3.5E house rules?

[Quertus]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

And just Binding an Efreet for *1* Wish?

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

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