Real Man's D&D

[Satyr]

Real Men don't need stupid shirts.

Inspired by the abundance of threads dealing with the dislike for the aesthetics of optimisation, nostalgia or ways to deal with the D&D-typical overkill with many yet bland magical items, this collection of suggestions, house rules and many, many alternative class features should help to capture a more classic Sword and Sorcery feeling for characters and campaigns.

I remember reading quite plausible argumentations that the most iconic characters of fantasy literature – larger than life characters like Conan or Aragorn being only low to mid-level characters in D&D. I hate this. This pissed me off. Is there anything worse to say about a supposedly epic fantasy game than the fact that it seems unsuitable to capture the feeling of the staples of fantasy literature? King Conan is the epitome of being epic. You can measure awesomeness of fantasy characters in MicroConans. Any system where the very archetype of adventuring fantasy hero is reduced to a comparatively weak character has serious issues.

These rules were considered on the base of fantasy literature. The good stuff (Moorcock, Martin, Abercrombie), and the iconic stuff (Conan, Tolkien, Leiber): You know what these have in common? The protagonists are heroes who solve their problems by beating them with a sword. If they have access to magic – which is not even that common among the traditional fantasy heroes – this always play a secondary role to swordsmanship – and this is how it should be. Swordfights are awesome. Wiggling your fingers until your problems go away is not. Not even the iconic wizard – Gandalf, you remember him – uses his magic more often than his sword. Not even the most iconic D&D character – you know, this Drow with the two scimitars – is a magic user per se. The reason for this is simple: Magic makes for good antagonists, but for protagonists, it is not very interesting.

The following suggestions, rule adaptations and the like are based on the assumption that a good fantasy game should capture the feel of good and iconic fantasy literature.

And yes, you could likewise use something like Iron Heroes or Serpents and Sewers. But I think this version here is a lot more accessible.

The ideas are, that the main characters of a satisfying fantasy game are classic fantasy heroes who can either outfight or outsmart their foes and are usually not limited to one particular niche but have a decent all-round awesomeness – while spellcasters have two defined roles: Villains, and Comic Relief.

And, to make it a little plausible, every aspect has a little justification and background paragraph.


These rules use the following concepts:

• Protagonists are Heroes. Heroes are warriors (or at least charming rogues)
  
• Gestalt Rules (at least for heroes) are fun.
  
• The Tome of Battle adds variation to the game and is a good raw material for heroes.
  
• Level 4 is the new level 1
  
• All Magical Items are unique Artifacts and are awesome, rare and precious by default.
  
• You don’t need to change spellcasters, you only have to control the access to spells.
  
• Flying heroes belong in a four color comic, not a fantasy epic.
  
• Teleporter belong in Star Trek, and are not even really fun there.

The Little Index:
Abilities and Character Build

Available Classes

Gestalt Class Combinations


Alternative Class Features and specific rules for single classes/ class Errata

Available Resources

Campaign Rules

Action Economy and Spellcasting

Specific Clarifications

[Satyr]

Abilities and Character Build
Abilities are based on rolls. The rolls consist of six times 5 dice, drop the two lowest and reroll once per roll all 1s and 2s. The ability scores can be distributed at will.

Hitdice for Player characters are roll twice, the higher result counts

The game uses Gestalt rules, but with limitations on the choice of the Gestalt sides.

Every branch of the gestalt is treated separately. A character cannot take the same class on both branches of the Gestalt; once a class level was gained on the one side, it is banned for the other side.

Favorite Class rules are applied separately for each branch of the Gestalt build.

Prestige classes which advance two different spellcasting types are always banned. This also affects prestige classes which would progress both spellcasting and one other similar set of powers, like invocations.

Racial Hitdice and Level adjustment may be taken on one side of the Gestalt progression as if they were NPC class levels (meaning that they can be combined with full caster classes). The same works for Monstrous advancement levels (such as those found in Savage Species).

Characters can take up to two Flaws and gain the usual Bonus Feats for them. Every character has to take one Flaw. Characters with a spellcasting ability have to take a flaw that influences their spellcasting ability.

Reasons: With these rules, player characters are a lot more spectacular in their own rights, and are thus a lot less dependant on magic and supportive items. The rules for the gestalt design are more clarified to ease the use of the rules and hinder more bizarre builds. The flaws create more well-rounded characters, and again help to make characters a tad more powerful, but mostly because little perfect characters aren't that interesting to begin with.

[Prodan]

Why don't you just play a system like Riddle of Steel?

[Grumman]

Any system where the very archetype of adventuring fantasy hero is reduced to a comparatively weak character has serious issues.

What nonsense. The existence of the levels 7-20 do nothing to make your adventuring fantasy hero weaker, they just extend the scale. If it was incapable of representing these sorts of heroes, that would be a "serious issue".

[Math_Mage]

Why don't you just play a system like Riddle of Steel?

Because he can?

Also:

And yes, you could likewise use something like Iron Heroes or Serpents and Sewers. But I think this version here is a lot more accessible.

[Satyr]

Why don't you just play a system like Riddle of Steel?

Because nitpicking on D&D and coming up with houserules is what I do if I get bored and have nothing significant to do.

Besides, I believe that "Play something else" is a terrible advice. It's basically saying " Don't bother, it's not the system - you are wrong." Roleplaying mechanics are not carved in stone. Rules are flexible and always, always, always should be adjusted and personal tastes and preferences of the particularly group. I strongly assume that you and your group always know better what's fun for you than a game designer you have never met.

What nonsense. The existence of the levels 7-20 do nothing to make your adventuring fantasy hero weaker, they just extend the scale. If it was incapable of representing these sorts of heroes, that would be a "serious issue".

It is a question of scales and references, not absolutes. I don't think that Conan deserves to be reduced to a low level character. Frankly, I also don't think that player characters deserce to be more awesome than that. Perhaps similarly awesome if they are really, really good and put really, really mucgh effort in it - but as an automatism? Hell no.

[Prodan]

Besides, I believe that "Play something else" is a terrible advice. It's basically saying " Don't bother, it's not the system - you are wrong."

No... it's saying the exact opposite.

Roleplaying mechanics are not carved in stone. Rules are flexible and always, always, always should be adjusted and personal tastes and preferences of the particularly group. I strongly assume that you and your group always know better what's fun for you than a game designer you have never met.

Yes, but if you're going to make a ton of far reaching changes to better emulate the feel of a specific fantasy genre, why not start with a product that is closer to your desired final result?

[Satyr]

Available Classes:
These houserules refer mostly to two types of classes: The martial Adepts from Tome of Battle, and diverse Factotum class variations.
Having both psionics and magic in the same game is pretty redundant, so we only need one of these two systems. While the psionic rules are more sensible, useful and fun, the usual Vancian Magic is pretty the default set-up and thus these are in use.
Basically all non-psionic classes are valid choices, except the Truenamer and the Artificer.

Reasons: Psionic Classes are not valid, because there is already a magic system, that doesn’t necessarily need to be duplicated. The Truenamer just plain sucks. And planning a campaign which emphasizes the personal power of characters over item dependability doesn’t cope well with an Artificer who can introduce practically every magical item.

[Satyr]

Yes, but if you're going to make a ton of far reaching changes to better emulate the feel of a specific fantasy genre, why not start with a product that is closer to your desired final result?

Again, writing houserules is a form of procrastination which does not require too much effort. Less effort than learning a new system. And people like playing D&D. For various reasons. It's cerainly not the best (or even one of the better) systemsv around, but it is huge. It is easier to find players for a more or less obscure houseruled D20 derivate than for a better designed and more suitable other system, solely because it's D20.
Besides, it's more cost effective. A new system also requires that you purchase it. There are a few good free systems, but they are still quite obscure.

[Satyr]

Gestalt Class Combinations
This is probably the core of the suggestions involved in this - the framework of how to design the Gestalt combinations to create heroic characters.

Completely mundane characters such as fighters, rogues or knights may be combined freely with every other completely mundane class. The dragon shaman count as completely mundane characters for this purpose, despite his otherwise supernatural abilities.

Initiating classes (crusaders, warblades, and swordsages) and characters with limited spellcasting, such as bards or the different factotum variations can be combined freely with mundane classes but not with each other (So, Warblade/Fighter is a valid combination; Warblade/Hexblade is not). Dragonfire Adepts and Warlocks only count as partial spellcasters for this purpose.


Full Spellcasters such as Clerics or Wizards can only be combined with a NPC class. Binders count as full casters for this purpose.

Racial Hitdice, Level Adjustment and Racial progression levels count as NPC classes for this purpose.

Some spellcasters may be combined with usual mundane classes instead of a NPC class, for some, the limitations are more rigid:

The Beguiler may be combined with the Ninja, Rogue or Swashbuckler instead of a NPC class.

Healers may be combined with Paladin, Ranger or Monk.

Warmages may be combined with Fighter, Marshal or Swashbuckler.

Wu Jen and Shugenja may be combined with Monk, Ninja and Samurai.

Archivists, Clerics and Druids may explicitly not be combined with Level adjustments, racial hitdice or monster advancement classes.

Wizards may only be combined with the Commoner, Aristocrat and Warrior classes. They may explicitly not be combined with Level adjustments, racial hitdice or monster advancement classes.

A character may have only one class that grants one type of magic; a player can only have one base class that grants divine or arcane spells (or invocations). This does not include prestige classes (so, a character may not take both Wizard and Sorcerer levels on the same branch of the Gestalt, or Bard//Duskblade on two different branches). For this purpose alone, the martial adept classes’ maneuvers count as a form of spellcasting.

Reasons: The more powerful or exotic a class is, the less Gestalt options it gets. The limit on different spellcasters are there to ease the bookkeeping and emphasize the philosophy of the campaign which is more focused on heroes than wizards.
The basic assumption is that the heroic character which is the target of these rules uses either a Tome of Battle class, the Factotum, or both.
The more severe limitations for powerful spellcasters are also there to create a soft ceiling for exotic features - a character with powerful spellcasting is already exotic enough that he or she doesn't need to be a obscure creature from outer space.

[Friend Computer]

{Scrubbed}

[pasko77]

It is a question of scales and references, not absolutes. I don't think that Conan deserves to be reduced to a low level character. Frankly, I also don't think that player characters deserce to be more awesome than that.

I think it's a problem of definition of "awesome".
Conan is just some idiot with muscles. I can't see where his awesomeness says "he's the bestest character ever". That's a matter of personal tastes, and I don't measure characters in "microconans". I like Elric much more, and he's literally able to command the gods (ok, not reliably, but still).

The houserules you are searching for do already exist, they're called "E6". What you are trying to do is unreasonable. For instance, if Conan was level 20, do you realise that he could swim into molten lava for several rounds?

[Gan The Grey]

Somebody here do that thing where you link that page that talks about the levels of iconic heroes statted out in D&D, because it specifically addresses the OP's issue with 'My favorite fictional heroes are more powerful than D&D paints them."

[aberratio ictus]

I really like the effort. Carry on.

[JonestheSpy]

Good tread Satyr. too tired to comment intelligently, but hopefuly tomorrow. Kudos.

[Math_Mage]

Somebody here do that thing where you link that page that talks about the levels of iconic heroes statted out in D&D, because it specifically addresses the OP's issue with 'My favorite fictional heroes are more powerful than D&D paints them."

Well, it's here, but the OP realizes that. But instead of calibrating his fantasy heroes to D&D, he wants to calibrate D&D to his fantasy heroes.

And he wants to use gestalt to lower power levels... This might be a fix that improves game balance, and I will applaud if that turns out to be the case. But it's not a good way to get back to Conan and Tolkien. As others have said, E6 is a better variant for that, if we're sticking to D&D houserules.

[Milskidasith]

I find the notion that playing D&D in a certain way is "wrong" and your method is better because it's for "real men" offensive.

Anyway, you know what? Conan is low level. So what? If you think he's awesome, that's fine. You can be a dull as 15th level character, or an awesome fourth level character. Trying to change the d20 system when A: other systems and B: E6 work to limit the power to where melee is viable is a lot of work for no real benefit, and from the rules listed so far, all you've done is screwed basic melee classes even more because they don't have gear but full casters still exist.

As a side note, the wording you've got for the gestalt is... odd. You say that fighters and such can only gestalt with other mundane classes, but also that semi-magical and martial adepts can only gestalt with... mundane classes. So if you're a warblade, gestalting with fighter is fine, but since you are a fighter, you aren't supposed to gestalt with warblade.

[Math_Mage]

Trying to change the d20 system when A: other systems and B: E6 work to limit the power to where melee is viable is a lot of work for no real benefit, and from the rules listed so far, all you've done is screwed basic melee classes even more because they don't have gear but full casters still exist.

FWIW, the OP has indicated a desire to nerf casters via their spells, which would work...with tremendous amounts of work.

[Milskidasith]

FWIW, the OP has indicated a desire to nerf casters via their spells, which would work...with tremendous amounts of work.

Most "nerf spellcasters via their spells" projects generally go the "You fail X % of the time" or "You summon horrible monstrosities you're going to have to cast spells at to kill, summoning more later" or "Your spells take so long to cast combat is over before you cast anything" or other types of stealth ban. Actually individually changing all the spells in D&D would be so time consuming you may as well just write a new system, especially because basically every "Save or suck/die" is more than non ToB melee (and even low level ToB melee) can do.

[Harperfan7]

I find the notion that playing D&D in a certain way is "wrong" and your method is better because it's for "real men" offensive.

I don't see the issue.

Also: Really?

Anyways, the issue here is that D&D goes far beyond most iconic fantasy-fiction stories in terms of character power, mostly because of magic. In real life, it'd be damn impossible to be better than Conan, but in D&D where warriors have good reason to aim higher, it's not a big deal. It's like a gold fish getting bigger in a bigger pond, warriors have to adapt to the world they live in.

[Heliomance]

Most "nerf spellcasters via their spells" projects generally go the "You fail X % of the time" or "You summon horrible monstrosities you're going to have to cast spells at to kill, summoning more later" or "Your spells take so long to cast combat is over before you cast anything" or other types of stealth ban. Actually individually changing all the spells in D&D would be so time consuming you may as well just write a new system, especially because basically every "Save or suck/die" is more than non ToB melee (and even low level ToB melee) can do.

Thinking about this, how much would changing the vast majority of spells to full-round actions make a difference? Would it help bring casters down into slightly less dominating everything forever, in combat at least?

[Morph Bark]

While I appreciate the effort you're trying to put forth, and I very much agree that "play something else" is terrible advice (because if you can find a DnD group in your area, they might be interested in changing some rules up, but they might not be interested in a different tabletop RPG), I don't agree with the notion that low-level characters can't be epic heroes.

And spellcasting makes for lousy heroes because it isn't interesting? Uh, wrong. The reason so many mythic heroes are primarily swordfighters is because magic was reserved for mythical creatures and gods, and even if they had magic they knew little of it and were more experienced with the sword. In those very rare cases where magic was more common, that magic wasn't the way it is in DnD, mainly consisting of divinations, necromancy and things that one would agree with with dubbing it not being manly. A wizard who crashes through the enemy blowing up a platoon of goblins with a fireball and making the dragon die in a cave-in from his earthquake before he casts a quickened spell to protect himself? Still manly.

To emphasize, yesterday I found a link in the signature of a member of this forum that shows what I mean really well. You may not be into video games, but this can also really illustrate the idea of how to play DnD in a manly way: here it is.

[Gan The Grey]

Thinking about this, how much would changing the vast majority of spells to full-round actions make a difference? Would it help bring casters down into slightly less dominating everything forever, in combat at least?

I think the most common argument is that it is the spell effects themselves that are broken, and changing the casting time wouldn't significantly hinder casters. Their isn't much difference between a SoD that kills as a standard action and one that does the same as a full-round. The target is still dead, and your fighter still feels useless.

[Eldan]

Heh. That reminds me of that game I once started here (which crashed and burned on page 1) where everyone had to gestalt pure barbarian with one other class of at least 3/4 BAB. And they had to be old or venerable.

Modeled on Pratchett's Last Hero. Would have been cool if it had worked.

[potatocubed]

I think the most common argument is that it is the spell effects themselves that are broken, and changing the casting time wouldn't significantly hinder casters. Their isn't much difference between a SoD that kills as a standard action and one that does the same as a full-round. The target is still dead, and your fighter still feels useless.

I would argue that the foundation of the wizards > fighters problem is that magic is rewriting reality, and fighting is hitting people with sticks. It isn't the spell effects that are broken so much as the whole concept of magic.

You can fix this by adding pseudo-magical (or actual magical) effects to fighting, a la ToB, Exalted, or 4e. Alternatively you can add drawbacks or limitations to magic so that reality-altering power isn't all that great - see Call of Cthulhu, Unknown Armies, 7th Sea, or Dragon Age for attempts at this with varying levels of success. Or you can abandon all hope of balance and make everyone play mages, like in Ars Magica.

But so long as you imagine magic to be rewriting reality and fighting to be wholly 'within reality' you're going to keep running into this problem.

[Gnaeus]

The reason for this is simple: Magic makes for good antagonists, but for protagonists, it is not very interesting.

The wealthiest woman in England and her millions of fans called. They say this statement is wrong.

Other popular series with wizard protagonists available on request.

[potatocubed]

The wealthiest woman in England and her millions of fans called.

I wondered for a moment what the Queen has to do with magic.

[Eldan]

Quiet, he can't be told! The Norrellites will kill us!

Anyway, yes, no magic in England.

[Kaiyanwang]

I wondered for a moment what the Queen has to do with magic.

Me too

[Heliomance]

Me too

And me

Yes, a SoD as a full round action still makes the fighter cry, but making spells full-round actions means they become interruptible. If your spell effect doesn't go off until a full round after you start casting, everyone has a chance to hit you and make you lose that spell.