Would you disagree with my house rules?

[DementedFellow]

I'm kicking around the idea of DMing with my friends. It will actually be the first time DMing with them, but I have had experience with a couple other groups. Anyway, I was wondering what people would think of these house rules. Are they outrageous? broken? useless?

1. Spot and Listen are combined into Awareness. Chances are if you are listening for something, you are looking too. Likewise for spotting. Ever turn down the radio when you are trying to find some place while driving?
2. Bluff and Intimidate are combined into a skill to be named later - thinking something like Silver Tongue (as ugh as that sounds). Yeah the name is awful, but I see no reason why one couldn't cut down on the ranks wasted on two very similar skill groups. All that remains is to pick a name that would encompass both traits.
3. No Duskblades. I think they are overpowered. And quite honestly, I'm giving a lot to my players as it is.
4. Gestalt characters are A-Okay. I'm going to be throwing some nasties at them. But in order for someone to have a Bard/Paladin or a Barbarian/Wizard, they have to come up with a backstory. I'm trying to encourage roleplay and if they have to come up with a background, then maybe it will help them get involved.
5. Players start with more gold in addition to what the DMG says they should get at their level. Meaning from levels 1-5 5,000 gp, 6-10 10,000 gp, 11-15 15,000 gp and 16-20 20,000 gp. We all like magic items. I won't mind if someone keens their blades or whatever, as I have said, I'm going to be throwing at lot at them.
6. Extra experience will be awarded for roleplaying and not just rolling the dice. This includes songs from bards, talking in character (yes something that simple can net an extra 50 experience at the end of the night).
7. Character creation will be 5d6 minus the lowest two. Reroll 1s. This is more of a house rule with the group as a whole. We use this whenever we play.

Comments? Suggestions? Are these things game-breakingly bad? What are some house rules that you have used to much acclaim and/or success?

[tyckspoon]

They all seem reasonable to me except for the Duskblade thing. That just looks out of place, especially with a justification of overpowered.. you're giving extra gold, you use a very high powered stats rolling method, you're allowing gestalt.. and the Duskblade is the thing that stands out as being too overpowered to allow? What appears to be the problem with it to you?

[Starbuck_II]

[*]No Duskblades. I think they are overpowered. And quite honestly, I'm giving a lot to my players as it is.

What, wait...

What about them is overpowered?

[*]Gestalt characters are A-Okay. I'm going to be throwing some nasties at them. But in order for someone to have a Bard/Paladin or a Barbarian/Wizard, they have to come up with a backstory. I'm trying to encourage roleplay and if they have to come up with a background, then maybe it will help them get involved.

A little strong, but okay if you can handle gestalt

[*]Players start with more gold in addition to what the DMG says they should get at their level. Meaning from levels 1-5 5,000 gp, 6-10 10,000 gp, 11-15 15,000 gp and 16-20 20,000 gp. We all like magic items. I won't mind if someone keens their blades or whatever, as I have said, I'm going to be throwing at lot at them.

Buh-wa!? That is a lot at low levels.

[*]Extra experience will be awarded for roleplaying and not just rolling the dice. This includes songs from bards, talking in character (yes something that simple can net an extra 50 experience at the end of the night)

Weird, but okay.

.[*]Character creation will be 5d6 minus the lowest two. Reroll 1s. This is more of a house rule with the group as a whole. We use this whenever we play.

Not bad, a little better than 4d6.

[valadil]

#4 is the only one that catches my attention. It seems like it would create a pretty big disparity between players who did and didn't have time to come up with a backstory/excuse for gestalt.

I prefer to encourage backstories by drawing my plots from character backstory. Basically the players who write more history get more plot based on their characters and a bigger chance in the spotlight.

[Worira]

Wait, a Barbarian//Wizard is fine, but not a Duskblade?

[Zincorium]

1 & 2 are perfectly reasonable, and they help classes with few skill points get a decent break.

3. Trust me, they're not. 4th level spells maximum, off a very small list that never changes? But it doesn't matter because of...

4. Requiring backstory is good. But don't try and mix gestalt and non-gestalt characters unless the people not playing gestalt are really good at building characters and are willing to take the hit. Anyone who'd want to play a duskblade can get something pretty close without the class itself (wizard/swashbuckler is a decent combo for that type).

5, 6, 7. Basically, you're running a high powered game. Since you've already stated they'll be running into very tough enemies, all it requires is that you be a little bit more careful. Your PCs won't be invincible, and TPKs are actually easier with groups that are powerful statwise, since you've lessened the correlation between PC strength and player ingenuity.

[Talanic]

Bluff and Intimidate should combine into Influence. How's that sound?

[Gralamin]

I'm kicking around the idea of DMing with my friends. It will actually be the first time DMing with them, but I have had experience with a couple other groups. Anyway, I was wondering what people would think of these house rules. Are they outrageous? broken? useless?

1. Spot and Listen are combined into Awareness. Chances are if you are listening for something, you are looking too. Likewise for spotting. Ever turn down the radio when you are trying to find some place while driving?

1. A rather common house rule.
   

2. Bluff and Intimidate are combined into a skill to be named later - thinking something like Silver Tongue (as ugh as that sounds). Yeah the name is awful, but I see no reason why one couldn't cut down on the ranks wasted on two very similar skill groups. All that remains is to pick a name that would encompass both traits.

[Prometheus]

This definitely sounds like a high-powered campaign. You are kind of encouraging them to forget roleplaying and focus on power-gaming if this becomes DM vs. PCs. You mentioned roleplaying earlier, but I don't know how much the players actions will really be based off of it.

[DementedFellow]

Bluff and Intimidate should combine into Influence. How's that sound?

I like that a lot. It's better than what I came up with.

[Artanis]

I gotta agree with the responses to the Duskblade thing. You're going out of your way to jack up your players' power level, and then turning around and not allowing them to use Duskblades due to alleged "overpoweredness"? Even if balance really is still a concern, I can think of plenty of things that would need to be axed before you even start to get to Duskblades.

[Chronos]

Some of those are rules which I, personally, would not implement. However, they all look reasonable, and I would not be adverse to playing with a DM who implemented those rules. The only thing I would recommend against would be how much gold you're giving them... An alternative might be to give them that value of extra equipment, chosen by you (and don't give them a chance to buy/sell magic gear immediately): This lets you do some balancing of the characters as you see them in action, and also gives you a chance to play with some items which aren't necessarily all that powerful, but are a lot of fun.

[GunMage]

The one thing you ought to let your players know is that you intend to do a gestalt game. Either have everyone make gestalt characters, or have no one make them.

Make sure that you don't go overboard with the roleplaying experience points.
You want to remember that not everyone will be on the same level rp-wise, and you need to take that into account when determining rp-xp.

You might consider combining intimidate and diplomacy into speechcraft, and bluff and sense motive into deception, because intimidate and bluff seem to have very little to do with each other.

[Lemur]

Am I to understand that #4 means that some characters may be gestalt, and some may not, depending on whether or not they have a backstory for it? If this is the case, this is a terrible idea. Either everyone in the party is gestalt or no one is. I'll also echo the sentiment:

Wait, a Barbarian//Wizard is fine, but not a Duskblade?

If this is the case, it makes very little sense, and yes, is "game-breakingly bad".

Furthermore, I would like to hear your arguments against duskblades, aside from a simplistic statement like "they're overpowered" which doesn't actually mean anything. If you feel like they don't fit in your world, that's fine (although even the reasoning of this is strongly under question if gestalt melee spellcasters are around). Why would a duskblade be considered overpowered and not a cleric or a druid, for example? It's not gamebreaking, but it's highly dissonant with the rest of your rules.

[DementedFellow]

Some of those are rules which I, personally, would not implement. However, they all look reasonable, and I would not be adverse to playing with a DM who implemented those rules. The only thing I would recommend against would be how much gold you're giving them... An alternative might be to give them that value of extra equipment, chosen by you (and don't give them a chance to buy/sell magic gear immediately): This lets you do some balancing of the characters as you see them in action, and also gives you a chance to play with some items which aren't necessarily all that powerful, but are a lot of fun.

You know this would actually fit in with the campaign more than the extra money across the board. Thanks for the idea.

As for the duskblades. Hmm. Full BAB. Can ignore arcane spell failure. Combat Casting at 2nd level. Arcane channeling at 3rd. Let's not forget that the bonus STACK when put with other classes in gestalt. Yeah there are more broken ones out there but I just see the cheese on this one a mile away.

I also understand the concern that I am totally inviting people not to roleplay by having them higher powered. But as the DM, I'll be able to dictate where the battles occur and how frequent. I'm thinking starting them out at 6th level and going from there.

[Deepblue706]

I think banning Duskblade is a bit silly, and your character creation method is a little too high-powered for my taste.

[Devils_Advocate]

One of the problems with Bluff is that the rules don't cover trying to convince someone of the truth. Obviously a high Sense Motive on the part of the target should help you there instead of hurt you. But anyway, if you come up with rules for that, and roll that into the new skill too, I'd call the result the Convince skill. You use it to convince people that false things are true, or that true things are true, or that you'll hurt them very badly if they don't cooperate with you, whether or not that's true.

[DementedFellow]

Some of those are rules which I, personally, would not implement. However, they all look reasonable, and I would not be adverse to playing with a DM who implemented those rules. The only thing I would recommend against would be how much gold you're giving them... An alternative might be to give them that value of extra equipment, chosen by you (and don't give them a chance to buy/sell magic gear immediately): This lets you do some balancing of the characters as you see them in action, and also gives you a chance to play with some items which aren't necessarily all that powerful, but are a lot of fun.

You know this would actually fit in with the campaign more than the extra money across the board. Thanks for the idea.

As for the duskblades. Hmm. Full BAB. Can ignore arcane spell failure. Combat Casting at 2nd level. Arcane channeling at 3rd. Let's not forget that the bonus STACK when put with other classes in gestalt. Yeah there are more broken ones out there but I just see the cheese on this one a mile away.

I also understand the concern that I am totally inviting people not to roleplay by having them higher powered. But as the DM, I'll be able to dictate where the battles occur and how frequent. I'm thinking starting them out at 6th level and going from there.

[Nebo_]

Most of these are good, but you lose all credibility with number 3.

[Zincorium]

You know this would actually fit in with the campaign more than the extra money across the board. Thanks for the idea.

As for the duskblades. Hmm. Full BAB. Can ignore arcane spell failure. Combat Casting at 2nd level. Arcane channeling at 3rd. Let's not forget that the bonus STACK when put with other classes in gestalt. Yeah there are more broken ones out there but I just see the cheese on this one a mile away.

The casting in armor doesn't apply to any other casting class, so if he goes with wizard levels he still can't wear armor without spells failing. Full BAB is vital for a fighting class, duskblade would be terrible without it.

And realize that arcane channeling only works with spells that you could make a touch attack with, so it's actually more likely to waste a spell, since armor can now negate the hit. The advantage is that you're also hitting your opponent once with a weapon if you succeed.

Frankly, Duskblade is just a 20 level version of the spellsword PrC from complete arcane.

[DementedFellow]

Sorry for the double post. I'm having connection woes and I didn't think that one from earlier went in.

Anyway, another bit of not wanting the duskblades is I would rather have my characters find a way to make something similar with that than give them a class that can attack and cast magic with virtually no hampering. Where do you go when you gestalt with duskblade too? Rogue or Ranger would be the only ones that come to mind with me because they have a high reflex save and that is the one save that the Duskblade is weaker in. In my view, Duskblade is already gestalt, so incorporating it into a gestalt campaign is like adding sugar to sugar. I know people will be against this idea. But when the class is basically a spellcaster/fighter amalgamation it just seems redundant to have it in a campaign where you already are creating amalgamations. It dabbles in everything so it isn't a good class in my view to have in this campaign.

[DementedFellow]

The one thing you ought to let your players know is that you intend to do a gestalt game. Either have everyone make gestalt characters, or have no one make them.

Make sure that you don't go overboard with the roleplaying experience points.
You want to remember that not everyone will be on the same level rp-wise, and you need to take that into account when determining rp-xp.

You might consider combining intimidate and diplomacy into speechcraft, and bluff and sense motive into deception, because intimidate and bluff seem to have very little to do with each other.

Thanks. I was planning on making it all-gestalt, I guess I didn't point that out.

Effort will be rewarded. I'm not expecting a stirring speech from the paladin or a fantastic song from the bard. Just so long as they make the conscious effort to 1) play the role and 2) stay in character.

Duly noted. I rather like that idea. The reason I put Bluff and Intimidate together in the first place is that two different characters could lets say get past a guard by using either one, when its basically the same modifier. In much the same way someone could hear a kobold approaching while the other can see it.

[deadseashoals]

Seems fine except for the duskblade thing. As it's clearly not overpowered at all, your last point of resistance is that it's "already gestalt." It's not. It's a striker/dps class, basically a barbarian, except that it uses "magic" to deal its extra damage, rather than "being really mad." Playing a duskblade/sorcerer might be kind of fun for a gestalt game, and not at all redundant.

[LotharBot]

If I was joining a game and the DM said it'd be mixed gestalt and not, that would be a huge warning sign to me. It says, in flashing bright letters, "the DM doesn't know how to judge power levels." It says the DM is going to be careless with the difficulty of encounters, throwing things at the party that are far too easy or far too hard, and having to modify things on the fly to keep from party-wiping us every third session.

You're clearly gearing up for a high-power campaign, with 5d6+reroll 1's (average stat array should be like... 18, 18, 17, 16, 14, 12) and gestalt. Be straightforward about what you expect of the players and how difficult you expect encounters to be, instead of leaving them to try to figure it out by guessing.

As for everything else: I like your modified awareness and interaction skills, and I like RP experience in general (though I think since it's a group game, the GROUP should gain RP experience if they RP something together.) I'd just be a bit afraid to join a group where the DM will allow anything from an unoptimized fighter to a barbarian//wizard or paladin//sorcerer.

[DementedFellow]

Seems fine except for the duskblade thing. As it's clearly not overpowered at all, your last point of resistance is that it's "already gestalt." It's not. It's a striker/dps class, basically a barbarian, except that it uses "magic" to deal its extra damage, rather than "being really mad." Playing a duskblade/sorcerer might be kind of fun for a gestalt game, and not at all redundant.

I suppose you are right. Maybe I'm just prejudiced against the duskblades. I had mistakenly not understood the part about the armor only affecting the duskblade spell listings and I thought it would be too much. I thought if a character made a wizard/duskblade character, they could cast spells all willy-nilly, not be as squishy and have virtually no arcane spell failure while wearing armor. My bad.

[Irreverent Fool]

If you're using gestalt characters, everyone should be using them. If you're not, nobody should. There will be an immense power disparity between the two.

Similarly, if you're allowing gestalt, there's no reason to disallow duskblades.

Duskblades are good, yes, but they're less overpowered than an ubercharger build. All they do is damage, and they only do a lot of it, not ridiculous amounts. If you are disallowing them due to being overpowered, then you better disallow uses of mounts, rhino's rush, lances, wizards, clerics, the natural spell feat, power attack, shock trooper, celerity, Tome of Battle.... and so on

The rest of it is totally cool. I'd play with it. Looks like a high-powered game and there's nothing wrong with that.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Nice rules no one should have a problem playing under them unless they love Duskblades. The extra wealth is really nice at levels 1 -5 and nice at 6-11 or 12. I really like #5 the role playing award.

[DementedFellow]

If I was joining a game and the DM said it'd be mixed gestalt and not, that would be a huge warning sign to me. It says, in flashing bright letters, "the DM doesn't know how to judge power levels." It says the DM is going to be careless with the difficulty of encounters, throwing things at the party that are far too easy or far too hard, and having to modify things on the fly to keep from party-wiping us every third session.

You're clearly gearing up for a high-power campaign, with 5d6+reroll 1's (average stat array should be like... 18, 18, 17, 16, 14, 12) and gestalt. Be straightforward about what you expect of the players and how difficult you expect encounters to be, instead of leaving them to try to figure it out by guessing.

As for everything else: I like your modified awareness and interaction skills, and I like RP experience in general (though I think since it's a group game, the GROUP should gain RP experience if they RP something together.) I'd just be a bit afraid to join a group where the DM will allow anything from an unoptimized fighter to a barbarian//wizard or paladin//sorcerer.

Yes it would be my first time working with gestalt and yes, I will be green at that aspect of it.

And yes it will be higher-powered.

See, I know my group. And while that is a nice idea for a group experience thing, we have two players that there to roll dice and virtually add no RP to the campaign. By rewarding the others for actual roleplaying, it is my hope to encourage these two lackers to catch the hint. Of course I will be letting them all know that actually roleplaying will be encouraged beforehand.

[Voyager_I]

As long as they're all Gestalt, it's a fine high-powered campaign.

Except for the Duskblade bit. Whenever I see DM's arbitrarily banning small aspects of the game because "they think it's unbalanced" while simultaneously ignoring the countless things in Core that are laughably more broken, it sets off one of my warning lights. It says: "Warning: Liable to pick small battles in the middle of play with no warning, no RAW support, and little real justification that will have a negligible effect on the game as a whole but could potentially shaft your character at any time. Also likely a poor judge of balance and/or have a tendency to misinterpret the rules in ways that could kill you all unreasonably."

I'm not saying the above is necessarily true about you, it's just one of the warning signs I look for, and Rule 3 catches my attention...


...at least you aren't banning Trip and Disarm because you think they make Fighters overpowered (this really happened).

[Kraggi]

My first experience with DnD was someone telling me they didn't allow the monk in their campaign because it was overpowered.

...Then I came here.