Best house rules

[Particle_Man]

These could be ones you came up with that worked amazing well, perhaps beyond your expectations, or ones that were so good that you *wish* you had come up with them.

What are some “5 star” house rules?

[redking]

Retroactive Intelligence bonus to skills, similar to Pathfinder. It also helps with ease of making statblocks, because you don't have to keep track of what the Intelligence score was at every level. Pathfinder did this, and is a common house rule.

[pabelfly]

So these homebrew suggestions are what work specifically for my table, which is low optimization, has few casters, and low to mid levels of gameplay.



Players get three ability score boosts every fourth level. These stat boosts must be spent on three different ability scores. If an ability score is below 16, the ability score is boosted by 2. If the ability score is 16 or more, it is boosted by 1.
Stole this from Pathfinder 2. I am not a fan of how weak the stat boost is every fourth level, and this fixed it in a way that didn't seem OP to me. The main build stat is still being boosted by 1, but players could choose to boost secondary stats by 1 or somewhat weaker but useful stats by 2, making this choices more interesting, in my opinion. Not sure how this would work out in higher-level games since I typically run fairly low-level games.

Pounce is a fighter bonus feat.
Pounce or an equivalent is a near necessity for martial builds and making this a feat meant that people didn't have to dip Barbarian for a martial build.

Dodge, Point-Blank Shot, Toughness and Combat Expertise are ignored if they are prereqs for other feats, prestige classes, etc. People can still take these feats should they wish.
These feats are generally quite weak and often ignored in any build requiring them. I am of the opinion that players should look forward to what they get from a feat, rather than take it and resent they have to get it to get something cool later.

A player with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat automatically receives Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, etc when they meet BAB and ability score requirements.
TWF is both feat-intensive and weaker than two-handed fighting martial builds. This makes two-weapon fighting builds less unattractive in terms of balance and allows players to add other feats to their build

Weapon Finesse is a free option and doesn’t cost a feat. When Weapon Finesse is applied to a weapon, players calculate bonus damage using the dexterity stat instead of the strength stat (you cannot add both STR and DEX without the use of class features and/or feats). Players receive half their dexterity bonus for offhand attacks. Weapon Finesse only applies to light weapons, the rapier, whip, or spiked chain.
I haven't noticed many issues with this feat. At my table at least, strength and two-handed fighting is still the strategy for optimizing damage, even with Weapon Finesse being a free feat with extra benefits, but this makes the disparity a little less, in my opinion.

[Venger]

When acquiring a negative level, if you fail to make the save 24 hours later, instead of becoming permanent, the level instead just "sticks" and you get another save 24 hours later. If you fail that one, you try again 24 hours later, etc. This way, they're still threatening in combat, but they don't have the potential to make you do a bunch of annoying bookkeeping or permanently hamstring your character and if you're out in the desert and it'll take you a second to get someone to cast restoration on you if you keep whiffing your save, then you'll still survive.

[ciopo]

Maximized hit die for the first X levels

Using potions is a swift action

[Particle_Man]

Maximized hit die for the first X

What do you find the optimal number is for X? Or do you mean it as the Roman numeral for 10?

[Biggus]

I have literally hundreds of houserules, to the point where my games are almost a separate edition in themselves. Some of the ones I wouldn't want to be without:

Monk gets full BAB, and Perfect Self grants damage reduction 10/chaotic instead of 10/magic, so it's actually some use at level 20+.

Half-elves get an extra four skill points at first level and an extra skill point per level thereafter, because as-is they're the worst of the core races.

Natural Spell is a metamagic feat with a +1 spell slot modifier.

Divine Metamagic can't raise the effective spell level above the highest you could normally cast, like the Bard feat Metamagic Song.

Cost of magic weapons is reduced to 1,500GP x enhancement bonus squared. Helps out martials generally and 2WFers especially.


TWF is both feat-intensive and weaker than two-handed fighting martial builds. This makes two-weapon fighting builds less unattractive in terms of balance and allows players to add other feats to their build[/I]


I have also done this, and found it worked well. I also give 2WF Rangers extra bonus feats at levels 6 and 11 as I2WF and G2WF no longer exist, and frankly Rangers need the help.

[ciopo]

What do you find the optimal number is for X? Or do you mean it as the Roman numeral for 10?

most common I've played in was first 5 levels, if it was up to me I'd maximize the hit die for all creatures for all levels

5 is a good ballpark for early level survivability, maps out to "survive that fireball", in a way

[Fizban]

See signature for whole document.

More recent, or particularly short highlights:

The realization that rather than point buy (which allows starting 18s the game doesn't actually expect) or Elite Array only (which allows no customization), I could just. . . make more arrays. So I added the Specialized 17/14/11/10/9/8, and No Weaknesses 13/13/12/12/11/11 arrays. Now I don't have to worry about "discouraged but not technically banned" starting 18s.
Giving Half-Orcs a similar set of skill bonuses to Half-Elves (+2 Intimidate, Gather Info, Survival) was swiped from Frank and K's old work.
Instead of "LA buyoff," assign gp values.
Make the damaging cantrips all deal 1d6, and Virtue grant 2hp, so that casters feel like casters at 1st level.
Just give Rangers Trapfinding and Disable Device, boom there's now more than one core trapfinder/situational damage class.
Monk AC bonus is 2+1/2 level, Flurry is usable on a standard action: these are the two most crucial benefits for making the dodgy and mobile martial artist dodgy and mobile. And the former is more important than the latter.
Paladin Lay on Hands is equal to full hit point total: I want my Paladins beefy and this is how Guardinals get the ability. If you multiclass out, you still have a whole second hit point total- as long as you're still acting like a Paladin.
To fix Sorcerer spell progression, just make it the same as the Wizard and Psion. +2 known at each level, new spell levels on odds, no need to futz around with their messed up original table or worrying about how powerful a "bloodline" should be.
Leadership: level cap is increased to equal your own, but cohorts may only have NPC classes, with one PrC if approved by the DM. Now you can have a reasonably tough henchman or a bit of extra spellcasting, but not an entire extra PC (don't forget how much Charisma/extra bonuses you'll need to actually cap that).

Fix rez costs and windows:

Delay Death and Revenance: removed.
Vivify: 4th, usable within 1 min/level, return at -1hp as raise dead but with no penalties, 500gp. Most things that reference the revivify (SpC) spell instead now use vivify.
Raise Dead: 5th, as normal (within 1 day/level) but 1,500gp, and instead of losing a level you gain a negative level that sticks until you level up.
Revive: 6th, as vivify but target returns at 1/2 of their full hit points (still 500gp).
Resurrection: 7th, as normal but 3,000gp and instead of losing a level you gain a negative level that sticks until you level up.
True Resurrection: 9th, as normal but 5,000gp.

[Silly Name]

- When you level up, you roll your hit die twice and keep the best result

- I have modified most races by slightly boosting them, especially half-elves and half-orcs, to try and bring them more in line (specifically, half-elves get a +2 to any one ability score they want at character creation, one extra skill point per level, on top of everything else they normally get). A lot of stuff taken from PF and even backported from 5e.

- All classes that got 2 skill points now get 4.

- Barbarian's DR/- is increased to start at 2 and increase by 2 points thereafter. Still mostly a ribbon, but a bit more impactful.

- Fighters get actual class features!!!

- Paladins' casting stat is CHA, they have good Will saves, more smites, and at high levels get an aura that lets ally add the pally's CHA bonus to saving throws.

- As some others already said, I turned Two Weapon Fighting into a "scaling" feat, so now rangers get slightly different feats for that Fighting Style.

[Darg]

Martial classes gain 6+int skill points per level
You can touch up to 6 friends with a held touch spell as a full-round action
You can overrun on a charge


We haven't really needed to houserule much. Though one of the above is technically RAW, but I think it might qualify because no one seems to use it.

[loky1109]

Mine.

Die in -Con HP. - the best
Infinite cantrips. - the best
Perception and Stealth instead Spot, Listen, Hid, MS. - the best
Denied dex to AC is FF.
Intuitive attack isn't Exalted.
Attack penalty from Expertise and Defense doesn't apply against Disarm and Sunder.
All weapon subdual damage is bludgeoning, 20/*2, d6/d8/d10(light/one handed/two handed) or weapon damage dice if lower. This rule doesn't apply to weapon with initially subdual weapon.

[Biggus]

- When you level up, you roll your hit die twice and keep the best result


That's an interesting one I've not heard before, I might adopt that. I like that it makes a very low result unlikely (well, except on a d4) but doesn't dramatically increase the chance of a very high result.

[GameMaster_Phil]

No more xp for monsters, you only get XP for treasures looted and brought back to civilization.

Solves so many problems at once. If I had to kick all house rules except 1, this would stay.

[RexDart]

My favorite, used by my DMs:

There are no class skills. Or technically, every player chooses 20 skills to be their "personal" class skills, with any above that being treated as cross-class. But you'd have to be really aggressively going for an "ineffective jack of all trades" build to even approach 20 in practice.

I've never understood why a game that already treats skill points as rare and precious objects (unless you're a wizard) also places such a huge cost on doing anything outside the box with regard to skills.

[Drakevarg]

"No penalties for multiclassing" is such a basic houserule to me that I forget it's a houserule.

Most of the others I have are petty QoL things.

- Weapon Finesse is automatic.
- Intimidate uses the higher of CHA or STR
- Free Improved Unarmed Strike at BAB +1
- Power Attack and Combat Expertise are just combat options, not feats.
- Free Point-Blank Shot with ranged weapon proficiency.
- Classes with 2+INT SP/lvl get 4+INT SP/lvl instead.
- Weapon Group feats.

Everything else is just me fiddling with the combat system/making setting-specific houserules to make mechanics fit lore.

[Biggus]

No more xp for monsters, you only get XP for treasures looted and brought back to civilization.

Solves so many problems at once. If I had to kick all house rules except 1, this would stay.

What problems does it solve?

[PraxisVetli]

Cost of magic weapons is reduced to 1,500GP x enhancement bonus squared. Helps out martials generally and 2WFers especially.

I love this.

[pabelfly]

Cost of magic weapons is reduced to 1,500GP x enhancement bonus squared. Helps out martials generally and 2WFers especially.


I love this.

I'm stealing this too.

[Fizban]

- Barbarian's DR/- is increased to start at 2 and increase by 2 points thereafter.
I don't know if I've considered this before, but looking at it now it definitely seems good. A bit faster than Dwarven Defender, but ultimately not much better than what can be found on PrCs, a solid reward for staying in-class. It does not (and should not) replace armor, but provides a definitive increase in raw toughness, a small and simple changed added to a small ability that makes it much more significant.


Cost of magic weapons is reduced to 1,500GP x enhancement bonus squared.
I might consider this if I was running into problems with single weapon users having to wait forever saving money to upgrade their weapon- but I'd also have to re-evaluate a number of weapon abilities that have bonuses assigned based on the old pricing, and possibly remove the one I already created to make TWF easier.

[Jay R]

My last 2 DMs made a lower limit for hit points each level (after first). It's half the die.

So a wizard get 2 (+CON bonus) if she rolls a 1. A bard gets at least 6 3 points from each d6, a ranger gets at least 4 points from each d8, etc.

Edit: thanks for catching my mistake, Biggus.

[Eurus]

I ran a game that was E6, but each player started with 6 levels of Commoner -- every time they leveled up, they got to gestalt one of those commoner levels with a real class. From levels 7-12 they got to add another "track", gestalting again, so they never exceeded 6 HD total. They got a new feat every three level-ups, and two bonus skill points every level-up.

It worked pretty well for what I wanted it to do. It smoothed out the early survivability, gave everyone a few extra feats and skills for customization, and kept things from going crazy in the 7+ range. The third track wasn't really any more complicated than a normal gestalt, since the commoner levels were more or less irrelevant at that point.

The fourth track did start to get crazy, but it was still arguably a lot more controllable than a high level party would normally have been...

[Biggus]

I love this.


I'm stealing this too.

:smallsmile:



but I'd also have to re-evaluate a number of weapon abilities that have bonuses assigned based on the old pricing

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about abilities with static prices like Sizing and Prismatic Burst in the MIC?


My last 2 DMs made a lower limit for hit points each level (after first). It's half the die.

So a wizard get 2 (+CON bonus) if she rolls a 1. A bard gets at least 6 points from each d6, a ranger gets at least 4 points from each d8, etc.

I assume you mean the bard gets 3 points from each d6?

[Telonius]

Here's my full list.
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.

Most important on the list, IMO:

- 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.


Things I've considered but never actually played/implemented:

- Power Attack or Weapon Finesse are not feats, they are properties of the weapon. (Rapier is a finesse weapon, greatclub is a power attack weapon, etc)
- Wizards lose the free metamagic feat from their free feat options; Sorcerers gain free metamagic feats at the levels Wizard would usually have it.
- Remove XP, use milestone leveling. (For crafting, 1XP=5GP)

[Fizban]

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about abilities with static prices like Sizing and Prismatic Burst in the MIC?
Those too actually.

The strongest example is the DMG2 elemental summoning weapon properties- some I don't think most people are even aware of. At their given bonuses, last I checked, they roughly line up with what it would cost to buy the base +1+energy weapon and a 1/day item that does the same effect (though since that's very expensive for a 1/day only benefit and weapons should have more constant effects, I added a little damage back). Reducing weapon costs could push those lower than desired. One might argue that these should have been or be made into flat cost abilities, but they currently are not. Similarly, the Energy Surge abilities were changed to bonuses in MiC, when they were originally flat cost.

MiC has some teleportation weapon properties which I've allowed to remain solely because the minimum price of a weapon using them is above the minimum cost I've enforced on teleportation items. Other effects like Dispelling beg the same question. Basically anything with limited use using a bonus instead of flat cost, particularly if the bonus cost was resulting in a lower minimum than a standalone item.

Many older Specific weapons clearly have the same price as a normal bonus item- are those static cost abilities, or bonus cost abilities that should only be applied to specific weapons? Obviously RAW is effectively the former (but only on the specific base weapon they're printed on), but there are plenty where it should just as obviously be ruled the latter.

Some static cost abilities or items can clearly be seen to have been adapted from previous +bonus abilities from those older items and vice versa, though I admit I don't have any quick examples off the top of my head, and it might be better to say that they should be considering these when often they obviously haven't. Consider published items that let you ignore armor or natural armor, later becoming just touch attacks against anyone. First there's Brilliant Energy: a +4 bonus, minimum cost 50,000gp, ignore armor and shields (drawback: useless against constructs, undead, and objects). Then in Draconomicon there's the Longspear of Piercing, which lets you 3/day ignore natural armor for one attack: it's effectively a 10,000gp flat-cost ability, except it is actually a Specific +3 Longspear only, with a minimum cost of 28,000. Then there's the Impaling property in MiC: +1 bonus, 3/day your attack becomes a touch attack, only usable with Piercing weapons, minimum cost 8,000gp. And finally there's the Heartseeker Amulet, a paltry 3,000gp amulet that works with anything.

Which of these is the correct price? How are they affected by a reduction on the basic weapon formula? If I've banned the amulet but left in the Impaling property since it has a minimum 8k cost and pushes the exponential formula upward, am I still going to be okay with a 6k minimum and higher level characters getting an extra bonus in, or should I increase it to a much higher +2 bonus cost? Or if I was using the Longspear of Piercing as the only one, am I okay with it getting a 4,500gp discount? If I thought the amulet was correct, none of those other prices even matter.

Some MiC weapons seem to be priced mostly on the base bonus value of the weapon, with other stuff added on for a paltry cost- the Talon Scepter gives a swift action touch attack with unlimited uses for only 10k, but it's only 10k because of the base price of the +1 flaming mace- applying this change reduces it to 8k. The Talon Scepter sticks out in my mind, but being a relatively low bonus the change isn't so huge- however, the same question applies to every Specific weapon, a topic upon which the writers were woefully inconsistent even before MiC flipped the table. If you've priced, or found something priced, such that it's a "free" weapon because the main effect costs so much more- or rather, that the multifunctionality is worth a small percentage increase already calculated, well now that price has been arbitrarily reduced, unless it hasn't.

Most specifically, the flat-cost property I wrote for TWF help is partially based on bonus cost, while the bonus cost of applying Quick Loading to a firearm being based on the effective damage increase vs damage properties and other flat-cost items, some of which would be changed and some not.

In sum, reducing part of the magic weapon formula cost is simple, but when there are all sorts of flat cost and Specific items that also interact with the system, unexpected things will happen. Unless you never use any of those items ever, which seems unlikely.


A few more simple ones:

Weapon Focus also grants +1 damage if taken for Simple weapons- characters are thus no longer penalized for wanting something not on the vaunted Martial proficiency list, and simple weapons have a new niche as even more reliable damage.
Bard: Inspire Courage progression is at 1/5/10/15/20th, while Inspiriational Boost spells and similar items are banned. If the Bard needs more bonus, just give them a higher stable bonus.
Fighters get Sense Motive- this fairly rare skill makes the Fighter a "social tank" with the ability to read people, is used to gauge a foe's CR, and also happens to resist Feint maneuvers. Tons of pop-culture fighters are supposed to be oh-so-hard to fool, and Sense Motive is the skill for that.

[loky1109]

Honestly, I don't understand all this price HRs. You are DM, it's in your hands how many money will have PC.

[pabelfly]

Honestly, I don't understand all this price HRs. You are DM, it's in your hands how many money will have PC.

Changing the pricing of one part of the DnD economy (weapon enchantments) is rather different to changing how much money players get.

[smetzger]

Falling damage: 1d20 for every 10 ft then divide by 1d6
10ft fall = 1d20 /1d6
60ft fall = 6d20 / 1d6

This was an alternate rule in Dragon mag back in 1e. I've kept it ever since.

[Darg]

Changing the pricing of one part of the DnD economy (weapon enchantments) is rather different to changing how much money players get.

To put it in exaggerated lay man terms: Gas prices going down as a millionaire vs just being a billionaire. Sure, gas pricing has a minimal effect on either of their wealth, but that brand new ferrari is going to eat a larger portion of the millionaire's wealth compared to the billionaire's.

[pabelfly]

To put it in exaggerated lay man terms: Gas prices going down as a millionaire vs just being a billionaire. Sure, gas pricing has a minimal effect on either of their wealth, but that brand new ferrari is going to eat a larger portion of the millionaire's wealth compared to the billionaire's.
At the levels I run my games at, weapons are a significant portion of wealth spent, especially since my table favours martials. I also like that this change helps out two-weapon fighting builds.
But I'd like to playtest this more first before claiming it's a good change.

[GameMaster_Phil]

What problems does it solve?

(we are talking about XP = GP)

Preface: I run this in a Megadungeon Campaign with a houseruled Pathfinder 1E ruleset.

In no particular order:

The question of XP. Does a bypassed or diplomatized monster award XP? Does it award twice XP if bypassed twice? Who cares. Only question is: Did you loot it?

The incentive to kill everything is removed. This turns murderhobos into plunderhobos. Slightly better to me.

By removing the game-incentive to kill monsters, the expectation of encounter balance to the party can be removed without implicitly telling your players to go fight them. That means: Extremely tough monsters can be placed in the dungeon. That also means: Weaker monsters can be placed in the dungeon without being a free-XP punching bag. This speeds up fights and spices up play.

Wandering monsters can range from easy fights to extremely tough fights. Easy monsters are no longer XP-gifts as long as they are poor. This sets an incentive to play smart and swiftly so you don't attract wandering monsters. It becomes more important to kill them cleanly or even silently to avoid damage or to stir up the other dungeon inhabitants. That way, even an easy fight has tension in it, making it fun.

Death and ressurrection becomes balanced by default. 5000GP+ for a Raise Dead is a big deal.

I use the medium advancement path, which gives the PCs roughly WBL +50% extra. Since they will sell some loot and buy new stuff, it evens out. (Also, Consumables are included in the GP= XP formula). No need to get too far into details. I found it works as intended.

WBL otherwise does no longer concern me. If a PC becomes poor, they wasted their money and deserve their fate. Once the money is gone, it is gone.

Monsters restock faster than treasure, so "farming" the easier upper levels of the megadungeon becomes increasingly unattractive as treasure is looted. This creates an incentive to venture deeper down.

Hired NPCs will demand a share of the loot. If they perform well, players (at least mine) will not grumble about spotlight taking. They are rather happy that their investment paid off and the hired help is worth their money.

[Telonius]

Running a megadungeon has some basic assumptions that other game styles don't have. The whole "farming" or "restock" really aren't much of an issue for the story-driven campaigns I usually DM or play in, for example; "bypassed twice" isn't a problem either. You're not typically moving back and forth across a static point. But both of those things are definitely issues in a megadungeon, that the DM has to take into account.

[Biggus]

Honestly, I don't understand all this price HRs. You are DM, it's in your hands how many money will have PC.

The point is that it takes some financial pressure off the martials, and off 2WFers in particular, without giving a casters a meaningful boost.

To get a top-of-the-range weapon at level 20 is 200K out of your 760K, or over 26% of your total wealth. If you're a 2WFer, it's 400K, or over 52%. If you wanted a bow as well, 600K or 79%.

Really good weapons are disproportionately expensive compared to other magic items: there are very few others in any category which are over 100K, and very few if any of them are essential to the functioning of a class in the way weapons are to martials (the only ones which arguably are are the +4 and +5 Tomes for casters, they top out at 137.5K and unless you're a theurge, you only need one).

At the other end of the scale, there are low-level monsters like the allip and shadow (both CR 3) which the martials have zero chance of effecting without a magic weapon. Meanwhile the weakest one I can find in the MM with immunity to magic is the flesh golem at CR 7, and even then it can be slowed by cold or fire spells.

Also, what does "HRs" mean?


<loads of stuff>

All fair points. A quick look at the numbers suggested that typically reducing the price by 25% makes an item available one level earlier, which is not going to make a big difference in most cases. With the elemental summons they seem quite weak by the time you can realistically afford them, so I don't think there's likely to be a problem there.

If you've already made changes to make certain items more affordable that could change this of course.

[Telonius]

Most groups divide the loot equally, not proportional to cost-of-adventuring. Four players, 80,000gp? Each gets 20,000. Which is "fair," but if it costs more to properly equip a Fighter - or especially, somebody who's doing two-weapon fighting like a Rogue or Ranger - that 20,000 doesn't go as far. Simply giving the party more gold isn't really a solution either, since that means the other PCs (who have already gotten what they need) get an even more exaggerated difference, as they're buying things that multiply their force instead of spending it on just meeting their own competence.

You can do things like dropping particular magic items that are specifically designed for what the martial character needs, but that can be kind of hit-or-miss. The party could still count it against their share; so you'd just be deciding what they bought for them, not really fixing the problem - the problem being that their costs are higher, proportionally, than other characters.

[Biggus]

(we are talking about XP = GP) <snip>


Fair enough. Most of these seem like personal preferences rather than objective improvements to me, but if works for you...

What do you mean by this sentence?



By removing the game-incentive to kill monsters, the expectation of encounter balance to the party can be removed without implicitly telling your players to go fight them.



Most groups divide the loot equally, not proportional to cost-of-adventuring. Four players, 80,000gp? Each gets 20,000. Which is "fair," but if it costs more to properly equip a Fighter - or especially, somebody who's doing two-weapon fighting like a Rogue or Ranger - that 20,000 doesn't go as far. Simply giving the party more gold isn't really a solution either, since that means the other PCs (who have already gotten what they need) get an even more exaggerated difference, as they're buying things that multiply their force instead of spending it on just meeting their own competence.

You can do things like dropping particular magic items that are specifically designed for what the martial character needs, but that can be kind of hit-or-miss. The party could still count it against their share; so you'd just be deciding what they bought for them, not really fixing the problem - the problem being that their costs are higher, proportionally, than other characters.

Are you replying to me or GameMaster_Phil?

[Telonius]

Are you replying to me or GameMaster_Phil?

Mostly loky, generally agreeing with you on it.

[ngilop]

See signature for whole document.

More recent, or particularly short highlights:

The realization that rather than point buy (which allows starting 18s the game doesn't actually expect) or Elite Array only (which allows no customization), I could just. . . make more arrays. So I added the Specialized 17/14/11/10/9/8, and No Weaknesses 13/13/12/12/11/11 arrays. Now I don't have to worry about "discouraged but not technically banned" starting 18s.
Giving Half-Orcs a similar set of skill bonuses to Half-Elves (+2 Intimidate, Gather Info, Survival) was swiped from Frank and K's old work.
Instead of "LA buyoff," assign gp values.
Make the damaging cantrips all deal 1d6, and Virtue grant 2hp, so that casters feel like casters at 1st level.
Just give Rangers Trapfinding and Disable Device, boom there's now more than one core trapfinder/situational damage class.
Monk AC bonus is 2+1/2 level, Flurry is usable on a standard action: these are the two most crucial benefits for making the dodgy and mobile martial artist dodgy and mobile. And the former is more important than the latter.
Paladin Lay on Hands is equal to full hit point total: I want my Paladins beefy and this is how Guardinals get the ability. If you multiclass out, you still have a whole second hit point total- as long as you're still acting like a Paladin.
To fix Sorcerer spell progression, just make it the same as the Wizard and Psion. +2 known at each level, new spell levels on odds, no need to futz around with their messed up original table or worrying about how powerful a "bloodline" should be.
Leadership: level cap is increased to equal your own, but cohorts may only have NPC classes, with one PrC if approved by the DM. Now you can have a reasonably tough henchman or a bit of extra spellcasting, but not an entire extra PC (don't forget how much Charisma/extra bonuses you'll need to actually cap that).

Fix rez costs and windows:

Delay Death and Revenance: removed.
Vivify: 4th, usable within 1 min/level, return at -1hp as raise dead but with no penalties, 500gp. Most things that reference the revivify (SpC) spell instead now use vivify.
Raise Dead: 5th, as normal (within 1 day/level) but 1,500gp, and instead of losing a level you gain a negative level that sticks until you level up.
Revive: 6th, as vivify but target returns at 1/2 of their full hit points (still 500gp).
Resurrection: 7th, as normal but 3,000gp and instead of losing a level you gain a negative level that sticks until you level up.
True Resurrection: 9th, as normal but 5,000gp.

Bolded for emphasis.

please explain this to me I am at a loss to understand how levels cost gold.

[Remuko]

Also, what does "HRs" mean?

using the context of the thread I deduced that HRs = House Rules

[Biggus]

Mostly loky, generally agreeing with you on it.

Ah, thank you.


using the context of the threat I deduced that HRs = House Rules

D'oh! Yeah, that would be it.

[loky1109]

using the context of the threat I deduced that HRs = House Rules

Yes, you are right.

[Thurbane]

Just a few I have used, previously and currently, off the top of my head:


All non-casters get a minimum 4 skill points/level, and for several, like Fighter and Knight, the list is expanded.
Half-Orcs get -2 to Int OR Cha, player's choice at creation.
Improved Toughness counts as Toughness for all reqs.
Mirror Image is simplified to be more like the 2E version.
Anyone with 2 or more ranks in Spellcraft, or Knowledge (arcana), can use Craft (alchemy) to create alchemical items, without having to be a spellcaster. Also, if you have a caster level from having SLAs or similar, this also allows you to craft alchemical items using the skill.
If a set list caster (Beguiler, Dread Necro, Warmage) takes the Extra Spell feat, it acts exactly as their Advanced Learning class feature.

...and one I have considered but not yet implemented: at 1st level, all PCs get to chose a "background skill" (any one Craft or Profession skill, or if it can be justified in-character, one Knowledge or Perform). That skill is always considered a class skill, and you get 4 bonus points at first level that are used to purchase ranks in that skill. This is to represent what the character did before they started training as an adventurer.

[GameMaster_Phil]

What do you mean by this sentence?

If you give players experience for killing monsters, it is generally expected that the players are able to actually kill those monsters. Killing monsters is how you progress in the game. If not, the game grinds to a halt.

Now if you want to have a wide variation of CRs in your campaign, you get the risk of the party starting and sticking to a fight they can't win because they think that's what they have to do. That's not a very enjoyable game for me.

If the players know: Hey there are brutal enemies out there in the dungeon who will make mincemeat out of you, but you don't really need to fight them to progress in the game: That's another story. Those enemies are dangers to be avoided, but players will not feel that they need to confront those enemies to progress their characters.

[Fizban]

Bolded for emphasis.

please explain this to me I am at a loss to understand how levels cost gold.

Level Adjusted races don't actually get levels- they get benefits that are greater than normal PC races. You're playing something with +4 Str and Powerful Build? +4 Str has a gp cost, Powerful Build eventually had items published with gp costs. Something with spell like abilities, those abilities have simple gp costs. Flight? Gp cost. AC bonus? DR? Energy Resistance? Almost any set of bonuses and abilities a character could gain from Level Adjusted race, can instead be given gp values- values that will even be tuned to match those of the DM and group.

A mere glance at most benefits shows that even the tamest of LA'd options, compared to normal races, have thousands and thousands of gp in benefits. What "level adjustment" tries to do is pretend that X number of levels can offset Y amount of easily cash-valued abilities. There will always be some level and some set of abilities where that is mostly true*, but outside of that sweet spot it will break down and be either over, or under-powered, unless the LA option has actually been crafted so that it scales up and down with player level so it remains worth the LA at all times. "LA buyoff" explicitly uses the self-correcting xp progression of 3.5 to deliberately erase as much of the level cost as possible, leaving previously LA'd characters with nothing but upside vs any shmucks in the party who didn't take the same deal: now you've either just got more "cash" than the rest of the party, or if your scaling LA abilities were balanced before, you should count a level or more higher than the rest of the party, which is even worse.

*In fact, you can even value Character Levels in gp: X/Y/Z bonuses, spells/day, etc. Doing so immediately reveals why Thou Shalt Not Lose Caster levels, as those spells are worth huge gp that only goes up as you get higher, while the individual levels of most martial classes are worth far less so of course they're willing to trade a few thousand in bonuses for tens of thousands in bonuses. Unless of course you've altered the expected costs of things, or the expected party (the altering of the party which should then alter the expected costs of things).

Even using direct Xp costs instead of LA/buyoff- it turns out that xp numbers are way higher and if you can just convert them into gold, that's amazing. What if you're making higher level characters and the payment happens when they're created rather than at the officially retroactive level, so they haven't yet benefitted from self-correcting xp? That's just a flat xp cost, which will still be wiped out almost immediately by that self-correcting xp. Make the cost happen based on the campaign's starting level, and it's still a flat xp cost, just higher than before. Any one time cost has a specific value, the only question is whether it actually matches the benefits or not.

Levels are worth a variable amount depending on character level. The vast majority of LA'd options are not worth a variable amount, and can be easily valued as gp. That's why LA doesn't work, and buyoff breaks the already shaky mechanic entirely. The gp value of most LA'd things is far higher than can be paid at the levels people want to start playing those characters- because yeah, they want those abilities for free, that's the whole point of being some sort of natural superhuman/monster/etc, that you're Just Better. A player making an LA'd character is eyeballing an tradoff, intuitively aiming such that they are expecting to get at least as much (or more) power out of the LA'd abilities than the levels they're giving up, for enough of the campaign that it's worth any loss. They might start out weaker or trail off a bit at the end, but if they're seriously considering it from an optimization perspective, it's because they know they're getting more than they're losing at some point.

And making those Just Better characters start with less gold? Well people who are different from the rest of their society, or come from outside the more powerful societies formed mostly of LA 0 standard PC races, are going to get paid less and have less lucrative treasure gaining opportunities, so that can be perfectly appropriate (the other option would be that being more powerful they should have more easily gained loot/less knowledge, which is what LA already claims as its justification- which can remain true for LA with properly scaling abilities.). As long as the party does even treasure splits, the gap stays in place and the character is paying an agreed upon appropriate cost for their abilities. And if the party chooses to "catch up" that character's gear, then they've all agreed those abilities weren't worth as much, or they want more gear on that character to make them more powerful for party effectiveness.

The core game system has everyone getting roughly equal small static benefits from their "race" pick. Levels should grant levels, or abilities similar to levels. Gp is used for extra static benefits that have nothing to do with your level. Gp is where the cost for extra "innate" abilities which are not derived from character levels go.



Regarding character motivation: for starters, if you want a goal other than killing monsters, it's a lot easier to motivate players with mercenary goals rather than fluffy altruistic goals. There's always at least 1-2 players that want be *****, and their roleplaying is considered equal unless you've all agreed on a campaign where the PCs are expected to be heroic martyrs.

If you get xp for "accomplishing goals," what is your goal? For something altruistic such as stop the bad thing, the easiest and most effective path to that is still always "kill the bad thing," so you expect that you must (and thus must be able to) kill any bad thing you encounter, unless the DM gives you a giant neon sign that says "PULL THIS LEVER TO AVERT CATASTROPHE, BAD GUYS OPTIONAL."

If your goal is getting money, then you don't need to kill things because you only need to take their stuff, and the DM doesn't need to signal this because you already know it. Rather than the DM nebulously defining what the PC's goals are and thus whether they actually have to kill the monsters, take their stuff, or just flip the plot switch (with guaranteed xp if they kill the monsters anyway unless the DM rules it was too easy), going back to the old-school method where xp is gained from treasure because treasure is the only mechanical goal, is much simpler. The players are not root-mechanically rewarded for combat, and thus are not mechanically pressured to continue a bad fight. If they choose to be altruistic and take bad and/or low-paying fights, that's nice for them but good guys finish last- which means you get the "pride and accomplishment" of knowing you did the right thing anyway: heroes must actually be heroes (and should be treated as such by NPCs).

The DM doesn't need to worry about how well they've signaled things, because the game is not about making sure the PCs can save the world- it's about the PCs getting loot and not dying, so the only signal they need to send is how much damage that overleveled foe's attack dealt. The DM can throw around whatever monsters they want and in theory not be guilty for anything that happens as long as the party isn't killed in a single round. And the PCs get to feel clever and powerful (and get more powerful on all their rating metrics) if they figure out some way to take stuff without a fight because the DM failed to anticipate all their possible actions, while the DM doesn't need to worry about gear/level balance because the two are tied together.

It's just plain easier in almost every way. The only thing to dislike is. . . the game's entire mechanical motivation being treasure and evading death.

[Zaile]

Here's my full list.
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.

Most important on the list, IMO:

- 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.


Things I've considered but never actually played/implemented:

- Power Attack or Weapon Finesse are not feats, they are properties of the weapon. (Rapier is a finesse weapon, greatclub is a power attack weapon, etc)
- Wizards lose the free metamagic feat from their free feat options; Sorcerers gain free metamagic feats at the levels Wizard would usually have it.
- Remove XP, use milestone leveling. (For crafting, 1XP=5GP)

No Athletics (Climb+Swim+Jump)? For shame, lol.

Thanks for the interesting house rules all. I'm working on my own for friends who are a bit tired of 5e but some younger players have no 3.X experience. It's kind of a mesh. Lots of these will make it!

One of my hang-ups is cantrips. I like Pathfinder's and 5Es, but would porting the 5e cantrips (and scaling) directly into 3.X be OP, or just right?

Also, what are y'all thoughts on using 5e prepared caster rules? Fewer spells per day for prepared casters, but more repeatability.

[Particle_Man]

I wonder if Buy the Numbers might be useful for some of the "buy character level abilities with gold" idea? It is a point buy system for d20, so if the points can be equated to gp that might work.

It is for free here:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/18175/Buy-the-Numbers

[paladinn]

-
- Fighters get actual class features!!!.

Do tell, please!

[Thurbane]

I wonder if Buy the Numbers might be useful for some of the "buy character level abilities with gold" idea? It is a point buy system for d20, so if the points can be equated to gp that might work.

It is for free here:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/18175/Buy-the-Numbers

Not able to check it out on my work PC, but sounds like it might be similar to the 2E guidelines where you could build your own class, and spend a certain number of points for each class feature you want the class to have...

Actually, reading the blurb, probably not like that.

[Telonius]

No Athletics (Climb+Swim+Jump)? For shame, lol.

Thanks for the interesting house rules all. I'm working on my own for friends who are a bit tired of 5e but some younger players have no 3.X experience. It's kind of a mesh. Lots of these will make it!

One of my hang-ups is cantrips. I like Pathfinder's and 5Es, but would porting the 5e cantrips (and scaling) directly into 3.X be OP, or just right?

Also, what are y'all thoughts on using 5e prepared caster rules? Fewer spells per day for prepared casters, but more repeatability.

There was a class of feats in late 3.5 that was moving in the 5E cantrip direction: Reserve Feats. (I believe they were just in Complete Mage and Complete Champion, but there could be a few others floating around randomly). The idea is that the feat gave you an ability to zap enemies for a minor bit of damage (or do some other minor cool thing) that you could always do, with the level capped at the highest remaining spell slot you had for a particular thing. Dimensional Jaunt, for example, let you dimension-door for five feet per level of the highest-level teleportation spell you have remaining. Or Acidic Splatter gave you a zap with a range of 5ft/level per the highest-level spell with the Acid descriptor, with damage of 1d6 per level of that spell. So if you had Acid Fog prepared (6th-level spell), range would be 30 ft, and deal 6d6 damage. Caveat being that if you used your big guns, the feat became less effective, or turned off altogether if you run out of teleport (or acid, or whatever descriptor) spells.

If you're looking to incorporate 5E cantrips, maybe give every spellcaster a bonus Reserve feat at first level, rather than try to back-port the whole system.

[Quertus]

No more xp for monsters, you only get XP for treasures looted and brought back to civilization.

Solves so many problems at once. If I had to kick all house rules except 1, this would stay.


What problems does it solve?


Preface: I run this in a Megadungeon Campaign with a houseruled Pathfinder 1E ruleset.

In no particular order:

The question of XP. Does a bypassed or diplomatized monster award XP? Does it award twice XP if bypassed twice? Who cares. Only question is: Did you loot it?

Hired NPCs will demand a share of the loot. If they perform well, players (at least mine) will not grumble about spotlight taking. They are rather happy that their investment paid off and the hired help is worth their money.

Ok, so… if you bring the same treasure back to civilization twice (from it being stolen, from dropping your gear (accidentally, or to run away), or from killing the totally accidental death of the hirelings you’ve paid), do you earn XP for it twice?

[Zaile]

There was a class of feats in late 3.5 that was moving in the 5E cantrip direction: Reserve Feats. (I believe they were just in Complete Mage and Complete Champion, but there could be a few others floating around randomly). The idea is that the feat gave you an ability to zap enemies for a minor bit of damage (or do some other minor cool thing) that you could always do, with the level capped at the highest remaining spell slot you had for a particular thing. Dimensional Jaunt, for example, let you dimension-door for five feet per level of the highest-level teleportation spell you have remaining. Or Acidic Splatter gave you a zap with a range of 5ft/level per the highest-level spell with the Acid descriptor, with damage of 1d6 per level of that spell. So if you had Acid Fog prepared (6th-level spell), range would be 30 ft, and deal 6d6 damage. Caveat being that if you used your big guns, the feat became less effective, or turned off altogether if you run out of teleport (or acid, or whatever descriptor) spells.

If you're looking to incorporate 5E cantrips, maybe give every spellcaster a bonus Reserve feat at first level, rather than try to back-port the whole system.

That's a good idea. Maybe get a free reserve feat every few caster levels as well? They are hardly broken; however, the damaging ones get beyond 4dX. 3e you hit 4d at 7th level, 9d by 17/18.

[Darg]

That's a good idea. Maybe get a free reserve feat every few caster levels as well? They are hardly broken; however, the damaging ones get beyond 4dX. 3e you hit 4d at 7th level, 9d by 17/18.

Since it's a house rule, maybe cap them for the first selection and with a second selection, in place of another reserve feat, uncap them.

[Biggus]

Mirror Image is simplified to be more like the 2E version.


Oh? What's that?



Now if you want to have a wide variation of CRs in your campaign, you get the risk of the party starting and sticking to a fight they can't win because they think that's what they have to do.


Is that something you've found actually happens a lot? My players generally have no problem deciding to retreat if they realise they're outclassed (or not starting the fight in the first place, in cases where that's an option).

[Thurbane]

Oh? What's that?

We've found in our games, all the wording in MI about which squares the extra images are in etc. unnecessarily complicates things.

In essence, the 1E/2E rules were much simpler. If you have three images, roll 1d4. 1 it's you, 3-4 it's an image. That's about it.

It's really not much of a change, just a simplification. We once had a situation where one player made all of these complex arguments about which square the images are actually in at any given time and how that should affect targeting; after losing almost an hour of table time, the spell was simplified from that point on. It works in a more abstract manner.

[Biggus]

We've found in our games, all the wording in MI about which squares the extra images are in etc. unnecessarily complicates things.

In essence, the 1E/2E rules were much simpler. If you have three images, roll 1d4. 1 it's you, 3-4 it's an image. That's about it.

It's really not much of a change, just a simplification. We once had a situation where one player made all of these complex arguments about which square the images are actually in at any given time and how that should affect targeting; after losing almost an hour of table time, the spell was simplified from that point on. It works in a more abstract manner.

Oh, that's how I do it already lol. Thankfully I haven't had any players trying to argue it should work any other way.

[Thurbane]

Oh, that's how I do it already lol. Thankfully I haven't had any players trying to argue it should work any other way.

TBH, I think that's how 99% of tables run it - we just needed it in writing for some reason! :smallbiggrin:

[Fizban]

The problem with running mirror image that way is that the 3e change was there for a reason. If there's a bunch of different images of you overlapping in the same space, I don't care which one is which I just swing blindly which has a 50% miss chance. A 2nd level spell that provides an equal or better miss chance to the 3rd level version. Mirror Image only makes any sense if the images are spread out into different squares, which means you have to spread them out into different squares- and doing so then allows for things like tracking which one actually caused damage or got hit, readying actions, using anti-illusion dust/water/etc tricks, or just trying to guess which square the person actually wants to be in. 3e Mirror Image is interesting. The way most people seem to run it is boring and massively OP (and not how the spell text functions).

We've all been doing a good job of not complaining about each others' houserules so far, but the Mirror Image problem, as pointed out, is one of those houserules so common that a lot of people think it's actually how the spell works. So I think it's important to point out that's not how the spell works (until you make it work that way, which I recommend against).

[Mordante]

So these homebrew suggestions are what work specifically for my table, which is low optimization, has few casters, and low to mid levels of gameplay.



Players get three ability score boosts every fourth level. These stat boosts must be spent on three different ability scores. If an ability score is below 16, the ability score is boosted by 2. If the ability score is 16 or more, it is boosted by 1.
Stole this from Pathfinder 2. I am not a fan of how weak the stat boost is every fourth level, and this fixed it in a way that didn't seem OP to me. The main build stat is still being boosted by 1, but players could choose to boost secondary stats by 1 or somewhat weaker but useful stats by 2, making this choices more interesting, in my opinion. Not sure how this would work out in higher-level games since I typically run fairly low-level games.

Pounce is a fighter bonus feat.
Pounce or an equivalent is a near necessity for martial builds and making this a feat meant that people didn't have to dip Barbarian for a martial build.

Dodge, Point-Blank Shot, Toughness and Combat Expertise are ignored if they are prereqs for other feats, prestige classes, etc. People can still take these feats should they wish.
These feats are generally quite weak and often ignored in any build requiring them. I am of the opinion that players should look forward to what they get from a feat, rather than take it and resent they have to get it to get something cool later.

A player with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat automatically receives Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, etc when they meet BAB and ability score requirements.
TWF is both feat-intensive and weaker than two-handed fighting martial builds. This makes two-weapon fighting builds less unattractive in terms of balance and allows players to add other feats to their build

Weapon Finesse is a free option and doesn’t cost a feat. When Weapon Finesse is applied to a weapon, players calculate bonus damage using the dexterity stat instead of the strength stat (you cannot add both STR and DEX without the use of class features and/or feats). Players receive half their dexterity bonus for offhand attacks. Weapon Finesse only applies to light weapons, the rapier, whip, or spiked chain.
I haven't noticed many issues with this feat. At my table at least, strength and two-handed fighting is still the strategy for optimizing damage, even with Weapon Finesse being a free feat with extra benefits, but this makes the disparity a little less, in my opinion.

These are huge bonuses. I agree that martials could use a boost, but this seems too much.




most common I've played in was first 5 levels, if it was up to me I'd maximize the hit die for all creatures for all levels

5 is a good ballpark for early level survivability, maps out to "survive that fireball", in a way

We normally do this for the first 2 levels. Doing it to level 5 seems too much.




My house rules.
eschew materials is more or less free for everyone. When spells get too powerful materials are needed

No experience points. I honestly don't understand why people would use experience points in D&D

[pabelfly]

These are huge bonuses. I agree that martials could use a boost, but this seems too much.

I'll explain my opinion on how my various homebrew ideas work, specifically in the games I run:


Players get three ability score boosts every fourth level. These stat boosts must be spent on three different ability scores. If an ability score is below 16, the ability score is boosted by 2. If the ability score is 16 or more, it is boosted by 1.

As stated before, this is for a low to medium level game. More specifically, this is below level 9. Compared to normal stats, you'll still get just one point every four levels in your most important stat like a normal, unmodified game, but you can choose to put two points in a weaker, secondary stat, giving you a slight boost (say, +1 to Will saves) or you can boost one of your stats above 16 with a +1, which isn't taken as often. This also has an effect of helping players with poorer stat spreads, or more MAD character concepts. I'd want to try this in higher-level games to see how much difference there is but when this involves only one or two 4th-level up points, I've had minimal issues.


Pounce is a fighter bonus feat.

This isn't really much of a boost, it's slightly weaker than a one-level dip in Barbarian, which a lot of my table does because it comes with Rage and related damage boosts. But this feat is an option if they don't want to, or can't make that dip. Other Pounce-equivalents are really weak, too complex, etc and don't really get used at my table.

I'd recommend Pounce as a feat for any table.


Dodge, Point-Blank Shot, Toughness and Combat Expertise are ignored if they are prereqs for other feats, prestige classes, etc. People can still take these feats should they wish.

This is not much of a buff. Point-Blank Shot is occasionally taken since it buffs close-range archery but otherwise this has minimal impact. I only see minimal use of this rule. Maybe it would be more relevant at higher levels, or if people were making use of normally bad PrCs that required a few of these feats to enter.


A player with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat automatically receives Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, etc when they meet BAB and ability score requirements.

Weapon Finesse is a free option and doesn’t cost a feat. When Weapon Finesse is applied to a weapon, players calculate bonus damage using the dexterity stat instead of the strength stat (you cannot add both STR and DEX without the use of class features and/or feats). Players receive half their dexterity bonus for offhand attacks. Weapon Finesse only applies to light weapons, the rapier, whip, or spiked chain.

I've lumped these together since they both have the same goal in mind - make mundane TWF less terrible. In default, a similar build would require Shadow Blade, Weapon Finesse, TWF, and some form of Pounce or equivalent. That's a lot of feats to still suck more than the two-handed Barbarian with a greataxe that hasn't taken a single feat.

I think it does the job I intend at my table, I have a few players make use of this but they're not OP compared to the rest of the group. Two handed fighting and Power Attack feats are still the most effective way to optimize damage, even with all of the goodies mentioned to for dex-based combat users. You'll still need to figure out a way to add more damage to your attacks.

To sum up, how does all of this compare to casters? Stat boosts are just as good for casters as anyone else. Our table typically doesn't run casters excepting stuff like Warlock or Dragonfire Adept (excepting one player who regularly runs a Druid with an animal companion). The druid always contributes well, even at low levels with minimal buffs (I gave free 0 level spells but I'm still testing this). Warlock and Dragonfire Adept were middle-of-the-pack - not bad, not OP, and occasionally made valuable contributions without overshadowing everyone else. Which is a pretty good state for a character to be in, IMO.

So I have no idea of how your table works, your player optimization levels or anything like that. Maybe some of this would be really OP if you or your players got hold of this. But right now, these seem to work for mine.

[RexDart]

We've found in our games, all the wording in MI about which squares the extra images are in etc. unnecessarily complicates things.

In essence, the 1E/2E rules were much simpler. If you have three images, roll 1d4. 1 it's you, 3-4 it's an image. That's about it.

It's really not much of a change, just a simplification. We once had a situation where one player made all of these complex arguments about which square the images are actually in at any given time and how that should affect targeting; after losing almost an hour of table time, the spell was simplified from that point on. It works in a more abstract manner.

This is another of those cases where I didn't even realize this was a house rule instead of just a "rule."

Incidentally, one of my favorite backstory things. Trying to answer the question of what sort of things are in a library's "Archive of Arcane Arcana," there's a treatise by the wizard who first made Mirror Image into a truly useful spell. Many centuries ago, an unknown wizard had created the spell, but its practical utility was limited, because the additional creations were literally mirror images (i.e., reversed.) So it was only helpful against opponents who were unintelligent, unobservant, or who had extremely poor vision. Then this one guy figured out how to insert another mirror into the spell via the equivalent of a programming kludge, reversing the reversal and making it into the spell we know today.

[Silly Name]

Do tell, please!

To be honest, nothing extremely original:

- I've stolen Armor Training from Pathfinder, so, starting at 3rd level, Fighters get reduced penalties from wearing armor: lower skill check penalties, higher effective DEX bonus (up to 4 less points of check penalties/+4 DEX bonus), and get no penalties to movement speed when wearing medium armor. At level 7, they ignore movement speed reductions from heavy armor as well.

- Using the Dead Levels ACFs, so they have those extra cumulative ribbons at most levels.

- At fifth level, Fighters get to add half their class level to all Climb, Jump, Ride and Swim checks as a competence bonus.

- Starting at 9th level, once per day a Fighter can immediately reroll a failed Saving Throw, using the new roll as the result. They get extra uses at levels 13 and 17.

Does this make the fighter into a powerhouse, or a class worthy of multiple levels? IMHO, no, especially since 3.5 encourages multiclassing and prestiging in the first place, but at least now there's a bit more meat on the class. The base chassis of the class is what it is, and "fixing" it would require remaking it from the ground up, but at least now in my games starting as a Fighter seems a more popular option, and sometimes people take more than four levels in Fighter!!

[Biggus]

The problem with running mirror image that way is that the 3e change was there for a reason. If there's a bunch of different images of you overlapping in the same space, I don't care which one is which I just swing blindly which has a 50% miss chance. A 2nd level spell that provides an equal or better miss chance to the 3rd level version. Mirror Image only makes any sense if the images are spread out into different squares, which means you have to spread them out into different squares- and doing so then allows for things like tracking which one actually caused damage or got hit, readying actions, using anti-illusion dust/water/etc tricks, or just trying to guess which square the person actually wants to be in. 3e Mirror Image is interesting. The way most people seem to run it is boring and massively OP (and not how the spell text functions).


I disagree:



These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you.

(Italics mine)

It doesn't say "they are 5 feet away from each other" it says "they are no more than 5 feet away from each other". The fact they don't remain 5 feet away is confirmed by:


You can move into and through a mirror image. [...] The figments may also move through each other.

Also, "I don't care which one is which I just swing blindly which has a 50% miss chance" is explicitly how the spell works:


An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect.

If they all occupied different squares, this wouldn't work.

One thing I do agree on: yes it's hella overpowered for a 2nd-level spell.


To be honest, nothing extremely original:

- I've stolen Armor Training from Pathfinder, so, starting at 3rd level, Fighters get reduced penalties from wearing armor: lower skill check penalties, higher effective DEX bonus (up to 4 less points of check penalties/+4 DEX bonus), and get no penalties to movement speed when wearing medium armor. At level 7, they ignore movement speed reductions from heavy armor as well.

- Using the Dead Levels ACFs, so they have those extra cumulative ribbons at most levels.

- At fifth level, Fighters get to add half their class level to all Climb, Jump, Ride and Swim checks as a competence bonus.

- Starting at 9th level, once per day a Fighter can immediately reroll a failed Saving Throw, using the new roll as the result. They get extra uses at levels 13 and 17.

Does this make the fighter into a powerhouse, or a class worthy of multiple levels? IMHO, no, especially since 3.5 encourages multiclassing and prestiging in the first place, but at least now there's a bit more meat on the class. The base chassis of the class is what it is, and "fixing" it would require remaking it from the ground up, but at least now in my games starting as a Fighter seems a more popular option, and sometimes people take more than four levels in Fighter!!

Sounds like you have similar philosophy to me, I also give them the first and last on items on your list, plus a couple of other things. Some of the key problems with the Fighter as far as I can see are that they have very poor saving throws, and that they're one of the least mobile classes, which those two things give them some way to redress. I also give them Superior Critical from 5E at level 15 (which stacks with Improved Critical or Keen, so that people who do stick with the class at least get some reward for doing so) and Bravery from PF (because it really bugs me that along with the Rogue, the Fighter is the most likely of the core classes to run away from danger making little shrieking noises).

All together, those changes probably only push them up half a tier or so, but it's just enough to take them out of the "this sucks" zone into the "meh" zone (one of my games currently has a single-classed Fighter PC, although this is partly because he deliberately chose something as simple as possible because his other character is quite complicated and he wanted a change) and means they get something every level, even if it's only Bravery.

I like your idea about giving them a bonus to Climb, Jump, Ride and Swim, I might adopt that.

[Darg]

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention is that we are using the 3.0 version of Power Attack (just nix the special text). Makes the feat not so mandatory and allows light weapon users the ability to you know swing/stab harder like they can in the real world.

[Tusen]

House rules I generally use (Some campaigns will require more, some have less, it depends on the players and our desires at the moment, obviously).

#1: Pathfinder classes of the totally-not-a-bard variety (investigator, magus, summoner, all the ones that have bard HD, either the same number of good saves as bard or close to and bard progression casting) are all back-ported to 3.5, with their HD, spells/day and such adjusted. Depending on the party I'll either remove a few class features to make them match 3.5 bard and the ones it doesn't have vs pf1e, or I will just backport pathfinder's additional class features for a bunch of other classes.

#2: Speaking of above, I guess I should list that separately. Backporting additional class features from pathfinder for what would normally be considered tier 3/4 and below classes (as contentious as the tier list can be). For classes not in pf1e I will either come up with equivalents or just find a class of similar power level and lazily copy paste their stuff onto things like totemist. This extends to back-porting the ACF options, I like ACFs

#3: You are allowed to do ACF chains across classes. If you give up your wild shape as a druid for track and swift track (as ranger), then you can trade those away for disable device and trapfinding as a ranger can (I'm not sure if this is HB or not)

#4: Gain minimum of half HD on level up

#5: Toughness is both toughness and improved toughness, aka: 3hp + 1/level

#6: Monk is changed to be more like 1e OA monk rather than being derived from 2e scarlet brotherhood. I have done this in a few different ways depending on the group, the more they enjoy dinking around the more special attacks I port forward and such. One of my current versions is in a homebrew thread on here, since I have got back to using it again.

#7: Weapon finesse for free, can choose between str to damage and dex to damage with finesse-able weapons. Oversized TWF or monkey grip feat extends this to all 1h weapons, both together makes it all weapons.

#8: One that I've been playing around with recently is implementation of an exaggerated physics system in some regards. Basically it ends up being that awesome blow instead hurls you further, based on your strength and relative size difference, and is automatic for melee attacks of anything 2+ or 3+ (still testing that out in different games) of you. If you take a claw attack from a gargantuan dragon, you're going flying into a wall. WIP

#9: Full attacks are standard actions and you keep full BAB through the iteratives. So a level 20 full BAB class has +20/+20/+20/+20. Pounce is changed to grant a variant of spirited charge (can do it unmounted, damage is 1.5x instead of 2x).

#10: Use the LA adjustment and reduced RHD threads since I've found very few cases where I don't agree with it.

#11: Non-caster 2+int skill point classes are 4+, some 4+ are 6+

#12: Any skills you choose at level 1 become class skills for you. This means you can spread yourself thin if you want to get loads of class skills but most people don't I find.

#13: Fractional BAB/Saves. When I first read 3.5 when it came out as a kid (I played AD&D before that) I kind of just assumed this is how it was meant to work and it has stuck with me since.

#14: The EXP cost of crafting can be replaced with rare ingredients of value equal to the 50% difference between the price you normally pay and market price. Using the price caps of towns, this means you can acquire the materials to craft something without spending EXP even in towns that won't normally potentially have your desired item. You can also go on side quests to acquire them.

#15: Prices are re-factored according to the cost of a long sword and what data I've found in some papers regarding medieval pricing. 15gp for a sword that would have cost 6-8p in England leads me to making it so 1p = 2gp in general (so 1l = 480gp). This makes armour and your cost of living far more expensive in gp terms. Price lists are funky due to regional variability along with a lack of completeness, and while wage growth (and inflation in general) tended to be very slow you still end up in the realm of approximating things very quickly.

#16: Continuous use custom magic items will be looked at extremely closely before approval. Command use magic items have a limit of 5/day (which is implied to be around as often as they expect you to use them given that charges per day are price*chargesperday/5) with some magic items being far more expensive than usual (10x or 100x) depending on their power, or using them draws extraplanar eyes. There might be a nation where they use high level summon monster shenanigans with command-use items in order to make raise dead accessible for even poor people, but this leads to things ranging from bandits often decapitating the head of someone they want to stay dead or holding corpses for hostage to Maruts being regularly dispatched to carve their way through the nation

#17: Basically all undead types are templates. Ghouls (which got a template with LM anyway but I get to say I was doing it before it was cool, which uh, is totally something to brag about), ghasts, bodaks, mohrgs, devourers, etc. I jokingly call this Gygax approved since one of the d20 books he co-authored featured this, and it always made more sense to me. Multiple templates can be applied to create hybrid undead to keep the players on their toes.

#18: Not so much a hard and fast house rule, but given the easy of halving ability score bonuses and downgrading special attacks/qualities, I'm generally happy to whip up a half-X template quickly for people who want one. With your family tree it generally goes half -> major bloodline -> intermediate bloodline/Planetouched-tier thing -> lesser bloodline. I have a binomial chart of randomising the bits of 'blood' passed on based on sibling similarity probabilities and such for anyone who really wants to get into it (which is basically just me).

#19: Dodge just gives you a +1 bonus to your AC to increase its power and save me from bookkeeping.

#20: Removal of racial requirements on most PrCs and feats, but to gain entrance to a PrC you generally have to find a trainer/someone who will teach you. Some can be attained through your own experimentation, others can't.

There's plenty I'm probably forgetting.

A final thing to note: Never forget all the variant rules in UA! Vitalising spell points (or just regular spell points), the wounds and vitality system, 3d6 instead of 1d20, things like this can all be great fun and I have enjoyed using one or multiple of them in a campaign when I want a different feel plenty of times.

Edit: Tired tusen no make the typies good

[Biggus]

#15: Prices are re-factored according to the cost of a long sword and what data I've found in some papers regarding medieval pricing. 15gp for a sword that would have cost 6-8p in England leads me to making it so 1gp = 2p in general. This makes armour and your cost of living far more expensive in gp terms.


Do you mean 2gp=1p?

[Tusen]

Do you mean 2gp=1p?

Indeed I do, I'll edit it to fix that, that's what I get for typing when I'm tired.

[Fizban]

It doesn't say "they are 5 feet away from each other" it says "they are no more than 5 feet away from each other". The fact they don't remain 5 feet away is confirmed by:
You're quoting only a few words of the text, and drawing some forced conclusions. Returning some of what you skipped:


These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. . .
The figments separate from you. They cannot go more than 5' from you or another figment, but they separate. If they're all in your space, overlapping like some sort of hydra, that's not separated. The resulting shape is a cluster or chain of squares. (And before you say that more than one person can fit in a 5' square- not when they're in combat they can't. Draw a 5' square on the ground and try dodging and lunging around within it, and you'll find there is no possible way you could have other people in there without running into each other. Images in the same square as you have not separated: they're constantly overlapping you unless you stand stock still, and if they're spaced sideways enough to not overlap, they've entered the adjacent square).

Moving, in the game rules, means moving from one square to another.

Attackers are supposed to be able to figure out which image is you, by non-sight/sound methods (or, though unstated, the fact that an image can't deal damage or launch a projectile). If you're standing in your space with a hydra of images, how would it even be possible to learn which image is real? If moving means standing in place, the information is obsolete as soon as you "learn" it.


Also, "I don't care which one is which I just swing blindly which has a 50% miss chance" is explicitly how the spell works:
It could be read that way, if you ignored the previous portion of the text. This portion is meant for sightless and blinded creatures (actually I think it's there most to prevent turning Invisible with your images for decoys). If you're blinded, you're not using sight and everything has a 50% miss chance, but more problematically you by default have no way of even picking the right square to attack. Sure being blind means Mirror Image doesn't "affect" you, but that should have been able to go without saying, because you're blind (if your allies are spotting for you, then of course they have to figure out which square to pick). However, there are a number of blind creatures with blindsense/sight that would be "unaffected" by Mirror Image, in the sense that yeah it doesn't do anything they perceive or care about.

But the spell has all that text from the previous paragraph describing how the images separate but must remain nearby, specifically using the 5' unit that equals a combat space. So does it make more sense that all that text is meaningless because the images actually stay in your space, so the most efficient way to deal with the spell is to intentionally blind yourself, negating the whole thing?

Or does it make more sense that this is a classic cinematic effect in which the enemy must guess at where their opponent truly is, by luck or aid of clever tricks or teamwork, and the writers managed to yet again write a description with a possible hole because they already knew what they meant and didn't expect people to argue it?

The most charitable reading is that both uses are intentionally possible, making the spell even more powerful. This would allow that common reading. . . while still leaving said use most hilariously countered by closing one's eyes on purpose. Since I think that's a number of negative things, I only allow the separation of images- and disallowing that by taking the second part's reminder that blind people can't see as a restriction that the spell can only work as well against creatures with functioning sight (ie: almost everything) as it does against someone that couldn't see the caster in the first place is, I'd say, literally backwards.

[Biggus]

You're quoting only a few words of the text, and drawing some forced conclusions.

I honestly feel it's you who's doing that, not me. I'll try to explain why.



The figments separate from you. They cannot go more than 5' from you or another figment, but they separate. If they're all in your space, overlapping like some sort of hydra, that's not separated. The resulting shape is a cluster or chain of squares. (And before you say that more than one person can fit in a 5' square- not when they're in combat they can't. Draw a 5' square on the ground and try dodging and lunging around within it, and you'll find there is no possible way you could have other people in there without running into each other. Images in the same square as you have not separated: they're constantly overlapping you unless you stand stock still, and if they're spaced sideways enough to not overlap, they've entered the adjacent square).

I'm a large chap (I weigh nearly 400lbs) and I'm only about 2ft wide and a bit over 1ft deep. If an image 2ft in front of me moves as I move, it doesn't overlap because when I move my arm forward, so does it.

Also, you can't always be the central image or the spell would become worthless as soon as it became widely known that it worked that way. Sometimes all the images are to the right of you, or to the left or behind or in front. If they're in a different square, how do you decide where they are in relation to you? There's nothing in the spell text about this.

Finally, the spell text mentions no less than three times that the images can move through you and each other. They're not constantly separate from you, or at a constant distance from you.



It could be read that way, if you ignored the previous portion of the text. This portion is meant for sightless and blinded creatures (actually I think it's there most to prevent turning Invisible with your images for decoys).

Sorry, what?


If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect.

(Italics mine)

[Quertus]

#14: The EXP cost of crafting can be replaced with rare ingredients of value equal to the 50% difference between the price you normally pay and market price. Using the price caps of towns, this means you can acquire the materials to craft something without spending EXP even in towns that won't normally potentially have your desired item. You can also go on side quests to acquire them.

So, I’m not sure what your pricing actually is, but I think (afb, going from memory) that…

Items cost XP equal to 1/25th the GP value of the item. 1 XP = 5 GP. Therefore, an XP component would cost 1/5th the GP cost of the item (and, yes, therefore have greater availability than the item itself, even before getting into “to make this item without spending XP, I’ll need 50 blue goblin skins. This village should suffice to let me buy blue goblin skins”; ie, that the XP components might be multiple items, further reducing the availability requirements).

[Socksy]

If the die goes on the floor, it gets rerolled on the table. If it goes under the sofa, you're the one who has to dig it out after the session (except of course if disabilities make this unpleasant or impossible).

We ported Pathfinder's fighter into our 3.X game to make the fighter marginally less awful, and also some of Pathfinder's shapechanging/polymorphing spells to make them less broken.

[Analytica]

Spellcasters with cantrips get their spellcasting ability modifier in bonus level 0 spells/day.

[Fizban]

In the interest of comprehension I continue, but in the interest of a house rules thread I spoiler:


I'm a large chap (I weigh nearly 400lbs) and I'm only about 2ft wide and a bit over 1ft deep. If an image 2ft in front of me moves as I move, it doesn't overlap because when I move my arm forward, so does it.
Right. It doesn't overlap because you're separated it from yourself. It's 2', nearly half a space, in front of you.

And when you move to the front of the square you're standing in, that image is now in the middle of the square in front of you. A separate square. Because it's separated from you. And during combat you are in constant motion within your combat space, because that's how you avoid being stabbed in the face. So the image that is 2' in front of you spends a significant part of its time outside of your space, as does any other image. Even more so if the real you is the one on the end and some of them are 5' away from you, meaning when you move to the other edge of your space it's now at the far edge of the adjacent space, nearly into the next one past that. Either your images are constantly moving through you even when you're not moving (the hydra, plus every turn and possibly even outside of turn you reshuffle for free, making an entire standalone line about moving and reshuffling superfluous), or they're fixed relative to you between moves and thus are constantly jutting out of your space in multiple directions. Or in other words, they're in the adjacent spaces.

The images must remain within 5' of at least one other figment or you. Or, meaning you can have an image which is up to 5' away from everything except one other image. How does that work if they can't separate into their own squares?

Or are these images "separated" from you and constantly being in other squares, only actually be targeted in the center square? But wait, it can't be centered on you because that would be obvious, you have to be able to be at the end, where you're now. . . in an adjacent square.

Also, you can't always be the central image or the spell would become worthless as soon as it became widely known that it worked that way. Sometimes all the images are to the right of you, or to the left or behind or in front. If they're in a different square, how do you decide where they are in relation to you? There's nothing in the spell text about this.
You put them in the squares you want? Why would it need to describe an extra process about how you pick where your spell goes? It goes where you choose, just like any other spell. When you move, you move to a square, and you leave or send images that separate from you in/to squares of your choice within the limits of the spell (possibly with secret notes if you need to avoid your DM metagaming). "I have images of me in these squares, and which one is the real me is written on this note."

The more I think about it, the more confused I am as to how you're reading a restriction out of nothing here. It only makes sense when you're working from the opposite direction, expecting the "separate images" to all functionally be in the same space, and thus interpreting the lack of a "you choose where to place images" statement as a prescription against the normal function of spells, which is that you choose where to place things.

Finally, the spell text mentions no less than three times that the images can move through you and each other. They're not constantly separate from you, or at a constant distance from you.
They can move through you and each other, but the first part of the spell clearly says they separate from you. Their normal position is separate, and their merging and re-separating is clarified below when it says "while moving."



As I said, the most charitable reading of the spell is that both the hydra and the chain are intentionally allowed, but forcing them to all stay in the same square means they don't actually separate from you. And I've never seen or heard of a source of the "multiple images" concept that didn't have them separating a significant distance from each other, where "swing blindly because they're all within arm's reach anyway" would actually help (usually they'll surround someone for intimidation factor even).

You seem to be hung up on reading the 5' and immediately thinking that means they all have to be in your space, then applying a reading that rationalizes it by saying that must mean you+images are "separated" within that 5' space, such as being 2' away from you (your example of 2' "separation" fails to account for say, swinging a weapon, which makes your "arm" quite a bit longer than 2'). This combined with the "generally roll randomly" and "blind people are unaffected" suggestion and reminders makes you think there is only one way the spell can work. But all of these parts of the spell come after the part where you're already allowed to separate them into other squares.

What happens if you're larger than a 5' space? What about the fact that looking like you're standing 2 feet away is the literal description of the Displacement spell? The reading you want to use as the only one, is the reading that makes the spell function as "Displacement, but if you take a higher miss chance you can chip it away instead and it's even better against single target spells, plus a bunch of other text," while failing to perform what must be the obvious inspiring narrative effect. You're adhering to a reading that produces a less interesting result, with no unique purpose justifying its existence, while contradicting other text in the spell and overlapping/violating the mechanical space and power levels of nearby spells. Why?

Obviously, having been familiar with the "mirror image" trope by sources where the images are spread out, often even surrounding the enemy, I jump first to that reading of the spell. I must presume that someone not familiar with those tropes would have to figure out how they work by mechanics, and could mistakenly think they're all in the same space (possibly because that's just easier and/or that's how everyone they've heard from effectively runs it). If you are familiar with the greater trope, I don't see how you could decide that such a single square reading is really what the designers are going for.

Sorry, what?
(Italics mine)
As I've said, at best that line provides support for a possible reading that you can clump all images in your space. You say this indicates that the only effect the spell can have is miss chance, because otherwise a blind creature could not be "immune." I say that being blind already supersedes the main effect of the spell, but the reminder is useful because there are creatures that are naturally blind and have special senses, as well as the ability of PCs to direct each other when blinded.

The most charitable reading of the spell allows both all in one space and a chain of spaces, and the chain reading does not contradict the blinded creature "immune" note. The all in one space only reading does contradict the definition of how far the images can spread out. The blinded note works as a reminder, but a reading that contradicts an earlier part (the first real definition even) of how the spell works is a reading that turns the text self-contradictory. Furthermore, a reading that all the images are within your space contradicts how spacing works. Resolving that contradiction requires a ruling that your images constantly move within your space to avoid exiting it as you dodge/aim attacks- which would allow them to be constantly merging and separating from you, allowing them to reshuffle constantly, negating any reason to define their separation and specifically contradicting an entire line devoted to defining movement and reshuffling of images.

So I see at least two contradictions in the reading you're using to preclude a proper chain of images, while there are no contradictions required to rule against keeping them all in the same space. The most charitable reading allows both even if I don't like the hydra version, but preventing the chain of images is a clear house rule.


Spellcasters with cantrips get their spellcasting ability modifier in bonus level 0 spells/day.
I have something similar, but rather than their ability modifier (which starts and grows far larger than the normal bonus slots), mine says to add the same number of bonus slots you get for 1st to your 0ths.

[Biggus]

In the interest of comprehension I continue, but in the interest of a house rules thread I spoiler:


Right. It doesn't overlap because you're separated it from yourself. It's 2', nearly half a space, in front of you.

And when you move to the front of the square you're standing in, that image is now in the middle of the square in front of you. A separate square. Because it's separated from you. And during combat you are in constant motion within your combat space, because that's how you avoid being stabbed in the face. So the image that is 2' in front of you spends a significant part of its time outside of your space, as does any other image. Even more so if the real you is the one on the end and some of them are 5' away from you, meaning when you move to the other edge of your space it's now at the far edge of the adjacent space, nearly into the next one past that. Either your images are constantly moving through you even when you're not moving (the hydra, plus every turn and possibly even outside of turn you reshuffle for free, making an entire standalone line about moving and reshuffling superfluous), or they're fixed relative to you between moves and thus are constantly jutting out of your space in multiple directions. Or in other words, they're in the adjacent spaces.

The images must remain within 5' of at least one other figment or you. Or, meaning you can have an image which is up to 5' away from everything except one other image. How does that work if they can't separate into their own squares?

Or are these images "separated" from you and constantly being in other squares, only actually be targeted in the center square? But wait, it can't be centered on you because that would be obvious, you have to be able to be at the end, where you're now. . . in an adjacent square.

You put them in the squares you want? Why would it need to describe an extra process about how you pick where your spell goes? It goes where you choose, just like any other spell. When you move, you move to a square, and you leave or send images that separate from you in/to squares of your choice within the limits of the spell (possibly with secret notes if you need to avoid your DM metagaming). "I have images of me in these squares, and which one is the real me is written on this note."

The more I think about it, the more confused I am as to how you're reading a restriction out of nothing here. It only makes sense when you're working from the opposite direction, expecting the "separate images" to all functionally be in the same space, and thus interpreting the lack of a "you choose where to place images" statement as a prescription against the normal function of spells, which is that you choose where to place things.

They can move through you and each other, but the first part of the spell clearly says they separate from you. Their normal position is separate, and their merging and re-separating is clarified below when it says "while moving."



As I said, the most charitable reading of the spell is that both the hydra and the chain are intentionally allowed, but forcing them to all stay in the same square means they don't actually separate from you. And I've never seen or heard of a source of the "multiple images" concept that didn't have them separating a significant distance from each other, where "swing blindly because they're all within arm's reach anyway" would actually help (usually they'll surround someone for intimidation factor even).

You seem to be hung up on reading the 5' and immediately thinking that means they all have to be in your space, then applying a reading that rationalizes it by saying that must mean you+images are "separated" within that 5' space, such as being 2' away from you (your example of 2' "separation" fails to account for say, swinging a weapon, which makes your "arm" quite a bit longer than 2'). This combined with the "generally roll randomly" and "blind people are unaffected" suggestion and reminders makes you think there is only one way the spell can work. But all of these parts of the spell come after the part where you're already allowed to separate them into other squares.

What happens if you're larger than a 5' space? What about the fact that looking like you're standing 2 feet away is the literal description of the Displacement spell? The reading you want to use as the only one, is the reading that makes the spell function as "Displacement, but if you take a higher miss chance you can chip it away instead and it's even better against single target spells, plus a bunch of other text," while failing to perform what must be the obvious inspiring narrative effect. You're adhering to a reading that produces a less interesting result, with no unique purpose justifying its existence, while contradicting other text in the spell and overlapping/violating the mechanical space and power levels of nearby spells. Why?

Obviously, having been familiar with the "mirror image" trope by sources where the images are spread out, often even surrounding the enemy, I jump first to that reading of the spell. I must presume that someone not familiar with those tropes would have to figure out how they work by mechanics, and could mistakenly think they're all in the same space (possibly because that's just easier and/or that's how everyone they've heard from effectively runs it). If you are familiar with the greater trope, I don't see how you could decide that such a single square reading is really what the designers are going for.

As I've said, at best that line provides support for a possible reading that you can clump all images in your space. You say this indicates that the only effect the spell can have is miss chance, because otherwise a blind creature could not be "immune." I say that being blind already supersedes the main effect of the spell, but the reminder is useful because there are creatures that are naturally blind and have special senses, as well as the ability of PCs to direct each other when blinded.

The most charitable reading of the spell allows both all in one space and a chain of spaces, and the chain reading does not contradict the blinded creature "immune" note. The all in one space only reading does contradict the definition of how far the images can spread out. The blinded note works as a reminder, but a reading that contradicts an earlier part (the first real definition even) of how the spell works is a reading that turns the text self-contradictory. Furthermore, a reading that all the images are within your space contradicts how spacing works. Resolving that contradiction requires a ruling that your images constantly move within your space to avoid exiting it as you dodge/aim attacks- which would allow them to be constantly merging and separating from you, allowing them to reshuffle constantly, negating any reason to define their separation and specifically contradicting an entire line devoted to defining movement and reshuffling of images.

So I see at least two contradictions in the reading you're using to preclude a proper chain of images, while there are no contradictions required to rule against keeping them all in the same space. The most charitable reading allows both even if I don't like the hydra version, but preventing the chain of images is a clear house rule.


Your arguments are not totally without reason, but you've extrapolated way beyond the text and have clearly convinced yourself that your reading is definitely the correct one, so I'm going to stop trying to argue otherwise.

[Quertus]

Is it too late for me to put in my “house rules” of “balance to the table” and “don’t be a ****”?

[Particle_Man]

If only there were universal agreement on what “balance to the table” and “being a ****” meant.

[Quertus]

If only there were universal agreement on what “balance to the table” and “being a ****” meant.

Well, that’s the beauty: two tables with different “values” can both use “balance to the table”. So if I’m at one of the tables that only counts “damage dealt” as contribution, then I can take my Tainted Sorcerer DC “you fail” BFC build, and try to find ways to staple on enough damage to be considered “balanced” at that table (maybe gestalt with DMM Persist Cleric for all-day summons?).

And, yeah, it’s “balance to the table (and the module)”. So, for a given adventure, my sample characters will demonstrate roughly where the expected midpoint of the “balanced” range lies for that adventure.

[Elkad]

- I've stolen Armor Training from Pathfinder..

I started to do that. Then I just went even easier. Armor has no movement speed penalty for anyone. The weight of the armor might slow you down, but the armor itself doesn't. I changed various other Encumbrance things at the same time.

Armor Check penalties (dex skills, jump, climb, reflex). It's 1 point cumulative for medium load, heavy load, medium armor, heavy armor, large shield, tower shield. Being strong might not slow you down noticeably in Heavy armor for general movement, but it still impedes your ability to accelerate quickly to dodge a fireball or jump a pit. Style choices like Banded vs Splint no longer have different base check penalties, Banded is just paying more to be a bit lighter.

Double penalty for swimming as usual. 2 Swim checks missed by 5 or more forces immediate fatigue damage (same as long distance swimming). If your gear is heavy, either dump it or bring a life jacket (or sink and walk across the bottom)

Dex-based AC works the same way as an Armor Check Penalty. They are penalties, not caps. With 24 dex (+7), a light load (0), and heavy armor (-2), you get a +5 dex bonus to AC. With 12 dex (+1), heavy load (-2), and medium armor (-1), it's -2. Or -3 if you are flat-footed.

Shields (even tower shields) have no effect on Dex to AC, other than possibly from contributing to the weight.

Dwarves ignore everything above with their racial feature, except swimming, where they take a standard penalty, not a doubled one. If it's less than max heavy load, they just don't care. Dwarves with a Swim speed ignore the swimming penalty as well.

To-hit penalties can apply to any shield, not just Tower shields. It's based on the weight of the shield itself. No penalty up to half your light load. -2 at half your light load, -4 at medium, -8 at heavy. Double if non-proficient. So exotic materials (darkwood, mithril, etc) to make them lighter matter. It also means you can go the other way. Make your Tower shield out of an inch of Adamantine instead of 2 inches of wood. It'll weigh 5x as much (steel is about 10 denser than cured oak, but we used half the thickness). It'll have hardness 20 and 40hp, but will weigh 200+lbs - better have a near-30 Strength.

[Darg]

Why so harsh on swimming in heavy armor? Swimming in armor only makes swimming harder. You're more likely to drown than you are to tire yourself out. Which is where the double penalty to swim checks come into play. Add in the fact that you swim at a slower speed = armor speed penalty hurts because you'll be swimming for longer to the destination you'll be trying to get to.

The part about swimming that makes a person most tired is that you can't breathe under water to replenish your oxygen supply.

[MesiDoomstalker]

This is all PF:


All non-Int based classes get +2 skill points per level.
A few skills get combined (Acrobatics, Swim, Climb into Athletics) or get cross-use (Appraise can determine a magic items function at a penalty and Spellcraft can determine a magic items cost like Appraise at a penalty).
HP (after 1st level) is half sized Hit Die plus the remaining half (ex: 1d10 becomes 1d5+5).
A lot of feat chains got shortened or altered. TWF is now 1 feat that auto-upgrades. All of the various Improved [Combat Maneuver]'s feats have been condensed into 2 feats; Agile and Powerful (requiring 13 Int and 13 Str respectively as their only requirement; the Greater varieties remain as separate feats). Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise and Power Attack are in-built into the system. PBS and the one that get rids of the -4 "fire into melee" penalty is gone (and with it all reference to them as a pre-reqs. Also the fire into melee penalty is gone.) Weapon Focus auto-scales based on BAB and it adds the number of Bonus Combat Feats you've gained from classes to your BAB (the values are calculated so a straight Fighter gets the bonuses at the same time a Vanilla Fighter could take the feats) and all feats that apply to a specific weapon now apply to a weapon group if appropriate.


There are others but those are the big ones.

[arkangel111]

There are a lot of cool feats out there, that aren't worth actually spending your limited feats on. I had 2 fixes to this and one of them is more complicated.

the simple fix: everyone gets free non-combat feats at odd levels. (broadly defined as anything benefitting you directly or indirectly in combat)

the complicated fix that I find more interesting. At the beginning of every session, while people are still getting their stuff together and chit-chatting I'll ask some questions about their character past, or give them a dream or some such thing. Based on how that goes I'll usually have 1-3 feats lined up that I'll then grant for free. Never more than a single feat, but I might have 3 feats and their answers determine which one. I had a character whose past was a bounty hunter, and I had 3 different spot/listen or investigative themed feats that ultimately she had a choice to follow the clues using one of those skills. she chose and then afterwards I granted it to her. Sometimes the experience didn't make since in game to suddenly unlock so I gave a magic item shortly after start to grant the feat magically.

[pabelfly]

the complicated fix that I find more interesting. At the beginning of every session, while people are still getting their stuff together and chit-chatting I'll ask some questions about their character past, or give them a dream or some such thing. Based on how that goes I'll usually have 1-3 feats lined up that I'll then grant for free. Never more than a single feat, but I might have 3 feats and their answers determine which one. I had a character whose past was a bounty hunter, and I had 3 different spot/listen or investigative themed feats that ultimately she had a choice to follow the clues using one of those skills. she chose and then afterwards I granted it to her. Sometimes the experience didn't make since in game to suddenly unlock so I gave a magic item shortly after start to grant the feat magically.

This is a cool idea, I'm going to steal it. Thanks.

[Fizban]

Your arguments are not totally without reason, but you've extrapolated way beyond the text and have clearly convinced yourself that your reading is definitely the correct one, so I'm going to stop trying to argue otherwise.
And naturally I say the same to you. I've addressed the specific points of your reading, but you have not done so for mine, and seem to be completely convinced that you reading is definitely the correct one. There is nothing further to argue.



Dex-based AC works the same way as an Armor Check Penalty. They are penalties, not caps. With 24 dex (+7), a light load (0), and heavy armor (-2), you get a +5 dex bonus to AC. With 12 dex (+1), heavy load (-2), and medium armor (-1), it's -2. Or -3 if you are flat-footed. . .

Dwarves ignore everything above with their racial feature, except swimming, where they take a standard penalty, not a doubled one. If it's less than max heavy load, they just don't care. Dwarves with a Swim speed ignore the swimming penalty as well. . .

To-hit penalties can apply to any shield, not just Tower shields. It's based on the weight of the shield itself. No penalty up to half your light load. -2 at half your light load, -4 at medium, -8 at heavy.
I guess I'm just Mr. Negative now-I'm curious as to how this actually affects the game (and as is the cross-topic of the week, your ability score generation), because this looks to me like Dex is even more of a god/required stat, with heavy armor possibly negating its own AC via penalties, dwarves now being the dexy-ist, and shields being even worse than usual unless they're cardboard. The last only matters if you sunder so it's up to the DM, and if your PCs always all have large dex modifiers then the other two make more sense. And of course, with massive Str none of the penalties happen, making Str now a god/AC stat like Dex. I suppose making Str an AC stat would also be less weird if there was a large amount of casting stat to AC going on, at which point every stat is AC or hit points and SAD builds are penalized in AC for only pushing one AC stat.

Obviously it works for you, but the question is how? What sort of shields and armor and stats does your party use and what penalties do they take?

Double if non-proficient. So exotic materials (darkwood, mithril, etc) to make them lighter matter.
Aren't you already using weight encumbrance as the main arbiter of armor penalties anyway, so material already matters without needing an extra attack penalty?

[Elkad]

I guess I'm just Mr. Negative now-I'm curious as to how this actually affects the game (and as is the cross-topic of the week, your ability score generation), because this looks to me like Dex is even more of a god/required stat, with heavy armor possibly negating its own AC via penalties, dwarves now being the dexy-ist, and shields being even worse than usual unless they're cardboard. The last only matters if you sunder so it's up to the DM, and if your PCs always all have large dex modifiers then the other two make more sense. And of course, with massive Str none of the penalties happen, making Str now a god/AC stat like Dex. I suppose making Str an AC stat would also be less weird if there was a large amount of casting stat to AC going on, at which point every stat is AC or hit points and SAD builds are penalized in AC for only pushing one AC stat.

Obviously it works for you, but the question is how? What sort of shields and armor and stats does your party use and what penalties do they take?


Heavy armor is never going to "negate it's own AC". You get 8 points for Plate, and it weighs 50lbs. Even a mere 16str fighter can still be in light load (50 of 76lbs, so he needs to choose the rest of his gear carefully) and loses 2 points of dex bonus. And moves 30', not 20', which is important as well. As soon as he can afford Mithril, it's only 1 point, as it's then treated as medium armor. Unlike the standard rules, dexterity matters in heavy armor. Normally every Fighter just puts a 12 there and calls it done. No point in more. Now if he pumps dex and picks up a statbooster and/or a tome, it's actually worth something without switching back to a Breastplate.

Even the 10dex 10str Cleric still gains 4 points of AC in plate with a heavy. Can he do better with lesser armor? Probably. Don't overdress if you've been skipping the gym.

If you plan to just depend on Mage Armor (and it's many friends) and relations, I dispel a lot. Good luck.

Armor check penalties are reduced across the board. Sometimes by a LOT. Lancelot can Move Silently at only -2 in halfplate, not -7. This pleases me, as "just because it's heavy, it's also noisy" makes no sense at all. Nor should wearing chainmail significantly alter my chance to pick a lock, it's not on my fingertips.

Encumbrance matters more. Yes, I enforce it (and heavily restrict extradimensional spaces, no standard issue Hewards Haversacks - the current game actually has NO extradimensional stuff currently for backstory reasons). My players do things like drop their packs at the beginning of combat, or even cache half their gear outside before they set foot in the dungeon.

And dwarves still move too slow (20'), which both matters in combat quite a lot, and annoys the rest of the party waiting for them constantly while traveling. (plus they get -6 on their jump checks, better toss them over that pit).

Yes, I sunder. Not always, but often enough my players have been known to pay for high-CL Hardening spells on gear they like. My hardness rules are modified a bit as well. Adamantine isn't an auto-pass, it still has to beat the hardness of it's target, and some other things like Mountain Hammer maneuver have restrictions as well.

Stats: I tend to very generous roll methods, but sometimes use high pointbuy (40 or more). Even straight 18s doesn't raise the power of a wizard much compared to a 16 and 5 10s, after all he's still a wizard, but its VERY nice for lower tier classes. With the medium-low playstyle of my group it works well. And they get to feel like heroes.



A
Aren't you already using weight encumbrance as the main arbiter of armor penalties anyway, so material already matters without needing an extra attack penalty?

It's not necessarily extra. I'm giving them the option to get rid of the tower shield penalty. Weight of armor/gear would never give an attack penalty, just the weight of the shield itself. I'm also encouraging a bit of diversity, as you might not have the strength for the standard steel shield (thus picking up a penalty), but a lighter wooden one would be fine.

[sreservoir]

Ok, so… if you bring the same treasure back to civilization twice (from it being stolen, from dropping your gear (accidentally, or to run away), or from killing the totally accidental death of the hirelings you’ve paid), do you earn XP for it twice?

You can go even further, and tie experience directly to wealth: 1 gp = 1 XP when you manage to bring it back to civilization, and if you subsequently lose it, you don't start gaining XP again until you're back up to your high water mark—maybe even gradually lose it if your players try getting tricky and shuffling treasure around. This works okay for E6, where gp=XP approximates the WBL table actually pretty closely and would probably tolerate "level" loss pretty well after the plateau.

(Maybe works less well without a level limit below 8th or so, partly because WBL/XP ratio goes out of whack, and partly because at lower levels doubling your gp=XP isn't going to push you up more than a level, so pooling XP to pump up one PC is a bad idea on its own merits. Once it becomes possible for doubling XP to be worth more than a couple of levels, it gets harder to avoid the conclusion that maybe that 4-man 8th-level party would be more effective as a single 13th- or 15th-level caster.)

One thing that helps tie this together is abstracting out consumables as per-session resources with one-shot pricing (cf. DMG 199 Limited-Use Items) to smooth out the ups-and-downs, which also conveniently rationalizes the standard 5:1 gp:XP exchange rate—I think this is a nice houserule in its own right, just to give consumables more screen time, and also helps to mitigate the same "using consumables means being permanently behind the wealth curve" vibes that that we brought in gp-XP equivalence for.

[Soranar]

STR and CON are merged into 1 STAT

It really helps out all the MAD classes and it barely changes druids and cleric

gives martials a chance when compared to SAD classes like all the tier 1s

[paladinn]

STR and CON are merged into 1 STAT

It really helps out all the MAD classes and it barely changes druids and cleric

gives martials a chance when compared to SAD classes like all the tier 1s

You could do the same with WIS and CHA. Both are measures of personality and will.

[Telonius]

Out of curiosity, what do you do for Undead and Construct hit points - still set to flat d10s and d12s, or do they add the STR modifier?

[Biggus]

There are a lot of cool feats out there, that aren't worth actually spending your limited feats on. I had 2 fixes to this and one of them is more complicated.

the simple fix: everyone gets free non-combat feats at odd levels. (broadly defined as anything benefitting you directly or indirectly in combat)

the complicated fix that I find more interesting. At the beginning of every session, while people are still getting their stuff together and chit-chatting I'll ask some questions about their character past, or give them a dream or some such thing. Based on how that goes I'll usually have 1-3 feats lined up that I'll then grant for free. Never more than a single feat, but I might have 3 feats and their answers determine which one. I had a character whose past was a bounty hunter, and I had 3 different spot/listen or investigative themed feats that ultimately she had a choice to follow the clues using one of those skills. she chose and then afterwards I granted it to her. Sometimes the experience didn't make since in game to suddenly unlock so I gave a magic item shortly after start to grant the feat magically.

What feats do you give? I can think of Skill Focus, Alertness-type feats, and Endurance which are both fairly weak and primarily or entirely non-combat. What else is there?

[Fizban]

Heavy armor is never going to "negate it's own AC". You get 8 points for Plate, and it weighs 50lbs. Even a mere 16str fighter can still be in light load (50 of 76lbs, so he needs to choose the rest of his gear carefully) and loses 2 points of dex bonus. And moves 30', not 20', which is important as well. As soon as he can afford Mithril, it's only 1 point, as it's then treated as medium armor. Unlike the standard rules, dexterity matters in heavy armor. Normally every Fighter just puts a 12 there and calls it done. No point in more. Now if he pumps dex and picks up a statbooster and/or a tome, it's actually worth something without switching back to a Breastplate.

Even the 10dex 10str Cleric still gains 4 points of AC in plate with a heavy. Can he do better with lesser armor? Probably. Don't overdress if you've been skipping the gym.
The Cleric situation is what I was thinking of- and I'm pretty sure most medieval combat enthusiasts who've worn armor would disagree. I would also not count 16 as a "mere" ability, since that's the highest elite array stat plus a 4th level ability increase, reaching nearly the top of ability- rather more than hitting the gym. But it does answer my question of what ability scores you're expecting quite well.


Armor check penalties are reduced across the board. Sometimes by a LOT. Lancelot can Move Silently at only -2 in halfplate, not -7. This pleases me, as "just because it's heavy, it's also noisy" makes no sense at all. Nor should wearing chainmail significantly alter my chance to pick a lock, it's not on my fingertips.
I agree on realism grounds, though on mechanical grounds I do think its important to draw a line between realistic characters in "heavy" combat armor, people who are not wearing enough armor to walk around the battlefield with impunity, and keeping magic and metal split up.


Encumbrance matters more. Yes, I enforce it (and heavily restrict extradimensional spaces, no standard issue Hewards Haversacks - the current game actually has NO extradimensional stuff currently for backstory reasons). My players do things like drop their packs at the beginning of combat, or even cache half their gear outside before they set foot in the dungeon.
As I would expect for such a set of rules. I haven't restricted the cheaper extradimensional storage yet, but I have banned a number of armor convenience effects to go with my details on just how many things you can strap to yourself.


And dwarves still move too slow (20'), which both matters in combat quite a lot, and annoys the rest of the party waiting for them constantly while traveling. (plus they get -6 on their jump checks, better toss them over that pit).
Good point.


Yes, I sunder. Not always, but often enough my players have been known to pay for high-CL Hardening spells on gear they like. My hardness rules are modified a bit as well. Adamantine isn't an auto-pass, it still has to beat the hardness of it's target, and some other things like Mountain Hammer maneuver have restrictions as well.
Huh. I would point out that Adamantine was never an auto-pass until Pathfinder- it ignores under 20 in 3.x, so 20 or better beats it, and that doesn't take much magic (Mithril gets most of the way there).


Stats: I tend to very generous roll methods, but sometimes use high pointbuy (40 or more).
As expected.


It's not necessarily extra. I'm giving them the option to get rid of the tower shield penalty. Weight of armor/gear would never give an attack penalty, just the weight of the shield itself. I'm also encouraging a bit of diversity, as you might not have the strength for the standard steel shield (thus picking up a penalty), but a lighter wooden one would be fine.
I mean, you could just get rid of the tower shield penalty if you want shields to be better (I reduced it to -1, or -0 with light weapons, adding a +3/-0 kite shield). I don't really see diversity in steel vs wood for shields- the emphasis was already on reduced weight special materials or adamantine for sundering. Steel shields are pretty uniformly condemned as unrealistic anyway. And I'm surprised you'd consider it significant since the 15lb steel shield is under half even for 10 Str now that I check, meaning no penalty even on what is probably the lowest score you ever have. It only matters for towers, which normally don't even have a steel version (100lbs in. . . Planar Handbook?)

[Soranar]

Out of curiosity, what do you do for Undead and Construct hit points - still set to flat d10s and d12s, or do they add the STR modifier?

Still flat but we gave undead the construct's size bonus modifier, makes large undead that much harder to kill and it reflects better their CR