PDA

View Full Version : Would you disagree with my house rules?



DementedFellow
2008-02-13, 09:15 PM
I'm kicking around the idea of DMing with my friends. It will actually be the first time DMing with them, but I have had experience with a couple other groups. Anyway, I was wondering what people would think of these house rules. Are they outrageous? broken? useless?


Spot and Listen are combined into Awareness. Chances are if you are listening for something, you are looking too. Likewise for spotting. Ever turn down the radio when you are trying to find some place while driving?
Bluff and Intimidate are combined into a skill to be named later - thinking something like Silver Tongue (as ugh as that sounds). Yeah the name is awful, but I see no reason why one couldn't cut down on the ranks wasted on two very similar skill groups. All that remains is to pick a name that would encompass both traits.
No Duskblades. I think they are overpowered. And quite honestly, I'm giving a lot to my players as it is.
Gestalt characters are A-Okay. I'm going to be throwing some nasties at them. But in order for someone to have a Bard/Paladin or a Barbarian/Wizard, they have to come up with a backstory. I'm trying to encourage roleplay and if they have to come up with a background, then maybe it will help them get involved.
Players start with more gold in addition to what the DMG says they should get at their level. Meaning from levels 1-5 5,000 gp, 6-10 10,000 gp, 11-15 15,000 gp and 16-20 20,000 gp. We all like magic items. I won't mind if someone keens their blades or whatever, as I have said, I'm going to be throwing at lot at them.
Extra experience will be awarded for roleplaying and not just rolling the dice. This includes songs from bards, talking in character (yes something that simple can net an extra 50 experience at the end of the night).
Character creation will be 5d6 minus the lowest two. Reroll 1s. This is more of a house rule with the group as a whole. We use this whenever we play.


Comments? Suggestions? Are these things game-breakingly bad? What are some house rules that you have used to much acclaim and/or success?

tyckspoon
2008-02-13, 09:23 PM
They all seem reasonable to me except for the Duskblade thing. That just looks out of place, especially with a justification of overpowered.. you're giving extra gold, you use a very high powered stats rolling method, you're allowing gestalt.. and the Duskblade is the thing that stands out as being too overpowered to allow? What appears to be the problem with it to you?

Starbuck_II
2008-02-13, 09:23 PM
No Duskblades. I think they are overpowered. And quite honestly, I'm giving a lot to my players as it is.

What, wait...

What about them is overpowered?


Gestalt characters are A-Okay. I'm going to be throwing some nasties at them. But in order for someone to have a Bard/Paladin or a Barbarian/Wizard, they have to come up with a backstory. I'm trying to encourage roleplay and if they have to come up with a background, then maybe it will help them get involved.

A little strong, but okay if you can handle gestalt


Players start with more gold in addition to what the DMG says they should get at their level. Meaning from levels 1-5 5,000 gp, 6-10 10,000 gp, 11-15 15,000 gp and 16-20 20,000 gp. We all like magic items. I won't mind if someone keens their blades or whatever, as I have said, I'm going to be throwing at lot at them.

Buh-wa!? That is a lot at low levels.


Extra experience will be awarded for roleplaying and not just rolling the dice. This includes songs from bards, talking in character (yes something that simple can net an extra 50 experience at the end of the night)

Weird, but okay.

.
Character creation will be 5d6 minus the lowest two. Reroll 1s. This is more of a house rule with the group as a whole. We use this whenever we play.


Not bad, a little better than 4d6.

valadil
2008-02-13, 09:25 PM
#4 is the only one that catches my attention. It seems like it would create a pretty big disparity between players who did and didn't have time to come up with a backstory/excuse for gestalt.

I prefer to encourage backstories by drawing my plots from character backstory. Basically the players who write more history get more plot based on their characters and a bigger chance in the spotlight.

Worira
2008-02-13, 09:26 PM
Wait, a Barbarian//Wizard is fine, but not a Duskblade?

Zincorium
2008-02-13, 09:28 PM
1 & 2 are perfectly reasonable, and they help classes with few skill points get a decent break.

3. Trust me, they're not. 4th level spells maximum, off a very small list that never changes? But it doesn't matter because of...

4. Requiring backstory is good. But don't try and mix gestalt and non-gestalt characters unless the people not playing gestalt are really good at building characters and are willing to take the hit. Anyone who'd want to play a duskblade can get something pretty close without the class itself (wizard/swashbuckler is a decent combo for that type).

5, 6, 7. Basically, you're running a high powered game. Since you've already stated they'll be running into very tough enemies, all it requires is that you be a little bit more careful. Your PCs won't be invincible, and TPKs are actually easier with groups that are powerful statwise, since you've lessened the correlation between PC strength and player ingenuity.

Talanic
2008-02-13, 09:29 PM
Bluff and Intimidate should combine into Influence. How's that sound?

Gralamin
2008-02-13, 09:30 PM
I'm kicking around the idea of DMing with my friends. It will actually be the first time DMing with them, but I have had experience with a couple other groups. Anyway, I was wondering what people would think of these house rules. Are they outrageous? broken? useless?


Spot and Listen are combined into Awareness. Chances are if you are listening for something, you are looking too. Likewise for spotting. Ever turn down the radio when you are trying to find some place while driving?
A rather common house rule.

Bluff and Intimidate are combined into a skill to be named later - thinking something like Silver Tongue (as ugh as that sounds). Yeah the name is awful, but I see no reason why one couldn't cut down on the ranks wasted on two very similar skill groups. All that remains is to pick a name that would encompass both traits.
Think of a good name and that would work well.

No Duskblades. I think they are overpowered. And quite honestly, I'm giving a lot to my players as it is.
Wizards are overpowered, Duskblades are decent. I would argue against this personally.

Gestalt characters are A-Okay. I'm going to be throwing some nasties at them. But in order for someone to have a Bard/Paladin or a Barbarian/Wizard, they have to come up with a backstory. I'm trying to encourage roleplay and if they have to come up with a background, then maybe it will help them get involved.
Be careful with Gestalt if this is your first time playing, you may overdue it.

Players start with more gold in addition to what the DMG says they should get at their level. Meaning from levels 1-5 5,000 gp, 6-10 10,000 gp, 11-15 15,000 gp and 16-20 20,000 gp. We all like magic items. I won't mind if someone keens their blades or whatever, as I have said, I'm going to be throwing at lot at them.
That is quite a bit. I take it you do not play with Incarnum then.

Extra experience will be awarded for roleplaying and not just rolling the dice. This includes songs from bards, talking in character (yes something that simple can net an extra 50 experience at the end of the night).
Thats already in the rules, though I suggest 50 * their level. 50 is quite a bit at level 1, but isn't much at level 6.
Character creation will be 5d6 minus the lowest two. Reroll 1s. This is more of a house rule with the group as a whole. We use this whenever we play.
[/quote]
Fair enough.


Comments? Suggestions? Are these things game-breakingly bad? What are some house rules that you have used to much acclaim and/or success?

I use a whole whack of house rules, and I especially like class variants. See: Fax's How-It-Should-be Paladin (http://corporation.walagata.com/fax/wiki/index.php/Paladin), or The Lesser Disciplines (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48255)

Prometheus
2008-02-13, 09:31 PM
This definitely sounds like a high-powered campaign. You are kind of encouraging them to forget roleplaying and focus on power-gaming if this becomes DM vs. PCs. You mentioned roleplaying earlier, but I don't know how much the players actions will really be based off of it.

DementedFellow
2008-02-13, 09:33 PM
Bluff and Intimidate should combine into Influence. How's that sound?

I like that a lot. It's better than what I came up with.

Artanis
2008-02-13, 09:36 PM
I gotta agree with the responses to the Duskblade thing. You're going out of your way to jack up your players' power level, and then turning around and not allowing them to use Duskblades due to alleged "overpoweredness"? Even if balance really is still a concern, I can think of plenty of things that would need to be axed before you even start to get to Duskblades.

Chronos
2008-02-13, 09:37 PM
Some of those are rules which I, personally, would not implement. However, they all look reasonable, and I would not be adverse to playing with a DM who implemented those rules. The only thing I would recommend against would be how much gold you're giving them... An alternative might be to give them that value of extra equipment, chosen by you (and don't give them a chance to buy/sell magic gear immediately): This lets you do some balancing of the characters as you see them in action, and also gives you a chance to play with some items which aren't necessarily all that powerful, but are a lot of fun.

GunMage
2008-02-13, 09:39 PM
The one thing you ought to let your players know is that you intend to do a gestalt game. Either have everyone make gestalt characters, or have no one make them.

Make sure that you don't go overboard with the roleplaying experience points.
You want to remember that not everyone will be on the same level rp-wise, and you need to take that into account when determining rp-xp.

You might consider combining intimidate and diplomacy into speechcraft, and bluff and sense motive into deception, because intimidate and bluff seem to have very little to do with each other.

Lemur
2008-02-13, 09:50 PM
Am I to understand that #4 means that some characters may be gestalt, and some may not, depending on whether or not they have a backstory for it? If this is the case, this is a terrible idea. Either everyone in the party is gestalt or no one is. I'll also echo the sentiment:

Wait, a Barbarian//Wizard is fine, but not a Duskblade?
If this is the case, it makes very little sense, and yes, is "game-breakingly bad".

Furthermore, I would like to hear your arguments against duskblades, aside from a simplistic statement like "they're overpowered" which doesn't actually mean anything. If you feel like they don't fit in your world, that's fine (although even the reasoning of this is strongly under question if gestalt melee spellcasters are around). Why would a duskblade be considered overpowered and not a cleric or a druid, for example? It's not gamebreaking, but it's highly dissonant with the rest of your rules.

DementedFellow
2008-02-13, 09:52 PM
Some of those are rules which I, personally, would not implement. However, they all look reasonable, and I would not be adverse to playing with a DM who implemented those rules. The only thing I would recommend against would be how much gold you're giving them... An alternative might be to give them that value of extra equipment, chosen by you (and don't give them a chance to buy/sell magic gear immediately): This lets you do some balancing of the characters as you see them in action, and also gives you a chance to play with some items which aren't necessarily all that powerful, but are a lot of fun.

You know this would actually fit in with the campaign more than the extra money across the board. Thanks for the idea.

As for the duskblades. Hmm. Full BAB. Can ignore arcane spell failure. Combat Casting at 2nd level. Arcane channeling at 3rd. Let's not forget that the bonus STACK when put with other classes in gestalt. Yeah there are more broken ones out there but I just see the cheese on this one a mile away.

I also understand the concern that I am totally inviting people not to roleplay by having them higher powered. But as the DM, I'll be able to dictate where the battles occur and how frequent. I'm thinking starting them out at 6th level and going from there.

Deepblue706
2008-02-13, 09:52 PM
I think banning Duskblade is a bit silly, and your character creation method is a little too high-powered for my taste.

Devils_Advocate
2008-02-13, 09:57 PM
One of the problems with Bluff is that the rules don't cover trying to convince someone of the truth. Obviously a high Sense Motive on the part of the target should help you there instead of hurt you. But anyway, if you come up with rules for that, and roll that into the new skill too, I'd call the result the Convince skill. You use it to convince people that false things are true, or that true things are true, or that you'll hurt them very badly if they don't cooperate with you, whether or not that's true.

DementedFellow
2008-02-13, 09:58 PM
Some of those are rules which I, personally, would not implement. However, they all look reasonable, and I would not be adverse to playing with a DM who implemented those rules. The only thing I would recommend against would be how much gold you're giving them... An alternative might be to give them that value of extra equipment, chosen by you (and don't give them a chance to buy/sell magic gear immediately): This lets you do some balancing of the characters as you see them in action, and also gives you a chance to play with some items which aren't necessarily all that powerful, but are a lot of fun.

You know this would actually fit in with the campaign more than the extra money across the board. Thanks for the idea.

As for the duskblades. Hmm. Full BAB. Can ignore arcane spell failure. Combat Casting at 2nd level. Arcane channeling at 3rd. Let's not forget that the bonus STACK when put with other classes in gestalt. Yeah there are more broken ones out there but I just see the cheese on this one a mile away.

I also understand the concern that I am totally inviting people not to roleplay by having them higher powered. But as the DM, I'll be able to dictate where the battles occur and how frequent. I'm thinking starting them out at 6th level and going from there.

Nebo_
2008-02-13, 09:59 PM
Most of these are good, but you lose all credibility with number 3.

Zincorium
2008-02-13, 09:59 PM
You know this would actually fit in with the campaign more than the extra money across the board. Thanks for the idea.

As for the duskblades. Hmm. Full BAB. Can ignore arcane spell failure. Combat Casting at 2nd level. Arcane channeling at 3rd. Let's not forget that the bonus STACK when put with other classes in gestalt. Yeah there are more broken ones out there but I just see the cheese on this one a mile away.

The casting in armor doesn't apply to any other casting class, so if he goes with wizard levels he still can't wear armor without spells failing. Full BAB is vital for a fighting class, duskblade would be terrible without it.

And realize that arcane channeling only works with spells that you could make a touch attack with, so it's actually more likely to waste a spell, since armor can now negate the hit. The advantage is that you're also hitting your opponent once with a weapon if you succeed.

Frankly, Duskblade is just a 20 level version of the spellsword PrC from complete arcane.

DementedFellow
2008-02-13, 10:25 PM
Sorry for the double post. I'm having connection woes and I didn't think that one from earlier went in.

Anyway, another bit of not wanting the duskblades is I would rather have my characters find a way to make something similar with that than give them a class that can attack and cast magic with virtually no hampering. Where do you go when you gestalt with duskblade too? Rogue or Ranger would be the only ones that come to mind with me because they have a high reflex save and that is the one save that the Duskblade is weaker in. In my view, Duskblade is already gestalt, so incorporating it into a gestalt campaign is like adding sugar to sugar. I know people will be against this idea. But when the class is basically a spellcaster/fighter amalgamation it just seems redundant to have it in a campaign where you already are creating amalgamations. It dabbles in everything so it isn't a good class in my view to have in this campaign.

DementedFellow
2008-02-13, 10:31 PM
The one thing you ought to let your players know is that you intend to do a gestalt game. Either have everyone make gestalt characters, or have no one make them.

Make sure that you don't go overboard with the roleplaying experience points.
You want to remember that not everyone will be on the same level rp-wise, and you need to take that into account when determining rp-xp.

You might consider combining intimidate and diplomacy into speechcraft, and bluff and sense motive into deception, because intimidate and bluff seem to have very little to do with each other.
Thanks. I was planning on making it all-gestalt, I guess I didn't point that out.

Effort will be rewarded. I'm not expecting a stirring speech from the paladin or a fantastic song from the bard. Just so long as they make the conscious effort to 1) play the role and 2) stay in character.

Duly noted. I rather like that idea. The reason I put Bluff and Intimidate together in the first place is that two different characters could lets say get past a guard by using either one, when its basically the same modifier. In much the same way someone could hear a kobold approaching while the other can see it.

deadseashoals
2008-02-13, 10:32 PM
Seems fine except for the duskblade thing. As it's clearly not overpowered at all, your last point of resistance is that it's "already gestalt." It's not. It's a striker/dps class, basically a barbarian, except that it uses "magic" to deal its extra damage, rather than "being really mad." Playing a duskblade/sorcerer might be kind of fun for a gestalt game, and not at all redundant.

LotharBot
2008-02-13, 10:36 PM
If I was joining a game and the DM said it'd be mixed gestalt and not, that would be a huge warning sign to me. It says, in flashing bright letters, "the DM doesn't know how to judge power levels." It says the DM is going to be careless with the difficulty of encounters, throwing things at the party that are far too easy or far too hard, and having to modify things on the fly to keep from party-wiping us every third session.

You're clearly gearing up for a high-power campaign, with 5d6+reroll 1's (average stat array should be like... 18, 18, 17, 16, 14, 12) and gestalt. Be straightforward about what you expect of the players and how difficult you expect encounters to be, instead of leaving them to try to figure it out by guessing.

As for everything else: I like your modified awareness and interaction skills, and I like RP experience in general (though I think since it's a group game, the GROUP should gain RP experience if they RP something together.) I'd just be a bit afraid to join a group where the DM will allow anything from an unoptimized fighter to a barbarian//wizard or paladin//sorcerer.

DementedFellow
2008-02-13, 10:37 PM
Seems fine except for the duskblade thing. As it's clearly not overpowered at all, your last point of resistance is that it's "already gestalt." It's not. It's a striker/dps class, basically a barbarian, except that it uses "magic" to deal its extra damage, rather than "being really mad." Playing a duskblade/sorcerer might be kind of fun for a gestalt game, and not at all redundant.
I suppose you are right. Maybe I'm just prejudiced against the duskblades. I had mistakenly not understood the part about the armor only affecting the duskblade spell listings and I thought it would be too much. I thought if a character made a wizard/duskblade character, they could cast spells all willy-nilly, not be as squishy and have virtually no arcane spell failure while wearing armor. My bad.

Irreverent Fool
2008-02-13, 10:40 PM
If you're using gestalt characters, everyone should be using them. If you're not, nobody should. There will be an immense power disparity between the two.

Similarly, if you're allowing gestalt, there's no reason to disallow duskblades.

Duskblades are good, yes, but they're less overpowered than an ubercharger build. All they do is damage, and they only do a lot of it, not ridiculous amounts. If you are disallowing them due to being overpowered, then you better disallow uses of mounts, rhino's rush, lances, wizards, clerics, the natural spell feat, power attack, shock trooper, celerity, Tome of Battle.... and so on

The rest of it is totally cool. I'd play with it. Looks like a high-powered game and there's nothing wrong with that.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-02-13, 10:41 PM
Nice rules no one should have a problem playing under them unless they love Duskblades. The extra wealth is really nice at levels 1 -5 and nice at 6-11 or 12. I really like #5 the role playing award.

DementedFellow
2008-02-13, 10:45 PM
If I was joining a game and the DM said it'd be mixed gestalt and not, that would be a huge warning sign to me. It says, in flashing bright letters, "the DM doesn't know how to judge power levels." It says the DM is going to be careless with the difficulty of encounters, throwing things at the party that are far too easy or far too hard, and having to modify things on the fly to keep from party-wiping us every third session.

You're clearly gearing up for a high-power campaign, with 5d6+reroll 1's (average stat array should be like... 18, 18, 17, 16, 14, 12) and gestalt. Be straightforward about what you expect of the players and how difficult you expect encounters to be, instead of leaving them to try to figure it out by guessing.

As for everything else: I like your modified awareness and interaction skills, and I like RP experience in general (though I think since it's a group game, the GROUP should gain RP experience if they RP something together.) I'd just be a bit afraid to join a group where the DM will allow anything from an unoptimized fighter to a barbarian//wizard or paladin//sorcerer.

Yes it would be my first time working with gestalt and yes, I will be green at that aspect of it.

And yes it will be higher-powered.

See, I know my group. And while that is a nice idea for a group experience thing, we have two players that there to roll dice and virtually add no RP to the campaign. By rewarding the others for actual roleplaying, it is my hope to encourage these two lackers to catch the hint. Of course I will be letting them all know that actually roleplaying will be encouraged beforehand.

Voyager_I
2008-02-13, 11:10 PM
As long as they're all Gestalt, it's a fine high-powered campaign.

Except for the Duskblade bit. Whenever I see DM's arbitrarily banning small aspects of the game because "they think it's unbalanced" while simultaneously ignoring the countless things in Core that are laughably more broken, it sets off one of my warning lights. It says: "Warning: Liable to pick small battles in the middle of play with no warning, no RAW support, and little real justification that will have a negligible effect on the game as a whole but could potentially shaft your character at any time. Also likely a poor judge of balance and/or have a tendency to misinterpret the rules in ways that could kill you all unreasonably."

I'm not saying the above is necessarily true about you, it's just one of the warning signs I look for, and Rule 3 catches my attention...


...at least you aren't banning Trip and Disarm because you think they make Fighters overpowered (this really happened).

Kraggi
2008-02-13, 11:32 PM
My first experience with DnD was someone telling me they didn't allow the monk in their campaign because it was overpowered.

...Then I came here.

Miles Invictus
2008-02-14, 12:25 AM
I suppose you are right. Maybe I'm just prejudiced against the duskblades. I had mistakenly not understood the part about the armor only affecting the duskblade spell listings and I thought it would be too much. I thought if a character made a wizard/duskblade character, they could cast spells all willy-nilly, not be as squishy and have virtually no arcane spell failure while wearing armor. My bad.

I know some DMs (good DMs, at that) who wouldn't have budged an inch after declaring something unbalanced. You've earned my respect.

To encourage roleplay, you could try having your players fill out a "background sheet", that they keep with their character sheet.
* Name three quirks or personality traits that make your character stand out. (examples: Outspoken, Shy, Excited, Calm, Generous, Frugal, etc)
* Name three things your character likes.
* Name three things your character hates.
* Name three close friends or allies of your character. Briefly describe each and explain why you are friends.
* Name one sworn, personal enemy of your character. This enemy must be aware your character exists. Briefly describe this enemy, why you are enemies, and explain why the two of you are unlikely to fight each other directly.

(If you have your players generate friends and enemies, I recommend providing a list of names for your less imaginative players. Antagonists like "Lord Buttasseface" and "Duke Richard of Wangaria", while amusing, do not contribute to serious roleplay.)

My thought is that by writing it down and keeping it with the character sheets, you assign significance to it, as well as give your players a foundation to base their roleplaying on.

RTGoodman
2008-02-14, 12:41 AM
My first experience with DnD was someone telling me they didn't allow the monk in their campaign because it was overpowered.

...Then I came here.

You know, all of my groups still think the Monk is the most powerful class, and that VoP is the most broken aspect of D&D. Of course, we can't have a group that doesn't have a straight Fighter without Power Attack and two CE Rogues. :smallannoyed:


Anyway, since you've confirmed that everyone is going to be gestalt, I think these all seem pretty good. The only problem I have is the extra gold, which seems a little much, but the aforementioned solution of you picking the items instead of having them buy stuff could work. Just giving them the gold could end up with some overpowered stuff at that level. (You're worried about Duskblade casting in light armor - just wait until some Wizard would show up with a +1 twilight mithral chainshirt at, say, level 6.)

Lord Xaedien
2008-02-14, 12:52 AM
Just keep in mind when planning encounters for your characters that they can be very powerful thanks to their gestalt abilities. It can be hard for a DM to consider all the possible tricks a Gestalt party can use to deal with the challenges presented to them, so expect a steep learning curve in your first few sessions to determine the level of difficulty you need to present your players ot make the game world fun.

CockroachTeaParty
2008-02-14, 01:14 AM
Well, it's probably beating a dead horse by this point, but I'm one of those pro-duskblade types. There's plenty of decent classes to gestalt with a duskblade, by the way. Oddly enough, duskblade // soulknife is a nifty combo. Better HD, and you get your fun brain sword, while retaining all the delicious duskbladey-ness. Also, duskblade // psychic warrior or psion can be good, especially if you focus your powers on self-buffs and let your magic take care of the offense.

Although, it doesn't sound like you're using psionics... A duskblade // dragon shaman wouldn't be bad, nor would a duskblade // fighter, as more feats are always welcome.

Oh, and concerning the 'monks are overpowered myth,' I'm yet to convert a great deal of my friends to the realm of wisdom. Of course, these are people that would scream 'madness!' at a wizard banning evocation. *sigh*

13_CBS
2008-02-14, 01:34 AM
If the characters are going gestalt while the others are not, then, as you said, not only will they need a VERY good backstory to justify that, but also they'll probably be seen as multi-talented prodigies. They don't just switch fields and gain average prowess in those two fields; they gain the prowess of two people. Thus, such gestalt people MUST be a rarity, or otherwise it'll be odd to have the non-gestalt people around.

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-14, 01:42 AM
I like point buy, I don't roll for my class why should I roll my stats?

Runa
2008-02-14, 01:58 AM
I'm kicking around the idea of DMing with my friends. It will actually be the first time DMing with them, but I have had experience with a couple other groups. Anyway, I was wondering what people would think of these house rules. Are they outrageous? broken? useless?

[LIST=1]
Spot and Listen are combined into Awareness. Chances are if you are listening for something, you are looking too. Likewise for spotting. Ever turn down the radio when you are trying to find some place while driving?

I wouldn't agree with the way you put it (if you're in the dark, wouldn't your Spot suck and Listen be better than Spot? There's a reason they're technically separate...), but Listen seems like it could certainly be rolled into Spot for any character that isn't, well, deaf or hard of hearing, in ordinary circumstances. :smalltongue: If nothing else, it cuts down on the number of d20 rolls folks have to do, which should speed play considerably, especially if you've got a large group of players.



Bluff and Intimidate are combined into a skill to be named later - thinking something like Silver Tongue (as ugh as that sounds). Yeah the name is awful, but I see no reason why one couldn't cut down on the ranks wasted on two very similar skill groups. All that remains is to pick a name that would encompass both traits.

Intimidation is half bluffing the other person to begin with. :smallwink: Why not just cross Intimidate out entirely and work it as a Bluff check with intimidation-type circumstance bonuses (i.e. if you're wearing bunny ears, -1, if you've a blood-stained sword in your hand and you're two feet taller than the guy you're trying to intimidate, +5ish, whatever)?

Or maybe just do what someone else above me suggested, modify it and call it Convince.



Gestalt characters are A-Okay. I'm going to be throwing some nasties at them. But in order for someone to have a Bard/Paladin or a Barbarian/Wizard, they have to come up with a backstory. I'm trying to encourage roleplay and if they have to come up with a background, then maybe it will help them get involved.

I agree that Gestalt characters, particularly in unusual combos, should definitely have some sort of backstory, but then, I'm a story/character-centric player to begin with. A Bard//Paladin of Freedom drow works particularly well for instance, as a worshiper of the FR mostly-drow goddess Elistraee, a CG music-centric, pro-bard deity for whom such a character could easily be among the most devout of her followers.

In any case though, it's worth pointing out that Gestalt is a bit of a headache to work with from a DM standpoint, because it makes encounters more complicated to make. If you're used to Gestalt as a player or have done it for other groups, I guess it'll be OK, but keep in mind it will be a lot more work for you! :smallsmile:


Extra experience will be awarded for roleplaying and not just rolling the dice. This includes songs from bards, talking in character (yes something that simple can net an extra 50 experience at the end of the night).

This is also a good one, because if nothing else it makes things more entertaining in my experience. Countless entertaining in-jokes have resulted in my group from players who actually bothered with a backstory.



Character creation will be 5d6 minus the lowest two. Reroll 1s. This is more of a house rule with the group as a whole. We use this whenever we play.

In my group, we do the same, minus the rerolling ones thing but with the addition of the following:

*anything below ten gets bumped up to ten, so no one takes penalties.

*You actually roll seven instead of six times, and take out the lowest of those.

*You actually do the above stuff twice or more (depending on the DM's preference), and pick the best set (no mixing and matching, though)

*Really low rolls in the set you pick (like 11 or 10), you can ask get to reroll that particular stat (DM's discretion, often based on how crappy or good the rest of their rolls were - if you inexplicably do what I did tonight and roll four tens in a row, for instance...).



Our group also sometimes puts an entertaining rule into play that regards natural 1s on the d20 rolls as being "not just auto failure, but spectacularly bizarre failure", as well as an additionally fun rule where if your opponent rolls a natural 20 and you roll a natural 1 (or vice versa), they actually fail, but only because you "fail" to avoid it in the normal way so spectacularly that their "flawless, dead-on" attack actually fails in the most freakishly funny way possible - for instance, you trip over your own two feet, and the dire wolf smacks face-first into the tree behind you at full charge. Ralph (the DM who created this occasional house rule) described it simply as "something crazy happens", and let's just say that he made good on that description.

This, of course, is more for entertainment/randomness value than game balance, and we don't even do it every campaign either. Just something that occasionally livens up the game a little. :smallbiggrin:


-Runa

Angelmaker
2008-02-14, 03:04 AM
Interesting read so far, I canīt comment on the class/power balance issue, but I certainly liked the idea of merging similiar skills. Might consider that for our next campagins.

Just a note on the roll your stats thingie: We have always been very successful in using the point-stats system. All attributes starting at 8, and buying your stats with 32 points ( like in neverwinter nights ), where attributes above 13 cost 2, above 15 cost 3 and so on.

More balanced this way, since we have a girl in our group that has a fantastic luck on most rolls - with any dice. :smallamused:

If you want your campaign to be high powered, simply increase the buy points. 36 is pretty powerful, 42 is already overpowered, imho, granting stats of at least all 14 + a really high stat or something.

its_all_ogre
2008-02-14, 05:06 AM
gestalt takes a lot of learning to get used to.
duskblade//soulknife someone mentioned, now that is a really interesting idea! i like duskblade//scout. you get more speed, skirmish, bonus feats the only thing you miss out on really is a better HD.
still compared to rogue//cleric will be lacking in power or ranger//wizard.

KIDS
2008-02-14, 05:10 AM
Basically fine but:

3 and 4 are somewhat hypocritical in regards to each other. If players don't mind though....

5. (more gold) can serve a purpose but it will in general just increase the amount of bookkeeping and end up boggling down the game

7. 5d6 minus lowest two - seems a bit overboard to me but I'm used to playing 25 point buy so... heh. Guess it could affect CR but CR is screwed already.

Talanic
2008-02-14, 05:31 AM
Oh, forgot to mention when I suggested Influence:

In my games, a houserule is that a successful Bluff check convinces the target that YOU believe what you say to be true. It doesn't necessarily convince THEM.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2008-02-14, 05:43 AM
I'm definitely going to have to agree with most everyone when they say banning the Duskblade due to being overpowered simply isn't just. On paper it looks overpowered, but in application it's not nearly as powerful as CoDzilla or wizards. There was actually a great debate when Duskblades first came about, everyone and their grandma saw it and without much reasoning, decided it was too much and 'overpowered'. I've seen them in play, and honestly they're nothing to write home about, fun, but no powerhouse.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-14, 08:40 AM
...at least you aren't banning Trip and Disarm because you think they make Fighters overpowered (this really happened).

Wait, I want to hear this. Send me a PM or post here, but I gotta know how this happened.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-14, 08:52 AM
(1) reasonable.
(2) reasonable in principle, but note that bluff is already one of the stronger skills (among others, because it synergizes with everything and its little cat)
(3) that's silly, duskblades are a balanced class and not nearly as powerful as a wizard/cleric/druid. Given that you already give people much higher stats a lot more gold, AND gestalt, why on earth are you worried about duskies?
(4) meh. Matter of taste, really. Gestalt is not a houserule per se, since it's in the DMG. It mostly encourages powerplay.
(5) WBL is just a random number anyway, so replacing it by another random number isn't going to change things all that much.
(6) that's what most good DMs do. However, 50 experience points is worth diddly squat, if you want to reward your players for RP'ing you should make the reward meaningful. Up to 500 xp per session for good RP'ing is more like it, possibly more at high levels. Note that this "houserule" is juxtaposed to 4, 5 and 7.
(7) that's just more encouraging power play. If you're that worried about low scores, use point buy.

MorkaisChosen
2008-02-14, 08:54 AM
Sorry, am I reading this wrong when I get the impression that Demented Fellow is now accepting Duskblades? We don't all need to jump on and say "OMG allow duskblaed" when he's agreed. (I'm a Duskblade fan myself, I just think they're cool...)

On a side-note, would Duskblade/Spellthief work for a Gestalt?

Kurald Galain
2008-02-14, 08:54 AM
Wait, I want to hear this. Send me a PM or post here, but I gotta know how this happened.

No, post it here, please!

(well, not in this thread per se, but start a new one about stupid DMs or something)

Telonius
2008-02-14, 09:08 AM
I'm kicking around the idea of DMing with my friends. It will actually be the first time DMing with them, but I have had experience with a couple other groups. Anyway, I was wondering what people would think of these house rules. Are they outrageous? broken? useless?


Spot and Listen are combined into Awareness. Chances are if you are listening for something, you are looking too. Likewise for spotting. Ever turn down the radio when you are trying to find some place while driving?
Bluff and Intimidate are combined into a skill to be named later - thinking something like Silver Tongue (as ugh as that sounds). Yeah the name is awful, but I see no reason why one couldn't cut down on the ranks wasted on two very similar skill groups. All that remains is to pick a name that would encompass both traits.
No Duskblades. I think they are overpowered. And quite honestly, I'm giving a lot to my players as it is.
Gestalt characters are A-Okay. I'm going to be throwing some nasties at them. But in order for someone to have a Bard/Paladin or a Barbarian/Wizard, they have to come up with a backstory. I'm trying to encourage roleplay and if they have to come up with a background, then maybe it will help them get involved.
Players start with more gold in addition to what the DMG says they should get at their level. Meaning from levels 1-5 5,000 gp, 6-10 10,000 gp, 11-15 15,000 gp and 16-20 20,000 gp. We all like magic items. I won't mind if someone keens their blades or whatever, as I have said, I'm going to be throwing at lot at them.
Extra experience will be awarded for roleplaying and not just rolling the dice. This includes songs from bards, talking in character (yes something that simple can net an extra 50 experience at the end of the night).
Character creation will be 5d6 minus the lowest two. Reroll 1s. This is more of a house rule with the group as a whole. We use this whenever we play.


Comments? Suggestions? Are these things game-breakingly bad? What are some house rules that you have used to much acclaim and/or success?


1. Good.
2. I'd suggest, instead, combining Diplomacy and Intimidate into a single skill. It makes a bit more sense.
3. If you're going to ban overpowered things, start with Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. Duskblade is small potatoes compared to them.
4. Gestalt is fine if you want it. But either go all-gestalt, or none. I completely agree with the backstory requirement. I'd require that whether or not they were gestalt.
5. Sounds fine, as long as you keep the challenges challenging. You might want to be a litte careful if they have an Item Crafter in the group.
6. Excellent.
7. Sounds good to me.

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-14, 09:33 AM
The only thing I'd say is to give out more role-playing XP. 50 XP is, as someone has already said, worth very little. Depending on the style of the campaign and the level of the characters, I've seen as much as 3000 XP given out for roleplaying in a single (albeit 10-hour) session. I especially like giving RPXP just because it makes the game more fun, not only because it gets people to role play more, but with at least some of the groups I tend to play with, more role-play means more ridiculous intra-party combat/trickery/whatever.

warmachine
2008-02-14, 10:24 AM
Duskblade and Gestalt has already been analysed. It's too uber-powered for my tastes but if uber-powered works for your group, it works for your group. However, you want to encourage roleplaying yet you give out the uber-power options. Guess which part of the player's personality will be jacked up the most? What will this aspect do with an incentive of spendable resources (XP)? Abuse the conditions needed to obtain this incentive. That is, they'll roleplay badly and in a contrived way. This is only one step below singing with no talent.

If you need to give incentives for acting in-character, rather than the player acting for the fun of it, then the players have little interest in acting or lack confidence to do so. In the former case, uber-power encourages power-gaming instead. In the latter, the player will be discouraged by the power-gamer players jacked up on the uber-power.

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-14, 10:47 AM
However, you want to encourage roleplaying yet you give out the uber-power options. Guess which part of the player's personality will be jacked up the most? What will this aspect do with an incentive of spendable resources (XP)? Abuse the conditions needed to obtain this incentive. That is, they'll roleplay badly and in a contrived way. This is only one step below singing with no talent.

If you need to give incentives for acting in-character, rather than the player acting for the fun of it, then the players have little interest in acting or lack confidence to do so. In the former case, uber-power encourages power-gaming instead. In the latter, the player will be discouraged by the power-gamer players jacked up on the uber-power.

I have never, ever had problems with this. I find that it's a good way to get people who are new to role playing comfortable, and I discourage excessive cheese in my games anyway. Plus, if they are RPing badly and in a contrived way, as you say, don't award XP. award it for legit RP, and leave it at that. Doesn't seem too complicated.

warmachine
2008-02-14, 12:42 PM
I have never, ever had problems with this [XP for roleplaying and uber-power options]. I find that it's a good way to get people who are new to role playing comfortable, and I discourage excessive cheese in my games anyway. Plus, if they are RPing badly and in a contrived way, as you say, don't award XP. award it for legit RP, and leave it at that. Doesn't seem too complicated.
Umm... if you discourage excessive cheese, then you are doing the opposite of what the OP intends: encourage excessive cheese via uber-power house rules. Alas, your experience isn't that applicable in this case. You've never encouraged power gamer tendencies. Meanwhile, 5d6, re-roll 1s, extra cash and gestalt sure does.

Rad
2008-02-14, 01:02 PM
If duskblade has to go because you cam just be a wizard//fighter...

then what about the Ranger (Druid//Fighter), the Paladin (Cleric//Fighter) the Beguiller (Wizard//Rogue) and more?

I'm fine on the others (I'd use point-buy tho) if you're in high-powered games. On the skills what I would do would be

Spot+Listen -> Perception
Diplomacy+Intimidate+Bluff -> Persuasion
Hide+Move Silently -> Stealth
Eliminate Use Rope. Use Escape Artist to tie people up and just make a knot otherwise.

Voyager_I
2008-02-14, 06:34 PM
Wait, I want to hear this. Send me a PM or post here, but I gotta know how this happened.

Not much to say. It was an advertisement for an online game, so I just didn't join it. To be fair, they weren't banned so much as heavily discouraged, and you weren't supposed to make a build that used them normally. Still, it's a definite warning sign.


On topic, I'll second Kurald on the XP thing. It's a good idea, but 50 XP is basically scroll fodder.

Blue Paladin
2008-02-14, 06:46 PM
1. Spot and Listen are combined into Awareness. Don't disagree.
2. Bluff and Intimidate are combined into [one] skill. Don't disagree.
3. No Duskblades. Disagree.
4. Gestalt characters are A-Okay. Vehemently disagree.
5. Players start with more gold... Disagree.
6. Extra experience will be awarded for roleplaying... Don't disagree.
7. Character creation will be 5d6 minus the lowest two & reroll 1s. Disagree.

1 & 2) If you're combining related skills, also consider combining Hide and Move Silently into Stealth. Consider consolidating Knowledges into other skills (e.g. Knowledge Nature goes into Survival; Knowledge Arcana goes into Spellcraft). This will have some big effects (Rogues suddenly have more SKP than they know what to do with) and some minor ones (no longer have as many synergies).

3) Don't think I can add anything to the Duskblade shouting match.

4) Gestalt is possibly the worst thing ever to hit D&D. It separates the power level of the players (and by extension, their characters) into distinct tiers: the ones who can power-game, and the ones who can break-the-game. The ones who can't power-game at all get no real benefit (look! I'm a Fighter//Barbarian!). This introduces an artificial division between the characters in game, as the "useful" characters get an increased percentage of "spotlight time", if you will. Also, the expanded skills of each individual can decrease the interdepency that is assumed within the standard 4-man group. "Don't need the meatshield; I have tons of hp." "Don't need the healer; I can heal myself." "Don't need the skillmonkey; I cast knock." "Don't need the monk; pass the beernuts." Sorry, couldn't resist that last one. In any event, it leads to less reason for players to work together; in a fundamentally team-oriented setting like D&D, this is inexcusable. IMO and all that...

5) Changing the players' wealth requires a shift in DMing. Significantly shorting the party of funds leads difficulties with minor obstacles; significantly increasing the party's funds leads to major confrontations being ridiculously easy. The WBL guidelines are by no means perfect, but they're at least a decent target to aim for.

6) As long as RP is not the only way to receive experience, I have no problem with awarding something a little extra here and there.

7) This method leads to a significantly higher power party. Dice rolling (while fun, I admit) can lead to drastically different power levels between characters. See my above mini-rant on gestalt for how I feel about that. Point buy establishes a baseline for all players to work from; if you want a higher power level for the party, increase it. Go nuts. 40 point buy. 50! But at least within the party there will be parity.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-02-15, 12:55 AM
I'm kicking around the idea of DMing with my friends. It will actually be the first time DMing with them, but I have had experience with a couple other groups. Anyway, I was wondering what people would think of these house rules. Are they outrageous? broken? useless?

These are totally tame. I'll chime in with the two dozen posters who've already said that your duskblade ban is weird, but even so I've played in much more restrictive campaigns and had fun. Anyway you might take my opinion with a grain of sand, as I did write up a 30+ page pdf of house rules for general public use.

warmachine
2008-02-15, 05:06 AM
If you want to encourage roleplaying, there is GURPS. It's a completely different game mechanic and style, including magic, but it does encourage roleplaying by giving character creation points for personality aspects such as Sense of Duty, Destiny, Sadism or Phobias. However, if the players are power gamers or munchkins with no love of acting, then it's probably a bad idea.

Jack Zander
2008-02-15, 11:58 AM
I'd call the charisma skills Guile.

Severus
2008-02-15, 01:31 PM
I agree that you shouldn't mix gestalt and non-gestalt.

What I'd house rule is "if you want to play, you must come up with a character history for me. No history, no play."

I think it would suck for your players to not quite get what they're giving up until later in the campaign. You want to get them all to the same place so you don't end up with gimped characters.