A Monster for Every Season: Summer 2
You can get A Monster for Every Season: Summer 2 now at Gumroad
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 151 to 158 of 158
  1. - Top - End - #151
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: 3.5E house rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    The problem with feats is that 3e can't decide how good a feat is supposed to be. On the one end, you have character-defining feats like Leadership, Divine Metamagic, or Natural Spell. On the other end, you have feats that are minor fluff abilities like Educated, Combat Expertise, or Track. "Free" is probably too little even for the latter, at least in general, but expecting them to trade off with the former is also unreasonable.
    Well said. There should almost be a tier system to feats as well...I'm sure there's a list of feats that no character has ever taken...ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    I have no idea of how well this would work in practice, but it feels like a fairly easy (though probably rather work intensive) way of fixing that problem might be to assign each feat a point value and have characters get "feat points" every time they would've gotten a feat. That way it's up to the individual player whether to pick a single great feat or a bunch of lesser ones.
    They did that in Baldur's Gate 2: Dark Alliance. It also was home to one of the best feats for TWF that unfortunately didn't make it into a book: Hero's Arm. It does have that WotC stamp on the case so it should be rules legal lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by AceDragonKing View Post
    7) you can do anything you want in my world iíll never rail road you or tell you that you canít stab the king or pickpocket someone or what ever. But you have to deal with the consequences of your actions good or bad.
    So if the Shocktrooper (in full plate armor) leap attacks off the boat to fight a kraken, you're ok with him dying? (True story lol).

    Quote Originally Posted by fallensavior View Post
    You cannot create an evil character. If you become evil later, you will either have to atone and become non-evil or forfeit your character (they become a NPC).

    The Dodge feat bonus to AC will apply to all opponents except when you
    are flatfooted. (No need to declare it and only benefitting against one enemy)

    Five Second Rule: If the DM feels that you are taking too long in combat, they will begin
    counting down from 5. If they get to zero, your character stands there thinking for that round.

    Spoiler: Playest rules
    Show
    Instead of dying at -10 hp, you die if you reach negative hp equal to your normal max hp. Note that the Diehard feat will remain unchanged, allowing you to remain conscious at -1 thru -9 hp.
    I like the Dodge fix, simple and easy. The five second rule reminds me of when my dad pulled out the chess clock on my uncle because he was taking too long. The HP rule will actually hurt most 1st level characters, but is good for higher level games.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuulvheysoon View Post
    I tried the whole "No evil characters" bit, and then I had the most legendarily disruptive CN character that you can imagine. So yeah, the former works a lot better than the latter if you've got even a small chance to talk to them before character creation.
    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    It's easier to ban Evil PCs. But is it better?
    I had a game where one of the PCs ended up sliding down into Neutral Evil territory. She was overprotective of her daughter and family, to the point where she'd let the world burn to save them. And that was fine-her family were the other PCs, and the daughter was an NPC they all cared about. I'm not sure the other players even knew she would be considered Evil, since not much happened with that. But if I followed the rule of "No Evil PCs, period," we'd've lost a really cool character.
    Now, I totally get wanting to keep a more heroic tone-that's what I generally like to do. But if it's a natural result of how the PC has been played and isn't disruptive, I see no reason to outlaw it.
    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    IMO, the issue is more that D&D alignment is just singularly bad. You can't have an interesting debate between "Good" and "Evil", because "Evil" is just a word for bad (or rather, to the degree that you can, it's by pointing out how simply labeling something as Evil doesn't make it so). But there are alignment systems that aren't like that. For example: MTG's color wheel. It's hard to argue for Evil over Good, but it's pretty easy to see how people could reasonably align philosophically with either Green-White or Black-Red (not having to declare certain philosophical positions "Evil" also sidesteps the possibility of pissing off part of your fanbase when you declare that Deontology or Utilitarianism is True Good). Even within D&D, having alignment key off the planes themselves, rather than the two-axis system directly, would be a big improvement.
    Quote Originally Posted by NerdHut View Post
    I
    -Toughness grants +1 HP per HD (min 3)
    -Some feats are combined, such as Cleave & Great Cleave, and Farshot & Precise Shot. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree is consolidated as well, granting the effects of the next feat when its prerequisites are met
    Is the Toughness rule retroactive to be just like Improved Toughness?
    Are the feat combinations like the feat tax thing I saw earlier that was done for PF?

    Quote Originally Posted by martixy View Post
    Glad my comment sparked that discussion. I had a feeling we were headed that way when I made it.
    I have one thing to say to fallensavior - you can't force immersion. I've been deeply immersed in games with tons of meta talk, and failed in games that were effectively improv theater plays.

    I do have a few other reworks worthy of posting, but I'm not sure anyone would ever use them to be worth the hassle of bothering to format a forum post properly.
    The DMG does say that the best PrC's are ones that are tailor-made for a specific campaign.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silly Name View Post
    Not here, as most of those fixes have been due to "necessity" of me wanting to use one or my players expressing frustration. I could post some stuff in the Homebrew forum if you are interested, though.

    Sounds fun! Although I think players are often too averse to having evene a -1 to a stat that's not Charisma, despite it being perfectly playable. Do you assign in order, or let players choose what stat goes where? I've found that assigning in order can be fun, makes people think about their character's strength and weaknesses a bit more.
    I think we've sold ourselves short by neglecting our "fixes" of PrC's, or simply failing to come up with our own on a more consistent basis.
    I don't make them assign as rolled. I see DMing as a partnership with the PCs: it's my job to help them do what they want to do but keeping it balanced and preventing it from running away out of control. It could be fun to try a game that way though for a different flavor, either roll them top to bottom or announce what you're rolling for next.

    As far as the evil PC's or no posts, I personally only play in heroic campaigns; just my personal preference and conviction. If others want to great, just not the table for me. There's a way it can be done well so all have fun; heck I went through KOTOR as a sith a few times. Ultimately it's a slippery slope that should be approached with caution.

  2. - Top - End - #152
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2013

    Default Re: 3.5E house rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Fel View Post
    I am a big fan of OSP, so I definitely approve the link. (Although I disagree with some of their interpretation of mystery plots in their recent The Detective clip.)


    One final thought on the subject before I put it to rest. Several people have posted quotes from people who contributed to the game's design back in the day. And that is fair - the game was meant to be a story of heroes, not of villains. But here's the problem:

    This is a thread about house rules.

    House rules exist because the rules are insufficient, or at the very least un-fun, at your table. An argument about the game designers' original intent rings hollow when the point of the conversation is "and this is how the game designers got it wrong, and why I'm changing what they wrote." You can't simultaneously rely on the people who wrote the game as the canon Word of God source of the rules and also explain in complete candor why the rules must be changed.

    So, yeah. Yes, that is a reference.
    While I cannot comment on the intent of everyone, my point was I thought a rule existed where PCs that change to an Evil alignment were retired and became NPCs.

    I cannot find this rule in any of the books, but if it existed my house rule was to ignore it and allow Evil PCs.

    So, the RAI seemed to encourage heroic behavior, it wasn't something I enforced.

    Slightly off topic, can anyone find that rule regarding PCs whos alignment change to Evil become NPCs?
    It's driving me crazy that I can't find where I got that idea from.
    My top question a DM should ask:
    "Why?"

  3. - Top - End - #153
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: 3.5E house rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by mashlagoo1982 View Post
    While I cannot comment on the intent of everyone, my point was I thought a rule existed where PCs that change to an Evil alignment were retired and became NPCs.

    I cannot find this rule in any of the books, but if it existed my house rule was to ignore it and allow Evil PCs.

    So, the RAI seemed to encourage heroic behavior, it wasn't something I enforced.

    Slightly off topic, can anyone find that rule regarding PCs whos alignment change to Evil become NPCs?
    It's driving me crazy that I can't find where I got that idea from.
    I can't think of any source in 3.5 that would say that, as in general DnD allows and supports the existence of evil PCs, and the presence of evil-only prestige classes clearly means evil PCs are allowed in general. Could it have come from another game? Or from some organization?

    Organized play groups (like pathfinder society) often have a no evil PCs rule.
    Iirc some versions of Star Wars have you become an NPC if you fall to the Dark Side. Legend of the five rings has you become NPC if you fall to the taint.
    A neat custom class for 3.5 system
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94616

    A good set of benchmarks for PF/3.5
    https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2...y-the-numbers/

    An alternate craft point system I made for 3.5
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...t-Point-system

  4. - Top - End - #154
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2013

    Default Re: 3.5E house rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by zlefin View Post
    I can't think of any source in 3.5 that would say that, as in general DnD allows and supports the existence of evil PCs, and the presence of evil-only prestige classes clearly means evil PCs are allowed in general. Could it have come from another game? Or from some organization?

    Organized play groups (like pathfinder society) often have a no evil PCs rule.
    Iirc some versions of Star Wars have you become an NPC if you fall to the Dark Side. Legend of the five rings has you become NPC if you fall to the taint.
    It could have been the source book for another game... perhaps 5th edition or 3.0?

    I just remember the rule standing out like a sore thumb.

    I had looked through all the various PHB, DMG, and even BoVD.
    My top question a DM should ask:
    "Why?"

  5. - Top - End - #155
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    PirateGirl

    Join Date
    Jun 2020

    Default Re: 3.5E house rules?

    It sounds to me like something from an edition prior to 3.0, if indeed it's written anywhere. And/or perhaps from a campaign setting as opposed to core rules?

  6. - Top - End - #156
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: 3.5E house rules?

    I think that was a rule in Living Greyhawk (organized play), but I don't recall seeing it in print elsewhere.

  7. - Top - End - #157
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5E house rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by mashlagoo1982 View Post
    While I cannot comment on the intent of everyone, my point was I thought a rule existed where PCs that change to an Evil alignment were retired and became NPCs.

    I cannot find this rule in any of the books, but if it existed my house rule was to ignore it and allow Evil PCs.

    So, the RAI seemed to encourage heroic behavior, it wasn't something I enforced.

    Slightly off topic, can anyone find that rule regarding PCs whos alignment change to Evil become NPCs?
    It's driving me crazy that I can't find where I got that idea from.
    I suspect you are thinking of D20 Star Wars. It is in the book as an optional rule (RCR 183), but it is explicitly written out [that the GM can decide] "PCs with more than X dark side points become NPCs."
    "Ishkhaqwi ai durugnul!"
    - FallenSavior

  8. - Top - End - #158
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5E house rules?

    I try to keep house rules to a minimum - mostly use the variant rules out of the DMG and then cherry pick changes out of the "Completes" and other books.

    I've seen too many attempts at nerfing arcane spellcasters and other shenanigans that fail when looking for a game.

    Like others have said already on this thread: it is all about having fun.

    Thank you for posting your house rules - I intend to pick through them and see if any fit at my table.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •