Most Common House Rules?

[rrwoods]

The DM of my main game does *essentially* milestone leveling. We track XP but it’s just a progress tracker. Characters can still spend XP, and if there’s a character that’s a different level, we reverse engineer the increased amount by looking at the encounter table and scaling.

[Thurbane]

I don't know if this is only our table, but Improved Toughness counts as Toughness for all req purposes.

[RexDart]

Sounds like the "No XP penalty for multiclassing" house rule may be nigh-universal.

For those that have that house rule, do you basically ignore the "favored class" concept as a result? Because it's really only relevant to the multiclassing rule, my DM added an interesting house rule: favored classes get 1 bonus skill point for every level in the race's favored class (4 as a once-in-a-lifetime bonus for the first level in a favored class), and a racial feat every 5 levels in a favored class. And humans consider all classes favored classes to reflect their versatility.

Another big one that I haven't heard of anyone else using, is essentially eliminating class skills. (Technically, each character has a pool of 20 class skill slots that they may use to define the class skills for their character, but unless a character has a ton of extremely unconcentrated skill points, "non-class skills" will not be a factor.)

[Rebel7284]

No need to brake my house, it doesn't move.

Depends on the observer, right? It's moving around the earth as the earth spins, and around the sun, and around the middle of the milky way, and away from the center of the big bang. It's a lot of movement!

[Quertus]

Depends on the observer, right? It's moving around the earth as the earth spins, and around the sun, and around the middle of the milky way, and away from the center of the big bang. It's a lot of movement!

Now I'm trying to imagine a world where the house is motionless to the observer, regardless of the observer.

If I can't sleep tonight, it's all your fault!

[Elves]

For those that have that house rule, do you basically ignore the "favored class" concept as a result? Because it's really only relevant to the multiclassing rule, my DM added an interesting house rule: favored classes get 1 bonus skill point for every level in the race's favored class (4 as a once-in-a-lifetime bonus for the first level in a favored class), and a racial feat every 5 levels in a favored class. And humans consider all classes favored classes to reflect their versatility.

Favored class is weird to begin with because they encourage you to dip the class, not focus on it. I guess the idea is that every orc should take a barbarian dip? Makes a certain sense, but doesn't do what it sounds like it does.

I think racial sub levels are a great way to do the favored class concept. PF's favored class bonuses are basically the same thing but I think the sub level format is more versatile.

Giving racial abilities that complement a class also works (eg, elf weapon proficiencies do nothing for a fighter) but can be too heavy handed -- as most stat adjustments are.

[Mnemnosyne]

How do you then track the exp cost for item creation?

That's the problem I've had with many games that do it that way. As far as I've experienced, they simply do not consider this at all! It's as if many DMs and players just don't ever consider item creation or spells with xp costs. I can only surmise that at a lot of tables, the players simply don't ever try item crafting.

[Thurbane]

That's the problem I've had with many games that do it that way. As far as I've experienced, they simply do not consider this at all! It's as if many DMs and players just don't ever consider item creation or spells with xp costs. I can only surmise that at a lot of tables, the players simply don't ever try item crafting.

We've never had any magic item crafting in any of our games, and we use the standard XP system.

Mostly because our games don't tend to be very sandbox-y, and never seem to involve much downtime.

[Elves]

you can just do 1xp=5gp for item crafting

[Karl Aegis]

I thought there is no difference with the Dread Necromancer between Spells Known and Spell List. Just like with Beguiler and Warmage.

Unless you are choosing spells that you already have in your Spells Known to add to your Spell List with Advanced Learning or avoid Advanced Learning entirely your Spells Known and Spell List will never be the same.

[Tzardok]

I have no idea what you want to say. I only know what the Dread Necromancer class has to say on the topic:

[...] When a dread necromancer gains access to a new level of spells, she automatically knows all the spells for that level given on the dread necromancer's spell list. Dread necromancers also have the option of adding to their existing spell list through their advanced learning ability[...].

[...] Once a new spell is selected, it is added to that dread necromancer's spell list and can be cast just like any other spell she knows. [...]

In short, a dread necromancer's spell list is identical to his Spells Known and if you add to the list, you also add to the Known Spells.

[Melcar]

That's the problem I've had with many games that do it that way. As far as I've experienced, they simply do not consider this at all! It's as if many DMs and players just don't ever consider item creation or spells with xp costs. I can only surmise that at a lot of tables, the players simply don't ever try item crafting.

Right, that's what I thought too... like why would you not want people to have a numerical amount of exp in a game where its used as currency for so many things?

We've never had any magic item crafting in any of our games, and we use the standard XP system.

Mostly because our games don't tend to be very sandbox-y, and never seem to involve much downtime.

I assume some campagns are like that sure, but I feel sorry for you for lack of downtime. At least at our table its an important thing for building depth/reality to a character... Like no one can realistically just be super active 12 hours per day evevry day... But each to our own i guess.

you can just do 1xp=5gp for item crafting

I guess, but I kind of feel that detatches too much from ancient lore... like the reason the Mythallars were so popular back in the day, was because they could "run" permanent magic items without the need of life force i.e. Con/exp...

You also run into the fact that via crafting, 50gp worth of golf can be turned into 150gp worth of coins, as per the crafting rules. Or go amok with the Fabricate spell. Ergo free items...

[Psyren]

In Pathfinder:
Elephant in the Room feat tax changes (free Power attack/Deadly aim, etc).

This is the big one for our group - they're in my sig assuming the link still works

[Starbuck_II]

Also, I think ID Rager archetype needs a boost so while raging you get 2 Slams (1d6 damage) and DR 1/slashing per level (phantoms get DR 5/slashing outright at 1st, so this slowly gets it then more past level 5).

The slams are because most of phantoms abilities rely on slams that ID rager doesn't get.
Sure, you could be an alchemist for a slam or Synergist but that seems off of an requirement to use own abilities.

[sreservoir]

IME, "no XP penalty", "no death from massive damage", "no drown healing", "no infinite" are the most common.

The first three of these, I think, are less often explicit houserules, and more just frequently ignored mechanics that nobody seem to want, or even remember without someone bringing them up most of the time.

[Quertus]

The first three of these, I think, are less often explicit houserules, and more just frequently ignored mechanics that nobody seem to want, or even remember without someone bringing them up most of the time.

Although possibly true, remember, I am a player/GM in almost every game I'm aware of, so, IME, it's a house rule, not a mistake, because I'll ask about it rather than let it go unquestioned.

[Batcathat]

Although possibly true, remember, I am a player/GM in almost every game I'm aware of, so, IME, it's a house rule, not a mistake, because I'll ask about it rather than let it go unquestioned.

I can understand the first two, but out of curiosity... are there actually games where "no drown healing" need to be stated? That feels less like an obscure or impopular rule and more like "insane RAW-bull**** that doesn't make any sort of sense".

[Remuko]

I can understand the first two, but out of curiosity... are there actually games where "no drown healing" need to be stated? That feels less like an obscure or impopular rule and more like "insane RAW-bull**** that doesn't make any sort of sense".

i mean if its rules legal and not explicitly disallowed you should be able to do it, so I can see why someone might find it funny and decide to exploit it if its not disallowed explicitly.

[Batcathat]

i mean if its rules legal and not explicitly disallowed you should be able to do it, so I can see why someone might find it funny and decide to exploit it if its not disallowed explicitly.

Yes, I suppose so. The reasonable GM response would probably be "They die. Because you're drowning them."

[Khedrac]

i mean if its rules legal and not explicitly disallowed you should be able to do it, so I can see why someone might find it funny and decide to exploit it if its not disallowed explicitly.

Yes, I suppose so. The reasonable GM response would probably be "They die. Because you're drowning them."

Yes, a lot of DMs (like me) will say to many of the "exploits",, "yes, you can twist the wording to that interpretation, but that's not what the english naturally means therefore it does not work" - they won;t see it as a house rule because they disagree with the rules interpretation that claims it works in the first place.

For drown healing, one of the counter arguments is "it says the target's health drops to 0 therefore they don't gain hit points if below 0". (I give this as an example not to start a rules debate - and I think I have misquoted the rule there so it's not a good one for a rules debate.)

Result is that Batcathat is right - the DM's won't say "no drown healing" because they don't see the need as to them it is not a house rule. There's a difference between a house rule (deliberately changing the rules) and a disagreement on what the rules are (GM's ruling is what matters, appeals should be brought after play so as not to derail the game).

[sreservoir]

Yes, I suppose so. The reasonable GM response would probably be "They die. Because you're drowning them."

Best I can tell, the RAW answer is, instead: they die two rounds later anyway, because there's no cure once they've started drowning.

(I've never been able to find the alleged use of the Heal skill to cure drowning. It's not in Core, it's not in Stormwrack. It may well be a myth born of wishful thinking.)

[Karl Aegis]

I have no idea what you want to say. I only know what the Dread Necromancer class has to say on the topic:





In short, a dread necromancer's spell list is identical to his Spells Known and if you add to the list, you also add to the Known Spells.

So a Dread Necromancer 1/ Bard 16 with Scribe Scroll can create a Scroll of Finger of Death because it has the minimum caster level from Bard and the Spell Known from Dread Necromancer.

The rules text does not support that interpretation. The Dread Necromancer does not actually have access to 7th level spells at 1st level. The Spell List is gained entirely at 1st level. The Spells Known do not. Advanced Learning does not say it adds a Spell Known, so it does not add a Spell Known.

[RandomPeasant]

So a Dread Necromancer 1/ Bard 16 with Scribe Scroll can create a Scroll of Finger of Death because it has the minimum caster level from Bard and the Spell Known from Dread Necromancer.

I'm pretty sure that's not how creating magic items works. Our hypothetical Dread Necromancer/Bard couldn't create Staff of Inflict Light Wounds with a caster level of 16 because you can't mix and match like that, and we all agree she knows that spell.

I also don't understand how you think this follows from the other side's position. The plain English reading of the "Spellcasting" ability seems to me to suggest that the Dread Necromancer knows all spells on her list of levels she can cast. I think there's a solid argument for e.g. Versatile Spellcaster shenanigans not working, but I don't see a way to argue that you don't learn spells added to your list without arguing that Advanced Learning is dysfunctional (because all it explicitly does is add things to your list).

The rules text does not support that interpretation. The Dread Necromancer does not actually have access to 7th level spells at 1st level. The Spell List is gained entirely at 1st level. The Spells Known do not. Advanced Learning does not say it adds a Spell Known, so it does not add a Spell Known.

What is your interpretation of "can be cast just like any other spell she knows" that is compatible with spell not becoming a Spell Known?

[Karl Aegis]

What is your interpretation of "can be cast just like any other spell she knows" that is compatible with spell not becoming a Spell Known?

Can be cast without preparing it ahead of time. Like a Sorcerer.

[Tzardok]

And how do you cast it if you don't Know it?

[Ghen]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but the most common house rule I see is that monks are given proficiency with unarmed strikes.

[Tzardok]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but the most common house rule I see is that monks are given proficiency with unarmed strikes.

Don't they already have it? I mean, there's a whole long paragraph in the monk description on what counts as unarmed strikes for them and what they can do with it.

[Quertus]

I can understand the first two, but out of curiosity... are there actually games where "no drown healing" need to be stated? That feels less like an obscure or impopular rule and more like "insane RAW-bull**** that doesn't make any sort of sense".

i mean if its rules legal and not explicitly disallowed you should be able to do it, so I can see why someone might find it funny and decide to exploit it if its not disallowed explicitly.

Princess Bride says drown healing is cool

(GM's ruling is what matters, appeals should be brought after play so as not to derail the game).

I'm not a fan of rails and Railroads - "derailing" the game is my main goal in life.

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but the most common house rule I see is that monks are given proficiency with unarmed strikes.

It did come up. And, even so, I failed to include it in my list.

[RandomPeasant]

Can be cast without preparing it ahead of time. Like a Sorcerer.

Then don't you agree with the other guy? Advanced Learning is phrasing that as a consequence of adding that to the spell list.

[loky1109]

I see this often.

flat-footed == denied dexterity bonus to AC