Will you help check my list of house rules?

[Max Caysey]

So, in preperation of the short campaign I want to run, I have compilled a list of house rules... I would like comments on it, just to make sure I havent missed some glaring pandoras box thing...

A lot of them have been parsed from other similar posts online, but there might be some combination I am unaware of that might create a problem.

Cheers!


D&D House rules:
All text, in these houserules and the rulebooks, is subject to change. I will attempt to give notice. Debate occurs between sessions, not during; there's only so much playtime per week, after all.

General:
Campaign set in Forgotten Realms
All official published material, including Dungeon and Dragons magazines
Content from other campaign settings can be used. As long as it doesn’t require specific setting things.
80 stat points.
2 flaws and 1 trait
Level Adjustments (LA) as per GitP Forum.
Level 0 spells gain bonus spells for high ability score.
Treat Great Crossbows (Races of Stone) the same as heavy crossbows for feats and other rules that specify heavy crossbows.
No exp penalty for multiclassing
No infinity loops!


Feats:
Armor and shield proficiencies are all giving as bonus feats.
Bonus feats, from class abilities can be retrained.
Spellcasting Prodigy functions as in 3.0.
Spellfire Wielder functions as 3.5 Rod of Absorption (No readied action required).
Knockdown can tricker extra attack from improved trip.
Skill Focus (Concentration) is now used instead of Combat Casting.
Dodge is a flat +1 dodge bonus to AC.
No alignment restrictions on feats.
Jotunbrud can be taken by any medium sized race.


Skills:
Alertness or one of the similar line of feats, you get to add the skills mentioned in that feat to the list of class skills for all levels acquired after the level you take that feat.
Racial bonuses to skills (like elves get a +2 to Spot) mean that that creature has that skill as a class skill for all its HD, much in the manner of a racial skill for creatures with racial HD.
Diplomacy as per homebrew.
Open Lock is merged into Disable Device.


Classes:
Archmage and Red Wizard of Thay can be takes as 3.0 versions.
Monks have full BAB
Monks are proficient with unarmed strikes.
Fighters have 4 skill points per level.

[RandomPeasant]

Personally, I think giving out bonus feats at 1st level is better than allowing Flaws. In practice, Flaws will generally be char-oped around by experienced players, so it mostly just widens the power gap, and more feats aren't such a big deal you need to add downsides.

I think calling out Monk unarmed strikes specifically as fixed, but not any other stupid/dysfunctional rules, is mostly going to encourage people to take bad approaches to the rules. Just say something like "obviously dysfunctional rules will be fixed".

[Biggus]

Armor and shield proficiencies are all giving as bonus feats.

Not sure what you mean here?



Spellcasting Prodigy functions as in 3.0.

Archmage and Red Wizard of Thay can be takes as 3.0 versions.

These seem like odd things to take back to their 3.0 versions. Do you think casters are too weak in 3.5 or something? I mean, you could get +8 to spell save DCs by combining these three compared to their 3.5 versions...

[RandomPeasant]

The 3.0 versions of those classes are still worse than the best caster PrCs in 3.5. So you're not really making casters stronger, you're allowing a wider variety of characters to hit that power target, which is a good thing (this is why I am generally in favor of making partial-progression caster PrCs full progression).

[Elves]

Monks have full BAB
2 level monk dips are already > 2 level fighter dips, this makes them directly superior. What monk needs is strong class features past level 7.

[Max Caysey]

Not sure what you mean here?
Its because, when reading under the feats for light, medium or heavy armor, it says that certain classes get them as bonus feats. However, what about all the classes and PrC that also grant proficiency, but is not mentioned in the PHB... they would then be a class ability. My house rule is, that if it says that a certain class gets proficiency with a certain type of armor or shield, that is then effectuated through feats only, thus allowing for retraining...




These seem like odd things to take back to their 3.0 versions. Do you think casters are too weak in 3.5 or something? I mean, you could get +8 to spell save DCs by combining these three compared to their 3.5 versions...
Well, I certainly don't think its high spell DCs that are the problem. Its as I see it, too versatile spells or spells that grant too much, like shapechange, gate or wish that are the real problem. Lesser spells like fabricate, celerity and improved invisibility also skews the balance a lot.. not to mention classes like Dweomerkeeper, ISFV, or incantatrix. I personally like the 3.0 versions more, because I think its lame that there is no way of keeping up DC to saves at higher levels. You can buy a cloak of resistance +1-+5 in every bonus type, yet can basically only take Spell Focus to compensate. Therefore I like the 3.0 versions of the two classes and feat more.

[Telonius]

A couple questions.

Stat points: I'm assuming 1 to 1, not the usual point buy (gets more expensive as you put more in it)?

Flaws and traits: available, not required, correct?


No alignment requirement for feats: I'd probably take that case by case. Tomb-Tainted Soul or Ancestral Relic? Sure, throw the alignment out the window. Consecrate Spell, Corrupt Spell, or True Believer? Those, I'd probably want to maintain the alignment requirement.

[Max Caysey]

Stat points: I'm assuming 1 to 1, not the usual point buy (gets more expensive as you put more in it)?
Indeed... I'm not a massive fan of point buy, and rolling always seem to result in someone rolling either massively above average or massively below. Either way have never had that work for me... someone always gets butthurt!



Flaws and traits: available, not required, correct?
Yes, that is correct. Its not mandatory. I should have written "up to 2 flaws and 1 trait."



No alignment requirement for feats: I'd probably take that case by case. Tomb-Tainted Soul or Ancestral Relic? Sure, throw the alignment out the window. Consecrate Spell, Corrupt Spell, or True Believer? Those, I'd probably want to maintain the alignment requirement.
I see your point... I was probably thinking that some feats might require a certain alignment to do something very mundane and thought that's stupid... But I see, after looking closer, that it might not be advantageous to remove alignment as a prerequisite all together.

[Balthanon]

Its because, when reading under the feats for light, medium or heavy armor, it says that certain classes get them as bonus feats. However, what about all the classes and PrC that also grant proficiency, but is not mentioned in the PHB... they would then be a class ability. My house rule is, that if it says that a certain class gets proficiency with a certain type of armor or shield, that is then effectuated through feats only, thus allowing for retraining...

Allowing retraining of light, medium, and heavy armor proficiencies for every class that you get them from to any other feat is going to be massively overpowered if I'm reading this correctly. It basically means you can dip half a dozen classes and get 18-24 feats with little to no work. I'd leave this off personally. In general retraining should probably only allow one to retrain to something you could have taken at the point you got it-- for instance, a fighter retraining a fighter feat should have to choose a fighter feat. If you are given a set feat with no choice, it shouldn't be something you can retrain.

If you're concerned about someone not getting something out of multiclassing into a prestige class or class when they already have the feats in question, you're probably better off creating some alternate class features that they could trade out the abilities for. Any three or four feats is going to be a bit much though.

[Max Caysey]

Allowing retraining of light, medium, and heavy armor proficiencies for every class that you get them from to any other feat is going to be massively overpowered if I'm reading this correctly. It basically means you can dip half a dozen classes and get 18-24 feats with little to no work. I'd leave this off personally. In general retraining should probably only allow one to retrain to something you could have taken at the point you got it-- for instance, a fighter retraining a fighter feat should have to choose a fighter feat. If you are given a set feat with no choice, it shouldn't be something you can retrain.

If you're concerned about someone not getting something out of multiclassing into a prestige class or class when they already have the feats in question, you're probably better off creating some alternate class features that they could trade out the abilities for. Any three or four feats is going to be a bit much though.

Thats a fair point. And you are understanding that currectly. My thought on that was that there are many ways of being a fighter for instance, not all uses armor, and not being able to say: "my fighter is different, I never trained in armor, I trained in magic". It just seems weird to have a gish for instance with armor proficiency if no armor is being used in that build. Same goes for cleric... And I dislike having to have these feats if I don't use them... that really why I wanted to allow my players some more constumization options instead of waiting for Dark Chaos Shuffle, especially in lover level campagns.

[Balthanon]

Thats a fair point. And you are understanding that currectly. My thought on that was that there are many ways of being a fighter for instance, not all uses armor, and not being able to say: "my fighter is different, I never trained in armor, I trained in magic". It just seems weird to have a gish for instance with armor proficiency if no armor is being used in that build. Same goes for cleric... And I dislike having to have these feats if I don't use them... that really why I wanted to allow my players some more constumization options instead of waiting for Dark Chaos Shuffle, especially in lover level campagns.

I can understand that, but, in those cases I would just find or define some alternate class features that they can take-- there is at least one I think where you can swap heavy armor proficiency for natural armor or something I think (Dragonscale Husk or something like that); you could put some others together like that or just define a limited feat list that they can swap out for. If you open it up to anything, it's going to be very open to abuse. Making it a limited feat list ensures it will stay in the same vein as the proficiencies and means they'll cap eventually. (Plus the feats probably won't all synergize.)

[D+1]

For what is intended to be a short campaign I feel you're at cross purposes in allowing anything from everywhere. I think that a limited campaign is sure to be better if you actually FOCUS the spread of allowable characters, rather than make it yet another kitchen sink. FR is just too big a setting in itself to give any idea of where the campaign might start and the direction you have in mind for it. If the campaign isn't really going to be about anything specific (just short) maybe it doesn't matter, but if there IS a "theme" of any kind intended for the game then the permitted classes/races/etc. should support that, not permit going off in utterly unrelated directions with character ideas.

[martixy]

To me these read like on-the-fly rulings rather than "address some (perceived) fundamental flaw" rules.
Like "oh hey, look at this thing I don't like, lets mitigate the unwanted effect in the most obvious way" rather than identifying and correcting the root cause.

Given that it's hard to criticize the individual entries.

[Max Caysey]

For what is intended to be a short campaign I feel you're at cross purposes in allowing anything from everywhere. I think that a limited campaign is sure to be better if you actually FOCUS the spread of allowable characters, rather than make it yet another kitchen sink. FR is just too big a setting in itself to give any idea of where the campaign might start and the direction you have in mind for it. If the campaign isn't really going to be about anything specific (just short) maybe it doesn't matter, but if there IS a "theme" of any kind intended for the game then the permitted classes/races/etc. should support that, not permit going off in utterly unrelated directions with character ideas.

I wanted to make a master list of house rules, and then be able to add or withdraw things from the list accordingly! The campaign has some limitations which determines race and starting level, and well as some gear. Af well as placing them firmly underground in a dwarven hold. It’s fairly rail-roady to start with!

But I like to give them fairly free hands within that. So they can create what ever character they like… they start at level 3…

[Biggus]

The 3.0 versions of those classes are still worse than the best caster PrCs in 3.5. So you're not really making casters stronger, you're allowing a wider variety of characters to hit that power target, which is a good thing (this is why I am generally in favor of making partial-progression caster PrCs full progression).

Well, except that you can take ten levels of Incantatrix to get your metamagic buffed up then several levels of AM or RW to increase the save DCs as well...

Also, I don't agree that giving classes which are already top-tier even more ways to dominate all the other classes is a good thing.



Well, I certainly don't think its high spell DCs that are the problem. Its as I see it, too versatile spells or spells that grant too much, like shapechange, gate or wish that are the real problem. Lesser spells like fabricate, celerity and improved invisibility also skews the balance a lot.. not to mention classes like Dweomerkeeper, ISFV, or incantatrix. I personally like the 3.0 versions more, because I think its lame that there is no way of keeping up DC to saves at higher levels. You can buy a cloak of resistance +1-+5 in every bonus type, yet can basically only take Spell Focus to compensate. Therefore I like the 3.0 versions of the two classes and feat more.

High spell DCs aren't the problem in 3.5. They were one of the main problems in 3.0, because at high levels there are lots of save-or-lose spells, so anybody who doesn't have both Fortitude and Will really high is likely to get taken out in the first round.

Agreed that Shapechange and Gate are even more broken, but to me that sounds like a good argument to nerf those spells, not substantially increase the power of other ones.

But I don't think we're going to agree here, from other posts of yours I've seen you seem keen on playing with abilities which I regard as completely broken, so I think we're coming at this in opposite directions.

[RandomPeasant]

Well, except that you can take ten levels of Incantatrix to get your metamagic buffed up then several levels of AM or RW to increase the save DCs as well...

But you could already take ten levels of Incantatrix then several levels of Shadowcraft Mage to regain access to the school you nominally lost to enter, or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil for OP defenses, or War Weaver to cheese Persistent buffs for the whole party. Or you could break the game in entirely class-agnostic ways by casting gate or shapechange. Not to mention that you've had Metamagic Effect for the better part of ten levels at this point, so the idea that someone was keeping up with that, but suddenly fell of when your DCs when up a bit is rather suspect.


Also, I don't agree that giving classes which are already top-tier even more ways to dominate all the other classes is a good thing.

Why not? It's not like the Fighter is any less dominated if there's one path to ultimate power instead of three. He can't compete either way, at least if there are multiple PrCs the guy who happens to like Archmage isn't getting kicked in the teeth by the guy who happens to like Incantatrix.

[Particle_Man]

If armour and weapons proficiencies are given out as bonus feats, you might want to ban dark chaos shuffle.

If you just have 80 point stats, that could lead to min-maxing, such as the 18 str 18 con 18 dex 18 wis; 4 chr and 4 int warrior type. With arcane spell casters you get 4 str and 18 int/chr. Is that acceptable for your campaign?

[Balthanon]

If armour and weapons proficiencies are given out as bonus feats, you might want to ban dark chaos shuffle.


I mean, to be fair, dark chaos shuffle should probably be banned in general regardless. :) That was always a step beyond what I thought of as practical optimization myself. (Particularly when people used weapon proficiencies from monk or something to grab a dozen additional feats.)