3.5E house rules?

[Schmoe]

I've been playing 3rd edition (or 3.5) since it came out. I never moved on to the later versions or PF for various reasons, and by now my familiarity with the system makes it so that I can focus more on the actual play than the rules. That being said, I definitely recognize that 3.5 has some warts and wrinkles. Over the years I've developed a few tweaks here and there to help iron out what I see as rough spots in the system. I also keep abreast of the new rules. PF2.0 has some great ideas, like the 3-action round. If anyone has seen Level Up over on ENWorld, I really love some of the changes they are introducing around monster descriptions and exploration.

Is there any interest in discussing rough spots and potential improvements? For example, here's an easy one. It seems minor, but it really helps everyone at the table feel like they have something to contribute in random situations.


Background Skills: Skill points for most characters are extremely limited. In addition, some skills are just really rarely utilized, such as Craft. To help alleviate that, every PC gets 1 extra skill point per level that can only be spent on Craft, Profession, Speak Language, Perform, or Knowledge. No more than 1/2 of these skill ranks can be put into any one skill.

[Mordante]

I've been playing 3rd edition (or 3.5) since it came out. I never moved on to the later versions or PF for various reasons, and by now my familiarity with the system makes it so that I can focus more on the actual play than the rules. That being said, I definitely recognize that 3.5 has some warts and wrinkles. Over the years I've developed a few tweaks here and there to help iron out what I see as rough spots in the system. I also keep abreast of the new rules. PF2.0 has some great ideas, like the 3-action round. If anyone has seen Level Up over on ENWorld, I really love some of the changes they are introducing around monster descriptions and exploration.

Is there any interest in discussing rough spots and potential improvements? For example, here's an easy one. It seems minor, but it really helps everyone at the table feel like they have something to contribute in random situations.


Background Skills: Skill points for most characters are extremely limited. In addition, some skills are just really rarely utilized, such as Craft. To help alleviate that, every PC gets 1 extra skill point per level that can only be spent on Craft, Profession, Speak Language, Perform, or Knowledge. No more than 1/2 of these skill ranks can be put into any one skill.

I agree. If I would start a new party I would give everyone a few skill points which they can put in back ground skills. Profession I would make a class skill for all classes.

Non of the parties I play in use XP. At a certain point the DM decides it's time to level up. Anything above level 15 takes at least a few years to reach.

[pabelfly]

I like the homebrew idea of a background skill, and I like the choice of skills given, but I'd remove Knowledge from the options offered. I find Knowledge skills are much more useful than the rest, have use in combat, and can be used with Knowledge Devotion or a bunch of prestige class prerequisites.

[RandomPeasant]

Some knowledges have combat applications, but others don't. Arcana may tell you what the monsters you're fighting are, but Architecture and engineering sure won't.

In terms of the houserule, one thing I would suggest is to roll back the idea that specializations are separate skills for most of those skills. Perform should get you one performance type per rank, not require you to buy up "Trombone" and "Tap Dance" separately. Knowledge, again, should probably be an exception, as the different knowledges do have some value. But you don't need different Craft skills for PCs.

[pabelfly]

Some knowledges have combat applications, but others don't. Arcana may tell you what the monsters you're fighting are, but Architecture and engineering sure won't.

Maybe make Knowledge: Architecture, Geography, History and Nobility as part of the list of background skills, but other knowledge skills are excluded.

[Murg]

I dunno, it seems this is a dis-incentive to play skill-based classes.

One of the reasons people play bards is for bardic knowledge; one of the reasons people play rogues is for a ton of skill points. Considering that none of the skill-based classes is game breaking (tier 1 or tier 2) do the skill-based classes really need a nerf?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

IME, "quality of life" house rules like those mentioned by the OP are more common than balance house rules. Plenty of tables don't even realize their quality of life bugfixes are house rules at all! Usually it's the removal disliked things such as massive damage, multiclass xp penalties, fireball being a wealth destroyer/related item rules, misguided applications of the primary source rule*, and so on. If we're talking about more proactive changes, I often (but do not always) see things like:
- Giving away certain feats for free to everyone, e.g. Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse.
- Bumping the skill points for mundane 2+int classes to at least 4+int (and/or having more ways to get more skill points).
- Making detect magic/identify work like Pathfinder (or just handwaving identification altogether).

*Basically, if the GM's game includes book X, and within X is a rules update Y which contradicts the PHB, and the GM does not explicitly change Y, then of course we're using Y. Don't be silly.

[Silly Name]

I dunno, it seems this is a dis-incentive to play skill-based classes.

One of the reasons people play bards is for bardic knowledge; one of the reasons people play rogues is for a ton of skill points. Considering that none of the skill-based classes is game breaking (tier 1 or tier 2) do the skill-based classes really need a nerf?

I doubt any skill monkey would feel like the Fighter is stepping on her toes if said Fighter gets to be good at repairing his own weapons or cooking dinner for the rest of the party. Having one skill point per level that can be spent on moderately-fluffy options doesn't really hurt skill based classes.

An argument may be made for Knowledge skills and how they affect Bardic knowledge, but I suspect one extra rank per level isn't going to make you be on par with a Bard unless you were already investing in those skills.

[Vhaidara]

one of the reasons people play rogues is for a ton of skill points. Considering that none of the skill-based classes is game breaking (tier 1 or tier 2) do the skill-based classes really need a nerf?

I mean, they get more skills too, and frankly rogue has nowhere near the skills they need because of how subdivided 3.5's skill system is. To accomplish the traditional basic rogue things, you need Hide, Move Silently, Search, Spot, Listen, Disable Device, and Open Lock. That locks down 7 of your 8 skills, just for the basic role of "scout ahead and bypass traps/locks". Nevermind if you want to play a con artist type (Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Sense Motive), or an infiltrator (climb, balance, use rope, maybe swim). Hells, it doesn't even give you Sleight of Hand for picking pockets (a classic rogue thing that isn't generally relevant in dungeons)

[Schmoe]

I like the homebrew idea of a background skill, and I like the choice of skills given, but I'd remove Knowledge from the options offered. I find Knowledge skills are much more useful than the rest, have use in combat, and can be used with Knowledge Devotion or a bunch of prestige class prerequisites.

I do agree that Knowledge skills can be pretty useful, and even have combat applications! That said, I didn't think this would cause too many issues because:

a.) Nobody is going to get a lot of ranks in a Knowledge skill from this ability (at most ranks = 1/2 your level), so probably won't rely on it for combat applications
b.) There are a lot of Knowledge skills. So what if the Fighter with an Int modifier of +0 has picked up a couple ranks in Knowledge Planes? There are lots of other things to know, and a specialist will know it better.

[Schmoe]

I dunno, it seems this is a dis-incentive to play skill-based classes.

One of the reasons people play bards is for bardic knowledge; one of the reasons people play rogues is for a ton of skill points. Considering that none of the skill-based classes is game breaking (tier 1 or tier 2) do the skill-based classes really need a nerf?

I did think about this, but in the end decided it was worth a shot. My reasoning was that:

a.) Skill-based classes also benefit from this. It turns out they are just as skill-starved as other classes, and it helps them make more well-rounded characters.
b.) The skills available really aren't stepping on the toes of anyone else.
c.) Even with skill-based characters in a group, I never had anyone take Craft: Carpentry before this. The look on a sorcerer player's face when they can use a background skill is priceless.

I definitely went into it as an experiment and willing to pull back, but so far I haven't found that it detracts in any way from skill-based characters.

[RexDart]

I like the homebrew idea of a background skill, and I like the choice of skills given, but I'd remove Knowledge from the options offered. I find Knowledge skills are much more useful than the rest, have use in combat, and can be used with Knowledge Devotion or a bunch of prestige class prerequisites.

Maybe remove the ones that have that combat function, but leave stuff like Knowledge: Architecture, Knowledge: History, etc.?

I'd also add the house rule my DM uses, which is, in essence, to remove the "class skills" concept entirely. Characters just pick 20 skills as their personal skill list.

Giving almost all characters too few skill points to make any meaningful or interesting choices, plus hammering them even more if they pick the "wrong" skills just seems to me like yet another "not-being-a-wizard" tax imposed by the system.

[Schmoe]

IME, "quality of life" house rules like those mentioned by the OP are more common than balance house rules. Plenty of tables don't even realize their quality of life bugfixes are house rules at all! Usually it's the removal disliked things such as massive damage, multiclass xp penalties, fireball being a wealth destroyer/related item rules, misguided applications of the primary source rule*, and so on. If we're talking about more proactive changes, I often (but do not always) see things like:
- Giving away certain feats for free to everyone, e.g. Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse.
- Bumping the skill points for mundane 2+int classes to at least 4+int (and/or having more ways to get more skill points).
- Making detect magic/identify work like Pathfinder (or just handwaving identification altogether).


Yeah, and oftentimes these make the biggest difference. Another quality of life change I've added is Weapon Groups. Similar to Pathfinder's (I think). I took inspiration from Pathfinder weapon groups, but didn't pay too much attention when I wrote down my rules. Some weapons are in multiple weapon groups.

[Schmoe]

Maybe remove the ones that have that combat function, but leave stuff like Knowledge: Architecture, Knowledge: History, etc.?

I'd also add the house rule my DM uses, which is, in essence, to remove the "class skills" concept entirely. Characters just pick 20 skills as their personal skill list.

Giving almost all characters too few skill points to make any meaningful or interesting choices, plus hammering them even more if they pick the "wrong" skills just seems to me like yet another "not-being-a-wizard" tax imposed by the system.

I'm DMing for two groups of relatively new players. To that end I've resisted making really dramatic changes, as I'd like the players to have pretty good footing on the rules and not have to question everything they read in the PHB. That being said, yeah, I think skills are definitely an area open to improvement. 2 skill points/level for a Wizard is a lot different than 2 skill points/level for a Fighter, or even a Cleric.

[Biggus]

Background Skills: Skill points for most characters are extremely limited. In addition, some skills are just really rarely utilized, such as Craft. To help alleviate that, every PC gets 1 extra skill point per level that can only be spent on Craft, Profession, Speak Language, Perform, or Knowledge. No more than 1/2 of these skill ranks can be put into any one skill.


Maybe make Knowledge: Architecture, Geography, History and Nobility as part of the list of background skills, but other knowledge skills are excluded.

I've done exactly this is my current campaign, except for the bit about no more than half ranks in a given skill, and that I've also excluded the Perform skills which can be used for Bardic music. It doesn't come into play particularly often, but it provides a bit of colour to characters who are mostly just about killing things. One of them now keeps any cool-looking body parts from things he kills and sports a dire badgerskin 'pimp coat' among other accessories.

It sometimes saves them a bit of money here and there (the Druid carved his own wooden breastplate to cast Ironwood on for example) but nothing that makes much difference at mid-high levels.


I mean, they get more skills too, and frankly rogue has nowhere near the skills they need because of how subdivided 3.5's skill system is. To accomplish the traditional basic rogue things, you need Hide, Move Silently, Search, Spot, Listen, Disable Device, and Open Lock. That locks down 7 of your 8 skills, just for the basic role of "scout ahead and bypass traps/locks". Nevermind if you want to play a con artist type (Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Sense Motive), or an infiltrator (climb, balance, use rope, maybe swim). Hells, it doesn't even give you Sleight of Hand for picking pockets (a classic rogue thing that isn't generally relevant in dungeons)

Yeah, this. I think the next campaign I start I'm either giving everyone (except maybe tier 1 classes) 2 more skill points per level, or else borrowing from PF and combining some skills so their skill points go further.

[Quertus]

Some knowledges have combat applications, but others don't. Arcana may tell you what the monsters you're fighting are, but Architecture and engineering sure won't.

Unless, perhaps, you attack a gazebo? :smallamused:

[Xervous]

I generally consider PF2e a cautionary tale, being a road paved with good intentions.

As for 3.5e house rules one of the biggest undertakings is addressing some of the needless fiddly details. One thing I didn’t see mentioned yet at a glance was retroactive skill points for changing INT. Systems that produce different character results for varying the order of your inputs are generally a headache, just avoid this.

[Silly Name]

As for 3.5e house rules one of the biggest undertakings is addressing some of the needless fiddly details. One thing I didn’t see mentioned yet at a glance was retroactive skill points for changing INT. Systems that produce different character results for varying the order of your inputs are generally a headache, just avoid this.

This problem mostly arises when building character directly at higher level, and whose INT score changes between level 1 and whatever the actual starting level is. Playing a character from level 1 to level N doesn't incur in any problem regarding assigning skill points.

Of course, it is weird we have retroactive hit points but no retroactive skill points.

[D+1]

For me, any significant problem I have with 3.5 is solved by E6.

[Schmoe]

For me, any significant problem I have with 3.5 is solved by E6.

E6? What is that?

[pabelfly]

E6? What is that?

Short version, E6 has character levels cap out at level 6. After that, you get a feat every so often. Level 6 is about the level where martial characters and casters are roughly the same level of power, so it can be pretty good if you want a somewhat balanced, low-power game.

There are more expansive rules elsewhere and there can be some differences in rules since it's a homebrew system.

[Telonius]

Here's the usual houserules I use. I've played around with some other things, case by case, but these are generally pretty useful. They don't fix every problem, but they try to fix some of problems in Core that are really unbalancing, stupid, or just plain un-fun.

Character Creation
- One free 18. Roll 4d6 five times, rerolling any one, once. (If it comes up as another one, it was meant to be). Drop lowest die result. Arrange as desired. (Mulligan if less than a collective +7 bonus).

Race
- Half-Elves get one extra skill point per level.
- Half-Orcs lose the CHA penalty and gain a +4 racial bonus to Intimidate.

Class
- Remove favored classes. Multiclass is free.
- There can be Lawful Barbarians, Lawful Bards, and Chaotic Monks.
- All Clerics are Cloistered Clerics.
- Clerics gain proficiency with their deity's favored weapon. (War domain still gives them the Weapon Focus feat).
- Fighters get 4+Int skill points per level.
- At level 5, Fighters gain the "Adaptable Focus" class ability. Once a day Fighters can spend 1 hour practicing with a weapon to change the kind of weapon for which they have Focus or Specialization. This designation lasts until the Fighter spends an hour to change the weapon focus again.
- Paladins take the alignment of their deity (if any) and must act as a prime example of the ideals of their deity, philosophy, or cause.
- Monks get full BAB, proficiency with Gauntlets (which are also a Monk weapon), and can spend time/gold/xp enchanting their own body as though it were a weapon/armor.
- Sorcerers get free Eschew Materials at first, and their HD improves to d6.
- Rogues get an additional Rogue Ability at level 20.
- Rangers and Druids trade animal companions.
- Knowledge (Religion) and Knowledge (Geography) are now on the Druid class skill list.
- Druids use the Shapeshift variant (except for the animal companion, as described above).

Skills
- Open Lock and Disable Device are rolled into one skill, Disable Device (based on Dexterity).
- Balance and Tumble are now one skill, Acrobatics (based on Dexterity).
- Listen and Spot are now one skill, Perception (based on Wisdom).
- Hide and Move Silently are now one skill, Stealth (based on Dexterity).

Feats
- Remove the +1 BAB requirement for the Weapon Finesse feat
- Weapon Focus grants a bonus equal to Fighter Level/5 (minimum 1). Greater Weapon Focus doubles the bonus.
- Weapon Specialization grants a bonus equal to 2*(Fighter Level/5). Greater Weapon Specialization doubles the bonus.
- Metamagic feats do not take more time for spontaneous casters
- Natural Spell is stricken from the game.
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat now scales to include extra attacks with each iterative Attack. Improved Two-Weapon fighting lessens the penalty by 1 for each attack. Greater Two-Weapon fighting lessens the penalty by an additional 1.
- The Rapid Shot feat now scales to include extra attacks with each iterative Attack. Manyshot lessens the penalty by 1 for each attack.
- Toughness grants you HP equal to your current HD.
- Delete the phrase “and use the charge action” from the Ride-By Attack feat. Ride-By Attack will function as the mounted equivalent of Spring Attack.

Spells
- The following spells are stricken from the game: Shapechange, Polymorph Any Object, Wind Wall, Contingency, Knock.
- Divine Power is no longer a standard Cleric spell. It is still on the War domain list.

Miscellaneous
- Fractional BAB and saves for multiclass characters.
- Starting characters may choose race or templates totaling +2 LA. Buyoff is available.
- SR does not have to be turned off in order to receive a beneficial spell.
- All adventurers are issued the following items free, not counted against WBL:
1 Handy Haversack, 1 MW armor or MW weapon, 10 trail rations (kept in the haversack), 1 spellbook (if a wizard), 1 holy symbol (if a cleric or paladin)
- When making a mounted charge, the mount is not required to make an attack (though it may do so if beneficial).
- Dust of Sneezing and Choking does not exist.
- There are no Vorpal weapons in my game. If you ever encounter a Vorpal weapon, you can be assured that you will soon be facing a Jabberwocky, which will be an epic-level foe.
- Don’t try to break the game. I reserve the right to say no to any race/feat/class/PrC/equipment/whatever combination. If you’re not sure, ask; I’m willing to work with you if it’s not too ridiculous.
- Add Pun-Pun as an over-deity of Cheese, Exploits, and Metagaming. Pun-Pun is aware that he is a god in a fictional gaming world. Anyone that slips something past me in an attempt to break the game will bring down his wrath. He is jealous of his ultimate power, and will personally act to prevent any player/character from approaching it.

[Silly Name]

A similar house rule I've implemented in a few games and which my players seem to like is what I've dubbed "background kits": basically, at character creation everyone can pick a "kit" from a list. Each kit is a thematic ensemble, consisting of a "minor feat" (any of the ones like Agile, Deft Hands, Negotiator, Stealthy...), a thematically appropriate minor privilege (such as treating a skill as always being a class skill, picking an extra language, having a daily reroll or a +2 competence bonus on checks thematically related to the background), and a simple trinket relating to the kit.

It doesn't particularly affect game balance, allows player some further customisation and a chance to pick up feats they otherwise would never consider and can help in establishing a backstory.

It's by no means a groundbreaking or original idea, but I've found it's fun and flavorful. I make no claims to the various kits I've come up with to be balanced with each other, but I haven't found games in a which a character has a "bigger" privilege such as a reroll and another simply gets to have an "always a class skill" on to lead to problems or conflict.

[ManicOppressive]

I pretty massively buffed skill point acquisition in my system. Put it more in line with hit dice, so no one has less than 4 + INT (basically every class I just moved up by 2) and Rogues I put all the way up to 12 + INT.

I have Perform and Craft skills at 1/2 a skill point for each rank to encourage their use, and because my setting is extremely music focused.

I also did away with class skills entirely.

I don't know if I necessarily recommend all of this in a vacuum--I've got 10+ years of other houseruling that probably makes this look a little less extreme in context--but my players actually have and use the fun skills like Forgery or Decipher Script and I get a LOT more out of sheets reflecting characters' actual realistic backgrounds when players aren't just putting every available point into class requirements and Spellcraft.

So I guess my stance is that your changes are likely to be fine, and if anything could probably be toned up without too much worry. As long as you're making sure the classes focused on having skill points still have the most skill points by relevant margins, rising tides float all ships.

[Schmoe]

Short version, E6 has character levels cap out at level 6. After that, you get a feat every so often. Level 6 is about the level where martial characters and casters are roughly the same level of power, so it can be pretty good if you want a somewhat balanced, low-power game.

There are more expansive rules elsewhere and there can be some differences in rules since it's a homebrew system.

Ah, I see. I could see how that avoids many of the problems, but it also would feel like a very stifled game to me. Thanks for the explanation.


Here's the usual houserules I use. I've played around with some other things, case by case, but these are generally pretty useful. They don't fix every problem, but they try to fix some of problems in Core that are really unbalancing, stupid, or just plain un-fun.

Character Creation
- One free 18. Roll 4d6 five times, rerolling any one, once. (If it comes up as another one, it was meant to be). Drop lowest die result. Arrange as desired. (Mulligan if less than a collective +7 bonus).

Race
- Half-Elves get one extra skill point per level.
- Half-Orcs lose the CHA penalty and gain a +4 racial bonus to Intimidate.

Class
- Remove favored classes. Multiclass is free.
- There can be Lawful Barbarians, Lawful Bards, and Chaotic Monks.
- All Clerics are Cloistered Clerics.
- Clerics gain proficiency with their deity's favored weapon. (War domain still gives them the Weapon Focus feat).
- Fighters get 4+Int skill points per level.
- At level 5, Fighters gain the "Adaptable Focus" class ability. Once a day Fighters can spend 1 hour practicing with a weapon to change the kind of weapon for which they have Focus or Specialization. This designation lasts until the Fighter spends an hour to change the weapon focus again.
- Paladins take the alignment of their deity (if any) and must act as a prime example of the ideals of their deity, philosophy, or cause.
- Monks get full BAB, proficiency with Gauntlets (which are also a Monk weapon), and can spend time/gold/xp enchanting their own body as though it were a weapon/armor.
- Sorcerers get free Eschew Materials at first, and their HD improves to d6.
- Rogues get an additional Rogue Ability at level 20.
- Rangers and Druids trade animal companions.
- Knowledge (Religion) and Knowledge (Geography) are now on the Druid class skill list.
- Druids use the Shapeshift variant (except for the animal companion, as described above).

Skills
- Open Lock and Disable Device are rolled into one skill, Disable Device (based on Dexterity).
- Balance and Tumble are now one skill, Acrobatics (based on Dexterity).
- Listen and Spot are now one skill, Perception (based on Wisdom).
- Hide and Move Silently are now one skill, Stealth (based on Dexterity).

Feats
- Remove the +1 BAB requirement for the Weapon Finesse feat
- Weapon Focus grants a bonus equal to Fighter Level/5 (minimum 1). Greater Weapon Focus doubles the bonus.
- Weapon Specialization grants a bonus equal to 2*(Fighter Level/5). Greater Weapon Specialization doubles the bonus.
- Metamagic feats do not take more time for spontaneous casters
- Natural Spell is stricken from the game.
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat now scales to include extra attacks with each iterative Attack. Improved Two-Weapon fighting lessens the penalty by 1 for each attack. Greater Two-Weapon fighting lessens the penalty by an additional 1.
- The Rapid Shot feat now scales to include extra attacks with each iterative Attack. Manyshot lessens the penalty by 1 for each attack.
- Toughness grants you HP equal to your current HD.
- Delete the phrase “and use the charge action” from the Ride-By Attack feat. Ride-By Attack will function as the mounted equivalent of Spring Attack.

Spells
- The following spells are stricken from the game: Shapechange, Polymorph Any Object, Wind Wall, Contingency, Knock.
- Divine Power is no longer a standard Cleric spell. It is still on the War domain list.

Miscellaneous
- Fractional BAB and saves for multiclass characters.
- Starting characters may choose race or templates totaling +2 LA. Buyoff is available.
- SR does not have to be turned off in order to receive a beneficial spell.
- All adventurers are issued the following items free, not counted against WBL:
1 Handy Haversack, 1 MW armor or MW weapon, 10 trail rations (kept in the haversack), 1 spellbook (if a wizard), 1 holy symbol (if a cleric or paladin)
- When making a mounted charge, the mount is not required to make an attack (though it may do so if beneficial).
- Dust of Sneezing and Choking does not exist.
- There are no Vorpal weapons in my game. If you ever encounter a Vorpal weapon, you can be assured that you will soon be facing a Jabberwocky, which will be an epic-level foe.
- Don’t try to break the game. I reserve the right to say no to any race/feat/class/PrC/equipment/whatever combination. If you’re not sure, ask; I’m willing to work with you if it’s not too ridiculous.
- Add Pun-Pun as an over-deity of Cheese, Exploits, and Metagaming. Pun-Pun is aware that he is a god in a fictional gaming world. Anyone that slips something past me in an attempt to break the game will bring down his wrath. He is jealous of his ultimate power, and will personally act to prevent any player/character from approaching it.

Cool. I really like a lot of these, and have a few in a similar vein (Toughness, for example). The Cloistered Cleric in particular is a great house rule. I think Druids need to be toned down as well, as they are totally over the top. I'm not sure I agree with the anti-Vorpal weapons, though :)


A similar house rule I've implemented in a few games and which my players seem to like is what I've dubbed "background kits": basically, at character creation everyone can pick a "kit" from a list. Each kit is a thematic ensemble, consisting of a "minor feat" (any of the ones like Agile, Deft Hands, Negotiator, Stealthy...), a thematically appropriate minor privilege (such as treating a skill as always being a class skill, picking an extra language, having a daily reroll or a +2 competence bonus on checks thematically related to the background), and a simple trinket relating to the kit.

Nice, I like that quite a bit. The background abilities in 3.5 RAW are really lacking, so anything that helps flesh out the characters I find to be a value add with very little downside.


<snip>
So I guess my stance is that your changes are likely to be fine, and if anything could probably be toned up without too much worry. As long as you're making sure the classes focused on having skill points still have the most skill points by relevant margins, rising tides float all ships.

Thanks, and I definitely agree about keeping skill-based characters relevant. I'm sure I could have done more in this area, but as I mentioned earlier I'm resisting making too many changes with newer players.

[Schmoe]

I've also house-ruled a few spells that I find particularly troubling or disappointing. Those being Darkness, Entangle, Web, Cause Fear/Scare, and the Blasphemy family of spells. I'll spare you the Blasphemy rules, as that's probably an entirely post on its own, and probably not that interesting, but here are the others:

Darkness

Darkness is lame. It used to actually create darkness. As written, it actually creates light! If you cast Darkness in a pitch black cave, per the spell it illuminates the cave. That’s dumb. In order to avoid the complete shutdown of pitch black, but still not give in to the illumination nonsense, Darkness (and Deeper Darkness) are re-written as follows.

Effect: Darkness creates an area that impedes all sources of light and vision. Within an area of magical darkness, light can’t spread beyond 20’, and all forms of vision are likewise impeded to prevent vision beyond 20’. Any source of light within the area is treated as dim light. Someone within an area of darkness or targeting an opponent in an area of darkness suffers a 20% miss chance if there is a light source. Senses that do not rely on vision, such as blindsight and tremorsense, are unaffected.

Entangle

This spell is incredibly powerful, with the ability to lock down multiple creatures for literally 10s of rounds. As written, a creature in the center with a 20’ move needs to make a minimum of 4 successful checks to escape the effect, and with a +2 strength bonus has only a 10% chance of succeeding on each check, which means it will take 40 rounds for the creature to escape. The following adjustments continue to allow Entangle to function as battlefield control while keeping the spell more in line with what a 1st level spell should do.

Effect: Creatures must save when the spell is cast, and if they end their turn in the area of effect. Creatures that fail their save are entangled and can’t move. All movement in the area of effect is at half speed. As a full-round action, an entangled creature can make a Strength check or Escape Artist check at the original spell DC to break free and make a double move. A creature gains a +4 bonus to the check for each size category greater than Medium.

Web

Web has similar issues to Entangle, despite the weakness to fire and flaming attacks. The following adjustments should make Web less of an encounter-ending spell while still keeping it relevant.

Effect: The initial save only determines whether a creature is stuck in the web. All creatures within the area of effect are considered entangled. The Strength and Escape Artist DC to break free are equal to the spell’s save DC. Remember that an entangled creature has a -4 to effective Dex. Moving within the web is as described in the spell. It requires a full-round action to make a Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check exceeds 10. Creatures get a +5 bonus to their checks if they have a solid surface against which to brace themselves. A creature gets a +4 bonus to its check for every size category greater than Medium.

Cause Fear/Scare

Effect: Creatures of 6+ HD are no longer immune to these spells, but instead automatically make their saving throws. This means that they are automatically Shaken for 1 round. This maintains some minor relevance for the spells.

Do other people find those spells difficult to work with or just plain jarring? For example, so many higher level creatures have Cause Fear or Scare, but it's just pointless. Entangle and Web shut down entire encounters. Darkness is actually "Shadowy Light". There are tons of other spells that could be tweaked, but I've only changed the few most egregious ones. So far the players seem to agree with the changes.

[JoeNapalm]

I still allow players to bind wounds after a fight (gaining back D4 hp), which is an old but common house rule from 1e (I seriously thought it was RAW but apparently just widely used).

Nat 1s call for a weapon save vs breakage. Magic bonuses count as bonuses to save. (Don't give me that look, weapons break -- and there's mending spells a plenty)

No multiclass XP penalties.

If you want to do something, make a character, whatever, that's not strictly legal or by the book -- we can talk about it. Talking about it does not forfeit the DM's authority to make the final call.

Nature abhors naked singularities -- if you try to leverage something flagrantly world-breaking, the Universe is going to compensate via the path of least resistance, which is almost always going to be by removing you from it. History is littered with the craters of those who wield power carelessly...

Dice that do not come to rest on a flat surface, fall off the table, land on keyboards, etc., are over the wall, do not call -- you must reroll.

The DM does not abide mechanics, droppers, screeners, or other attempts at dice control -- typically you will get one warning, after which you will get pointed reminders that the DM doesn't even need dice, they can arbitrarily determine outcomes. (Seriously, do not try any of this. You're not fooling anyone and I've little patience for it.)

Oh, and above all, have fun and don't be a @#$%.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist


PS:
Not a house rule but always a good thing to keep in mind in my games, Napalm's Law of Magic Items:

"If it is shiny, it probably belongs to someone. If it is intelligent, it likely has its own agenda."

[Xervous]

Nat 1s call for a weapon save vs breakage. Magic bonuses count as bonuses to save. (Don't give me that look, weapons break -- and there's mending spells a plenty)


Do the evil wizards have to roll fort saves or have their fingers shrivel up when I nat20 a save against their spell?

[Cygnia]

I still allow players to bind wounds after a fight (gaining back D4 hp), which is an old but common house rule from 1e (I seriously thought it was RAW but apparently just widely used).


Heal skill check or can anyone just do it?

[lylsyly]

As far as skills go: All classes get +2 skill points per level, No such thing as class skills (buy ranks in what you want), the Pathfinder skill bundles are in effect.

HD: every class gets one die size increase except for barbarians.

Race: All LAs are reduced by one and LA is bought off at 3rd, 6th, and 9th level.

Spellcasting: Rangers and Paladins get Bard spell progression (including 0 and 5th/6th level spells). And I have intentionally nerfed some spells and bumped up others.

Multiclassing: What xp penalty?

Actions: 1 swift action, one move action and one full attack action or standard action per round (helps martials a bit).

BAB: all classes have their BAB moved up one level.

Rangers get animal companions at 1st level and ALL animal companions and familiars scale by character level NOT class level.

These are the common house rules at our table. we have seven people and each peron has some of their own when it's their turn to DM.

[Silly Name]

Btw, here's a collection of house rules that I tend to always use in games I run for my friend group (in addition to the background kits I mentioned above)

When rolling for HP, you roll twice and keep the best result.
Half-Elves get one extra skill point per level and +1 to CHA. Half-Orcs lose the CHA penalty and get a +1 morale bonus on saving throws against fear.
Fighters get Knowledge (War) as a class skill, and 4 + Int modifier skill points per level.
PF-style multiclassing rules: when you take a level in your favored class, you get +1 hp/+1 skill point, your choice. No penalties.
Paladins and Monks can multiclass freely; alignment restriction and code of conduct still apply.
Liquid Joy is banned. All similar methods to gain infinite reserves of XP and infinite loops of all sorts are to be considered automatically banned.
No Forgotten Realms material (not an houserule, technically. I simply don't run campaigns set in the FR and I don't like the setting and mechanics).
No magic item shops. Apothecaries and alchemists exist and their services are available as normal, but there's no common market for magic items. You need to find what you want, make it yourself or find someone able to craft it and ask them if they're willing to take the commission.

Those are not all the house-rules I use or like, but the ones I've found to work for my table.

[Tiktakkat]

The two biggest I use are:

No iterative attack penalty and no movement attack penalty.
(You can single move and make a full attack with all attacks at your base BAB.)

Concealment imposes an AC penalty rather than a % miss chance.
(-4 for the first attack, -2 for subsequent attacks for 20% concealment; auto-miss for the first attack, -2 for subsequent attacks for 50% concealment.)

[JoeNapalm]

Heal skill check or can anyone just do it?

Generally I make it like a DC10 check, but honestly (nobody tell my players) if no one is in the party is putting points into Healing skills, I would just let them do it to save time on rolling.

If someone has the skill, I'll make them all roll and toss the D4 at the same time.

The Heal skill is bad enough as it is, I sort of feel like they should be allowed to use it for this to feel like they're getting some real value out of it despite the Cleric standing over there being all shiny and all-powerful.

It is meant to represent just catching your breath and doing basic first aid (cleaning and binding wounds)...and it helps slightly with the 10min-for-10hrs Adventurer Work Day Syndrome in 3.5e.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[JoeNapalm]

Do the evil wizards have to roll fort saves or have their fingers shrivel up when I nat20 a save against their spell?

C'mon, man.

Don't you think pure casters have it hard enough as it is? :roach::roach::roach::redcloak:


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Lorddenorstrus]

C'mon, man.

Don't you think pure casters have it hard enough as it is? :roach::roach::roach::redcloak:


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

Yes being walking gods that completely avoid every badly designed martial punishment homebrew in the Edition of D&D that already cut martials down to being borderline useless. Absolutely hard for them. Can't allow players to ever THINK of touching a martial in Castermode D&D. Or even make it look like they're needed. Have to make sure those casters dont break a sweat. /s

[RandomPeasant]

Yes being walking gods that completely avoid every badly designed martial punishment homebrew in the Edition of D&D that already cut martials down to being borderline useless. Absolutely hard for them. Can't allow players to ever THINK of touching a martial in Castermode D&D. Or even make it look like they're needed. Have to make sure those casters dont break a sweat. /s

You joke, but if you nerfed martials hard enough that people stopped trying to get them to work, that would result in something more balanced than stock 3e.

[Endless Rain]

Here are my houserules:

Die rolls: A natural 20 is not an automatic success, but results in a second d20 roll added to the original d20 roll. This can itself cause additional rolls if consecutive natural 20s are rolled. Same goes for natural 1s, which aren't automatic failures, but have a second d20 subtracted from the result.

Skills: Knowledge (Dungeoneering) applies to almost all monsters, as there isn't a good "generic monster knowledge" skill and it didn't have very much use otherwise.

Spellcasting: Every prepared caster is turned into a Sorcerer-style spontaneous caster. Spontaneous casters lose their metamagic penalty. Bonus spells for high ability modifiers give you additional spells known instead of spells per day. Everyone gets Eschew Materials for free, non-language-dependent spells (except Bard spells) also have no verbal component. All divine casters no longer need a patron deity. Spellcasting does not automatically provoke an AoO from the target of a spell, but still counts as a ranged attack for the purposes of AoOs if it's a ranged spell. (i.e. melee touch attacks like Shocking Grasp don't provoke AoOs from their targets.)

Criticals: All damage is multiplied on a critical, even precision damage. The critical multiplier is increased by one for any critical if the critical threat roll is also a natural 20. Spells can critical if the target gets a natural one on their saving throw.

Alignment: Alignment is completely decoupled from morality, alignments are renamed, but alignment prereqs are still in place to stop players from taking incompatible options. Codes of conduct are also removed. Players start out as their race's default alignment unless they take something with an alignment prerequisite, at which point they change to that alignment.

Magic Items: The Automatic Bonus Progression rules from Pathfinder Unchained are in use, basically granting everyone all the necessary +x items for their level for free.

Epic Levels: The entire epic level system is rebuilt from scratch, based primarily on the gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana. Players level up in new classes once they reach max level in their old class, and it works like a normal (if initially lopsided) gestalt build. Most statistics and modifiers are capped to prevent unlimited vertical progression, while still allowing horizontal progression.

Other: Everyone gets a free feat at first level, which doesn't stack with generic bonus feats from races like Humans. (Though they can still trade it out for alternate racial features)

(Technically this is for PF1e, but I allow basically all 3.5 content too)

[Xervous]

Here are my houserules:


Cant fault any of this from a mechanical standpoint and the intent seems consistent overall.

What has your experience been for partial casters under these rules. Do they bother with their casting stat even less now that it’s not getting them more uses out of the few staples they were likely to pick?

[martixy]

I dunno, it seems this is a dis-incentive to play skill-based classes.

One of the reasons people play bards is for bardic knowledge; one of the reasons people play rogues is for a ton of skill points. Considering that none of the skill-based classes is game breaking (tier 1 or tier 2) do the skill-based classes really need a nerf?

You're approaching this all wrong.

The correct solution is to make these classes more fun, rather than seeing it as a nerf to skill monkeys.

Me, I have a ton house-rules, too many to list here. And despite the apparent irony, the idea is to be as minimalist as possible. The point of every one of them is to address a specific quirk of the system in a holistic manner. And almost none of them are meant to "balance" the game(which is a fool's errand). Pretty happy with the result at this point.

I actually wanna highlight a couple of official variant rules - one in the DMG on p.25(nat20 = 30, nat1=-10), and another in Unearthed Arcana p.112 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/damageConversion.htm).

P.S. You can find more examples in my sig.

[Silly Name]

Btw, I also have a large list of custom-made prestige classes for my players, and a long list of modified/fixed official PrCs. Most of the time I find it's easy to "fix" a PrC that is thematically fitting but not at the power level I'd like it to, has excessively slow progression/uninteresting upper levels or prohibitive entry requirements. Some are simple, such as giving a class spellcasting progression or its own spell lists, others are more complex and turned into basically complete reworks.

[Endless Rain]

Cant fault any of this from a mechanical standpoint and the intent seems consistent overall.

What has your experience been for partial casters under these rules. Do they bother with their casting stat even less now that it’s not getting them more uses out of the few staples they were likely to pick?

I actually haven't had much experience with partial casters in my group. My players have mostly preferred either full casters or full martials. The only partial-caster I've had was during a gestalt game where we had a Ranger//Rogue, but he didn't focus much on spellcasting. Presumably, if their staples don't require saves, I would see lower casting stats.

However, the way my campaign works, we end up with less encounters per day than is assumed by the corebook, so more spells per day isn't really as important as more spells known to most characters. I don't have time to run a lot of encounters, and this campaign is more focused on political intrigue than dungeon crawling, so the fifteen-minute workday comes into effect pretty frequently. (Which is accounted for. Many encounters are created with the assumption that the PCs will nova, their most frequent opponents during such encounters are other NPCs who will also nova, etc.)

[Schmoe]

Btw, I also have a large list of custom-made prestige classes for my players, and a long list of modified/fixed official PrCs. Most of the time I find it's easy to "fix" a PrC that is thematically fitting but not at the power level I'd like it to, has excessively slow progression/uninteresting upper levels or prohibitive entry requirements. Some are simple, such as giving a class spellcasting progression or its own spell lists, others are more complex and turned into basically complete reworks.

Oh man, don't get me started on PrC. I find the quality of PrC, even official ones, to be all over the place. This is one area where I'm pretty free with the re-writes, which is fine, because it also means I can tailor it to my campaign. In particular, I find it gives me a good opportunity to provide non-full casters a nice boost in usefulness for later in the game.

[Toliudar]

Most of the houserules I use are designed to make it more mechanically fun and to play non-casters (defined as "I didn't get any spells or SLA's (sometimes Supernatural abilties get lumped in here too) when I leveled up"). Extra skill points, a larger hit die, and even giving them a free progression of Vow of Poverty benefits without any of the requirements. All designed to make the fighters, rogues etc feel more like they have a specialized role in which to shine (yes, casters probably still do it better, but there's only so much you can do).

[H_H_F_F]

Nat 1s call for a weapon save vs breakage. Magic bonuses count as bonuses to save. (Don't give me that look, weapons break -- and there's mending spells a plenty)

Mending doesn't work on magic items, IIRC.

Weapons break, sure. But a D&D masterwork longsword is a boarding sword made by a master craftsman. The sort of real-world sword that costs as much as a village. Even assuming the DC is very easy to pass, this is insane. Do you think well made swords survive around a 100 swings before breaking? A club, or even a spear, sure. A sword? A freaking MACE?

Also, saying "magic weapons don't break" does not go against common sense, and is a classic trope going back way before fantasy was even a thing. The enchanted blade that remains sharp and pristine a 100 years after last being used.

And if we're talking common sense, like "wepaons break", then, well, "people forget stuff". Why no rolls for "among the thousand different componnents you carry in that pouch, you forgot to restock on bat ****"? If magic weapons are srill just stuff, why no "amulets tear, crowns get damaged, boots get holes"? All of these things happen far more often than a steel mace made by a master randomly shattering because I struck at my oponnent suboptimally. Especially given that all of this jewlery and clothes are carried into combat, and often into explosions.

This isn't just an arguement from balance. I get that you know martials got shafted by D&D, and I get and respect that you still want a cool thematic result to natural 1s. But this specific one is too severe, doesn't pass the common sense test, and feels especially weird when some of the sturdiest tools forged by mankind are the only ones that ever break in a combat situation. I would go for something else - like a reflex save to not drop the weapon / harm yourself (weapon damage die + half Str, say) / harm a friend (same). Stuff that actually makes sense to happen in combat situations, isn't as jarring and as arbitrary, and isn't as destructive.

[Silly Name]

The debates about fumbles seem neverending. Personally, I don't think they work in D&D, I don't like 90% of the ways I've seen them implemented even in other games. You have already failed spectacularly at what you wanted to do, piling further negative effects on that random roll is a prime example of "feelbad" gameplay.

The one time I may consider using fumbles is under a "failing forward" system where they help move things along rather than kick you down further. Easier to do with skill checks than with attack rolls for sure, though.

[Lorddenorstrus]

The debates about fumbles seem neverending. Personally, I don't think they work in D&D, I don't like 90% of the ways I've seen them implemented even in other games. You have already failed spectacularly at what you wanted to do, piling further negative effects on that random roll is a prime example of "feelbad" gameplay.

The one time I may consider using fumbles is under a "failing forward" system where they help move things along rather than kick you down further. Easier to do with skill checks than with attack rolls for sure, though.

Yup I'm stuck perma DMing because the only other local DM uses atrocious fumble rules turning his games into castermode. It gets boring playing Batman Wizards everygame to not be punished at all by brain dead rules.

Also so many of his players have jumped ship. I just started a new group with his former players (Noted in the pathfinder post I made abit ago) and im having them run Mummys mask atm. Other than them I also have another ongoing group. It's a lot of work I guess collecting all the local players that don't want to play with a moron.

[RandomPeasant]

The debates about fumbles seem neverending. Personally, I don't think they work in D&D, I don't like 90% of the ways I've seen them implemented even in other games. You have already failed spectacularly at what you wanted to do, piling further negative effects on that random roll is a prime example of "feelbad" gameplay.

Many fumble systems are also implemented in a mathematically ignorant way, resulting in experts fumbling more than novices, because the chance of fumbling is constant and experts roll more dice.

[H_H_F_F]

While I tend to agree that fumble rules, in general, are problematic from a game design standpoint, I get why people enjoy them. I'd just advise doing it in a way that doesn't conpletely destroy a combatant, and would make sense and feel right within the system.

For example, I don't think my suggestion for reflex or drop weapon is a great rule, but it sort of makes sense, isn't too punishing, and doesn't force you to think how come only X behaves like IRL while everything else doesn't.

[Elkad]

The two biggest I use are:

No iterative attack penalty
Reduced to -2 at my table. Initial step for this campaign, I may take it out completely.

and no movement attack penalty.
(You can single move and make a full attack with all attacks at your base BAB.)


I tried this. It was too good. Didn't start that way, but once movement speeds started creeping up, it became a problem.
Now they get "Rapid Advance". Take up to HALF your move in a straight line prior to a full attack. Take charge penalties for it (but no benefits). You get a bit of maneuverability, without everyone running around the spearholders to whack the wizard in the back, or becoming ultimate kiting archers.

I have a bunch of other stuff from various posts in the thread (elephant feat tax reduction, skill combines, etc)

Few others not mentioned.

Charge to any valid square, not "the closest".

Flanking. You can ignore a flanker. You become flatfooted and flanked to him, but he provides no flanking bonuses to others.

Full str mod with all hands for dual wield. (light weapons are still half of course). Evens up damage bonus with the people using a two-hander. (actually more from Str, but less from PA still)

"Cast Defensively" removed. Either eat the AoO (and Concentration check if it hits), move back first, or use Still Spell a lot. (Related - one of my standard "custom spell creation" houserules is "remove somatic components for +1 SL" - so you could spend gold/time on getting Still versions of key spells instead of taking the feat)

Adamantine weapons reduce DR/Hardness by 20(+2 per point of Enhancement), instead of bypassing completely.
Other DR penetrating effects work similarly (Mountain Hammer reduces hardness by IL). They generally combine, so an IL8 Mountain Hammer with a +1 Adamantine weapon would penetrate Hardness:30
Other DR changes. DR:X/Magic is reduced 5pts per +1 of Enhancement, instead of a yes/no check. DR Silver, Iron, etc are reduced by Enhancement at 1:1, so you get some minor effect from your magic sword.

[martixy]

The debates about fumbles seem neverending. Personally, I don't think they work in D&D, I don't like 90% of the ways I've seen them implemented even in other games. You have already failed spectacularly at what you wanted to do, piling further negative effects on that random roll is a prime example of "feelbad" gameplay.

The one time I may consider using fumbles is under a "failing forward" system where they help move things along rather than kick you down further. Easier to do with skill checks than with attack rolls for sure, though.

1st link in my sig. Thoughts?

I believe I cover all of the common issues people have with fumbles.

[Eladrinblade]

If you see anything you like here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?536900-WIP-(please-ignore)&p=22405664#post22405664), feel free to take it.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Reduced to -2 at my table. Initial step for this campaign, I may take it out completely.


I tried this. It was too good. Didn't start that way, but once movement speeds started creeping up, it became a problem.
Now they get "Rapid Advance". Take up to HALF your move in a straight line prior to a full attack. Take charge penalties for it (but no benefits). You get a bit of maneuverability, without everyone running around the spearholders to whack the wizard in the back, or becoming ultimate kiting archers.

I have a bunch of other stuff from various posts in the thread (elephant feat tax reduction, skill combines, etc)

Few others not mentioned.

Charge to any valid square, not "the closest".

Flanking. You can ignore a flanker. You become flatfooted and flanked to him, but he provides no flanking bonuses to others.

Full str mod with all hands for dual wield. (light weapons are still half of course). Evens up damage bonus with the people using a two-hander. (actually more from Str, but less from PA still)

"Cast Defensively" removed. Either eat the AoO (and Concentration check if it hits), move back first, or use Still Spell a lot. (Related - one of my standard "custom spell creation" houserules is "remove somatic components for +1 SL" - so you could spend gold/time on getting Still versions of key spells instead of taking the feat)

Adamantine weapons reduce DR/Hardness by 20(+2 per point of Enhancement), instead of bypassing completely.
Other DR penetrating effects work similarly (Mountain Hammer reduces hardness by IL). They generally combine, so an IL8 Mountain Hammer with a +1 Adamantine weapon would penetrate Hardness:30
Other DR changes. DR:X/Magic is reduced 5pts per +1 of Enhancement, instead of a yes/no check. DR Silver, Iron, etc are reduced by Enhancement at 1:1, so you get some minor effect from your magic sword.

Same I modified Two Weapon Fighting to just be the same as Agile Shield Fighter kinda. Just a -2. Also rolled every TWF feat into just 1. Because dumb feat tax on the build worse than just Power attacking with a 2h wep of any kind. Yeaah not happening. Most of what I modified in 3.5 pre moving to PF and starting to learn the minor differences.. Were feat modifications really.. I did attempt giving martials full attack on movement irregardless. Didn't 5e do that anyway? But yeah it felt a little to powerful and also nobody used a charge action anymore. Tactical battlefield placement with Spells and teleports had to still seem.. important?

Otherwise I think the biggest thing was changing all stat drains to only ever go to 1. Never lower. Because "haha I Dex drain the dragon" was uh dumb. Rather than ban shivering touch and watch as they dumpster dive for some other spell. Just flat neutering the style seemed efficient. Because in the end it's bad game design. Bob charges in and does 25% of the Big Bads HP. The Cleric and Druid are in melee with spells to the boss is getting low in Hp. But Amazo the Wizard just stat drained him to 0. GG your turns were pointless. Wizard soloes 3.5 again. Yeah that's not happening. Everyone needs to be 'targetting' the same thing. ie HP. Stat drains are supposed to be debuff methods not Win Cons. Oh yeah on that note all save or dies can't find my list of modifications but basically anything that felt to "low level" i deleted because while the players will eventually walk around in immunity to death effect. Most non 'mid + range' enemies will not. Again not allowing Wizard to solo the game. This included low level creature effects I recall having to change a few to simply be high damage.. god where is my ****. (I'm packed atm moved into a temp place to live until next apt and everything is well i have no idea which box)

Uh I tried maximizing everything (PC and enemies) HP after of course as mentioned above forcing HP to be the win con of every fight. It actually made things interesting. D12 just = 12 and such. People felt beefy no complaining on rolling bad hp. It worked fine in my mid ish+ Optimization group. it did not function well in the weaker Optimization group. So I simply enforced an HP minimum of half the roll. ie Rolling 3 out of 10 = 5. No matter what.

Back on feats.. uh dodge/toughness doesn't exist if you see it as a Req, it's not really there... because that and toughness are so bad I can't expect anyone to take them as prereqs. And dodge is a pre req to some good stuff. God I need to find my written list somewhere for the rest. But anything that felt like pointless feat tax and wasn't "good" to take but you had to I either deleted or merged with something like the twf tree.

[Silly Name]

1st link in my sig. Thoughts?

I believe I cover all of the common issues people have with fumbles.

Better than most I've seen, but still not something I think I would enjoy. I feel that Nat 1 and Nat 20 rules are ok as they are, effectively mirroring each other: Nat 1 is automatic failure, Nat 20 is automatic success (with a chance of critting). Yes, it's slightly slanted towards success being more impactful, but that's not a bad thing! Players like winning, they like doing big damage, and when a dangerous monster takes a chunk of their HP it raises the adrenaline at the table.

Also, a note: in a game where there's a whole class devoted to unarmed fighting, a "fumble" option that only affects armed fighters seems strange.



Back on feats.. uh dodge/toughness doesn't exist if you see it as a Req, it's not really there... because that and toughness are so bad I can't expect anyone to take them as prereqs. And dodge is a pre req to some good stuff. God I need to find my written list somewhere for the rest. But anything that felt like pointless feat tax and wasn't "good" to take but you had to I either deleted or merged with something like the twf tree.

I personally modified Toughness to be Improved Toughness and Great Fortitude rolled into a single feat. Not exactly a powerhouse and neither an interesting feat to take, but I feel at least it does help make you a bit beefier for real. I also made Dodge scale with BaB (every three points of BaB, you get a +1 Dodge bonus, minimum of 1. So at BaB 6 you get +2, at BaB 9 you get +3, and so on), and also merged it with Mobility. Again, not what I'd call a powerful or versatile feat but it doesn't feel as much of a tax now.

I also made TWF into a scaling feat that improves with BaB; TWF Rangers now get Dual Strike (CAd) at level 6, and Pounce at level 11 (Charge+Full attack).

Oh, and Spring Attack doesn't exist: if it's listed somewhere as a prerequisite, that one is changed to Dodge and BaB +4. You can move before and after an attack by default. Full attacks still require a full action.

[martixy]

Better than most I've seen, but still not something I think I would enjoy. I feel that Nat 1 and Nat 20 rules are ok as they are, effectively mirroring each other: Nat 1 is automatic failure, Nat 20 is automatic success (with a chance of critting). Yes, it's slightly slanted towards success being more impactful, but that's not a bad thing! Players like winning, they like doing big damage, and when a dangerous monster takes a chunk of their HP it raises the adrenaline at the table.

Also, a note: in a game where there's a whole class devoted to unarmed fighting, a "fumble" option that only affects armed fighters seems strange.
Hence 🤚 OPTIONAL ✋. (unicode needs a jazz hands emoji)

WDYM about armed fighters?




I personally modified Toughness to be Improved Toughness and Great Fortitude rolled into a single feat. Not exactly a powerhouse and neither an interesting feat to take, but I feel at least it does help make you a bit beefier for real. I also made Dodge scale with BaB (every three points of BaB, you get a +1 Dodge bonus, minimum of 1. So at BaB 6 you get +2, at BaB 9 you get +3, and so on), and also merged it with Mobility. Again, not what I'd call a powerful or versatile feat but it doesn't feel as much of a tax now.

I also made TWF into a scaling feat that improves with BaB; TWF Rangers now get Dual Strike (CAd) at level 6, and Pounce at level 11 (Charge+Full attack).

Oh, and Spring Attack doesn't exist: if it's listed somewhere as a prerequisite, that one is changed to Dodge and BaB +4. You can move before and after an attack by default. Full attacks still require a full action.

Toughness: Just do what pathfinder does (I did).
Great Fortitude: Why that single feat? Makes things asymmetric. I just gave every +save feat also a reroll to make them worth.

[Silly Name]

Hence 🤚 OPTIONAL ✋. (unicode needs a jazz hands emoji)
Sure, I'm not saying you shouldn't use those rules if you like them. I personally don't like fumbles except in very rare cases, but when it comes to houseruling I'm of the opinion that there's no objectivity, since of course those represent each individual's desires and opinions about the game. There's only "what you and your table enjoy".


WDYM about armed fighters?

"5: Overextend - Opponent gains immediate free disarm/sunder attempt, no AoO allowed."

That means monks (and similar types of characters who fight unarmed and unarmored) are basically never affected by this. Is this by design?


Toughness: Just do what pathfinder does (I did).
Great Fortitude: Why that single feat? Makes things asymmetric. I just gave every +save feat also a reroll to make them worth.

I mean, by making Toughness a package of "1 extra HP per Hit Die, and +2 to Fort saves", my version is "more powerful" than the PF one, right?

For Lightning Reflexes, I merged it with Improved Initiative (feat is named Lightning Reflexes), and Iron Will got merged with the Pure Soul feat (HoH), since I play with slightly-modified Taint rules (mostly rolling them back to OA with some fluff changed).

[RandomPeasant]

Sure, I'm not saying you shouldn't use those rules if you like them. I personally don't like fumbles except in very rare cases, but when it comes to houseruling I'm of the opinion that there's no objectivity, since of course those represent each individual's desires and opinions about the game. There's only "what you and your table enjoy".

I don't think that's quite true. Houserules are usually presented alongside goals they intend to accomplish. If you houserule Wizards to cast spontaneously on the basis that this makes Wizards less powerful, it's entirely reasonable for someone to push back on that because it does the opposite. Certainly some houserules are just "I like it better this way", but usually people are trying to achieve something, and like any rule houserules can sometimes fail to achieve the thing they set out to do.

[Silly Name]

I don't think that's quite true. Houserules are usually presented alongside goals they intend to accomplish. If you houserule Wizards to cast spontaneously on the basis that this makes Wizards less powerful, it's entirely reasonable for someone to push back on that because it does the opposite. Certainly some houserules are just "I like it better this way", but usually people are trying to achieve something, and like any rule houserules can sometimes fail to achieve the thing they set out to do.

I mean, true, there's some rules that fail to achieve their goal. I suppose what I meant is that I'm not going to tell someone they're playing the game wrong if they use a houserule I don't like - I can offer critique and opinions on the rule itself, but if people want to play with fumbles I can't stop them even if I deeply dislike fumbles.

[Quertus]

People keep talking about maximizing HP. Has anyone ever considered minimizing HP, to make muggles (and Evocation) great again?


Most of the houserules I use are designed to make it more mechanically fun and to play non-casters (defined as "I didn't get any spells or SLA's (sometimes Supernatural abilties get lumped in here too) when I leveled up"). Extra skill points, a larger hit die, and even giving them a free progression of Vow of Poverty benefits without any of the requirements. All designed to make the fighters, rogues etc feel more like they have a specialized role in which to shine (yes, casters probably still do it better, but there's only so much you can do).

Has anyone tried doubling up, and actually taking VoP?

[Eladrinblade]

I like half hp +1. So a barbarian would get 7 + con per level.

[RandomPeasant]

I don't really care what you do, just do something that isn't random. The variance in hit die size is generally much smaller than the variance in CON modifier anyway.

[Lorddenorstrus]

People keep talking about maximizing HP. Has anyone ever considered minimizing HP, to make muggles (and Evocation) great again?



Has anyone tried doubling up, and actually taking VoP?

Yeah that makes the variance worse. The changes I've made actually force HP to be the Win Con so it had to be upped. When your martials can smack like freight trains properly designed. the average CR'd creature is gonna get 1-2 hit at the cost of nothing. It doesn't actually 'drain' any resources. Bigger HP pools extend combat by 1-2 rounds and make people actually debate the cost of their resource usage. Suddenly the monsters don't die instantly. What's worth expending more. Heals after the fight, possibly spells to remove debuffs. Or should they use resources like Evocation spells to nuke it and reduce cost after the fight.

[martixy]

"5: Overextend - Opponent gains immediate free disarm/sunder attempt, no AoO allowed."

That means monks (and similar types of characters who fight unarmed and unarmored) are basically never affected by this. Is this by design?

Not by design in the sense of specifically singling out (un)armed fighters, but by design conditional. Notice there are many situations in which the others also don't apply. E.g. provoking an attack of opportunity does nothing if you aren't threatened or everyone around you has already used their AoOs.


People keep talking about maximizing HP. Has anyone ever considered minimizing HP, to make muggles (and Evocation) great again?

Trouble with that is, max of different hit dice varies, min doesn't. You effectively eliminate a class feature.

Which is not necessarily bad - 5e did away with BAB in their pursuit of "bounded accuracy". If you're revising how damage works, doing away with hit dice is worth looking into I suppose.

[Quertus]

I don't really care what you do, just do something that isn't random. The variance in hit die size is generally much smaller than the variance in CON modifier anyway.

As a rule, I roll HP for all my characters, monsters, NPCs, etc. That variance and individuality is, to me, a feature, not a bug.


Yeah that makes the variance worse. The changes I've made actually force HP to be the Win Con so it had to be upped. When your martials can smack like freight trains properly designed. the average CR'd creature is gonna get 1-2 hit at the cost of nothing. It doesn't actually 'drain' any resources. Bigger HP pools extend combat by 1-2 rounds and make people actually debate the cost of their resource usage. Suddenly the monsters don't die instantly. What's worth expending more. Heals after the fight, possibly spells to remove debuffs. Or should they use resources like Evocation spells to nuke it and reduce cost after the fight.

And… Evocation spells aren't even more of a waste of action against max HP monsters? :smallconfused:


Trouble with that is, max of different hit dice varies, min doesn't. You effectively eliminate a class feature.

Which is not necessarily bad - 5e did away with BAB in their pursuit of "bounded accuracy". If you're revising how damage works, doing away with hit dice is worth looking into I suppose.

Ouch. I suppose it's not as bad as comparing my idea to 4e, or to various government policies, but still.

Hmmm… if you want to keep the class feature… "beings with PC class levels get max HP at 1st level; all other HD are treated as a roll of '1'."

Or even (since I was thinking monsters) "all racial HD are treated as a roll of '1'."

[JNAProductions]

As a rule, I roll HP for all my characters, monsters, NPCs, etc. That variance and individuality is, to me, a feature, not a bug.



And… Evocation spells aren't even more of a waste of action against max HP monsters? :smallconfused:



Ouch. I suppose it's not as bad as comparing my idea to 4e, or to various government policies, but still.

Hmmm… if you want to keep the class feature… "beings with PC class levels get max HP at 1st level; all other HD are treated as a roll of '1'."

Or even (since I was thinking monsters) "all racial HD are treated as a roll of '1'."

Is Toughness X3 worth… anything, really?

Because that’d be slightly better than the difference between a Wizard and a Barbarian-the Barbarian has +8 HP over the Wizard, assuming equal stats.

[Mordante]

IME, "quality of life" house rules like those mentioned by the OP are more common than balance house rules. Plenty of tables don't even realize their quality of life bugfixes are house rules at all! Usually it's the removal disliked things such as massive damage, multiclass xp penalties, fireball being a wealth destroyer/related item rules, misguided applications of the primary source rule*, and so on. If we're talking about more proactive changes, I often (but do not always) see things like:
- Giving away certain feats for free to everyone, e.g. Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse.
- Bumping the skill points for mundane 2+int classes to at least 4+int (and/or having more ways to get more skill points).
- Making detect magic/identify work like Pathfinder (or just handwaving identification altogether).

*Basically, if the GM's game includes book X, and within X is a rules update Y which contradicts the PHB, and the GM does not explicitly change Y, then of course we're using Y. Don't be silly.

Why the free feats and skill points?

[pabelfly]

Why the free feats and skill points?

Free feats are often geared towards "feat taxes" - feats that most characters (martial especially) need to take to function, or feats that are weak but are taken to get more exciting things.

First type of feat might include, say, Power Attack. An article called "Elephant in the Room" explains this well.

Second type of feat might include Dodge or Combat Expertise.

As for skills... a third of a typical game is out-of-cpmbat. It gets boring really quickly being a martial character with no way to meaningfully contribute outside of combat. Hence, extra skill points.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Re: Feats, 3e has a big problem where to do [X obvious thing] you need a feat, but everyone should just be able to do X regardless. Use dex for a rapier (weapon finesse), do a called shot (PF deadly aim), shift to a more aggressive or defensive stance (power attack and combat expertise respectively), and so on. Feats - especially the way 3e (and 5e) do it where they're a bit rarer - should be big awesome things, not restoring your character to a baseline level of capability. Not to mention it's mostly mundane feat taxes and not caster feat taxes*.

Re: Skills, it's just my humble opinion that most PCs do not have enough skills in 3e, especially mundane 2+int skill classes but frankly even Rogues. PF half-solved this by consolidating skills and allowing that first point to provide +3 for class skills, making each point go further. But I have a fondness for 3e's relative granularity for skills, and PF's solution trades off with that. So I prefer just adding skill points/other ways to get more skill points.

For instance, if we're getting into less common house rules, I like the following ones: First, any feat that adds a bonus to a skill makes that skill a class skill. Second, the +2/+2 feats are half-feats and can be taken with any other +2/+2 feat. Third, Skill Focus provides full ranks in that skill (re-allocate any already-invested points). All of these allow for more breadth without messing with depth - skill monkeys certainly don't need more help breaking the RNG.

*I do add Eschew Materials to the pile though, with the caveat that some rare components/focuses are valuable even if they lack a listed price

[Mordante]

Free feats are often geared towards "feat taxes" - feats that most characters (martial especially) need to take to function, or feats that are weak but are taken to get more exciting things.

First type of feat might include, say, Power Attack. An article called "Elephant in the Room" explains this well.

Second type of feat might include Dodge or Combat Expertise.

As for skills... a third of a typical game is out-of-cpmbat. It gets boring really quickly being a martial character with no way to meaningfully contribute outside of combat. Hence, extra skill points.

I think a few extra skillpoints are okay. But I would not give people feats for free. Especially not casters, I agree some feats are near useless (Dodge, Skill focus, power attack, cleave, ect) But if a PrC needs then you get them. If you don't like that get another PrC class.

[pabelfly]

I think a few extra skillpoints are okay. But I would not give people feats for free. Especially not casters, I agree some feats are near useless (Dodge, Skill focus, power attack, cleave, ect) But if a PrC needs then you get them. If you don't like that get another PrC class.

Feat taxes are usually spoken about in regards to martial types. I think we can agree that casters don't really need a buff.

Having free feats aren't just about being able to access PrCs more quickly, they also gatekeep other, more interesting and fun feats. They can be mandatory for many builds and stop a player from getting interesting feats due to the resources required. Consider Point-Blank shot. Every archery build needs it, it's not very interesting or powerful, and having to get it not because you want it, but because you need to to get every other archery-based feat isn't a great feeling. There's something to be said for the simplicity of playing 3.5 DnD without any homebrew changes, but I think it's worth considering if the game might be improved by, say, removing Point-Blank Shot as a required feat for any feat and just making it an option if you want to get it for an archery build.

[RandomPeasant]

The problem with feats is that 3e can't decide how good a feat is supposed to be. On the one end, you have character-defining feats like Leadership, Divine Metamagic, or Natural Spell. On the other end, you have feats that are minor fluff abilities like Educated, Combat Expertise, or Track. "Free" is probably too little even for the latter, at least in general, but expecting them to trade off with the former is also unreasonable.

[Batcathat]

The problem with feats is that 3e can't decide how good a feat is supposed to be. On the one end, you have character-defining feats like Leadership, Divine Metamagic, or Natural Spell. On the other end, you have feats that are minor fluff abilities like Educated, Combat Expertise, or Track. "Free" is probably too little even for the latter, at least in general, but expecting them to trade off with the former is also unreasonable.

I have no idea of how well this would work in practice, but it feels like a fairly easy (though probably rather work intensive) way of fixing that problem might be to assign each feat a point value and have characters get "feat points" every time they would've gotten a feat. That way it's up to the individual player whether to pick a single great feat or a bunch of lesser ones.

[RandomPeasant]

I have no idea of how well this would work in practice, but it feels like a fairly easy (though probably rather work intensive) way of fixing that problem might be to assign each feat a point value and have characters get "feat points" every time they would've gotten a feat. That way it's up to the individual player whether to pick a single great feat or a bunch of lesser ones.

I think if you're going to go out and assign a point value to everything, you might as well just go out and smooth out the power curve overall. If you want a quick and dirty fix for the issue, my suggestion would be "characters gain a bonus feat every level, but the DM can veto these bonus feat selections". So if you want to pick up Mounted Combat, Lesser Dragonmark, or Tomb-Tainted Soul, that's fine, but try to grab Arcane Thesis and you get told to wait until you get an actual feat. The big issue I see with that is that there are relatively few martial-focused feats that are at the appropriate power level for a full feat, so you'd need to do something about that.

[pabelfly]

I have no idea of how well this would work in practice, but it feels like a fairly easy (though probably rather work intensive) way of fixing that problem might be to assign each feat a point value and have characters get "feat points" every time they would've gotten a feat. That way it's up to the individual player whether to pick a single great feat or a bunch of lesser ones.

I've seen that tentatively started elsewhere. Wish I had the link for it. It wasn't a bad idea, and it went something like: you got ten feat points when you were due to get a feat, and bonus fighter feat were tallied separately. They scored Power Attack at 11 points, and Skill Focus for 3 points.

You spotted the first flaw, that it's a ton of work. Even if you only scored the feats your players are interested in, you might score hundreds of different feats, and moreover, you need to balance your scores against vastly different types of feats, both combat and out-of-combat. The other flaw is that the worth of a feat is greatly dependent on the player and the other feats they take, which the system doesn't take into account.

I don't entirely think it would be worth it, but your mileage may vary.

[smasher0404]

I guess some of my own house rules to add to the list:

If I'm running for an entirely new group, or a group with a lot of newbies, I tend to give out a "Fenix Down". Basically, once per campaign if a character would be dead, the player can choose to use their down to be only "mostly dead". If they're in combat, they can't be healed back to consciousness until out of combat, but they cannot be killed until they are brought back to consciousness. I find that the rule A) makes me a little less worried about combat balance with the first few encounters (since players can always just use their Down instead) and B) helps promote more risk-seeking behavior, since players are less likely to lose characters their attached to.

In the same vein, characters heal half their maximum hit points (round up) rather than 1 hp per character level after a full rest. It gets characters back into the fray faster (rather than spending multiple days resting), and means less bookkeeping once healing magic is readily available. It technically devalues healing magic a bit, but I find that for the groups I run, players still tend to want to invest a fair amount of their resources into obtaining healing magic.

In games where I don't allow Leadership (most of them, unless the group is very small), I allow players to take the homebrew feat Leaderboat, which has the effect of being treated as Leadership for all pre-reqs. Similar feats also exist in the vein for Undead Leadership (a.k.a Undead Leaderboat), and other Leadership-like feats.

Instead of a d% roll for stabilization, roll a d20, 19 or 20 you're stable. (It works out to the same probability, and you're more likely to have your d20 close-by).

[Batcathat]

In games where I don't allow Leadership (most of them, unless the group is very small), I allow players to take the homebrew feat Leaderboat, which has the effect of being treated as Leadership for all pre-reqs. Similar feats also exist in the vein for Undead Leadership (a.k.a Undead Leaderboat), and other Leadership-like feats.

I'm not sure how I feel about the house rule, but I absolutely love the name. :smallbiggrin:

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Oddly enough, Sean K Reynolds of all people cooked up a feat point system a long time ago (the original post was on his website, which is no longer hosted, apparently). He did betray his own lack of system mastery by, e.g., making Great Fortitude more expensive than Natural Spell (to much mockery), but the concept was a good one.

Re: Bad feats v. good feats, non-core bad feats can just be ignored. Bad core feats fall into two categories: Basic Abilities, and Merger Opportunities. BAs are what I mentioned before - things like Combat Expertise which should just be baseline capabilities of characters instead of feats. MOs are feats that aren't good enough to be taken for one feat slot, so just tack them onto something that's related. For instance, it certainly won't break the game to merge Improved Overrun and Improved Bull Rush.

[RandomPeasant]

I actually disagree with the concept being a good one. For the amount of work it takes to get feat points to work, you could just write a bunch of new feats, or even prune the existing lists. If 10% of the several thousand feats that exist in 3.PF hit the power target you want, that's still enough to give a party of five a feat every level without any two people taking the same feats. Feat points is a kind of interesting idea, but even done well I don't think it's worth the extra effort to track.

I also sort of disagree about non-core bad feats. There are a lot of non-core feats out there that are fine, just not worth a feat slot. If someone wants to take Communicator or Draconic Skin instead of Endurance or Alertness, I don't know that they should be particularly penalized. Checking over all the crappy non-core feats individually is probably too much work, but I think that's more an argument against solutions that involve fixes at the level of individual feats than an argument for ignoring them (ref: The Gnome Problem).

[AceDragonKing]

Okay so i actually have a great many house rules that i do so feel to tell me what you guys think.

1) Don’t roll HP everyone gets max HP at every single lvl. But so do enemy’s. I won’t coddle you if you get hit by a CL 20 disintegration well i hope you make that save cause that’s 40d6 to you mister wizard man.

2) screw the rule for massive damage, if i have 300+ hp (see rule 1) and you do over 50+ damage in one hit no you don’t have to save or die/whatever

3) since i do exp not mile stone, i give out exp for showing up/ role play/most nat 1’s/most nat 20’s. makes the game for interesting not just getting them from combat

4) if you die you need character comes back with at the same lvl and with the same exp as the person with the least amount of exp in the party (prevents people from trying to hoard it all cause if the die it was all for naught)

5) weapon finesse applies to damage rolls not just attack rolls

6) you can earn feats outside of lvling up if they are train able (like power attack , two weapon fighting ect ) or if you want to do something really stupid like take a red hot cattle prod and brand yourself with the insignia of a demon lord (evil brand feat) i will give it to you

7) you can do anything you want in my world i’ll never rail road you or tell you that you can’t stab the king or pickpocket someone or what ever. But you have to deal with the consequences of your actions good or bad. (like in addition to receiving your new evil brand feat you also got the abyss bound soul feat and now when you die you go wayyyyy down and i don’t care if your willing you need the demon lords approval to get resurrected)

[NerdHut]

I've got a whole sheet of house rules. I limit my general rules to one piece of paper, printed on both sides, in a reasonably sized font. Anything that's less general (like an entire homebrew class, or a list of changes made to Level Adjustments) gets to be as long as it needs to be, and can be accessed on the site listed on that single sheet of paper. This allows me to customize the system to be more enjoyable for myself and the players, without making an overwhelming amount of new rules.

A Randomish selection of my house rules:

-Point-Buy, with lower point totals for LA +1 and +2, similar to E6's system
-Everyone gets Able Learner as a bonus feat, and Rogues get extra skill points. The first part of this is because I was tired of explaining the skill system to some of my players at every single level up (they're not great with math, so they lose track very easily. I promise they're fun to play with during RP). I gave rogues more skills because it bumps them back up to remain significantly more skilled than the others. Since I didn't change Max Ranks, it hasn't messed with skill modifiers that much, it just means my players have broader skills.
-Pick a Craft, Knowledge, Perform, or Profession skill to reflect your character's background. Gain +2 to the skill, and you're considered trained. Or, choose one language.
-Orcs and Half-Orcs only take +2 to Int OR Cha. They also get +4 to Intimidate, and 1/2 character level added to Crit damage. (I also have a variant to fit my homebrew world in which certain Orcs lose darkvision and light sensitivity and gain low-light vision)
-Revamped Fighter Class, as is a common one for any DM who loves to homebrew. Mine has more skills, broader feat selection, and a couple extra features that free the fighter up to not rely on things like Weapon Focus
-Simpler XP. The party gains XP at the same rate. You need 10 XP to level up, and gain 1-4 per session (skewing toward the 1-2 range). I have a custom template to partially recreate the level loss from resurrection temporarily
-Inventory Slot system. This gets its own info sheet, but the hope is that it'll simplify inventory book keeping (I haven't run a game since finalizing the system yet)
-Use Dex or Wis for initiative. One for reacting quickly to danger, the other for noticing danger sooner
-Toughness grants +1 HP per HD (min 3)
-Weapon Focus and its reliant feats use weapon groups (basically the ones from PF) instead of specific weapons
-Limit of 3 base classes and 1 prestige class. EVERY build I've seen that exceeds this limit has been over-the-top, and that doesn't work well when playing with people who struggle with the system
-Plausible weapons of innapropriate size can be wielded as a different weapon without penalty. For instance, a centaur could use a medium greatsword as a large longsword
-No multiclass XP penalty. It doesn't fit the simple XP anyway
-I have a specific list of books I allow in my campaign, but it's 32 books long, and other content can get case-by-case approval
-Some feats are combined, such as Cleave & Great Cleave, and Farshot & Precise Shot. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree is consolidated as well, granting the effects of the next feat when its prerequisites are met

I also have a rule for myself, where I tell the players we'll start playing about a half-hour before I actually intend for us to play. You either know why, or you're the type of person who is the reason way.

[Pherick]

All of our +1 feats give +2

[RexDart]

Okay so i actually have a great many house rules that i do so feel to tell me what you guys think.

6) you can earn feats outside of lvling up if they are train able (like power attack , two weapon fighting ect ) or if you want to do something really stupid like take a red hot cattle prod and brand yourself with the insignia of a demon lord (evil brand feat) i will give it to you


I like this one for, among other reasons, giving martial types or spontaneous casters something to do during downtime while the wizards are futzing around with spell books, crafting, and other nerd stuff.

[AceDragonKing]

I like this one for, among other reasons, giving martial types or spontaneous casters something to do during downtime while the wizards are futzing around with spell books, crafting, and other nerd stuff.

All my players tent to take advantage of it to some degree or another. from minor things like power attack so they can help reduce the feat tax for things to medium armor proficiency cause while i have down time might as well train

[RexDart]

All my players tent to take advantage of it to some degree or another. from minor things like power attack so they can help reduce the feat tax for things to medium armor proficiency cause while i have down time might as well train

Do the characters generally have to find/hire a trainer?

[fallensavior]

Seeing that PF still worked well with essentially double the skill points from consolidating the list, I went so far as to double the base skill points of each class in 3.5e. Doubling maintains the comparative advantage of each class. It does diminish the advantage of high Int, but Wiz, Arti, and Archivist can stand to come down a peg.

And building a human Rogue with a decent Int, it was still like "Hmm, I wish I had enough points to take Forgery..."

My house rule document:

Stats are the normal point buy, except you get 32 points.

HPs are maxed for 1st level, subsequent levels are average rounded up + Con.
d4=3, d6=4, d8=5, d10=6, d12=7

You may take one trait and/or one flaw at character creation, as per Unearthed Arcana pages 86-92.

You cannot create an evil character. If you become evil later, you will either have to atone and become non-evil or forfeit your character (they become a NPC).

Each PC (and some NPCs) will have action points as per the Eberron Campaign Setting page 45 With the exception that you can choose to add the action point roll to your d20 roll after hearing the results of your original roll.

Content (classes, races, spells, etc) from 3rd party publishers (such as Pathfinder, Dragon Magazine, Dragonlance, Mongoose, etc) requires DM approval. You can ask about homebrew, but it’s probably going to be a no.

The Dodge feat bonus to AC will apply to all opponents except when you
are flatfooted. (No need to declare it and only benefitting against one enemy)

Casting Defensively uses Concentration DCs of 15 + (2*spell level) instead of 15 + spell level.

The base amount of skill points that each class receives (before adding the Int modifier) is doubled.

Disable Device is a class skill for Scouts.

I will call for luck rolls. Mainly for things that would normally be determined randomly. A luck roll is a Charisma check.
Related new feat:
Improved Luck (Prerequisite) = Cha 12 Doubles your Cha modifier for Luck rolls.
New Flaw:
Horrible Luck (Prerequisite) = Cha 9 or lower Triples your Cha penalty for Luck rolls.

Group/side Initiative: One PC and one villain will roll initiative for the groups. If there is a surprise round, surprised creatures cannot be the one to roll for the group. If the PCs wins initiative, all the PCs go first, then all the villains go (and vice versa if the villains win initiative), and so on alternating sides back and forth.
You may not use the Delay action because of group initiative, just let the others go first. Likewise, if you know what action you want to take go ahead and jump in. If the group can’t work out who should go in what order or takes too long doing so, the DM will start calling on players and invoke the 5 second rule (see below).

The Ready action will not affect your initiative because of group initiative.

White Raven Tactics would normally change your initiative count; instead, because of group initiative, any given initiator can only use this maneuver once on each ally per encounter.

Five Second Rule: If the DM feels that you are taking too long in combat, they will begin
counting down from 5. If they get to zero, your character stands there thinking for that round.

There is no "out of game" If you say it your character says it. If you say you do something, your character just did it. Questions to the DM about the scene or rules, should be addressed by name to avoid confusion. (e.g., If you are talking to someone in game, and you look to the other player and say, "We should kill this *******." Then you shouldn’t be surprised when he or she looks
alarmed, runs away, or pulls a weapon.)

This campaign will not use XP. Instead, PCs will typically gain one level every few sessions. If PCs are uneven in level, the person at the lowest level will gain a level every session to catch up, or possibly two levels if the rest of the group is also leveling. If more than one PC is at the lowest level, they may roll off, or agree amongst themselves to defer to one or another PC. (If the group has reached the upper limit of the current content level-wise, or is not advancing the plot/making progress, then they generally won’t level, but characters that are behind may still get catch-up levels.)

If you use abilities/effects that consume XP, you will get a set number of craft points per level (as per Unearthed Arcana page 99). If you need more than that, you will have to sacrifice (forgo taking) a class level to gain points equal to the craft points amount for that level. (Note that by these rules you also get a one-time craft point bonus each time you take a crafting feat.)

A natural 20 on any roll will produce the best possible result, (AKA autosuccess) including on skills. There are no confirmation rolls for attacks on natural 20s, weapons with extended critical range still roll to confirm on other critical threat numbers.

Any d20 roll that comes up a natural 1 will be a fumble/critical failure. Outside of combat, this will produce the worst possible result related to that roll. For an attack roll in combat, I use the following:
The Fumble D8
1 = 1d8 damage (ignores hardness) to one of your items (DM’s choice)
2 = Half damage on an ally character
3 = Half damage on your character
4 = Drop weapon or item held if no weapon
5 = Fall prone
6 = Lose one piece of useful gear (player’s choice)
7 = Flatfooted for one round
8 = Nothing
If the rolled entry would not apply or have an effect, (e.g., "5" comes up when you are already prone) then nothing happens.

Instead of Heal and Disguise kits giving a bonus to your checks, they are required to make a check normally. Without them you take a -2 penalty for improvised materials. Masterwork kits grant a +2 bonus, they cost 100GP and weigh 4 times as much. A masterwork disguise kit is a large trunk.

Taking 20 on a disguise or heal check uses an entire kit.

Each PC is limited to 2 contingency effects at a time. You may have one via the Contingency spell and one via the Craft Contingent Spell feat.

Freedom of Movement does not let you auto-succeed on resisting a grapple, but rather lets you auto-succeed on breaking free if you are grappled.

Freedom of Movement protects against the movement impediment effect of the Burning Blood spell.

Mordenkainen's Disjunction/Mage’s Disjunction does not break magic items.

Frenzied Berserkers always usually kill their friends.

A melee attack into a grapple has a 50% chance of hitting the correct
target unless you have the relevant Weapon Focus feat (like ranged attacks and Improved Precise Shot). This can be ignored if the target is larger size than the other grappler(s) and you are attacking a square that only the target is occupying.

If you have the Precise Shot feat, you can use a bow with any Strength rating as if it were made for your current Strength score. (Instead of taking a penalty to hit or forgoing your full Str mod to damage)

If more than two creatures are involved in a grapple, the grapple cannot be moved by grapple checks.

Standard action charge: Charge is a standard action that lets you move your speed in a straight, unobstructed line and attack at a +2 bonus and you take a -2 penalty to AC until your next turn. You can’t standard action charge if you’ve already moved. Note that you can still choose to use a full-round action to charge and move double your speed.

Pounce, Dire Charge, Spirited Charge, or any other “full attack on a charge” or “multiply damage on a charge” ability only functions if you full action charge.

The Dire Charge feat works just like Pounce.

Five-foot steps may not be made diagonally as a free action.

The Divine Metamagic feat, Metamagic Rods, and any other metamagic cost reducers cannot be used to cast a spell that would normally use a slot higher than a 9th level unless you have the Epic Spellcasting feat.

Also note that Metamagic Rods, Nightsticks, and similar must be wielded in hand to benefit from them and you can only use one at a time.

You cannot enter any prestige class without before 6th level without express written DM permission.

Spontaneous casters can use the Quicken Spell feat. Other metamagics increase casting time as normal.

Weapons made of nonstandard materials (EG wooden swords) count as improvised weapons. (-4 to hit, lower damage, x2 crit)

Critical immunity and sneak attack (and other precision damage) immunity is removed from all creature types except for elementals and oozes and any other similar blobs of stuff.

Heavy fortification and moderate fortification enchantments, and other effects that grant over 25% fortification are banned.

Animated (floaty) shields are banned.

Rings of Evasion are banned.

If you have fortification, only roll it once per turn per opponent, you are vulnerable/not vulnerable to crits and/or sneak attack from that opponent for the rest of that turn.

If you have concealment and/or incorporeality, only roll it once per turn per opponent, you are vulnerable/not vulnerable to being hit from that opponent for the rest of that turn.

Replace 3.5 polymorph subschool spells (Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange, etc) with the PF versions: (Beast Shape, Elemental Body, Plant Shape, etc.)

Average damage: you can always choose to deal average damage instead of rolling.

Minionmancy: One player, one character. Animal companions, summon spells, cohorts, even familiars, etc. will be subject to DM control. You can give them instructions, but they may not reliably comply. The only way to completely control another creature is with domination magic.

Fractional hit points: Do not round damage. If you deal 10.5 damage, state it as such. If you take 5.25 damage, keep track of it.

The Splitting enchantment for ranged weapons does not allow precision damage (sneak attack, skirmish, etc) on the extra missiles, nor do the extra missiles multiply damage on a critical.

You retroactively gain skill points from previous levels and bonus languages when your base Int increases from leveling up or an inherent bonus from a tome/wish.

Weapon group feats - If you take a feat that would apply to a specific weapon, you can instead take it for a weapon group. The groups are piercing, bludgeoning, slashing, thrown, and projectile. If a weapon has more than one mode, e.g. a melee weapon with a piercing attack and a slashing attack or a melee weapon that can also be thrown, then you only apply the feat when you use it in that mode. For this reason, it might be advantageous to still take the feat for just a specific weapon so you can apply it to all its attack styles. This does not apply to weapon proficiency, if you are buying martial/exotic proficiency with a feat it still must be for a specific weapon.

Any racial weapon can be treated as a martial weapon for members of that race, not just the ones with a "weapon familiarity" listing in the PHB.

The Greenbound Summoning feat is a +2 metamagic instead of automatic.

Corpses and helpless creatures count as difficult terrain (and therefore prevent charging unless you jump over them.)

The Shivering Touch spell imposes a dexterity penalty instead of dexterity damage.

The chance to stabilize when dying will be rolling equal to or lower than your Constitution score on a d% instead of a flat 10% chance.

Teleportation spells/effects are limited to the caster plus one target

Replace Raise Dead with Reincarnation and Resurrection with Improved Reincarnation on Divine spell lists. (Improved Reincarnation = more options) (Note that you can use Wish/Miracle/Reality Revision to come back from the dead with your original or current form or to restore your original or former form after reincarnating.)

No multiclassing XP penalties.


This is a long list. Accrued from 18 years of rulings and bugfixes. I'm also currently playtesting 2 new rules:

Instead of dying at -10 hp, you die if you reach negative hp equal to your normal max hp. Note that the Diehard feat will remain unchanged, allowing you to remain conscious at -1 thru -9 hp.

Because spellcasters don't critically fail enough every creature will automatically have a minimum of 1 (non-stacking) spell resistance and natural 1s on spell penetration rolls will count as fumbles.

[AceDragonKing]

Do the characters generally have to find/hire a trainer?

No but that does speed up the process

[pabelfly]

I really like the double skill points before INT bonus rule.

[VladtheLad]

snip*

This is a long list. Accrued from 18 years of rulings and bugfixes.


I like you houserules a lot and I have been already implementing many of them or similar to them in my own games. I have been even doing the double class skill points rule, though I have also experimented with having two different lists of skill points combined with double skill points. I think a very similar approach is kaeliks in the gaming den, if you search for kaeliks skill groups you will find it.
Another houserule I like is the 5 foot step one. I always though 5 foot step being a tad bit too good.
Its seems your aim is clearly to keep the game recognizable and patch the rough spots and that's what I have been trying to do in my games.

Some questions on your rules:

Certain stuff for example spells like Mindblank, Forcecage, Rope trick, Glibness and items like beads of karma, dust of sneezing and coughing. Or to go outside of core: Words of creation, Belts of battle, Celerity, Wraithstrike, Double prestige classing ur priests and similar prestige classes, Incantrix, Mighty Wallop, Greater, Wings of flurry, Power word pain, Mindsight, Fell drain etc are ok for use in your games? I generally ban them, but I am curious how you treat them in your games.

Is true resurrection still a thing?

How will spell fumbles function?

[fallensavior]

I like you houserules a lot

Thanks.



Certain stuff for example spells like Mindblank, Forcecage, Rope trick, Glibness and items like beads of karma, dust of sneezing and coughing. Or to go outside of core: Words of creation, Belts of battle, Celerity, Wraithstrike, Double prestige classing ur priests and similar prestige classes, Incantrix, Mighty Wallop, Greater, Wings of flurry, Power word pain, Mindsight, Fell drain etc are ok for use in your games? I generally ban them, but I am curious how you treat them in your games.

To be honest, most of these have never come up. But Rope Trick and Mind Blank have been pretty common.

Rope Trick is just a convenience spell. It does for resting what a bag of holding does for encumbrance or a ring of sustenance does for ration tracking. In the same vein, I also have an alternate version of the quiver of Ehlonna that gives you unlimited mundane arrows. So I'm fine with it. But if the party is so bold as to rope trick right in front of hostile creatures, then there is definitely going to be an ambush waiting for them when they get done resting. Natural consequences.

Mind Blank is really nice for casters. But casters are pretty good at will saves anyway, and it is self-only. And the opponent that is throwing those kinds of effects at you probably can dispel you as well. Also make sure to enforce the drawback: no morale bonuses from heroism or bard buffs.



Is true resurrection still a thing?

For consistency's sake, no. But if they have level 9 spells, they can do the same thing with a Miracle.



How will spell fumbles function?

I am treating spell fumbles just like any other. The caster will roll a d8.

[RandomPeasant]

Mind Blank is really nice for casters. But casters are pretty good at will saves anyway, and it is self-only.

It's not, unless I missed something from your houserules that changes it.

[fallensavior]

It's not, unless I missed something from your houserules that changes it.

Hmm. My bad. I guess I had the self-only psionic version in mind.

But in actual play, it might as well have been self-only. I have never seen a caster cast it on anyone else. Maybe they are selfish, but giving up 4-6 of your precious 8th level spell slots is not appealing (more if the party has animal companions, hirelings, cohorts, etc. The anti-scrying part is kind of worthless unless you hit the entire entourage with it.)

And generally if you give them a choice, the non-caster types will choose Greater Heroism over Mind Blank.

With Greater Heroism giving immunity to fear effects and Protection from Evil granting from possession and most harm and compulsion effects, there's not much left for Mind Blank to exclusively protect against. (I think just Insanity/Confusion? Is there anything else?)

Protection from Evil as a 1st level spell, that is the OP one.

...

To answer a couple more.

Celerity (and immediate action spells in general) seem more powerful than they actually are if you don't enforce that they can't be use while flatfooted. Yes, there is Foresight, but adding the cost of a 9th level spell onto that makes it seem not so OP to me in actual play.

Belt of Battle is very good but far from game breaking. 1 extra spell/attack per day, or 3 moves to set up a full attack when you would have normally been limited to a single attack.
I did find a silly corner case where you could intentionally nauseate yourself but still be able to charge (and thus full attack with pounce) so then with BoB you could pounce as a move action, gain an extra move action with BoB as a swift action, then pounce again...when you would normally be unable to attack at all. But I dealt with this by houseruling on charge/pounce: "Pounce, Dire Charge, Spirited Charge, or any other “full attack on a charge” or “multiply damage on a charge” ability only functions if you full action charge."

[martixy]

This is a long list. Accrued from 18 years of rulings and bugfixes.

I will disagree with vlad here. My gripes are two-fold, one objective, one subjective.

In fact I see 3 sets of rules:

* The obvious ones, like no multiclass penalty, which I also do.
* The badwrongfun ones, like no evil characters or the out of character bit.
* The "address the symptom, not the root cause" rules. Why are animated shields and rings of evasion banned for example?

Overall I would hate my time at your table.

[Fitz10019]

Free feats are often geared towards "feat taxes" - feats that most characters (martial especially) need to take to function...

In my house rules, the 'feat tax' feats are not free outright, but free with the purchase of high stats...

Str 16 or higher gets you Power Attack
Dex 16 or higher gets you Weapon Finesse
Con 16 or higher gets you Diehard
Wis 16 or higher gets you Zen Encumbrance*


(* use your Wisdom score to calculate your carrying capacity, because you really grok how to pack a suitcase )

[Fitz10019]

I have no idea of how well this would work in practice, but it feels like a fairly easy (though probably rather work intensive) way of fixing that problem might be to assign each feat a point value and have characters get "feat points" every time they would've gotten a feat. That way it's up to the individual player whether to pick a single great feat or a bunch of lesser ones.

This'll get you started: SonofZeal's GitP project fixing SKR's Feat-Point System (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?245177-Fixing-SKR-s-Feat-Point-System)

[DigoDragon]

My local group recently started a 3.5 campaign, and our GM has instituted a few house rule in this go around:

-Bards and Rangers get the Rogue's Trapfinding ability.
-Paladins may use smite with ranged weapons.
-Favored Souls can trade in their class flight ability for the Paladin's turn undead ability at character creation.
-Creating magic items/potions with a CL of 1 no longer costs Exp to create.
-When taking the Leadership feat, you must pick either the companion or the followers. You do not get both.

[fallensavior]

I will disagree with vlad here. My gripes are two-fold, one objective, one subjective.

In fact I see 3 sets of rules:

* The obvious ones, like no multiclass penalty, which I also do.
* The badwrongfun ones, like no evil characters or the out of character bit.
* The "address the symptom, not the root cause" rules. Why are animated shields and rings of evasion banned for example?

Overall I would hate my time at your table.

The game is not intended to have evil PCs. That should be fairly obvious. It doesn't explicitly ban them, because some people are into treachery, backstabbing and pvp and such. At least as a change of pace. And if you want to run that kind of game, I'm not going to pooh pooh you having fun your way, but you should probably clearly advertise it as an evil campaign. I'm not interested in running that kind of game, so I have stated it loud and clear to prospective players that if that is what they are looking for, they should look elsewhere.

Getting people to speak in character helps with immersion. Sometimes newbie players try to give their character's dialogue like they are writing a book instead of acting it out. Sometimes problematic players try to pull shenanigans and then claim they were speaking OoC when it goes poorly. These are things that have come up in actual play, so to make expectations clear, into the document it goes.

I consider anything that is a no-brainer obvious option that every character will take no matter what to be OP. Heavy Fortification goes into this bucket as well as Animated shields and Rings of Evasion. They are not a symptom of anything, they are the OP thing. I have ran multiple campaigns where every PC (and at a certain level, every opponent) gets evasion from the ring if not class features. That doesn't make things more fun or interesting. It makes things more fun and interesting if you have to be certain classes (that anyone can add levels of to their build!) to have evasion, if you have to be an ooze or elemental to be immune to crits, and if you have to take Improved Buckler Defense to add a shield with your hands full.

[Xervous]

The game is not intended to have evil PCs. That should be fairly obvious. It doesn't explicitly ban them, because some people are into treachery, backstabbing and pvp and such.

I’ll rate this comment one Red Fel out of three. A conflation of disruptive character with evil character. The lawful good paladin can easily be a vehicle for treachery (it is my duty to report this crime even if the party will suffer) and PvP. Undermining the party doesn’t have an alignment, unless there’s a third axis for likelihood of winning an adventurer’s Darwin Award by chopping at the lifeline that is your party. Just like you don’t bring a pacifist to the dungeon grinder game, you don’t bring a Paranoia character to D&D unless it’s been explicitly flagged for PvP.

Not wanting disruptive players is one thing. The common overlap of evil characters with disruptive players is to be noted. But a flat out ban on evil in this context seems to not address problems like chaotic stupid, stick in the rear paladin, nor bipolar orphan hugging puppy kicking neutral to list a few.

[RexDart]

Not wanting disruptive players is one thing. The common overlap of evil characters with disruptive players is to be noted. But a flat out ban on evil in this context seems to not address problems like chaotic stupid, stick in the rear paladin, nor bipolar orphan hugging puppy kicking neutral to list a few.

This is true... but I think "no evil characters" also acts as a signal to players that the DM isn't going to have much patience for all that other nonsense either, and more efficiently than a whole paragraph about the shenanigans that you don't want to see.

[Metastachydium]

The game is not intended to have evil PCs. That should be fairly obvious.

Ahm, no? Thereare at least two always Evil classes (the Evil paladin variants), one where being Evil is actually very highly recommended (warlock), in addition to quite a number of Evil-only feats, prestige classes and ACFs. Evil clerics exist as a specific subset of clerics too, with semi-exclusive features of their own.


you have to be an ooze or elemental to be immune to crits

Or a PLANT! Everyone always forgets poor planties, despite the fact that they are way cool.

[H_H_F_F]

Ahm, no? Thereare at least two always Evil classes (the Evil paladin variants), one where being Evil is actually very highly recommended (warlock), in addition to quite a number of Evil-only feats, prestige classes and ACFs. Evil clerics exist as a specific subset of clerics too, with semi-exclusive features of their own.

While I tend to agree that the game was designed with the possibility of evil PCs kept in mind (though the assumption is obviously good PCs) I don't think the point you make is all that convincing. This isn't 5E: enemies are built using the same tool set that is used by PCs, and use the same rules. Even if there was no intent for non-good pcs to ever be played, 3.5 would still require a plethora of evil options.

[RandomPeasant]

As always, "intent" is largely the wrong framework to approach the issue. There are Evil-only PC options. But, frankly, most of those just shouldn't be Evil-only. There are plenty of protagonists who are Warlocks or Necromancers or Death Knights or whatever. But those guys are just using powers that are spooky, not actually Evil. "Evil", when it means something, means something that is really not appropriate for a protagonist.

[Batcathat]

This is true... but I think "no evil characters" also acts as a signal to players that the DM isn't going to have much patience for all that other nonsense either, and more efficiently than a whole paragraph about the shenanigans that you don't want to see.

Or they could just say "no disruptive characters" if that's what they mean. Saying "no evil characters" mean the players have to first deduce what it actually means and then figure out what sort of behaviors are covered. At least by saying "no disruptive characters" they can skip the first part.

[Metastachydium]

This isn't 5E: enemies are built using the same tool set that is used by PCs, and use the same rules.

And I like it that way!


Even if there was no intent for non-good pcs to ever be played, 3.5 would still require a plethora of evil options.

That's a fair point. A more than fair point, in fact.
Still, it bears mentioning that when 3.5 wants to funnel players towards certain options, it's known to find ways to make that felt (LA, I'm looking at you!). The variant paladins, in the meantime, are an ease-of-access kind of thing, a way around a restriction baked into the original (contrast blackguard which does kind of look like something that wasn't intended for use by players).


"Evil", when it means something, means something that is really not appropriate for a protagonist.

Villain protagonists are a thing, you know.

[Elkad]

The game is not intended to have evil PCs...
Bah.
Heck, published modules came with evil pregens for players to use, at least in earlier editions.

Evil works JUST FINE.

[Silly Name]

Or they could just say "no disruptive characters" if that's what they mean. Saying "no evil characters" mean the players have to first deduce what it actually means and then figure out what sort of behaviors are covered. At least by saying "no disruptive characters" they can skip the first part.

"No Evil characters" is also a way to communicate what sort of game and story you are interested in playing. Alignment/concept restrictions are fine as a way to ensure the party gets along and doesn't shy away from the story.

I have a campaign document where I specified that, while I wasn't going to outright ban Evil characters, the intended tone of the campaign was heavily slanted towards heroic acts and thus I was asking players to make heroic characters. I strongly believe in working together with the players, but putting restrictions on character options (which include alignments, races and classes) is an acceptable proposal from a DM. I have more than one campaign world where a PHB race outright doesn't exist or isn't available as a player option, I don't think I'm being an unreasonable DM with such proposals when stuff like Dark Sun is considered popular.

[mashlagoo1982]

Villain protagonists are a thing, you know.

Isn't there a rule that outright states if a PC alignment is evil that their character sheet is turned over to the DM and that PC becomes an NPC?

I ignore this rule personally, but it is bothering me that I cannot find the source.

[fallensavior]

I’ll rate this comment one Red Fel out of three. A conflation of disruptive character with evil character. The lawful good paladin can easily be a vehicle for treachery (it is my duty to report this crime even if the party will suffer) and PvP. Undermining the party doesn’t have an alignment, unless there’s a third axis for likelihood of winning an adventurer’s Darwin Award by chopping at the lifeline that is your party. Just like you don’t bring a pacifist to the dungeon grinder game, you don’t bring a Paranoia character to D&D unless it’s been explicitly flagged for PvP.

Not wanting disruptive players is one thing. The common overlap of evil characters with disruptive players is to be noted. But a flat out ban on evil in this context seems to not address problems like chaotic stupid, stick in the rear paladin, nor bipolar orphan hugging puppy kicking neutral to list a few.

It's not just the disruptive aspect, though that should not be downplayed. It's also that that's just not the type of story that I want to create/tell. So ultimately I'll have a lot more patience with the character that's roleplaying a moral dilemma.

There is kind of an unwritten rule that you need to make a character that wants to participate/go on the adventure. So if some player ends up with a character that doesn't want to associate with the party or a pacifist that doesn't want to fight or a coward that doesn't want to take any risks; the correct response IMO is "Okay. Roll a new character."


Ahm, no? Thereare at least two always Evil classes (the Evil paladin variants), one where being Evil is actually very highly recommended (warlock), in addition to quite a number of Evil-only feats, prestige classes and ACFs. Evil clerics exist as a specific subset of clerics too, with semi-exclusive features of their own.

Or a PLANT! Everyone always forgets poor planties, despite the fact that they are way cool.

I think those things exist primarily for NPCs.

Note how the BoVD says right in the beginning:

HIDE THIS BOOK!
Book of Vile Darkness is for Dungeon Masters (DMs) only. Just
as you would keep the contents of a published adventure to
yourself, restrict your players’ access to this book as well.

Also, sorry, but plants are crittable with my house rules.


Bah.
Heck, published modules came with evil pregens for players to use, at least in earlier editions.

Evil works JUST FINE.

To support my claim about how the game is intended to be played, I give you a quote from some of the creators:


...we've found that, at the very least, characters in a party need to have compatible alignments. Nothing can destroy a campaign faster than good-aligned characters and evil-aligned characters in the same party deciding to work against each other. Frankly, we've found that evil alignments are best left to monsters and villains; player character parties work out better when the characters take on good or neutral alignments. Motivations for adventures are easier, the group dynamics are smoother, and the heroic aspects of D&D shine through in ways that just don't happen when players play evil characters.

-Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker (https://books.google.com/books?id=pSG3zxln4FUC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false)
(Emphasis added)

[Xervous]

It's not just the disruptive aspect, though that should not be downplayed. It's also that that's just not the type of story that I want to create/tell. So ultimately I'll have a lot more patience with the character that's roleplaying a moral dilemma.


Circling back to the “one Red Fel out of three”. What is your functional definition of an evil character? What specifically do evil characters imply for you that you don’t want in your games?

[Kuulvheysoon]

I've found that specifying "No disruptive characters" is more reflective of what I'm looking for, but that I also need to talk with new players and define exactly what that means.

I tried the whole "No evil characters" bit, and then I had the most legendarily disruptive CN character that you can imagine. So yeah, the former works a lot better than the latter if you've got even a small chance to talk to them before character creation.

[Metastachydium]

I think those things exist primarily for NPCs.

Sure, primarily being the operative word here.


Also, sorry, but plants are crittable with my house rules.

Now I hate you.

[fallensavior]

Circling back to the “one Red Fel out of three”. What is your functional definition of an evil character? What specifically do evil characters imply for you that you don’t want in your games?

I do alignment pretty much by the book, so to quote PHB 104:


Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
...
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

[Xervous]

I do alignment pretty much by the book, so to quote PHB 104:

Call me on pedantry if you like for the following.

Kingdom A at war with a slaver kingdom B. Party member 1 wants to fight because it’s the right thing to do as they see it. Party member 2 wants to fight because such popular causes are a great opportunity to win fame and riches at the expense of others who have been made acceptable targets by the articles of war. Substitute lair of goblins/spiders/dragon as needed to produce a campaign relevant scenario.

What I’m prying for is the branch where you’re expecting the evil character to diverge from intended play.

[Elkad]

To support my claim about how the game is intended to be played, I give you a quote from some of the creators:
(Emphasis added)


...we've found that, at the very least, characters in a party need to have compatible alignments. Nothing can destroy a campaign faster than good-aligned characters and evil-aligned characters in the same party deciding to work against each other. Frankly, we've found that evil alignments are best left to monsters and villains; player character parties work out better when the characters take on good or neutral alignments. Motivations for adventures are easier, the group dynamics are smoother, and the heroic aspects of D&D shine through in ways that just don't happen when players play evil characters.

-Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker


2 guys hired by TSR in '91 and '93.
Hardly "creators" of D&D.
3.5 creators? Sure, I'll concede that. But I started playing about the same time they did (1977).

[fallensavior]

Call me on pedantry if you like for the following.

Kingdom A at war with a slaver kingdom B. Party member 1 wants to fight because it’s the right thing to do as they see it. Party member 2 wants to fight because such popular causes are a great opportunity to win fame and riches at the expense of others who have been made acceptable targets by the articles of war. Substitute lair of goblins/spiders/dragon as needed to produce a campaign relevant scenario.

What I’m prying for is the branch where you’re expecting the evil character to diverge from intended play.

Why would the why matter in this case? Given objective morality, the why only matters if it speaks to objective circumstance (I killed them because they were trying to kill me!). Does your disagreement stem from trying to read subjective morals into a RAW objective system?


2 guys hired by TSR in '91 and '93.
Hardly "creators" of D&D.
3.5 creators? Sure, I'll concede that. But I started playing about the same time they did (1977).

This is about 3.5 in particular you know. But sure, I can call them authors, or developers, or "dudes involved in making the version of the game that I am specifically talking about" or whatever. I didn't imply they were the only creators.

[Elkad]

This is about 3.5 in particular you know. But sure, I can call them authors, or developers, or "dudes involved in making the version of the game that I am specifically talking about" or whatever. I didn't imply they were the only creators.

Sure, but D&D is D&D at it's core. Versions don't matter for basic concepts like good vs evil PCs. So I disagree with their statement heavily.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have no dog in this fight, but I was reading Dragon #212 (AD&D era), in an article by Eric R Noah (who I don't know from Adam) titled "Make your games more like fantasy literature", and it includes the following point:


5. Do not allow evil-aligned PCs in your campaign. If there's one underlying theme of fantasy literature, it is that evil fails eventually. Evil characters always make the wrong choice on issues of morality. Any fantasy game that attempts to bring fantasy literature to life will support good-aligned characters and discourage evil ones.


So I think it's fair to say that AD&D, at least, had a common mindset that evil characters are generally less appropriate, at least for the "main" type of game. Beyond that, deponent sayeth nothing.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Sure, but D&D is D&D at it's core. Versions don't matter for basic concepts like good vs evil PCs. So I disagree with their statement heavily.

I mean, back in the day there were a lot of things that were dropped from the game (with good reason!) like men and women having different stat maximums and Elf being a race/class combo.

Maybe the hate for Evil characters should fall by the wayside to be replaced by a hate for explicitly Disruptive players. Just because those two categories can fall into the overlapping area of a venn diagram doesn't mean that they're one and the same.

[Batcathat]

I have no dog in this fight, but I was reading Dragon #212 (AD&D era), in an article by Eric R Noah (who I don't know from Adam) titled "Make your games more like fantasy literature", and it includes the following point:

So I think it's fair to say that AD&D, at least, had a common mindset that evil characters are generally less appropriate, at least for the "main" type of game. Beyond that, deponent sayeth nothing.

I would like to have a serious discussion with him about fantasy litterature and the underlying themes in it, but I suppose it doesn't really matter for the discussion at hand whether he was wrong or right, just whether his attitude was a common one or not.

[RandomPeasant]

Maybe the hate for Evil characters should fall by the wayside to be replaced by a hate for explicitly Disruptive players. Just because those two categories can fall into the overlapping area of a venn diagram doesn't mean that they're one and the same.

But just because those areas can not overlap doesn't mean it isn't worth banning one. "Disruptive" is not well-defined, and very few people will intentionally set out to play a disruptive character (and most of the people who do won't be fun it play with even if they aren't being disruptive). "Has an Evil alignment", on the other hand, is very precise, and much easier to ban. IME, there are very few characters that A) have good reason to be Evil (as opposed to just being Evil because they want to be a Necromancer or something) and B) are good for the game. Even most villain protagonists aren't out there doing stuff that is capital-E evil, and those that are are generally not something I want to talk about in a social setting. Most "Evil" characters that I would be okay with having in a group are just kinda selfish ****s, and I think calling that "Evil" cheapens the term.

[JNAProductions]

But just because those areas can not overlap doesn't mean it isn't worth banning one. "Disruptive" is not well-defined, and very few people will intentionally set out to play a disruptive character (and most of the people who do won't be fun it play with even if they aren't being disruptive). "Has an Evil alignment", on the other hand, is very precise, and much easier to ban. IME, there are very few characters that A) have good reason to be Evil (as opposed to just being Evil because they want to be a Necromancer or something) and B) are good for the game. Even most villain protagonists aren't out there doing stuff that is capital-E evil, and those that are are generally not something I want to talk about in a social setting. Most "Evil" characters that I would be okay with having in a group are just kinda selfish ****s, and I think calling that "Evil" cheapens the term.

It's easier to ban Evil PCs. But is it better?

I had a game where one of the PCs ended up sliding down into Neutral Evil territory. She was overprotective of her daughter and family, to the point where she'd let the world burn to save them. And that was fine-her family were the other PCs, and the daughter was an NPC they all cared about. I'm not sure the other players even knew she would be considered Evil, since not much happened with that. But if I followed the rule of "No Evil PCs, period," we'd've lost a really cool character.

Now, I totally get wanting to keep a more heroic tone-that's what I generally like to do. But if it's a natural result of how the PC has been played and isn't disruptive, I see no reason to outlaw it.

[RandomPeasant]

It's easier to ban Evil PCs. But is it better?

"Ease" is a part of better-ness. The best rule is to have no rules at all, but simply to make the best call in every situation as it arises. But we understand that doing so isn't possible (let alone reasonable), so we have rules that will sometimes produce a less-than-ideal outcome and follow them because we know that they are better in practice than simply making judgment calls.


I had a game where one of the PCs ended up sliding down into Neutral Evil territory. She was overprotective of her daughter and family, to the point where she'd let the world burn to save them.

This is exactly what I mean by acceptable "Evil" PCs not being worthy of capital-E evil. "I would sacrifice anything to save my family" is not a trait I would call "Evil". That's a Neutral character. "Evil" does not mean "if someone made a movie about you it would be rated R", it means "if someone made a movie about you you would be the villain". Moash pursuing a personal vendetta at the potential cost of ending the world is Evil. Adolin killing someone who is threatening his family and playing games with the survival of civilization outside a sanctioned duel is not.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would like to have a serious discussion with him about fantasy litterature and the underlying themes in it, but I suppose it doesn't really matter for the discussion at hand whether he was wrong or right, just whether his attitude was a common one or not.

Right. My only point was "here's another datapoint from a D&D-related publication discouraging evil-aligned PCs". Right or wrong, it wasn't uncommon.

Personally, I've ditched alignment altogether. You can write whatever you want (or even nothing). The world will react based on what you do and who you ally yourself with. And there's no racial alignment either, not for anyone (outsiders very much included). There is evil and there is good, but there isn't Evil and Good. I'd say, in fact, that much more of the fundamental struggle is between order and chaos, in fact.

[JNAProductions]

"Ease" is a part of better-ness. The best rule is to have no rules at all, but simply to make the best call in every situation as it arises. But we understand that doing so isn't possible (let alone reasonable), so we have rules that will sometimes produce a less-than-ideal outcome and follow them because we know that they are better in practice than simply making judgment calls.

This is exactly what I mean by acceptable "Evil" PCs not being worthy of capital-E evil. "I would sacrifice anything to save my family" is not a trait I would call "Evil". That's a Neutral character. "Evil" does not mean "if someone made a movie about you it would be rated R", it means "if someone made a movie about you you would be the villain". Moash pursuing a personal vendetta at the potential cost of ending the world is Evil. Adolin killing someone who is threatening his family and playing games with the survival of civilization outside a sanctioned duel is not.

Difference in opinions, I guess.


Right. My only point was "here's another datapoint from a D&D-related publication discouraging evil-aligned PCs". Right or wrong, it wasn't uncommon.

Personally, I've ditched alignment altogether. You can write whatever you want (or even nothing). The world will react based on what you do and who you ally yourself with. And there's no racial alignment either, not for anyone (outsiders very much included). There is evil and there is good, but there isn't Evil and Good. I'd say, in fact, that much more of the fundamental struggle is between order and chaos, in fact.

And that too. Alignment isn't really needed-maybe in 3rd, but not in 5E, which is what I'm usually playing.

[Batcathat]

And that too. Alignment isn't really needed-maybe in 3rd, but not in 5E, which is what I'm usually playing.

I've yet to see a system where it is, in my opinion. (Well, aside from very specific cases like "this spell only affects Evil" or whatever).

[Kuulvheysoon]

I've yet to see a system where it is, in my opinion. (Well, aside from very specific cases like "this spell only affects Evil" or whatever).

3.5E got way too tied up in alignment effects, so I don't think that you could divorce it without a lot of houserules, unfortunately.

[RandomPeasant]

I've yet to see a system where it is, in my opinion. (Well, aside from very specific cases like "this spell only affects Evil" or whatever).

IMO, the issue is more that D&D alignment is just singularly bad. You can't have an interesting debate between "Good" and "Evil", because "Evil" is just a word for bad (or rather, to the degree that you can, it's by pointing out how simply labeling something as Evil doesn't make it so). But there are alignment systems that aren't like that. For example: MTG's color wheel. It's hard to argue for Evil over Good, but it's pretty easy to see how people could reasonably align philosophically with either Green-White or Black-Red (not having to declare certain philosophical positions "Evil" also sidesteps the possibility of pissing off part of your fanbase when you declare that Deontology or Utilitarianism is True Good). Even within D&D, having alignment key off the planes themselves, rather than the two-axis system directly, would be a big improvement.

[NichG]

3.5E got way too tied up in alignment effects, so I don't think that you could divorce it without a lot of houserules, unfortunately.

You can do it with two, or three if you want to avoid nerfing paladins:

1. Whenever an alignment appears as a prerequisite, that prerequisite is removed.
2. Whenever part of an effect would be limited to a particular alignment or range of alignments, it only applies against Outsiders from corresponding outer planes.
(3. Paladins must worship a specific deity. The Smite ability and alignment detection abilities of the paladin class target creatures who are enemies of the deity, either individually declared or by way of general declaration of principles 'all thieves are our enemies', and the accuracy of this discernment is limited according to the domain sense ability of the deity in question)

[RandomPeasant]

Honestly, from a balance perspective you could just let Paladins smite whoever and it would be fine. That class is in no danger of breaking the game. Just require them to swear to a personal set of ideals (the Radiant Ideals from The Stormlight Archive are reasonable templates) and have done.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Honestly, from a balance perspective you could just let Paladins smite whoever and it would be fine. That class is in no danger of breaking the game. Just require them to swear to a personal set of ideals (the Radiant Ideals from The Stormlight Archive are reasonable templates) and have done.

Which is basically how 5e paladins work.

[Zombimode]

3.5E got way too tied up in alignment effects, so I don't think that you could divorce it without a lot of houserules, unfortunately.

Eh, only if you overthink it.

At my table we ignore alignment more or less without actualy making any effort to remove them from the game.

Whenever there is a mechanical interaction that requires the alignment of subjects, we do the following:

1. If it's a NPC/monster we use whatever is printed on it's statblock
1. a) When creating NPCs from scratch I think for at most 3 seconds about which alignment to pick and go for whatever comes into my mind first - again without overthinking it.
2. If it's a player character we determine what makes sense in the particular case - which is actually rather easy most of the time.

This way we have effectively removed alignment for characterization and roleplaying without the hassle of actually trying to remove it mechanically.

[RandomPeasant]

Which is basically how 5e paladins work.

For all the complaints I have about 5e, it certainly has the best alignment handling of any edition. Though I will admit a certain fondness for 4e's willingness to admit that Lawful Good just means "more Good" and Chaotic Evil "more Evil".

[RexDart]

If I was doing a new version of D&D, I'd say the alignments only exist for supernatural creatures and their servants (divine casters, basically), with maybe occasional exceptions for a mortal whose acts are so wicked that he attains an Evil alignment despite having no explicit association with demons or the like. For everyone else, they don't have alignments, and just do whatever they do.

[Batcathat]

If I was doing a new version of D&D, I'd say the alignments only exist for supernatural creatures and their servants (divine casters, basically), with maybe occasional exceptions for a mortal whose acts are so wicked that he attains an Evil alignment despite having no explicit association with demons or the like. For everyone else, they don't have alignments, and just do whatever they do.

Out of curiosity, what would be the reason for keeping those parts? I guess I can sort of see it for clerics and the like (though I would prefer some sort of "loyal to X" mechanic) but what would be the point of the extra wicked becoming Evil? Just so paladins can smite them?

[RexDart]

Out of curiosity, what would be the reason for keeping those parts? I guess I can sort of see it for clerics and the like (though I would prefer some sort of "loyal to X" mechanic) but what would be the point of the extra wicked becoming Evil? Just so paladins can smite them?

I'd keep Good and Evil mainly because I just like the aesthetics of the Good vs. Evil tropes of vampire movies, and the similar stuff in D&D. (Not sure about Law and Chaos - there's enough fun stuff to keep them around, and nobody uses them much for this sort of thing anyway - when was the last time you saw someone use anarchic water, for instance?)

The "extra wicked" caveat actually comes from a plot point I really liked from another vampire movie - of all things, Santo y Blue Demon vs. Dracula y El Hombre Lobo. There's a MacGuffin magical dagger in the movie that will destroy a vampire if it touches one (doesn't even need to pierce the heart or anything.) Like many fictional vampires, Dracula has a longtime servant to get around the vampire rules (do stuff in daytime, etc.) This guy ends up stealing the dagger, and because it only harms vampires, he's perfectly safe... except he isn't. He managed to do so many evil deeds that he became as evil as Dracula, at least for the dagger, and it destroyed him as soon as he touched it. At least in that particular movie, God hates rules lawyers.

[RNightstalker]

Non of the parties I play in use XP. At a certain point the DM decides it's time to level up. Anything above level 15 takes at least a few years to reach.

A few years, IRL? Of playing how often?


"not-being-a-wizard" tax

That's the truth. What do you think of the experience progression of 1st/2nd, where different classes leveled up at a different rate? Makes sense that a martial will get better with a sword quicker than wizards can pretend to be a deity/demigod.



- Rangers and Druids trade animal companions.

- Add Pun-Pun as an over-deity of Cheese, Exploits, and Metagaming. Pun-Pun is aware that he is a god in a fictional gaming world. Anyone that slips something past me in an attempt to break the game will bring down his wrath. He is jealous of his ultimate power, and will personally act to prevent any player/character from approaching it.[/SPOILER]

Is the animal companion swap meant to be a druid nerf, ranger boost, or both?
For some reason I'm not a fan of the pun, but I do like the idea of knowing who Lord Ao is subject to...I might have to adapt that!


I still allow players to bind wounds after a fight (gaining back D4 hp), which is an old but common house rule from 1e (I seriously thought it was RAW but apparently just widely used).

Oh, and above all, have fun and don't be a @#$%.

Good pull on the bind wounds (house)rule, I thought it was standard too. And your last comment really deserves its own post lol.


Heal skill check or can anyone just do it?

If we're talking binding wounds, anyone should be able to stop the bleeding or apply a bandage to slow it (based on the severity of the wound if the table wants to go down that road.) Getting HP back? Sounds like a use for the heal skill, DC 10+damage maybe?, doesn't it?



HD: every class gets one die size increase except for barbarians.

BAB: all classes have their BAB moved up one level.

Rangers get animal companions at 1st level and ALL animal companions and familiars scale by character level NOT class level.


HD-What about other classes that get d12?
BAB-How does that work?


Btw, I also have a large list of custom-made prestige classes for my players, and a long list of modified/fixed official PrCs. Most of the time I find it's easy to "fix" a PrC that is thematically fitting but not at the power level I'd like it to, has excessively slow progression/uninteresting upper levels or prohibitive entry requirements. Some are simple, such as giving a class spellcasting progression or its own spell lists, others are more complex and turned into basically complete reworks.

Have you ever made a thread about those fixes?


It's a lot of work I guess collecting all the local players that don't want to play with a moron.

Shouldn't that be easy?

As far as my own house rules, the main one I use is in character creation. Adapting from my dad's simplification, my table can roll 7 d8's, dropping the lowest. Put a 1 (add 10) in front of the remaining numbers and you have your stats. Who wants single-digit stats anyway? lol No worries about having to roll handfulls of dice, rerolls, minimum total bonuses, etc. Simple.

[martixy]

Glad my comment sparked that discussion. I had a feeling we were headed that way when I made it.

I have one thing to say to fallensavior - you can't force immersion. I've been deeply immersed in games with tons of meta talk, and failed in games that were effectively improv theater plays.

There's a ton I'd argue on the "no-brainer" options, but I shan't bother.


Have you ever made a thread about those fixes?

I share the same sentiment as silly, and if you're interested you can check my sig for a few of the classes.
To expand on that sentiment - I also don't think I'm hot sh*t as a game designer and I always look at what other people have done. For example:
* Instead of bumbling my way in an effort to "tier up" rogues, fighters and the like, I use the Pathfinder versions (unchained rogue, monk, fighter with free stamina, etc).
* Instead of trying to fix the paladin I simply imported the following classes:
- Dawnblade(offensive): http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?190289-3-5-Dawnblade-the-duskblade-s-paladin
- Knight-paladin(defensive): http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187700-3-5-Knight-Paladin-Remix-Knight-Paladin

I do have a few other reworks worthy of posting, but I'm not sure anyone would ever use them to be worth the hassle of bothering to format a forum post properly.

[Silly Name]

Have you ever made a thread about those fixes?

Not here, as most of those fixes have been due to "necessity" of me wanting to use one or my players expressing frustration. I could post some stuff in the Homebrew forum if you are interested, though.

A quick list of the stuff I've modified off the top of my head, probably missing something:

- Arcane Archer (DMG): +1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class at every even level
- Arcane Trickster (DMG): ACTUAL +1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class at every level (RAW, the arcane trickster only gets an increase in spells per day, does not gain spells known, because sorcerers aren't allowed things apparently)
- Dwarven Defender (DMG): complete rework
- Dragon Disciple (DMG): lose the bonus spells, gain +1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class at every level except 3rd and 9th
- Shadowdancer (DMG): complete rework
- Bladesinger (CWar): can qualify via Weapon Focus (rapier), +1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class at every level except 3rd, 6th and 9th, Song of Celerity can be used 1 + Int modifier times per day
- Invisible Blade (CWar): Removed Far Shot and Point Blank Shot as requisites, substituted by Quick Draw
- Knight Protector (CWar): complete rework
- Elemental Savant (CAr): loses caster levels at 4th and 8th instead of 5th and 10th (this is actually a thing I suggest doing for most caster PrCs that don't gain caster levels at their cap - just switch the loss to an earlier point)
- Wild Mage (CAr): reworked the Wild Magic class feature so that it actually, you know, fits the idea of wild magic
- Blighter (CDiv): Accelerated spellcasting progression up to 9th level spells, similar to Ur-priest
- Shining Blade of Heironeous (CDiv): Compacted to 5 levels instead of 10, full spellcasting progression
- Warpriest (CDiv): +1 level of existing divine spellcasting class at every level except 3rd, 6th and 0th
- Dragonslayer (Drc): Own spell list, DR/- progression increased to 2/4/6
- Book of Vile Darkness: reworked most Disciple and Thrall PrCs


As far as my own house rules, the main one I use is in character creation. Adapting from my dad's simplification, my table can roll 7 d8's, dropping the lowest. Put a 1 (add 10) in front of the remaining numbers and you have your stats. Who wants single-digit stats anyway? lol No worries about having to roll handfulls of dice, rerolls, minimum total bonuses, etc. Simple.

Sounds fun! Although I think players are often too averse to having evene a -1 to a stat that's not Charisma, despite it being perfectly playable. Do you assign in order, or let players choose what stat goes where? I've found that assigning in order can be fun, makes people think about their character's strength and weaknesses a bit more.

[Asmotherion]

The house rule I always use is "cantrips are at-will". I also scale them with level and make players roll d4s instead of non-existant d3s.

For Skills, I give a 1 month downtime between levels, where the skills are gained organically through RP. At least when the story allows it.

I'm not a fun of resurection, so I only allow Revivify and True Resurection to work. However I don't use the -1 level rule (as I don't like it), I instead consider the target of a resurection to be at the same level they were, with 0 xp.

Finally, I use a Hero Point system, where by paying 1 Hero point, they can perform a game braking mechanic with a duration of 1 minute. Otherwise, Planar Binding an Efreet for Chain wishes ALWAYS goes wrong, without paying a Hero Point (for example). You gain a Hero point Uppon Leveling and as a Special Reward for outstanding RP.

[Mordante]

A few years, IRL? Of playing how often?

Before Covid we played between once and three times per month. I joined the group in 2017 we were level 15 at that time, in 2019/2020 we became level 16. Some people in the party started in their early 20s in this group and are now late 30s early 40s and still play the same character.

I think this party is not really what most people would consider and normal party. They spend I think close to a year IRL to prepare for a huge battle. The battle itself took for 7 to 10 sessions to finish. After the battle the loot we gained was: honour, we saved the city, a pat on our back and 1 level.

[fallensavior]

I have one thing to say to fallensavior - you can't force immersion.

I agree. I can't force immersion. But I can facilitate it.

[pabelfly]

So reading this thread, and my experiences playing PF and PF 2, this is what I came up with for 3.5 (short version):

Regular feats as Pathfinder
Skill-based feats at even levels (to improve non-combat ability)
Three different stats are boosted every fourth-level (if a stat is under 16, it gets a +2, if it's 16 or more, +1)
The weaker martial classes (Tier 4 and lower) get bonus feats as a Fighter. There are a few exclusions here like characters with Wildshape, and Mystic Ranger.
Pounce is a Fighter feat
Casters can spend a feat to pick their casting stat (INT, WIS or CHA)
Weapon Finesse is free
Two-Weapon Fighting automatically improves

Haven't yet tried this but this is the short version of the rules I'll trial for the group's next campaign

[Quertus]

But just because those areas can not overlap doesn't mean it isn't worth banning one. "Disruptive" is not well-defined, and very few people will intentionally set out to play a disruptive character (and most of the people who do won't be fun it play with even if they aren't being disruptive). "Has an Evil alignment", on the other hand, is very precise, and much easier to ban. IME, there are very few characters that A) have good reason to be Evil (as opposed to just being Evil because they want to be a Necromancer or something) and B) are good for the game. Even most villain protagonists aren't out there doing stuff that is capital-E evil, and those that are are generally not something I want to talk about in a social setting. Most "Evil" characters that I would be okay with having in a group are just kinda selfish ****s, and I think calling that "Evil" cheapens the term.


"Ease" is a part of better-ness. The best rule is to have no rules at all, but simply to make the best call in every situation as it arises. But we understand that doing so isn't possible (let alone reasonable), so we have rules that will sometimes produce a less-than-ideal outcome and follow them because we know that they are better in practice than simply making judgment calls.



This is exactly what I mean by acceptable "Evil" PCs not being worthy of capital-E evil. "I would sacrifice anything to save my family" is not a trait I would call "Evil". That's a Neutral character. "Evil" does not mean "if someone made a movie about you it would be rated R", it means "if someone made a movie about you you would be the villain". Moash pursuing a personal vendetta at the potential cost of ending the world is Evil. Adolin killing someone who is threatening his family and playing games with the survival of civilization outside a sanctioned duel is not.

I'm really confused trying to grasp your stance. Are you really trying to say that you prefer the concise, precise, highly inaccurate "no evil", that prevents the Necromancers and "kill to protect family" evils that you would allow, over the more verbose method of explaining and exemplifying what constitutes disruptive behavior? :smallconfused:


The house rule I always use is "cantrips are at-will". I also scale them with level and make players roll d4s instead of non-existant d3s.

For Skills, I give a 1 month downtime between levels, where the skills are gained organically through RP. At least when the story allows it.

I'm not a fun of resurection, so I only allow Revivify and True Resurection to work. However I don't use the -1 level rule (as I don't like it), I instead consider the target of a resurection to be at the same level they were, with 0 xp.

Finally, I use a Hero Point system, where by paying 1 Hero point, they can perform a game braking mechanic with a duration of 1 minute. Otherwise, Planar Binding an Efreet for Chain wishes ALWAYS goes wrong, without paying a Hero Point (for example). You gain a Hero point Uppon Leveling and as a Special Reward for outstanding RP.

And just Binding an Efreet for *1* Wish?

Like the at-will Cantrips, and that's all the resurrection I'll ever need.

So… how does your skill system work? When Quertus (my signature academia mage for whom this account is named) compiles his notes, collects experimental data from his Simulacra, works on writing more of the books people read to get their Knowledge skills, attends a book signing / paid speaker event, delivers the stipends to the shopkeeps who run his "operates at a loss" spell component shops, chats with adventurers/allies/his Naga companion, and does spell research (as time allows(hooray fast time plane)), how would this affect his skills?

[icefractal]

I'm surprised you've found Heavy Fortification to be prevalent as an option taken by PCs. It's a +5 property - even at high levels where the cost isn't an issue, it's still competing for space with all the other armor properties you might want (like Soulfire). Do you feature a lot of enemies with Sneak Attack?


As far as evil goes - I think not wanting evil characters is a totally valid preference. It's not just about being disruptive or not, that's an orthogonal thing. It's that I'm not really interested in exploring the story of a bunch of bastards screwing over people. If you want to do so, feel free ... in a game that I'm not running.

Now sure, there's characters that count as evil (either just technically or sometimes legitimately) that aren't like that. Most of those characters can be played just fine as "Neutral" instead. If a character needs to be Evil, that's probably not one I want.

As far as "evil for mechanical reasons" - I'd much rather alter pre-requisites than the whole style of the game.

[H_H_F_F]

Artificers specifically can really gey some value off of heavy fortification. It has a cost, but it's available to them at level 5 - which means that with some knowldge of combat ahead, they can really break a criminal-world adventure.

Not that I think this justufies banning it, but any "immunity to blank" that's readily available on demand is a strong tool to have.

[Asmotherion]

I'm really confused trying to grasp your stance. Are you really trying to say that you prefer the concise, precise, highly inaccurate "no evil", that prevents the Necromancers and "kill to protect family" evils that you would allow, over the more verbose method of explaining and exemplifying what constitutes disruptive behavior? :smallconfused:



And just Binding an Efreet for *1* Wish?

Like the at-will Cantrips, and that's all the resurrection I'll ever need.

So… how does your skill system work? When Quertus (my signature academia mage for whom this account is named) compiles his notes, collects experimental data from his Simulacra, works on writing more of the books people read to get their Knowledge skills, attends a book signing / paid speaker event, delivers the stipends to the shopkeeps who run his "operates at a loss" spell component shops, chats with adventurers/allies/his Naga companion, and does spell research (as time allows(hooray fast time plane)), how would this affect his skills?

He would gain skill points according to his downtime activities. If they have leftover skill points, they would need to practice during rests.

[fallensavior]

I'm surprised you've found Heavy Fortification to be prevalent as an option taken by PCs. It's a +5 property - even at high levels where the cost isn't an issue, it's still competing for space with all the other armor properties you might want (like Soulfire). Do you feature a lot of enemies with Sneak Attack?

It can also go on shields. Which means pretty much anyone can strap a +1 Heavy Fort buckler on their arm that doesn't compete with any other item slot. Super easy to get 0% ASF. Even if you use both both hands for weapons, it is just -1 to hit. You can take Improved Buckler Defense if you want the AC out of it, but you still get the Fortification even if you are giving up the shield bonus every round.


As far as "evil for mechanical reasons" - I'd much rather alter pre-requisites than the whole style of the game.

Agreed.


I'm really confused trying to grasp your stance. Are you really trying to say that you prefer the concise, precise, highly inaccurate "no evil", that prevents the Necromancers and "kill to protect family" evils that you would allow, over the more verbose method of explaining and exemplifying what constitutes disruptive behavior?

I would not consider "kill to protect family" evil. Self defense and all. Might even be good-aligned.

But this is probably truncated from an earlier argument? Was it "kill [innocents] to protect family"? The selfishness of it seems prima facie neutral. But it could be evil, since the circumstances that would enable an actual situation of "kill [innocents] to protect family" seem so outlandish that I don't think I could take a dilemma of whether or not to kill [innocents] to protect family seriously with more information. If "kill [innocents] to protect family" turns out to be more like "[preemptively] kill [innocents] to protect [reputation of] family [from potential embarrassment]" then I'd say we're in evil territory.

[NichG]

I would not consider "kill to protect family" evil. Self defense and all. Might even be good-aligned.

But this is probably truncated from an earlier argument? Was it "kill [innocents] to protect family"? The selfishness of it seems prima facie neutral. But it could be evil, since the circumstances that would enable an actual situation of "kill [innocents] to protect family" seem so outlandish that I don't think I could take a dilemma of whether or not to kill [innocents] to protect family seriously with more information. If "kill [innocents] to protect family" turns out to be more like "[preemptively] kill [innocents] to protect [reputation of] family [from potential embarrassment]" then I'd say we're in evil territory.

Consider e.g. a character who is in love with someone born with a mark indicating their role in a doomsday prophecy. The character never strikes pre-emptively, but when anyone threatens their love they are willing to kill anyone, destroy any organization, build armies and war with any country in order to protect their love, even if everyone says the world will burn because of it and even if that organization or country contains innocents who did not directly make the threat. They don't care at all about collateral damage, rules of warfare, etc, and are 100% about 'stop the threat' rather than acting justly or correctly judging responsibility - if they can protect their lover's life with an 80% chance without innocents being involved, or a 99% chance but thousands will starve or suffer, they will go with the 99%. But they do not go out of their way to pre-emptively seek out potential threats, and they don't 'bait' attacks. So e.g. living out in the middle of nowhere, but if a church templar comes knocking to find the doomsday mark, they'll come out of isolation, plot to destroy the country that is hosting that church and undermine their deity's power, and then peacefully go back to living in isolation if allowed to.

[Red Fel]

I think I'll chime in here, seeing as I've been mentioned plenty.

As a preliminary point, I'd love to agree with people who would abolish alignment as a mechanical feature, or at the very least limit it to extraplanar beings. D&D's alignment system is stupid and arbitrary, I've said it before and I'll say it again. That said, it's really, really hard to do - alignment is extremely baked into D&D as it stands, and you're unlikely to be able to excise everything.

I'd also like to address the "fantasy literature doesn't like Evil characters" argument. Simply put: It's wrong. Objectively. Fantasy literature does sometimes give Evil characters a happy ending. Sometimes it's because they redeem. Sometimes they don't redeem, but they're also not the biggest, baddest Evil in the room, and that's enough. For those who say, "Evil means you're the villain of the story" - also not true, because there can easily be a bigger villain. And often is.

Let's not forget that the "lovable rogue" archetype is, at its heart, a bad guy. He's a bad guy with some style and some rules, and he works well enough with the protagonist - at least for awhile - so we forgive him his little foibles. You know, like the time he murdered a guy in a bar in front of everyone and didn't bat an eye. Or the fact that he regularly consorts with murderers and criminals, not out of necessity, but because that's his job and they're his coworkers. This is an Evil character and we accept him as part of the heroic canon.

Now, onto the most recent points.


I would not consider "kill to protect family" evil. Self defense and all. Might even be good-aligned.

But this is probably truncated from an earlier argument? Was it "kill [innocents] to protect family"? The selfishness of it seems prima facie neutral. But it could be evil, since the circumstances that would enable an actual situation of "kill [innocents] to protect family" seem so outlandish that I don't think I could take a dilemma of whether or not to kill [innocents] to protect family seriously with more information. If "kill [innocents] to protect family" turns out to be more like "[preemptively] kill [innocents] to protect [reputation of] family [from potential embarrassment]" then I'd say we're in evil territory.

It's a question of degree. Anyone would fight to protect family, loved ones. But how far would they go? Would they fend off the invading horde? Sneak into the enemy camp under cover of night and assassinate the general? Poison the water of the enemy castle? Make the enemy king watch as they flay his family alive in front of him, one at a time?

Good characters protect people, or at least avenge them. Evil characters leave a trauma on the world as a reminder to never touch what is theirs. (Ooh, look, purple text is back!)

I love doing this with my Evil characters. Letting people in, letting them open up to others, is a sort of weakness from the perspective of Evil. A weakness that others may exploit. This will not end well for those who try it. Or anyone they've ever loved, for that matter.


Consider e.g. a character who is in love with someone born with a mark indicating their role in a doomsday prophecy. The character never strikes pre-emptively, but when anyone threatens their love they are willing to kill anyone, destroy any organization, build armies and war with any country in order to protect their love, even if everyone says the world will burn because of it and even if that organization or country contains innocents who did not directly make the threat. They don't care at all about collateral damage, rules of warfare, etc, and are 100% about 'stop the threat' rather than acting justly or correctly judging responsibility - if they can protect their lover's life with an 80% chance without innocents being involved, or a 99% chance but thousands will starve or suffer, they will go with the 99%. But they do not go out of their way to pre-emptively seek out potential threats, and they don't 'bait' attacks. So e.g. living out in the middle of nowhere, but if a church templar comes knocking to find the doomsday mark, they'll come out of isolation, plot to destroy the country that is hosting that church and undermine their deity's power, and then peacefully go back to living in isolation if allowed to.

This strikes me as somewhat middling, to be honest. On the one hand, yes, the disproportionate retaliation does reek of Evil, and I dig it. But on the other, the self-imposed isolation - absent some other kind of motivator - strikes me as a tad off-brand. Living away from others to avoid the hassle I get; doing it to spare them of being in the presence of the Doomed One seems like a level of self-sacrifice that doesn't quite fit.

Now, on the other hand, the John Wick approach, I am 100% behind. And let's be clear: yes, killing a dog-murderer is an Always Good action, because dog-murderers are the absolute worst, but John Wick's murder spree is pretty objectively Evil. He's not doing it to be tough on crime, or to help the city, it's all revenge - all of it - and most of it against people who had nothing to do with what happened to him. They may be protecting the person responsible, but in many instances they're just in the way, and that's enough. By D&D terms, that's pretty Evil.

But take a step back, and here is a person whose isolation is a combination of retirement, love, and sadness. I could see a character - even an Evil character - withdrawing from the world over that. And if approached, if antagonized, I could see that character raining unholy fire on the entire world until he feels mollified, and then returning to his solitude.

[martixy]

With Red Fel trying to do justice to the topic, I am reminded of a great show on youtube called Trope talks (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDb22nlVXGgcljcdyDk80bBDXGyeZjZ5e), which anyone wishing for more of what Red Fel gave you a taste of should watch.

[Red Fel]

With Red Fel trying to do justice to the topic, I am reminded of a great show on youtube called Trope talks (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDb22nlVXGgcljcdyDk80bBDXGyeZjZ5e), which anyone wishing for more of what Red Fel gave you a taste of should watch.

I am a big fan of OSP, so I definitely approve the link. (Although I disagree with some of their interpretation of mystery plots in their recent The Detective clip.)

That said, and bringing it back to the point, it's not about tropes. Any house rule is, or should be, about the Rule of Fun - you're making a rule specific to your table because either (1) it makes life just a little easier for the DM, which makes things a little more fun for everyone; (2) it prevents a problem that either has happened or is likely to happen, which makes things more fun for everyone; or (3) it just directly makes things more fun for everyone. An example of #1 is a DM banning, say, Dragon Magazine material, on the grounds that said DM does not have access to it or a photographic memory. It's a lot to go through, so if you can reduce your DM's work by just a bit the DM might be in a slightly friendlier mindset. An example of #2 is a DM saying, say, "Steve does not get to play Frenzied Berserkers anymore. You know what you did, Steve." And an example of #3 is a DM saying, say, "You know what? It would be awesome if the spell worked that way. I'll allow it." These are all perfectly valid reasons to house rule something and I totally get why you would.

In the more immediate conversational context, if you have a house rule at your table that bans Evil PCs, I understand that. I disagree with it, because I think you're limiting your fun, but maybe you have your reasons. In my case, I don't like limiting my fun, or my players' fun. Now, I will take players aside in specific instances. If a player takes things too far, I may take them aside and say, "This was too far, rein it back in." And if they don't, I will explain to them that they need to retire the character - I'll give them a nice scene to depart - and replace them with a new character. But I'm not going to just ban an entire alignment.

No, not even CE, tempting as that is.

One final thought on the subject before I put it to rest. Several people have posted quotes from people who contributed to the game's design back in the day. And that is fair - the game was meant to be a story of heroes, not of villains. But here's the problem:

This is a thread about house rules.

House rules exist because the rules are insufficient, or at the very least un-fun, at your table. An argument about the game designers' original intent rings hollow when the point of the conversation is "and this is how the game designers got it wrong, and why I'm changing what they wrote." You can't simultaneously rely on the people who wrote the game as the canon Word of God source of the rules and also explain in complete candor why the rules must be changed.

So, yeah. Yes, that is a reference.

[martixy]

Well, it is a little bit about tropes. Since we were discussing alignment and how broken it by default, and ways to fix it via house rules, knowledge about narrative structure and elements definitely seems helpful. Now, I have not watched the entire series yet, so I can't comment on the latest (I'm about 80%).

In my efforts I tend to think of myself as quite moderate - I like to show deference to the RAW, and the designers who get actual money to write this stuff - right up until the point it stops working for me in some very obvious manner. Then I start changing things and looking for alternatives by other homebrewers.

I probably mentioned this already, but over time I've collected an enormous amount of house-rules, but I still go into it with a distinct reluctance to change anything, because I do not wish to add complexity, unless the alternative is that much worse.

So, yeah. :D

[RNightstalker]

The problem with feats is that 3e can't decide how good a feat is supposed to be. On the one end, you have character-defining feats like Leadership, Divine Metamagic, or Natural Spell. On the other end, you have feats that are minor fluff abilities like Educated, Combat Expertise, or Track. "Free" is probably too little even for the latter, at least in general, but expecting them to trade off with the former is also unreasonable.

Well said. There should almost be a tier system to feats as well...I'm sure there's a list of feats that no character has ever taken...ever.


I have no idea of how well this would work in practice, but it feels like a fairly easy (though probably rather work intensive) way of fixing that problem might be to assign each feat a point value and have characters get "feat points" every time they would've gotten a feat. That way it's up to the individual player whether to pick a single great feat or a bunch of lesser ones.

They did that in Baldur's Gate 2: Dark Alliance. It also was home to one of the best feats for TWF that unfortunately didn't make it into a book: Hero's Arm. It does have that WotC stamp on the case so it should be rules legal lol.



7) you can do anything you want in my world i’ll never rail road you or tell you that you can’t stab the king or pickpocket someone or what ever. But you have to deal with the consequences of your actions good or bad.

So if the Shocktrooper (in full plate armor) leap attacks off the boat to fight a kraken, you're ok with him dying? (True story lol).



You cannot create an evil character. If you become evil later, you will either have to atone and become non-evil or forfeit your character (they become a NPC).

The Dodge feat bonus to AC will apply to all opponents except when you
are flatfooted. (No need to declare it and only benefitting against one enemy)

Five Second Rule: If the DM feels that you are taking too long in combat, they will begin
counting down from 5. If they get to zero, your character stands there thinking for that round.

Instead of dying at -10 hp, you die if you reach negative hp equal to your normal max hp. Note that the Diehard feat will remain unchanged, allowing you to remain conscious at -1 thru -9 hp.


I like the Dodge fix, simple and easy. The five second rule reminds me of when my dad pulled out the chess clock on my uncle because he was taking too long. The HP rule will actually hurt most 1st level characters, but is good for higher level games.



I tried the whole "No evil characters" bit, and then I had the most legendarily disruptive CN character that you can imagine. So yeah, the former works a lot better than the latter if you've got even a small chance to talk to them before character creation.


It's easier to ban Evil PCs. But is it better?
I had a game where one of the PCs ended up sliding down into Neutral Evil territory. She was overprotective of her daughter and family, to the point where she'd let the world burn to save them. And that was fine-her family were the other PCs, and the daughter was an NPC they all cared about. I'm not sure the other players even knew she would be considered Evil, since not much happened with that. But if I followed the rule of "No Evil PCs, period," we'd've lost a really cool character.
Now, I totally get wanting to keep a more heroic tone-that's what I generally like to do. But if it's a natural result of how the PC has been played and isn't disruptive, I see no reason to outlaw it.


IMO, the issue is more that D&D alignment is just singularly bad. You can't have an interesting debate between "Good" and "Evil", because "Evil" is just a word for bad (or rather, to the degree that you can, it's by pointing out how simply labeling something as Evil doesn't make it so). But there are alignment systems that aren't like that. For example: MTG's color wheel. It's hard to argue for Evil over Good, but it's pretty easy to see how people could reasonably align philosophically with either Green-White or Black-Red (not having to declare certain philosophical positions "Evil" also sidesteps the possibility of pissing off part of your fanbase when you declare that Deontology or Utilitarianism is True Good). Even within D&D, having alignment key off the planes themselves, rather than the two-axis system directly, would be a big improvement.


I
-Toughness grants +1 HP per HD (min 3)
-Some feats are combined, such as Cleave & Great Cleave, and Farshot & Precise Shot. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree is consolidated as well, granting the effects of the next feat when its prerequisites are met


Is the Toughness rule retroactive to be just like Improved Toughness?
Are the feat combinations like the feat tax thing I saw earlier that was done for PF?


Glad my comment sparked that discussion. I had a feeling we were headed that way when I made it.
I have one thing to say to fallensavior - you can't force immersion. I've been deeply immersed in games with tons of meta talk, and failed in games that were effectively improv theater plays.

I do have a few other reworks worthy of posting, but I'm not sure anyone would ever use them to be worth the hassle of bothering to format a forum post properly.

The DMG does say that the best PrC's are ones that are tailor-made for a specific campaign.


Not here, as most of those fixes have been due to "necessity" of me wanting to use one or my players expressing frustration. I could post some stuff in the Homebrew forum if you are interested, though.

Sounds fun! Although I think players are often too averse to having evene a -1 to a stat that's not Charisma, despite it being perfectly playable. Do you assign in order, or let players choose what stat goes where? I've found that assigning in order can be fun, makes people think about their character's strength and weaknesses a bit more.

I think we've sold ourselves short by neglecting our "fixes" of PrC's, or simply failing to come up with our own on a more consistent basis.
I don't make them assign as rolled. I see DMing as a partnership with the PCs: it's my job to help them do what they want to do but keeping it balanced and preventing it from running away out of control. It could be fun to try a game that way though for a different flavor, either roll them top to bottom or announce what you're rolling for next.

As far as the evil PC's or no posts, I personally only play in heroic campaigns; just my personal preference and conviction. If others want to great, just not the table for me. There's a way it can be done well so all have fun; heck I went through KOTOR as a sith a few times. Ultimately it's a slippery slope that should be approached with caution.

[mashlagoo1982]

I am a big fan of OSP, so I definitely approve the link. (Although I disagree with some of their interpretation of mystery plots in their recent The Detective clip.)


One final thought on the subject before I put it to rest. Several people have posted quotes from people who contributed to the game's design back in the day. And that is fair - the game was meant to be a story of heroes, not of villains. But here's the problem:

This is a thread about house rules.

House rules exist because the rules are insufficient, or at the very least un-fun, at your table. An argument about the game designers' original intent rings hollow when the point of the conversation is "and this is how the game designers got it wrong, and why I'm changing what they wrote." You can't simultaneously rely on the people who wrote the game as the canon Word of God source of the rules and also explain in complete candor why the rules must be changed.

So, yeah. Yes, that is a reference.

While I cannot comment on the intent of everyone, my point was I thought a rule existed where PCs that change to an Evil alignment were retired and became NPCs.

I cannot find this rule in any of the books, but if it existed my house rule was to ignore it and allow Evil PCs.

So, the RAI seemed to encourage heroic behavior, it wasn't something I enforced.

Slightly off topic, can anyone find that rule regarding PCs whos alignment change to Evil become NPCs?
It's driving me crazy that I can't find where I got that idea from.

[zlefin]

While I cannot comment on the intent of everyone, my point was I thought a rule existed where PCs that change to an Evil alignment were retired and became NPCs.

I cannot find this rule in any of the books, but if it existed my house rule was to ignore it and allow Evil PCs.

So, the RAI seemed to encourage heroic behavior, it wasn't something I enforced.

Slightly off topic, can anyone find that rule regarding PCs whos alignment change to Evil become NPCs?
It's driving me crazy that I can't find where I got that idea from.

I can't think of any source in 3.5 that would say that, as in general DnD allows and supports the existence of evil PCs, and the presence of evil-only prestige classes clearly means evil PCs are allowed in general. Could it have come from another game? Or from some organization?

Organized play groups (like pathfinder society) often have a no evil PCs rule.
Iirc some versions of Star Wars have you become an NPC if you fall to the Dark Side. Legend of the five rings has you become NPC if you fall to the taint.

[mashlagoo1982]

I can't think of any source in 3.5 that would say that, as in general DnD allows and supports the existence of evil PCs, and the presence of evil-only prestige classes clearly means evil PCs are allowed in general. Could it have come from another game? Or from some organization?

Organized play groups (like pathfinder society) often have a no evil PCs rule.
Iirc some versions of Star Wars have you become an NPC if you fall to the Dark Side. Legend of the five rings has you become NPC if you fall to the taint.

It could have been the source book for another game... perhaps 5th edition or 3.0?

I just remember the rule standing out like a sore thumb.

I had looked through all the various PHB, DMG, and even BoVD.

[RexDart]

It sounds to me like something from an edition prior to 3.0, if indeed it's written anywhere. And/or perhaps from a campaign setting as opposed to core rules?

[icefractal]

I think that was a rule in Living Greyhawk (organized play), but I don't recall seeing it in print elsewhere.

[fallensavior]

While I cannot comment on the intent of everyone, my point was I thought a rule existed where PCs that change to an Evil alignment were retired and became NPCs.

I cannot find this rule in any of the books, but if it existed my house rule was to ignore it and allow Evil PCs.

So, the RAI seemed to encourage heroic behavior, it wasn't something I enforced.

Slightly off topic, can anyone find that rule regarding PCs whos alignment change to Evil become NPCs?
It's driving me crazy that I can't find where I got that idea from.

I suspect you are thinking of D20 Star Wars. It is in the book as an optional rule (RCR 183), but it is explicitly written out [that the GM can decide] "PCs with more than X dark side points become NPCs."

[Dawgmoah]

I try to keep house rules to a minimum - mostly use the variant rules out of the DMG and then cherry pick changes out of the "Completes" and other books.

I've seen too many attempts at nerfing arcane spellcasters and other shenanigans that fail when looking for a game.

Like others have said already on this thread: it is all about having fun.

Thank you for posting your house rules - I intend to pick through them and see if any fit at my table.