Post/Author/DateTime	Post
arphaxad 12-06-04, 10:47 AM	I guess this thread would belong in a forum with house rules in the title, so that's why it's here. I have played and DMed all sorts of different kinds of campaigns these lat couple of years, and I have really come to despise house rules. Sometimes you just want to have a game without some meglomaniac DM making up rules. My worst experiences with house rules have been when they are on the fly. This usually comes when the DM doesn't understand the rule in question, and wasn't prepared for the result. I all my years playing home games I never played one game without some house rules. House rules seem to me to be a way for the DM to assert power over the game. When confronted by a rule or ability the DM didn't expect that threatens an important NPC or plot, the DM will make up a house rule. My suggestion is that a house rule should be carefully considered and laid out from the start rather than later on, on the fly. When you start up a campaign next, consider this, do we really need any house rules at all? Won't everyone be on the same footing? The rules are hard enough to learn as it is, but then most DM's add houserules that they can't even keep track of, and really have no reason to implement. Then many DM's wonder why their campaign is unbalanced. Anybody else feel the same way?
Thelon Fairblade 12-06-04, 11:09 AM	Let me state up front that I am a big fan and culprit when it comes to making house rules. And I unequivocally support the "not on the fly" argument. I have 7 pages of proposed house rules for my next campaign -- but I will not create a house rule on the spot during a session. (That being said, the DM is in charge of making things dramatic and enjoyable - if he needs to make something happen, he should. But not if he's just trying to "win". But that's a conversation for a "What's a DM to Do?" thread!) I fall victim to the "houserules that they can't even keep track of, and really have no reason to implement" malady a lot. My friends call it "spider rules"; this is the rule... except in this situation... except in this mitigating cirucmstance of that situation... unless you have this other thing... etc. ("Fractal rules" would be a more appropriate appelation.) When I make a house rules list, I put down everything I've read or am interested in or thought about since the last campaign started. Then I let my players go through the list, and go through it myself, and hack out things that aren't necessary. Recently, for example, we removed "why mention this?" rules about firing crossbows prone, shortbows while kneeling, and Finessing Quarterstaffs. Almost the entire "Variant Classes" and "Variant Class Abilities" list form UA is in the document... but the final version will instead state only those that are *banned*. I am joining a campaign next month where the house rules are 1 double-sided page... and only that much because of his "big" change to how magic works. It's both liberating (less to remember) and confining (less flexibility). The key balance, I think, is to list things that matter to your players, and wing the rest.... if no one is going to use a paladin, who cares if you wnat to grant them 2 orisons at 4th level?
starfire311 12-06-04, 04:12 PM	I for one am a huge fan of houserules. However, making a call on the fly to me isnt a houserule per se. It is more of a judgement call and these can be made for a number of reasons. I allow my DMs some flexiblity in these areas, especially the ones that know the rules very well, I feel that if they are making an on the fly decision that differs from the actual rule there is a reason for it. Now as for house rules go. I am the houserule maniac in my group. My last campaign I ran I had a binder full of houserules, everything for racial progression, VP/WP, Armor as DR to core class modifications and new races, and the stat determination system. When preparing for a campaign I will present all the houserules to the players way before character creation. Then we will discuss and change any houserules that we don't like and maybe we will add some more that some of the players want to try out. But once the game begins, I will never add a houserule unless the entire group believes that it will add to the game, or we may remove a house rule that seemed to have unforseeable consequences that we don't like. But doing this would have to be a group desicion
arphaxad 12-06-04, 07:23 PM	I for one am a huge fan of houserules. However, making a call on the fly to me isnt a houserule per se. It is more of a judgement call and these can be made for a number of reasons. I allow my DMs some flexiblity in these areas, especially the ones that know the rules very well, I feel that if they are making an on the fly decision that differs from the actual rule there is a reason for it. Now as for house rules go. I am the houserule maniac in my group. My last campaign I ran I had a binder full of houserules, everything for racial progression, VP/WP, Armor as DR to core class modifications and new races, and the stat determination system. When preparing for a campaign I will present all the houserules to the players way before character creation. Then we will discuss and change any houserules that we don't like and maybe we will add some more that some of the players want to try out. But once the game begins, I will never add a houserule unless the entire group believes that it will add to the game, or we may remove a house rule that seemed to have unforseeable consequences that we don't like. But doing this would have to be a group desicion I've probably just had a lot of bad experiences with house rules, but what always happens to me is that there is no list of house rules, and I only find out about the house rules later on. I've recently been playing a lot of RPGA stuff, where there are basically no house rules. I've found it to be somewhat of a liberating experience. Players have the same access to the rules that the DM's do. I was thinking I'd like to see that in more homegames
MaverickWolf 12-06-04, 07:38 PM	I've probably just had a lot of bad experiences with house rules, but what always happens to me is that there is no list of house rules, and I only find out about the house rules later on. I've recently been playing a lot of RPGA stuff, where there are basically no house rules. I've found it to be somewhat of a liberating experience. Players have the same access to the rules that the DM's do. I was thinking I'd like to see that in more homegames That's your problem right there. Houserules are great, assuming you know what they are. Any DM who is not telling the PCs all houserules right from the start is a bad DM, plain and simple. When done properly, houserules are awesome.
Cymraegmorgan 12-06-04, 10:48 PM	I never make a House Rule "on the fly". That, by definition, is not a House Rule, but bad DMing. My own House Rules usually run along the track of tweaking PC Races to fit my Homebrew World better. And every player is furnished with any House Rule before they sit down for character creation. As for RPGA, it has its place, but I hate point buy. Give the players the dice, and let them take their chances. :D
mycroft65536 12-07-04, 12:03 AM	My DM (who isn't actually dm'ing me now but did for 2+years) came up with a rule when he was a noob, defender wins on ties. This works for grapple and disarm checks because the point is to beat the defender on an opposed roll, but he applied it to attackrolls, basicly giving everyone +1 AC. I was playing the game for 6 months before i knew how this rule worked. He has kept this rule to this day, he also confuses sneak attack with backstab and doesn't understand/like/use? flanking. He makes these changes "realism." :confused:
arphaxad 12-07-04, 12:23 AM	I never make a House Rule "on the fly". That, by definition, is not a House Rule, but bad DMing. My own House Rules usually run along the track of tweaking PC Races to fit my Homebrew World better. And every player is furnished with any House Rule before they sit down for character creation. As for RPGA, it has its place, but I hate point buy. Give the players the dice, and let them take their chances. :D I can usually live with modifying certain things to fit the world. I guess in that way there is no stardard D&D because you usually don't mix FR and Greyhawk gods, so you have to adapt prc's, ect. As for rolling dice, that's the other thing I can't stand. Give me fixed hit points and a 28 or 32 point buy and I'm satisfied. I find it's just way to open for cheating, and will make at least one unbalanced character per party. If you convert some of the stats into point buy form, there always in high 30's to mid 50's. Considering the Challenge rating is meant to fight against people with a 25 point buy, you have to treat the PC's severeal levels higher. I think in the coming years there will be a transition away from dice rolling for stats and hit points.
starfire311 12-07-04, 08:50 AM	I can usually live with modifying certain things to fit the world. I guess in that way there is no stardard D&D because you usually don't mix FR and Greyhawk gods, so you have to adapt prc's, ect. As for rolling dice, that's the other thing I can't stand. Give me fixed hit points and a 28 or 32 point buy and I'm satisfied. I find it's just way to open for cheating, and will make at least one unbalanced character per party. If you convert some of the stats into point buy form, there always in high 30's to mid 50's. Considering the Challenge rating is meant to fight against people with a 25 point buy, you have to treat the PC's severeal levels higher. I think in the coming years there will be a transition away from dice rolling for stats and hit points. There already has been... in the RPGA yo don't roll during character creation... you just make the character that you want to play and go from there, and 1/2 HD +1 is very nice for level advancing I am a huge fan of it. However, I dont mind rolling during character creation as long as it assures balance within the group.
Cymraegmorgan 12-07-04, 11:39 AM	As for rolling dice, that's the other thing I can't stand. Give me fixed hit points and a 28 or 32 point buy and I'm satisfied. I find it's just way to open for cheating, and will make at least one unbalanced character per party... I think in the coming years there will be a transition away from dice rolling for stats and hit points. It is only a way to cheat for those that would cheat. In over twenty years of playing D&D, my group of players has never exhibited that trait. It is true that with rolling dice you get a wild mix, but that was always one of the points. I find point buy too cookie cutter for me and my players. We all enjoy the suspense of rolling during character creation, that is part of the fun, as well as deciding what you are going to do with that 17 and that 6. And as a DM, all my NPCs are rolled, just like the PCs. While any future edition of D&D might do away with dice rolling for stats and HP, I always will, even if it has to be a house rule. :)
implord 12-07-04, 12:56 PM	Anybody else feel the same way? I do. In our group we mostly all take turns as DM, but there is one in particular who likes to re-write the rules. He's house-ruled away the 5' step, meaning that casters and archers are badly nerfed, along with lots of other tweaks "to make it more fair/realistic/you name it". :mad: I used to think that his years of experience gave him the wisdom to make needed changes, but nowadays I think it's more like egotism. The others tend to go along with him, but more often than not just for a quiet life rather than any actual agreement. :confused: I've started running the game as it's written and it's so refreshing! There are still things I would like to do differently, but none of them tinker with the underlying mechanics of the system per se.
arphaxad 12-07-04, 03:09 PM	I do. In our group we mostly all take turns as DM, but there is one in particular who likes to re-write the rules. He's house-ruled away the 5' step, meaning that casters and archers are badly nerfed, along with lots of other tweaks "to make it more fair/realistic/you name it". :mad: I used to think that his years of experience gave him the wisdom to make needed changes, but nowadays I think it's more like egotism. The others tend to go along with him, but more often than not just for a quiet life rather than any actual agreement. :confused: I've started running the game as it's written and it's so refreshing! There are still things I would like to do differently, but none of them tinker with the underlying mechanics of the system per se. I think too many people arbitrarily change the rules, and then don't realize the that there will be consequences to the game balance. like the 5 foot step, I've also heard of people not letting archers take more than one attack a round, because of realism concerns. D&D is an abstract game for the most part, the rules are use to promote balance, house rules tear that balance apart a lot of the times. House rules should only be used when a person has a comprehensive understanding of the rules of the game (which few do to my experience) and then seeks to balance whatever change they make.
Cymraegmorgan 12-07-04, 03:27 PM	I think too many people arbitrarily change the rules, and then don't realize the that there will be consequences to the game balance. like the 5 foot step, I've also heard of people not letting archers take more than one attack a round, because of realism concerns. D&D is an abstract game for the most part, the rules are use to promote balance, house rules tear that balance apart a lot of the times. House rules should only be used when a person has a comprehensive understanding of the rules of the game (which few do to my experience) and then seeks to balance whatever change they make. These are the sort of House Rules I won't get involved in. The mechanics go too deep. And to any archery naysayers out there, I am a fair shot with a traditional Welsh longbow and can get off three shots at a 75 yard target in 7.3 seconds. Guaranteed one bullseye, the other two hitting the target. One other House Rule we have concerns Prestige Classes. All PrCs are functions of a guild, secret society, knightly order, etcetera. As DM, I offer a player a chance to join such a group. Then, and only then, can they take levels in the appropriate PrC.
arphaxad 12-07-04, 04:07 PM	These are the sort of House Rules I won't get involved in. The mechanics go too deep. And to any archery naysayers out there, I am a fair shot with a traditional Welsh longbow and can get off three shots at a 75 yard target in 7.3 seconds. Guaranteed one bullseye, the other two hitting the target. One other House Rule we have concerns Prestige Classes. All PrCs are functions of a guild, secret society, knightly order, etcetera. As DM, I offer a player a chance to join such a group. Then, and only then, can they take levels in the appropriate PrC. I'd have to see that to beleive it. I also have a bit of experience with the bow, and I have trouble pulling and nocking an arrow that quickly much less shooting, but irregarless. I like having prestige classes that require you to join organizations, it makes you know which world you're in. But there's always the free spirit character that wouldn't realistically join an organization. For me there would have to be a reason only they could offer it, specially training ect. Some prestige classes, such as the dragon disciple couldn't really be taught, or horizon walker. Some classes a character would simply have to find out for themself. It really wouldn't work for most prestige classes, which would mean you would have to disallow them. Some times it's just easier to stick to the rules, and say if you meet the prerequisites you qualify.
zzyvits 12-07-04, 05:06 PM	I recently started a new campaign. I am a first time DM. The group I am playing with (8!!) only one has played with V3.x. Yes, I have some house rules. They deal with the following subjects: 1) What to do if you cannot show. 2) What happens if you lose you character sheet. I have to be honest though; the rules that I came up with were aimed at one person. Since I have started playing with this person, he has not shown up (one time, he was to be DM for the day), lost his sheet, and generally been a whiner. He did not attend the first session for my campaign, but was there for the second, and then I have not heard from him since. His character has been killed off. Since I was a new DM, I decided that I did not want to deal with psionics at this time. Beyond that, I play by the rules. I have little interest in changing things. The most any of the players have is the PHB. I have given myself one rule to play by: The game has to be enjoyable. If it is not, there is no point in playing.
DM Zoc 12-08-04, 03:01 AM	Most people I know play 3.25, with whatever convenient rules from 3.0 fitting into the regular 3.5 rules (or the other way around, depending on the situation). On the other hand, we rarely add new players to the group, and pretty much everyone is around when we decide on which rules to use. Myself, I only use 3.5 by the book. I only "house rule" when I need to explain something which is otherwise ambiguous (I make a ruling about the existing rule), or when there is an obvious mis-print that I need to point out.
IceFractal 12-08-04, 01:46 PM	Ugh ... the no 5' step rule, I hate that rule. It was discussed on the boards a while ago, and the argument was "Why should Bob the Fighter just have to stand there while a mage steps slightly away from him and casts a spell." To which I reply: "Why should a mage just have to stand there while Bob the Fighter charges at him?" Unless you're going to try to change the rules completely and have simultaneous actions (which is very complex, I started to make a system for it once and stopped when I realized that a round of combat would now take around 20 minutes to play), don't nerf one strategy without modifying the others. Next, point buy: I like point buy because I like to plan out a character, and once I've got a concept I don't like it to be ruined by bad rolls. You might think a concept wouldn't be affected by the rolls, but what if that concept includes two-weapon fighting and you end up with a Dex of 14 or less? And so on. 28 point buy, by preference, although I wouldn't say no to 32 point buy; 25 or lower point buy though, makes it tricky to get even adequate stats. Now what I really don't like, and would rather roll stats than doing, is using the "elite" stat array. That's not the same as point buy at all, despite what some people say, and its unwieldy low and mostly odd numbers are a pain in the ass to work with. Ok then, house rules. I've got several minor house rules that I always use (slight feat and spell changes, mostly to fix underpowered ones, for instance, Dodge now works against all opponents). These are always made available at the beginning of a campaign, before character creation. There's also some more ambitious houserules I use, like an alternate hp system, magic system alterations, etc., but I let the group vote on using those. I'm not going to list any of them because we've already had enough "What are your house rules?" threads.
Lucent 12-08-04, 03:07 PM	House Rules really can spice up a game or change a dynamic of play to become interesting. One favorite that I use when I DM is that when a character rolls a natural 1 in combat he leaves himself open, and all opponents who threaten him are allowed to make an attack of opportunity. Not all house rules are bad :D
arphaxad 12-08-04, 04:20 PM	House Rules really can spice up a game or change a dynamic of play to become interesting. One favorite that I use when I DM is that when a character rolls a natural 1 in combat he leaves himself open, and all opponents who threaten him are allowed to make an attack of opportunity. Not all house rules are bad :D One of the Ideas I had in my mind when I started this thread, is that getting rid of house rules might be able to spice up many people's game. Considering how many people use house rules (nearly everybody), it might actually be more unusual to play a game of straight out of the books+errata+faq D&D, using inly the settings percular rules. You're example is what I'm talking about when I say some rules aren't carefully thought through. A hasted two weapon fighter will probably die on his own turn versus a guy with combat reflexes, and your level doesn't even enter in to the equation, so a first level commoner has the same chance as a 20th level fighter . Completely unneccessary. Would the same thing happen to an npc, if he rolled a one, because you made it sound like it only happens to pc's? Either way. I like using the straight rules because prevents DM arbitrariness a lot of the times.
starfire311 12-08-04, 04:35 PM	Lol I hope lucent didnt detail his entire rule... because I think that it is flawed. I use similar house rule on a nat 1 you threaten a fumble... you need to roll to confirm it, if you miss on your second roll then you have confirmed a fumble and you provoke an AoO from all opponents that threaten you, and it applies equally to PCs and NPCs. if you assume an uber 2 weapon-fighter with all the 2 weapon-fighting feats with 2 weapons of speed he can get 10 attacks per round... assume he has a 50% chance to hit on any given attack and a 50% cahnce that his opponent will hit him on any given attack each attack has a 5% chance to provoke and a 50% chance to confirm and a 50% chance that his opponent will hit him... this leads to each attack having a 1.25% chance to get him hit by an AoO with 10 attacks per round that gives him an 11.8% chance per round to get hit by an AoO so about once every 10 rounds he will get hit by an AoO... and remember this is an extreme example.
arphaxad 12-08-04, 04:52 PM	Lol I hope lucent didnt detail his entire rule... because I think that it is flawed. I use similar house rule on a nat 1 you threaten a fumble... you need to roll to confirm it, if you miss on your second roll then you have confirmed a fumble and you provoke an AoO from all opponents that threaten you, and it applies equally to PCs and NPCs. if you assume an uber 2 weapon-fighter with all the 2 weapon-fighting feats with 2 weapons of speed he can get 10 attacks per round... assume he has a 50% chance to hit on any given attack and a 50% cahnce that his opponent will hit him on any given attack each attack has a 5% chance to provoke and a 50% chance to confirm and a 50% chance that his opponent will hit him... this leads to each attack having a 1.25% chance to get him hit by an AoO with 10 attacks per round that gives him an 11.8% chance per round to get hit by an AoO so about once every 10 rounds he will get hit by an AoO... and remember this is an extreme example. Or, since I don't want to ever give the enemy a free attack, I just pick up a reach weapon. Or even better, I pick up ride by and spirited charge. There really becomes no point in two weapon fighting any more. It makes spiked chain monkeys even more powerful, the last people that need it. Of course your example, assumes pc vs npc combat. Imagine fighting the hydra, or a giant. It significantly strenghtens all larger monsters that have combat reflexes, and are going to hit almost every time anyways. Why do this at all, isn't it just much simpler to just use the normal rules? A good description can serve the same flavor purpose. :thinks:
starfire311 12-08-04, 05:03 PM	Or, since I don't want to ever give the enemy a free attack, I just pick up a reach weapon. Or even better, I pick up ride by and spirited charge. There really becomes no point in two weapon fighting any more. It makes spiked chain monkeys even more powerful, the last people that need it. Of course your example, assumes pc vs npc combat. Imagine fighting the hydra, or a giant. It significantly strenghtens all larger monsters that have combat reflexes, and are going to hit almost every time anyways. Why do this at all, isn't it just much simpler to just use the normal rules? A good description can serve the same flavor purpose. :thinks: Interestingly enough I think the reason we started it was cause it seemed fun. and as for hydras being strengthened I think they would ahve an inreased chance of provoking an AoO... and making spiked chain monkey's better who cares I have never played with the type of person that would abuse the rules to that extent that they would play that type of fighter. Mainly we all just game to have fun, we all know the rules and we have an agreement to not abuse the rules.
Lucent 12-08-04, 09:55 PM	Well, with there being a 1 in 20 chance of causing a critical fumble in the sense of that house rule a hasted two weapon fighter of 23rd level (Assuming you use Epic level handbook) with Perfect Two Weapon Fighting has nine attacks per round. Only if perhaps he has ten levels in Dervish which for a short period of time could double his main attacks to 17 (8 x2 +1 for haste) would he have even close to a garunteed chance of having a critical fumble. And one attack off on a single PC during a flurry of 17 strikes seems rather reasonable. Also, any house rule applies equallt to PCs and NPCs, there is no logical reason why an NPC would not need to abide by the same rules at all. It makes attacks of opportunity a bit more useful as well, allowing those people with Combat Reflexes a bit more bang for their buck. The use of a reach weapon sounds like a great idea in that theory as well, you would very rarely open yourself up to an AoO in that fashion, however you'd be incredibly vulnerable to having opponents close in on you between your reach, and unless you had a quick draw and a handy sidearm you'd be hard pressed to defend against an attacker like that. It's hardly a terrifying drawback, and adds a bit more random effect into combat, signifying that even the greatest of swordsmen have their moments of ill repute.
arphaxad 12-08-04, 10:56 PM	Well, with there being a 1 in 20 chance of causing a critical fumble in the sense of that house rule a hasted two weapon fighter of 23rd level (Assuming you use Epic level handbook) with Perfect Two Weapon Fighting has nine attacks per round. Only if perhaps he has ten levels in Dervish which for a short period of time could double his main attacks to 17 (8 x2 +1 for haste) would he have even close to a garunteed chance of having a critical fumble. And one attack off on a single PC during a flurry of 17 strikes seems rather reasonable. Also, any house rule applies equallt to PCs and NPCs, there is no logical reason why an NPC would not need to abide by the same rules at all. It makes attacks of opportunity a bit more useful as well, allowing those people with Combat Reflexes a bit more bang for their buck. The use of a reach weapon sounds like a great idea in that theory as well, you would very rarely open yourself up to an AoO in that fashion, however you'd be incredibly vulnerable to having opponents close in on you between your reach, and unless you had a quick draw and a handy sidearm you'd be hard pressed to defend against an attacker like that. It's hardly a terrifying drawback, and adds a bit more random effect into combat, signifying that even the greatest of swordsmen have their moments of ill repute. With rideby your already gone, so you don't have to worry about people closing in on you. A spiked chain also has reach inside the 10 feet, along with some OA weapon. If you beleive aoo's aren't good enough already, see all related feats. Such as karmic strike. Some one attacks you trip them, and if you've got that feat that allows you to take a 5 feet step with an aoo you've just successfully denied some one a full attack. Since most people who instate house rules try to have some sense of realism, does it make sense that somebody who gets 17 attacks a round could let some one get a sword in through all that steel wishing around. The fact is that you have more "moments of ill repute" as you get more attacks. The 1st level commoner just swings and misses a whole lot, the dervish gets tore up because he's a better swordsman? Again I ask is there any necessity for this? It does change the balance of the game, and makes some ways of fighting better than others. It may not seem like a whole lot, but it becomes more and more of a factor at higher levels. Another problem with it is that it gives everybody in that threatens an aoo. Just imagine fighting some medims and larges in the center of a fight that has an outside ring of collosals. You were just minding your own business then you swing a little wild, and crunch 5-10 things hit you all simultaneously, That's a good way to go from full hit points to negative 10, and there's nothing you can do to prevent it, with movement you can just tumble or 5 foot step, you don't even have a choice about provoking. :weep:
starfire311 12-09-04, 08:57 AM	With rideby your already gone, so you don't have to worry about people closing in on you. A spiked chain also has reach inside the 10 feet, along with some OA weapon. If you beleive aoo's aren't good enough already, see all related feats. Such as karmic strike. Some one attacks you trip them, and if you've got that feat that allows you to take a 5 feet step with an aoo you've just successfully denied some one a full attack. Even with ride by attack you can provoke AoOs, and I am not aware of a feat that gives you a 5ft step as part of an AoO. Since most people who instate house rules try to have some sense of realism, does it make sense that somebody who gets 17 attacks a round could let some one get a sword in through all that steel wishing around. So are you saying that someone that gets that many attacks shouldnt be able to be attacked. Unless you see combat as the one guy getting his 17 attacks and then standing there and waiting for his next attacks, and you have to remember that you are only going to get hit be equally skilled people that have the ability to exploit your smallest mistake. IE your epic fighter, that must be like 40th level with some seious magic items to get 17 attacks per round, well if he rolls a 1 against an equal level opponent(one that is also incredibly skilled) there is now a ~25% chance that his opponent will make him pay for slipping up. If he is fighting a commoner(that has much less skill than him) there is almost no chance that the commonor will make him pay for his mistake ~0.25% Just imagine fighting some medims and larges in the center of a fight that has an outside ring of collosals. You were just minding your own business then you swing a little wild, and crunch 5-10 things hit you all simultaneously, That's a good way to go from full hit points to negative 10, and there's nothing you can do to prevent it, with movement you can just tumble or 5 foot step, you don't even have a choice about provoking. :weep: First I have never seen or heard of this happening to anyone. even with tumbling there would be a chance to Provoke AoOs... most likely a much better chance than from making an attack, unless this character is really high level, or a tumbling machine. Seeing as how this character is already in a world of hurt and should prolly just be trying to get out of there, unless ofcourse he really outclasses them, in which case the AoOs are unlikely to happen and even more unlikely to hit.
arphaxad 12-09-04, 09:35 AM	Even with ride by attack you can provoke AoOs, and I am not aware of a feat that gives you a 5ft step as part of an AoO. So are you saying that someone that gets that many attacks shouldnt be able to be attacked. Unless you see combat as the one guy getting his 17 attacks and then standing there and waiting for his next attacks, and you have to remember that you are only going to get hit be equally skilled people that have the ability to exploit your smallest mistake. IE your epic fighter, that must be like 40th level with some seious magic items to get 17 attacks per round, well if he rolls a 1 against an equal level opponent(one that is also incredibly skilled) there is now a ~25% chance that his opponent will make him pay for slipping up. If he is fighting a commoner(that has much less skill than him) there is almost no chance that the commonor will make him pay for his mistake ~0.25% First I have never seen or heard of this happening to anyone. even with tumbling there would be a chance to Provoke AoOs... most likely a much better chance than from making an attack, unless this character is really high level, or a tumbling machine. Seeing as how this character is already in a world of hurt and should prolly just be trying to get out of there, unless ofcourse he really outclasses them, in which case the AoOs are unlikely to happen and even more unlikely to hit. Ride-by only provokes to people you aren't attacking. You don't have to be that good at tumbling to get +14 with all the synergies that can be gotten (remember 1's don't auto fail skills in normal D&D). The dervish only has to be like a 16th level char to get that many attacks, so we're not talking uber high levels. Yes there is a feat that lets you take a 5 foot step as part of an aoo, it's called sidestep in the miniatures handbook. Let me say this, D&D isn't about realism, it's about providing rules that make a game balanced and fair. It alters the balance of power when we introduce houserules, your example weakens two weapon fighters, statistically it's true. Yes, I do beleive that someone with that many attacks should be able to get them all off without interruption, just like anybody else. It all takes the same time. That's how D&D works. You get a turn, just the same as the 1st level commoner. What I as trying to say about the commoner is that apparently he is less likely to let people get free attacks on him than a 20th level 2 weapon fighter dervish in any 6 second period of full attack, regardless of who their fighting. In your house rule there is no consideration of level, this means a normal 20th level fighter is "more likely to leave himself open" than a first level commoner in the exact same situation, just because of the fact that the 20th level fighter is better than a first level commoner at swinging his weapon.
starfire311 12-09-04, 03:51 PM	What I as trying to say about the commoner is that apparently he is less likely to let people get free attacks on him than a 20th level 2 weapon fighter dervish in any 6 second period of full attack, regardless of who their fighting. In your house rule there is no consideration of level, this means a normal 20th level fighter is "more likely to leave himself open" than a first level commoner in the exact same situation, just because of the fact that the 20th level fighter is better than a first level commoner at swinging his weapon. actually a commoner is more likley to leave himself open than a 20th level 2 weapon fighter vs the same opponent. using this system. say they are both fighting an opponetent that is AC 20 and the 2 weapon fighter has +30/+30/+30/+30/+25/+25/+20/+20/+15/+15 the fighter has a 3.9% chance of provoking during the entire round. take the 1st level commoner vs the same target... the commoner has 1 attack with a +0 to hit the commoner 4.75% chance of provoking for the entire round. now lets say the target has +20 attack bonus and the fighter has an AC of 30 the fighter now only has a 1.97% chance of being hit and the commonor ahs an AC of 10 so the commonor has 4.5125% chance of being hit.
arphaxad 12-09-04, 05:54 PM	actually a commoner is more likley to leave himself open than a 20th level 2 weapon fighter vs the same opponent. using this system. say they are both fighting an opponetent that is AC 20 and the 2 weapon fighter has +30/+30/+30/+30/+25/+25/+20/+20/+15/+15 the fighter has a 3.9% chance of provoking during the entire round. take the 1st level commoner vs the same target... the commoner has 1 attack with a +0 to hit the commoner 4.75% chance of provoking for the entire round. now lets say the target has +20 attack bonus and the fighter has an AC of 30 the fighter now only has a 1.97% chance of being hit and the commonor ahs an AC of 10 so the commonor has 4.5125% chance of being hit. I'm going to admit math is not my specialty, But I just don't understand that math. Every character has the same opportunity per attack of provoking, %5 or 1 out of 20. The more times you swing the more opportunities you have to roll a 1. It's been a while since I was doing probility and statistics, though so I've forgotten how to do the math. Looking at it negatively is the best I can do. the chances of not rolling a 1 is .95, for a commoner 1-.95 =.05 For the guy with 17 attacks it compounds (right? I think?) .95^17 =.4181 1-.4181=.5818. That means over the course of one attack there's 58% chance of provoking over the course of 17 attacks. So by math you are punishing people with more attacks. Again my math skills are deteriorating, so Iif someone with more of a mathmatical backround could say my math is right or wrong, and correct it, it would be appreciated. both have the same chance of being hit because the monster is evilly huge, and can only miss either on a 1, (which would then provoke if the two characters in question had reach.)
Kem 12-10-04, 02:57 AM	I'm going to admit math is not my specialty, But I just don't understand that math. Every character has the same opportunity per attack of provoking, %5 or 1 out of 20. The more times you swing the more opportunities you have to roll a 1. It's been a while since I was doing probility and statistics, though so I've forgotten how to do the math. Looking at it negatively is the best I can do. the chances of not rolling a 1 is .95, for a commoner 1-.95 =.05 For the guy with 17 attacks it compounds (right? I think?) .95^17 =.4181 1-.4181=.5818. That means over the course of one attack there's 58% chance of provoking over the course of 17 attacks. So by math you are punishing people with more attacks. Again my math skills are deteriorating, so Iif someone with more of a mathmatical backround could say my math is right or wrong, and correct it, it would be appreciated. both have the same chance of being hit because the monster is evilly huge, and can only miss either on a 1, (which would then provoke if the two characters in question had reach.) Starfire's right, but its a flawed example. You are forgetting that he requires the attack to miss on a confirming roll also. So his attack with 8 attacks that autohit has a small chance to crit fail. However his original example of 5% then 50% then 50% makes things a bit more interesting +20/+20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5 (9 Attacks) Chances to Provoke an AoO... AC 20: ~13.4% AC 25: ~21.6% AC 30: ~28.4% Advice using this system... Don't full attack. Especially as a rogue or monk (forget flurry too ;) )
John Paul Stoddard 12-10-04, 04:54 AM	As for rolling dice, that's the other thing I can't stand. Give me fixed hit points and a 28 or 32 point buy and I'm satisfied. I find it's just way to open for cheating, and will make at least one unbalanced character per party.......(edited)........ I think in the coming years there will be a transition away from dice rolling for stats and hit points. Glad you like it that way, but Not in our Games. All Characters are rolled up in front of the Party and Dm in plain sight..You get what you get. If you can cheat in Front of everyone and get away with it, they have no right to complain. You don't wanna Roll then You don't Paly with Us. Part of the Game is about the Luck of the Dice Rolls, That Helps distinguish characters from Each other Lets just get Rid of All Stats. Instead of sided Dice with Numbers I propose Future Dice of Hit/NO Hit Killed/Wounded Effected/Not Effected That way all you need is a Coin Flip, it Let It land on a Surface, No Catching in the Hand and Flipping downsided and asking Heads or Tails
arphaxad 12-10-04, 06:46 AM	Glad you like it that way, but Not in our Games. All Characters are rolled up in front of the Party and Dm in plain sight..You get what you get. If you can cheat in Front of everyone and get away with it, they have no right to complain. You don't wanna Roll then You don't Paly with Us. Part of the Game is about the Luck of the Dice Rolls, That Helps distinguish characters from Each other Lets just get Rid of All Stats. Instead of sided Dice with Numbers I propose Future Dice of Hit/NO Hit Killed/Wounded Effected/Not Effected That way all you need is a Coin Flip, it Let It land on a Surface, No Catching in the Hand and Flipping downsided and asking Heads or Tails My experience, roll dice in front of DM, DM's brother mysteriously has twice hit points as the rest of us, oooh and look at that nearly all 18's too. Yeah, we used forms of point buy after that. My games will always use point buy if I can help it. And I'm not saying get rid of stats, Where did I say that at?
John Paul Stoddard 12-10-04, 07:56 AM	Was the Dice Rolled in front of EVERYONE or just the DM. In Our Group, Every player is present when the Dice is Rolled and Everyone is a Witness to the Dice total before they are rerolled. I never said you said Get Rid of Stats, Where did you get that From :confused: I was just making the point that if The Game was complicated and everyone cheats at Dice rolls, lets just do way with them Everyone has a Dice that seems to miraculously Roll NAT 20's all the Time.
arphaxad 12-10-04, 09:09 AM	Was the Dice Rolled in front of EVERYONE or just the DM. In Our Group, Every player is present when the Dice is Rolled and Everyone is a Witness to the Dice total before they are rerolled. I never said you said Get Rid of Stats, Where did you get that From :confused: I was just making the point that if The Game was complicated and everyone cheats at Dice rolls, lets just do way with them Everyone has a Dice that seems to miraculously Roll NAT 20's all the Time. The dice were rolled only in front of the DM, (actually I'm not even sure he bothered to watch, so nobody probably witnessed the rolls). It's probably better to do away with the cheaters than the dive rolls themselves. Everybody has a friend or knows of someone who always has the best luck and all that, fine make sure they're not cheating and all that. As for rolling the dice themselves, the variance often means the effective elc's of the different characters will vary 1-2 in any party. It's often fun to be the guy on top with something equivalent to a 48 point buy, it's not a whole lot of fun to be the guy with a 24. Both can survive, but the monsters that challenge the 48 kill the 24. It just saves time, effort, and thought when you just say everyone gets a 32 point buy. No accusations of cheating, no jealousy in the party, no ineffective characters (usually). Sorry about the stats comment, I didn't understand what you were meaning when you said that.
starfire311 12-10-04, 09:16 AM	Was the Dice Rolled in front of EVERYONE or just the DM. In Our Group, Every player is present when the Dice is Rolled and Everyone is a Witness to the Dice total before they are rerolled. I never said you said Get Rid of Stats, Where did you get that From :confused: I was just making the point that if The Game was complicated and everyone cheats at Dice rolls, lets just do way with them Everyone has a Dice that seems to miraculously Roll NAT 20's all the Time. So after a campaign is begun you don't allow people to join right, because they weren't present to witness all the die rolls. The reason I don't allow dice rolling is that I don't like handing out free stat boosting items that are better than any of the existing stat boosting items in the DMG. I'm going to admit math is not my specialty, But I just don't understand that math. Every character has the same opportunity per attack of provoking, %5 or 1 out of 20. The more times you swing the more opportunities you have to roll a 1. It's been a while since I was doing probility and statistics, though so I've forgotten how to do the math. Looking at it negatively is the best I can do. the chances of not rolling a 1 is .95, for a commoner 1-.95 =.05 For the guy with 17 attacks it compounds (right? I think?) .95^17 =.4181 1-.4181=.5818. That means over the course of one attack there's 58% chance of provoking over the course of 17 attacks. So by math you are punishing people with more attacks. Again my math skills are deteriorating, so Iif someone with more of a mathmatical backround could say my math is right or wrong, and correct it, it would be appreciated. both have the same chance of being hit because the monster is evilly huge, and can only miss either on a 1, (which would then provoke if the two characters in question had reach.) thank you for proving math isnt your specialty... this isnt even close to correct. real quick rundown on guy with 17 attacks, he has a chance of 58% of rolling a 1, but then you have to account for the chance that he will also miss on his confirm roll. [QUOTE=Kem]Starfire's right, but its a flawed example. You are forgetting that he requires the attack to miss on a confirming roll also. So his attack with 8 attacks that autohit has a small chance to crit fail. However his original example of 5% then 50% then 50% makes things a bit more interesting +20/+20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5 (9 Attacks) Chances to Provoke an AoO... AC 20: ~13.4% AC 25: ~21.6% AC 30: ~28.4% Advice using this system... Don't full attack. Especially as a rogue or monk (forget flurry too )[quote] this seems about right... if you have considor your opponent having a 50% chance of hitting you, that means that each round of 9 attacks vs an opponent with AC 20 you will have a ~7% chance of being hit. so about 1 out of every 15 rounds of full attack this guy will get hit. and as for not flurrying that is crazy... even if you need a nat 20 to hit your opponent you are more likely to hit him than you are to provoke an AoO.
John Paul Stoddard 12-10-04, 09:21 AM	It's probably better to do away with the cheaters than the dive rolls themselves. . Oh I can definately agree with that. Because if they Cheat on Stat Dice Rolls, they will cheat on to hit/ damage Rolls, Tracking Damage Taken, and All other aspects of the game. AMazing how they Never run of GP, have just the Right Equipment and the Ability to pull it out from where the Sun Don't Shine. Or Carry more stuff Than a Semi with out slowing Down.
starfire311 12-10-04, 09:27 AM	Oh I can definately agree with that. Because if they Cheat on Stat Dice Rolls, they will cheat on to hit/ damage Rolls, Tracking Damage Taken, and All other aspects of the game. AMazing how they Never run of GP, have just the Right Equipment and the Ability to pull it out from where the Sun Don't Shine. Or Carry more stuff Than a Semi with out slowing Down. :rofl: So true
John Paul Stoddard 12-10-04, 09:29 AM	So after a campaign is begun you don't allow people to join right, because they weren't present to witness all the dice Rolls Been Playing with the Same Players since 1978, Were on our 3rd Campaign with One Dm, My 2nd Campaign as a DM, and another Players 1st Campaign as A DM. 5 People Total now. 1st Campaign we had 14 players at the most at one time, popping in and out durring the Game. Due to work, Football games.etc.. Even though we have played Together That Long we still follow That rule each time we roll up characters
arphaxad 12-10-04, 09:48 AM	So after a campaign is begun you don't allow people to join right, because they weren't present to witness all the die rolls. The reason I don't allow dice rolling is that I don't like handing out free stat boosting items that are better than any of the existing stat boosting items in the DMG. thank you for proving math isnt your specialty... this isnt even close to correct. real quick rundown on guy with 17 attacks, he has a chance of 58% of rolling a 1, but then you have to account for the chance that he will also miss on his confirm roll. [QUOTE=Kem]Starfire's right, but its a flawed example. You are forgetting that he requires the attack to miss on a confirming roll also. So his attack with 8 attacks that autohit has a small chance to crit fail. However his original example of 5% then 50% then 50% makes things a bit more interesting +20/+20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5 (9 Attacks) Chances to Provoke an AoO... AC 20: ~13.4% AC 25: ~21.6% AC 30: ~28.4% Advice using this system... Don't full attack. Especially as a rogue or monk (forget flurry too )[quote] this seems about right... if you have considor your opponent having a 50% chance of hitting you, that means that each round of 9 attacks vs an opponent with AC 20 you will have a ~7% chance of being hit. so about 1 out of every 15 rounds of full attack this guy will get hit. and as for not flurrying that is crazy... even if you need a nat 20 to hit your opponent you are more likely to hit him than you are to provoke an AoO. I guess I was still calculating for the system that lucent said he was using. But I really don't need the snide comments, the point still remains that two weapon fighters and monks would be effected adversely by this system. There's still no need for this at all, really. To get back to the main point of this thread, most house rules really are unnecessary, and detract from the balance of the rules. I'm not saying I think wotc is infallible or anything, but the rules have been play tested and balanced, and all that good stuff. I know nobody here would do something as low as throw out house rules on the fly, but my DM just threw out like 5 or 6 brand new ones, in addition to the ones I just found out about that were already in place. In my experience there's probably about as many people that don't keep track of their house rules that do, anybody else have similar experiences to mine?
starfire311 12-10-04, 10:40 AM	I guess I was still calculating for the system that lucent said he was using. But I really don't need the snide comments, the point still remains that two weapon fighters and monks would be effected adversely by this system. There's still no need for this at all, really. To get back to the main point of this thread, most house rules really are unnecessary, and detract from the balance of the rules. I'm not saying I think wotc is infallible or anything, but the rules have been play tested and balanced, and all that good stuff. I know nobody here would do something as low as throw out house rules on the fly, but my DM just threw out like 5 or 6 brand new ones, in addition to the ones I just found out about that were already in place. In my experience there's probably about as many people that don't keep track of their house rules that do, anybody else have similar experiences to mine? I apoligize I guess I was a little rude. and yes I have been in the same situation... and the worst one I have ever been in was when I joined a game after it started, I had made my character before showing up, he told me to use 4d6 drop the lowest. He approved my character and so we start playing. after a few minutes he starts using all these "houserules" that I didnt have any clue about, he explains it as rules that they always use. So this goes on for a few sessions with a new houserule being thrown in just about eveery encounter. after about 5 sessions I was starting to get confused and this is when I started to notice that just about everyone in the goup had almost straight 18s in their stats, except me. So I finally ask if he ahs hs rules written down anywhere because, I was having trouble following them all. And he is like yeah I have them all written down in my DMG, and he pulls out a huge binder with easily 100+ pages in it and on the front it says Expanded DMs Guide. I was like :eek: can I look at it and he says no it is for the DM... and that my friends was my last games session with that group. Oh apparently the reason why everyone had staright 18s was because of his very generous die rolling method. Roll 5D6, 1s count as 6s, reroll 2s and 3s, drop the 2 lowest, do this 12 times and keep the best 6. There were very few people that didnt get straight 18s witht his method. He told me that he didnt like that method anymroe when I was joining so he just had me roll 4D6 drop the lowest.
Klytus 12-10-04, 12:37 PM	One of the Ideas I had in my mind when I started this thread, is that getting rid of house rules might be able to spice up many people's game. Considering how many people use house rules (nearly everybody), it might actually be more unusual to play a game of straight out of the books+errata+faq D&D, using inly the settings percular rules. You're example is what I'm talking about when I say some rules aren't carefully thought through. A hasted two weapon fighter will probably die on his own turn versus a guy with combat reflexes, and your level doesn't even enter in to the equation, so a first level commoner has the same chance as a 20th level fighter . Completely unneccessary. Would the same thing happen to an npc, if he rolled a one, because you made it sound like it only happens to pc's? Either way. I like using the straight rules because prevents DM arbitrariness a lot of the times. I only use House Rules to fix things that I (as the DM) perceive to be "broken". For example: some of the spell nerfs from 3.0 to 3.5 got de-nerfed, I handle specialist mages differently and I give out Feats every other level rather than every 3rd level. I also have a hand-out that outlines all of my House Rules, plus a master list of Feats and Spells which are accepted in my campaign. I agree, though, about not making changes that cut too deep into the game mechanics. I wanted to change how wizards and clerics prepared and cast spells, to make them more like sorcerers. Thing was, doing that would have shafted the Sorcerers, and none of the counter-adjustments I could come up with to help maintain balance felt right, so I left those rules alone.
Mind Rogue 12-10-04, 04:50 PM	In the campaign that I DM, I usually use a toned down version of the critical failure. If you roll a natural 1, you roll again, and if that is a miss, something bad happens, which is usually you drop your weapon, although sometimes it is something like the arrow explodes in your crossbow (dealing you and it damage) or that you provoke an AoO from whoever you were attacking. In the campaign that I play in, my DM uses the harsher rule where you provoke an attack of opportunity from everyone on a natural 1. This usually works to our favor since we usually outnumber our foes and many monsters get more attacks than a PC. For instance, we fought a maniticore, and he had three chances each round to critically fail. I did try to point out that since you have to confirm a critical hit, you should also have to confirm a failure, but he didn't take that idea.
Dunelord 12-13-04, 07:35 PM	I guess this thread would belong in a forum with house rules in the title, so that's why it's here. I have played and DMed all sorts of different kinds of campaigns these lat couple of years, and I have really come to despise house rules. Sometimes you just want to have a game without some meglomaniac DM making up rules. My worst experiences with house rules have been when they are on the fly. This usually comes when the DM doesn't understand the rule in question, and wasn't prepared for the result. I all my years playing home games I never played one game without some house rules. House rules seem to me to be a way for the DM to assert power over the game. When confronted by a rule or ability the DM didn't expect that threatens an important NPC or plot, the DM will make up a house rule. My suggestion is that a house rule should be carefully considered and laid out from the start rather than later on, on the fly. When you start up a campaign next, consider this, do we really need any house rules at all? Won't everyone be on the same footing? The rules are hard enough to learn as it is, but then most DM's add houserules that they can't even keep track of, and really have no reason to implement. Then many DM's wonder why their campaign is unbalanced. Anybody else feel the same way? I wonder if this says more about your DM then houserules. I use a few but for the most part ones I consider very small... Clerics are proficent with their gods favorded weapon, and if that is a martial or exotic weapon they loose there heavy armor pro. things of that nature. I put the list of house rules down BEFORE the game starts and make sure everyone knows them before we begin. I have never done a house rule on the fly, even when I thought it was stupid because it isn't fair to players to have them site down at the table and think it works the way the book says without telling them otherswise. I have put in house rules inbetween gaming sessions and told everyone who was playing with me that I had done it while allowing them to change thier character if it affected them, i.e. if they could take ranks out of or put them into a skill I changed. When I do change a rule I put it in the book so the players have one place to go to for all the rules. For the most part I do agree that they should be used very seldom since the game seems very well written. If they didn't I wouldn't play them. I think in 5 years of running I have used maybe a half dozen.
Thapthim 12-14-04, 11:40 AM	I'd have to see that to beleive it. I also have a bit of experience with the bow, and I have trouble pulling and nocking an arrow that quickly much less shooting, but irregarless. Well I have taken a bit of Archery, so I can only get off a shot every 6 seconds or so. But I have seen people shoot lighting fast with deadly acuracy. Such as with flip target shots.
arphaxad 12-14-04, 11:49 AM	Well I have taken a bit of Archery, so I can only get off a shot every 6 seconds or so. But I have seen people shoot lighting fast with deadly acuracy. Such as with flip target shots. Aiming isn't really the hard part with an instinctive bow, maybe takes up to a second. Pulling out the arrow nocking and drawing, is what I view to be difficult. I guess if you practiced it a good bit and had shallow nocks that slip on easily it's possible to get one off every 6 sec then keep on doing it.
JTalbain 12-14-04, 04:38 PM	I have my little bit of experience with annoying house rules too. Apparently my group feels that without the chance for something to go horribly wrong on every action, it isn't roleplaying or something like that. For instance, for those that don't know, the critical fumble rule doesn't exist. The closest thing to it is if you are wielding a poisoned weapon. Then if you roll a nat 1 you roll a Dex check, DC 10, or you accidentally expose yourself to the poison. With my group, if you nat 1 you have to confirm the fumble and the higher the confirmation roll the worse, and the bad fumbles are really bad. So a fighter, no matter how good, has a 1/400 chance of eviscerating or decapitating himself every time he swings his vorpal sword. Really makes me wanna play a sorceror... The other annoying thing with it is how my group does ranged attacks when there's a party member in melee. Basically, if they rolled a 1, they had about a 25-50% chance of hitting the party member in melee. This got to be really frustrating for two reasons: 1) My character was usually the one hit, and 2) My character would have an AC so good that the ranged attacker in question would need about a nat 20 to hit me if he were trying. It's almost always a half-orc npc who nails me, for whatever reason, so now, whenever we have a half-orc NPC of any sort, I just play something different. I hate that rule. If you were doing battle with Athena, you'd have almost as good a chance of hitting her if you aimed for your comrade. The rule extends to making a nat 1 on skill checks an automatic failure, and a nat 20 an automatic success. This makes stealthy characters nigh on useless, because EVERYONE, no matter how unobservant they are, has a 5% chance of noticing them. This makes almost any situation involving slipping past more than 3 or 4 guards unworthwhile, and even then it's risky, even as an Epic Rogue. I'm told that the reason why is so everyone has a chance to make things like spot checks or listen checks, even if they are numerically unable to. Honestly, if I play a character that is unable to spot a stealthy rogue of equal level without divine intervention, I have no right to complain. I chose to make my character that way, and I don't think other people should whine over getting screwed in something that's untrained for them but is their opponent's ballywick. I feel that these rules favor uncertainty, and hence the monsters, much more often than not, and see them as an unnecesary hindrance to the game, hamstringing some players in what they ought to be able to do without any trouble. I myself like to look at how the game mechanics work, both mathematically and in their intentions, before I change a rule. I guess I'm just willing to go through more work than most people.
Ellanon 12-14-04, 07:14 PM	My DM just decided that his next game would only allow WOTC 3.5 books (and any updated/converted info for the 3.0) only. This means that I can no longer use many of the wonderful resources on these boards at all. This is a bummer because I love how the Ultimate classes work (check my sig), and enjoy using flaw/traits from here as well. The only non-PHB/DMG rules he uses are the traits/flaws from UA, and replacing the base 10 AC with a d20 roll. We had a few games a while back where another GM changed the rank cap for non-class skills, altered the magic system, used a Star Wars style Defense/DR armor system. We were constantly arguing over rules and circumstantial, situational rulings. We have found that it was easier to just go back to the basics that everyone understood and agreed upon. Even after we had done that, we still allowed just about any source for character creation, upon approval. Now, our current GM, without any explanation at all has told me that he hates the stuff on these boards and will not allow them in his next game. It looks like I have a long hard fight ahead of me. =)
Soulmage 12-17-04, 10:59 AM	I think your problem is bad DMs not house rules.
Arcane Guyver 12-17-04, 11:06 PM	Much as I'd like to run D&D straight from the core books, I can't bring myself to do so. I am trying to keep the house rule quotient down a bit (can't see why it'd tick my players off, as most open more options than anything).
TLomon 12-18-04, 12:36 AM	Let's see. Well, with my friends, I am usually the DM. So, the house rules would be mine. Haven't really put them down in writing before. This is usually explained before the game when a new player joins. I add some commentary on my reasons after each rule. Character Development: 1) Anything goes from any edition. I have a large collection of rules. If I don't have rules for something you want to do, I will create some for you. If you want to use rules from a supplement I do not have (unlikely), let me borrow the book to read it over. I like to give the players options. They like to have them. 2) Don't expect to start off powerful. Expect to start off balanced. I have had to create rules for someone who wanted to play a faerie dragon escaped familiar. The dragon became more powerful as it leveled up. This was back in 2nd edition days. 3) Dice rolls are based on the honor system. 4d6, reroll ones once, remove lowest, assign in any order you wish. In over 20 years of gaming, only one player tried to submit an all 18s character to me. The veteran players now pretty much just write down stats for what they think will be fun to play. I'd estimate a 25-30 build based on what I have seen. 4) Alignment is tracked for the purpose of using aligned magical items. However, there is no penalty to changing alignment if it is done through roleplay. Over the course of a campaign, we had one player start off as CE, move to CN, then TN, then LN. During that time, several respecs were allowed, as things just not work as the player originally intended rules wise. Once again, all in RP during the game. Originally a half-ogre barbarian (1st e), became an anti-paladin (1st e) after meeting his god's avatar, managed to upset his god by committing an horrible attrocity (self sacrifice and rescuing slaves, the humanity!), and became a normal barbarian (CN shift). Met an alchemist who diagnosed his raging ability as a chemical imbalance, and became a fighter (TN shift). Later, retired as an accountant (LN shift). Wierd character, but this all happened over about.. 10 years RL time during the course of the campaign. 5) Occassionally, due to significant changes in the game, full respecs will be allowed. This respec must be built with the same spirit as your original character concept. (Usually done during edition changes) Edition changes are brutal on the characters in my campaign. A lot of conversion needs to take place. Sometimes, the changes are so significant, I think it is only fair to allow the characters to rebuild themselves from first level to where they were. 6) Gestault classes are allowed at +2 LA. Tri-class allowed at +3 LA. This rule is currently in play testing mode right now. We just recently started testing this. Will see how it goes. We are effectively treating gestault combinations as a special class. If a player chooses a gestault character, they can choose from the gestault class list. Still a lot of testing to determine if we want to allow them. Only 2 characters are gestault during testing so far. Combat: 1) Occassionally, special combat rules may be play tested for a final battle fight. Rules will be explained prior to fight, and at end of fight, the combat will be analzyed for possible rule addition into game. I occassionally come across an interesting variant on a mailing list, or message board. We try it out for one fight, and see how it worked out. So far, only one passed preliminary testing. 2) AC System comment is now removed. We were using the v3.x version of AC during 2nd edition. This rule was only system that passed play testing for combat changes. It surprised us when we saw that rule in place in v3.x. In the past, we tested rules that eliminated combat rounds entirely. During testing, we found that daggers were king. We have also tested different systems of magic out. Each game, we try to test out something new. I guess that is the way my players are. They are people I trust. They trust me. Our goal is to have fun. We have fun trying out new rule systems.
Grakarg 12-18-04, 02:22 AM	Generally speaking, the house rules for my campaigns are focused on rebalancing feats or classes to make them more (or less) attractive to players. For example, no one in my campaigns has selected Forge Ring as an Item Creation feat. But Craft Wondrous Item was frequently chosen, due to the wide range of items the feat accesses. My solution was to change Forge Ring to Craft Jewelry, and every item that was a jewelry like item fell under that feat. (amulets, periapts, rings, etc.) This made the feat more attractive, and while it made craft wondrous item less attactive, I felt that was a good thing. Players never took the skill boosting feats (acrobatic, negotiator, etc.) since there were so many other 'powerful' feats available in our campaign (we allow virtually any published non-campaign specific source). So I tweaked them to count the bonus as ranks in the skills. The upshot was that characters could qualify for some prestige classes at earlier levels then they could normally. It made them slightly more attractive, but not overpoweringly so. None of my players would ever play a Sorcerer, always going for a Wizard instead. So I tweaked Sorcerers to allow a bonus feat at the same points that a wizard would, and gave them a list of feats they could choose. Unfortunately I still haven't gotten anyone to play a Sorc instead of a Wizard. Perhaps I'll run a campaign allowing only spontaneous casting and outlaw wizards entirely. I wonder how that would work out...
siege72 12-18-04, 08:16 AM	I guess this thread would belong in a forum with house rules in the title, so that's why it's here. I have played and DMed all sorts of different kinds of campaigns these lat couple of years, and I have really come to despise house rules. As a DM, I have a lot of house rules. Most of them are things that players need to know before the game: changes to spell system, character generation, books allowed, 3.5 rules "back-ported", general "table" rules, etc. I keep two versions: a half-page overview of major changes and "table" rules, and the full-length version. Before joining, every prospective player is sent the overview so that they know what they're getting into. Anyone still interested is sent the full version. :D When I have to make up rulings on the fly, fix things that are broken, or clarify rules, an addition is made to the house rules document. After every "chapter" of the campaign, I send out the complete list (as well as the important changes).