Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FeceMan 06-01-06, 01:54 PM	I'm considering running a game--my first one!--and I was also considering implementing the following houserules. EDIT: I am rewriting some of the rules, and, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, these possible house rules are going to be implemented NOT in my first game. Sections in red are revisions; sections in blue are under consideration and may undergo a complete overhaul depending on how crazy/variant-happy I feel. Now, before starting, I'd like everyone to know that the game would be a low-magic campaign; I want magic items to have a very special 'feel' for them, like in LotR, which is why some of the houserules are there. If you have any suggestions for tweaking them, they are welcome, but please don't say OMG TEHY SUXORZ BAD GM. 1. We will be playing much more by RAW than we did in Personal Heroes [last campaign]. That is to say, there are no 'critical rape' rules; a natural one is a miss and a natural twenty is a hit. You must roll to confirm a critical hit, and the following fumble rules will be in effect: Upon rolling a natural one, the character must roll against an AC of 15 using his or her attack bonuses for the roll on which the natural one took place. If one fails to hit this target AC, a fumble takes place (a natural one on the "fumble roll" counts as a fumble). With a fumble, the following can occur: a) One misses badly enough to provoke an attack of opportunity. b) One drops one's weapon. c) One hits an ally. d) One trips and falls prone. e) One injures oneself (by overexertion, not with the weapon) and take 1d6 + 10 - CON modifier points of nonlethal damage. More options may be added or changed as time goes on; a d% roll will take place to determine the consequences of a fumble. 2. In that same vein, rolling a natural one on a skill check counts as a -10 and rolling a natural twenty counts as a 30. Even if one gets a natural one and ends up with a skill modifier of 0, one will simply fail at the task, not blow up a building for no apparent reason. However, getting a negative skill check WILL result in buildings blowing up for no apparent reason (well, maybe not, but bad things). 3. All players must submit to me a short write-up of their character. This can be limited to a single paragraph or as long as one wants, but I would like to see one's idea for a character prior to the game. Players must also submit tentative character builds to avoid CO board cheesiness (though I will allow most builds). 4. As magic is rare and taxing upon the body, several changes to the magic system are taking place. a) Whenever one casts a spell, one ages a number of days equal to the spell level. I expect players to keep track of these and they will be tallied from time to time to see if a player advances an age category. Spell-like and supernatural abilities do not cause such aging; they are part of a character's race or class moreso than magic and so do not negatively impact the character. b) Creating magic items/weapons/etc. also taxes the body. For every thousand gold that the item requires to be created, the creator ages that many days. c) The spells required to create a magic item are count as being cast for every day that one works on an item. Thus, the creator ages according to the rules in a) for each day he spends working on an item. d) For clarification, the aging process for any magic stacks with the aging process for anything else (which is why powerful mages are usually quite old). e) One's character could die from aging if one doesn't use one's magic judiciously. However, it is rumored there are ways to slow the aging process from magic and perhaps even reverse it. Also, if one wanted to play an older caster, one should talk to me first in order to make it so that one's character doesn't wither into a husk by the time he learns third level spells. 5. There are going to be several class changes in effect. a) Paladins have good Will saves and poor Reflex/Fortitude saves. If one wishes to be a paladin, one must come to me so we can discuss code of conduct. b) Arcanists such as the wizard and sorcerer have d6 hit dice and proficiency with light armor; they can cast in such armor without suffering arcane spell failure. c) Sorcerers have Use Magic Device on their skill list. Sorcerers receive bonus feats at the levels indicated for wizards. Much like artificers, sorcerers can use a UMD check to emulate a spell for item creation (arcane only). d) All spontaneous casters who have a "spells known" chart receive bonus spells known (this is spells KNOWN, not bonus spells per day) for high casting scores--PERMANENT BONUSES ONLY, THOUGH. Abusing this feature to learn/relearn spells will result in divine ass-smacking. e) Artificers do not exist in the world. Neither do psionics. If one is hell-bent on playing an artificer, psion, or some other class that I think isn't allowed in the world, come talk to me and we can discuss alternatives with similar abilities or one can try to convince me that there is a good RP reason for that character to exist. f) Knights have good Fort saves. g) I'm tempted not to allow Natural Spell in my game, but druids can no longer buff themselves with their pet buffs, so it's in for now. h) Any and all these character rules are subject to change depending on balance and factors like player input. 6. Many monsters with DR/magic are changed to DR/magic or mithral. 7. Racial substitution levels are encouraged, and paragon levels are allowed. 8. Variant character classes are allowed. If one has a variant character class that's not specifically spelled out in UA, come talk to me about it. 9. The following books are allowed for building characters: a) Complete Adventurer. b) Complete Arcane. c) Complete Divine. e) Complete Warrior. f) Races of Destiny. g) Races of the Dragon. h) Races of Stone. i) Races of the Wild. j) Book of Exalted Deeds. k) Book of Vile Darkness. l) Champions of Valor/Ruin. m) Draconomicon. n) Heroes of Horror. o) Monster Manual(s). Other books may be allowed subject to my approval [and I'm sure I'm forgetting some that should be on the list]. While the XPH is certainly not encouraged, certains feats from it will be allowed. 10. If one really wants to play a 3.0 class, it will have to be adapted for 3.5 (this comes with the "other books may be allowed" part). 11. Monstrous races are allowed, subject to my approval (and one had better have a good character concept, not just "IMA PLAY A SAHAUGIN!"). 12. LA buyoff is permitted. 13. Creating undead is seen as an evil act by everyone. There are numerous arguments about this and I am stating that right off the bat in order to be clear about it. I can explain why this is, but, for the sake of time, I'll do that verbally. 14. If you do something I see as being grossly out-of-character, I will ask you if that's what your character would do and perhaps even make you give me an explanation (private) of why your character is doing this. I'm not doing this to be controlling; I want to know one's motivation for doing something that doesn't match one's alignment or description one gave me earlier. 15. Speaking of alignment, characters of all alignments are welcome. Acting in accord with one's alignment is obviously encouraged, but there will be consequences--good or bad--for actions. 16. Cursed items will be in the game. 17. I am a new GM. I am going to make mistakes. If anyone has a problem with anything I am doing, I want you to talk to me personally. I won't fine you XP and make the game harder for you; I want to know how I can improve the game. EDIT: 18. Called shots are allowed. The effects and penalties to the shot are as of yet undecided. 19. All shields have their shield bonus improved by one point, except for tower shields, which have their shield bonus improved by two points. Other shields not in the PHB--such as those found in "Races of..." books--will be examined if a player wants to use one and an appropriate bonus to shield AC will be added.
Witch 06-01-06, 02:02 PM	These sound fairly good houserules for a new DM. The aging for casters effectively discourages them, which is a good thing, because arcane casters rely less on magic items. I don't see any problems with these rules.
LouSapphire 06-01-06, 02:05 PM	Just gonna make a few points on the more radical changes. I can understand wanting to balance/limit spell casting. Or even to show that magic is taxing. But that house rule is rough, think about the consequences. 1. Magic items are going to be rare, therefore much more expensive and much harder to get. 2. Healing will be nearly non-existant. No party cleric is gonna last more than a few sessions with the aging rules, and making pots and scrolls will kill even the youngest of clerics. 3. CR is calculated assuming the party will have access to a certain wealth lvl, and with that wealth will have access to certain magic/items needed to beat monsters of this lvl. Maybe thinking about other ways of showing magic is taxing could be used, casting spells fatigues the caster? Crafting items deals temp con damage that can only be headled over time? Casting spells deals subdual damage = to the spell lvl, only healed over time? Allowing bonus spells known to spellcasters is EXTREMELY powerful. One of the balancing factors or the sorc is that they have to be very conservative with their spell choices, adding even 1 known spell to each lvl is huge. Add on top of this extra feats and there is no reason to play a wizard over sorc. A final point is regarding the DR, I would consider changing it to Magic OR mithril. With magic being rare it would be more balancing.
ForgottenCode 06-01-06, 02:11 PM	By using aging, all you're doing is forcing all your magic users to be elves or similarly long lived races. I'm sure that's not your intent, but whereas aging a year for a human is a big deal, for an elf it's just a drop in the pond.
hmmmm 06-01-06, 02:21 PM	Those are some good rules but I do have to agree with LouSapphire as it will rare to find any one who will want to be a cleric as they will become really old in a matter of games.
erc1971 06-01-06, 02:50 PM	I see some serious problems. I predict the entire party consisting of elven casters and nothing else. Low magic seriously hurts the fighting classes, they need those magic items to compete at higher levels. Then, on top of that, you are adding in fumbles, which hurts them even more. IMO fumbles turn D&D into an episode of 3 stooges, because you will see alot of fumbles. Casting aging characters... When not casting, arcane casters are completely useless, especially after 7th or 6th level. As a human caster, most people would be aging thier character to death once a session, maybe once per encounter at higher levels (5 rounds of casting level 8 spells would age someone 40 years!). Even elven wizards would be dying every couple levels. I myself would prefer to keep making new characters due to them dying of old age then playing a wizard that does nothing 99.8% of the time - watching combat gets old pretty quickly. And a wizard with his very poor BAB with a sling might as well not take the effort to roll the die, he will be that inneffective. Clerics would be afraid to heal anyone, for they would have a life expectancy of oh, 1 minute! Our cleric casts a bajillion healing spells after almost every fight in our current campaign. Rest periods are going to be about a week long, maybe less if Cure Minor Wounds doesn't age the caster. D&D just doesn't work for a low magic game, that is not what it was desinged to do, just look at how horrible those historical books were for 2nd edition (the ones with the green covers). Look elsewhere if you really desire a low magic setting, GURPS does a decent job with low and no magic games if you don't mind the complicated rules (heck, wizards in GURPS are whimpier than a D&D wizard with a 10 INT), Pendragon could work, though I dislike roleplaying being replaced by rollplaying (yes, die rolls determine your characters personality and his actions). The Hero system is a slightly less complicated version of GURPS - though wizards are still just as weak. I wouldn't call Middle Earth a low magic setting, I would call it an Elitist Magic setting. Magic was in the hands of a select few, but there was plenty. Look at the fellowship - 3 magic swords, 2 magic daggers, magic rope, magic bottle, magic staff, 9 magic cloaks, magic bow, mithral shirt, 2 ARTIFACT Rings (Gandolf had a ring of power too - and possibly Aragorn, I can't remember). I might be missing a few more magic items, it has been a while. LotR even has a 1st level character possessing an artifact (Frodo). They kept the mystique of magic by eliminating magic shops, entire city guards wielding +1 weapons, etc. While I think Weapons of Legacy was poorly executed, the idea was brilliant - magic items that grow in power with the PC's - this way you aren't handing them out like candy all the time, but the players have enough magic to remain effective - this really gives magic items the proper reverence and awe they should have. I have seen games played with similar ideas to you, and above were some of the problems I have ran into, or predict based on my experiences. Hopefully this assists you in getting the house rules as tuned as possible. FYI: I agree with psionics not being a part of some campaign worlds - they are a completely different flavor, and don't fit well into a European flavored setting. Darksun on the other hand... :D Eric Edit: Ooops, I misread your first post - Casters age 1 day per spell level, not 1 year! That is quite a huge difference. Though, I still see human spell casters being recycled through the campaign - thoe high level spells are giong to burn through a year pretty quick.
Witch 06-01-06, 03:05 PM	Aragorn did not have a Ring of Power. The magic of the rings in Lord of the Rings was also far more subtle than in D&D. Secondly, the OP intends to bring casters down. Therefore, my suggestion is, if you want to go with the aging issue, to revert to a percentage of lifespan, instead of "days". That would fix the elven wizards.
FeceMan 06-01-06, 03:18 PM	Aragorn did not have a Ring of Power. The magic of the rings in Lord of the Rings was also far more subtle than in D&D. Secondly, the OP intends to bring casters down. Therefore, my suggestion is, if you want to go with the aging issue, to revert to a percentage of lifespan, instead of "days". That would fix the elven wizards. Excellent idea. I understand the whole 'wealth vs. CR' issue, and I was aware of it when considering these houserules. In the higher-end encounters, I was already planning on having everyone fight lower-CR monsters but have their effective CR be raised. This is also why I am changing some of the DR/magic to DR/magic and mithral. The caster aging thing, though--I kind of wanted elves to be the masters of magic BECAUSE of their long lives. Humans, initially, were advised against learning magic because of the aging nature, but some, of course, were impulsive enough not to care. Also, one must remember that these are days, not years. In order to age even a year, one would have to cast 365 spell levels--which is quite a bit, when one thinks of it. Over a hundred third level spells, to be certain. Perhaps adjusting it to the following? Cantrips/1st level spells: 0 days. Second/third level spells: 1 day. Fourth/fifth level spells: 2 days. Sixth/seventh level spells: 3 days. Eighth/ninth level spells: 4 days. I'm not trying to hurt casters, but I'm trying to give magic a certain 'feel' to it--it's a powerful tool and incredibly dangerous; it is a double-edged sword.
Witch 06-01-06, 03:28 PM	You mean DR/Magic Or Mitral, no? :)
FeceMan 06-01-06, 03:29 PM	You mean DR/Magic Or Mitral, no? :) Oops. That I do.
00_Whupass 06-01-06, 03:38 PM	First of all this is a lot of house rules for your first campaign as a DM, maybe consider running with fewer of them. Also before adding a house rule its a good idea to think "how will this rule make the game more fun" 1. We will be playing much more by RAW than we did in Personal Heroes [last campaign]. That is to say, there are no 'critical rape' rules; a natural one is a miss and a natural twenty is a hit. You must roll to confirm a critical hit, and the following fumble rules will be in effect: Upon rolling a natural one, the character must roll against an AC of 15 using his or her attack bonuses for the roll on which the natural one took place. If one fails to hit this target AC, a fumble takes place (a natural one on the "fumble roll" counts as a fumble). With a fumble, the following can occur: a) One misses badly enough to provoke an attack of opportunity. b) One drops one's weapon. c) One hits an ally. d) One trips and falls prone. e) One injures oneself (by overexertion, not with the weapon) and take 1d6 + 10 - STR modifier points of nonlethal damage. More options may be added or changed as time goes on; a d% roll will take place to determine the consequences of a fumble. I'm really against critical fumble rules, as I don't feel that add enjoyment to the game and also they become more frequent as a character makes more rolls i.e. as they advance in levels. That said if you want to have them this wouldn't be a terrible way to implement them since you have a confimation roll against a flat DC meaning that though the frequency at which 1's occur as you level the likelihood that one will fail against a flat DC goes down. I still don't think them a good idea, especially for new DMs who have enough to do already without worrying about new mechanics. 2. In that same vein, rolling a natural one on a skill check counts as a -10 and rolling a natural twenty counts as a 30. Even if one gets a natural one and ends up with a skill modifier of 0, one will simply fail at the task, not blow up a building for no apparent reason. However, getting a negative skill check WILL result in buildings blowing up for no apparent reason (well, maybe not, but bad things).Ok the -10, 30 thing is not uncommon, and you're clearly (I hope) using hyperbole when you say buildings blowing up on negative results, but again I'm skeptical, while specatular blunders can make for fun and interesting gaming, they tend to be frustrating and detract from player fun rather than add to it. 3. All players must submit to me a short write-up of their character. This can be limited to a single paragraph or as long as one wants, but I would like to see one's idea for a character prior to the game. Players must also submit tentative character builds to avoid CO board cheesiness (though I will allow most builds). This is just smart DMing, being involved in the character creation process is absolutely essential for knowing the capabilities of your heroes and designing adventures to challenge them. 4. As magic is rare and taxing upon the body, several changes to the magic system are taking place. a) Whenever one casts a spell, one ages a number of days equal to the spell level. I expect players to keep track of these and they will be tallied from time to time to see if a player advances an age category. b) Creating magic items/weapons/etc. also taxes the body. For every thousand gold that the item requires to be created, the creator ages that many days. c) The spells required to create a magic item are count as being cast for every day that one works on an item. Thus, the creator ages according to the rules in a) for each day he spends working on an item. d) For clarification, the aging process for any magic stacks with the aging process for anything else (which is why powerful mages are usually quite old). e) One's character may die from aging if one doesn't use one's magic judiciously. However, it is rumored there are ways to slow the aging process from magic and perhaps even reverse it. I don't personally like this but thats a playstyle issue not a rules issue. As far as the rules themselves I do have a few questions or comments. First be sure these rules effect NPCs as well as PCs, and don't just use rule E as a cop out for why the BBEG is able to throw around his high level spells with abandon. Also remember that while you as the DM know that most of your PCs opponents will only appear in one combat, thats not how the opponent looks at things and will therefore have the same reservations about spellcasting that a PC caster would have, since he too expects to go on living after the encounter ends. What is it about magic that causes this effect? If you have an explaination other than its taxing it would be helpful and also allow your players to more fully immerse themselves in your world. Finally do Spell-like abilities have the same effect? If so remember to make your monsters with SLA old, or if not then sign me up to play a warlock, once again whichever decision you make be sure to apply it equally to both PCs and NPCs. 5. There are going to be several class changes in effect. a) Paladins have good Will saves in addition to their good Fortitude saves. If one wishes to be a paladin, one must come to me so we can discuss code of conduct. b) Sorcerers have Use Magic Device on their skill list. Sorcerers receive bonus feats at the levels indicated for wizards. Much like artificers, sorcerers can use a UMD check to emulate a spell for item creation. c) All spontaneous casters who have a "spells known" chart receive bonus spells known for high casting scores--PERMANENT BONUSES ONLY, THOUGH. Abusing this feature to learn/relearn spells will result in divine ass-smacking. d) Artificers do not exist in the world. Neither do psionics. If one is hell-bent on playing an artificer, psion, or some other class that I think isn't allowed in the world, come talk to me and we can discuss alternatives with similar abilities or one can try to convince me that there is a good RP reason for that character to exist. e) Knights have good Fort saves. f) I'm tempted not to allow Natural Spell in my game, but druids can no longer buff themselves with their pet buffs, so it's in for now. g) Any and all these character rules are subject to change depending on balance and factors like player input.Your class changes have done little to compensate spellcasters for the additional penalties you burdened them with, consequently player spellcasters will be rare. Giving the Paladin another good save is a significant power increase especially considering that divine grace already gives the paladin some of the best saves in the game, carefully consider why you've done this, and decide if its a good thing for the game. Giving sorcerors the Artificers ability to emulate spells for crafting is really an empty bonus since crafting now carries with it large penalties, I don't see this rule getting widespread use, if the rule won't be used then I question why to have it. Of course it may be the explaination for NPC item crafters, in which case it fits. I like rule C and have been using it in my own campaigns for a while now. I'm not sure where you see the potential for abuse, the only time a character suffers Permanent ability loss is ability drain, in which case you simply have to specify that if spells known are lost due to ability drain, when those points are recovered they basically rediscover spells they previously knew but had forgotten. Sort of like recovering from retrograde amnesia. 6. Many monsters with DR/magic are changed to DR/magic and mithral. One's character does not know this, however. But, as with all special materials, one may hear rumors about special materials and their effectiveness.This is a good rule however I would not include the second sentance or possibly not tell the players at all, since its a defacto encouragement of metagaming. This depends largely on the group but I've found some parties I've DMed for have been more prone to metagaming when I specifically point out something they do not know, rather than when I just leave the information out and let them discove it as the game unfolds. 7. Racial substitution levels are encouraged, and paragon levels are allowed. 8. Variant character classes are allowed. If one has a variant character class that's not specifically spelled out in UA, come talk to me about it. My only feedback on these is that the more varients of substitution levels you allow the more complicated the game becomes and as a first time DM simplicity is likely to be your friend. 9. The following books are allowed for building characters: a) Complete Adventurer. b) Complete Arcane. c) Complete Divine. e) Complete Warrior. f) Races of Destiny. g) Races of the Dragon. h) Races of the Wild. i) Book of Exalted Deeds. j) Book of Vile Darkness. k) Champions of Valor/Ruin. l) Draconomicon. m) Heroes of Horror. Other books may be allowed subject to my approval [and I'm sure I'm forgetting some that should be on the list]. While the XPH is certainly not encouraged, certains feats from it will be allowed. Agian this may be a long list for a first time DM, you might want to consider Core only, and I really can't understand putting the book of exalted deeds and the book of vile darkness on the list, but to each there own. Also you say you monster PCs are allow and yet the Monster Manual is not on the list of permitted books, this is probably an oversight but I thought I should point it out. 10. If one really wants to play a 3.0 class, it will have to be adapted for 3.5 (this comes with the "other books may be allowed" part). Common sense, but still needs to be stated, no comments here. 11. Monstrous races are allowed, subject to my approval (and one had better have a good character concept, not just "IMA PLAY A SAHAUGIN!").See my earlier comment about adding the Monster Manual to the list of permitted books. 12. LA buyoff is permitted. Ick. I really dislike LA buyoff, since it effectively raises the ceiling on monstrous characters. Sure it costs them XP to do it but since it effectively lowers their ECL they are now significantly more powerful than other characters of the same ECL who didn't have a LA. 13. Creating undead is seen as an evil act by everyone. There are numerous arguments about this and I am stating that right off the bat in order to be clear about it. I can explain why this is, but, for the sake of time, I'll do that verbally. Good to get this out there at the start of the campaign, you may wish to include your positions on other often debated ethical issues. If for no other reason than to get the heady philosophical debate out of the way at character creation rather than when it becomes an issue down the road. 14. If you do something I see as being grossly out-of-character, I will ask you if that's what your character would do and perhaps even make you give me an explanation (private) of why your character is doing this. I'm not doing this to be controlling; I want to know one's motivation for doing something that doesn't match one's alignment or description one gave me earlier. I would wait until after the session to do this, and I wouldn't even spell it out in my house rules for the same reason I would leave out the anti-metagaming comment earlier, it avoids the "Don't think of Pink Elephants!" reaction. 15. Speaking of alignment, characters of all alignments are welcome. Acting in accord with one's alignment is obviously encouraged, but there will be consequences--good or bad--for actions. Remember that party cohesion trumps unrestricted alignment, that is to say I would stipulate in this section of my house rules that PCs who disrupt the fun of the group for whatever reason, will result in out of game communication about how to nudge the character in a more harmonious direction. 16. Cursed items will be in the game.Not so much a house rule as statement about how you will run your campaign. Unless your players specifically need a reminder about this I would leave it out entirely. 17. I am a new GM. I am going to make mistakes. If anyone has a problem with anything I am doing, I want you to talk to me personally. I won't fine you XP and make the game harder for you; I want to know how I can improve the game. Agian I would specify that such a conversation should take place outside of the gaming session if at all possible. Again thats a lot of house rules for a first time DM, and even though it seems your an experienced player things do look different from the other side of the screen and you might want to trim some fat from your list.
Voldar_Mecorthio 06-01-06, 03:57 PM	I like it, but I disagree with a couple things: Creation of Zombies and Skeletons should be neutral, because they're just like golems; they do only what they're told to do. More powerful undead should still be evil, as they're evil in their own right. But Zs and Ss are just like golems, evil if commanded to be evil, good if commanded to be good, neutral if commanded to be neutral. Aging from spellcasting is VERY BAD!!!!! It discourages spellcasting, so if someone wanted to play a wizard or sorcerer or whatever, they would be repulsed by that rule and would probibly choose a warrior class even though they wanted to be a mage. I personally love magic and play a power hungry arcanist (variant sorcerer, uses spell points) who uses magic for EVERYTHING. It would be devistating to be forced to use magic only when absolutly nessary. Magic is one of the funnest parts of the game, you are ruining it with this rule. Use Magic Device for sorcerers is okay, but if you're gonna give it to sorcerers you should give it to wizards too. They're basicly the same, so they should be treated the same. Spontanious casters should NOT be allowed bonus spells known, but allow a feat that lets a sorcerer/bard/whatever to learn 2 extra spells of any level that they can cast. Call it Extra Spells Known or something like that. Requirements 5 ranks in spellcraft and the ability to cast spells spontaniously. Dispite what everyone says, PSIONICS ARE NOT OVERPOWERED!!!!!!!!!!!! Psionics have the potential to cause huge amounts of damage, but so do sorcerers/wizards! WotC designed the damage caps to be on par with arcane abilities, and they did a very good job. If you make a sorcerer have spell points rather than spell slots, you have the psion. It's that simple. Those are my opinions. Use or reject them as you see fit.
FeceMan 06-01-06, 03:57 PM	First of all this is a lot of house rules for your first campaign as a DM, maybe consider running with fewer of them. Also before adding a house rule its a good idea to think "how will this rule make the game more fun" I'm really against critical fumble rules, as I don't feel that add enjoyment to the game and also they become more frequent as a character makes more rolls i.e. as they advance in levels. That said if you want to have them this wouldn't be a terrible way to implement them since you have a confimation roll against a flat DC meaning that though the frequency at which 1's occur as you level the likelihood that one will fail against a flat DC goes down. I still don't think them a good idea, especially for new DMs who have enough to do already without worrying about new mechanics. Did you read the rules? It is a flat DC (well, AC). There's no hitting oneself. Ok the -10, 30 thing is not uncommon, and you're clearly (I hope) using hyperbole when you say buildings blowing up on negative results, but again I'm skeptical, while specatular blunders can make for fun and interesting gaming, they tend to be frustrating and detract from player fun rather than add to it. Yes, it was a hyperbole :). Current GM uses auto-failure, auto-success rules, and I don't like those as much. However, even the most experienced locksmiths WILL screw up--i.e., roll a natural one in real life--and blunder, jamming the lock. However, good locksmiths will be able to undo the mistake and then unlock it. I don't personally like this but thats a playstyle issue not a rules issue. As far as the rules themselves I do have a few questions or comments. First be sure these rules effect NPCs as well as PCs, and don't just use rule E as a cop out for why the BBEG is able to throw around his high level spells with abandon. Also remember that while you as the DM know that most of your PCs opponents will only appear in one combat, thats not how the opponent looks at things and will therefore have the same reservations about spellcasting that a PC caster would have, since he too expects to go on living after the encounter ends. What is it about magic that causes this effect? If you have an explaination other than its taxing it would be helpful and also allow your players to more fully immerse themselves in your world. Finally do Spell-like abilities have the same effect? If so remember to make your monsters with SLA old, or if not then sign me up to play a warlock, once again whichever decision you make be sure to apply it equally to both PCs and NPCs. Well, of course. I wouldn't NOT have it affect NPCs. Spell-like abilities...hmm...that's a good point. Yes, but it would have to be on a case-by-case basis, depending on what spell the SLA is emulating. Your class changes have done little to compensate spellcasters for the additional penalties you burdened them with, consequently player spellcasters will be rare. Perhaps. I'm not sure. I would be running these by the group, though, to see what they say. Giving the Paladin another good save is a significant power increase especially considering that divine grace already gives the paladin some of the best saves in the game, carefully consider why you've done this, and decide if its a good thing for the game. True. However, I see this as more of a flavor issue--I see no reason why paladins should have crappy Will saves and why knights should have crappy Fort saves. Giving sorcerors the Artificers ability to emulate spells for crafting is really an empty bonus since crafting now carries with it large penalties, I don't see this rule getting widespread use, if the rule won't be used then I question why to have it. Of course it may be the explaination for NPC item crafters, in which case it fits. I like rule C and have been using it in my own campaigns for a while now. I'm not sure where you see the potential for abuse, the only time a character suffers Permanent ability loss is ability drain, in which case you simply have to specify that if spells known are lost due to ability drain, when those points are recovered they basically rediscover spells they previously knew but had forgotten. Sort of like recovering from retrograde amnesia. Yep. Once again, running it by players. This is a good rule however I would not include the second sentance or possibly not tell the players at all, since its a defacto encouragement of metagaming. This depends largely on the group but I've found some parties I've DMed for have been more prone to metagaming when I specifically point out something they do not know, rather than when I just leave the information out and let them discove it as the game unfolds. I was reconsidering this; in fact, I won't be telling them that, but that's just for you guys to PEACH. My only feedback on these is that the more varients of substitution levels you allow the more complicated the game becomes and as a first time DM simplicity is likely to be your friend. Again, true. However, I really, really like racial substitution levels. Agian this may be a long list for a first time DM, you might want to consider Core only, and I really can't understand putting the book of exalted deeds and the book of vile darkness on the list, but to each there own. Also you say you monster PCs are allow and yet the Monster Manual is not on the list of permitted books, this is probably an oversight but I thought I should point it out. My bad about the MM. Ick. I really dislike LA buyoff, since it effectively raises the ceiling on monstrous characters. Sure it costs them XP to do it but since it effectively lowers their ECL they are now significantly more powerful than other characters of the same ECL who didn't have a LA. I've never played with and would like to try it out...I'm hoping the xp cost will balance it out. I would wait until after the session to do this, and I wouldn't even spell it out in my house rules for the same reason I would leave out the anti-metagaming comment earlier, it avoids the "Don't think of Pink Elephants!" reaction. I'll think on that. Not so much a house rule as statement about how you will run your campaign. Unless your players specifically need a reminder about this I would leave it out entirely. The reason I'm stating this is because there'd be a girl in our group who ALWAYS plays thieves/assassins. She steals a lot in our current campaign, and I'm making it clear that she might get screwed over. Agian I would specify that such a conversation should take place outside of the gaming session if at all possible. Again thats a lot of house rules for a first time DM, and even though it seems your an experienced player things do look different from the other side of the screen and you might want to trim some fat from your list.
Dei 06-01-06, 04:26 PM	I really like the look of your houserules so far, they're definately very flavourful but I thought I'd throw in my 2 coppers on a few issues. First of all the critical fumble thing, I like the affirmation roll system you've got but rather than having them do something as described on your chart why not simply give a -10 penalty on their next attack roll or reflex save as a penalty for being so unblanaced by their blunder, heck you could even say they loose dex bonuses to armour class until their next turn instead. It still makes fumbles have a serious penalty but will stop the 18th level swordsmaster looking like a pratt when he flings his heirloom greatsword over the edge and into the cavern. As has been mentioned, very few PCs want to play the three stooges in combat. As for the issue of aging hurting clerics it's definately true but as it's based on flavour wouldn't one assume that channeling the gentle energies of healing/positive energy magic would be less taxing than wrestling with the destructive forces of evocation or fighting for control of the evil of necromancy/negative energy. Thus you could either eliminate the penalty for healing spells or reduce it to an hour/level of spell or whatever you feel is apporpriate. This should allow you to maintain the required level of available healing while still maintaining the flavour of magic being a draining force. I'm aware this is far from a perfect solution as it will give clerics a vastly superiour force but remember this effect is 1- limited only to healing spells i.e. cure X wounds/restore and 2- could be balanced in some way such as saying that healing spells take a great deal of focus and prayer to cast and thus are full round actions or something or require 1 vial of holy water/spell level to be used in their casting i.e. sprinkled on the wound ala Indie and the holy grail. Again, not perfect but few things are. Anyway, just some suggestions.
Asciiman 06-01-06, 04:47 PM	Although I have many problems with your stated houserules. This is the only one I'm going to chime in on. 2. In that same vein, rolling a natural one on a skill check counts as a -10 and rolling a natural twenty counts as a 30. Even if one gets a natural one and ends up with a skill modifier of 0, one will simply fail at the task, not blow up a building for no apparent reason. However, getting a negative skill check WILL result in buildings blowing up for no apparent reason (well, maybe not, but bad things). No no no! Bad DM! Rolling a 1 and having it treated as a -10 is a bad enough penalty as it is. Having worse things happen is never a good idea. A well trained chef by D&D rules would be an expert or something like that, but he'd only have about 5 ranks in a skill with a modifer of less then 10, so 1 out of 20 meals he makes, that is 5% of the time, the mutton would end up poisonous. By your rules, he'd make one of those twenty meals so god awful that he'd end up making someone sick. Now I work as a bartender, and I'll tell you one thing, 5% of my drinks don't end up killing or hurting someone.
Arbitrary Aardvark 06-01-06, 04:56 PM	By using aging, all you're doing is forcing all your magic users to be elves or similarly long lived races. I'm sure that's not your intent, but whereas aging a year for a human is a big deal, for an elf it's just a drop in the pond. Yup. They will also learn craft wand as soon as possible. Cast Cure light wounds -- age one day. Craft a wand which can do it 50 times, age two days.
Toloran 06-01-06, 05:56 PM	16. Cursed items will be in the game. My personal opinion is that you shouldn't warn them that there are cursed items. My philosophy is that if they don't have the common sense to examine an obviously magical item of dubious origin, then they deserved to be cursed. Then again, most of my group expects cursed items whenever I DM. =p In any case, make sure to give some variety to your cursed items. Rember, cursed items don't always have debilitating effects. Example: In a recent game (I wasn't DM'ing this one), a person in our group got a scarf. It turned out to be a scarf of lisping. He could speak any language he has heard, but only with a lisp. In the same adventure I got a +3 Breast plate.... With real breasts.... yeah, interesting DM. Also, don't make every other item a cursed item. Some impish DMs do that when they first start out. If you do it too much it is no longer a suprise (and spoils the fun of it). No no no! Bad DM! Rolling a 1 and having it treated as a -10 is a bad enough penalty as it is. Having worse things happen is never a good idea. A well trained chef by D&D rules would be an expert or something like that, but he'd only have about 5 ranks in a skill with a modifer of less then 10, so 1 out of 20 meals he makes, that is 5% of the time, the mutton would end up poisonous. By your rules, he'd make one of those twenty meals so god awful that he'd end up making someone sick. Now I work as a bartender, and I'll tell you one thing, 5% of my drinks don't end up killing or hurting someone. Asciiman makes a good point. Remember when making rules off of dice rolls what the odds of a particular roll is. If you are intent on doing the rolling a 1 is counted as -10, change it to something like this... If you roll a 1 while doing a d20 skill check, you roll a 1d6. If the result of that roll is a 1 then it the d20 roll counts as a -10, Otherwise it counts as a normal 1. So I am rolling a skill check that has a DC of 15. I have +5 to the relevent skill. I roll a 1 on my d20. Then I roll a d6 and get a 2. 5+1 = 6 so I fail the skill check. However, if i rolled a 1 that time instead of a 2, i would have -5 (5-10 = -5). So getting that -10 has a probability of about 5/6% or 0.8333% chance (much more reasonable then 5%). You can play around with exactly how it works but just make sure that the odds of it happening are 1% or less.
Drachasor 06-01-06, 06:24 PM	4. As magic is rare and taxing upon the body, several changes to the magic system are taking place. a) Whenever one casts a spell, one ages a number of days equal to the spell level. I expect players to keep track of these and they will be tallied from time to time to see if a player advances an age category. b) Creating magic items/weapons/etc. also taxes the body. For every thousand gold that the item requires to be created, the creator ages that many days. c) The spells required to create a magic item are count as being cast for every day that one works on an item. Thus, the creator ages according to the rules in a) for each day he spends working on an item. d) For clarification, the aging process for any magic stacks with the aging process for anything else (which is why powerful mages are usually quite old). e) One's character may die from aging if one doesn't use one's magic judiciously. However, it is rumored there are ways to slow the aging process from magic and perhaps even reverse it. This is going to do nothing but annoy the players. It is like making characters keep track of spell components instead of just letting them buy a bag. This takes time and detracts more from play than it adds. If you want to depower higher level casters, then use recharge magic on spell levels and keep the spell slots. So at higher levels they can cast just as much, just not quite as rapidly from each level. (E.g. after casting a 9th level spell, the caster has to wait 5 rounds or something before casting another). Additionally, the aging is tiny, despite what others have said. Wizard with access to 7th level magic who casts all of his spells in a day ages only 110 days or so. That means they can do this 30 times and age only 10 years. That's 150 equal level challenges. In other words, the cost is so small you might as well ignore it as a player.
FeceMan 06-01-06, 07:03 PM	I like it, but I disagree with a couple things: Creation of Zombies and Skeletons should be neutral, because they're just like golems; they do only what they're told to do. More powerful undead should still be evil, as they're evil in their own right. But Zs and Ss are just like golems, evil if commanded to be evil, good if commanded to be good, neutral if commanded to be neutral. Aging from spellcasting is VERY BAD!!!!! It discourages spellcasting, so if someone wanted to play a wizard or sorcerer or whatever, they would be repulsed by that rule and would probibly choose a warrior class even though they wanted to be a mage. I personally love magic and play a power hungry arcanist (variant sorcerer, uses spell points) who uses magic for EVERYTHING. It would be devistating to be forced to use magic only when absolutly nessary. Magic is one of the funnest parts of the game, you are ruining it with this rule. Use Magic Device for sorcerers is okay, but if you're gonna give it to sorcerers you should give it to wizards too. They're basicly the same, so they should be treated the same. Spontanious casters should NOT be allowed bonus spells known, but allow a feat that lets a sorcerer/bard/whatever to learn 2 extra spells of any level that they can cast. Call it Extra Spells Known or something like that. Requirements 5 ranks in spellcraft and the ability to cast spells spontaniously. Dispite what everyone says, PSIONICS ARE NOT OVERPOWERED!!!!!!!!!!!! Psionics have the potential to cause huge amounts of damage, but so do sorcerers/wizards! WotC designed the damage caps to be on par with arcane abilities, and they did a very good job. If you make a sorcerer have spell points rather than spell slots, you have the psion. It's that simple. Those are my opinions. Use or reject them as you see fit. 1. I am simply stating that it is viewed in this manner. I'm not opening up THAT can of worms on the forum. It's just how the general populace sees it in my world. 2. One can cast as many spells as one wishes. You can still be a power-hungry arcanist if you want, but you'll age quickly. You just might want to look into ways for reversing magical aging. 3. Sorcers are not equal to wizards. Wizards get scribe scroll for free; allowing sorcerers to access spells from other classes helps with expanding their limited spell repertoire. 4. There already is a feat like that. It's called Extra Spell, and I think the sorcerer lacks something by having to take a feat to get a single extra spell. 5. I never said psionics were overpowered. I said that psionics don't fit the flavor of the game. Same with artificers. I really like the look of your houserules so far, they're definately very flavourful but I thought I'd throw in my 2 coppers on a few issues. First of all the critical fumble thing, I like the affirmation roll system you've got but rather than having them do something as described on your chart why not simply give a -10 penalty on their next attack roll or reflex save as a penalty for being so unblanaced by their blunder, heck you could even say they loose dex bonuses to armour class until their next turn instead. It still makes fumbles have a serious penalty but will stop the 18th level swordsmaster looking like a pratt when he flings his heirloom greatsword over the edge and into the cavern. As has been mentioned, very few PCs want to play the three stooges in combat.[/i] Methinks that a level 18 fighter isn't going to fail to hit an AC 10, even on his fourth attack in a round. At the moment, our campaign is using a "natural one = disaster" rule, which I hate, so I sought to modify it. This way, all characters are less likely to fumble, though wizards and their ilk still have the hardest time with attacking. As for the issue of aging hurting clerics it's definately true but as it's based on flavour wouldn't one assume that channeling the gentle energies of healing/positive energy magic would be less taxing than wrestling with the destructive forces of evocation or fighting for control of the evil of necromancy/negative energy. Thus you could either eliminate the penalty for healing spells or reduce it to an hour/level of spell or whatever you feel is apporpriate. This should allow you to maintain the required level of available healing while still maintaining the flavour of magic being a draining force. I'm aware this is far from a perfect solution as it will give clerics a vastly superiour force but remember this effect is 1- limited only to healing spells i.e. cure X wounds/restore and 2- could be balanced in some way such as saying that healing spells take a great deal of focus and prayer to cast and thus are full round actions or something or require 1 vial of holy water/spell level to be used in their casting i.e. sprinkled on the wound ala Indie and the holy grail. Again, not perfect but few things are. Anyway, just some suggestions. I'll take that into consideration. I'm also considering the variant turning rules in UA; I like the idea of turning being a contest of wills thing vs. I'M HIGH LEVEL LOOK AT ME WASTE UNDEAD. Although I have many problems with your stated houserules. This is the only one I'm going to chime in on. No no no! Bad DM! Rolling a 1 and having it treated as a -10 is a bad enough penalty as it is. Having worse things happen is never a good idea. A well trained chef by D&D rules would be an expert or something like that, but he'd only have about 5 ranks in a skill with a modifer of less then 10, so 1 out of 20 meals he makes, that is 5% of the time, the mutton would end up poisonous. By your rules, he'd make one of those twenty meals so god awful that he'd end up making someone sick. Now I work as a bartender, and I'll tell you one thing, 5% of my drinks don't end up killing or hurting someone. I was exaggerating about that. The worst that would happen in this scenario would be that one of the customers thought his meal was horrible. However, I'm betting a normal chef will be taking 10 on his cooking for the most time--a rushed chef will have the chance of ruining his meal. This is going to do nothing but annoy the players. It is like making characters keep track of spell components instead of just letting them buy a bag. This takes time and detracts more from play than it adds. If you want to depower higher level casters, then use recharge magic on spell levels and keep the spell slots. So at higher levels they can cast just as much, just not quite as rapidly from each level. (E.g. after casting a 9th level spell, the caster has to wait 5 rounds or something before casting another). Additionally, the aging is tiny, despite what others have said. Wizard with access to 7th level magic who casts all of his spells in a day ages only 110 days or so. That means they can do this 30 times and age only 10 years. That's 150 equal level challenges. In other words, the cost is so small you might as well ignore it as a player. Well, apparently this isn't as big as a penalty as people originally thought. Almost like how so many reacted to the introduction of the warlock. 10d6 ALL THE TIME BORKEN!!!111!!!11 Until, you know, they actually played with one. I had considered, however, making the days cost equal to the number of spellpoints a spell would cost...hehehe :).
FeceMan 06-01-06, 11:27 PM	Okay, after talking with a friend of mine, he suggested that I run a standard game first in order to get a better feel for GMing and then put these houserules in. That seems okay to me. However, I'd still like to know what everyone thinks of these.
Aegeu 06-02-06, 09:23 AM	If you want to make magic taxing, I suggest the UE rules for exhausting spellcasting. It weakens spellcasters, particularly at low levels, but it also lets them recover spell points more quickly. A spellcaster who uses a whole flurry of spells will be exhausted quickly, but 2 hours later they regain 2/3rds of their spell points.
TheRedRobedWizard 06-02-06, 10:23 AM	I'm considering running a game--my first one! Good to hear; it's cool when new people run a game. Kudos. --and I was also considering implementing the following houserules. Oh... um... well... I guess... if you really think you have to... Now, before starting, I'd like everyone to know that the game would be a low-magic campaign; I want magic items to have a very special 'feel' for them, like in LotR, which is why some of the houserules are there. If you have any suggestions for tweaking them, they are welcome, but please don't say OMG TEHY SUXORZ BAD GM. *sigh* 1. We will be playing much more by RAW than we did in Personal Heroes [last campaign]. That is to say, there are no 'critical rape' rules; a natural one is a miss and a natural twenty is a hit. You must roll to confirm a critical hit, and the following fumble rules will be in effect: Upon rolling a natural one, the character must roll against an AC of 15 using his or her attack bonuses for the roll on which the natural one took place. If one fails to hit this target AC, a fumble takes place (a natural one on the "fumble roll" counts as a fumble). With a fumble, the following can occur: a) One misses badly enough to provoke an attack of opportunity. b) One drops one's weapon. c) One hits an ally. d) One trips and falls prone. e) One injures oneself (by overexertion, not with the weapon) and take 1d6 + 10 - CON modifier points of nonlethal damage. More options may be added or changed as time goes on; a d% roll will take place to determine the consequences of a fumble. I dunno, those sound an awful lot like 'critical rape rules' to me. Heck the 'you accidentally drop your weapon' variant in the DMG is severe enough. Take it down a notch. 2. In that same vein, rolling a natural one on a skill check counts as a -10 and rolling a natural twenty counts as a 30. Now there's a houserule I like. Good call. Even if one gets a natural one and ends up with a skill modifier of 0, one will simply fail at the task, not blow up a building for no apparent reason. However, getting a negative skill check WILL result in buildings blowing up for no apparent reason (well, maybe not, but bad things). But you just said... nevermind, I can see that your definition of 'critical rape' is much more severe than mine. 3. All players must submit to me a short write-up of their character. This can be limited to a single paragraph or as long as one wants, but I would like to see one's idea for a character prior to the game. Good idea. Players must also submit tentative character builds to avoid CO board cheesiness (though I will allow most builds). So if a player has only thought about the basics (I want to play a Half-Orc Druid.) and not the advanced stuff (I want to play a Half-Orc druid/master of many forms/heirophant with the following feats...) then what do they do? 4. As magic is rare and taxing upon the body, several changes to the magic system are taking place. Ok, I can kinda see this. a) Whenever one casts a spell, one ages a number of days equal to the spell level. I expect players to keep track of these and they will be tallied from time to time to see if a player advances an age category. Spell-like and supernatural abilities do not cause such aging; they are part of a character's race or class moreso than magic and so do not negatively impact the character. b) Creating magic items/weapons/etc. also taxes the body. For every thousand gold that the item requires to be created, the creator ages that many days. c) The spells required to create a magic item are count as being cast for every day that one works on an item. Thus, the creator ages according to the rules in a) for each day he spends working on an item. d) For clarification, the aging process for any magic stacks with the aging process for anything else (which is why powerful mages are usually quite old). e) One's character may die from aging if one doesn't use one's magic judiciously. However, it is rumored there are ways to slow the aging process from magic and perhaps even reverse it. Now, I *really* don't like this. Simply because it reinforces the old "elves are the best at magic because they're old" stereotype. Let me get this straight; a wizard who spent the first 20 years of his life studying magic has many more repercussions on his physical health than, say, a guy who went out and made a pact with a demon (Warlock) about two weeks ago and has no idea what his powers do or how they'll effect him? Also, powerful mages aren't old because they cast spells, they're old because they've fracking been studying spellcraft and being all together smart for 50+ years. 5. There are going to be several class changes in effect. Ok, this isn't a bad start. a) Paladins have good Will saves in addition to their good Fortitude saves. If one wishes to be a paladin, one must come to me so we can discuss code of conduct. If you really think they're a weak enough class that they need a boost? Ok, I guess. b) Arcanists such as the wizard and sorcerer have d6 hit dice and proficiency with light armor; they can cast in such armor without suffering arcane spell failure. So, do Bards, Hexblades, Beguilers, Duskblades, Warmages, etc. all get boosts to their HD and "ignore armor failure" stuff to balance this out? If not, lame. c) Sorcerers have Use Magic Device on their skill list. Sorcerers receive bonus feats at the levels indicated for wizards. Much like artificers, sorcerers can use a UMD check to emulate a spell for item creation. So once again, Wizards, the supposed "masters of the arcane" get passed over again. See my Warlock arguement above. d) All spontaneous casters who have a "spells known" chart receive bonus spells known for high casting scores--PERMANENT BONUSES ONLY, THOUGH. Abusing this feature to learn/relearn spells will result in divine ass-smacking. No, no, no, no, no, no. e) Artificers do not exist in the world. Neither do psionics. If one is hell-bent on playing an artificer, psion, or some other class that I think isn't allowed in the world, come talk to me and we can discuss alternatives with similar abilities or one can try to convince me that there is a good RP reason for that character to exist. Sure, whatever. f) Knights have good Fort saves. See Paladin arguement. g) I'm tempted not to allow Natural Spell in my game, but druids can no longer buff themselves with their pet buffs, so it's in for now. I guess, if you want. h) Any and all these character rules are subject to change depending on balance and factors like player input. Don't be suprised if your players don't like any of them. 6. Many monsters with DR/magic are changed to DR/magic or mithral. But that makes all those creatures I've designed with DR/mithral not a suprise anymore. Seriously though, meh. 7. Racial substitution levels are encouraged, and paragon levels are allowed. Fracking RSLs. If you want to be a race/class combo that's not optimal, you should be rewarded by the knowledge that you're one of a select few, not "oh, yeah, since Warforged Paladins are kinda weak, we'll give em more class features". That's lame. Paragon levels are also lame, but for reasons relating to their overpoweredness. 8. Variant character classes are allowed. If one has a variant character class that's not specifically spelled out in UA, come talk to me about it. Ok, I guess. 9. The following books are allowed for building characters: a) Complete Adventurer. b) Complete Arcane. c) Complete Divine. e) Complete Warrior. f) Races of Destiny. g) Races of the Dragon. h) Races of Stone. i) Races of the Wild. j) Book of Exalted Deeds. k) Book of Vile Darkness. l) Champions of Valor/Ruin. m) Draconomicon. n) Heroes of Horror. o) Monster Manual(s). Other books may be allowed subject to my approval [and I'm sure I'm forgetting some that should be on the list]. While the XPH is certainly not encouraged, certains feats from it will be allowed. Um, I guess. BoED/BoVD are rather overpoweredy, and *no one* plays an exalted character correctly. 10. If one really wants to play a 3.0 class, it will have to be adapted for 3.5 (this comes with the "other books may be allowed" part). What the crap 3.0 classes *haven't* been converted already? 11. Monstrous races are allowed, subject to my approval (and one had better have a good character concept, not just "IMA PLAY A SAHAUGIN!"). Eh.... 12. LA buyoff is permitted. See above (re: Lame). 13. Creating undead is seen as an evil act by everyone. There are numerous arguments about this and I am stating that right off the bat in order to be clear about it. I can explain why this is, but, for the sake of time, I'll do that verbally. Ok, sure. 14. If you do something I see as being grossly out-of-character, I will ask you if that's what your character would do and perhaps even make you give me an explanation (private) of why your character is doing this. I'm not doing this to be controlling; I want to know one's motivation for doing something that doesn't match one's alignment or description one gave me earlier. Characters *gasp* change over time. Alignments can change otherwise, but that's why I favor alignmentless D&D (see: Arcana Evolved). 15. Speaking of alignment, characters of all alignments are welcome. Acting in accord with one's alignment is obviously encouraged, but there will be consequences--good or bad--for actions. That's fine. 16. Cursed items will be in the game. That's not a house rule. 17. I am a new GM. I am going to make mistakes. If anyone has a problem with anything I am doing, I want you to talk to me personally. I won't fine you XP and make the game harder for you; I want to know how I can improve the game. And I've tried to assist in that regard, I hope I've helped. 18. Called shots are allowed. The effects and penalties to the shot are as of yet undecided. No! Look, you're always assumed to be aiming for the most vulnerable spot on an enemy that you can get to. If you're shooting at someone with a bow, it's assumed you're aiming for the heart/throat/eyes. If you want to be able to cripple someone with a sword strike, there's a feat that lets you do that. If you want to blind someone, also a feat for that. D&D without Called Shots is like a chocolate cake without ketchup and turpentine. -TRRW
pres_man 06-02-06, 10:51 AM	I would just like to say that any fumble that makes you hit an ally is stupid. Why are you punishing the ally for the bad roll of another player? I had a DM that did that once and it made it so I could not fight beside my companions because they kept hitting me (the DM thought this was "dramatic", to me it was annoying). The DMG has clear rules for running fumbles if you want to. If you roll a 1 then make a DC 10 dex check.
danielinthewolvesden 06-02-06, 11:28 AM	There's a forum for Houserules. This ain't it.
DracoPhoenix 06-02-06, 11:30 AM	While it's good to see a new DM, I really think you should consider running a core only game your first time out. No fancy character builds, monsters or house rules (more on those later). You are going to have a lot to deal with without further complications. If you really want to be so free-form, consider doing a 1-4 level jaunt, before allowing character re-builds. As for the house rules, my biggest beef is with the magic. By all means go low magic (though as it's been noted, D&D isn't really intended for it), but you are effectively telling players avoid magic if at all possible: 1)crafting a magic item will more than triple your aging rate (1 day for crafting, +1 day per 1000gp, +1 day per spell level) in addition to losing 40xp / 1000gp - which is another measurement of life. 2)of those few magic items that they may come across they are most likely going to have to kill their current owner to get them due to the scarcity of said item and the amount invested in them. 3)there's a chance that their hard earned magic trinket will be cursed, which means there's more chance it would be sold anyway (cursed items arn't always labeled cursed) Will you be increasing the items value to coincide with the reduced availability? While not a fan of critical fumbles, at least your games means theres as much chance as getting a crit. hit now. You could change magic so that they only get their inherent caster ability modifier in spells / level / day or similar, to further restrict it's use. (you might also want to consider removing the sorcerer and possibly the casting aspects of non "caster" classes like the paladin, ranger etc.) Good luck, and a good move on discussing it with your players. Just be sure to listen to them though.
robertliguori 06-02-06, 12:24 PM	For the love of Mystra, kill the aging rules. You may want to institute a tiered save system (when casting a spell, make approriate fort save), or be fatigued/exhausted/unconscious. Alternately, say to players that wizard/sorceror are not meant for PC options in this campaign world.
stargate525 06-02-06, 04:18 PM	By your rules, he'd make one of those twenty meals so god awful that he'd end up making someone sick. Now I work as a bartender, and I'll tell you one thing, 5% of my drinks don't end up killing or hurting someone. And if you bartended in a D20 system, my guess is that people who do this for a living could, and would, take 10 95% of the time. I personally like the againg rules, but I think there should be some sort of periodic save to negate peices of it. Every hundred 'days' make a Fort DC save to negate half of them, or something like that.
stargate525 06-02-06, 04:25 PM	Oh... um... well... I guess... if you really think you have to... *sigh* Now there's a houserule I like. Good call. But you just said... nevermind, I can see that your definition of 'critical rape' is much more severe than mine. Good idea. Ok, I can kinda see this. Ok, this isn't a bad start. If you really think they're a weak enough class that they need a boost? Ok, I guess. No, no, no, no, no, no. Sure, whatever. I guess, if you want. Don't be suprised if your players don't like any of them. Ok, I guess. Eh.... See above (re: Lame). Ok, sure. That's fine. That's not a house rule. -TRRW And I've tried to assist in that regard, I hope I've helped. Helped? Half your answers were 'no', 'yes', 'idiot DM', or 'i guess'...
FeceMan 06-03-06, 01:42 AM	Stuff. -TRRW The only thing I'm going to say besides, "Gee, thanks for the help" is "where/what are these feats and do they require sneak attack"? Okay, I can't resist. At least about the alignments. Characters might change in alignment, but it's stupid for a LG paladin to suddenly say, "HEY AN ORPHAN IMA KILL IT SO I CAN BE BLACKGUARD" (especially if he just wants to murder someone without wanting to become a blackguard ). As for the BoVD and BoED...it's not like I can't explain to the players how they should play an exalted character (no VOP, though, too powerful for the campaign). For everyone else: the reason I want to change the sorcerer/wizard is to give sorcerers and wizards more of a LotR-feel. Which, to some of you, seems lame, but I don't get WHY wizards and sorcerers have become bookworms who can't take a hit--Gandalf was up there in the heat of the melee with Aragorn and Gimli, too. That, and ASF is stupid. Psions don't suffer from it (not to open up THAT debate). Bards and warlocks don't suffer from it, apparently because their spells are stupid and not complex. [Gandalf deserves a d8, though.] I would just like to say that any fumble that makes you hit an ally is stupid. Why are you punishing the ally for the bad roll of another player? I had a DM that did that once and it made it so I could not fight beside my companions because they kept hitting me (the DM thought this was "dramatic", to me it was annoying). The DMG has clear rules for running fumbles if you want to. If you roll a 1 then make a DC 10 dex check. I wonder why there are so many houserules and variants for rolling fumbles, then... Anyway, the entire purpose of this is to redesign the game WITHOUT the critical rape rules that our current game is in. Roll a 20--auto-crit. Roll a 1--really screwed. I do think fumbles should be in the game, and it's certainly possible that, in the heat of a melee, one would accidentally hit one's comrade. However, you'll notice that, as BAB increases, the chance for fumbling decreases. A lot. To about 1/400 later. There's a forum for Houserules. This ain't it. Thanks for your contribution to this thread. EDIT: Blast! I can't resist replying! If you really think they're a weak enough class that they need a boost? Ok, I guess. Flavor. Read more of the thread. So, do Bards, Hexblades, Beguilers, Duskblades, Warmages, etc. all get boosts to their HD and "ignore armor failure" stuff to balance this out? If not, lame. Bards have 3/4 BAB, 6 skill points/level, and supernatural abilities. They need less compensation than primary arcanists do because they are not completely reliant on their spells. There's no reason for beguilers or warmages to have a d6 HD in the first place [HINT: THEY ARE NUKER AND ILLUSION/ENCHANTMENT SPECIALIZED SORCERERS]. Duskblades have full BAB and the ability to cast in medium armor (or heavy with a feat). Let me get this straight; a wizard who spent the first 20 years of his life studying magic has many more repercussions on his physical health than, say, a guy who went out and made a pact with a demon (Warlock) about two weeks ago and has no idea what his powers do or how they'll effect him? Yep. Though, making a pact with a demon is one of those things that's going to really bite one in the ass later on. Instant gratification, baby! Powers NOW, repercussions LATER! Also, considering that a warlock doesn't get ninth-level spells...and that their power can also be innate, from a bloodline or something (granted, sorcerers have similar ties, but the way a sorcerer casts is stupid anyway, which I will admit despite liking them). Also, powerful mages aren't old because they cast spells, they're old because they've fracking been studying spellcraft and being all together smart for 50+ years. Really? I was under the impression that, in my world, mages were supernaturally aged by using magic. And it also took a long time to study and master. So once again, Wizards, the supposed "masters of the arcane" get passed over again. See my Warlock arguement above. Passed over? How? Because sorcerers can emulate a spell--I should clarify, an ARCANE spell--for crafting despite them having such a limited repertoire of spells available?
TheRedRobedWizard 06-03-06, 09:24 AM	Ok, look. Gandalf was a demigod. He wasn't a D&D wizard. He had spellcasting, to be sure, but he was also thousands of years old (read: much higher level than the rest of the party). He had a d8 HD by virtue of being an Outsider. In regards to the rest of my responses, you asked for an honest critique, so I gave you my honest opinion. I thought a lot of your rules were lame and that they needed to be gotten rid of. For the sake of all that's good in the world, don't put that PEACH thing in your thread title if you don't want someone telling you how bad your ideas are. The H is for "honestly". I honestly thought quite a lot of your ideas were lame, so I informed you of such. In regards to the "old wizards" thing, I was refering to the general trend in fantasy literature to make all wizards old because they've studied their entire life. The critical fumbles system you've suggested is still leaps and bounds more 'critical rape' than any system I've ever played in. I don't like it. But as I've said many times before, it's your campaign; if you want to make arcane spellcasters *that* undesireable, make characters who aren't reliant on magic items, and only rely on the power of their own bodies to survive... Well, there's always Iron Heroes. -TRRW
Witch 06-03-06, 09:36 AM	PEACH should get the addition "Yet Tactfully" behind it.
Tequila_Sunrise 06-03-06, 10:15 AM	As has been said, simplicity is the DM's friend (especially newbies but also geezers)! It sounds like you have a decent grasp of the game from a player's couch, but the DM's chair is a lot different. Consider running at least one core-only low-level campaign by the RAW before starting a new one to implement your houserules and flavor preferences.
TheRedRobedWizard 06-03-06, 10:16 AM	Someone once said: "Tact is to lie about others as you would have them lie about you. " That seems to be lacking in the spirit of Honesty. I have the necessary lack of tact in order to be honest. -TRRW
Witch 06-03-06, 10:21 AM	Tact is going to the small child and telling it her grandmothers gone to another place. That's no dishonest. Honesty according to you is apparently going to the small child: "Hey, kid, your grandma died of cancer! Boy did she smell bad!"
TheRedRobedWizard 06-03-06, 10:25 AM	It's more along the lines of: A 16 year old's father goes to jail for assualting women and killing babies. The son asks why. "He was a bad man." or "He assaulted 14 women and murdered babies." I'm being truthful to people who should be old enough that they don't have to be told half-truths. The point is, I assume that the posters on this board have the self-esteem to undergo my lack of tact. -TRRW
Witch 06-03-06, 10:35 AM	I believe in a sort of middle way, telling the entire truth yet not telling it so that it might hurt people, since lots of people don't have the self-esteem.
danielinthewolvesden 06-03-06, 12:20 PM	While it's good to see a new DM, I really think you should consider running a core only game your first time out. No fancy character builds, monsters or house rules (more on those later). You are going to have a lot to deal with without further complications. If you really want to be so free-form, consider doing a 1-4 level jaunt, before allowing character re-builds.. Right, except that I'd go further and say- run the game completely RAW. Not even Low Magic (well, you can cut out magic stores except in the largest cities, maybe). If this is your 1st time, you really need to run it RAW & CORE. A list of Houserules like this might be OK for your second game, but you can't really know what you want to change until you've run it RAW, not low magic, not with a bunch of odd houserules- remember RAW has been expensively playtested. Go with it for your first game, or you might get a bad rep as a DM: "Naw, I'm not going to play in any of his games again- too many wierd houserules, some of which didn't work, so the game disinigrated even tho he tried to change them several times." Thus, only use your "houserules" #3, 5e, 7, 13, & 17. I also really suggest NO to rule #15. Evil PC's are for Mature players and Experienced DM's. I don't know how mature you players are, but you're not expereinced. I'd add "No Evils, and PC turning evil by his own acts becomes an NPC under the DM's comtrol. CN characters beware!".
capnwoodrow 06-03-06, 01:30 PM	Before I post up my thoughts on this, I have a question for the OP - What kind of characters does your group/you normally play? If you and your buds all play pallys and knights and no one ever picks an arcane caster, that would explain a bit to me.... Oh! As for the "Gandalf is teh l33tz0rz, so my wizards are the same" theory, do your wizards get auto-rezzed if they have something left to accomplish in your story?
stargate525 06-03-06, 02:58 PM	It's more along the lines of: A 16 year old's father goes to jail for assualting women and killing babies. The son asks why. "He was a bad man." or "He assaulted 14 women and murdered babies." I'm being truthful to people who should be old enough that they don't have to be told half-truths. The point is, I assume that the posters on this board have the self-esteem to undergo my lack of tact. -TRRW uh, no not really. Your example is not applicable, considering you aren't talking to the person who murdered babies. What you're doing is more applicable to a friend asking you why he can't get a girl, and you proceed to laugh in his face and tell him he's an ugly and smelly moron.
pres_man 06-03-06, 03:49 PM	I wonder why there are so many houserules and variants for rolling fumbles, then... Because so many people think they are smarter than the designers. See p. 28 in the DMG for where it discusses this variant. The big issue is that it leaves up to the DM what happens when there is a critical miss (fumble), but if you look at the examples given they all are in relation to the actual individual who fumbled, not to their companions. Anyway, the entire purpose of this is to redesign the game WITHOUT the critical rape rules that our current game is in. Since I am not in your current game I am not sure what you mean by "critical rape rules", unless it is this: Roll a 20--auto-crit. Roll a 1--really screwed. Yes those rules are really bad. For one thing, a 20 being an auto crit shifts the damage in favor of x3 and x4 and less so for 19-20/x2 and 18-20/x2. Now if all possible crits were crits without an additional roll then it might be a bit more balanced. As for rolling a 1, well that is certainly bad if it is automatic, more on that in a moment. I do think fumbles should be in the game, You certainly have your right to that opinion, in some games I would agree, most of the time I would not. and it's certainly possible that, in the heat of a melee, one would accidentally hit one's comrade. In RL, sure, in a game it is almost always a bad idea to punish a player for the actions/rolls of another player. Looking at your options the worst that could happen to the fumbler is that they knock themselves unconscious (from non-lethal), the worst that could happen to an ally of the fumbler is that they are killed. That to me is a huge problem. At the very least a third roll should be made verses the ally's AC, and no they are not treated as flat-footed (unless they would be for all attacks) and so no automatic sneak attack damage from ally rogues because they "wouldn't expect it". If it is reasonable that it could "accidently" happen then everybody would be expecting it to happen. However, you'll notice that, as BAB increases, the chance for fumbling decreases. A lot. To about 1/400 later. I'm not sure where you got this number. Did you calculate in the fact that as BAB increases that the player will get additional attacks, and that these additional attacks are at decreased values, and that for each of these additional attacks that the chance of rolling one increases? Not to mention rapid shot, manyshot, TWF, Flurry of blows, etc. Basically fumbles hurt weapon users but not really spellcasters (those rare touch attack spells). So the more attacks one gets the more likely it is that one will fumble, so a level 20 fighter is actually more likely to fumble than a level 1 fighter.
Drachasor 06-03-06, 04:03 PM	uh, no not really. Your example is not applicable, considering you aren't talking to the person who murdered babies. What you're doing is more applicable to a friend asking you why he can't get a girl, and you proceed to laugh in his face and tell him he's an ugly and smelly moron. You don't have to laugh in his face to tell him the truth. While the truth can hurt, if your friend is ugly and smelly, then there are things that can be done to start to remedy such problems. You can't remedy anything if you don't know about it however. A true friend, imho, tells the truth about the problems his friends have and also puts forth effort to help them overcome those problems. In any case, Feceman, I really think you should drop the aging part. It isn't an issue of balance, as I showed, but rather it is going to be a pain in the ass of the players. I've been in a campaign where I've had to jot down things for each spell (in my case, negligible cost spell components) and it is a huge waste of time and takes away fun from the game. I agree with people that say you should go with a RAW game to begin with. Play from levels 1 to 5 or so at least before deciding if you want to change anything, and remember to get advice on the DM forum to help improve your basic DM skills (the forum is an invaluable tool). That will be the most effective way to make the game fun and become a great DM. The next campaign you run can have house rules (and I recommend buying Unearthed Arcana--and heck, Arcana Evolved which is a wonderful alternative PHB too). -Drachasor
FeceMan 06-03-06, 04:50 PM	I'm not sure where you got this number. Did you calculate in the fact that as BAB increases that the player will get additional attacks, and that these additional attacks are at decreased values, and that for each of these additional attacks that the chance of rolling one increases? Not to mention rapid shot, manyshot, TWF, Flurry of blows, etc. Basically fumbles hurt weapon users but not really spellcasters (those rare touch attack spells). So the more attacks one gets the more likely it is that one will fumble, so a level 20 fighter is actually more likely to fumble than a level 1 fighter. Yes, I did calculate that with the additional attacks factored in. At level 20, a fighter will have his fourth attack with a +5 modifier. We'll assume he started with a conservative 13 STR. He puts all of his stat points in there until he gets 18 STR. At this point, we can assume he has at least a +2 weapon, even in a low-magic game. 5 + 4 + 2 = 11. He has to roll a four to avoid a fumble. And this is assuming he doesn't even have a single STR-enhancing item. On all other attacks, he has a 1/400 chance of fumbling. On his final attack, he has a 3/400 chance of fumbling.
FeceMan 06-03-06, 04:55 PM	In any case, Feceman, I really think you should drop the aging part. It isn't an issue of balance, as I showed, but rather it is going to be a pain in the ass of the players. I've been in a campaign where I've had to jot down things for each spell (in my case, negligible cost spell components) and it is a huge waste of time and takes away fun from the game. I agree with people that say you should go with a RAW game to begin with. Play from levels 1 to 5 or so at least before deciding if you want to change anything, and remember to get advice on the DM forum to help improve your basic DM skills (the forum is an invaluable tool). That will be the most effective way to make the game fun and become a great DM. The next campaign you run can have house rules (and I recommend buying Unearthed Arcana--and heck, Arcana Evolved which is a wonderful alternative PHB too). -Drachasor *Nods.* Like I said, I talked with a friend and he suggested running a very basic game to start off with--low-magic is fine, the skill check system I wanted was fine, and probably the only thing I'll add is that all shields/bucklers gain an additional +1 shield bonus and tower shields gain a +2 shield bonus (I think it's lame that they have such little armor). Some rules clarification things wil be added, and I'm okay with players using all sorts of materials as long as they show me their builds. As for the alignments issue: In our current game, we have an idiot player who is playing a rogue/shadowdancer who is a kleptomaniac. Our GM lets her get away with murder, and I'm going to let my players be however they want. However, I'm going to make sure there are consequences for their actions--one reason that I pointed out that cursed items WILL make an appearance. She plays a thief in all her other RPGs, and I'm guessing she will try to in mine. She might steal some items, but there's going to be a time when she'll wish she hadn't. I'm about to get all ranty, so I'm going to stop myself, but, basically, she ONLY steals from party members and we're not supposed to get ****** at her. I'm playing an archivist, and I thank Wizards every day now that I found the spell sound lance (10d8, fort save for half, take THAT rogues!).
King_Bulba 06-03-06, 06:59 PM	My opinion is that your rules are WAY to harse. Upon rolling a natural one, the character must roll against an AC of 15 using his or her attack bonuses for the roll on which the natural one took place. Fumbles that devistate a charater are not fun. I should know because I am cursed at dice rolling and fumble A LOT! Anyways I wouldnt play with those fumble rules, losing a weapon is one thing but hitting an ally or hurting yourself crosses the line for me of not being fun. rolling a natural one on a skill check counts as a -10 and rolling a natural twenty counts as a 30. There is a reason natural ones and twenties do not automaticly make successes and failures and adding or subtracting 10 to the role because of the roll for the most part is doing just that. I just dont by you failing a check one in every 20 times you do it when it is the most trivial thing to do and you dont even need to roll for the check to make it. All players must submit to me a short write-up of their character Good idea. Whenever one casts a spell, one ages a number of days equal to the spell level. Ummmm I think this is crap, 100% garbage. First it benifits older races IE elves, hell I would play an immortal race, something fey would work. Also it just isnt fun. I liked the idea that casting a spell makes you fatigued/exhausted/unconcous if you REALLY HAVE TO NERF spellcasters because that is what you are doing, you are cutting off their balls. I would just say spell casters are REALLY rare and that is why it is low magic not because of aging issues. All spontaneous casters who have a "spells known" chart receive bonus spells known for high casting scores--PERMANENT BONUSES ONLY, THOUGH. Another senseless nerf. I dont mean to offend but thats my reaction to this. Artificers do not exist in the world. Neither do psionics. No psionics? If it is because you are unfamilure then I understand but if its for "flavor" reasons that I think it is garbage. Just call the psion a sorcerer and what they do is magic like a normal sorcerer that comes from within but uses the better psionic system to cast. Variant character classes are allowed. If one has a variant character class that's not specifically spelled out in UA, come talk to me about it. I agree with this. Giving people options is good. 11. Monstrous races are allowed, subject to my approval (and one had better have a good character concept, not just "IMA PLAY A SAHAUGIN!"). I agree with this too. Giving people options is good. 12. LA buyoff is permitted. I agree with this too even though 00_Whupass doesn't. LA are worth more in ealier levels but are worth less in later levels and LA buy off tries to accomidate this idea. 13. Creating undead is seen as an evil act by everyone. There are numerous arguments about this and I am stating that right off the bat in order to be clear about it. I can explain why this is, but, for the sake of time, I'll do that verbally. Now I dont agree with this but the fact that you are making this a part of your world and saying it upfront is good. 14. If you do something I see as being grossly out-of-character, I will ask you if that's what your character would do and perhaps even make you give me an explanation (private) of why your character is doing this. I'm not doing this to be controlling; I want to know one's motivation for doing something that doesn't match one's alignment or description one gave me earlier. Now I cant really comment since it depends on your group. Sometimes this is good often its bad. 15. Speaking of alignment, characters of all alignments are welcome. Acting in accord with one's alignment is obviously encouraged, but there will be consequences--good or bad--for actions. Options are good and I like that you are including all alignments but they tend to being out the most party conflict when a LG in the party has to deal with a chaotic. LOL most LG i have seen have more issues with chaotic in the party than evil. Also prevent Chaotic stupid which most people think evil is. 6. Many monsters with DR/magic are changed to DR/magic and mithral. One's character does not know this, however. But, as with all special materials, one may hear rumors about special materials and their effectiveness. What 00_Whupass said.
Kalriem 06-04-06, 12:33 AM	This is from a DM who made that mistake: follow the RAW in Called Shot exactly. It might not be realistic, but it keeps your party's fighter from annihilating all your opponents with headshots.
FeceMan 06-04-06, 11:46 AM	Another senseless nerf. I dont mean to offend but thats my reaction to this. Whoah, there, what I just did was DE-nerfing the sorcerer. Spontaneous casters with a spells known list do NOT gain bonus spells known from having a high casting stat. I'm letting them do that.
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-04-06, 12:13 PM	a) One misses badly enough to provoke an attack of opportunity. b) One drops one's weapon. c) One hits an ally. d) One trips and falls prone. e) One injures oneself (by overexertion, not with the weapon) and take 1d6 + 10 - CON modifier points of nonlethal damage. 1d6 + 10? Meaning a first level character will likely knock himself out completely by a fumble? Um... don't do that. If you're going to use fumbles I recommend using them only in dramatic situations. If you're firing into a melee with a bow, fine, use a fumble check. If you're attacking over your partner swinging a spiked chain, then that's ok for a fumble too. Fighting near the edge of a cliff? Yeah, fumbles are cool there too. But don't apply purely random fumbles in normal combats. It doesn't make the game anymore fun. About all I can see applying fumbles like "you drop your weapon" to are when people are fighting with something they're not proficient with. Then it remotely makes sense. Otherwise, you're dealing with trained warriors here and you should generally try to make them feel pretty heroic. 2. In that same vein, rolling a natural one on a skill check counts as a -10 and rolling a natural twenty counts as a 30. Even if one gets a natural one and ends up with a skill modifier of 0, one will simply fail at the task, not blow up a building for no apparent reason. However, getting a negative skill check WILL result in buildings blowing up for no apparent reason (well, maybe not, but bad things). Doesn't really improve the game much and screws with the skill system. The skill system is based on the idea that you can "take 20" on a lot of skills. Now effectively in your system, taking 20 becomes taking 30. a) Whenever one casts a spell, one ages a number of days equal to the spell level. I expect players to keep track of these and they will be tallied from time to time to see if a player advances an age category. Spell-like and supernatural abilities do not cause such aging; they are part of a character's race or class moreso than magic and so do not negatively impact the character. Crazy amounts of book-keeping and encourages all your casters to just play elves. Seriously, what's the point of this? a) Paladins have good Will saves in addition to their good Fortitude saves. If one wishes to be a paladin, one must come to me so we can discuss code of conduct. Paladins don't need any help honestly. Divine grace handles their saves just fine and gives them the best saves of any class. Why you'd want to improve that I don't know. b) Arcanists such as the wizard and sorcerer have d6 hit dice and proficiency with light armor; they can cast in such armor without suffering arcane spell failure. Eh. Wizards really don't need help either. Possibly giving this to the sorcerer might be okay, but I wouldn't do it to the wizard. They're easily one of the most powerful classes in the game anyway. c) Sorcerers have Use Magic Device on their skill list. Sorcerers receive bonus feats at the levels indicated for wizards. Much like artificers, sorcerers can use a UMD check to emulate a spell for item creation (arcane only). Sounds ok I guess. f) Knights have good Fort saves. Sounds ok. g) I'm tempted not to allow Natural Spell in my game, but druids can no longer buff themselves with their pet buffs, so it's in for now. Yes, natural spell is crazy broke. I advise you ban it. Or simply use the shapeshift variant druid from the PHB2, he's much mroe balanced. 18. Called shots are allowed. The effects and penalties to the shot are as of yet undecided. Be careful with called shots. They can be dangerous mechanically. Really I wouldn't allow them until you get a lot of experience DMing as they require a lot of on the spot rulings.
pres_man 06-04-06, 12:16 PM	Yes, I did calculate that with the additional attacks factored in. At level 20, a fighter will have his fourth attack with a +5 modifier. We'll assume he started with a conservative 13 STR. He puts all of his stat points in there until he gets 18 STR. At this point, we can assume he has at least a +2 weapon, even in a low-magic game. 5 + 4 + 2 = 11. He has to roll a four to avoid a fumble. And this is assuming he doesn't even have a single STR-enhancing item. On all other attacks, he has a 1/400 chance of fumbling. On his final attack, he has a 3/400 chance of fumbling. I apologize, you are correct that the chances of fumbling are less at 20th level, even if the fighter goes TWF (though the difference decreases significantly). Let's instead take your fighter at 16th level and compare him to 1st level and let's assume he goes the TWF route. Well at 16th level (we'll assume he is at +5 on his attacks), well combining the probabilities to see what is the chance he will fumble in a single round with his 7 attacks (4 main, 3 off-hand all at -2 penalty), we see the probability is 0.06. Not huge, but consider at first level with only a 13 STR (+1 attacks) his probability of fumbling in a given round is 0.03, if he TWF right off the bat he has a probability of 0.035 for fumbling in a round. So our 16th level TWF is twice as likely to fumble in a given round as a 1st level non-TWF fighter and 71% more likely to fumble than our first level TWF. So, yes your standard AC check to see if they fumble is better than say, making them roll again against the creatures AC (this assumes that most creatures' AC goes up as the party increases). Yet every time an additional attack is gained the probability to fumble jumps up and then decreases. Perhaps if you limited it to one possible of fumble per round, and that at their lowest BAB, then that would work better.
FeceMan 06-04-06, 12:35 PM	I apologize, you are correct that the chances of fumbling are less at 20th level, even if the fighter goes TWF (though the difference decreases significantly). Let's instead take your fighter at 16th level and compare him to 1st level and let's assume he goes the TWF route. Well at 16th level (we'll assume he is at +5 on his attacks), well combining the probabilities to see what is the chance he will fumble in a single round with his 7 attacks (4 main, 3 off-hand all at -2 penalty), we see the probability is 0.06. Not huge, but consider at first level with only a 13 STR (+1 attacks) his probability of fumbling in a given round is 0.03, if he TWF right off the bat he has a probability of 0.035 for fumbling in a round. So our 16th level TWF is twice as likely to fumble in a given round as a 1st level non-TWF fighter and 71% more likely to fumble than our first level TWF. So, yes your standard AC check to see if they fumble is better than say, making them roll again against the creatures AC (this assumes that most creatures' AC goes up as the party increases). Yet every time an additional attack is gained the probability to fumble jumps up and then decreases. Perhaps if you limited it to one possible of fumble per round, and that at their lowest BAB, then that would work better. Hmm, I guess that would work. However, my thinking was that the fighter would have to take time to adjust to getting a new attack in the round so he would be more likely to fumble on it. And, yeah, TWF is a hard one to balance with that, heh.
pres_man 06-04-06, 12:46 PM	Yes, natural spell is crazy broke. I advise you ban it. Or simply use the shapeshift variant druid from the PHB2, he's much mroe balanced. Only reason it seems broken is because people don't enforce the rules. Druid: I shifted into a dolphin last round. This round I'm going to cast a spell. DM: Does the spell have a somatic component? Druid: Ahhh...yeah it does, but I have natural spell so no problem. DM: Nope, you can't cast it. Somatic components require you make "measured and precise movement of the hand". Waving your flipper around isn't going to do it. Druid: :headexplo **later** Druid: Ok I shift into an eagle, can I do somatic components with my talons? DM: Sure. *next round* Druid: I cast a spell. DM: Does the spell require a material component? Druid: Ahhh...Grrrr...yeah. But it is a cheap component I will have it in my spell pouch. DM: Which has been absorbed when you shifted into the eagle form. Druid: :banghead:
stargate525 06-04-06, 01:54 PM	Doesn't really improve the game much and screws with the skill system. The skill system is based on the idea that you can "take 20" on a lot of skills. Now effectively in your system, taking 20 becomes taking 30. My group plays with this rule, and the 20=30 rule only applies on natural 20's; taking 20 won't do. (for us at least) Crazy amounts of book-keeping and encourages all your casters to just play elves. Seriously, what's the point of this? Crazy amounts of bookkeeping? Tally marks at the side of the sheet? I do more work keeping track of which spells I've prepared. It does add flavor, alot of it. And in most low magic worlds spellcasters rule the earth at around fifth level. This seems to be a very creative and unique way to balance that out. (although I still recommend some way to reduce the amount of days taken.)
FeceMan 06-04-06, 03:00 PM	Only reason it seems broken is because people don't enforce the rules. Druid: I shifted into a dolphin last round. This round I'm going to cast a spell. DM: Does the spell have a somatic component? Druid: Ahhh...yeah it does, but I have natural spell so no problem. DM: Nope, you can't cast it. Somatic components require you make "measured and precise movement of the hand". Waving your flipper around isn't going to do it. Druid: :headexplo **later** Druid: Ok I shift into an eagle, can I do somatic components with my talons? DM: Sure. *next round* Druid: I cast a spell. DM: Does the spell require a material component? Druid: Ahhh...Grrrr...yeah. But it is a cheap component I will have it in my spell pouch. DM: Which has been absorbed when you shifted into the eagle form. Druid: :banghead: Natural Spell[General] Prerequisites Wis 13, wild shape ability. Benefit You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell. You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while in a wild shape. I don't think natural spell is TOO broken if you follow the wildshaping rules...no change of HP or special abilties of the creature; can't buff oneself with animal-only buffs.
FeceMan 06-04-06, 03:02 PM	It does add flavor, alot of it. And in most low magic worlds spellcasters rule the earth at around fifth level. This seems to be a very creative and unique way to balance that out. (although I still recommend some way to reduce the amount of days taken.) Probably going to add a Fort save to the days after one year; successful save drops it to half. Maybe negates, depending on the difficulty. I've also considered coming up with a freakish variant that is...very, very different. It's like the vitalizing spellpoint system only worse ;). EDIT: Oops, double-post.