Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ShadowChemosh 10-07-04, 04:24 PM	I have had a few small complaints about some Misc changes I have done for my home grown custom campaign world. Several where done to make 3.5 work with a custom world originally made for 1.0 AD&D. Others where done simply because I feel that a few things in 3.5 where broke. For example I did not see how a 1st level and 20th level fighter should have the same chance to Trip or Disarm. The only difference being either STR/DEX or having the Improved Trip Feat. So I was looking for a few comments from gamers that are not players in my world, and as such should give a more un-biased view point. Thanks Rule 0: All rule & game changes made by the DM for the world of Kartashia is made to either help balance the game system or allow players more choices in character creation. These rules should all be read with the spirit of intent being more important then the black and white letter. In other words the intent and idea behind a rule needs to supersede the exact wording used. Kartashia D&D Version will be 3.5, but we will be using 3.0 or 3.5 SPELL rules. What version of spells needs to be decided by the player at character creation. Once decided it can not be changed. The Following weapons have been changed from SLASHING only to Slashing & Bludgeoning. Great Sword, Bastard Sword, and ALL Axes. Trip, Disarm, and Grapple attack use your Total GRAPPLE attack for the opposed rolls instead of just your STR or DEX. This also includes RANKS in Discipline if you are Defending. See the Discipline Skill for full details. When NOT in combat ALL healing spells will give back MAX hit points per spell. Cure Minor Wounds heals 1d4 instead of 1HP. This also works for Inflict Minor Wounds. A neutral or good aligned Cleric that casts the reverse of Cure spells will gain 1 point towards evil. This is do to the taint on magic that taps into the Negative energy plane. Spellcraft has been changed in the following way. Besides all the normal abilities of Spellcraft the character also gains a +1 bonus for every 5 ranks in this skill to all saving throws against spells. Alignments will be done with a new sliding scale system. For example a NG alignment will be rated at N(0)G(60). Neutral will start a base value of 0 that can go to 20 or -20. The good part starts at a base value of 60 and go from 21 to 100. So Evil would then start at -60. Prestige classes will be allowed including several custom Kartashia PrCs; except for any of the EVIL ones. Checked by DM 1st. Creation of custom Prestige classes by players is allowed, checked by the DM 1st. Player Characters must start and always be Non-Evil. Anyone's PC that turns EVIL during the game will turn into a NPC and will be played by the DM. Characters receive max HPs at 1st and 2nd level; instead of just at 1st. HPs at all other levels will be done by rolling 2 dice instead of 1. The higher of the 2 dice will be used. For example a wizard rolls 2 four sided dice, and gets a 2 and 3. The wizard would gain 3 more hit points. PG14 of the 3.5 PHB mentions that Dwarves have a fear of water; this is said because Dwarves can not swim; hence the “Fear of Water”. Ability Items will NOT stack with each other. So if you have a Ring of Str+3 and gauntlets Str+2 you would only get the +3 NOT +5. Buff spells cast by anyone will now STACK with Everything. So if a PC has gauntlets +2 Str and someone casts Bull's Strength Str+4 on that same character he will have +6 to STR until the buff spell ends.
LukiLoki 10-07-04, 07:31 PM	Kartashia D&D Version will be 3.5, but we will be using 3.0 or 3.5 SPELL rules. What version of spells needs to be decided by the player at character creation. Once decided it can not be changed. You won't be getting very many castings of 3.5 Haste, I'll tell you right now. And a hallmark of imbalance is when there's a non-choice, i.e. between two options of equal cost, where one is so much better than the other as to make the choice moot. In general, there are a lot of little changes to spells between the versions that can have unintended consequences in application, so be careful. The Following weapons have been changed from SLASHING only to Slashing & Bludgeoning. Great Sword, Bastard Sword, and ALL Axes. Yeah, the Greatsword needed a boost. :rolleyes: Trip, Disarm, and Grapple attack use your Total GRAPPLE attack for the opposed rolls instead of just your STR or DEX. This also includes RANKS in Discipline if you are Defending. See the Discipline Skill for full details. Overpowers BAB. Spellcraft has been changed in the following way. Besides all the normal abilities of Spellcraft the character also gains a +1 bonus for every 5 ranks in this skill to all saving throws against spells. No other skill affects saves directly, so this is mechanically questionable. my 2 cp
edsonaoki 10-07-04, 07:55 PM	The Following weapons have been changed from SLASHING only to Slashing & Bludgeoning. Great Sword, Bastard Sword, and ALL Axes. I didn't know a sword was able to break stone as easilly as a hammer, or a mace... Spellcraft has been changed in the following way. Besides all the normal abilities of Spellcraft the character also gains a +1 bonus for every 5 ranks in this skill to all saving throws against spells. A little overpowering.... Ability Items will NOT stack with each other. So if you have a Ring of Str+3 and gauntlets Str+2 you would only get the +3 NOT +5. Well, they already don't stack if both give enhacement bonus. Other kinds of bonuses stack, but items that give them are usually epic and waaaaaay expensive.
ShadowChemosh 10-07-04, 08:46 PM	I didn't know a sword was able to break stone as easily as a hammer, or a mace... Large two-handed weapons are yes. They do not have an edge at all. They where functionally created in real life to be able to hurt people in heavy plate armor. Well no matter how sharp a sword is it will never cut steel armor, but the exchange of momentum of a 10lb sword being swung with all its might into you will numb, break, and/or crack your bones underneath the armor. A perfect use of a claymore or Greatsword was a overhead attack that came down on the shoulder of a person. The force of the blow could and a did crack the shoulder bone of a enemy. Lets see you defend yourself with a cracked or broken shoulder. I personally own a large Broad sword and a six foot two-handed broad sword. I would have no problem going outside with the two-hander and busting up rocks and or my car. Just about as well as sledgehammer would! I personally put this in so that when a greatsword or an Axe melee weapon is used against a skeleton it would bypass the 5/Bludgeoning DR. Overpowers BAB. I am not sure what you mean by this. I figured using BAB or Grapple was a quick and easy fix for Trip and Disarm. I just can not get the idea that level makes no difference between a pair of characters. How could a 14 STR Fighter Level 20 and 14 STR Wizard level 1 both have the same chance to trip stuff? But by instead using the total Grapple rolls for opposed rolls it appeared to even things back up between fighter and non-fighter classes, and also for characters of different levels. Either way thanks for the comments so far. Its all good information to help me run a better world. The funny part is that the biggest problem of the players was the Dwarf's can not swim part. That caused a very large argument by one of the dwarven characters.
Dracoulis The Phyrexian 10-08-04, 03:58 AM	Yeah, that can't swim bit is really... problematic. A minus to swim would probably be more in line. You could get away with a -4. It's heavy enough that only dedicated swimmers can get by it, yet it's not impossible to beat with effort.
starfire311 10-08-04, 11:14 AM	For example I did not see how a 1st level and 20th level fighter should have the same chance to Trip or Disarm. The only difference being either STR/DEX or having the Improved Trip Feat. you do the following to perform a Disarm From 3.5 SRD DISARM As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand. If you’re attempting to disarm a melee weapon, follow the steps outlined here. If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon the defender may still oppose you with an attack roll, but takes a penalty and can’t attempt to disarm you in return if your attempt fails. Step 1: Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to disarm. (If you have the Improved Disarm feat, you don’t incur an attack of opportunity for making a disarm attempt.) If the defender’s attack of opportunity deals any damage, your disarm attempt fails. Step 2: Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a –4 penalty. (An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent by using an unarmed strike.) If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category. If the targeted item isn’t a melee weapon, the defender takes a –4 penalty on the roll. Step Three: Consequences. If you beat the defender, the defender is disarmed. If you attempted the disarm action unarmed, you now have the weapon. If you were armed, the defender’s weapon is on the ground in the defender’s square. If you fail on the disarm attempt, the defender may immediately react and attempt to disarm you with the same sort of opposed melee attack roll. His attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity from you. If he fails his disarm attempt, you do not subsequently get a free disarm attempt against him. Note: A defender wearing spiked gauntlets can’t be disarmed. A defender using a weapon attached to a locked gauntlet gets a +10 bonus to resist being disarmed. So for a disarm you make an opposed attack roll to determine success From 3.5 SRD TRIP You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller. Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks. If your attack succeeds, make a Strength check opposed by the defender’s Dexterity or Strength check (whichever ability score has the higher modifier). A combatant gets a +4 bonus for every size category he is larger than Medium or a –4 penalty for every size category he is smaller than Medium. The defender gets a +4 bonus on his check if he has more than two legs or is otherwise more stable than a normal humanoid. If you win, you trip the defender. If you lose, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check to try to trip you. Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack. Being Tripped (Prone): A tripped character is prone. Standing up is a move action. Tripping a Mounted Opponent: You may make a trip attack against a mounted opponent. The defender may make a Ride check in place of his Dexterity or Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the rider from his mount. Tripping with a Weapon: Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped. To make a trip attack you must first succeed at an touch attack. For both of these there is more to it than just making opposed strength/Dex Check Kartashia D&D Version will be 3.5, but we will be using 3.0 or 3.5 SPELL rules. What version of spells needs to be decided by the player at character creation. Once decided it can not be changed. This is very scary indead, I do not know one reason that a player would choose 3.5 over 3.0 spell system. 3.0 is much more powerful. Trip, Disarm, and Grapple attack use your Total GRAPPLE attack for the opposed rolls instead of just your STR or DEX. This also includes RANKS in Discipline if you are Defending. See the Discipline Skill for full details. As already stated I think you don't understand how these rules work in 3.5 to begin with, but if you are giving an extra bonus to the defender due to a discipline skill, then I think these combat maneuvers will not be used very often. On another note I feel that skills should have very little benefit in combat, the one big exception being tumble, No other skills gives you bonuses to combat and I think adding more may not be a good idea, These makes it harder to be a good fighter, since on average fighters get 2 SP per level, and I dont understand why a high level fighter that has average intelligence that decides to max ranks in Jump and Ride, would be undisciplined. A neutral or good aligned Cleric that casts the reverse of Cure spells will gain 1 point towards evil. This is do to the taint on magic that taps into the Negative energy plane. Not a big fan of this in general, but it does add flavor to the game world. Spellcraft has been changed in the following way. Besides all the normal abilities of Spellcraft the character also gains a +1 bonus for every 5 ranks in this skill to all saving throws against spells. Once again I don't like adding tangible combat benefits to spells, but this one is interesting. How about if they succeed at a spellcraft check to determine the spell then they get a bonus to save. PG14 of the 3.5 PHB mentions that Dwarves have a fear of water; this is said because Dwarves can not swim; hence the “Fear of Water”. I don't like this either, because it eliminates the possiblity of an underwater adventure if the group has a dwarf, but it does add flavor. Ability Items will NOT stack with each other. So if you have a Ring of Str+3 and gauntlets Str+2 you would only get the +3 NOT +5. Once again you show your lack of rules knowledge about 3.5. In general these would not stack, because they would most likely be enhancement bonuses. Would the tomes and manuals still stack with Gauntlets? They are 2 different bonuses in 3.5. Buff spells cast by anyone will now STACK with Everything. So if a PC has gauntlets +2 Str and someone casts Bull's Strength Str+4 on that same character he will have +6 to STR until the buff spell ends. Be very careful with this especially if allowing 3.0 spells, the buffs will quickly become too good. Maximized Empowered Bull's Strength anyone This is interesting because then you get into tricky situations, like does bull strength cast by the wizard stack with bull's strength cast by the clereic. Going back to ability enhancing items, does a potion of bull's stength stack with gauntlets of ogre power. They are both magic item ability enhancers. As far as stacking goes I think 3.5 has done it pretty well, bonuses with the same name do not stack. I also think before instituting a bunch of houserules, people should really know the rules that they are changing first.
Glock-9mm 10-08-04, 11:28 AM	HPs at all other levels will be done by rolling 2 dice instead of 1. The higher of the 2 dice will be used. For example a wizard rolls 2 four sided dice, and gets a 2 and 3. The wizard would gain 3 more hit points. The group I'm in made a variation on a core feat to cover this, It means we have 2 versions of Toughness... Both of which PC's may/may-not want to take. Toughness Version 1 (General): Benifit: You may roll two dice when rolling hit points and keep which-ever result you prefer. Special:You may only select this feat once. Toughness Version 2 (General): Benefit: You gain +3 hit points. Special: A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. Regards Glock-9mm (NZ)
cperkins 10-08-04, 01:11 PM	I'll critique your house rules one at-a-time: * Rule 0: All rule & game changes made by the DM for the world of Kartashia are made to either help balance the game system or allow players more choices in character creation. These rules should all be read with the spirit of intent being more important then the black and white letter. In other words the intent and idea behind a rule needs to supersede the exact wording used. Not much to say here, as long as you and your players have fun gaming with these rules and feel that they are being evenly applied. * Kartashia D&D Version will be 3.5, but we will be using 3.0 or 3.5 SPELL rules. What version of spells needs to be decided by the player at character creation. Once decided it can not be changed. I think that this is not an eloquent solution. It might be better to have the group decide at the start of the campaign which version will be used for the entire campaign... every caster, every creature with spell-like abilities, and every magic item effected by which version is used. * The Following weapons have been changed from SLASHING only to Slashing & Bludgeoning. Great Sword, Bastard Sword, and ALL Axes. While I feel that axes and great swords both have a bashing element to them, there are many weapons that inflict 2 types of wounds (poleaxes like halberds do slashing or piercing, rapiers do slashing or piercing, etc). I'd leave them as they are. As long as you're changing weapons, I'd say use the 3.0 weapon size rules. The 3.5 system is lame and overcomplicated. * Trip, Disarm, and Grapple attack use your Total GRAPPLE attack for the opposed rolls instead of just your STR or DEX. This also includes RANKS in Discipline if you are Defending. See the Discipline Skill for full details. I don't see much grappling in my game so I have little to say here. What I will say is that large creatures will ALWAYS win Grapple checks and Fighter-types will always win Disarm checks so I don't think I like this change. * When NOT in combat ALL healing spells will give back MAX hit points per spell. I like this... not much else to say. * Cure Minor Wounds heals 1d4 instead of 1HP. This also works for Inflict Minor Wounds. I think these should remain as is... 1 pt of healing or wounding. * A neutral or good aligned Cleric that casts Inflict spells will gain 1 point towards evil. This is due to the taint on magic that taps into the Negative energy plane. I'd just add the [Evil] spell descriptor to Inflict spells and warn good/neutral casters that casting any spells with the [Evil] descriptor will lead them down the slippery slope into evil alignment (-1 on the Good/Evil scale you have made). * Spellcraft has been changed in the following way. Besides all the normal abilities of Spellcraft the character also gains a +1 bonus for every 5 ranks in this skill to all saving throws against spells. No way to this one. I'd give a +2 bonus to Knowledge (Arcana) if for 5 ranks of Spellcraft... if this isn't the case already. More than that is too much. * Alignments will be done with a new sliding scale system. For example a NG alignment will be rated at N(0)G(60). Neutral will start a base value of 0 that can go to 20 or -20. The good part starts at a base value of 60 and go from 21 to 100. So Evil would then start at -60. I'd prefer to keep it simple... but if this works, use it. I'd use a 1-100 scale for both the L/C and G/E axes with 01-30 being Chaotic or Evil, 31-70 being Neutral on both, and 71-00 being Lawful or Good. * Prestige classes will be allowed including several custom Kartashia PrCs; except for any of the EVIL ones. Checked by DM 1st. Creation of custom Prestige classes by players is allowed, checked by the DM 1st. Your world, your call on PrCs. * Player Characters must start and always be Non-Evil. Anyone's PC that turns EVIL during the game will turn into a NPC and will be played by the DM. A good way of doing this is to have an alignment axis that the party is based upon. No alignments may deviate by more than one step from this alignment. Thus a Lawful Good axis would not allow chaotic or evil characters, Neutral Good would not allow evil characters but would allow Lawful or Chaotic characters, and a Neutral axis would allow all alignments. * Characters receive max HPs at 1st and 2nd level; instead of just at 1st. * HPs at all other levels will be done by rolling 2 dice instead of 1. The higher of the 2 dice will be used. For example a wizard rolls 2 four sided dice, and gets a 2 and 3. The wizard would gain 3 more hit points. Okay... though I would get rid of the max HP at level 2 and keep the better of 2 die rolls rule. * PG14 of the 3.5 PHB mentions that Dwarves have a fear of water; this is said because Dwarves can not swim; hence the “Fear of Water”. A -2 racial penalty to Swim checks would do the trick here. * Ability Items will NOT stack with each other. So if you have a Ring of Str+3 and gauntlets Str+2 you would only get the +3 NOT +5. * Buff spells cast by anyone will now STACK with Everything. So if a PC has gauntlets +2 Str and someone casts Bull's Strength Str+4 on that same character he will have +6 to STR until the buff spell ends. I would not allow the named bonuses to stack in either circumstance.
edsonaoki 10-08-04, 03:23 PM	Originally Posted by ShadowChemosh Large two-handed weapons are yes. They do not have an edge at all. They where functionally created in real life to be able to hurt people in heavy plate armor. Well no matter how sharp a sword is it will never cut steel armor, but the exchange of momentum of a 10lb sword being swung with all its might into you will numb, break, and/or crack your bones underneath the armor. A perfect use of a claymore or Greatsword was a overhead attack that came down on the shoulder of a person. The force of the blow could and a did crack the shoulder bone of a enemy. Lets see you defend yourself with a cracked or broken shoulder. I personally own a large Broad sword and a six foot two-handed broad sword. I would have no problem going outside with the two-hander and busting up rocks and or my car. Just about as well as sledgehammer would! I personally put this in so that when a greatsword or an Axe melee weapon is used against a skeleton it would bypass the 5/Bludgeoning DR First, D&D weapons are not real weapons, they are loosely based on real weapons. Many D&D weapons work quite different from real weapons, and many others simply never existed. In real world, crossbows were not "an option for those who were unable to use a bow". If you are going to change a weapon because of "realism", you have to change all and spend some days in a library researching about how the physics of each weapon applied. Second, from D&D perspective, mechanics is more important than realism. I don't see any balance reason to make greatswords and greataxes more powerful than they already are. If you want to empower them, consider rebalancing (like giving -1 to hit with them).
ShadowChemosh 10-08-04, 06:58 PM	So for a disarm you make an opposed attack roll to determine success Yes you are correct. I will change the list to not include disarm as being changed. To make a trip attack you must first succeed at an touch attack. For both of these there is more to it than just making opposed strength/Dex Check Ok so if we have a 20th level Fighter with a Dex of 10 and Str of 14. Fighting a level 1 wizard with a Dex of 10 and Str of 14 how hard is it for the Wizard to TOUCH attack the fighter? He has to roll a 8 or higher on a d20. The battle can go as following; wizard attacks with a melee touch attack and rolls an 11 so he hits(He does not need to worry about the fighters armor). Then they roll off with opposed STR checks. The wizard rolls a 3 and the fighter rolls a 2. Now the fighter is knocked right down on his but. This seems to have no bases in logic. Something needs to improve both the chance and defenses of being tripped. This is very scary indeed, I do not know one reason that a player would choose 3.5 over 3.0 spell system. 3.0 is much more powerful. Actually the only one in the group that likes 3.0 spells is me. All the spellcasting players have chosen 3.5 spells. This includes 2 clerics and a Wizard. So far the whole game is 3.5 based. As already stated I think you don't understand how these rules work in 3.5 to begin with, but if you are giving an extra bonus to the defender due to a discipline skill, then I think these combat maneuvers will not be used very often. I know them very well thanks; I also know 1.0/2.0/3.0/3.5/NWN and Several Dozen House rule systems that where built for PnP and the ones I helped to create for Several Large PW NWN Game Servers. So yes its very possible that I sometimes think of a rule from another system by mistake. Give me one reason why someone can not be better at defending against trip or disarm than others? Even though a simpler solution would have been to give Improved NOT to be tripped/disarm feats instead, but for me it seemed easier to take the NWN skill discipline instead. P.S. - I do appreciate everyones opinions, but you seem to be attacking for some reason? Once again I don't like adding tangible combat benefits to spells, but this one is interesting. How about if they succeed at a spellcraft check to determine the spell then they get a bonus to save. This is a nice idea. My only thought against it is that combat already takes so long I do not like adding extra dice rolls to it. Once again you show your lack of rules knowledge about 3.5. In general these would not stack, because they would most likely be enhancement bonuses. Would the tomes and manuals still stack with Gauntlets? They are 2 different bonuses in 3.5. If they do not stack I have not read this in 3.5 yet, but also neither have my players. As when I asked about this everyone thought that everything stacks. This came about for some scripts I had to create for a NWN PW that wanted to stop the stacking of ability points. I thought it made sense and put it in my world without double checking that 3.5 had already done it. While you can say it shows that I do not remember every single rule; I use it to say that I think along the exact same lines as the WoTC Game Designers do. ;) Be very careful with this especially if allowing 3.0 spells, the buffs will quickly become too good. Maximized Empowered Bull's Strength anyone Works for me. As it is now my group does not think highly of buffs. The last several times they went into a BBEG area(and they knew they where their) they did not put one buff on. I was hoping they would start to use things like Empowered or extended Bull's Strength, but nope nothing. As far as stacking goes I think 3.5 has done it pretty well, bonuses with the same name do not stack. If what you say is true above; then yes 3.5 did a better job. I will have to find the Stacking Rules in 3.5 and put its page number down for the players instead of my change. Either way it let the players know about this change in 3.5. First, D&D weapons are not real weapons, they are loosely based on real weapons. Many D&D weapons work quite different from real weapons, and many others simply never existed. In real world, crossbows were not "an option for those who were unable to use a bow". If you are going to change a weapon because of "realism", you have to change all and spend some days in a library researching about how the physics of each weapon applied. Second, from D&D perspective, mechanics is more important than realism. I don't see any balance reason to make greatswords and greataxes more powerful than they already are. If you want to empower them, consider rebalancing (like giving -1 to hit with them). Hmm I agree and disagree with this. Yes mechanics are important, but I have always found that the more realism I make the game the happier players are. So some weapons are better than others in real life. The very reason that there are very few Falchions left that can be found even in museums. This is because its thought that the weapon was so good at killing that they where all used up in combat. Oh and as Unable to use a bow use a crossbow. That is very real life. Crossbows where very simple weapons to use and fire when compared to the training and cost of Longbow men. Its not very hard to put a bolt in the crossbow point and fire the weapon; especially when you are firing them in mass at another army. As for the other suggestion of researching and applying realism to weapons I have already done a good amount of that(Weapons are my hobby in real life; I own about a dozen different hand crafted replica swords that hang on my walls). I have several pages of weapons and new weapons that I had to create for the 3.5 system to get it all to work in my world again. I had to put in Bec de Corbins, broad swords, claymores, Flamberges, Field Plate armor and War Plate. These all have their own descriptions and history that fit my world. For example Sword, Claymore: Better known as a Borderland sword. It is used in the constant border fights with the Orc. Early Borderland swords developed a distinctive style of cross-hilt with downsloping arms that ended in spatulate swellings. The two-handed claymore seems to be an offshoot of broad swords that where used in the early days of “The Orc Wars” by the city of Carsall. Again I justed wanted to say thanks to everyone that answerd. It is giving me more good input than all my players have combined. =)
ShadowChemosh 10-08-04, 07:04 PM	The group I'm in made a variation on a core feat to cover this, It means we have 2 versions of Toughness... Both of which PC's may/may-not want to take. Toughness Version 1 (General): Benifit: You may roll two dice when rolling hit points and keep which-ever result you prefer. Special:You may only select this feat once. Toughness Version 2 (General): Benefit: You gain +3 hit points. Special: A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. Regards Glock-9mm (NZ) This is very nice way to handle it. Thanks
DragonWatcher 10-08-04, 09:52 PM	Yes mechanics are important, but I have always found that the more realism I make the game the happier players are. Really??? How realistic is it for anyone to take a critical hit with any kind of sword, and still keep fighting (let alone 3 or 4 critical hits, which is possible for a high level fighter to take using the hit point system). To make combat realistic, one critical hit would down any humanoid opponent. However, that takes away from the fun of the game... hence the "Hit Point" mechanics. I'm not saying don't make things at all realistic. I'm just saying that sometimes it's better to let go of a bit of realism to keep everyone in the group happy, and the game running smoothly. In general it seems to me that most of your house rules facilitate hack-and-slash play. Everything from uber-powering buffs and heals, to arbitrarily not allowing dwarves to swim takes a lot of the creativity out of the hands of the players, and fosters the "Let's just kill stuff." attitude of roleplaying. If that's what you're going for, there's nothing wrong with that. However, if it's not what you're going for, I would caution you to take a step back and try to think out the ramifications of your suggested house rules. Each of these things may sound like a good idea initially, but you may find that they will have an effect down the road that you are currently not expecting. Generally, I prefer to make my players think about their actions, and prepare for the unexpected. If every character carries a sword, and they come up against oozes or skeletons, they should have to suffer the creature's DR (after all, that's why the designers gave it to them, and it's part of the reason for the creature's CR), or run for it. How hard is it for a character to carry a mace or hammer for just such an emergency? Anyhow, it's your game, and [ultimately] it's up to you, but if any of these rules are making your players miserable, there's likely a reason for it. Biased or not, I would seriously recommend listening to them. Then, if you still disagree, like I said... it's up to you. I hope that helps.
Glock-9mm 10-09-04, 11:39 AM	This is very nice way to handle it. Thanks Glad I could help :) Glock-9mm (NZ)
Lord Stigius 10-10-04, 07:16 AM	So some weapons are better than others in real life. The very reason that there are very few Falchions left that can be found even in museums. This is because its thought that the weapon was so good at killing that they where all used up in combat. Or because they sucked so much at killing that none but few wanted to use them, so such few were created... :D Aside from RL issues: I cannot see why enhancements from an item and a spell are going to stack, when the item is based on the same spell. Better keep to core rules in BOTH cases, or you may quickly see some very broken combinations. Dwarves and water: I suggest imposing a will save or -2 penalty to attacks and checks for being in a water environment, plus racial penalty to swim, as already suggested. I would rather keep the power of healing spells as it is, but your power-up to them is far from broken. Spellcraft-dependant saves: no, for the reasons already said. Grapple, disarm - the same. Other rulings: sond fine for me.
White_Fox 10-10-04, 05:51 PM	For the most part, I think a lot of your house rules seem perfectly fine. I agree with the changes you made to the type of damage inflicted by several weapons, but you might consider 'bludgeoning or piercing' instead of 'bludgeoning or slashing' for ones like the greatsword. As you mentioned, it was used primarily as a crushing weapon, and was typically only sharp at the point to allow it to function as a crude 'spear' when required. It just seems to me that the dull edge facillitating the bludgeoning would equally negate the slashing element. Quite right on the crossbows as well, in fact the incredible ease of use coupled with the explosive power of a crossbow caused a situation in real life that would have had hordes of D&D players crying "broken!" if they had only been observing. ;) In fact, things like that (A crossbow being vastly superior to a bow in almost all combat instances) are one of the reasons I'm very careful in adapting the D&D weapons rules to more accuratly reflect real life. Historicaly, some weapons were simply better than others, while in an rpg it's preferable to have a wide variety of weapons that posses different advantages but are relatively equal over all. Since I can be a stickler for realism as well, I have my own home-brewed weaponry system I use, since I realized long ago that sometimes it's better to replace than adjust. However, the key thing is does it work for you? If this is a home rule that you've worked with in the past and are comfortable using, then that's really all that matters. Which is, I believe, similar to the situation with Dwarven penalties for swimming. I think that's a perfectly fine idea if that's the manner in which you intend to run your campaign, especially since only you really know the effect it will have. I personally find the argument that the rule should be thrown out because it bars dwarves from participating in an underwater campaign slightly illogical. After all, you created the campaign, so if a large portion of it took place benath the ocean, would you honestly create a core race specificaly prohibited from participating and then let a player choose it? Or course not. My only suggestion is that since you are creating a disadvantage in a race, you either offset it with a related advantage (but one that would have the same prevalence in your campaign as the penalty) or create similar disadvantages for each of the other races. Lastly, I'll just point out that I don't think the bonus to saves vs. spells is necessarily broken. In fact, I think I might adapt it myself, since it provides an interesting incentive for PC's other than Wizards or Sorcerers to look at the skill. As for the effect it has on spellcasters who would choose it anyway, I believe it follows logically that they would increase in their ability to resist a spell as they learned more and more about the effective ways to magically counter it. In a high-magic campaign, this might lead to an unfair advantage, but again - you know best the exact impact it will have.