Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Steely_Dan 04-03-07, 07:20 AM	What do you think? CAMPAIGN GROUND RULES: -22, 25, 28, or 32 Point Buy (depending on campaign) -Double Hit Points at first level (ala d20 Star Wars: Saga Edition - d4 = 8, d6 = 12, d8 = 16, d10 = 20, d12 = 24) -Fixed Hit Points for levelling (ala Living Greyhawk - d4 = 3, d6 = 4, d8 = 5, d10 = 6, d12 = 7) -Maximum wealth at first level -Certain non-Core WotC/Paizo material/variants available upon request (Player’s Handbook II/Races of series/Complete series/Expanded Psionics Handbook/Magic of Incarnum/Tome of Magic/Tome of Battle/Book of Exalted Deeds/Book of Vile Darkness/Unearthed Arcana/WotC Website/Dragon Compendium Vol. I/Dragon/Dungeon etc) -No multi-class restrictions (monks/paladins etc) or XP penalties or favoured classes -No Leadership Feat -No death from massive damage -No save or die spells -Any class with the Turning class ability uses the Complete Divine variant -Druids do not gain wild shape, they may instead choose from a list of variants (from PHB II, UA, and Dragon magazine) -The spell polymorph is replaced with the Polymorph sub-school from PHB II -Cross-class Skills cost 1 point per Rank -Certain Skills folded: (campaign dependant – low magic = Skill folding, standard/high magic = no Skill folding): Acrobatics (Balance + Tumble) Athletics (Climb + Jump) Deception (Disguise + Forgery) Disable Device (Disable Device + Open Lock) Perception (Listen + Spot) Persuasion (Bluff + Intimidate) Social (Diplomacy + Gather Information) Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device) -Fewer Absolutes implemented (article by Sean K Reynolds) -Every race/class/feat/equipment/spell/power/magic item/template must be submitted for approval
Karish 04-03-07, 07:47 AM	I'm not a fan of the Double HD at level 1 thing, fixed HD (except full @ first level), point buy systems, restricting what the players can choose to be (I've hosted an all-wizard party that did quite well), or the removal of multiclass limitations. That, and what you so with Cross-Class skills basically makes everyone have all class skills. I do agree that leadership is a feat to be removed (if you want to get minions, do it in-game, don't just say 'LOL FEAT' and get them). And polymorph/druidic wild shape have never been a problem for me. So, no offense, but I guess I just wouldn't wanna play your game.
Steely_Dan 04-03-07, 07:54 AM	I'm not a That, and what you so with Cross-Class skills basically makes everyone have all class skills. No, you would still be limited to having half as many ranks in a cross-class Skill as Ranks in a class Skill.
Karish 04-03-07, 07:59 AM	Eh, I'm still not too keen with it. In the event of that, they could learn at maximum capacity twice as many cross-class feats before they could be completed. Example: Mel, a human fighter with a 13 INT, has ((2+1)*4)+4) SP, equalling 16. Normally, this means one can max out 4 skills. Now, let us say Mel takes all cross-class skills. Mel would have four skills with 2 Ranks. In your Variant, Mel would instead be able to have eight skills at maximum ranks, assuming they were all cross-class. Now, some might say this is fair, but I see it as becoming a little strange, and thus I don't like it.
Tichondrus 04-03-07, 08:03 AM	What do you think? CAMPAIGN GROUND RULES: -28 Point Buy I've never played with point buy so I couldn't say. -Double Hit Die at first level Imbalancing, makes evocation even more useless at first levels, I'd rather take it off. -Fixed Hit Points for levelling (d4 = 3, d6 = 4, d8 = 5, d10 = 6, d12 = 7) And this would turn the game into Diablo 2, definitely out of the question, the least thing DND needs is even more fixed stats to kill diversity. -Maximum wealth at first level Indiferent -Certain Unearthed Arcana variants allowed upon request No idea wich or why, but *shrugs* ignorance is my bliss here. -No multi-class restrictions (monks/paladins etc) or XP penalties or favoured classes Wow...no. Just make it that you can't play humans or half elves either and that paladins and monks get arcane spells like a wizard! Sorry, serious balance issue. -No Leadership Feat Depends on the DM, if the DM is really good, I'd not mind it knowing that the DM would make the followers come by themselves if the character deserves them. I agree with the no cohort part of this. -Druids do not gain wild shape, they may instead choose from a list of variants What variants? -The spell polymorph is replaced with the Polymorph sub-school Mmmmmmm, ignorance enlights me again. -Cross-class Skills cost 1 point per Rank What do you want to be a rogue for then? I really, blantantly dislike this, since any barbarian could have ranks in knowledge [arcana] for example, for the same cost of jumping. Now, if you require training to get each rank, and the character is trained by someone with at least twice the rank he's trying to atune, then I'd allow it withow problem. -Certain Skills folded: Acrobatics (Balance + Tumble) Athletics (Climb + Jump) Deception (Bluff + Disguise) Perception (Listen + Spot) Persuasion (Diplomacy + Gather Information) Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device) From first to the last: no, add this to one for cross class and just let the rogue go home. -Fewer Absolutes implemented (article by Sean K Reynolds) Ignorance -Every race/class/template must be submitted for approval Obviety CAMPAIGN SPECIFIC: -No more than one of the same class in the party So tehre can be no camaradery among characters? Either way, any limitation to aplayer is simply a sign of a lazy DM, no offense, just my PoV. -No more than one full divine caster in the party Read above -No more than one full arcane caster/manifester class in the party Read above -One full BAB class in the party Read above -One class with 6 Skill points per level in the party This one is even worse... sounds whimpy and spoiled. "If there's not a rogue, I'll not DM! *cry*" But then as mentioned twnty million times before: What do you want to be a rogue for if everyone gets all the skills for [almost] free? Completly answered in the quote
Steely_Dan 04-03-07, 10:03 AM	Tychondrus, -No multi-class restrictions (monks/paladins etc) or XP penalties or favoured classes "Wow...no. Just make it that you can't play humans or half elves either and that paladins and monks get arcane spells like a wizard! Sorry, serious balance issue." The first part of your quote I don't quite understand what you're getting at, and how would this cause serious balance issues? Even the designers stated that they only included the multi-class restrictions for monks and paladins because of some whiney play-testers. You are already boned enough for multi-classing, to gouge an XP penalty out of the player is just insult to injury. And favoured classes don't even come up most of the time (single class characters etc) and reek of a revolting Gygaxian holdover.
Tichondrus 04-03-07, 10:21 AM	Let me explain: The paladin has some awesome special powers, but only at first and seccond level. The monk has a really prety boost to his saving throws if he becomes a level one monk (just as if he got the three worst feats after hardness all together) and gets some really nice skills at the first levels only. So considering you'd not be playing a spellcaster, set this as an example: I'm a barbarian, 2 levels of paladin, 2 levels of (or just 1 of) monk. Trade it for warrior instead of barb if you want. Extra damage or extra feats, extra ST, extra move, extra [add what you want]- I'm not telling you to not rule the world as you want, mind that in your table, the word that counts is yours, just that in a game like that, there'd be a huge problem there. And I understand you said "Only one full BAB character" for example, so only the full BAB character could get the benefit of that, making the bonus only able for one player, further imbalancing things. I've played some awesomely imbalanced games nad had a lot of fun, it's just that at this momment I'm up for choice and variety, not fixation. Fix since i don't want to scroll up: You cant be a barbarian, only a warrior since barb cant be legal
Steely_Dan 04-03-07, 10:34 AM	Let me explain: The paladin has some awesome special powers, but only at first and seccond level. The monk has a really prety boost to his saving throws if he becomes a level one monk (just as if he got the three worst feats after hardness all together) and gets some really nice skills at the first levels only. So considering you'd not be playing a spellcaster, set this as an example: I'm a barbarian, 2 levels of paladin, 2 levels of (or just 1 of) monk. Trade it for warrior instead of barb if you want. Extra damage or extra feats, extra ST, extra move, extra [add what you want]- I'm not telling you to not rule the world as you want, mind that in your table, the word that counts is yours, just that in a game like that, there'd be a huge problem there. And I understand you said "Only one full BAB character" for example, so only the full BAB character could get the benefit of that, making the bonus only able for one player, further imbalancing things. I've played some awesomely imbalanced games nad had a lot of fun, it's just that at this momment I'm up for choice and variety, not fixation. Fix since i don't want to scroll up: You cant be a barbarian, only a warrior since barb cant be legal You've completely lost me, but thanks for taking the time to give some feedback.
Tichondrus 04-03-07, 10:38 AM	You are welcome. ._.
Krusk 04-03-07, 11:55 AM	my only question is, when you mention "certian variants from X" or "unearthed arcana by request" You might just want to go ahead and list them, you can pick from these variants_______ This is what i allow from unearthed arcana, it is not mandatory_____ Keeps things easy and you arent stuck making calls at the last min that might look unfair to players. "How come he can do fire kobold, but i cant do gestalt wizard//druid?" -both from unearthed arcana. also id say dont do double hp at first level. If they want extra hp they will get a hgih con, toughness, or improved toughness. And dont force them to pick character classes, just suggest they do so.
Steely_Dan 04-03-07, 12:08 PM	my only question is, when you mention "certian variants from X" or "unearthed arcana by request" You might just want to go ahead and list them, you can pick from these variants_______ This is what i allow from unearthed arcana, it is not mandatory_____ Keeps things easy and you arent stuck making calls at the last min that might look unfair to players. "How come he can do fire kobold, but i cant do gestalt wizard//druid?" -both from unearthed arcana. also id say dont do double hp at first level. If they want extra hp they will get a hgih con, toughness, or improved toughness. And dont force them to pick character classes, just suggest they do so. Yeah, you're right, I will list which variants are allowed – pretty much anything from UA, except Gestalt or Flaws (I detest both). I dropped the campaign specific action. The only reason I was thinking of implementing the double HD at first level, was because in the new d20 Star Wars Saga system PC's will start with triple their HD at first level to bump up 1st level hero survivability.
Krusk 04-03-07, 07:28 PM	in star wars, -havent played newest edition yet- there is no equivilent to evocation spells aside from force powers, which were pretty much amazingly better than any class without effort. At first level if everyone has tons of HP, there is no reason to bother using evocation. mages get 12+con hp? sweet ill magic missile him for 1d4+1.... barbarians get 36+large con mod? awsome looks like im useless.
Steely_Dan 04-04-07, 06:15 AM	in star wars, -havent played newest edition yet- there is no equivilent to evocation spells aside from force powers, which were pretty much amazingly better than any class without effort. At first level if everyone has tons of HP, there is no reason to bother using evocation. mages get 12+con hp? sweet ill magic missile him for 1d4+1.... barbarians get 36+large con mod? awsome looks like im useless. Actually, I suspect they will adopt a similar double or triple HD at first level come 4th edition. The reason being, 1st level/1 HD PC's are way too fragile (all classes). So "they" are trying to avoid the barbarian you've just spent 2 weeks designing/mulling over for your buddy's campaign being taken down by one good hit from an Orc with a falchion or what not. DM's shouldn’t have to have a dice fudging fest in order to keep 1st level PC's alive. P.S. I've clarified some things, at your suggestion, in my Ground Rules post.
Chimaera2000 04-04-07, 09:41 AM	What do you think? CAMPAIGN GROUND RULES: -28 Point Buy I personally love point buy, though I personally prefer 32 point buy to allow for a more well-rounded character with less pressure to have "dump stats." -Double Hit Die at first level This makes PC's much more survivable at first level (a good thing for most groups, IMO), though it does make direct damage spells useless at low levels. Of course, they were useless already at low levels.... -Fixed Hit Points for levelling (d4 = 3, d6 = 4, d8 = 5, d10 = 6, d12 = 7) I personally like this. I always take the averages when rolling simply because I have played a character who rolled low Hit Points and it is crippling. If you want to still have some die rolling an alternative is to roll dice, but allow rerolls whenever the dice is less than half (a d8 would reroll on a four or less, for example). -Maximum wealth at first level No big deal; it means that fighter will be able to afford chain mail or a chain shirt instead of scale mail. PC's are supposed to have 900 GP by 2nd level in any case. -Certain Unearthed Arcana variants allowed upon request (race, class, class features, bloodlines, Item Familiar, spell points) -Certain Dragon magazine variants allowed upon request (race, class, class features, substitution levels) Sounds pretty standard. -No multi-class restrictions (monks/paladins etc) or XP penalties or favoured classes This is one of my favorite house rules. Multiclassing penalties serve no real purpose in D & D other than to make you jump through hoops to achieve certain character concepts or restrict them entirely. What if I want to play an honorable bard, or a half-orc paladin 3/cleric 7? Nope, too bad. :rolleyes: Given that multiclassing penalties don't even restrict level-dipping in any real way (if you want, you can be a human rogue 1/cleric 10/fighter 2/paladin 2/monk 2/psychic warrior 2 with no multiclassing penalties!), the rule should be axed plain and simple. -No Leadership Feat If it makes sense for your campaign, by all means. -Druids do not gain wild shape, they may instead choose from a list of variants (shapeshift variant from PHB II, UA, and Dragon magazine) -The spell polymorph is replaced with the Polymorph sub-school Reasonable house rules. -Cross-class Skills cost 1 point per Rank I've toyed with this idea myself and generally like it. Keep one thing in mind, though; if you take a level in a class, you treat all of that class's skills as class skills for determining maximum ranks for the rest of your career. This means that you can take a one-level dip into something with a lot of class skills (like rogue or Dungeonscape's factotum) and have most or all skills as class skills for the rest of your career. I still like this idea, but this is an implication of it. -Certain Skills folded: Acrobatics (Balance + Tumble) Athletics (Climb + Jump) Deception (Bluff + Disguise) Perception (Listen + Spot) Persuasion (Diplomacy + Gather Information) Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device) I personally would fold Disguise and Forgery together. Bluff is a very useful skill, while Disguise and Forgery and slightly useless and very useless, respectively; it makes more sense to fold those two together. For athletics, I would fold Swim into it as well. I would also fold Use Rope into Athletics (for use as climbing gear) and Survival for its other uses. You could consider folding Open Lock into Disable Device, and Decipher Script into Speak Language (calling it "Linguistics"). -Fewer Absolutes implemented (article by Sean K Reynolds) I wasn't able to find the article. From what I saw, the idea is to provide scaling bonuses instead of immunities (for example, freedom of movement would grant +1/caster level to resist grapple instead of being immune to grappling). -Every race/class/template/equipment/magic item must be submitted for approval Sounds solid, although I think that you could ease up on magic items. Almost all standard items from the DMG are fine (barring animated shields. If you wanted to cut down on some bookkeeping, you could instead say "all magic items outside of those printed in the DMG." It looks not too bad at all. I find myself agreeing with a lot of these. I am VERY glad you dropped the campaign-specific section, though. Seeing what was in Tichondrus's quote made me want to vomit in rage.
Krusk 04-04-07, 09:42 AM	They look pretty good then, although im not a fan of combining skills. The only ones i can see a reason for are hide/move silently, and even that is a loose reason.
Steely_Dan 04-04-07, 10:01 AM	It looks not too bad at all. I find myself agreeing with a lot of these. Thanks, and: "I personally would fold Disguise and Forgery together. Bluff is a very useful skill" You're right, and that must be exactly why they are folding Disguise and Forgery into Deception in d20 Star Wars Saga. And thanks for the input on Skill folding (class/cross calls Skills) – will think on it further.
calvinNhobbes 04-06-07, 01:20 PM	I've played around with the idea of giving 1HD humanoids back their racial hit die. I'm not sure why they made the rule that the first class HD replaces the racial HD. Instead of giving double class HD, why not just give everyone a 1d8+con humanoid racial HD. Just a thought.
Max Octavious Xavier 04-07-07, 03:43 PM	My opinion is most of them are fine and reasonable. -Double Hit Die at first level I would suggest starting the characters at 2nd level instead. -Cross-class Skills cost 1 point per Rank My group uses this and it works fine. -Certain Skills folded: Acrobatics (Balance + Tumble) Athletics (Climb + Jump) Deception (Bluff + Disguise) Perception (Listen + Spot) Persuasion (Diplomacy + Gather Information) Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device) This is the only rule I have a (small) problem with. While it is logical to group them together, I think it is better for game balance for them to be apart.
Steely_Dan 04-10-07, 06:24 AM	"This is the only rule I have a (small) problem with. While it is logical to group them together, I think it is better for game balance for them to be apart." Folding period, or just folding Use Magic Device and Use Psionic Device? Thanks again to everyone for their input, I have also added some changes/clarifications to my original post (check it out above).
starfire311 04-10-07, 09:57 AM	What do you think? CAMPAIGN GROUND RULES: -22, 25, 28, or 32 Point Buy (depending on campaign) all good here I like PB, and even if I didn't I would be willing to use it for a good game. -Triple Hit Points at first level (d4 = 12, d6 = 18, d8 = 24, d10 = 30, d12 = 36) Not a fan at all, I think starwars is doing this because there weapons will be doing more damage, and they are compensating for the loss of Wound points, that gave an additional 10-15 point buffer ontop of VP. This may be great for SW, but I think it is bad for DnD, the game just isnt designed for it. If you want increased survivability, just start at level 3. -Fixed Hit Points for levelling (d4 = 3, d6 = 4, d8 = 5, d10 = 6, d12 = 7) Not bad, we use it sometimes, my big problem is it isnt fair for the higher HD, the D4 gets 75% of max HP every level and the D12 gets just over 50% of max each level, but the lower HD will need it after the D12 gets 24 more HP at 1st level. -Maximum wealth at first level This is waht we always use -Certain WotC/Paizo material/variants available upon request (Player’s Handbook II/Races of series/Complete series/Expanded Psionics Handbook/Magic of Incarnum/Tome of Magic/Tome of Battle/Book of Exalted Deeds/Book of Vile Darkness/Unearthed Arcana/WotC Website/Dragon Compendium Vol. I/Dragon/Dungeon etc) ton of supplements is fine with me -No multi-class restrictions (monks/paladins etc) or XP penalties or favoured classes meh, I like the favored class mechanic only because it is a racial feature for humans and half-elves, if you removeit I think you should give races that have favored class any some kind of bonus to make up for it. -No Leadership Feat -Any class with the Turning class ability uses the Complete Divine variant -Druids do not gain wild shape, they may instead choose from a list of variants (from PHB II, UA, and Dragon magazine) -The spell polymorph is replaced with the Polymorph sub-school from PHB II the above I am all onboard with -Cross-class Skills cost 1 point per Rank Never liked this, I think it hurts rogues a bit, by giving other classes part of what I see as a class feature for them -Certain Skills folded: (campaign dependant – low magic = Skill folding/high magic = no Skill folding): Acrobatics (Balance + Tumble) Athletics (Climb + Jump) Deception (Disguise + Forgery) Perception (Listen + Spot) Persuasion (Diplomacy + Gather Information) Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device) I hate skill folding, I like diversity and the fact that some characters can see better thant hey hear and that sort of thing. I also don't like how it reduces the importance of a rogue even more. -Fewer Absolutes implemented (article by Sean K Reynolds) I liked the article very much, and would like to ue the ideas myself. -Only WotC/Paizo material considered for inclusion in the campaign ok, why do this if you ahve the following rule, why not just say the following, that way if someone creates a home brewed X that you really like, you can include it, withotu breaking your own rules -Every race/class/feat/equipment/spell/power/magic item/template must be submitted for approval well ofcourse Comments above in blue One thing I am thinking about for a homebrew game is starting everyone at level 3 so that they get a bit more survivability, but also starting them with double skill points at each of the 1st 3 levels instead of level 1. the PCs will essentailly have the same number of SP at 3rd level, but they will have it spread out a bit more. This will mean that if you want the great skill points of a rogue you will need to take mroe than just the 1st level.
Dan Hemmens 04-10-07, 10:09 AM	I'm not sure why so many people object to the "triple HP at first level" variant. Do people *really* find getting killed by lucky critical hits to be an essential part of the game's charm? I'm also deeply confused by the guy who objected to fixed HP per level because it would "turn the game into Diablo II" how does it introduce "variety" for two otherwise totally identical characters to have different numbers of hitpoints? Surely you just have one slightly better character?
Steely_Dan 04-10-07, 10:17 AM	"Not a fan at all, I think starwars is doing this because there weapons will be doing more damage, and they are compensating for the loss of Wound points, that gave an additional 10-15 point buffer ontop of VP. This may be great for SW, but I think it is bad for DnD, the game just isnt designed for it. If you want increased survivability, just start at level 3." A 5th level fighter etc would still be considered to have 5 HD (for spell effects etc), but would have triple hp at 1st level so you don’t die when a gnome throws a carrot at you. "meh, I like the favored class mechanic only because it is a racial feature for humans and half-elves, if you removeit I think you should give races that have favored class any some kind of bonus to make up for it." But the problem is this rule rarely comes up with single class PC's. If a human was planning on being a single class character anyway, why should he get something for nothing – humans already rock. "Never liked this, I think it hurts rogues a bit, by giving other classes part of what I see as a class feature for them" Classes would still be limited to half as many Ranks in cross-class Skills as class Skills - why get punished twice for daring to take a cross-class Skill. "ok, why do this if you ahve the following rule, why not just say the following, that way if someone creates a home brewed X that you really like, you can include it, withotu breaking your own rules" Totally – thanks – fixed.
starfire311 04-10-07, 10:18 AM	I'm not sure why so many people object to the "triple HP at first level" variant. Do people *really* find getting killed by lucky critical hits to be an essential part of the game's charm? It hink it is the fact that if you have triple HP at 1st level and someone points a crossbow at you, and says hold it there or I will shoot you. If you are a 1st level barb with oh 40HP, you have absolutly nothing to fear from his crossbow... heck even if it is a 10th level mage that is going to shoot you with a lightning bolt, you will still be up, since on average it will only do 35 HP, yes a bit scarier, but still not too bad for our 1st level character. yes sleep would be a lot scarier to you, as a 1st level barb, than a 10th level lightning bolt.
Steely_Dan 04-10-07, 10:19 AM	I'm not sure why so many people object to the "triple HP at first level" variant. Do people *really* find getting killed by lucky critical hits to be an essential part of the game's charm? I'm also deeply confused by the guy who objected to fixed HP per level because it would "turn the game into Diablo II" how does it introduce "variety" for two otherwise totally identical characters to have different numbers of hitpoints? Surely you just have one slightly better character? I like the way you think.
Dan Hemmens 04-10-07, 10:35 AM	It hink it is the fact that if you have triple HP at 1st level and someone points a crossbow at you, and says hold it there or I will shoot you. If you are a 1st level barb with oh 40HP, you have absolutly nothing to fear from his crossbow... heck even if it is a 10th level mage that is going to shoot you with a lightning bolt, you will still be up, since on average it will only do 35 HP, yes a bit scarier, but still not too bad for our 1st level character. yes sleep would be a lot scarier to you, as a 1st level barb, than a 10th level lightning bolt. I think this is one of those "fundamental gaming culture" clashes. I view D&D as a game of "heroic fantasy", and I don't view a first level Barbarian and a Tenth level Barbarian as all that different. Indeed the difference between a first level and a tenth level character may be a couple of months of gametime. So I am no more worried about crossbows becoming non-threatening at first level than I am worried about their already being non-threatening at tenth level. The other issue here is that I simply don't think that arbitrary PC death is a good or useful thing to include in a game. I actually don't want a first level barbarian (or a first level wizard, for that matter) to be killed by a single shot from a crossbow. The "Hold it there or I will shoot you" problem is a fundamental issue with RPG combat systems. It is logically impossible to create a combat system which simultaneously makes a guard with a crossbow a credible threat to the life of your character without also making it possible for your character to die as the result of a random crossbow shot in a protracted melee. It's a problem that arises chiefly because "combat" in RPGs is actually a small tactical minigame tacked onto the rest of the game system. Everybody thinks you should freeze if a guy points a crossbow at you, nobody wants to die from a single crossbow bolt. These two facts are irreconcilable.
starfire311 04-10-07, 10:35 AM	my big problem with the tiple HP is indeed game balance. Is it balanced for the wizards main offensive spell to do 1D4+1 HP while his opponents have 24-40 HP... and a rogue even with a lucky crit against a flat-footed barbarian at 1st level and rolling max damage will only do maybe 20 HP, it will take a level 1, rogue on average, 10 rounds of sneak attacks to do to 40 points of damage. I am assuming a 50% chance to hit and the rogue does 8 points of damage per hit(1D6+1D6+1). while a barbarian will likly kill the rogue in 2-3 rounds. If your goal was to remove evocation as a viable option for spellcasters, and make them even more focused on save or suck spells then this is a good idea.
Steely_Dan 04-10-07, 10:46 AM	and make them even more focused on save or suck spells then this is a good idea. Thanks, that reminds me: No save or dies spells.
Dan Hemmens 04-10-07, 10:50 AM	Is it balanced for the wizards main offensive spell to do 1D4+1 HP while his opponents have 24-40 HP... Let me just stop you there. Game balance is not about PvP combat. If I were to run a game with triple Hit Points at first level I would *certainly* not apply that rule to NPCs. That would be stupid, it would undermine the whole point of the change. If monsters and NPCs have more hitpoints then it just makes fights go on longer, which means the PCs are just as likely to get killed. I *assume* that Steely Dan was not suggesting that he triple the hit points of Rats and Goblins. That wouldn't be a good idea at all. This is a one-time bonus for PCs, to make them harder to kill, because PC death frankly sucks. At least I assume that's the idea.
Steely_Dan 04-10-07, 10:59 AM	I *assume* that Steely Dan was not suggesting that he triple the hit points of Rats and Goblins. That wouldn't be a good idea at all. This is a one-time bonus for PCs, to make them harder to kill, because PC death frankly sucks. At least I assume that's the idea. Absolutely, as they said in the d20 Star Wars: Saga Edition article "Heroes receive triple hp at first level to increase survivability." I might give important NPC's (elite array or above) and monsters (again with elite array) with classes triple hp for the first HD.
starfire311 04-10-07, 11:04 AM	Thanks, that reminds me: No save or dies spells. this is a tough one then, you will ned to ask yourself is sleep save or die, is hold person save or die, etc etc. Let me just stop you there. Game balance is not about PvP combat. If I were to run a game with triple Hit Points at first level I would *certainly* not apply that rule to NPCs. That would be stupid, it would undermine the whole point of the change. If monsters and NPCs have more hitpoints then it just makes fights go on longer, which means the PCs are just as likely to get killed. I *assume* that Steely Dan was not suggesting that he triple the hit points of Rats and Goblins. That wouldn't be a good idea at all. This is a one-time bonus for PCs, to make them harder to kill, because PC death frankly sucks. At least I assume that's the idea. I assumed you would apply it to everyone, or else what kind of challenge is a 1st level orc warrior to a party where even the meager wizard doesn't have much to worry from getting hit, but can still one hit his foe. The CR system would be amazingly skewed, you would need to send APL+2 CR creatures at the party in order to challenge them. Or essentially just subtract 2 fom all the listed CRs, at least untill you get to about level 10 or so, when the bonus HP start meaning less. yes sample CR 1 creature Human Fighter 1: HP 7... How is this even a challenge when the party consists of Wizard 1: HP 14, Rogue 1: HP 20, Cleric 1: HP 26, Fighter 1: 33 HP Any one in the party could solo the encounter with almost no chance of failure.
starfire311 04-10-07, 11:06 AM	Absolutely, as they said in the d20 Star Wars: Saga Edition article "Heroes receive triple hp at first level to increase survivability." yes the need the increased survivabilty in a game where blaster rifles can do 4D6 damage.
Steely_Dan 04-10-07, 11:08 AM	this is a tough one then, you will ned to ask yourself is sleep save or die, is hold person save or die, etc etc. Only spells where if you actually fail the save you die.
Steely_Dan 04-10-07, 11:09 AM	yes the need the increased survivabilty in a game where blaster rifles can do 4D6 damage. And greatsword criticals for 4d6+Str…
RobbyPants 04-10-07, 11:13 AM	-22, 25, 28, or 32 Point Buy (depending on campaign) Not a bad idea, so long as your group goes along with it ;) -Triple Hit Points at first level (ala d20 Star Wars: Saga Edition - d4 = 12, d6 = 18, d8 = 24, d10 = 30, d12 = 36)This will certainly increase survivability at 1st level. You'll have to adjust encounters accordingly. -Fixed Hit Points for levelling (ala Living Greyhawk - d4 = 3, d6 = 4, d8 = 5, d10 = 6, d12 = 7) Removes some of the randomness (both good and bad). Getting above average each time will also serve to increase survivability -Maximum wealth at first level Given the above rules, this seems quite fitting. -Certain WotC/Paizo material/variants available upon request (Player’s Handbook II/Races of series/Complete series/Expanded Psionics Handbook/Magic of Incarnum/Tome of Magic/Tome of Battle/Book of Exalted Deeds/Book of Vile Darkness/Unearthed Arcana/WotC Website/Dragon Compendium Vol. I/Dragon/Dungeon etc) I'd recommend taking the time to create a list ahead of time. It is time-consuming, but it will make the system fair and impartial. If player A asks for something and gets it, but player B asks for three different things and gets shot down each time, B might get mad. -No multi-class restrictions (monks/paladins etc) or XP penalties or favoured classes A bit potent, but the NPCs can do this too... -No Leadership Feat Okay. -No save or die spells This takes out a big staple from the game. At higher levels, these types of spells are a lot of what truely threatens the PCs. Along with the higher HP totals, spells will not be very powerful against the PCs (but perhaps you're trying to weaken magic at higher levels anyway...). -Any class with the Turning class ability uses the Complete Divine variant Not a bad varient. I've considered using it myself. -Druids do not gain wild shape, they may instead choose from a list of variants (from PHB II, UA, and Dragon magazine) Don't count on many players playing druids... :P -The spell polymorph is replaced with the Polymorph sub-school from PHB II I'd have to read up on that one... -Cross-class Skills cost 1 point per Rank So, effectivly you've removed cross-class skills? Not too bad. Just figure on some PrCs being qualified for at earlier levels. -Certain Skills folded: (campaign dependant – low magic = Skill folding/high magic = no Skill folding): Acrobatics (Balance + Tumble) Athletics (Climb + Jump) Deception (Disguise + Forgery) Perception (Listen + Spot) Persuasion (Diplomacy + Gather Information) Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device) Interesting varient. What do you do about feats that give +2 to two skills, which are now combined into one (such as alertness and athletic)? -Fewer Absolutes implemented (article by Sean K Reynolds) I'd have to read up on that one... -Every race/class/feat/equipment/spell/power/magic item/template must be submitted for approval This is (or should be :P) pretty much a given in any campaign.
Steely_Dan 04-10-07, 11:20 AM	1.) (but perhaps you're trying to weaken magic at higher levels anyway...). 2.) So, effectivly you've removed cross-class skills? Not too bad. Just figure on some PrCs being qualified for at earlier levels. 1.) Indeed. 2.) No, classes are still limited to half as many Ranks in cross-class Skills as class Skills. As I've said before, why get punished twice for daring to take a cross-class Skill?
starfire311 04-10-07, 11:25 AM	And greatsword criticals for 4d6+Str… yes and blaster rifles crits for 8D6 Only spells where if you actually fail the save you die. everytime I have failed or seen someone fail a save to hold person, they have died.
Steely_Dan 04-10-07, 11:33 AM	1.) yes and blaster rifles crits for 8D6 2.) everytime I have failed or seen someone fail a save to hold person, they have died. 1.) Yeah, and…okay, we could go on this trip all day (mine's bigger than yours etc)… 2.) Not in my experience, but it's true, being immobile/helpless is a recipe for getting your bottom handed to you.
starfire311 04-10-07, 11:42 AM	1.) Yeah, and…okay, we could go on this trip all day (mine's bigger than yours etc)… the point is that in star wars you are dealing more damage, thus you need a system that lets you take more, 1st they had WP/VP this essentially gave everyone bonus HP equal to your con score, but managed to still allow for a lucky shot to take someone out. Now they removed the WP/Vp mechanic so they needed something to replace it for increasing damage absorbing capability, this is the triple HP at level 1 mechanic. In rifts it is not impossible or even unlikly to be able to make a character 1st level that can take 100s if not 1000s of points of damage, this is needed because you can deal so much more damage in rifts, I would not recommend using the mechanic of being able to take 1000s of damage at level 1 in DnD without increasing the damage output. 2.) Not in my experience, but it's true, being immobile/helpless is a recipe for getting your bottom handed to you. ever since they "nerfed" hold person it has turned into a save or die spell, while it used to be a save or removed from combat spell.
Dan Hemmens 04-10-07, 01:18 PM	I assumed you would apply it to everyone, or else what kind of challenge is a 1st level orc warrior to a party where even the meager wizard doesn't have much to worry from getting hit, but can still one hit his foe. The CR system would be amazingly skewed, you would need to send APL+2 CR creatures at the party in order to challenge them. Or essentially just subtract 2 fom all the listed CRs, at least untill you get to about level 10 or so, when the bonus HP start meaning less. yes sample CR 1 creature Human Fighter 1: HP 7... How is this even a challenge when the party consists of Wizard 1: HP 14, Rogue 1: HP 20, Cleric 1: HP 26, Fighter 1: 33 HP Any one in the party could solo the encounter with almost no chance of failure. And again we come up against a fundamental style clash. What you are saying, what seems to have got you so scared, is that under this system low level PCs can't be killed pointlessly and randomly by low level encounters.
starfire311 04-10-07, 04:01 PM	And again we come up against a fundamental style clash. What you are saying, what seems to have got you so scared, is that under this system low level PCs can't be killed pointlessly and randomly by low level encounters. I guess I would have to agree, I feel that an equal level encounter, at any level, should be a challenge for the PCs, you feel that it should be a cake walk at low levels... I dont think PCs need to be killed randomly and pointlessly, I like to have a bit of a challenge, and given the current CR system it is already weighed massivly in the PCs favor, this would just tip the scales even more.
Dan Hemmens 04-10-07, 05:47 PM	I guess I would have to agree, I feel that an equal level encounter, at any level, should be a challenge for the PCs, you feel that it should be a cake walk at low levels... I dont think PCs need to be killed randomly and pointlessly, I like to have a bit of a challenge, and given the current CR system it is already weighed massivly in the PCs favor, this would just tip the scales even more. The CR system isn't weighted in favour of the PCs. A CR1 encounter is much less powerful than a level one party, because rather by definition if you put two parties of equal power in a fight to the death, then it will, rather by definition, go either way. An equivalent-CR challenge should not run a serious risk of killing some or all of the party. It should cost them somewhere between 10% and 20% of their on-hand resources, and they should have a good chance of recouping this with the loot from the encounter.
starfire311 04-10-07, 07:18 PM	The CR system isn't weighted in favour of the PCs. A CR1 encounter is much less powerful than a level one party, because rather by definition if you put two parties of equal power in a fight to the death, then it will, rather by definition, go either way. An equivalent-CR challenge should not run a serious risk of killing some or all of the party. It should cost them somewhere between 10% and 20% of their on-hand resources, and they should have a good chance of recouping this with the loot from the encounter. exactly and what kind of a threat would a fighter 1, w/ 7HPs pose a party that is a fighter 1 33 HP, Cleric 1 26 HP, Rogue 1 20 HP, Wiz 1 14 HP. No threat at all. BTW another side effect of this is healing will be nerfed sort of. if they do face a tough challenge and say the fighter gets knocked unconscious (highly unlikly unless they are facing something way above the ECL), the cleric would need on average 6-8 cure light wounds spells to heal back to full.
bartleby42 04-11-07, 02:47 AM	The CR system isn't weighted in favour of the PCs. A CR1 encounter is much less powerful than a level one party, because rather by definition if you put two parties of equal power in a fight to the death, then it will, rather by definition, go either way. An equivalent-CR challenge should not run a serious risk of killing some or all of the party. It should cost them somewhere between 10% and 20% of their on-hand resources, and they should have a good chance of recouping this with the loot from the encounter. So your argument is that the CR system gives the PCs a fair fight, because a fair fight is a fair fight? I'm confused by what your saying here but let me try to break it down: 1) A CR of the party's EL is weaker than the party. 2) A CR = party's EL shouldn't kill the party. 3) A CR = party's EL should pose a mild threat. So how does making the foes have one third the hit points at all support statment number 3? It is akin to claiming that CRs do not need any adjustment is the party is gestalt. But to the OP: I don't see why you are so phobic of magic. Sure they can kill your baddies really quickly but there are tons of solutions. If you just wanted a leash to tug on in case your casters get out of hand, a house rule that golems are immune to all magic, even those that do not allow SR, can solve that problem. Also nerfing spells the only state "Save or Die" is silly. It mearly encourages all the PCs to read the Coup de grace rules and to cast lots of "Save or render helpless so someone can Coup de grace you with a scythe, and anyway most of these spells are harder to save against, and have less strings attached". If you are tired of PCs or NPCs droping like flys from Circle of death and other spells you can always just toss is a couple level one peons that the (N)PCs are leading around. Not only does that allow the oppenents to use thier Save or die spells to good effect, but it gives the combats a sense of scale and the PCs a sense of leadership. But wait your "fix" of banning leadership has lead to another "fix" of banning Save or die spells. I don't think leadership is the main reason you'll be swearing up and down about save or die/disable spells. It's your hit points. Both the PCs and you will realize that direct damage means nothing until you hit around level 10, in which case you can start to hurt wizards and low hit die (N)PCs. Don't belive me, look at your own numbers, assumeing a CON of 14 --- HD ---| level 1 | level 5 | level 10 | level 15 | level 20 d4 | 14 | 34 | 59 | 84 | 109 d6 | 20 | 44 | 74 | 104 | 134 d8 | 26 | 54 | 89 | 124 | 159 d10 | 32 | 64 | 104 | 144 | 184 d12 | 38 | 74 | 119 | 164 | 209 At any level a maximized d6 per level spell won't kill anyone other than a d4 hit die charecter. Even then it's pretty close and you have to wait until level 10 for that to work. I agree that is sucks to be killed in one hit, but your bonus hitpoints coupled with the threat of bad roles being removed means that even the most mediocre PC can run headlong into just about anything and still have a round or two as a grace period before they have to worry. Not that I feel that they came about for bad reasons, I just feel there are better ways to go about it. I suppose the best move would be to figure out why you have the rule, and what you want them to achive. If you can get the same results without making any mechanical changes, but lots of thematic and "fluff" changes, the softer change is a much better idea. If your only concern is the mechanic I think you probally need to rethink why you have these house rules.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 03:07 AM	I don't see why you are so phobic of magic. Also nerfing spells the only state "Save or Die" is silly. But wait your "fix" of banning leadership has lead to another "fix" of banning Save or die spells. I am not "phobic" of magic at all. I love all the systems - standard magic/psionics/incarnum/pact etc, it's just that myself and my players think that save or die spells are bad game design, so we choose not to use them. It is not "silly" as you call it, to "nerf" save or die spells at all; it is just a solution to a problem mechanic within the game. And thanks for your little breakdown table of the effects of triple hp at first level; it illustrated perfectly how it balances out over the course of a characters growth.
Dan Hemmens 04-11-07, 04:38 AM	exactly and what kind of a threat would a fighter 1, w/ 7HPs pose a party that is a fighter 1 33 HP, Cleric 1 26 HP, Rogue 1 20 HP, Wiz 1 14 HP. No threat at all. It poses the "threat" of having to expend their limited resources in order to overcome the encounter, which is exactly what an encounter is supposed to do. Even if you only lose 12 hitpoints spread amongst your whole party in that encounter, that still comes out as two potions of cure light wounds, which works out as 100GP, which is really rather a lot of money for a first level party. BTW another side effect of this is healing will be nerfed sort of. if they do face a tough challenge and say the fighter gets knocked unconscious (highly unlikly unless they are facing something way above the ECL), the cleric would need on average 6-8 cure light wounds spells to heal back to full. Healing will not be "nerfed" it will work exactly the same way it always does. In fact it will be *more* effective, because you won't waste magic doing 10 points of healing to somebody with a maximum of 4 hitpoints.
Dan Hemmens 04-11-07, 04:49 AM	So your argument is that the CR system gives the PCs a fair fight, because a fair fight is a fair fight? I'm confused by what your saying here but let me try to break it down: 1) A CR of the party's EL is weaker than the party. 2) A CR = party's EL shouldn't kill the party. 3) A CR = party's EL should pose a mild threat. So how does making the foes have one third the hit points at all support statment number 3? It is akin to claiming that CRs do not need any adjustment is the party is gestalt. Quite simply, I don't agree with point 3. I believe that a CR = party's EL should require that the party spend resources. To put it another way, your point 2 and your point 3 are mutually contradictory. An encounter that should not kill the party should not kill the party. If you then insist that it must pose a "threat", and define threat as "possibility of killing the party".
Vengeblade 04-11-07, 08:48 AM	What do you think? CAMPAIGN GROUND RULES: -22, 25, 28, or 32 Point Buy (depending on campaign) I've been a fan of point buy ever since rolling in my group never ends up well -Triple Hit Points at first level (ala d20 Star Wars: Saga Edition - d4 = 12, d6 = 18, d8 = 24, d10 = 30, d12 = 36) Ths is just bad form, with removing save or die spells (i'll get to that later) and fixed hit points guaranteeing decent hit points, you've now nerfed the main two combat abilities for mages. In all my years, I think I've had one accidental death at level 1, and that was because the mage was being stupid, his own fault. I've also only had to fudge dice rolls once as well in thsi situation. Careful preperation for early levels will usually keep the party safe. Besides, being a rookie in any field has a great chance of failure, it jsut happens. -Fixed Hit Points for levelling (ala Living Greyhawk - d4 = 3, d6 = 4, d8 = 5, d10 = 6, d12 = 7) This is what I use after my last campaign where the highest hit points was over 300 and the lowest was just barely over 100. That really made encounters weird to run. -Maximum wealth at first level Seems fair -Certain WotC/Paizo material/variants available upon request (Player’s Handbook II/Races of series/Complete series/Expanded Psionics Handbook/Magic of Incarnum/Tome of Magic/Tome of Battle/Book of Exalted Deeds/Book of Vile Darkness/Unearthed Arcana/WotC Website/Dragon Compendium Vol. I/Dragon/Dungeon etc) No problems here -No multi-class restrictions (monks/paladins etc) or XP penalties or favoured classes This has already been pointed out to be a min/max nightmare fro those who know how. But I guess it shouldn't be noticable for most players anyways. -No Leadership Feat Same here, you want some minions, go earn 'em:P -No save or die spells I don't like it at all, these things are staples for PCs and mosters alike at higher levels. Besides, the levels that these start appearing, ressurection spells start showing up, as well. It's part of the danger of playing characters in a life like world. If you are resolved in your desire to nerf mages, I suggest you also remove most ressurection spells. If you can't just snap and kill someone, when they do finally die, they should stay dead. -Any class with the Turning class ability uses the Complete Divine variant Never used it, so I'm indifferent here -Druids do not gain wild shape, they may instead choose from a list of variants (from PHB II, UA, and Dragon magazine) Not really needed, very rarely do players seems to abuse druids, I've never had a problem with them. Just limit what they can shift into (they can only turn into things they've seen)you can avoid out fo control shifting. -The spell polymorph is replaced with the Polymorph sub-school from PHB II That' what I do -Cross-class Skills cost 1 point per Rank Since you aren't changing the max ranks allowed, I don't see a huge problem here, everyone will just have more skills -Certain Skills folded: (campaign dependant – low magic = Skill folding, standard/high magic = no Skill folding): Acrobatics (Balance + Tumble) Athletics (Climb + Jump) Deception (Disguise + Forgery) Perception (Listen + Spot) Persuasion (Diplomacy + Gather Information) Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device) I don't agree with this one. The skill points given to a class and the number of skills are balanced out very well. Now, many people I think have stated how this reduces the rogue's effectiveness due to everyone having "more" skills so to speak. I think it actually boosts the rogue a little too much. Now the rogue will be able to max out even more skills. A human rogue with a high INT may even be able to have several skills he would've never had based on his specialty (i.e a thief rogue will easily be able to pick up social skills he may normally opted out of for more stealty skills). He may even pick up a few points in every knowledge skill which can get annoying very fast. -Fewer Absolutes implemented (article by Sean K Reynolds) Don't know about it, so I have nothing to say about it -Every race/class/feat/equipment/spell/power/magic item/template must be submitted for approval Same here
starfire311 04-11-07, 09:09 AM	It poses the "threat" of having to expend their limited resources in order to overcome the encounter, which is exactly what an encounter is supposed to do. Even if you only lose 12 hitpoints spread amongst your whole party in that encounter, that still comes out as two potions of cure light wounds, which works out as 100GP, which is really rather a lot of money for a first level party. yes a challenge is about expending resources, and 1 of those resources is HP, and you jsut tripled that resource, actually HP is the most valuable resource... for a standard party you jsut increased the HP resource by 56 HP, this is like giving the party 19 free toughness feats, and you dont think this will make encounters equal CR encounters trivial. Unless you like the video game design kinda DnD were you fight 10-15 mobs in a "day", I really can't see how this is any good. But your games your rules, ehck if you don't want players to die, you could give them anywhere from 1 to a million HPs, they will not die if you the DM do not want them to.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 09:13 AM	-Triple Hit Points at first level (ala d20 Star Wars: Saga Edition - d4 = 12, d6 = 18, d8 = 24, d10 = 30, d12 = 36) "Ths is just bad form, with removing save or die spells (i'll get to that later) and fixed hit points guaranteeing decent hit points, you've now nerfed the main two combat abilities for mages. In all my years, I think I've had one accidental death at level 1, and that was because the mage was being stupid, his own fault. I've also only had to fudge dice rolls once as well in thsi situation. Careful preperation for early levels will usually keep the party safe. Besides, being a rookie in any field has a great chance of failure, it jsut happens." Actually, if a DM is honest/plays by the book with the 4 encounters a day malarkey, one 1st level character, at least, is almost guaranteed to die. -No save or die spells "I don't like it at all, these things are staples for PCs and mosters alike at higher levels. Besides, the levels that these start appearing, ressurection spells start showing up, as well. It's part of the danger of playing characters in a life like world. If you are resolved in your desire to nerf mages, I suggest you also remove most ressurection spells. If you can't just snap and kill someone, when they do finally die, they should stay dead." -Which I believe has been a problem with the game since 1st edition. -I just might do that -Certain Skills folded: (campaign dependant – low magic = Skill folding, standard/high magic = no Skill folding): Acrobatics (Balance + Tumble) Athletics (Climb + Jump) Deception (Disguise + Forgery) Perception (Listen + Spot) Persuasion (Diplomacy + Gather Information) Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device) "I don't agree with this one. The skill points given to a class and the number of skills are balanced out very well." This is most certainly arguable.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 09:20 AM	Unless you like the video game design kinda DnD were you fight 10-15 mobs in a "day", I really can't see how this is any good. Now come on, I think you're getting slightly insulting by saying that we want a video game kind of design D&D just because we might want a different kind of game than you. I think one of the main problems with the current edition of the game is the assumption of 4 encounters a day. I believe the game should be designed around "Per Encounter". Whether your party face 1 encounter, or 10 encounters in a day, the system should be able to handle it. …But that's a story for another thread.
starfire311 04-11-07, 09:31 AM	Actually, if a DM is honest/plays by the book with the 4 encounters a day malarkey, one 1st level character, at least, is almost guaranteed to die. this is most certainly not true, I think you are confusing die with rendered unconscious.
starfire311 04-11-07, 09:32 AM	I think one of the main problems with the current edition of the game is the assumption of 4 encounters a day. I believe the game should be designed around "Per Encounter". Whether your party face 1 encounter, or 10 encounters in a day, the system should be able to handle it. I agree with this, almost completly, there are a few things that I don't think should be replenished per encounter automatically, but most things should be.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 09:34 AM	this is most certainly not true, I think you are confusing die with rendered unconscious. No, I'm not, and even if I were; it would still be lame.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 09:41 AM	I agree with this, almost completly, there are a few things that I don't think should be replenished per encounter Absolutely, like certain spells (time stop etc), but many other things, like certain other spells (magic missile etc) should replenish ala Tome of Battle or some such. There was discussion on Monte Cook's site about altering the game to be per encounter based, and they pretty much came to the conclusion that the entire D&D magic system would need to be re-written from the ground up. …Are you in?!
starfire311 04-11-07, 09:42 AM	No, I'm not, and even if I were; it would still be lame. the thing is I have played in numerous games at level 1, several of them being RPGA mods that follow the 4 encounter motif, and never has a character deid at level 1, it is not uncommon for someone to be rendered unconscious, but most hits at level one do not do 11 points or more in one hit, and that is what it takes to kill someone at level 1, otherwise they are just KO'd waiting for some timely healing. I dont think it is lame for beginning characters to have to struggle to achieve the greatness that they do later in life, I just don't think it should be handed to them on a silver platter, as a player I want it to be difficult.
Dan Hemmens 04-11-07, 09:42 AM	yes a challenge is about expending resources, and 1 of those resources is HP, and you jsut tripled that resource, actually HP is the most valuable resource... for a standard party you jsut increased the HP resource by 56 HP, this is like giving the party 19 free toughness feats, and you dont think this will make encounters equal CR encounters trivial. Unless you like the video game design kinda DnD were you fight 10-15 mobs in a "day", I really can't see how this is any good. Exactly. Hit Points are one resource. Player Characters are another. The problem is that at low levels 4HP = 1 PC. To put it another way, at low levels, the game system values the life of a player character as significantly less than a single casting of Cure Light Wounds. Yes, this gives a standard party 56 extra hit points. That's equivalent to somewhere in the region of five potions of Cure Light Wounds. It's absolutely nothing. It only makes equivalent-CR encounters "trivial" if you consider "non-trivial" to mean "carries significant risk of character death." But your games your rules, ehck if you don't want players to die, you could give them anywhere from 1 to a million HPs, they will not die if you the DM do not want them to. But isn't it easier *not* to have to fudge things?
starfire311 04-11-07, 09:44 AM	Absolutely, like certain spells (time stop etc), but many other things, like certain other spells (magic missile etc) should replenish ala Tome of Battle or some such. There was discussion on Monte Cook's site about altering the game to be per encounter based, and they pretty much came to the conclusion that the entire D&D magic system would need to be re-written from the ground up. Cool, I dont get over there very often, might have to check it out. …Are you in?! this is rather daunting task to accomplish, I do think someone has actually done a good amount of the work already by doing a spell recharge variant, and converting every spell in the PhB.
Dan Hemmens 04-11-07, 09:46 AM	I dont think it is lame for beginning characters to have to struggle to achieve the greatness that they do later in life, I just don't think it should be handed to them on a silver platter, as a player I want it to be difficult. And this is our fundamental disagreement. You see the lot of a first level character as a "struggle to achieve the greatness that they do later in life" whereas I see it as a humiliating exercise in failing to display the competence you should already possess. There's nothing noble about getting your ass handed to you by three rats.
starfire311 04-11-07, 09:53 AM	Exactly. Hit Points are one resource. Player Characters are another. The problem is that at low levels 4HP = 1 PC. To put it another way, at low levels, the game system values the life of a player character as significantly less than a single casting of Cure Light Wounds. it takes 14 points of damage to kill a 1st level wizard with 10 con, this is about 2-3 1st level cure light wounds spells Yes, this gives a standard party 56 extra hit points. That's equivalent to somewhere in the region of five potions of Cure Light Wounds. It's absolutely nothing. this is better than that, if instead you gave them a HP resevoir and after each combat they healed upto full and while reducing the resevoir, that would be like giving extra curelight wounds potions, or maybe they could even take time in combat to "catch their breath" and heal from the resevoir. It only makes equivalent-CR encounters "trivial" if you consider "non-trivial" to mean "carries significant risk of character death." I considor it trivial when everyone at the table knows the outcome of the encounter knows the outcome of the battle before it begins and that the PCs will not suffer any casualties and odds are only one may even be wounded. But isn't it easier *not* to have to fudge things? true, BTW I never fudge, jsut saying that if the DM wants the PCs to live they will, but giving extra HP and removing save or die, jsut makes it so you don't have to fudge, you know very well that they wont die, another thing you could do is just reduce all damage dealt to PCs to 1/3. This way they would not even know the rules are different.
starfire311 04-11-07, 09:56 AM	And this is our fundamental disagreement. You see the lot of a first level character as a "struggle to achieve the greatness that they do later in life" whereas I see it as a humiliating exercise in failing to display the competence you should already possess. There's nothing noble about getting your ass handed to you by three rats. why are you always fighting rats, and IMO there is nothing wrong with a group of PCs getting defeated by 8 warriors. granted it would be 4 encoutners of 2 warriors over the course of a day, and the PCs will not lose 80% of the time, but if you ran the day 5 times I have no problem if the PCs lose 1 out of 5. Struggling to achieve greatness is what it is all about, if there is no challenge then there is no sense of accomlpishment. How is the fact that you had to overcome several difficult tasks to achieve greatness humiliating.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 10:00 AM	the thing is I have played in numerous games at level 1, several of them being RPGA mods that follow the 4 encounter motif, and never has a character deid at level 1, it is not uncommon for someone to be rendered unconscious, but most hits at level one do not do 11 points or more in one hit, and that is what it takes to kill someone at level 1, otherwise they are just KO'd waiting for some timely healing. I dont think it is lame for beginning characters to have to struggle to achieve the greatness that they do later in life, I just don't think it should be handed to them on a silver platter, as a player I want it to be difficult. What about the wizard who gets hit by a longbow arrow (critical) for 17 hp, or the Fighter who gets hit twice in the battle for a total of 24+ points of damage etc. And when you go to negatives you aren't always lucky enough to have one of your homies right next to you ready to cast a healing spell or succeed on a DC 15 Heal check. I never hand anything to my players on a silver platter. I also tend to be a bit stingy with handing out loot. In fact, starting the players with triple hp at first level means I can take the gloves off sooner and stop mollycoddling them.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 10:09 AM	but giving extra HP and removing save or die, jsut makes it so you don't have to fudge, you know very well that they wont die, Do I? Just because the Rogue has an extra 12 hp doesn't mean he's suddenly immune to death (especially at higher levels)– I'm not sure where you're going with this one?
starfire311 04-11-07, 10:09 AM	What about the wizard who gets hit by a longbow arrow (critical) for 17 hp, or the Fighter who gets hit twice in the battle for a total of 24+ points of damage etc. And when you go to negatives you aren't always lucky enough to have one of your homies right next to you ready to cast a healing spell or succeed on a DC 15 Heal check. the thing is, it just doesn't happen, a fighter gets hit for 10, the cleric heals him he gets hit again, the cleric heals him again, and hopefully by now you have killed the 2 kobolds you were fighting. Crits do happen, but the wizard is usually smart enough to make sure he is out of the way, so odds are it was the fighter that got crited, and it is rare that it will do 22+ damage in one, hit, yes it could happen, but it ussually doesn't. I never hand anything to my players on a silver platter. I also tend to be a bit stingy with handing out loot. In fact, starting the players with triple hp at first level means I can take the gloves off sooner and stop mollycoddling them. so you will throw harder challenges at them because of this? If this is the case why not just start them at level 3? Why do you feel you need to start them at level 1?
starfire311 04-11-07, 10:14 AM	Do I? Just because the Rogue has an extra 12 hp doesn't mean he's suddenly immune to death (especially at higher levels)– I'm not sure where you're going with this one? you think it is lame if someone gets knocked unconscious, I dont see you as the kind to through killer encounters at them, thus if you through an appropriate CR'd challenge at them especially at level 1 the 20 HP rogue will basically be immune to death. Personally I think this just makes them way too powerful early one, and becomes less meanignful at higher levels, but heck the +20 HP for the fighter is still nice at high levels(15+), but not a big deal. another big thing is that it becomes patently obvious which class to choose at 1st level if you are planning on a gish.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 10:18 AM	1.) the thing is, it just doesn't happen, a fighter gets hit for 10, the cleric heals him he gets hit again, the cleric heals him again 2.) Why do you feel you need to start them at level 1? 1.) …Assuming there is a cleric in the party, and he still has spells left, and he's able to get to you… 2.) I don't, I usually start my campaigns at ECL 3 regardless of triple hp at first level or not.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 10:23 AM	1.) you think it is lame if someone gets knocked unconscious, 2.) I dont see you as the kind to through killer encounters at them, 1.) No, I didn't say that, I just think it is lame if at least one character is "guaranteed" to go unconscious. 2.) Excuse me, but how would have any idea of the type of encounters I throw at my party? Let's not presume now.
starfire311 04-11-07, 10:30 AM	I don't, I usually start my campaigns at ECL 3 regardless of triple hp at first level or not. maybe this is something you should think about, it could accomplish everything you wuld want, you character would be, more heroic, have greater survivability, and you could throw harder encounters at them, all without skewing the CR system, it also has the upside of allowing the occasional LA +1 or +2 race if you think it would fit. 1.) No, I didn't say that, I just think it is lame if at least one character is "guaranteed" to go unconscious. ah my bad, misunderstood. 2.) Excuse me, but how would have any idea of the type of encounters I throw at my party? Let's not presume now. yeah sorry about that, I am not sure why I wrote it and I thought I deleted it before I posted, I didnt even mean it. Man, my proofreading is going way downhill latly.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 10:38 AM	1.) maybe this is something you should think about, it could accomplish everything you wuld want, you character would be, more heroic, have greater survivability, and you could throw harder encounters at them, all without skewing the CR system, it also has the upside of allowing the occasional LA +1 or +2 race if you think it would fit. 2.) yeah sorry about that, I am not sure why I wrote it and I thought I deleted it before I posted, I didnt even mean it. Man, my proofreading is going way downhill latly. 1.) I already do/did. My current Planescape campaign, which has been going for over a year, started at ECL 3 (one player chose to be a drow psion), and is now ECL 11, but I have decided recently to give everyone triple hp for their 1st level and it's working out beautifully. Whether I start my next campaign at ECL 1 or ECL 15, I will be giving the players triple hp for their 1st level. 2.) No worries - Word document and cut and paste are your friends.
Dan Hemmens 04-11-07, 10:47 AM	it takes 14 points of damage to kill a 1st level wizard with 10 con, this is about 2-3 1st level cure light wounds spells It takes four hitpoints to knock them down to 0, below which they start bleeding out. The difference between "Effective and contributing member of the party" and "lying around waiting to stabilise" is 4 HP. this is better than that, if instead you gave them a HP resevoir and after each combat they healed upto full and while reducing the resevoir, that would be like giving extra curelight wounds potions, or maybe they could even take time in combat to "catch their breath" and heal from the resevoir. Which would be no help at all, because people would still get killed or knocked out by lucky criticals. I considor it trivial when everyone at the table knows the outcome of the encounter knows the outcome of the battle before it begins and that the PCs will not suffer any casualties and odds are only one may even be wounded. Then we have massively different attitudes to roleplaying. Also, how does giving the PCs more hitpoints reduce the odds of their being wounded?
starfire311 04-11-07, 11:07 AM	Then we have massively different attitudes to roleplaying. apparently, I like the game to be a challenge, you don't. That has been one of my biggest complaints about MMOs latly, they are all getting easier and easier, there used to be things you could do in them that felt like an acomplishment, they have removed just about any and all challenge from the games, and now there is no reason to play. Granted in an RPG, you still can have a story and roleplaying to keep you happy when the game has no challenge, but I prefer to have it all. Also, how does giving the PCs more hitpoints reduce the odds of their being wounded? it actually doesn't, currently odds are no one will get wounded at level 1 vs a CR 1. you may expend some spells or such, but if you do get wounded it will be much more serious if a fighter takes an 8 point wound when he has 12 HP vs when he has 32.
Dan Hemmens 04-11-07, 11:15 AM	apparently, I like the game to be a challenge, you don't. That has been one of my biggest complaints about MMOs latly, they are all getting easier and easier, there used to be things you could do in them that felt like an acomplishment, they have removed just about any and all challenge from the games, and now there is no reason to play. Granted in an RPG, you still can have a story and roleplaying to keep you happy when the game has no challenge, but I prefer to have it all. I just draw the all important distinction between "challenging" and "difficult". D&D combat is not "challenging" no matter how few hitpoints you have. It is sometimes "difficult" and frequently "frustrating" but it is never "challenging".
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 11:19 AM	1.) apparently, I like the game to be a challenge, you don't. 2.) it actually doesn't, currently odds are no one will get wounded at level 1 vs a CR 1. 1.) You keep assuming, he/she never said or implied that he/she doesn't like the game to be a challenge. 2.) Not at all, the odds of at least one member of the party going down to 2 Orc Warriors (CR 1) is actually quite high, let alone 4 Orc Warriors (CR 2) - almost sure death.
starfire311 04-11-07, 11:40 AM	1.) You keep assuming, he/she never said or implied that he/she doesn't like the game to be a challenge. I think Dan hemmens disagrees with you. D&D combat is not "challenging" I simply disagree, i think it can be challenging. Guess I just have different experience.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 11:50 AM	I simply disagree, i think it can be challenging. Guess I just have different experience. I too agree that it can be challenging. But what about sending four encounters (CR 1 - each two Orc Warriors with greatswords) in one day at a 1st level party? I think if the DM didn't hold back/fudge, there would be some serious problems for the party.
starfire311 04-11-07, 12:05 PM	I too agree that it can be challenging. But what about sending four encounters (CR 1 - each two Orc Warriors with greatswords) in one day at a 1st level party? I think if the DM didn't hold back/fudge, there would be some serious problems for the party. it could be very tough, but I don't think there would be serious problems most of the time. You will probably get 1 character KO'd at some point, and a decent chance of getting 2-3 KO'd through out the day.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 12:31 PM	it could be very tough, but I don't think there would be serious problems most of the time. You will probably get 1 character KO'd at some point, and a decent chance of getting 2-3 KO'd through out the day. Right on – I'll get back to you tomorrow on that one. I got to go home now (at work). I like our little debates; you seem to be one of the special few posters who don't become belligerent and offensive when someone disagrees with you. Hopefully I'll catch you tomorrow, take care.
Vengeblade 04-11-07, 06:11 PM	I still think with all the extra hit points, no save or die spells, and folded skills, you're removing a lot of the threat of death from most of the game, not just low levels. I've always seen it as the less danger the players are in constantly, the less they care about the game and its consequences. With out the good chance of failure, success will seem less important. Just sounds to carebear for me, but it's all just words. Tell me how it works out in actual gameplay. Maybe I just run a little to much power. I do getalt with 7 people, that's crazy fun.
Steely_Dan 04-12-07, 02:28 AM	I still think with all the -extra hit points, no -save or die spells, and -folded skills, you're removing a lot of the threat of death from most of the game, not just low levels. -That just means I can throw more crap at them in the early levels instead of the wizard running from a cat. -Actually, in the 19 or so years I've been playing this game I haven't seen too many DM's whip these out on players, and certainly not with any kind consistency. How would streamlining the Skill system, which it desperately needs IMO, in any way be "removing a lot of the threat of death from most of the game"?
Vengeblade 04-12-07, 02:54 AM	Well the skills don't change the threat level much, but it just allows more people to have the awareness (spot, listen, search, survival in some cases) skills, which lowers the chance of being suprised in many cases. Plus, like I said, having the ability to have many extra knowledge skills can be a damper on trying to control information when many players by the rules can just roll and know something vital on almost every subject. I still think triple HP is a bit much, double should be sufficient. Of course, I would prefer a straight bonus tp HP for all classes, like everyone gets +5 +10 HP at first level. Save or die spells, players should have them, as they can sometimes help them out of bind in a pinch. Besides its always fun to watch players use them on minion level monsters and run out when the boss shows up. I use save or die spells sparingly for my monsters or NPCs, mainly for BBEGs or really smart oppenents who know better then trying to duke it out with the PCs in a drawn out battle.
Steely_Dan 04-12-07, 03:18 AM	1.) Well the skills don't change the threat level much, but it just allows more people to have the awareness (spot, listen, search, survival in some cases) skills, which lowers the chance of being suprised in many cases. Plus, like I said, having the ability to have many extra knowledge skills can be a damper on trying to control information when many players by the rules can just roll and know something vital on almost every subject. 2.) I still think triple HP is a bit much, double should be sufficient. Of course, I would prefer a straight bonus tp HP for all classes, like everyone gets +5 +10 HP at first level. 3.) Save or die spells, players should have them, as they can sometimes help them out of bind in a pinch. Besides its always fun to watch players use them on minion level monsters and run out when the boss shows up. I use save or die spells sparingly for my monsters or NPCs, mainly for BBEGs or really smart oppenents who know better then trying to duke it out with the PCs in a drawn out battle. 1.) I think more classes should have more Skills, so that can all contribute to encounters, instead of the fighter saying, "Well, unless I get to bash something, Climb something, or Jump something, I'm just going to sit here quietly and eat my muffin…" 2.) Yeah, I might go with double, but you still have the problem of your sorcerer going down to some muppet with a bastard sword (a non-critical hit at that). 3.) True, I might let my players use some save or die spells, but most players I've had the fortune of playing with choose not to use them, but if they insisted I would let them utilize save or die spells. Thanks for all the advice/input!
Vengeblade 04-12-07, 07:35 AM	No problem. But as for teh sorcerer going down froma muppet. With a well played party a mage should know better then put him self in harms way early in a fight. The rest of the party should be able to help keep it that way. MAges are squishy, comes with the territory. I understand wanting to give peoplea boost, but I think mages should be a little squishy at least. Maybe the flat +10 HP at first level would be more suited then. A mage will have 14 HP minimum, even most crits (the x2 variety) should only land in unconciousness, and then the monster should move on.
Dan Hemmens 04-12-07, 07:39 AM	Basically what a lot of this comes down to is whether you prioritize a game of Fantasy Adventure over a game of Strategic Resource Allocation, and whether you think first level characters actually should be completely incapable of doing anything reliably.
starfire311 04-12-07, 09:00 AM	and whether you think first level characters actually should be completely incapable of doing anything reliably. I guess you have me there I don't think 1st level character should be able to do anything reliably. Sure they should do somethings reliably, but not anything. Currently, you have about an 95+% chance of overcoming an encounter of equal CR, how is this not reliable.
Steely_Dan 04-12-07, 09:17 AM	Currently, you have about an 95+% chance of overcoming an encounter of equal CR, how is this not reliable. Where did you get that figure? It most definitely depends on exactly what specific equal CR encounter they are dealing with. What is a challenging EL/CR 4 encounter to a party of four ECL 4 characters is a cakewalk to another party of four ECL 4 characters.
starfire311 04-12-07, 09:45 AM	Where did you get that figure? It most definitely depends on exactly what specific equal CR encounter they are dealing with. pulled it out of you know where. I thought 95% was being quite conservative, that is why I said 95%+. I can only think of 2 encounters in the last several hundred that I have failed to overcome, and both of those were grossly over EL'd. What is a challenging EL/CR 4 encounter to a party of four ECL 4 characters is a cakewalk to another party of four ECL 4 characters. true 1 encounter may be more challenging to a group than another encounter, but both groups will likely overcome it, just with different amounts of resources expended.
Steely_Dan 04-12-07, 09:53 AM	1.) I can only think of 2 encounters in the last several hundred that I have failed to overcome, and both of those were grossly over EL'd. 2.) true 1 encounter may be more challenging to a group than another encounter, but both groups will likely overcome it, just with different amounts of resources expended. 1.) Maybe you had a timid DM? 2.) I meant the same encounter could be devastating to one party of equal ECL, and a breeze to another party of equal ECL. Party make up affects EL/CR's greatly. The CR system may be better than what we've had in past editions (nothing but eyeballing) to roughly gauge encounter strength, but I still think as it is it's a travesty of a mockery of a sham.
Dan Hemmens 04-12-07, 10:05 AM	I guess you have me there I don't think 1st level character should be able to do anything reliably. Sure they should do somethings reliably, but not anything. Currently, you have about an 95+% chance of overcoming an encounter of equal CR, how is this not reliable. Because you have a 5% chance of not overcoming it. And when you don't overcome an encounter, you quite probably die, and the game stops. So every time the players face an equivalent-CR encounter the game has a five percent chance of ending. They may face several of these encounters every session. They need to face fifteen of them before they see level two.
starfire311 04-12-07, 10:11 AM	1.) Maybe you had a timid DM? Don't think this is the case, at cons I ussually go throw 3-6 different DMs, and I play with 4 different DMs, myself included outside of cons. My players call me a killer DM, since I we will not hesitate to kill characters if given the oppurtunity, but this ussually doesn't stop them from overcoming the encounter, and the raising/rezing the dead character. 2.) I meant the same encounter could be devastating to one party of equal ECL, and a breeze to another party of equal ECL. yes it can be decestating, but I would wager that much fewer than 1 in 20 encounters are devasting to any one group, if your party is constantly getting destroyed, then there is a problem. Party make up affects EL/CR's greatly. The CR system may be better than what we've had in past editions (nothing but eyeballing) to roughly gauge encounter strength, but I still think as it is it's a travesty of a mockery of a sham. I don't think it is nearly as bas as you do, U think it is a wonderful tool, it is not infallible, but if utilized well I find it to be very valuable. I think it would be much harder to gauge encounter toughness without the CRs listed, if challenge rating was just removed from all monster entries, and not replaced by anything, then I think I would incorrectly gauge the difficultly of encounters more often. My problem is when I see my players destroy several encounters in a row, I start thinking that they can handle more than they really can, and will throw something a bit too difficult at them(the still beat it, but it was more difficult than I thoguht it would be), if it weren't for the CRs I would probably be throwing stuff that is just way too hard for them sometimes.
starfire311 04-12-07, 10:18 AM	Because you have a 5% chance of not overcoming it. And when you don't overcome an encounter, you quite probably die, and the game stops. or you reteat and live to fight another day, in the current campaign I am playing in we have failed to overcome 2 encounters, 1 the 1st encounter we had a TPK, and it was admittedly the DMs fault. we weer missing 3 players, and it was the 1st session, and the DM decided to throw an EL 9 at us the remaining 3 5th level players to open up the game. It was a TPK. Since then we have only failed 1 encounter(out of 30+), and we fled that one. Nothing wrong with knowing when to run IMO.
Steely_Dan 04-12-07, 10:26 AM	1.) but this ussually doesn't stop them from overcoming the encounter, and the raising/rezing the dead character. 2.) if your party is constantly getting destroyed, then there is a problem. 3.) I don't think it is nearly as bas as you do, U think it is a wonderful tool, it is not infallible, but if utilized well I find it to be very valuable. I think it would be much harder to gauge encounter toughness without the CRs listed, if challenge rating was just removed from all monster entries, and not replaced by anything, then I think I would incorrectly gauge the difficultly of encounters more often. My problem is when I see my players destroy several encounters in a row, I start thinking that they can handle more than they really can, and will throw something a bit too difficult at them(the still beat it, but it was more difficult than I thoguht it would be), if it weren't for the CRs I would probably be throwing stuff that is just way too hard for them sometimes. 1.) That's hard to do at low levels, and my players and myself frown upon it anyway. 2.) Of course 3.) Yeah, the CR system is good to get a ball park figure, but nothing beats the old fashioned way of comparing the critter/critters abilities (AC, saves, attack bonuses, spell DC's, hp etc) with those of the party.
Steely_Dan 04-16-07, 06:56 AM	I've made a few more changes to my original post (starting hp's, Skill folding), what do you think?
starfire311 04-16-07, 09:43 AM	I've made a few more changes to my original post (starting hp's, Skill folding), what do you think? double is better than triple IMO, I was thinking about it and what if you jsut added everyones Con score to starting HP, this may work better. And you have just illustrated another reason i think excessive skill folding is a mistake. you have this deception skill? What does it do? It allows you to forgery and disguise. How in the world are these to things so related they need to be the same skill. What about being a good at forgery would make you intrinsically better at disguises? Why should skill in one fo these be lnked to skill in another. BTW that is the same problem I ahve with athletics. Climbing and jumping are 2 completly different discplines, why would someone who has trained in jumping, be better at climbing than someone that didnt train in jumping. Heck I can easily see how you can be a master at disguise, and have no idea how to create a forgery.
Vengeblade 04-16-07, 07:21 PM	Still not my cup of tea, but after looking it all over I think it should be fine. I still like save or die spells, but that' me I guess. Double HP sounds fairs, gives a boost w/o negating the threat of death completly. As for skill folding, I say don't do it. Just give classes like the fighter more skill points and more class skills. Skill folding is only going to give the skill monkeys even more of a strangle hold on it. Yes, the fighter and other classes may get the option of more skills, but the rogue and bard do too. I just feel its going to cause the same problem (fighters hanging back out of combat) becuase the rogue is still going to have way more skills then ever. Heck, the ratio of useful skills outside of combat between fighter/rogue will most likely shift in favor of the rogue since most of the skills you've folded are generally taken by rogues. Other than that. :)
LadyAlaria 04-16-07, 10:43 PM	-Double Hit Points at first level -Maximum wealth at first level Meh. As though the PCs weren't special enough already. -No multi-class restrictions (monks/paladins etc) or XP penalties or favoured classes Why would a Paladin ever multi-class? Their paths are chosen by (insert deity here)! If (insert deity) meant for them to have a certain ability, then it would be in the class description for Paladin! -No Leadership Feat -No death from massive damage -No save or die spells Yes! You don't buy loyalty at Wal-Mart. And instant-death is a real bummer that craps out the characters far more than the monsters. -Any class with the Turning class ability uses the Complete Divine variant -Druids do not gain wild shape, they may instead choose from a list of variants (from PHB II, UA, and Dragon magazine) -The spell polymorph is replaced with the Polymorph sub-school from PHB II Good on ye, mate. -Cross-class Skills cost 1 point per Rank -Certain Skills folded: (campaign dependant – low magic = Skill folding, standard/high magic = no Skill folding): Weakens the rogue, big-time. The world needs more rogues. -Every race/class/feat/equipment/spell/power/magic item/template must be submitted for approval You mean there are DMs who DON'T follow that rule? You won't have any problems playing all these. My gripes are more about flavor - I love paladins and rogues, and you've muddied these two classes. But there are worse sins.
Steely_Dan 04-17-07, 03:06 AM	Why would a Paladin ever multi-class? …Because they suck past level 3? Seriously, they are a way front-loaded class, much like the swashbuckler.
starfire311 04-17-07, 08:32 AM	…Because they suck past level 3? Seriously, they are a way front-loaded class, much like the swashbuckler. I dont think that is the reason at all. Why would a Paladin ever multi-class? Their paths are chosen by (insert deity here)! If (insert deity) meant for them to have a certain ability, then it would be in the class description for Paladin! I think it is because it is silly and metagaming. Why, as a paladin of hieronious, can I not choose to study weapons and improve my martial abilitities(represented by taking levels in say fighter, warblade, knight or crusader) or why can't I choose to study the teachings of my god and faith in more detail( represented by taking levels in cleric). Doing iether of those would not be breaking my code, and they may help further develop my character.
Captain_Willard 04-17-07, 08:46 AM	-I dont think that is the reason at all. -I think it is because it is silly and metagaming. Why, as a paladin of hieronious, can I not choose to study weapons and improve my martial abilitities(represented by taking levels in say fighter, warblade, knight or crusader) or why can't I choose to study the teachings of my god and faith in more detail( represented by taking levels in cleric). Doing iether of those would not be breaking my code, and they may help further develop my character. -Actually, the paladin and the swashbuckler are frequently lamented for their lack of oomph level 3. -I completely agree.
starfire311 04-17-07, 08:53 AM	-Actually, the paladin and the swashbuckler are frequently lamented for their lack of oomph level 3. yes while indeed it is true that they are poorly designed classes, it is not an argument for why paladin multi-classing restrictions should be lifted.
Steely_Dan 04-17-07, 09:15 AM	yes while indeed it is true that they are poorly designed classes, it is not an argument for why paladin multi-classing restrictions should be lifted. I agree; the argument should be because it is only there because of some whiney play-testers. …Does Gygax have children?
Steely_Dan 04-25-07, 11:46 AM	I've made some changes, what do you think? CAMPAIGN GROUND RULES: -22, 25, 28, or 32 Point Buy (depending on campaign) -Fixed Hit Points for levelling (ala Living Greyhawk - d4 = 3, d6 = 4, d8 = 5, d10 = 6, d12 = 7) -Maximum wealth at first level -Any class with the Turning class ability uses the Complete Divine variant -Druids do not gain wild shape, they may instead choose from a list of variants (from PHB II, UA, and Dragon magazine) -No multi-class restrictions (monks/paladins etc) or XP penalties or favoured classes -Skill variant from Unearthed Arcana implemented (number of known Skills equal to skill points + Int modifier) -Certain Skills folded: (campaign dependant – low magic = Skill folding/high magic = no Skill folding): -Acrobatics (Balance + Escape Artist + Tumble) -Athletics (Climb + Jump + Swim) -Deception (Bluff + Disguise + Forgery) -Disable Device (Disable Device + Open Lock) -Perception (Listen + Search + Spot) -Persuasion (Diplomacy + Intimidate) -Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) -Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device) -No Leadership Feat -Saving throw variant from Unearthed Arcana implemented (save scores/magic checks etc) -No death from massive damage -The spell polymorph is replaced with the Polymorph sub-school from PHB II -Certain non-Core WotC/Paizo material/variants available upon request (PHB II, DMG II, Races of series, Complete series, Environment series, BoED, BoVD, Miniatures Handbook, XPH, MoI, ToM, ToB, Dragon Compendium Vol. I, Dragon/Dungeon, UA etc) -Fewer Absolutes implemented (article by Sean K Reynolds) -Every race/class/feat/equipment/spell/manoeuvre/mystery /power/soulmeld/utterance/vestige/magic item/template etc must be submitted for approval