Usable variant rules?

[Azerian Kelimon]

I'm designing a new campaign world. Taking a look through my books, I found out some variants and bits of them that I'd rather correct, and want to have the opinion of the best D&D players this side of the charop boards on the corrections. Without further ado:

1) Change "rapiers" as presented in the PHB to Rope swords and introduce renamed Elven Thinblades as Rapiers, since they're a lot closer to the real deal. They'll be Martial weapons, since Rapiers are not exotic. Anything I should watch out for from this?

2) Make the abjurant champion have the extra prerequisite of School focus: Abjuration. Gishing shouldn't be THAT easy.

3) Use the DMG variant that makes 1's count as -10's, and 20's as 30's. Change spells such as Surge Of Fortune to make you do an extra roll. If the roll is an 11 or higher, the effect activates as normal, instead of requiring a nat 20 only.

4) Fighters do not exist. Instead, you may play a Warblade, and sacrifice any class obtained features (Such as the features or extra ready or known maneuvers) for a Bonus Feat. Your warblade levels count as normal for bonus feats (Which means, instead of being able to take Weapon supremacy from level 20 onwards, you can take it at level 18 provided you sacrifice class features). You may not use this option on dead levels.

5) Introduce a new feat:

Mighty Critical

Your skill at combat allows you to inflict devastating blows on opponents that would normally be immune to them.
Prerequisites: Character level 12, +9 BAB.
Description: If you were to score a critical hit against a creature immune to them, you may score the critical hit observing this limitations:

-If your weapon has an extended threat range, your threat range is lowered by 1. Example: A Kukri will inflict critical hits on a roll of 19-20. A longsword may inflict a critical hit on a roll of 20. Threat range multipliers work as if the modified threat range was the base threat range.
-If your weapon has a higher crit multiplier, you can lower it by one. Example: A greataxe has a crit multiplier of 3x. If you roll a natural 20, you may do a critical hit of 2x multiplier.
-If your weapon has a simple crit multiplier of 2x and no extended threat range, you may roll another d20 as if you were making another attack with that same attack bonus. If this attack hits, you may then proceed to confirm the critical threat.

Additionally, if you possess this feat, threat range enhancers stack in this way: The first enhancement will double your threat range, while all further enhancements increase your threat range by 1.

That's all. So, is there anything I should change?

[UserClone]

Why don't you just say "you can make critical hits against creatures which would normally be immune, but use the critical table in the DMG under variant: softer criticals"? Seems simpler.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Two reasons:

One: Stopping to check the table (Though replicating it inside the feat would be a good idea).

Two: That table donnae covers all the possible cases, though it IS a good base to work with.

[Burley]

I agree with FlWiPig.
The description you have for that feat is a little...befuddled. I got confused and had to start over...twice.
Also, what are the stats of the Elven Flatblade. The reason the Rapier is where it is (though not realisticly correct) is because the Martial Weapons needed a high crit-range Piercing Weapon. Now, I've only seen the Elven Flatblade once and very briefly, but I think it's a slashing weapon, no? What would differ it from the scimitar.
When I run games, I'll allow a weapon to look however the player wants, as long as they don't change the stats of the intended weapon...and they pay for the masterworked version.

[Voyager_I]

1 and 2 seem like unnecessary "Different because it's mine!" type rule changes, especially 2. I'm generally tentative about DM's who decide arbitrarily to nerf something that wasn't a problem beforehand because of their own beliefs, since I can never know if those same prejudices will emerge to shaft my character concept halfway through the game or on the middle of a difficult battle.

3 is alright.

4. Seems needlessly complicated. Anyone who has access to Warblades will probably play them unless they have a reason to play a Fighter. I'd say either accept the distinction, or just say "No Fighters", instead of creating a byzantine and potentially unbalancing mishmash.

5. Confusing, but...I guess...not...terrible.


This isn't personal, and this isn't a comment on you as a DM. Just know that if I saw a game advertised with these houserules, I'd be very dubious about joining it. It comes off as a DM willing to make minor and inconsistent changes that will frustrate your characters and harry gameplay, and who might spring something on you on in the middle of a fight that should have been on the opening post.

Again, this isn't saying that you are a bad or nitpicky DM, it's just what I'd be afraid of if I saw these houserules out in the wild.

[Azerian Kelimon]

I'll explain, then. 1, is, of course, a flavor thing, but you never know what a munchkin can do, which is the reason I included it here.

Now, 2. What happens is that I'm not making it in because of flavor, but rather because of munchkinism. The prereqs of AC are so low (One feat, a few spells, and BAB which everyone gets except a War Hulk), that every wizard I see includes it in their build if they have the space. Why not, after all? It gets full BAB, full casting, and extra class features. It's gravy for a wizard. I might change it's prereqs if the feat seems harsh or insufficient, but the thing is, I want AC to do what is was supposed to do, which is help make a gish, not give 5 extra BAB, extra HP, and some nifty stuff to a wizard. Any ideas?

4 is there mostly so that, if someone wants to play a feat intensive build, they'll be able to do it, while a green player will be able to play a meatshield that does more than "I hit it with my sword, power attack for 5", and someone who wants to play a classic fighter will not be forced to play a wablade. Basically, it gives some added flexibility on the creation of the warblade, and leaves players who might complain of "I don't want to play a ToB character!" satisfied.

As for 5...WHY is it so meh? If I don't know the reason it's so bad, I won't be able to correct it. The reason to use it is to broaden the options a character has (Since a TWF build can benefit form being able to do big damage from extra attacks, and it actually makes a whole branch of option useful, such as anything that doesn't do double PA damage), which I think it does. So, could you explain why it sucks so much?