Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thought_riot 12-12-05, 10:14 PM	Input's welcome. Theres a lot, but no real earth shattering changes. (We play Eberron) 1) If one player cannot make the game, the game will go on with another player playing the character for that session. The exception to this is if the player that cannot make it is the host of the session. 2) If the DM or 2 or more players cannot make it, that week’s game is canceled. 3) During a session, the DM’s ruling is final. You may discuss the ruling with the DM after the session, and, if the DM agrees, it will be changed if a similar situation comes up in the future. 4) All non-Core (PHB, DMG, MM, ECS) character options, and all prestige classes, are subject to DM approval. 5) In a round, you have 2 minutes to decide on your action. If after 2 minutes you have not decided, you lose your action that round. 6) Metagaming will result in a penalty of 100 XP for each offense during a session. 7) Instead of dying at -10 HP, characters die at –CON HP. For example, a character with 17 Con dies when his HP reaches -17. 8) During combat, if an enemy combatant provokes an attack of opportunity, it is up to the player to declare that he will take the AOO. Failure to do so has no penalty except you lose the chance for the AOO. 9) Every 4 levels, you gain 2 bonus ability points, one for a physical stat (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution) and one for a mental stat (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma). 10) Characters do not need to be a spellcaster to take Craft (Alchemy). 11) You receive extra XP for staying in character the majority of the session. Whether or not you stayed in character will be decided by the DM. 12) The Toughness feat grants 1 HP per character level, with a minimum of 3 HP. 13) When tumbling to avoid AOOs, if you fail, you lose your Dexterity bonus on Armor Class, but attacks that depend on having your Dex added to your AC (such as sneak attack) do not apply. 14) For Charisma-based skills, the way you roleplay it will give you an appropriate circumstance bonus or penalty on the roll. 15) You may not multiclass into barbarian. 16) The “instant kill” rule is in effect. That is, on a natural 20, if you roll another natural 20 on the critical confirmation, roll again. If this roll beats the target’s AC, the hit is an instant kill. 17) The rules in the Arms and Equipment Guide for getting drunk apply when a character drinks. 18) Characters treat exotic weapons that have a racial name as martial weapons if the name matches the character’s race. 19) For skill checks, a natural 1 counts as a -9, and a natural 20 counts as a 30. 20) If, during a session, you roleplay a scene very well, you will receive an XP bonus. 21) Improved Critical stacks with the keen magical effect of weapons. 22) Death from Massive Damage variant. If a medium creature takes 50 points damage from a single attack, it dies. For every size category larger or smaller than medium, increase or decrease the threshold by 10. (Same as in DMG) 23) You may use an Intelligence check to identify properties of enemies with CR less than 3.if you don’t have the appropriate Knowledge skill. The DC is 10 + Monster’s HD. For every 5 points by which you beat the DC, you learn an additional piece of information on the monster. 24) You can use Spellcraft to identify magic items. Item DC Potions 25 Scrolls 20 + spell level Weapons, Armor, and Sheilds 30 + enhancement bonus Wands 30+ spell level Rods 35 Rings and Staffs 40 Minor Wondrous Items 25 Medium Wondrous Items 30 Major Wondrous Items 40 If you have the appropriate item creation feat, you gain a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks to identify magic items of that type. Using Spellcraft in this way takes one minute. 25) You may not speak during combat unless it is your turn in the initiative order. If you do, you will receive a penalty to your experience, ranging it severity from a small penalty for unrelated comments, to a larger penalty for combat instructions. Exceptions to this rule are congratulatory statements, and statements like “That was sick.” You may give directions during combat on your action, but it must be in character.
syntaxerror37 12-13-05, 02:42 AM	For the most part, your house rules seem ok to me, with the folowing exceptions. 6) Metagaming will result in a penalty of 100 XP for each offense during a session. I don't believe in punishing players in game for out-of-game offences. 11) You receive extra XP for staying in character the majority of the session. Whether or not you stayed in character will be decided by the DM. I would think the reward would be a compliment on thier rp rather than a tangible reward for doing nothing 14) When tumbling to avoid AOOs, if you fail, your Tumble check becomes your AC against enemy AOOs. For example, if you Tumble and roll a 12, your AC against AOOs for moving through threatened spaces is 12. Why? Why punish a charater beyond the fact they have already failed their roll? There's a 5% chance on any given tumble of having an AC of 1! 15) For Charisma-based skills, the way you roleplay it will give you an appropriate circumstance bonus or penalty on the roll. That's just silly. Not everyone can think up a witty way to bluff the guard. That's why you roll a bluff check in the first place. 17) The “instant kill” rule is in effect, at the DM’s discretion. That is, on a natural 20, if you roll another natural 20 on the critical confirmation, roll again. On a third natural 20, the hit is an instant kill. However, the DM may rule that for certain enemies, this rule is not in effect. This is called cheating. You either play with the rule or you don't. it aplies to every critable enemy (and PCs) or none. You can't have it both ways. 26) You may not speak during combat unless it is your turn in the initiative order. If you do, you will receive a penalty to your experience, ranging it severity from a small penalty for unrelated comments, to a larger penalty for combat instructions. Exceptions to this rule are congratulatory statements, and statements like “That was sick.” You may give directions during combat on your action, but it must be in character. I don't know where to begin with this one. And you have players that are ok with this rule? Advice from the other players in combat is how I learned to play that aspect of D&D, and sometimes you forget something, that your character never would, luckly your friends catch it before you declare your action. RP is well and good, but get real!
thought_riot 12-13-05, 07:05 AM	A few of the rules that I use for my group is because the out of game talking is insanely out of hand, and only 2 of the 5-6 players actually roleplay every session. We've played together with the same group for the most part for 4 years now. With the don't talk in combat rule, this is in an attempt to get combat a little more "real." On top of that, most of the time in our game, it's not usually telling the other player what they may have missed, but more or less devising a strategy between multiple characters, which should be done either before the combat in character, or in combat in character. Far too often, our combats take way too long, mostly due to OOC talking. For example, while running the Forgotten Forge in the Eberron Campaign Setting, it took literally 2 hours (real time) to defeat 3 horrid rats. I don't believe in punishing players in game for out-of-game offences. Metagaming's an in-game offense, I would say. I would think the reward would be a compliment on thier rp rather than a tangible reward for doing nothing I wouldn't give the award if the character did nothing. They have to show a degree of roleplaying. Again, this was in an attempt to give the characters a little more incentive to roleplay. The XP bonus isn't high, and probably negliable, but is still a bonus. Why? Why punish a charater beyond the fact they have already failed their roll? There's a 5% chance on any given tumble of having an AC of 1! I'm thinking of modifying this rule to something more of, the AC will be your tumble check, plus your armor/natural armor/etc bonuses, rather than 10 + Dex, + the rest. I think that while tumbling, you cannot possibly be more aware of your surroundings, and you aren't in a very good position to be dodging as effectively as you would be otherwise (unless you beat the DC of course). That's just silly. Not everyone can think up a witty way to bluff the guard. That's why you roll a bluff check in the first place. Again, this is an attempt to get players to roleplay better. I don't think the dice should decide everything in social skills. Even by the raw, there is modifiers to the target's Sense Motive based on the bluff you give them. Thanks for the input
Puggins 12-13-05, 01:04 PM	Input's welcome. Theres a lot, but no real earth shattering changes. (We play Eberron) Woohoo! Starting out on the right foot :) 7) Instead of dying at -10 HP, characters die at –CON HP. For example, a character with 17 Con dies when his HP reaches -17. This rule makes sense, but it makes constitution, already one of the most vital stats, even more important. Can't blame you for using it though- like I said, makes a lot of sense (as does constitution's importance) 9) Every 4 levels, you gain 2 bonus ability points, one for a physical stat (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution) and one for a mental stat (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma). I'd think this would tend to favor spellcasters, who can raise their primary and constitution, over non-casters, who would only get to raise a mental stat that isn't quite as important to them- sure, extra skill points or +1 to will saves are great, but +1hp/level and +1 fort rocks for casters. Maybe give them the option to add to two different physical stats? It's really not that big a problem- if it's one at all. 12) The Toughness feat grants 1 HP per character level, with a minimum of 3 HP. So you'd never want to take this early in life, but later it becomes sorta okay. I dunno, maybe do something like adds your level/2, minimum of three, with it being refigured each level. This version is fine- I just don't particularly like the "memory" effect- you can't recreate the character unless you know the exact level he took toughness. 15) For Charisma-based skills, the way you roleplay it will give you an appropriate circumstance bonus or penalty on the roll. Oh, I don't like this at all. Suddenly the quick-witted become far more effective with a high charisma, and us slow-tongued folk almost need not apply. I'd never play someone with more than an 8 charisma if this rule were in effect. 16) You may not multiclass into barbarian. Is this a flavor thing? I suppose you'd make exceptions if someone's skyskiff crashlanded in Q'Barra and he spent the next few months "roughing it?" 19) Characters treat exotic weapons that have a racial name as martial weapons if the name matches the character’s race. Again, this tends to favor certain races over others, but it's not THAT big a deal- elves make out like bandits. Do Half-Elves benefit too? I would assume they do.
Surgo 12-13-05, 02:03 PM	8) During combat, if an enemy combatant provokes an attack of opportunity, it is up to the player to declare that he will take the AOO. Failure to do so has no penalty except you lose the chance for the AOO. This a house rule? I thought it was RAW that you don't have to take an AoO. 14) When tumbling to avoid AOOs, if you fail, your Tumble check becomes your AC against enemy AOOs. For example, if you Tumble and roll a 12, your AC against AOOs for moving through threatened spaces is 12. As syntaxerror37 said, but this needs clarification: is it your roll or your check? 15) For Charisma-based skills, the way you roleplay it will give you an appropriate circumstance bonus or penalty on the roll. As Puggins said! I can definitely understand the (quite respectable) want to get people to roleplay but this can be a really bad idea too. 17) The “instant kill” rule is in effect. That is, on a natural 20, if you roll another natural 20 on the critical confirmation, roll again. On a third natural 20, the hit is an instant kill. The only problem I see with this is the number of people who come to the DM boards and complain that their campaign-long BBEG was just iced in this manner. This rule is fine IF you remember that the dice rolls are final and if you didn't want something like that to happen, you shouldn't have made the rule in the first place. 19) Characters treat exotic weapons that have a racial name as martial weapons if the name matches the character’s race. The only problem I see with this is that it makes certain races more powerful. I'm a big proponent of just using weapon groups if you want to do this, that way everyone gets a free exotic weapon proficiency instead of just one or two races. A side effect of rule #19 is also an unusually large number of said race with a build based around their weapon, as opposed to other weapons. Not sure if that matters to you or not. 20) For skill checks, a natural 1 counts as a -10, and a natural 20 counts as a 30. Should be -9/30, so that you get a -10/+10, respectively. If it's -10/30 you get a -11/+10. 22) Improved Critical stacks with the keen magical effect of weapons. Huzzah! For all the other rules I quote I want to disagree with, but I have to quote this because it's great to see DMs that do this. 26) You may not speak during combat unless it is your turn in the initiative order. If you do, you will receive a penalty to your experience, ranging it severity from a small penalty for unrelated comments, to a larger penalty for combat instructions. Exceptions to this rule are congratulatory statements, and statements like “That was sick.” You may give directions during combat on your action, but it must be in character. Why? I see two issues with this, in-game and out-of-game. * In-game: In one game I play, my character was an officer and is something of the party leader. In combat he'll often shout out commands like "Formation Alpha!" or "Tactic Foxtrot!". Seeing as how D&D combat is an abstraction, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to speak when it's not his "turn", as he is essentially acting anyway. * Out-of-game: Presumably each character would know their own abilities. The character's player might have difficulty remembering this fact and aid from someone else can be quite useful as the character would surely know the best thing to do in this situation, especially with respect to high mental ability scores.
thought_riot 12-13-05, 05:02 PM	Is this a flavor thing? I suppose you'd make exceptions if someone's skyskiff crashlanded in Q'Barra and he spent the next few months "roughing it?" Yes, a flavor thing. There would of course be exceptions as long as a very good in-game explanation is given. Again, this tends to favor certain races over others, but it's not THAT big a deal- elves make out like bandits. Do Half-Elves benefit too? I would assume they do. Like one of my other house rules, all non-core material is subject to DM approval. In the PHB, dwarves and gnomes DO treat their racial weapons as martial weapons (Weapon Familiarity). Half-orcs don't treat weapons such as the orc double axe as martial, so I would not extend this to half-elves too. Using core (including ECS), the following weapons are martial (note, this doesn't automatically mean they are proficient with it) for the specified races (race includes region of origin): Dwarves: Dwarven waraxe, Dwarven urgosh Gnomes: Gnome hooked hammer Valenar Elves: Valenar double scimitar Talenta Halflings: Talenta sharash, Talenta tangat, Talenta boomerang In the ECS, it does state that characters nativve to the region in the weapon's name treat it as martial rather than exotic. So pretty much, my rule doesnt change much, unless I allow a non-Core weapon in, which nobody has asked for yet. This a house rule? I thought it was RAW that you don't have to take an AoO. It's RAW that you don't have to. It's not RAW that the player is responsible for it. Up until now, I'd remind players if they had a chance for an AoO. In an effort to get players more focused on combat, I made it completely their responsibility. As syntaxerror37 said, but this needs clarification: is it your roll or your check? Ah, yes, your check. As Puggins said! I can definitely understand the (quite respectable) want to get people to roleplay but this can be a really bad idea too. The modifier would not be much. Usually +2/-2. And also, I encourage the players to roleplay their stats. If a player is very charismatic, but is playing a low-Cha character, it'd be bad roleplaying for them to talk suavely. Should be -9/30, so that you get a -10/+10, respectively. If it's -10/30 you get a -11/+10. You know, thats right. I based this rule off of the variant in the DMG for attack rolls, that states a roll of a 1 is treated as a -10 instead of an automatic miss, and a roll of a 20 is treated as 30 instead of an automatic hit. I stuck with the auto hit/miss rule for attack rolls (and saves), but used the -10/30 rule for skill checks. I'll fix that to -9/30. Why? I see two issues with this, in-game and out-of-game. * In-game: In one game I play, my character was an officer and is something of the party leader. In combat he'll often shout out commands like "Formation Alpha!" or "Tactic Foxtrot!". Seeing as how D&D combat is an abstraction, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to speak when it's not his "turn", as he is essentially acting anyway. * Out-of-game: Presumably each character would know their own abilities. The character's player might have difficulty remembering this fact and aid from someone else can be quite useful as the character would surely know the best thing to do in this situation, especially with respect to high mental ability scores. In-game: I'm thinking mroe along the lines of if he's say last in the initiative order, the other charatcers are already making their actions moments before he has the chance to call out the order. If he's ahead in the order, he can make the order, and the following charatcers can follow suit. Out-of-game: For my group, the players do an excellent job remembering their own abilities as it is. It shouldn't be a problem. A lot of these house rules are tailored for my group, and seeing that, I wouldn't suggest all of them to other DMs.
Mind Rogue 12-14-05, 05:18 PM	6) I'm not sure if I like this one. If someone is metagaming, it is probably better to say something like "But you don't know that." Ideally, this should be a non-issue or the players will intentionally run counter to any knowledge they acquired out of game anyway. Worst comes to worst, you can throw a calvinball and change up some monster stats. But the characters would learn from their experience and could extrapolate from that. "Giant? Well they are easy to hit but they are tough as nails, so lets go a little more into the power attack." Also, I'm more of a positive feedback kind of person, so give bonus Xp for good role-playing rather than a penalty for bad roleplaying. 7) I use this rule also. Since most of my players have above average hp, it makes them a little more likely to survive the blow right after being knocked to sub-10 hp. Actually, I increase this maximum by their level too. 8) Make sure that you give the players time to say they want to take an AoO. Also, many actions such as sunder and disarm, you can take feats to prevent the AoO, and the players may assume that such is the case, or else they have to pester you every time someone does the like, and you have to say, "Sorry, but they have improved trip." So it might be better if you just tell them that they may make an AoO and let them decide if they would rather save it. 9) I like the idea, although there are concerns as was pointed out. Of course we need more strong-willed fighters anyway. 11) Just simplify it and give extra Xp to whoever roleplays well. 12) As long as you make it dynamic (so you gain more as you gain levels) it shouldn't be too bad since a feat like that already exists anyway and toughness is a little lacking in my opinion. However, it might be better if it instead increased your massive damage threshold and the point at which you die instead since it is also used as a mitigating factor for some prestige classes such as dwarven defender. 13) I don't see why. In some cases, tumbling is actually easier when you are on the ground. 14) That is poorly worded. However, if you are going to make your tumble check be your AC, I suggest doing it flat out rather than being only if you fail or to a minimum of your AC. You already take an opportunity cost by having your speed halved. 15) It is dangerous with this one since someone who wants to play a bard or the like but isn't personally very elloquant will want to hit you with their book. Note that there is already something for how believable the lie is for bluff. 16) I think it would be better to simply say that you need to find training from somebody in order to enter a class. Presumably if the PCs get stuck with a tribe of orcs for three months, one of them could become a barbarian. 17) The instant kill rule is probably the worst idea ever devised. You run the risk of your BBEGs being one-hit killed by somebody who shouldn't be able to cause notable damage and likewise on their PCs (and that is about the only thing that makes them madder than mind-control). Also, if you have to cheat and say that it doesn't apply to your BBEGs, then it shouldn't apply to the PCs either (to be fair). However, this rule will statistically hurt the PCs because they have many more opportunities to be exposed to such an attack. 19) If you look at Complete Warrior, they point out that this can get obscene. Let them instead swap it for another racial weapon. 20) If Instant-Kills are the worst rule ever, this is probably the second-worst. There normally are no automatic successes or failures on skill checks. If a 20 doesn't cut it, then the PC probably shouldn't be attempting it. However, at some point, they get so they should be able to completly reliably use a skill, even in the face of danger. However, this seriously cuts down the reliability since it usually gives an effective 5% autofail chance for another five or ten levels. Imagine a 10th level druid with Wis 20, spot maxed out and in eagle shape. She gets a +26 bonus on spot. She should be able to spot even a trained assasin no matter the circumstances. However, with this rule, on a 1 she can't even spot many 1st level characters. 21) That's more what I'm talking about. 22) Mathmatically, this is a good idea. The characters with both usually need it to stay competative. 23) As long as you still include the save DC in there too. Just keep in mind this tends to hurt the PCs. I generally am not a fan of anything that hurts the PCs over monsters. 24) I fail to see how you need the step: just let them used knowledge untrained for this purpose. 25) Saves them money on identifying stuff. 26) I'm not sure I agree with this for the reasons that others have pointed out. Also, people who aren't familiar with their type of character often need the help in order to play it well.
ConradBland 12-18-05, 08:44 PM	Input's welcome. Theres a lot, but no real earth shattering changes. (We play Eberron) FIRST MISTAKE 1) If one player cannot make the game, the game will go on with another player playing the character for that session. The exception to this is if the player that cannot make it is the host of the session. COULD BE TRICKY IN SOME SITUATIONS, LIKE CHARACTER DEATH 2) If the DM or 2 or more players cannot make it, that week’s game is canceled. HARD TO HAVE A SESSION WITHOUT THE DM 3) During a session, the DM’s ruling is final. You may discuss the ruling with the DM after the session, and, if the DM agrees, it will be changed if a similar situation comes up in the future. AHH, THE DICTATORIAL APPROACH. WHAT IF YOU MADE AN OBVIOUS FLUB? 4) All non-Core (PHB, DMG, MM, ECS) character options, and all prestige classes, are subject to DM approval. WAFFLE. IT IS EITHER IN OR OUT, FOR ALL CONCERNED. 5) In a round, you have 2 minutes to decide on your action. If after 2 minutes you have not decided, you lose your action that round. GOT AN EGGTIMER? 6) Metagaming will result in a penalty of 100 XP for each offense during a session. ONLY LOSER DMS TAKE THIS APPROACH. ONE MAN'S METAGAMING IS ANOTHER'S WELL THOUGHT OUT STRATEGY. 7) Instead of dying at -10 HP, characters die at –CON HP. For example, a character with 17 Con dies when his HP reaches -17. GOOD. 8) During combat, if an enemy combatant provokes an attack of opportunity, it is up to the player to declare that he will take the AOO. Failure to do so has no penalty except you lose the chance for the AOO. BAD, AS EVERYONE WILL ALWAYS BE SHOUTING FOR ONE, JUST IN CASE THE MIGHT MISS THE CHANCE. 9) Every 4 levels, you gain 2 bonus ability points, one for a physical stat (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution) and one for a mental stat (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma). UNWISE. 10) Characters do not need to be a spellcaster to take Craft (Alchemy). I HAVE SEEN CSs WITH THIS DONE BETTER. 11) You receive extra XP for staying in character the majority of the session. Whether or not you stayed in character will be decided by the DM. BAD. TOO ARBITRARY. 12) The Toughness feat grants 1 HP per character level, with a minimum of 3 HP. GOOD, BUT BETTER AT 1 HP/2 LEVELS, 3 MINIMUM. 13) Tumbling from prone has a -5 penalty. RIDICULOUS. 14) When tumbling to avoid AOOs, if you fail, your Tumble check becomes your AC against enemy AOOs. For example, if you Tumble and roll a 12, your AC against AOOs for moving through threatened spaces is 12. AGAIN, RIDICULOUS. 15) For Charisma-based skills, the way you roleplay it will give you an appropriate circumstance bonus or penalty on the roll. BAD, ARBITRARY. 16) You may not multiclass into barbarian. NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT. 17) The “instant kill” rule is in effect. That is, on a natural 20, if you roll another natural 20 on the critical confirmation, roll again. On a third natural 20, the hit is an instant kill. COULD BE A PROBLEM WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT IT. 18) The rules in the Arms and Equipment Guide for getting drunk apply when a character drinks. IS THIS THAT MUCH OF A CONCERN? 19) Characters treat exotic weapons that have a racial name as martial weapons if the name matches the character’s race. AS IT SHOULD BE. 20) For skill checks, a natural 1 counts as a -9, and a natural 20 counts as a 30. BAD. 21) If, during a session, you roleplay a scene very well, you will receive a small XP bonus. HOW SMALL? SMALL ENOUGH TO NOT MAKE IT WORTH TRYING? 22) Improved Critical stacks with the keen magical effect of weapons. NOT GAME BREAKING. 23) Death from Massive Damage variant. If a medium creature takes 50 points damage from a single attack, it dies. For every size category larger or smaller than medium, increase or decrease the threshold by 10. BAD. SINCE HPs ARE MORE THAN JUST A MEASURE OF DAMAGE, A SILLY RULE. 24) You may use an Intelligence check to identify properties of enemies if you don’t have the appropriate Knowledge skill. The DC for creatures with CR 3 or below is 10 + Monster’s HD. For every CR higher than 3, the DC increases by 5. For example, to identify properties of a CR 4 monster, the DC is 15 + HD. For every 5 points by which you beat the DC, you learn an additional piece of information on the monster. WHY? UNDULY COMPLICATED. 25) You can use Spellcraft to identify magic items. Item ---- DC Potions ---- 25 Scrolls ---- 20 + spell level Weapons, Armor, and Sheilds ---- 30 + enhancement bonus Wands ---- 30+ spell level Rods ---- 35 Rings and Staffs ---- 40 Minor Wondrous Items ---- 25 Medium Wondrous Items ---- 30 Major Wondrous Items ---- 40 If you have the appropriate item creation feat, you gain a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks to identify magic items of that type. Using Spellcraft in this way takes one minute. NO WAY. 26) You may not speak during combat unless it is your turn in the initiative order. If you do, you will receive a penalty to your experience, ranging it severity from a small penalty for unrelated comments, to a larger penalty for combat instructions. Exceptions to this rule are congratulatory statements, and statements like “That was sick.” You may give directions during combat on your action, but it must be in character. QUITE STUPID. My criticisms in BOLD.
SparkyDeSquirrel 12-18-05, 10:42 PM	My criticisms in BOLD. Whoa! That tone was completely uncalled for. Instead of just bad mouthing what appear to be debatable modifications, how about offering a counter veiw stating why you think any given rule is ill-advised. Screaming "stupid" doesn't help anyone. Personally I've used many of these in one form or another and know a number of them are in use widely on the boards (most notably 17 and 20). I like #1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 25. Great Job! #9 is a very interesting approch that I'll have to think on. #10, 16, and 19 sound campaign specific and not world shattering. If that's the flavor you want, go for it. The only ones I really don't like are #8, 14, 17, and 26. For the following reasons: #8: This encourages players to pay attention but IMHO is a bit harsh especially if you have someone new in the group. Weird situations come up all the time the rules of which not everyone has memorized. I think it's better to let players know what openings their characters see rather then have them guess from the possitions of little pieces of lead. #14: I don't like this at all because it negates many AC affects that should still be in effect (Armor, Deflection, Luck). You have argued that dex would be impared while tumbling and though no sure I agree I still think a character with a high dex would do better than low (if you are talking about the check total as AC this specific dex problem is solved). I would recommend a flat penalty such as -2 if you still feel the need for a rule. #17: I don't like this for the commonly stated reasons as well as the unfairness issue raised above. If it doesn't apply to the BBEG it shouldn't apply to the PCs. But I don't see any problem with using it for critters with 1/2 your CR or some sort of rule like that. 1/400 isn't really enough to make a difference unless it's a PC or a critical NPC in which case it really screws up the game. #26: This is the one I REALLY don't like :-). I see D&D as a social game to be enjoyed by all involved. If you want a hardcore compeditive war game, I believe there are so many better systems out there. Some players are new. Some characters (lv10 ftr) sometimes are simply better tacticians than their player. And some characters *are* leaders, shouting commands above the roar of battle. My practical fears are that the game will become too turnbased with the experienced players giving short mini lectures during thier round. Let them talk, let them learn, let them play. If this is a problem bad enough to warrent considering a rule it sounds like you just need to tell one player to keep a lid on it and stop trying to run the party (nicely of course :-) ). Ok that more than my two cps. Great going, good gaming. And guys, let's try to sound like mature adults.
darkwarrior42 12-19-05, 02:56 AM	Whoa! That tone was completely uncalled for. Instead of just bad mouthing what appear to be debatable modifications, how about offering a counter veiw stating why you think any given rule is ill-advised. Screaming "stupid" doesn't help anyone. I agree. The result is that when reading your criticisms, I'm more inclined to disagree with them simply because you come across as completely immature than I am to take them for what they are. That, and sarcasm rarely makes friends, and even more rarely makes you seem intelligent. That said, any rule I don't comment on I liked or thought didn't need changing. 3) During a session, the DM’s ruling is final. You may discuss the ruling with the DM after the session, and, if the DM agrees, it will be changed if a similar situation comes up in the future. AHH, THE DICTATORIAL APPROACH. WHAT IF YOU MADE AN OBVIOUS FLUB? There were a couple of these "criticisms" I disagreed with enough I felt the need to comment. I get the feeling that he's not talking about situations with an obvious rules descripition of the effect, but situations where the skill/ability in question is uncertain, or isn't explicitly spelled out. In those situations, the DM has to make a ruling about how something takes effect. If the DM's ruling isn't final during a session, you'll have a situation where players argue for 30 minutes, in the middle of combat, about a minor rule that might impact the situation. I've had that happen to me in the past, and this is really the only way around it. 5) In a round, you have 2 minutes to decide on your action. If after 2 minutes you have not decided, you lose your action that round. GOT AN EGGTIMER? Again, I think you're taking the rule too literally. I doubt he sits there with an egg timer to cut the player off at 2 minutes, the idea is that players shouldn't sit there for 10 minutes deciding what their character does, especially since in-game they have only about half a second to decide. This just helps move the game along, and encourages players to pay attention while it's not their turn so they know what to do when it is their turn. rules 6 and 11 have a nice idea behind them, but I don't like XP penalties... still, if your group doesn't like to role-play, maybe it's not wise to try and force them. If they're just lazy, that's a different story... I understand the reasons behind 8, but I agree with Sparky, I think it's a bit harsh. I'm not fond of 9 for the reasons someone else pointed out regarding spellcasters, but I like the idea, that people grow both physically and mentally. On rule 12, I 'd point you to the Improved Toughness feat from the Complete Warrior, which gives you hp equal to your current level, and also give you 1 hp every time you gain a level. I assumed this is what you did with Toughness, except that you cannot gain less than 3 hp, so if you took it a level 1 you wouldnt' gain any more hp until level 4. If that's not what you meant, I'd reccomed this as a change. 14 is a bit questionable... I like the idea behind it, but not necessarily the implementation. Maybe if you fail the check, your dexterity modifier to AC, since you're unable to twist away being in the middle of an acrobatic maneuver already, but retain all other bonuses (including dodge bonuses; you're aware of the foe, and those feats represent extra training that I could see applying.) *shrug* just a suggestion, I havn't really thought it through. 15... I actually like for the most part, but so many people don't like it I felt the need to say it. I wouldn't enfore a penalty for poor role-playing... but I do give bonuses for good role-playing. If the character has a higher charisma than the player, I dont' want to penalize the player, but if a player makes the extra effort then they deserve something. After all, "You don't really want to arrest me, do you? I'm sure there's some way we can work this out..." *rolls bluff check* is more interesting than "I roll a bluff check to bribe the guard." On a side note, Iron Heroes has the official rule that in a Diplomacy check, players who actively role-play the situation gain a +2 bonus on the check, with an additional +2 for each compelling point they make. Of course, Iron Heroes has no magical bonuses whatsoever, but I thought it worth mentioning that others besides yourself have thought this way. 22. I would reccomend that if you let keen and improved critical stack, you do not let keen or any similar magical effect (including Keen Edge) work on piercing weapons. There are a bunch of piercing weapons with a threat range of 18-20/x2 that can be used with weapon finesse that I think would lead to some overpowering situations... If you don't allow the Elven Thinblade and the Elven Lightblade from the Complete Warrior into the game, it might not be so bad, but both of those weapons can count as a Rapier for purposes of feats. You take Improved Critical (Rapier), two-weapon fighting, and now both hands threaten on 12+ and a minimum of feats. I can think of all sorts of awful things to do with that, especially with an Elven Ranger. *shrug* just something I thought warranted mention... 23 is fine, so long as you allow some sort of Fortitude save. 24... I'm not sure why you included the bit about CRs. The Libris Mortis lets you make a Knowledge (Religion) check to identify type and weakness of undead, DC 10+creatures Base HD as you have it. I'd just leave it at that. 26. Depends on the group. I would never use it, but if it works in your group... although I still don't like the idea of XP penalties.
thought_riot 12-19-05, 07:11 AM	24... I'm not sure why you included the bit about CRs. The Libris Mortis lets you make a Knowledge (Religion) check to identify type and weakness of undead, DC 10+creatures Base HD as you have it. I'd just leave it at that. Don't have the time to respond fully, but about this one...Knowledge skills do allow you to identify things about a creature. However, you can't use Knowledge untrained. So I figured to allow Intelligence checks, but with a harder DC. Your right though, I'll probably change CR to HD.
darkwarrior42 12-19-05, 10:16 AM	Oh, somehow read that as knowledge checks and not intelligence checks. In that case, making the DC higher is perfectly fine, though I'd probably tone it down to 1 higher for each CR about 3 instead of 5. Otherwise you might as well rule that characters can only identify monsters of CR 3 or less (which, considering they're untrained, could be reasonable.) Or, you could rule that the DC increases by 5 for each point of difference between the monster's CR and the PC's character level, to represent a higher level PC's greater experience...
nastynate 12-19-05, 12:18 PM	You do realize you created an instant kill rule for a die roll with a .0125% chance of ever happening? That's like taking out rabid shark insurance when you live in the Rocky Mountains. You'll never use it.
Mind Rogue 12-19-05, 01:21 PM	You do realize you created an instant kill rule for a die roll with a .0125% chance of ever happening? That's like taking out rabid shark insurance when you live in the Rocky Mountains. You'll never use it. I have to disagree with you there. The probability of it happening is 1/400 or 0.25% on each attack. Let us assume we're dealing with single creatures of an appropriate CR who each get an average of three attacks, and each one of them fights for one round before dying. Let us also assume that such creatures make up only half of the given Xp for a level: the rest is taken up by RP Xp, creatures that use spells or other abilities that don't use attacks, and so on. So we have 7 monsters at each level, who get 3 attacks each, for an average of 21 attacks per level. Since the percentages are small, we can still recieve a pretty good approximation by simply multiplying together: 21 attacks per level x 0.25% death per attack = 4.25% death per level. Over 10 levels, you have about a 40% chance that someone will die because of this rule (and it isn't until about 10th level or so when you have the capability to revive a favorite character who is killed by this rule). However, if your monsters tend to have lots of attacks, such as dragons, rangers, leopards, and the like, the chances of instant death will be a lot higher. If their opponents don't make many attacks, such as some monsters and spring attack fighters or wizards, the chances will be a lot lower. This also assumes that each monster gets three attacks and only half of them actually attack. Since both are likely to be false, these rates are liable to be much higher: if each monster survives for two rounds (as is likely the case at higher levels) and you fight more monsters per level (say 10 or so), then the chances of this are much higher (double or tripple the normal rate) till you will nearly invariably see at least one of the PCs die because of this rule before 10th level. Similar calculations can also be made to show that the chances of an NPC being one-hit killed, while small, are not insignificant and will happent occasionally. Also, Murphy's law states that this rule will come into effect at the worst possible moment (such as the BBEG being the one killed, or one PC will die in one shot leading to a TPK at the hands of a more powerful monster that, while difficult, should have been defeated without PC death).
darkwarrior42 12-19-05, 01:25 PM	The instant kill requires 3 consecutive natural 20s... that is 1/8000, or a %.0125 chance.
Mind Rogue 12-19-05, 02:44 PM	The instant kill requires 3 consecutive natural 20s... that is 1/8000, or a %.0125 chance. Actually, the IK rule on pg 28 of the DMG only requires two 20s then a successful hit. Granted I left that part off in my calculations, but depending on the attack bonus of the monster and the character's AC, this could range anywhere from being that 0.0125% chance you have to being almost the 0.25% chance I said. Since at higher levels most monsters will be practically hitting 95% of the time with every single attack, I opted for the worst case. If your players have really good armor, it will be about a 20th of what I said. If they have pretty bad armor or this is getting up there in levels, it will be about what I said. For mid levels (5-10) it probably is about half of what I said. Of course, everyone could wear heavy fortification armor so the entire point is moot.
thought_riot 12-19-05, 02:57 PM	You do realize you created an instant kill rule for a die roll with a .0125% chance of ever happening? That's like taking out rabid shark insurance when you live in the Rocky Mountains. You'll never use it. I didn't create the rule, although I did type it wrong in my rules. It should be 2 natural 20s, and a confirmed hit on the third roll. EDIT: I editted the house rules. I changed the tumbling AC one, and got rid of the tumbling from prone thing.
darkwarrior42 12-19-05, 03:47 PM	I knew there was an almost identical rule in the DMG, I just assumed that his house rule was typed correctly and thus required three natural 20s for the instant kill. *shrug* If he meant the rule as written in the DMG, your calculations are just fine. I don't like it because the PCs will face many more chances to be critically hit than monsters. Any random element will tend to favor enemies in the long run, because the PCs only need to be killed once.
ConradBland 12-19-05, 07:37 PM	I agree. The result is that when reading your criticisms, I'm more inclined to disagree with them simply because you come across as completely immature than I am to take them for what they are. That, and sarcasm rarely makes friends, and even more rarely makes you seem intelligent. That said, any rule I don't comment on I liked or thought didn't need changing. It was not meant as sarcasm, but honest reaction to each and every rule. Some good, most bad. If I was a player joining OP's game, I would have given him my honest opinion on those houserules, then left. It matters not whether I am intelligent in anyone's eyes, OP did not ask to make friends, OP asked for criticism, and OP got criticism. At least I was mature enough to give POSITIVE reinforcement in the instances it was merited.
thought_riot 12-19-05, 09:02 PM	It was not meant as sarcasm, but honest reaction to each and every rule. Some good, most bad. If I was a player joining OP's game, I would have given him my honest opinion on those houserules, then left. It matters not whether I am intelligent in anyone's eyes, OP did not ask to make friends, OP asked for criticism, and OP got criticism. At least I was mature enough to give POSITIVE reinforcement in the instances it was merited. 1) It's ok. Criticism is criticism, be it harsh, or not. 2) My players have read my house rules, and even worked with me to create some. Our group is made up of all close friends. I have 6 players, 4 of whom I've been playing D&D with for 4 or so years now. The other 2 are new this campaign. Only two of my players are serious roleplayers, though due to the other ones being a little bit too unserious, they sometimes lose track too.
Jerks 12-19-05, 09:56 PM	We've had this rule floating around our gaming table for a couple of years (5 or 6), and it's happened exactly one time. I actually rolled three consecutive 20's (which if you know anything about my luck with the dice, is simply phenomenal). It's a fun sorta rule, but it really is not that impactful.