Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shinryouga 12-22-04, 02:49 AM	First off, constructive criticism only please. Not to be whiny, but if I wanted to listen to people degrade me, I could find easier ways. No offense, but most of my perusal of the forum makes it look like a bunch of hypocritical rule-nazi with delusions of grandeur lurk about and tear people's post to digital shreds. That being said, I have also seen a lot of insightful, helpful people respond to the posts of others. I don't know what cosmic body determines who answers, so here's hoping. First off, I am a decently experienced DM, and my general outlook on a house rule is a. Does it make the game more fun? b. Does it make the game more realistic? and c. Does it use an existing game mechanic to support it? I try to make my house rules meet all three, but sometimes the dont. Several of my house rules are more campaign flavor, but others are "core" modifications that I feel improve the game as a whole, regardless of the specific campaign. Additionally, I use the house rules of others that seem to follow the same concept. Several of my house rules come from Sean K. Reynolds(referred to as SKR in the house rules) own campaigns. Let it be known that I am an equal opportunity DM, and whatever rule I make applies to everyone, PC to NPC to Monster. Finally, if there are any of my players that contest or disagree with my house rule, I will note it and list their argument and my rebuttal with the rule. Here we go. Stats 4d6, drop lowest, arrange as desired. Savage species monster classes for non-core races. STR: Operates normally. DEX. Operates normally. CON: It seems odd to me that a barbarian with a 20 con can have with a low roll the same hit points as a lucky theif with a 10 con. The gulf between these scores should make more of a distance. As I have played with many "hitpoint reroll 1 and 2" DMs, I decided that in addition to bonus hit points, the con modifier acts as a minimum buffer. Essentially, the mod is the minimum hit points that can be rolled on a die. (There is no reverse concept for low con, its bad enough as it is.) This gives an advantage to everyone, but also lets the really high scores shine, without giving anyone anything truly "extra". Example: Barbarian with 20 con (+5 mod) rerolls anything below a 5 (1,2,3,4). If he multiclasses to sorc, he gets max hit points because he would normally reroll a 4. Thus, as a barb2/sorc1, he has 12(max at first)+5(con)+1d12(minimum 5)+5(con)+4(1d4, minimum 5, therefore max at 4)+5(con) for a minimum of 36 hp, and a maximum of 43. Technically, he has no more possible hit points than any other barb2/sorc1. He just has a guarantee of better hit points due to high con. Consequently, a dragon with a 34 con or higher (Great Red Wyrm with Amulet of Health +4=35 con +12 mod) effectively has maximum hit points. I find this reasonable, both from a player perspective, and a monster perspective. INT: Operates as normal, plus player may "crutch" his intelligence, by asking the DM what the character would know in a given situation. This may be given freely, or after a certain DC intelligence check. (In my opinion, this is common sense, but I know some DMs who dont give hints no matter how smart a character is, and smarts isnt just a measure of lucky intelligence or knowledge checks.) WIS: Operates normally, plus provides a percentile bonus to all XP gained equal to your wisdom mod. This does have a reverse aspect for low wisdom, an XP penalty. The idea for this came from the old Plancescape:Torment PC game. CHA:Operates normally, however, I use SKRs house rule for races with racial penalties to CHA. Instead of the penalty, assign a permanent racial penalty to the social skills Diplomacy, Gather Info, and Handle Animal checks. While it is a given that the D&D game is built from a human perspective, how does a human perspective of beauty and mannerisms apply to an interaction between a half orc and an ogre? Or a minotaur and a mind flayer? (This house rule is currently being tested. No player complaints yet.) RACES: One change, besides the previously mentioned rebuild of racial charisma penalties. This is the favored class system. It became apparent the standard rule actually rewards a deficiency rather than rewarding dedication. To represent racial inclination in a class, a combination of 10% xp bonus for that level, plus a +1 skill point (much like a human bonus skill point) for taking a favored class. There is no longer a XP penalty for multiclassing. This allows characters in a favored class to be rewarded for taking it, while multiclass characters get the "short end", but ultimately have a wider set of abilities. Note that races with favored class "any" effectively lock their first class as their favored class. CLASSES: (Where it starts to get heavy) All classes use the weapon groups from Unearthed Arcana. (I can see how this would be overpowering in some games where characters cling to one weapon type throughout the game, but I make frequent use of disarm, sunder, and other weapon elimination techniques, thus bringing power gamers under control.) Spellcasters of all types do not need to prepare spells. Tally all spell levels a spellcaster can cast in a day. This becomes the mages spell point pool. 0 level spells are handled separately: add the spellcaster's casting ability score mod to the normal number of 0 level spells at their level, this is the number of 0 level spells per day. Spells are learned normally, and the time normally spent preparing spells is still spent, but is now considered meditation, or making sure there is no confusion about magical formula. To compensate for the power boost this gives mages, casting any spell without his spellbook requires an int check (DC 15+spell level) with failure causing a mishap as a scrol. (This adds value to the spell mastery feat, as a mage does not need to have his spellbook to cast it. We had a mage try to cast mage armor without spell mastery or his spell book on him. He failed the check, and flayed off his own skin as the armor apeared half an inch under it instead of above it.) A spellcaster can cast any spell he knows, and can apply metamagic effects on the fly, but the total spells level may not be more than the normal highest level spell he could normally cast. This house rule was done mainly to free up game time, but also served to even power discrepancies between arcane casters and the other classes. This is potentially the most "campaign flavor" rule I have, as it is the most game affecting, and backed up by "magical physics" as my players and I have come to feel it should work. To conserve game time, and to promote the realism of the power of a high level mage, plus bear more similarities to monster abilities, spellcasters have only one DC for their spells, unless modified by outside effects such as feats, race, or other class abilities. The DC for any spell from a caster is 10+highest level spell castable+ability mod+other mods. This, in conjunction with the Epic feat Improved Spell Capacity, helps to balance the power gap that quickly occurs at epic levels between spellcasters and the saving throws of epic characters and creatures. Any class with a shield or armor proficiency may "trade" it for a feat from the fighter list that they meet the prerequisits at at first level. This allows for more character customization, without upsetting power overmuch. Should a character sacrifice armor proficiency, but then multiclass to a class providing the proficiency again, they now receive the proficiency. This helps balance the XP bonuses for staying in a favored class. Also, see previous reference to CON in Stats section in regards to hit points gained at level up, and Multiclass rule in Races. Barbarian: No additional changes. Bard: Bardic music of all types affects the performing bard as well (barring common sense discrepancies). Specifically in regards to Inspire Competence. Much like humming the Spiderman theme while climing a tree. Obviously, if your perform style is dance, this doesn't work so well. But since most bards choose singing or poety, it usually isn't an issue. Additionally, when the bard gains a level, he may swap out a known spell for another of the same level, in addition to any he gains automatically. Cleric: (Personally, I feel the cleric is the most overpowered class in the game, after bard and druid.) Clerics do not automatically receive shield and (heavy) armor proficiency. Instead, at first level, they gain a bonus feat similar to a monk, which must be either shield proficiency or armor proficiency (heavy). Ultimately, due to the 1-hand free to cast spells rule, this actually speeds up combat, as the players usually choose armor over shield, leaving that hand free, and thus not having to keep track of dropped weapons or shields. Also, my group is currently testing the Complete Divine optional turning rule, due to issues with standard turning. No decisions yet regarding that change. Druid: Druids loose scimitar proficiency, but gain kukri, scythe, and shortbow proficiency to the druid weapons group. (This is recent, and may contradict the core of the weapon group rules, but so far, no complaints.) Fighter: No additional changes, but refer to the earlier mention regarding swapping armor and shield proficiency for other fighter feats. Monk: Monks from races with natural attacks may use the damage values and damage type from either their natural attack or the monk unarmed strike. Once the damage of the unarmed strike exceeds the natural attack damage, unarmed strike is used from that point on, and they may use whichever damage type (Natural P or S, or Monk Unarmed B) is more useful in the situation. (This rarely comes into play, as a human half-dragon or a lizardman monk's claws do less than a 1rst level monk's unarmed attack, but to me it makes sense, and sense is good. No arguments so far.) Additionally, instead of the monk's normal rules regarding multiclassing, a monk may multiclass as long as his total levels of monk exceed the total of his other class levels by 1. Thus, a monk4/sorc3 may continue to progress as a monk, but if he adds another level of sorc, he may never return to monk. If he adds a level of monk, making him M5/S3, he may then add a level of sorc at next level without problem. This mechanic serves to emphasize the dedication of the monk, but still allow for interesting multiclass combos. Paladin: No additional changes, but see the monk multiclassing house rule. Ranger: No additional changes. Sorceror: Currently considering implementing a bonus feat system similar to the wizards, with only eschew materials and metamagic feats available, to represent the sorceror's innate talent for shaping energy (and to provide slight expansions to the sorceror's limited spell selection through energy substitution). Additionally, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Use Magic Device are now class skills. Every time a sorceror levels up, he may swap out a selected spell for a different spell of the same level, in addition to any new spells he learns. Wizard: Wizard bonus feat are modified as follows. Bonus feat aqquied at 1rst level in addition to the preset Scribe Scroll. Bonus feat list looses metamagic, but gains eschew materials, spell penetration, greater spell penetration, spell focus, greater spell focus, magical aptitude, and spell mastery. Bonus feat list retains item creation feats. SKILLS: Intimidate: Can use STR instead of CHA if applicable. (Common sense, obviously, if the victim can not see you but can hear you, how muscled you are is less important than how forcefully you threaten them.) ------------ If you've made it this far, thank you very much for sticking with me! This is the core of my house rules, some others are in the works (Druid animal companions are currently under the knife right now.) As I said, constructive comments are welcome. I realize my spell point system will probably get a lot of criticizm, but if its constructive, thats just what I want. Thank you for reading all this, and hope to see a reply! Shinryouga, the Glacier Dragon
Silent_spy 12-22-04, 03:21 AM	you cited planescape: torment. As such, it is awesome. I love that game to an unnatural degree. However, your con system is....wierd. you see, it only half fixes the problem, while creating a new balance problem all of its own. I think you should keep the old system with a reroll extreme system (reroll a 1 or 4 on a d4, a 1 or 6 on a d6, a 1, 2, 7, 8 on a D8, a 1, 2, 9, 10 on a d10, and a 1,2,3,10,11,12 on a d12) and add con as normal to keep eveybody where they should be. I have yet to use such a system, but i think it solves the problem nicely, without overpowering con. I dont like the sound of a wizard getting 8 hp per level because they have 18 con. And, on the other end of the spectrum, if you have an average con mod, the problem still exists. (the fighter with con 10 get avg. 6.5 hp per level. the wizard with 18 con gets 8). And I know you're thinking that no wizard is going to put an 18 roll into con, but with THAT kind of bonus, I certainly would. even if said fighter had 13 con, the wizard would still beat him over-all. I like your wisdom idea, except that it overpowers monks and anyone who would want high wisdom. (Planescape:torment had no monks, keep in mind. They faced no such problem) So, if you dont get any monks, I recommend you use it (but +/- only 1 or 2% per modifier of the poor sap with 6 wis will get punished brutally over time). I totally agree with you on charisma. the good looks modifier is simply a laughably concept. Cha should simply be skill with words and inner power, though a different kind than wisdom. you could possibly throw in a knowledge requirement for using your charisma effectively with other cultures. ("who knew 'bananna split' was an insult to ogres?" asked the bard as he was dragged to the cooking pot). this, however, would under-power charisma, which doesn't need any underpowering. So, leave it as you have it.
Shinryouga 12-22-04, 04:09 AM	Thank you for your reply, Silent-Spy, that was exactly the sort of feedback I want! In my central campaign, I run on the idea that heros are just that, heroic. Much like most DMs would use the elite ability array for any slightly important NPC (which provides and average score of 12), I use what I call a heroic ability array, which averages to 14. During character creation, extra points are granted to make the total score average equal 14. This helps balance out the possible scenario you mentioned: few fighters end up with con that low, and if they do, theres a good reason for it. As for the wisdom XP bonus, I feel that monks, due to their specific restrictions, needed an edge. (The lack of armor, shield, and weapon creates restricted "body slots" that could have had beneficial magic items, which their class abilities do not quite make up for, in my opinion.) I also felt that clerics, being the primary bastion against undead, needed it as well to offset their higher exposure to level drain attacks. This system works well, especially when combined with Sean K. Reynolds variant level loss system. (Where death and other providers of permanent negative levels instead bestow a ""death" or "drain" negative level, which is bought off with XP. This helps cut down on the massive bookwork when a character looses all those skill points, feats, ability scores, and other level associated benefits.) Ultimately, wisdom represents willpower, intuition, and the ability to learn from mistakes and successes, which grants the bonus. Also, my ultimate goal was to try and balance the power of all the ability scores, to create more viable options for players. Now, fighters don't sneeze at wisdom except as a way to shore up their will save. Thanks again for the post! Shinryouga
Gilean 12-22-04, 04:10 AM	Class changes are fine, I might "adopt" few of them. Or at least consider. The experience boost from wisdom is quite weird, though. In my own RPG I made it into a skill. Some may argue that int is associated with learning (skill points and all) and wizards (class, not WotC) may complain about it.
Old French Admiral 12-22-04, 05:13 AM	First off, I must say that I love your house rules. I'm quite tempted to adopt them all as they're currently written. I've only one concern, though. Under your current system for arcane magic, it would seem that the primary advantage of sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters) has been stripped from them. Yes, they still cast spontaneously, but the main reason for choosing to play a sorcerer (as opposed to a wizard, for instance) is no longer present, as ALL arcane casters now cast spontaneously. Perhaps you could go over your system for arcane magic again, with a special emphasis on how it affects the wizard/sorcerer issue. Also, perhaps consider removing the additional bonus feat at 1st level for wizards (the feat above and beyond Scribe Scroll). In my experience I find that the wizard class needs no extra help attracting members (actually, I can't recall a time where there has ever been a sorcerer in the party, rather than a wizard). That having been said, I think your system for arcane magic is fascinating and much more aesthetically pleasing than the Vancian system. In regards to the hitpoint issue, I have been struggling with a good way to combat low hps. As a player, I have found low hitpoint totals to be discouraging at the least. And I find they really hold me back as a DM (I enjoy throwing really tough challenges at my players). My solution, so far, has been to just go with maximum hitpoints. Far from being game-breakingly high-powered, it has allowed the party to keep moving after many encounters. Less fragile PCs = more freedom for me as a DM. Again, kudos on the rules. -Old French Admiral
Thapthim 12-22-04, 10:34 AM	To quote the Barbarian "Me Likey" Anyway I just have a question, with your 10% bonus for the favoured class, do you mean when they choose that class they automatically gain 10% of the exp required for that level (ie to reach level 2, they need a 1000 exp and they are given a 100 to start?). That is great, it really makes people consider choosing a races favoured class, that extra skill point in a real kicker there :p. Also, for your wisdom bonus, do spells, magic items, poisons etc that modify wisdom effect it?
Shinryouga 12-22-04, 09:25 PM	Here's my reply to the issues raised in the last two posts. Old French Admiral- I tend to agree with you in regards to "taking back" that bonus 1rst level feat for wizards. In my opinion, the neccessity of the spellbook for a wizard to safely cast spells makes up for the ability to not need to prepare them. With a potentially fatal mishap in the eaves if the wizard doesn't have his spellbook, this makes safeguarding it become more important to the wizard, who will then use some of his money/power/abilities to protect the book. I don't consider this system balanced for new or inexperienced DMs, but when a DM has the ability to take advantage of this weakness (not the best wording), it balances itself. The sorceror on the other hand still has more spell points per day, and currently we are testing a house rule of no longer needing to spend a full round to metamagic, and perhaps even making mages have to spend a full round to metamagic instead. (This is due to our group conception that mages harness the magic in and around them with arcane formulae, while sorcerors just shape it and let go. The formula are more versatile, but take longer.) For hitpoints, we implemented your method about two campaigns ago, but our play group likes the randomness of rolling. Its just the discrepancies that can arise from con+dice that annoy us, so we use this method. Since it doesn't actually give more hit points than is normally possible, just insures that high con get more hit points than low con, on average, it works well for us. Thapthim- Thank you for asking, I forgot to post that clarification in my origional message. It is as you presented, a bonus gained upon taking the level. Since there is no way to retroactively apply experience to the class taken, we felt it was best to give a 10% "bump" to the next level to represent the ease at which the race takes to the abilities of the class. This is partially because we use a "level-up occur over time" concept that means part of the experience on the way to the next level is actually used to master the previous one. Your last question raises an important point: for purposes of the Wisdom Bonus % to Experience, do potions, spells, or items affect that. Our solution is no, because an amulet of health does not actually add "real" hit points when a character levels up with one on, it just creates a "buffer" of hit points that can go away. Since a potion or spell will eventually wear off, even if you were to continue casting or drinking them all week long, the bonus wisdom they provde does not apply to XP gained. Permanent increases (like wish, tomes, etc.) do, but any temporary increase, regardless of how close to permanent it seems, does not. Which brings me to a question. My house mage is wondering if his headband of intellect gives him extra skill points on level up. Rules regarding the amulet of health make me think "no". But Im not sure how to work it. If it doesn't give any skill points, then it isn't giving the full value of the ability, and is thus underpowered, and thus overpriced. Any comments or ideas out there?
TemporalEnergon 12-23-04, 09:49 PM	My only gripe here is that you have stripped wizards of bonus metamagic ( which represents how their higher understanding of their spells as they learn more about them lets them alter those spells) and made Heighten spell utterly useless with your 'all spells use highest level castable for DC' rule.
HailSpork 12-24-04, 04:13 PM	This looks like a nice set of house rules. Two comments though: #1: HP reroll This would mean that a mage with a con of 16 would have 7 hp per level; no more, no less. Heh, I have a mage who would get that bonus. For expected gain, this means that you are expected to add half your con bonus to hp. A mage with a con of 16 is expected to roll 50% higher than a con of 10. A barbarian is expected to roll 25% higher. This is more a comment than a criticism. Personally, I worked the Toughness feat into my reroll system. I allowed 1 reroll normally, and toughness provides an extra reroll. Perhaps it could add an effective +1 con bonus for your rerolling purposes? #2: Favored class I LOVE the +1 sp/level for favored class. That really puts a balance to it without unnecessary complications. The idea of xp penalties for multiclassing other than your favored class is just plain stupid to me.
ClothedUpon 12-24-04, 06:59 PM	Thanks for sharing your house rules, Shinryouga. I'm in the process of compiling some house rules for use in my game and some of yours might make it in. I like your idea on racial favorite classes. I truly dislike XP penalties for multiclassing, anyways, and your system seems to address the problem positively instead of negatively. Both the 10% bonuse and the bonus skill point seem like good ideas. If I use this idea, I think I'd let human characters apply this to any class they take due to human versitility and adaptability. I kind of like your idea for using the CON modifier as the minimum roll for hit points. I probably won't use it, though. Reason is that I already assign maximum hit points to PC's and elite NPC's and elite creatures. However, if we change the HP generation method, I'll keep your method in mind. Wisdom modifier to XP? I like it. Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 for PS2 implement this idea, though the percentage bonus is different. I like the idea of a 1% per point of WIS modifier. I was thinking of using either a 3% or 5% per point, my self, but I see how that could run a little wild with creatures/characters with really high wisdom scores, but since I alread use a variant based on the elite array for PC's and major NPC's, I might still use one of the higher percentages. I, already, use a reduced XP awards system to slow advancement, anyway. So larger bonuses might not be too bad. I'm using the weapon groups idea from UA, too. I really like it. I, also, allow monks and paladins to multiclass just like other classes. It hasn't really caused a problem, yet. No one really ever plays a monk or paladin, anyway, in my games. Removing this restriction is my way to encourage folks to try them. Overall, I like your house rules. I won't use them all, though.
taltamir 12-27-04, 05:20 AM	Dont forget that your high int clerics have to make all those nice healing potions.. and that takes XP... So that right there is a good idea for why it should count as a bonus XP. Heck, make both it AND it... bonus or penalty to XP = wis modifier + int modifier in percent... so a 14 int 14 wis character gets +4% XP. All in all... this is a good system. It is way better then the core. I also liked what someone said about giving pcs, elite npcs, and elite monsters max HP... makes sense and is cool. (except it takes away one of the powers of gods.. that being, max HP.. OH NO, the poor gods... I guess now they will have to do with their immortality and casting wishes for free, without being as limited as the spell is). Anyways, someone mentioned its not balanced if you have an 18 con wiz and a low con fighter... It obviously didnt occur to him that this 18 con wiz is at the PEAK of the normal human (starting) health... he is as tough as they get.. not some frail bookworm, but a mighty tough guy who happens to do magic... Comparing such extremes is ridiculous.. and if a wizard DOES have 18 con.. he better damn well get that HP that he deserves instead of getting shafted just because he is a wizard! I simply love the way you dealt with sorc and wizard... I have been hating having to choose between any spontenuity and ability to learn as many spells as i want... and I was having trouble combining the classes... the idea of a misshap fits in perfectly...
TLomon 01-01-05, 07:57 PM	Your stat system is exactly what I use in my campaign. No argument with what classes you are allowing, either. Your CON system has one hole that I found. What happens if someone has a negative CON modifier? Do they reroll the highest? For example, a wizard with CON 8 rolls a 4 on HP. Do they reroll the 4 so are maxed at 1-3 hp a level? Other then that, it is different. An interesting idea, just not one I personally would use. INT system seems good. I don't know anyone who can realisticly portray 20 INT without resorting to DM assistance. Not sure I like your WIS system. It penalizes classes that have nothing to do with wisdom. I would recommend bringing back the 1st edition and have it base on their primary stats for their class (Str for warrior, Dex for rogue, etc.) Your CHA idea is interesting. I have charisma portray a persons leadership ability primarily, and use comliness as they appear to each other. Your system works effectively the same way. Interesting variant in the favored class area. I see no problem with a reward instead of a penalty. However, I would lower the bonus to 5%. The penalty for multiclassing only kicked in if the person had non-favored classes at drastically different levels. With regards to classes with Any, I would revert back to the book and say their highest class was the one that received the bonus. One of the advantages of these races is their flexibility. I was reading over the weapon groups for UA and was thinking about implementing them as well. Witholding any comment until I get a chance to playtest them. Spellcasting system is interesting. I am playing around with something similiar but a bit more complex. (It is still alpha at this time) Your armor proficiency idea... interesting. Found a possible loophole. Is there a limit to how many they can turn in? For example, if I make a cleric, can I turn in Heavy Armor Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, Light Armor Proficiency, and Shield Proficiency to get 4 combat related feats and just not wear any armor? Can a fighter turn his 5 starting feats (those listed above plus tower shield proficiency) and get 5 different ones? I can see a lot of abuse here. Good idea in thought, but players can shred this one big time. Using this system, a human fighter effectively has 8 feats at first level if those choose not to use armor. Bard: Personally, I don't like spell swapping, but then again, I don't limit the size of a person's spell collection. Cleric: A bit overly harsh by taking a feat away in my opinion, but you are entitled to yours. Although I can see why a cleric can be perceived as over powered, they are also shackled with responsibility by being the parties healer. Druid: Interesting. No complaint here. It gives it a cultural feeling to it. Monk: The natural attacks idea is good, and I can definitely see situations where it would come up. However, the multiclass restriction seems overly harsh to me. What is a 5th sorc wishes to join a monestary? After becoming a 5th sorc/1st monk, they are no longer a monk by your rule set. Paladin: See monk Sorceror: Working on something similiar for my campaign. Wizard: See Sorcerer Intimidate: Excellent idea. Well, I hope my feedback isn't overly harsh. I tried to keep a fair and open mind.
Shinryouga 01-03-05, 06:03 AM	Thank you for your comments! I appreciate thoughtful feedback, and your's certainly fit the description. Here are my replies to some of yours, mostly for clairifcation's sake. CON: Negative con mod already hurts enough, no need for extra. There is a limit to how weak you can be before you just blow away with the wind. WIS: I have never liked that any one score was "better" than another, despite the obvious game mechanic superiority of the physical scores over the mental. While good DMing of appropriate and varied challenges can make the mental scores useful, I never liked how Wisdom was "just for clerics, druids, and maaaaaaybeeeee paladins and rangers". Wisdom affects the mod for Spot and Listen, two of the most valuable skills in the game. Considering that these are not class skills for most classes, I would have thought they would receive more attention, but alas, they do not. As such, everyone should have a decent wisdom, rather than use it as a dumping ground for a low stat. While INT is learning curve and memory, WIS is intuition, willpower, and (unspoken but I do firmly beleive) the ability to learn from mistakes. On a linguistic level, we refer to a person who makes or repeats mistakes as "not very wise". Between this and the unappreciated utility of WIS in general, I chose to put the XP bonus there. CHA: Just to throw out, regarding physical appearance, my group uses a percentile roll to see how heavily the charisma favors personality or looks. For every +1 mod of charisma, add +10% to the lower score, to represent the stunning beauty or charming demeanor. Thus, CHA 10 averages at 50/50, while CHA 18 averages at 70/70. We mainly use this for roleplaying and character development, but sometimes circumstaces dictate that one may be more appropriate to use, thus the Half Orc with Looks 13/Pers 97 (CHA 12) actually does quite well among people when he covers his face. THE ARMOR LOOPHOLE: Here is my counter to this. While yes, a human fighter could cash in all for 8 feats, here is the in game restrictions. He now can NOT wear armor without penalty, and still ONLY has a base attack of +1, Fort +2, Ref +0, Wil+0. Thus, many of the more useful fighter and general feats are unavailable to him. The few that are do not stack, with the notable exception of toughness, which would make sense for someone crazy enough to run around starkers. (BTW, after looking at 3.0 to 3.5 changes to toad familiars and the toughness feat, my toughness works like Neverwinter Nights for PC's: +1 HP per level or HD, stackable. This makes the feat devastating for monsters, and actually worthwhile for PCs.) MONKS AND PALADINS: Your example is valid. This character would be similar to the Second Edition human dual-class rules. He could continue to advance as a monk/paladin, but would HAVE to until he exceeded his other level, as per previously mentioned. Not doing by returning to his previous class before his monk/paladin levels exceeded it would demonstrate the previously mentioned lack of dedication, and thus prohibit further progression as a monk/paladin. Hope these clear a few fuzzies up. Again, thanks for your post! Just my two coppers worth. Shinryouga
Gil Gwath 01-03-05, 09:44 AM	i reply only about the con/HP issue. i think in the way you are doing it really gives too much importance to CON. It's sometime i used another way to fix this problem: roll at minimum the half dice i.e. 1d4 = 1d3 + 1 ----> min 2 max 4 1d6 = 1d4 + 2 ----> min 3 max 6 1d8 = 1d5 + 3 ----> min 4 max 8 1d10 = 1d6 + 4 ----> min 5 max 10 i think this works. at least works good IMG
evangelion1010 01-03-05, 02:12 PM	I can see a few issues... Your fighter rules make dex based fighters very appealing... suddenly you take 1 level of fighter, and get 4 feats. Heck, even do fighter 1/paladin 1. 5 free feats, (medium, heavy, light, shield, bonus feat), then get all those feats back as a paladin. I'd limit it to 1 feat trade in/level. As for the spell points, i've always liked that approach better... however, with it, is there a point for sorcerers? Wizards know more spells, and can now cast them whenever they want, if i'm reading it correctly. (do they need the spellbook on their person, or actually in front of them?) Also, it seems like you view spellcasters as underpowered... I like the Con rules, although i usually just use a minimum amount, like half. Also, i believe the odds are 1 in 72 that the rogue and barbarian have the same HP for a level. Still, i agree that low HP rolls are unfair. I also like the multiclass +1 skill point/level, but the +10% exp might be a bit much. Human clerics/druids unite!
taltamir 01-04-05, 07:22 AM	I was wondering, how does that work our if you have a paladin/monk dual class? That is, a character with levels in both monk and paladin. They cannot level one, without increasing it past the other, thus showing "lack of dedication" and invalidating that progression. I would say dedication isnt how many class levels you have, but how often you study. That is, imagine I studied monkhood up to a certain level (10), then took interest in the arcane, for years i studied the arcane (got to level 9 lets say). I could now return to learn more from the monks despite not seing them for so many years. I would think a better thing would be to take it at least every other (or third) time you level. Skip X levels of it, and you can no longer progress (aside from PrCs that are based on it... if you even allow PoweR Classes in your game)
Tuneless Bard 01-04-05, 08:01 AM	Someone may have mentioned this allready, but im not really a fan of hurting the wizard in the hit points realm any more than it is allready hurt. It seems unfair that....even though a barb with 20 con gets minimum 150% of what a wizard with 8 cons maximum is you would like to change that so that a barb with 20 con gets a minimum of 250% of what the wizard's MAXIMUM is? It just seems that a player benifits enough from a high con and the con is allready worked into the hit points allready. and barbarians eventually gain DR. Dont think con is too powerful allready? Then think about how many characters you know in the last few games that put a low roll in con? Even wizards seem to have a high con in 3.5....If anything i would like to see some house rules that remove some of cons power so that people arent afraid to have a low con.... if you want to raise the bar on HP then have then roll twice and take the highest. Keep the element of randomness but dont add to the allready strong advantage of high con.
taltamir 01-04-05, 05:56 PM	Anyone familiar with the 75% rule? Give each class 75% of its hit die's max. So a wizard gets 3 HP per level + con. etc. D6 gets 4 and 3 HP alternating (OR if you are not afraid to do it, 3.5HP per level). 1. You dont have to worry about rolling 1s 2. You dont end up with such a big numbers (for those lucky guys who roll real high). If everyone has alittle less HP to begin with, a +1 per level from con actually does matter more. IF you want, you can make it +0.5 per +1 of con. Further mitigating HP (and making for a MUCH more interesting campaign, where the characters are not just walking HP battery gods)
TLomon 01-11-05, 01:13 AM	Should't d6s get 4 and 5 alternating? You just shorted the player about 15% hps.
taltamir 01-12-05, 04:37 AM	my bad
Golem1972 01-12-05, 06:51 AM	I've decided to give my players max hit points one die size lower than indicated. I'ts similar to the 3/4 idea, but melee classess get a little more benifit. (d4=3, d6=4, d8=6, d10=8, d12=10) Of course, this is offset by me giving all monsters max hit points.
Keoki 01-12-05, 08:52 AM	Intimidate: Can use STR instead of CHA if applicable. (Common sense, obviously, if the victim can not see you but can hear you, how muscled you are is less important than how forcefully you threaten them.) I toyed with this idea for a while, as I didn't like the idea of half-orcs actually having a penalty to Intimidate. However, physical strength isn't always apparent, especially if the character is magically enhanced. It's probably better to stick with the good ol' "DM's Friend," a +2 bonus for anyone that looks scary (like most half-orcs), or a -2 penalty for meek-looking folk.
Millenia 01-12-05, 09:57 AM	To compensate for the power boost this gives mages, casting any spell without his spellbook requires an int check (DC 15+spell level) with failure causing a mishap as a scrol. (This adds value to the spell mastery feat, as a mage does not need to have his spellbook to cast it. We had a mage try to cast mage armor without spell mastery or his spell book on him. He failed the check, and flayed off his own skin as the armor apeared half an inch under it instead of above it.) May I ask why you're using an INT check? I think a Spellcraft check might make more sense. ^^;
taltamir 01-12-05, 03:50 PM	I would guess because spellcraft increases too fast and would make this check useless after a short while.
Shadowbane 01-14-05, 10:25 AM	I think your house rules are very balanced. I dont make clerics use a free hand in my games. I think of clerics like this. There god gives the spell knowledge for them to use, and on command they can release the spell from thier minds. As far as rolling for HPs I use this rule. For fighter types ONLY (ranger, barbarian, monk, fighter, paladin)! All 1's are treated as rolling thier max HD (8,10 or 12). All 2's are thier second lowest HD (7,9,11), and all 3's are considered thier 3rd lowest HD (6,8,10) and so on. If a 4 is rolled use the table above -1. So they are always going to get no lower then a 5 for HPs without any modifier. I just think the frontliners should be without question far tougher then back row PCs or untility PCs. I came the the above conclusion after we had a game where my friends sorcerer rolled very well and my ranger/rogue ( at level 10 ) rolled poorly and guess what? My ranger had LESS HPs than the sorcerer. It forced me take improved toughness just to compete.
taltamir 01-14-05, 07:56 PM	a ranger rouge isnt exactly front lines there... And he probably needed insaly good rolls with you rolling insanely bad ones to do that anyways... that or have more con