long time. The player of mine who was most familiar with the system and absolutely knew all kinds of optimization tricks (I know because he and I would occasionally discuss stuff like that for fun) was the last to make his character. After looking at the group makeup, he decided to make a Druid. I took him aside and had a talk with him. My other players were 2 people who had played for awhile, but were no super into optimization tricks, and I had 2 new players (to include the guy playing the wizard). I asked the Druid player to sort of restrain himself in terms of optimization, so as not to step on the other players' toes. Nothing wrong with making a good, or even powerful character. But Druid is one of those classes that has the potential to make other party members feel obsolete, even. He, as a reasonable adult, agreed that such would be bad, and said he would reign in any temptation to make a ridiculously OP character.

"Holding people accountable for their choices and their actions" often means just talking to them about what you want/expect, and what you would prefer to not have at your table.


Or, maybe rules that people have been arguing about since Bush was president aren't clear just because they're clear to you. Food for thought, maybe.
I'm a big proponent of alignment. And I'm always happy to help people understand them, if there are any questions.


Again, this applies to anything you could ban. If you want to take the stance that there are no bad rules, only bad players, that's fine. I don't agree with it, but I think it's defensible and internally consistent. My argument is with Red Mage acting like banning an alignment is some horrible aberration when it's no different from banning any of the dozen other things you can ban with no-one batting an eye. No one says "who hurt you" when you ban planar binding.
One of my pet peeves (in all aspects of life, not just D&D) is "misplaced blame". I'm also a big proponent of alignment, like I said. I have been on some form of D&D forums for almost 18 years, and in that time, 100% (no exaggeration) of stories I have heard from people about "alignment is bad because my DM said it [does x]" or "players who use alignment [do x]"...[x] is something that is explicitly a deviation from the RAW regarding alignment, and entirely the behavior of a jerkbag. And I firmly believe that if a mechanic is only problematic when it is misused, then such is not a valid indictment of that mechanic. Are there flaws with alignment mechanics? Of course. But most of what people complain about turns out to be something the RAW explicitly say is not how they work.

Examples (just so it doesn't sound like hypoerbole): "DM says my character can't [x] because of his alignment" (PHB pg 103 says that's incorrect). "Party Paladin killed an evil cultist who had surrendered, DM instantly changed his alignment to Lawful Evil" (DMG page 134 says alignment change is gradual). And I already mentioned what the PHB says on CN.


It seems like it's the other way around to me. If your character concept is "uses planar binding", banning planar binding stops that. But your character concept isn't "is Chaotic Neutral", even if your character has that alignment. It's that your character is "like Han Solo" or "like Jack Sparrow" or whatever your touchstone for Chaotic Neutral is. And you can still play a character that way if the alignment is banned. There aren't alignment police who will arrest you if you don't roleplay right.
I feel like this is a Straw Man, because what kind of character concept is "uses planar binding"? How is that a coherent concept? Now, if your concept is a summoner, and Planar binding is a crucial part of your spell suite, that's another matter.

But really, it should go without saying, but I guess I'll say it: All house rules and deviations from the rulebooks that affect player options and choices should be made clear to the players before or during character creation. That said, if a DM is banning Planar Binding, the conversation should go like this:
P-"I have this summoner concept wizard I'd like to play"
DM-"Okay, but you should know that right now I have a flat ban on Planar Binding. I've seen it misused too many times. Until I can figure out how I want to modify the spell so those misuses aren't possible."
P-"Really? Well, that sucks, but okay. How about this other idea I have...?"

A DM who knows he's going to ban that spell and lets the guy make this character without telling him, or waits until he tries to learn (or even wits until he tries to cast) the spell to tell him about the ban is a jerkbag DM.


The solution is not to ban the player, but to make them understand that having such a behavior is detrimental to the group. You talk to them about why playing CN characters the way they do leads to not so fun games, or about how a strong character can outshine the rest of them. The problem is not incantatrix, it's not CN, it's how that particular player plays the incantatrix or plays Chaotic Nitwit when you allow Chaotic Neutral. If you can't make them understand why it's bad, then you can ban the problematic part of the game for that person, not everyone. You shouldn't punish anyone for the behavior of someone else, and Chaotic Neutral is a very intersting alignment for a lot of characters, so preventing people from playing these characters (or pushing them to just label these characters Chaotic Good when that doesn't define them) doesn't make much sense. Being Chaotic is not a problem. Being Neutral is not a problem. So why would being Chaotic Neutral be?


No one does? I probably would. I would not be as insistent as for an alignment, just for the fact that a character is not different whether you ban Planar Binding or not. Even if your concept is "mad mage who likes to enslave Outsiders", there are other ways to do so, the Nar Demonbinder will work almost the same, and there are other Calling spells. On the other hand, an alignmnent is not just a mechanical thing, it is what your character is, and banning an alignment is just banning one whole kind of character concepts, that just can't be replicated in other alignmnents, while any purely mechanical rule can be replicated with more work.

Beni-Kujaku, I also wish there was a "Like" function on the forums. Very well put.


So... ban Chaotic Neutral but let people play exactly as they would have as a Chaotic Neutral character? Is the idea to prevent a certain kind of player to use being CN as an excuse to screw up the game? Somehow I doubt banning the alignment but telling them "portray your character however you want to" would make them behave.
Right? Especially if this person feels like "it's what my character would do" is somehow an excuse to behave poorly.

I think you might be surprised by some players, then. There are definitely players for whom this will not work. Maybe even a large majority! But I have personally met and played at the same table as players for whom this is a perfect solution.

And they aren't jerkbags.

By your definition, perhaps.

But the hypothetical person we're talking about is someone who uses "CN" as an excuse to play "Evil Lite", and engage in disruptive and/or antagonistic behavior in-game. If not being able to be "CN" genuinely keeps them from engaging in those behaviors, then what that tells me is that this person wants to not be held accountable for their actions, and they think CN alignment is some kind of "carte blanche".
Now, my experience with people over 38 years of life has taught me that people like this will, when constrained in that manner, look to get away with some kind of microcosm of that in a different way. Especially if they get a thrill from antagonizing the DM and other players. They are the kind of people who play a Paladin as "I'm going to be a stick-in-the-butt policeman for the whole party". They thrive on attention, and enjoy causing conflict, because it's a power dynamic for them.

I usually shorthand such people as "jerkbags". But that's my perception and opinion.

I've never had to deal with one as a DM. The one time I had a player being kind of a jerk at the table in-game, I spoke to them out of game. Guy had some stuff going on. Apologized to the other players next session, and game proceeded smoothly. But I have been a fellow player impacted by players like this. He was constantly trying to provoke guards, steal from party members, hide treasure for himself, thought he could seduce every shopkeeper into giving him discounts (he always played hot elf females), and, on top of all that...he cheated with his dice rolls. We played around a coffee table, and not all of us could sit close to the table. He would roll on a book held in his other hand, and almost every attack would declare "critical threat", and snatch up the die before anyone else could see it, and re-roll for confirmation. But the DM talked to him. About his behavior that was making the game less enjoyable for the rest of the players. He did modify his behavior. And he started rolling where everyone could see his dice. He did have pretty decent luck with dice, as I remember (rarely below a 10), but the number of critical threat rolls went down DRASTICALLY.

Anyway, point is, jerkbag players are jerkbag players. But they can still be reasoned with and spoken to. Most people are reasonable enough to moderate their behavior if they are making the game less fun for others.

[RandomPeasant]

Red Mage, I'm not going to respond to your giant wall of text in detail. What it comes down to is:

1) There is no substantive difference between banning alignment and banning anything else. If you ban FR, not being okay with banning alignment is just getting upset when someone bans something you like, which is not a position I have much sympathy for. Especially when you jump down the throat of random people who do it in games you're not even involved in.
2) It seems absolutely absurd to suggest that banning something that mechanically impacts characters (e.g. planar binding, Incantatrix, any of dozens of power level bans that most tables will use) is less important than banning an alignment, which has only extremely marginal character impacts.
3) Your implied "I have a correct understanding of alignment and will enlighten others" position {Scrubbed}. If there was an obviously correct answer, these debates would not be old enough to vote. I am sure your view makes sense to you. I am equally sure other people (who disagree with you) have views that make sense to them. I don't care, because the games I play have always managed to function adequately by treating alignment as "basically fluff".
4) Saying that someone is a "jerkbag player" then acting confused when people expect that you mean "don't play with them" is {Scrubbed} unresponsive to the actual position. The underlying argument is that Thurbane has solved his problem and you are demanding that he unsolve it so you can change one letter on your character sheet that has no real roleplaying impact. That makes you the problem in this equation.

I'm ready to be done here {Scrubbed}


So... ban Chaotic Neutral but let people play exactly as they would have as a Chaotic Neutral character? Is the idea to prevent a certain kind of player to use being CN as an excuse to screw up the game? Somehow I doubt banning the alignment but telling them "portray your character however you want to" would make them behave.

What I'm saying is that in practice if you have a CN concept that is not disruptive, and play that concept while writing CG on your sheet, no one will care. The point of the houserule (as explained) is to guide people away from disruptive behavior, not to enforce iron-clad alignment rules (such a thing does not exist). If you are doing something you are sure is not disruptive, I doubt Thurbane would care. Though, of course, I'm sure many disruptive players are sure their behavior is okay too.


That's the thing that weirds me with alignment bans. Whatever one writes down on their character sheet, alignment is ~90% roleplay. One can't ban "opposes established order", "is a staunch individualist", "usually priorises his own well being", "usually disregards the well being of others". So why ban the shorthand to describe these ("Chaotic Evil")?

Because some people interpret alignments in ways that result in disruptive behavior. Again, it's like any other ban you could have. I am sure there is a character out there who uses polymorph in a fair in balanced way that results in a good play experience for everyone. But that character is much less common than the characters who use polymorph in ways that break the game. So we ban polymorph, because we think that represents a better time tradeoff than running through a comprehensive list of every stress point in the game and making sure we're on the same page for all of them. Banning Evil characters or Chaotic Neutral characters is exactly the same thing.

And again, I don't necessarily think that you can't take the "players are the problem, rules aren't the problem" position. I think that's a coherent, defensible position that reasonable people can have, even if I disagree with it. What I object to is special pleading for things you like. There are things I like that some tables ban. I don't go around asking asking random strangers why they ban them.


The assumption that a player would de facto call an Efreet and go for Wishes could be interpreted as lack of respect (or trust) for the player's agency.

The problem is not so much that, as that there is a wide, wide variation in what you can do with planar binding, and the difference between "broken" and "not broken" is very difficult to anticipate in advance. Consider, for example, calling an Efreet. Now, you could go for the wish into planar binding into wish line, and that would destroy the game. But you could also do something like "wish into inherent bonuses for everyone" or "trade castings of fabricate for wish for resurrection at a favorable rate because the party doesn't have a Cleric" or even "make some permanent images for me", and all of those are manageable at some table power levels. Or consider how "bind up a bunch of outsiders to support my army" and "bind up a bunch of outsiders to support my party" have wildly different levels of impact on the game, even though you may give nearly identical orders in both cases. If planar binding were merely "very powerful", it would be easier to handle because you could just make sure the group was at that power level. The issue is that planar binding is practically patient zero for different understandings of what "mid OP" means can causing huge game disruptions.

[RedMage125]

Red Mage, I'm not going to respond to your giant wall of text in detail. What it comes down to is:

1) There is no substantive difference between banning alignment and banning anything else. If you ban FR, not being okay with banning alignment is just getting upset when someone bans something you like, which is not a position I have much sympathy for. Especially when you jump down the throat of random people who do it in games you're not even involved in.
{Scrubbed}
There's a huge gulf between saying "This setting is not Forgotten Realms/Eberron/etc, and setting-specific material from those settings has no place in this campaign" (which is more of a "setting choice" than a "House Rule"), and saying "I blame alignment for the poor behavior of players at my table instead of blaming those players, and now certain alignments are banned". Hell, I love Eberron, and when I run Eberron, people can use Eberron stuff.

{Scrubbed} Not only do you assume that "hold people accountable for their actions" means I was saying "RAUGH, BAN THE PLAYER!", but you are also accusing me of "jumping down [someone's] throat". Which I did not. In response to Thurbane's banning of CN, I said "who hurt you?", which was a cheeky joke. I then put forth one of my own character concepts, just to show proof of concept that not all Chaotic Neutral characters are "Evil Lite". Which is trying to show a positive example. I never said "you are playing wrong for banning CN", or anything to that effect.

The closest I came to "jumping down [anyone's] throat" was when I responded to you jumping on me, and acting like me holding people responsible for their actions made me some kind of tyrant. And even then, I just tried to point out that I was not saying what you accused me of.


2) It seems absolutely absurd to suggest that banning something that mechanically impacts characters (e.g. planar binding, Incantatrix, any of dozens of power level bans that most tables will use) is less important than banning an alignment, which has only extremely marginal character impacts.
That you seem to feel alignment has only "extremely marginal character impact" is not some kind of universally-held perception. You seem, like most alignment detractors, to just assume that everyone is as dismissive of alignment and its mechanics as you are, and/or downplays them. That is not the case. The bard character I put forth, for example. He is not "Good", and I would find it a huge infringement on my agency for a DM to insist that I try and "keep" a Good alignment.

And I think if anything is going to be banned, especially things that mechanically impact the game or impact concepts, players should know about it. I also never suggested banning Planar Binding, that was you. I don't ban any core spells, I deal with them. If I ever have a problem with the way the spell is being used in-game, there will be in-game consequences. Oddly, I've never had a player use Wish for anything other than the things very clearly spelled out in the spell description. I guess too many horror stories of DMs "monkey paw"-ing their Wishes has made my job easier.


3) Your implied "I have a correct understanding of alignment and will enlighten others" position is {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} If there was an obviously correct answer, these debates would not be old enough to vote. I am sure your view makes sense to you. I am equally sure other people (who disagree with you) have views that make sense to them. I don't care, because the games I play have always managed to function adequately by treating alignment as "basically fluff".
{Scrubbed}

I said "I'm always happy to help people understand [alignment mechanics], if there are any questions". Read that last part again. "If there are any questions". I am very familiar with what the rules say in regards to the topic, and can answer questions about what the RAW are. I did not say "I understand alignment better than you, and I am going to tell you how you are wrong". Which is the Straw Man you seem to be so keen on attacking here. {Scrubbed}

But if you want to come at me, then let's start another thread where we can go back and forth about alignment mechanics. But I assure you that I do, in fact, have a correct understanding of alignment Rules As Written, and can back up everything I say with quotes from the rulebooks.


4) Saying that someone is a "jerkbag player" then acting confused when people expect that you mean "don't play with them" is {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} unresponsive to the actual position. The underlying argument is that Thurbane has solved his problem and you are demanding that he unsolve it so you can change one letter on your character sheet that has no real roleplaying impact. That makes you the problem in this equation.
{Scrubbed}

If someone is being a jerkbag, I advocate for blaming the person being a jerkbag, not the vehicle they use for their behavior. I may not have gone in-depth to mention how I recommend dealing with problem players initially, because it wasn't relevant. The first issue was saying "hey, if someone is being a disruptive jerk at your table, don't blame the excuse they hide behind, blame them". Because I don't buy that [excuse for their actions] actually caused their actions in the first place. You just assumed that I could only have meant "immediately ban them from the table with no reasoning, discussion, or attempt at conflict resolution". You made that up entirely by yourself. {Scrubbed}

I never "demanded" anything of Thrubane. {Scrubbed} What I said was essentially, "man, I wish I could play at your table. I would love the opportunity to show you a more positive example, because it sounds like you've only seen CN characters from people who just wanted to be jerks". Nothing about that is a "demand".

{Scrubbed}


I'm ready to be done here, {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
So now my understanding is deficient?



And again, I don't necessarily think that you can't take the "players are the problem, rules aren't the problem" position. I think that's a coherent, defensible position that reasonable people can have, even if I disagree with it.

This statement? I can't make any sense of this. Why would you not hold people (DMs or players) accountable for their actions if they are disruptive, obnoxious, or even game-breaking?

It's like what I said earlier with the crowbar. If someone breaks your leg with a crowbar, are you going to seek reparations from the hardware store that sold it? From the manufacturer who made it? Are you going to campaign to have your city ban crowbars? Start a petition, maybe? Or will you hold the person who did it responsible? After all, that was not it's intended use. Crowbars are useful and versatile tools. Because in this analogy, it sounds to me like you are saying that crowbars, as a narrow length of steel with a length comparable to a club, is, by design, prone to being misused as a weapon, and therefore the person who used one to break your leg wasn't really at fault.

That is how I perceive what you are saying. I may be off-base, and I am not trying to misrepresent your stance, but this is how you are coming across. Especially when you explicitly "disagree" with the idea that people are the problem.

[Thurbane]

I have a feeling the alignment discussion has outlived itself.

Indeed - and I'm genuinely sorry for my part in giving it air.

[Raven777]

I'm ready to be done here{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}


So now my understanding is deficient?

This is a forum thread. Debate (often rehashed ones) is pretty part and parcel for the medium. That being said, I think that topic has indeed reached the phase where it's wisest to just collectively agree to disagree and move on to other House Rules. On the topic of bans (alignments, spells, anything), we can say we reached the conclusion: they're contentious. I know I will always end up in the camp that argues let me manage my own gameplay and prove this thing can be done. That's just who I am. In closing, there's an adage that says that no D&D is better than bad D&D; in the end, if any house rule is a deal breaker for anyone, they always have the option to not play in that game.

EDIT: For example of a House Rule that is an actual rule worth porting over from 5e, I'm a big fan of the way 5e streamlined actions you can fold into a movement (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Combat#h-Interacting%20with%20Objects%20Around%20You). Dunno if it's common to simplify movement like that, though. I would be curious to know if there are other 5e or PF2 gems that people routinely backport.

[RandomPeasant]

{Scrubbed}


Indeed - and I'm genuinely sorry for my part in giving it air.

{Scrubbed}

[Karl Aegis]

Some people play monks as if their Flurry of Blows class feature works as a full attack instead of a special full attack action. So they can use natural weapons, two-weapon fighting and extra attack from Haste while they flurry.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Some people play monks as if their Flurry of Blows class feature works as a full attack instead of a special full attack action. So they can use natural weapons, two-weapon fighting and extra attack from Haste while they flurry.

No, that's actually how it works.


A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

A FoB is an addition onto a full-attack, and as such can be stacked with other additions like TWF and natural weapons. And, in a rare instance of making me happy about a ruling from the FAQ, it agrees.



Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her penalties on attack rolls?

A monk can fight with two weapons just like any other character, but she must accept the normal penalties on her attack rolls to do so. She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand weapon. She can even combine two-weapon fighting with a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for two-weapon fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows. For example, at 6th level, the monk Ember can normally make one attack per round at a +4 bonus. When using flurry of blows, she can make two attacks (using unarmed strikes or any special monk weapons she holds), each at a +3 bonus. If she wants to make an extra attack with her off hand, she has to accept a –4 penalty on her primary hand attacks and a –8 penalty on her off-hand attacks (assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand).

If Ember has Two-Weapon Fighting, she has to accept only a –2 penalty on all attacks to make an extra attack with her off hand. Thus, when wielding a light weapon in her off hand during a flurry of blows, she can make a total of three attacks, each at a total bonus of +1. At least one of these attacks has to be with her off-hand weapon.

A 20th-level monk with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting can make eight attacks per round during a flurry of blows. Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand, her three off-hand weapon attacks are at +13/+8/+3, and she has five attacks (at +13/+13/+13/+8/+3) with unarmed strikes or any weapons she carries in her primary hand. If the same monk also has Rapid Shot and throws at least one shuriken as part of her flurry of blows (since Rapid Shot can be used only with ranged attacks), she can throw one additional shuriken with her primary hand, but all of her attacks (even melee attacks) suffer a –2 penalty. Thus, her full attack array looks like this: +11/+11/+11/+11/+6/+1 primary hand (two must be with shuriken) and +11/+6/+1 off hand.

Thanks to Darrin and the TWF Offhandbook (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?279079-3-5-The-TWF-OffHandbook) for this handy quote.


I think you're thinking of Decisive Strike, one of the Alternate Class Features that Monks can swap FoB for. That is a separate full-round action, and doesn't count as a full-attack.

[tiercel]

I think that one of the more straightforward ways to handle whether material in general should be banned at a particular table is to let players know that any particular spell/combo/ruling that works for them, also works for any number of BBEGs, some of whom have been around a while.

Now, do you really want infinite wish combos to work? reaches for alternative campaign setting notes

[Raven777]

Now, do you really want infinite wish combos to work? reaches for alternative campaign setting notes

Last time this happened reality was retconed so far and so hard that our party was whisked from a timeline where we opposed a trickster demi-god trying to wrest control of the 8 scepters underpining magic in the world, to a timeline where we opposed a cabal of vampire-sorcerer tyrants lording over humanity within the last few safe city-states while His Dark Materials specter expies stalked the land. We agreed that taking the divine wish granting Macguffin charged with the queued up wishes from a hundred generations, out of the divine magic suppression chamber stopping all these pent up wishes from suddenly discharging at the same time, might have been a bad idea.

[Calthropstu]

I doubt this is common, but it was hilarious. If you get low enough on skill rolls, you get catastrophic results. Go to make a cooking roll and your total is a 2? You start a fire in the camp. Make a sense motive roll and get more than 10 or even 20 behind the dc? You suspect the dumbest thing possible and the guy lying to you is obviously your best chance to reveal the real culprit.

My group ran with that, much to my suffering. "Acrobatics roll to avoid taking damage. My total is a... *nat 1* 2. Faceplanted into rock taking extra damage.

Roll perception! *nat 1* My total is a -1. You start combat prone as you walk into a tree and fall over.

[Karl Aegis]

No, that's actually how it works.



A FoB is an addition onto a full-attack, and as such can be stacked with other additions like TWF and natural weapons. And, in a rare instance of making me happy about a ruling from the FAQ, it agrees.




Thanks to Darrin and the TWF Offhandbook (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?279079-3-5-The-TWF-OffHandbook) for this handy quote.


I think you're thinking of Decisive Strike, one of the Alternate Class Features that Monks can swap FoB for. That is a separate full-round action, and doesn't count as a full-attack.

Decisive Strike is the cool one where you can move around and use start/complete full-round action standard action and ready to complete the full-round action for when an enemy walks into range with Knock-Down and Improved Trip, Hold the Line and Combat Reflexes. It gets better with Steadfast Boots from Magic Item Compendium and maybe a spear if you can get it as a Monk Weapon. I think it's either Eberron or Golarion where the feat is from.

A full attack action is an action that takes an full-round, cannot be used with start/complete full-round action standard action and cannot be moved during. Actually making the attacks is reserved for the full attack action, which is defined differently for some odd reason. "The" and "a" are distinct, after all.

[RandomPeasant]

I think that one of the more straightforward ways to handle whether material in general should be banned at a particular table is to let players know that any particular spell/combo/ruling that works for them, also works for any number of BBEGs, some of whom have been around a while.

I'm not sure how well this works in practice. It's true that players can't win an arms race against the DM, but that has only imperfect efficacy in causing them to stop escalating.

[ciopo]

ooooooh I remembered one, which I'm not sure whether it's an houserule or the actual rules : moving through allies is considered difficult terrain

[PoeticallyPsyco]

A full attack action is an action that takes an full-round, cannot be used with start/complete full-round action standard action and cannot be moved during. Actually making the attacks is reserved for the full attack action, which is defined differently for some odd reason. "The" and "a" are distinct, after all.

I still don't think that's quite right. Your interpretation could be correct if the line was "A flurry of blows is a full attack action" or better yet "A flurry of blows is a type of full attack action", but in the actual line


A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

"use a full attack action" is a conditional statement, not a definition of FoB. The statement doesn't define FoB as a type of full attack, it says that you can only make one while you are already making a full attack action. Any action that counts as a full attack action meets that condition, and allows you to use Flurry of Blows. A full attack made with TWF or natural weapons is still unambiguously a full attack; therefore, while making it, you can also use Flurry of Blows to add an additional attack for the specified FoB penalties.

Flurry of Blows is not in fact an action at all; it's a rider effect on a full attack action, letting you "make one extra attack in a round at [your] highest base attack bonus".

[ciopo]

Flurry of Blows is not in fact an action at all; it's a rider effect on a full attack action.

Uh, that's an interesting distinction, are there other such riders? I've always read such riders as substituting the normal behavior of the type of action that triggers them.

The most common such example I can think of is our beloved pounce, it substitutes the singular attack with a full attack, it does not let us make a full attack on top of the singular attack of the charge


.... or does it?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Uh, that's an interesting distinction, are there other such riders? I've always read such riders as substituting the normal behavior of the type of action that triggers them.

The most common such example I can think of is our beloved pounce, it substitutes the singular attack with a full attack, it does not let us make a full attack on top of the singular attack of the charge

.... or does it?

Pounce is a weird example, because it's been written and rewritten so many different times. Some versions replace the single attack at the end of a charge with a full attack; some versions let you make a full attack after the charge (presumably including the normal charge attack). Depends on the specific wording.

[Quertus]

ooooooh I remembered one, which I'm not sure whether it's an houserule or the actual rules : moving through allies is considered difficult terrain

I should hope moving through allies is considered difficult terrain, at the very least! Unless you're a blood magus, or your allies are Treants, and you're using Tree Stride, or some other similar scenario.

Difficult, and messy :smallyuk:

[Calthropstu]

I should hope moving through allies is considered difficult terrain, at the very least! Unless you're a blood magus, or your allies are Treants, and you're using Tree Stride, or some other similar scenario.

Difficult, and messy :smallyuk:

I am now imagining a guy poping out of another guy's chest shouting "Attack of opportunity" as the party's opponents stares in disbelief stabs someone adjacent and slips back through the hole.

[Kitsuneymg]

Pathfinder: I use the unchained barbarian rage for all rage effects. It’s not as good for two handed combat, but it simplifies hp and makes two weapon a bit more viable. Especially if you have prodigious TWF on the table.

For those that don’t know PF, you get a morale bonus to hit and melee/throw damage, will saves, and 2 temp hp/hd. It solves the issue of barbarians dying when they calm down.

[tiercel]

Last time this happened reality was retconed so far and so hard that our party was whisked from a timeline where we opposed a trickster demi-god trying to wrest control of the 8 scepters underpining magic in the world, to a timeline where we opposed a cabal of vampire-sorcerer tyrants lording over humanity within the last few safe city-states while His Dark Materials specter expies stalked the land. We agreed that taking the divine wish granting Macguffin charged with the queued up wishes from a hundred generations, out of the divine magic suppression chamber stopping all these pent up wishes from suddenly discharging at the same time, might have been a bad idea.


I'm not sure how well this works in practice. It's true that players can't win an arms race against the DM, but that has only imperfect efficacy in causing them to stop escalating.

I think that Raven777’s reply kinda answers RandomPeasant’s concern, but to elaborate: if players actually want to play something like Tippyverse and the DM is willing to go full bore, this is (1) fun for everyone, so, cool and (2) more internally consistent than having potentially thousands of years of history — including potentially some individuals that old (elves, dragons, liches, etc etc) — and yet no one, even BBEGs who are if anything MORE consumed with power and less morally constrained than most PCs, has figured out that bog-standard spells and effects can be abused — until the PCs come along.

The other way around, it’s a fantasy anthropic principle: if the campaign setting / premade adventure doesn’t look like the Tippyverse and/or a post-apocalyptic wasteland due to shadowpocalypse/wightpocalypse/Locate City bombs/IHS-the-Sun/etc., but instead looks like some flavor of pseudo-medieval fantasy world somewhere on the Greyhawk-Faerun-Eberron spectrum, it’s presumably because certain rules DON’T offer world-breaking/literally infinite power.

Summed up, a standard fantasy world requires “reasonable DM” intervention/interpretation, not “just RAW.” Ideally, the DM finds out what is reasonable for the table by….asking.

[Kaleph]

ooooooh I remembered one, which I'm not sure whether it's an houserule or the actual rules : moving through allies is considered difficult terrain

I am curious about how the official rule is. We have a house rule that everyone can move through its allies without hindrance. I like yours more since it would count like "squeezing" through a space, which is smaller than yourself.

I guess that maybe RAW it's simple impossible to move through an occupied square...

[Lilapop]

I am curious about how the official rule is. We have a house rule that everyone can move through its allies without hindrance. I like yours more since it would count like "squeezing" through a space, which is smaller than yourself.

I guess that maybe RAW it's simple impossible to move through an occupied square...

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#movingthroughaSqua re

[Kaleph]

So, it wasn't an house rule after all.
You know, that's something we've always done like that as a group, until we couldn't recall anymore (and didn't bother to check) it it was an house rule, or it's how the PHB describes it.

Thank you for researching it for me!

[Thurbane]

Some creatures break the above rules. A creature that completely fills the squares it occupies cannot be moved past, even with the Tumble skill or similar special abilities.

Do you think the dev that wrote this sentence was specifically thinking of a Gelatinous Cube? :smallbiggrin:

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Do you think the dev that wrote this sentence was specifically thinking of a Gelatinous Cube? :smallbiggrin:

Indubitably!

[Elves]

Uh, that's an interesting distinction, are there other such riders? I've always read such riders as substituting the normal behavior of the type of action that triggers them.
Other ways of getting bonus attacks, like two-weapon fighting and iteratives themselves.

[Arkhios]

Pathfinder: I use the unchained barbarian rage for all rage effects. It’s not as good for two handed combat, but it simplifies hp and makes two weapon a bit more viable. Especially if you have prodigious TWF on the table.

For those that don’t know PF, you get a morale bonus to hit and melee/throw damage, will saves, and 2 temp hp/hd. It solves the issue of barbarians dying when they calm down.

Interesting bit about Unchained Rage is that it, –perhaps inadvertently, perhaps intentionally –encourages alternative approaches for melee, aside from the standard Brute Strength, because the unchained rage modifier applies to all melee/thrown attacks and melee/thrown damage rolls, whether you used strength, dexterity, or some other ability score in the first place, and the bonus is same regardless of the weapon being in main hand or off-hand. So, even a small race such as halfling could become a decent dual wielding barbarian using their higher base dexterity to their advantage.

[Raven777]

Interesting bit about Unchained Rage is that it, –perhaps inadvertently, perhaps intentionally –encourages alternative approaches for melee, aside from the standard Brute Strength, because the unchained rage modifier applies to all melee/thrown attacks and melee/thrown damage rolls, whether you used strength, dexterity, or some other ability score in the first place, and the bonus is same regardless of the weapon being in main hand or off-hand. So, even a small race such as halfling could become a decent dual wielding barbarian using their higher base dexterity to their advantage.

Now I'm just imagining a Dex based Barbarian who's so angry, he starts doing Gun Kata (https://youtu.be/4weEXyoXZKs?t=39).

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Now I'm just imagining a Dex based Barbarian who's so angry, he starts doing Gun Kata (https://youtu.be/4weEXyoXZKs?t=39).

That's the best idea I've heard all day.

[vasilidor]

I see a lot of critical success and failure on skill checks. and I hate it. a 1 should not screw you over when you are trying to climb up a knotted rope when you have a +30 to climb. a natural 20 should not grant success to bluff the dragon when all you have is a -2 on charisma.

[Raven777]

I see a lot of critical success and failure on skill checks. and I hate it. a 1 should not screw you over when you are trying to climb up a knotted rope when you have a +30 to climb. a natural 20 should not grant success to bluff the dragon when all you have is a -2 on charisma.

See these as modeling occurences that are outside the character's control. The rope scraping against a sharp rock and snapping.
The dragon deciding to humor the bluff. (The dragon knows you're bluffing, but he's intrigued enough with where you're going with this that he rolls with it for a bit).

Roleplay works best alongside the dice rolls, not in spite of them.

Probably better to confirm critical faillures and successes, though.

If you succeed on the confirmation roll after a critical faillure: A second before the rope snaps, the last few strands give you enough leverage to propel yourself upward, grabbing the edge of the cliff with one hand. With great effort, you pull yourself over the cliff. You are safe. You don't drop to your death, but you lost your rope.

If you fail on the confirmation roll after a critical success: The dragon appears intrigued by your tall tale, letting you carry on and pressing you for copious amounts of details... until the corners of his jagged maw suddenly curl into a toothy grin, and he bellows a raucous laughter. The beast does not believe you, but he's entertained enough to not devour you on the spot. The dragon doesn't believe you, but you didn't anger it.

Also makes for better narrative on the fly!

[RandomPeasant]

I see a lot of critical success and failure on skill checks. and I hate it. a 1 should not screw you over when you are trying to climb up a knotted rope when you have a +30 to climb. a natural 20 should not grant success to bluff the dragon when all you have is a -2 on charisma.

The whole "natural 1 is an automatic failure" thing is just brutal for PCs, and it encourages really obnoxious avenues of optimization while making certain kinds of encounters really tedious. The one time a natural 20 lets you succeed at a critical juncture may lead to a cool story, but it comes with a lot of other times when you rolled a natural 1 against the kill spell from a mook caster and died.

"Fumble" type rules also have a common failure where they scale with number of dice rolled in systems where experts roll more dice, leading to absurdities like duels between master swordsman being decided by the first guy to cut his own head off.

[rel]

It's a difficult problem to address mechanically;

You want your dice roll to matter, there should be a significant chance of success and failure, otherwise why roll at all.
You want the unskilled character to be able to participate alongside the skilled character. When the GM says, 'everyone roll X', that X roll should matter for each member of the party.
Finally, you want characters to grow meaningfully over time, to get better at existing skills, to learn new skills, to generally get better.


Striking a balance between these 3 goals is so difficult that I still haven't found a system that does so to my satisfaction.

Fumbles and crits are a rather hamfisted approach; Rolls are genuinely always meaningful. However, while everyone can technically always participate, in practice it isn't reliable enough for it to matter.

The real loss is character growth; your master thief can't run through the thieves guild entrance exam obstacle course before breakfast just to stay sharp because they are sure to fail at least one of the 100 easy rolls and trip over a bucket or step on a rake.

[vasilidor]

Ah yes...


FUMBLE RULES >.>

<.<


*knocks them off the table Like a petulant kitten*

Lets pretend like no one ever made them and move on.


please?

[Batcathat]

The real loss is character growth; your master thief can't run through the thieves guild entrance exam obstacle course before breakfast just to stay sharp because they are sure to fail at least one of the 100 easy rolls and trip over a bucket or step on a rake.

It can also be a little bad for realism. It's not like surgeons typically kill one in twenty patients.

[Tzardok]

Or one in twenty people who try to jump to the moon actually manages it.

[Lilapop]

It's a difficult problem to address mechanically
[...]
Fumbles and crits are a rather hamfisted approach; Rolls are genuinely always meaningful. However, while everyone can technically always participate, in practice it isn't reliable enough for it to matter.

A potential way out is grades of success: reduced damage, no (or reduced) progress on climb/swim, the crafted weapon is only +2 masterwork instead of +5 masterwork, etc. Would require tons of work to apply to an existing system, especially one as sprawling as D&D 3.5, but should be possible when designing something from scratch.

Getting back to the topic of "houserules that are just misinterpreted actual rules": For the longest time, I thought everything was sold at half price, including gems and jewelry. So I allow your 5 gp gold ring + 95 gp amethyst to count as 100 gp worth of "rare magical materials" for turning it into a ring of protection +1. You reimburse the crafter for the remaining 900 gp of magical oil and essential dust (or loot it from team evil's Q), and you pay him another 1000 gp for his time, profit margin, and 80 XP worth of ambrosia.

[vasilidor]

I frequently house rule the magic mart. you are not guaranteed to get your magic item every time. the odds will never be 0 and there are ways to improve your odds through skills and roll play. you can check a base of once every month and your odds vary based on what type of item and how powerful it is. Items with higher caster level requirements are harder to find than those of lower caster level items.

[Xervous]

Oh fumble rules. I haven’t had to forgo a table because of them yet, but that’s due to me GMing frequently and other systems having reasonable fumble rules that more frequently afflict the less competent characters.

[RexDart]

The whole "natural 1 is an automatic failure" thing is just brutal for PCs, and it encourages really obnoxious avenues of optimization while making certain kinds of encounters really tedious. The one time a natural 20 lets you succeed at a critical juncture may lead to a cool story, but it comes with a lot of other times when you rolled a natural 1 against the kill spell from a mook caster and died.

"Fumble" type rules also have a common failure where they scale with number of dice rolled in systems where experts roll more dice, leading to absurdities like duels between master swordsman being decided by the first guy to cut his own head off.

Fumble rules in a d20-based system are only made by people who don't understand math. People don't realize how often a 1 in 20 chance comes up when you're making lots of rolls.

I could perhaps make exceptions for things like untrained use, wielding martial weapons when you lack the proficiency, or (the Three Stooges scenario) when you have 1 point in Profession (Plumber) but a -3 INT modifier.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

One rule my group experimented with was that instead of nothing special about natural 1s/20s on skill checks or automatic failures/successes on the same, you get a bonus or penalty to the roll when you roll one or the other.

We also floated the idea of using 2d10 or 3d6 for skill checks, so there's still significant variance, but your total bonus is a bit more likely to be the deciding factor.

[Thurbane]

I think if a table must have fumble rules (and I prefer if it doesn't), then at the very least you should need to "confirm" the fumble, the same way you confirm crits.

You roll a natural 1: roll again. If the second roll would have hit, then the 1 is just a miss, without any fumble applied.

[Quertus]

I frequently house rule the magic mart. you are not guaranteed to get your magic item every time. the odds will never be 0 and there are ways to improve your odds through skills and roll play. you can check a base of once every month and your odds vary based on what type of item and how powerful it is. Items with higher caster level requirements are harder to find than those of lower caster level items.

What keeps these unreliable merchants from going out of business when a clever crafter uses Divinations to always have the desired items ready by the time that the PCs (etc) want and can pay for them?

[Maat Mons]

That seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to make 500 gp per day... while also losing 40 xp per day. The fact that magic items are a little difficult to get hold of in this setting seems to suggest that high-level casters have things they'd rather be spending their time on than crafting... or at least crafting for others. It makes sense, really. If a high-level caster needs gold, he can probably get it faster and easier by some other means.

Edit: I've considered doing something similar in a setting, with my justification being that every crafter who accepts commissions from the general public is constantly booked out as far ahead as they're willing to schedule things. So either you've got connections, you get really lucky, or you're stuck shopping the second-hand market.

[Raven777]

Aren't the exact items and quantities available in a settlement at any given time supposed to be pulled from random tables anyway? Or did I dream that up? I always thought players being allowed to pick and choose any specific item they desire was the house rule.

[Arkhios]

I think if a table must have fumble rules (and I prefer if it doesn't), then at the very least you should need to "confirm" the fumble, the same way you confirm crits.

You roll a natural 1: roll again. If the second roll would have hit, then the 1 is just a miss, without any fumble applied.

This is exactly how the 1st Edition Pathfinder's Critical and Fumble Decks function. Fumble has to be confirmed to be a miss, before anything severe happens. We've been playing two whole campaigns, and a third about half-way through, with those decks in use, and they work with 3.5 as well without a hitch. And to be honest, I wouldn't have it any other way. Fumbles can be fun. Especially when they apply to enemies as well (which they do)


Aren't the exact items and quantities available in a settlement at any given time supposed to be pulled from random tables anyway? Or did I dream that up? I always thought players being allowed to pick and choose any specific item they desire was the house rule.

As far as I know, neither is an adamant rule, and both are entirely optional for the DM to choose from. In other words, a DM can choose to roll, or simply let the players buy whatever they wish (within reason).
Unless they're running an adventure path or module or some such where it has been decided already.

In any case, IIRC, there is one adamant rule: the size and population of a settlement restricts how expensive/high level items can be bought, as well as the settlement's gold limit for selling items.

[Maat Mons]

Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical.

So, the closest thing we have to RAW on the subject is, if you want it, and it's under the town's gp limit you can "most likely" buy it.

[H_H_F_F]

I don't believe anyone mentioned rolling for defense instead of using flat AC. I've seen it quite often, though I haven't seen it mentioned online much.

[vasilidor]

What keeps these unreliable merchants from going out of business when a clever crafter uses Divinations to always have the desired items ready by the time that the PCs (etc) want and can pay for them?

Part of the reason is there is a limited quantity of magic items, and sometimes you get beaten to the punch if it was on the market to begin with as most people with magic items don't sell them. lower end magic items are almost always available though. Now it is entirely possible to get to a crafter and ask them to make an item, but even then you are often better off getting a minion to do crafting or to do it yourself. I use pathfinder which has no experience cost and I also pulled magicite from final fantasy into the mix because I could. it is what magic items are made with and it makes a large chunk of the treasure I hand out.

[Gnaeus]

I think if a table must have fumble rules (and I prefer if it doesn't), then at the very least you should need to "confirm" the fumble, the same way you confirm crits.

You roll a natural 1: roll again. If the second roll would have hit, then the 1 is just a miss, without any fumble applied.

We do that, but also limit it to the first attack in a turn so things with multiple attacks aren’t penalized vs. things with one big attack.

[ciopo]

We do that, but also limit it to the first attack in a turn so things with multiple attacks aren’t penalized vs. things with one big attack.

doesn't that penalize the thing with one big attack?

[Calthropstu]

doesn't that penalize the thing with one big attack?

Not really. If a fumble happens they lose all their attacks. So whether they swing big or swing 10 smaller attacks, the result is the same. Unless they have the fumble not affect their remaining attacks which would be silly... "So your first swing is a fumble. You have dropped your sword. On your foot. It hurts. But go ahead and roll the rest of your attacks."