Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tequila_Sunrise 11-25-07, 03:58 AM	Every time I try to run a game with house rules, something goes wrong. For example I recently started a group of gamers in NYC--the idea was to get a few of us together, play a monthly game and maybe go bar hopping every once in a while. We met up at a restaurant and a few of us pitched ideas for games that we'd like to run. I told everyone that I was considering running a goofy OotS type game and I got the most number of 'thumbs ups' from all the game ideas. Later that week I declared that each potential DM should write up a short blurb on the game they wanted to run including playstyle and any important house rules. I described my game as "lighthearted and rules-loose" and followed up with a link to my house rules (lucasbuchanan.com/Riven House Rules) because I don't like to catch players off guard with several "oh, I house ruled that!" None of the other prospective DMs wrote anything about the games they wanted to run, but lo and behold when I tallied the votes my game was at the bottom of everyone's list! It makes me disapointed but the only conclusion I can draw is that my house rules turned everybody off to my game. I love to DM but there are a few things about the game that I just can't accept as-are when I have direct control over them. My house rules are not strange or restrictive by any stretch of the imagination and yet they seem to repulse players at every turn. Does this happen to anyone else?
kuonji 11-25-07, 06:35 AM	Sometimes its a matter of too much change. I've always found it best to keep house rules to a minimum. The only 2 I use consistantly is the Dodge feat is +1 dodge AC all the time and the Toughness feat doesn't exist, there's just Improved Toughness with no prereq (if it even has one, I don't remember). That being said I read over your list of house rules and to be honest, I would be turned off as well. The no opposed rolling is something I just don't enjoy and others and some of it doesn't make sense. For example, if you don't use XP then why is there a rule about multiclassing XP penalties? Seems like alot of change for not alot of benefit.
molten_dragon 11-25-07, 08:32 AM	I use a few houserules in my game (unless I'm playing in my homebrew campaign setting, in which case there are some pretty massive rules changes, but I always make sure prospective players are okay with that first). I think you have two separate problems with why people don't like your houserules. One, there are just too many of them, and people will have to take a long time learning them all. And two, some of the rules themselves are things that I as a player would not like at all. Some of these include: No experience Points: I've played with a few DMs who didn't use experience points, and every one of them gave out levels either far too fast (at least one level per session, maybe more) or far too slow (roughly a level every 10 sessions). I like the pace of leveling that wizards outlines, it gives you enough time to enjoy the new stuff at each level, but not so long that you get bored before new things. Handful of Dice: I worked hard to get those 10d6 fireballs, let me roll all 10 dice. Simple Iterative Attacks: I really don't like this one. Fighter types already have it rough enough. Taking away their highest attack bonuses when they want to make multiple attacks is unfair. Average Hit Points: Same as the handful of dice thing, I like rolling hit points, and often end up better off than if I had used average. No trading out animal companions: Does this mean if mine dies I can't get a new one? Why have an XP penalty if you aren't using XP? And this restriction is too tight. There are a lot of prestige classes that require you to take levels in 2 base classes to meet the entry requirements, you're pretty much making them all unplayable. I would never play a cleric in your game. Since you're limiting the number of spells known, I would have to only take buff/healing spells as spells known so that I had access to them all (the party would expect me to have access to lesser restoration, even though I would only cast it rarely) and that wouldn't be fun at all. The wealth points are quite unbalanced. You have things which cost very different amounts in the DMG costing the same number of wealth points (ioun stone ability bonuses are 8000 gp and +1 armor is 1000 gp). They also don't scale so higher level abilities cost more (going from MW armor to +1 armor costs the same as going from +4 armor to +5 armor using this). 9 wealth points gives starting characters far more magical equipment than they would normally have (I believe 2700 gp is standard for 3rd level characters, with this system you could easily net yourself over 50,000 gp worth of items at the same level). There is no stated way of getting more wealth points, and finally, there is no mention made of how to purchase mundane equipment here. Different people may have different problems, but this is what would bother me if I was playing in your game. Most D&D players have certain expectations about how the game will work when they play it (mostly these fall along the lines of the rules as written). If you deviate too far from their expectations, they may not want to play any more.
Kari 11-25-07, 12:41 PM	I honestly haven't played a D&D game that was completely free of house rules in the -entire- time I've been playing. There's always been at least one houserule, and often about a half-dozen or so. Perhaps the single most enduring houserule we've used, and this is from way back during the latter days of 1st edition, was that PCs do not die at 0 or -10, but rather, at -Constitution, OR -10, whichever is more favorable for the PCs. Others have lasted, however, as well. And I myself have had rather lengthy lists of houserules from time to time, depending on the game.
Watsyurname529 11-25-07, 12:58 PM	I'm pretty sure everyone uses some sort of house rule(s) in their games, even if they don't realize it. I use some house rules and edit others to what I see fit. I tell all my players all the changes to the game and eventually I'll compile a sheet with all of them.
Tequila_Sunrise 11-25-07, 02:42 PM	Wow! I had assumed that my house rules were the reason that my game got voted down, but it's quiet a shock to hear exactly what people don't like about them. For example, I didn't think that anyone would prefer standard iterative attacks over my simplified version. Well, you live and then you learn...slowly. I've run HR-free games before and they either felt crazy or just stifling, so I just can't bring myself to do so again. So in case I DM a 3e game before 4e comes out, I just went through my rules and added in explanations for them, made a couple of them optional (ala A Handful of Dice and Simple Iterative Attacks), edited a few mistakes (the card stat-gen method should involve two 9s also, so max is 18 rather than 16) and made a note that I don't expect players to know all my house rules.
ppirilla 11-25-07, 04:49 PM	The problem with house rules is throwing them at a new group. Most house-rules are created by the group as a whole. Something is too weak, or too powerful, or just seems awkward, so someone in the group comes up with a new way of doing it. The problem -- and the situation you've run into here -- is that you have a number of gamers from different groups who each have their own way of doing things. To you, the house-rules are the way things are done, but to the rest of them, they're random and arbitrary changes to the game.
CryoSilver 11-25-07, 06:35 PM	I use these rules for some games: Skill Adjustments 1. Each player is allowed to choose two skills (other than Use Magic Device) to add to his character’s class skills. These skills are considered class skills at every level, no matter which class is pursued at that level. 2. A character that takes a level in his race’s favored class gains an extra skill point at that level. Humans and half-elves gain this bonus skill point only if they take a level in their first class. Class Restrictions/Adjustments 1. Humans may not be wizards or sorcerers, unless they take Dark Magic User. 2. Elves may only be wizards or sorcerers with explicit DM permission. 3. Dwarves have fighter and cleric as favored classes. 4. Characters may not multiclass into wizards or sorcerers without in-game training. Class Variations/Adjustments 1. Clerics: Clerics, as a result of there being no gods, may choose any two domains, but must be of a given alignment to pick that alignment’s associated domain. Clerics must act by a slightly modified code of conduct: their actions must in some way reflect their domains, rather than the tenets of a god (which does not exist). Furthermore, as there is no positive or negative energy, a cleric’s ability to channel such energy is replaced with the ability to channel controlled or uncontrolled life force. Controlled life force acts identically to positive energy, and uncontrolled the same as negative, both for purposes of spontaneous casting and affecting undead. 2. Arcane spellcasters take a -2 penalty on Diplomacy checks and gain a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks, if their spellcasting ability is known or evident to the target of the check. 3. The monk class is not available to characters that do not hail from Lizaquin, or belong to one of the orders that have migrated from that nation.
Balseraph 11-25-07, 08:04 PM	I generally start off a group with only one or two simple house rules and they build from there. Most commonly it is simply removing things that don't fit the flavor of my campaign or are quite simply too much trouble to deal with. Mostly the latter are by consensus within the group. I run a weekly Eberron game where I have removed the Deathless domain entirely as it just didn't feel right to me to have it even possible for PCs to create or control these wise ancestors.
navar100 11-25-07, 11:28 PM	It's not House Rules that were the problem; it was your house rules. You change too much, for one thing, but more the impression I got is that you want everyone to play the game the exact same way you want. You nitpick various rules and then change them to your taste. It's your campaign, but it's the players' game too.
CrimsonDeath 11-26-07, 03:19 AM	You have a lot of houserules. Several of them substantially change the game mechanics, and I'm not sure whether the changes are balanced. Some of them are based on what "some players don't like"; maybe you should ask your buddies whether they actually dislike what you're trying to eliminate. (I, for example, love rolling huge numbers of dice.) I'll address some points that people haven't mentioned yet, or address them in ways that have been overlooked. By eliminating opposed rolls, you've made certain tasks easier for people who specialize in them and harder for people who don't. For example, it'd be trivial to build someone who could sneak past anyone who wasn't specialized in Spot/Listen. Also, anyone with Skill Mastery in such a skill is guaranteed to beat someone who has made an equal investment of character resources in the opposite skill. Someone mentioned that your method of dealing with iterative attacks makes melee harder for some types, specifically mentioning Fighters. This, I believe, is true for just about anyone whose optimal damage output is dependent on Power Attack. I don't have the time or inclination to run the numbers, but I suspect two-weapon-fighting sneak attackers would prefer your system. Your stat generation system is innovative and is statistically certain to produce above-average characters, but it's a little hard to shuffle a mere 12 cards and personally I don't mind either rolling or point-buy. I'd be willing to try the cards, though, just for a change of pace. I'm not a fan of the alternative turning rules (it targets the undead's best save, for one thing...) but then I've only played two clerics who both put a lot of effort into being good at turning (one was a Radiant Servant). Oh, that reminds me: If you're using a turning variant, you need to address the Sun Domain's granted power. If you're going to remove the Druid's scimitar proficiency, that's fine, but be aware that the 3rd Edition Druid's Code of Conduct doesn't address the use of weapons. The Druid's weapon proficiencies are the result of training, not ethos; a Fighter/Druid could wield a Greatsword without losing any Druid abilities, but any heavy armor he wore would need to be made of stone, wildwood, or Ironwood. It's already been mentioned that wealth points look a little imbalanced (especially those boots of haste). On top of that, it sounds like a difficult system to use if you're going to drop treasure for the players to find. Also, I doubt I'm the only person who kinda likes micromanaging my gold. There are a couple of things that aren't really bad or good, but might be considered different just for the sake of being different. The level cap on the Monk's Wisdom bonus and Paladin's Divine Grace is, I assume, intended to discourage excessive multiclassing? Considering how you're determining ability scores, it shouldn't be too much of a problem for a single-classed character starting at level 3 (since most people's best score will probably be around 15 to 17). The limited spell lists available to divine casters is a bit strange too, and makes the Wizard even more powerful by comparison (since he is now the only character who could theoretically use every spell on his class spell list over the course of his career). Between that and the variant turning rule, the Favored Soul is looking really nice. Technically, you don't need to eliminate the Natural Spell feat if you're using the Shapeshifting variant from PHB 2 (since it doesn't work with Natural Spell). Either way, it does knock Druids down a notch in power (which many argue is needed). But then, I like a good house rule every once in a while, and there are some things here that I like. For example, you nixed death by massive damage, and you gave the average character a bit more room below 0 HP to survive (a definite concern for players, not so much for monsters). Both rules reduce the frequency of PC death without much effect on the difficulty of taking down monsters. Most games I play use both of those rules. I also like how you eliminated the Trapfinding ability. (Another possible solution would be turning it into a feat, like Track, which Rogues would get as a bonus feat at 1st level.) The multiclassing rules look interesting, but it could be awkward if someone adds a new class after character creation. (I took my first level of rogue, so now I get 24 more skill points!) The elimination of class skill lists and awarding retroactive skill points due to Intelligence are both nice bonuses and open up a lot of space for character building. I like that you got rid of age modifiers to ability scores. Being Venerable was just too good for a few builds and makes too little sense for a character just beginning his adventuring career. (Consider the Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold. Because obviously, a Kobold that important waits a hundred twenty years before doing anything interesting.) One assumption you seem to have made is that people prefer simplicity, but I don't think that's necessarily true, and some things are complicated for a reason. I think you've taken a good step by making a lot of the rules optional. You might want to ask your buddies what rules they did and didn't like.
Zog_Jakome 11-26-07, 03:23 AM	We have plenty of house rules but it took us over a year to develope them and we brought them in slowely. the other thing is many of our house rules are rules straight out of unearthed Arcana or other books. I have another game that I just started a few months ago. The difference between My main game and this newer game is the house rules. especially when it first started but over time I introduced these house rules. I argue with the other DM about who's game is better and I honestly hate playing in his game because I know that there are better rules out there. the biggest rule that we have uses the spell point system with spellcasters in unearthed arcana. it prevents the ever famous line "well guys I have cast all my spells for the day time to go back and rest" and the close runner up famous line "save your spellcasting for more tougher enemies" it also makes it ten times more fun and faster and prevents the DM worrying about whether or not a battle will be to tough because most published campaigns assume that the PC's are at their fullest for just about every encounter.
draco1119 11-26-07, 07:07 AM	I use these rules for some games: Skill Adjustments 1. Each player is allowed to choose two skills (other than Use Magic Device) to add to his character’s class skills. These skills are considered class skills at every level, no matter which class is pursued at that level. 2. A character that takes a level in his race’s favored class gains an extra skill point at that level. Humans and half-elves gain this bonus skill point only if they take a level in their first class. Does this extra skill point stack with the one humans already get, or did you eliminate that feature? Class Restrictions/Adjustments 1. Humans may not be wizards or sorcerers, unless they take Dark Magic User. 2. Elves may only be wizards or sorcerers with explicit DM permission. 3. Dwarves have fighter and cleric as favored classes. 4. Characters may not multiclass into wizards or sorcerers without in-game training. Did you change the elf's favored class, or is a player who wants to play one screwed? Class Variations/Adjustments 1. Clerics: Clerics, as a result of there being no gods, may choose any two domains, but must be of a given alignment to pick that alignment’s associated domain. Clerics must act by a slightly modified code of conduct: their actions must in some way reflect their domains, rather than the tenets of a god (which does not exist). Furthermore, as there is no positive or negative energy, a cleric’s ability to channel such energy is replaced with the ability to channel controlled or uncontrolled life force. Controlled life force acts identically to positive energy, and uncontrolled the same as negative, both for purposes of spontaneous casting and affecting undead. 2. Arcane spellcasters take a -2 penalty on Diplomacy checks and gain a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks, if their spellcasting ability is known or evident to the target of the check. 3. The monk class is not available to characters that do not hail from Lizaquin, or belong to one of the orders that have migrated from that nation. No questions about this section. :)
Rustmonster 11-26-07, 11:41 AM	I did not like many of your houserules, which is understandable as there are many, and I can't possibly like them all. Now, one of the one I really just had to point out was: There just aren't enough orc-human rapings to justify half orcs as a race, especially when full orcs aren't a player race. So the half orc stats in the Player's Handbook are in fact full orc stats. Half-orcs arn't always rape childs. Although I like how you removed them, I can't agree with the reason you are removing them.
Phrennzy 11-26-07, 12:24 PM	Attacker Always Rolls: It's just more fun for the attacker to roll than vica versa. In any contest, the instigator rolls against the target's DC. For example a spell caster rolls (d20 + Spell Level + relevant stat bonus) against the target's save DC (10 + base save bonus + relevant stat mod). Spells that attack save DCs do not threaten critical hits. No Opposed Rolls: Opposed rolls add unneccesary time and math to the game without providing any tangible benefit. If an opposed roll is called for, the defensive roll is converted to a DC. For example, a sneaking character rolls a Hide and/or Move Silently check against the Listen and/or Spot DCs of any observers who might be present. All flat modifiers to opposed rolls are divided by 2. For example, Small characters only take a -2 penalty to grapples and the various other combat maneuvers which are modified by size. Aren't these two rules conflicting? You're turning spell casting into an opposed roll, which you say is a waste of time. Huh? Yah, you have WAY too many house rules. And, like the two above, they are confusing. Stick to a small handful and be done with it. Also, you're gimping the cleric's spell availability. Despite it and the druid being "the most powerful class" no one wants to play the cleric. Reducing the classes spells isn't going to bring people flocking to it.
CrimsonDeath 11-26-07, 01:47 PM	Aren't these two rules conflicting? You're turning spell casting into an opposed roll, which you say is a waste of time. Huh? No, he's giving the spellcasters a saving throw "attack" roll (equal to the spell's normal Save DC -10) and everyone gets a saving throw "AC" for when they're targeted (equal to their normal save bonus +10). The attacker rolls, but the defender doesn't. Personally, I suspect it's actually more fun if the players roll, whether they're attacking or defending. You could have players roll attacks against enemies' AC and then roll defense against enemies' attack bonus. Not that I'm suggesting it; I think the current system works best, with players and enemies using the same mechanics. It makes it easier to use player races as enemies or monster races as PCs.
korcheck 11-26-07, 02:06 PM	I have only 3 main stays for house rules: 1. there is no hide and move silently, there is only stealth. I'm sorry But if you can move past a guard without being heard then you should be able to stay still long enough without being seen as well. True it doesn't alway work the same way in reverse but..... 2. any feat that only gives a +1 modifier to one thing is almost useless in my opinion except as a PrC requirement so if a player needs to take one for a class then we either drop it as a requirement or tweek it. this is actually the case for a few other feats as well but I won't go into them. 3. If you multiclass then your previous skill stay class skills for simplicity. you still have the class skill points but if you could sneek before then there is no reason why if you become a cleric you can't continue to use this skill as normal its just harder due to having to spread your already small skill points further. I have had others here and there but these are the only ones that have been consistent.
Lemurion 11-26-07, 06:10 PM	I agree that it wasn't that you had house rules, but that you had too many and they changed the game too much to make it D&D anymore. It's best to let house rules grow organically as the game progresses and limit their number. Most of my house rules in my current 3E campaign are more about which regular rules to use. (If it's not in the 3E core books we aren't using them.) I'm also not planning to use prestige classes as I want characters to grow from play not build toward a preset goal. Otherwise I've added one house rule so far-- bards bet read lips as a class skill.
Crimson_Concerto 11-26-07, 07:43 PM	Well, everybody seems to be riping your house-rules apart already, so I'll stay out of that... Anyways, to answer your topic title, yes, I have a rather extensive list of house rules, but most are simple, intuitive, and easy to remember, and many are just my own pre-rulings on things that are confusing in RAW to avoid any future confusion or conflicts. My game has been going strong for almost a year now and shows little sign of slowing down any time soon...
CrimsonDeath 11-26-07, 08:26 PM	Well, everybody seems to be riping your house-rules apart already Mine was intended as constructive criticism, hopefully to provide insight into why the other players may not have wanted to use them.
CryoSilver 11-26-07, 09:07 PM	Does this extra skill point stack with the one humans already get, or did you eliminate that feature? It stacks Did you change the elf's favored class, or is a player who wants to play one screwed? There are no mutliclassing penalties in my games, only the extra skill point. Also, I dislike elves :P
Lemurion 11-30-07, 10:07 AM	I don't know if I made it clear in my previous post, so I'll try again. I for one am not saying your house rules are bad rules, they aren't what I'd use but that's got nothing to do with whether they're good or bad and everything to do with how I envision my game in comparison to how you envision yours. The problem I see with them is that every player comes in with their own idea of "D&D" which starts at the core rules and diverges from there. The problem is that the circle gets wider the further from the core rules you go. If you go far enough you run the risk of removing the aspects that in one or more players' minds say "this is D&D." Once that happens it becomes harder to get new players who are expecting to play "D&D" because your game no longer appears to qualify. Extensive house rules work better when they already want to play with you rather than wanting to play D&D.
Knightblde 11-30-07, 02:36 PM	I have refrained from posting here before now because I didn't know what to say. Now I know the perfect thing to say, that will sum up your problem exactly: I for one am not saying your house rules are bad rules, they aren't what I'd use but that's got nothing to do with whether they're good or bad and everything to do with how I envision my game in comparison to how you envision yours. The problem I see with them is that every player comes in with their own idea of "D&D" which starts at the core rules and diverges from there. The problem is that the circle gets wider the further from the core rules you go. If you go far enough you run the risk of removing the aspects that in one or more players' minds say "this is D&D." Once that happens it becomes harder to get new players who are expecting to play "D&D" because your game no longer appears to qualify. Extensive house rules work better when they already want to play with you rather than wanting to play D&D. ;)
EvilVegan 11-30-07, 03:00 PM	I described my game as "lighthearted and rules-loose" and followed up with a link to my house rules (lucasbuchanan.com/Riven House Rules) because I don't like to catch players off guard with several "oh, I house ruled that!"You do realize that your website is blue text on a cyan background. It really hurt my eyes. Some of your changes seemed a bit arbitrary. Some people like micromanagement and experience points. It gives the games less of a LARP/Storyteller feel to them. I liked the rules though. My games are about the same. My players don't even have classes, I just dole out abilities that we agree make sense. I have a "monk" that can dodge an attack if he rolls a natural 20 on a d20, which will eventually go up to 11 or better at 20th level. Why? I don't know. He's dodgy. Sorcerer gets to fire magic missile at will. Got a pixie in the party. Random crap like that, all house ruled on the spot. Works fine.
Ikyotojin 11-30-07, 04:15 PM	Some of my house rules: Items that give a bonus to attack, damage, AC, skills, etc all max out at +5. Spell casters don't have to pre-pick their spells from the ones they know either through divine access or spell books, but they had better take care not to run out of components! ;) Coins have weight. Deal with it. I've got a small bag of 300 various coins form all over the world and it's not a negligible mass to carry. If you ever say "Oh, I've got a sack of 2000 gold coins!" I get to drop this bag on you. Arrows are not recoverable/reusable unless you have luck feats. Either spend money or have mending spells. Your clothes will wear out and you will get some form of irritation from having holes in your shoes and shirts. Illness is easy to get rid of with magic, but it costs yah! If you don't write it down, you don't have it. If I can't read your writing, you don't have what you claim. If you can't write clearly, learn to type. Magic armour and weapons don't "autosize" to fit. Nor does other equipment. If it wasn't made for your size, you will have a heck of a lot of trouble using something. I give experience for each full week of practice/study your character goes through. Roughly 100 exp times your current level. The books we use are the ones I own. If you want to use stuff I don't have, tough. I have the ore books, Oriental Adventures, Complete Scoundrels, Manual of the Planes, Drow of the Underdark, several of the racial books. Prestige classes are like special clubs. You don't get them just by saying so, you get them by being taught/invited/initiated, etc. Simple rules laid out before gaming starts. I'd strongly suggest re-reading your rules and asking if you would want to be on the playing end of them. If yes, then run with them. If not, read them again and figure out WHY. Fix them ahead of time and you should have a lot more fun.
Knightblde 11-30-07, 11:40 PM	The books we use are the ones I own. If you want to use stuff I don't have, tough. I have the ore books, Oriental Adventures, Complete Scoundrels, Manual of the Planes, Drow of the Underdark, several of the racial books. I had a DM like this once. I bought two of everything!
Lemurion 12-01-07, 09:27 PM	Personally I have to say that any DM who allows things he doesn't have is asking for trouble. At the very least you need to have read it and made notes on what matters to you.
Zog_Jakome 12-02-07, 10:59 AM	Some of my house rules: Items that give a bonus to attack, damage, AC, skills, etc all max out at +5. Spell casters don't have to pre-pick their spells from the ones they know either through divine access or spell books, but they had better take care not to run out of components! ;) Coins have weight. Deal with it. I've got a small bag of 300 various coins form all over the world and it's not a negligible mass to carry. If you ever say "Oh, I've got a sack of 2000 gold coins!" I get to drop this bag on you. Arrows are not recoverable/reusable unless you have luck feats. Either spend money or have mending spells. Your clothes will wear out and you will get some form of irritation from having holes in your shoes and shirts. Illness is easy to get rid of with magic, but it costs yah! If you don't write it down, you don't have it. If I can't read your writing, you don't have what you claim. If you can't write clearly, learn to type. Magic armour and weapons don't "autosize" to fit. Nor does other equipment. If it wasn't made for your size, you will have a heck of a lot of trouble using something. I give experience for each full week of practice/study your character goes through. Roughly 100 exp times your current level. The books we use are the ones I own. If you want to use stuff I don't have, tough. I have the ore books, Oriental Adventures, Complete Scoundrels, Manual of the Planes, Drow of the Underdark, several of the racial books. Prestige classes are like special clubs. You don't get them just by saying so, you get them by being taught/invited/initiated, etc. Simple rules laid out before gaming starts. I'd strongly suggest re-reading your rules and asking if you would want to be on the playing end of them. If yes, then run with them. If not, read them again and figure out WHY. Fix them ahead of time and you should have a lot more fun. these are rules that have very little impact on the game, mostly it's just used by a DM who have had problems in the past with this kind of stuff, oh most of these rules are not even house rules they are real rules. coins wiegh 1 pound per 50 coins so your 300 coins probably wieghs around 6 pounds so a sack with 2000 coins wieghs 40 pounds, quite easy when sacks can usually carry around 50 or as much as you want depending on sack size. and by the time they hit these kind of levels invest in a bag of holding. arrows are destroyed when fired plain and simple (never looked at luck feats) most components are free or cost very little so running out is hardly ever an option unless they are constantly away from civilization for months at a time. (in which case they should die anyway) and not all spells have material components. I agree that you should not use books that you do not have, but I would suggest going to amazon and going on a spending spree to get all of the cheap books you can find just to increase your collection, its a hobby hobbies cost money. there are more than enough ways to increase an attack roll other than items and more than one item can increase this bonus on attack rolls to higher than +5 (strength bonuses, dex bonuses, enhancement, insight, etc) of course it will cost to get a remove disease, it's in the player's handbook it will cost around 150 gold to get it cast. I have a shirt and boots that have several holes in it, they don't bother me why should there be an irritation, clothes cost very little anyway at least to a PC. of course weapons and armor don't "autosize" to fit you, magic or not. Weapons can be used quite easily that are sized wrong (-2 attacks) invest in monkey grip(complete warrior) like I said many of those rules are not even house rules, and the house rules you do have are based on false beliefs or can easily be overcame. Now that that is said here's a disclaimer: this is not my game this is your game as long as your players agree with these rules it's all fair game, and if you heard some of my house rules you'd probably call me out on some of them as well. So to answer the question in the tiltle of the forum the answer is YES.
BENEVOLENT_DM 12-02-07, 11:40 AM	House rules arn't inherently bad. House rules should have a good purpose. I don't like elves for example is a lousy house rule. The number one reason I would implement a house rule is to give the charecters freedom to have abilities that fit there character as they imagine them. Second it is to apply rules to actions that add the realism the group wants. I do not try to make a real system of combat, just make rules for actions fit the way we imagine them. Third is to fit the flavor of the campaign. Generaly if the campaign is explained clearly, players will blend with the house rules that reflect it. On another thought, why would you assume it was your house rules were the reason your campaign idea rank the lowest. Even though the others expressed interest in it, they could have either been being polite, or they could have just liked the other ideas better.
Tequila_Sunrise 12-02-07, 02:00 PM	On another thought, why would you assume it was your house rules were the reason your campaign idea rank the lowest. Even though the others expressed interest in it, they could have either been being polite, or they could have just liked the other ideas better. You're right, it could have been something else that turned everyone off to my game and I will ask them at some point. Though they weren't just being polite because they have no reason to be especially polite or coddling to me, and also because I wasn't actually present when everyone made their initial assesment of the games.
CCS 12-05-07, 01:01 PM	I've yet to meet a group that doesn't use some sort of house rules. Most times these develop over years & are often tied to specific campaigns - much like the differences found between the various D&D worlds. You though seem to have made quite a few changes. While I agree with a few of them, & can see where you're headed with many of them, it's still alot of changes. They might have all suited your previous group - who all agreed with this "vision" of how things should run. But can you honestly tell me you're surprised that a new group would reject them? So; new group = start out playing to what they expect and slowly change things over time if possible.
Dog_O_War 12-06-07, 12:04 PM	You're right, it could have been something else that turned everyone off to my game and I will ask them at some point. Though they weren't just being polite because they have no reason to be especially polite or coddling to me, and also because I wasn't actually present when everyone made their initial assesment of the games. Wow, just wow. I read your "rules" and they don't seem to be loose or light-hearted. The penalty you've given monks and paladins is awful; if you don't like those classes, then simply don't use them. As you have them set-up though, I would never play one as they don't have any redeeming qualities; other classes benefit from a high stat in what could be described as their primary focus, why not these two? If this was to counter-balance your multiclassing rules, then why not stick with the original restriction, and allow players to choose based off this? It seems you're trading one problem for another. Also, there are a few different ways to pick up an average on a dice; the statistical average (x.5) and the DMG average (lower half). What I'm getting at is this becomes more math than adding 10 dice together. As for a ranger "swaping out" his animal companion; is there some sort of stable that makes this so easy in your game that you'd want to restrict it? For me, "swaping out" the animal companion was always akin to the last scene in White Fang; something emotional and RP worthy. To have it be more "light-hearted" you should almost be going for a poke-ball effect. The multiclass "rules" are also difficult to understand; it is like having to read the PHB in english, and then again in french; you know what it says, yet you can't read it like it should be written. All-in-all it is more complicated to read the PHB and then throw out half of what you just learned for something else. That is what I see as the turn-off, on top of the unusual restrictions on classes that need boosts, not penalties. Oh yeah; elves. They suck enough (the proficiency thing they get was only ever useful in 2nd ED); to jack them of the one ability that makes playing the elven rogue really worth while, as well as having a wizard that can actually assist in finding secret doors is too much. I really think you should give them a replacement ability; that and secret doors in the forest is pretty likely. Goblin tunnels, the hidden torture chamber from the Princess Bride, secret archway to the tree-top villages' stairs, etc... all qualify. Maybe it is your justifications on certain things that is off-putting.