Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zaister 01-28-08, 12:48 PM	I'd like to get some input on my house rules from people beside the ones I play with. I' currently using this set of house rules (http://zaister.de/HouseRulesV17beta.pdf) in three different campaigns (Shackeld City, Age of Worms, and Rise of the Runelords). Some of the rulings restrict or take away certain character options, but please accept that in most cases this was done in mutual agreement with my players. I'm not a DM who likes to take away character options arbitrarily. In most cases where I have resticted something, it is because it does not fit the feel of the campaign or was detrimental to the fun experience of the gaming group as a whole. I'd like to get some comments or suggestions from outside. Thank you.
Krusk 01-28-08, 04:44 PM	i typed some thoughs as i read it. Just a question why no MIC? 2 bonus feats for half orcs- i didnt think they were quite that underpowered to need 2 feats in addition to your other changes. Why no variant paladins or rangers from those books? they arent amazingly more powerful. interesting/cool way to limit splatbook spells. Not a huge fan of the xp penalty though. Wizards and sorcerers can use splatbook spells freely though? I always considered wizards already better than cleric/druid, if not at least on par. interesting choices of disallowed prestige classes. but most make sense for he campaign setting. limiting power attack seems a waste. now it is far from amazing, and is simply decent. i removed massive damage too. It is a strange mechanic as it is. Dc 15 save or die if you take 50 points of damage. never goes up or down. my notes on reading it. and probably the questions i would ask if playing.
Zaister 01-28-08, 06:16 PM	First, thanks for your comments, Krusk. Here's my explanation: I didn't include the MIC in the list of sources because I don't want it uses as a "mail order catalog" for PCs (my player often jokingly refer to as "porn"), especially not in the case of a newly built higher level character. There are some things in there I don't really like, and I'm not yet sure it's all well and balanced. This way I can introduce items as I see fit. The half-orc change is something I read in someone's Shackled City campaign house rules somewhere which I liked back then. It's probably not necessary but both feats are somewhat limited in their use and fit the general theme. The variant ranger and paladin struck me as an unnecessary option when I first wrote the rules, and also as weak. Now there is a much better option for paladins as an alternative class feature in Complete Champion, and anyway, if a player would want to play one of those variant, I'd probably allow it. We came up with the spell solution after divine spellcasters in previous campaign were granted more and more spells with each new book and somehow this seemed excessive to all of us. I can understand that the xp penalty is seen somewhat negatively, and I can even see waiving that for new campaigns, but I still want some limiting factor besides just money. I'd like a better mechanic, one that might even work for wizards as well. I don't see it as necessary for sorcerers as their spell count is limited anyway. Classes were mostly disallowed because they don't fit a standard pseudo-medieval-European fantasy setting. Mostly these are either oriental or tied to the Forgotten Realms setting or too esoteric. Power Attack seemed excessive at medium (10+) levels in earlier campaigns, so we decided to cap it, analogous to Combat Expertise. Massive damage is a stupid idea, in a high level campaign it's not all that unusual for a high level character to take 50 damage from one attack, and with a natural 1 always a failure there always a 5% chance for even the toughest character to die instantly from any random attack - that seems unnecessary, unheroic and, most importantly, unfun.
squidyak 01-28-08, 10:00 PM	Half-Elves: Idk, this may put them a little ahead of humans. I think all the half-elf abilities are worth more than a feat. Half-Orcs: Same as half-elf. I do like the charisma change. Two bonus feats are a little steep. Clerics/Druids: I REALLY like the rules for gaining divine spells. I may use that at some point, expanding it to include all spells. Allow a number of spells equal to Wis modifier per level and require rituals to learn more. Bring them back down in power and let the wizard reclaim their place as the premier casters. Experience: I like the half-share rule for non-present players. Experience Debt: I like it, and intend on using it. Full Attack: Does this apply to two-weapon fighting as well? Disabled/Dying: I like the 0 to negative con mod.
navar100 01-29-08, 03:19 AM	On one hand, with me as a hypothetical player, I wouldn't like having to spend money and XP to get a spell from the Spell Compendium. I would think, if you're going to make it so hard, just ban the book in the first place. On the other hand I know I wouldn't be preparing so many spells from it anyway. Given free reign as normal, I wouldn't prepare that many spells from it, and even then not all the time. If I had to play under this house rule, you can bet your house that any spell I do take from it I'll be preparing and casting over and over and over. The Divine Metamagic nerf I can live with. There is logic to it. Giving half-elves extra skill points is too much. Humans become practically worthless. If a player doesn't absolutely, positively need an extra feat, there's no reason to play one. The exclusive extra skill points and feat is what makes them worth playing. The nerf on Power Attack is silly. Even RAW I'd hardly ever go above 5 anyway, but I like to know I could. Every once in a while circumstances will be just right to do so. I do like the XP debt. Losing a level in class abilities sucks. Delayed gratification of gaining a level for new stuff while keeping your current abilities is better than losing what you have now to play what you had before and waiting to get what you already had and then get new stuff. My DM uses something similar for Raise Dead. As a hypothetical player I wouldn't like all the house rules. However, I take it as a given I'll never like all of a DM's house rules. I really have one test: would I have fun playing a lawful good human cleric, even if I play something else. If the answer is yes, the heck with the house rules. If no, the house rules ruin the game for me despite not playing a lawful good human cleric. I think I would have fun playing a lawful good human cleric in your game. :) Edit: One thing, though. Why aren't players allowed to create magic items? Someone had to make them. Why are players denied this privilege?
nonsi 01-29-08, 03:32 AM	Improved Unarmed Strike for Half-Orcs is counter-intuitive. If you have an image of a brawler, Improved Grapple is more appropriate for inborn instinct. There are many ways of limiting MIC, e.g. materials, rituals and failure chances. You can also produce scenarioes that ruin their magical gear (a lot of acid use). Why the disallowed base classes? None of them is particularly powerful. Bad mojo on applying XP accumulation to gaming session. However you slice it, it should be purely campaign-related (this is not a comment about XP awards). MARTIAL ARTIST & SOULKNIFE - where do I find them? PRESTIGE CLASSES: what about the Frenzied Berzerker?
Zaister 01-29-08, 08:56 AM	On one hand, with me as a hypothetical player, I wouldn't like having to spend money and XP to get a spell from the Spell Compendium. I would think, if you're going to make it so hard, just ban the book in the first place. On the other hand I know I wouldn't be preparing so many spells from it anyway. Given free reign as normal, I wouldn't prepare that many spells from it, and even then not all the time. If I had to play under this house rule, you can bet your house that any spell I do take from it I'll be preparing and casting over and over and over. As I said above, I'd like another mechanic than XP, but I haven't come up with something that suits me better, and I think just money isn't really a detriment. The Divine Metamagic nerf I can live with. There is logic to it. I am convinced that the way I rule it is the way it was intended. Anything else I consider insane :) Giving half-elves extra skill points is too much. Humans become practically worthless. If a player doesn't absolutely, positively need an extra feat, there's no reason to play one. The exclusive extra skill points and feat is what makes them worth playing. I stronly disagree. I've been playing D&D3 since its release and always in multiple campaigns, and no-one, really NO-ONE has ever played or wanted to play an half-elf. Not even with the added on skill points. My personal opinion is that the human extra feat is worth much much more than anything the half-elf gets for being a half-elf. The nerf on Power Attack is silly. Even RAW I'd hardly ever go above 5 anyway, but I like to know I could. Every once in a while circumstances will be just right to do so. Different playing style I guess. Excessive Power Attack seemed unfun to us. As a hypothetical player I wouldn't like all the house rules. However, I take it as a given I'll never like all of a DM's house rules. I really have one test: would I have fun playing a lawful good human cleric, even if I play something else. If the answer is yes, the heck with the house rules. If no, the house rules ruin the game for me despite not playing a lawful good human cleric. Interesting approach. :-) I think I would have fun playing a lawful good human cleric in your game. :) Thank you. :-) Edit: One thing, though. Why aren't players allowed to create magic items? Someone had to make them. Why are players denied this privilege? In earlier campaign crafting seemed to easy, especially when introducing a new character to a higher level campaign - take a feat and get all your stuff at half the price! Removing the craft feats was a mutual decision initiated by the players of one of my groups.
Zaister 01-29-08, 09:03 AM	Half-Elves: Idk, this may put them a little ahead of humans. I think all the half-elf abilities are worth more than a feat. See my post above this one. Half-Orcs: Same as half-elf. I do like the charisma change. Two bonus feats are a little steep. I think the feats are mostly harmless (Toughness!). Clerics/Druids: I REALLY like the rules for gaining divine spells. I may use that at some point, expanding it to include all spells. Allow a number of spells equal to Wis modifier per level and require rituals to learn more. Bring them back down in power and let the wizard reclaim their place as the premier casters. I think clerics should keep the utility provided by the core rules. But adding every new book to their lists really got out of hand. Experience: I like the half-share rule for non-present players. A long-standing rule of my groups form long before third edition. Experience Debt: I like it, and intend on using it. This rule is taken from Green Ronin's Advanced Gamemaster's Guide and slightly modified. Full Attack: Does this apply to two-weapon fighting as well? Yes, this I think you make first attacks with both weapons before you make your second attacks. Also this help with players who sometimes tend to "decide" which attack they were rolling for after the roll. I've seen more than enough of that. Disabled/Dying: I like the 0 to negative con mod. Taken straight from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. I'm using this since I use Adventure Paths and I want to keep a bit of continuity in the party, so I've added some things to help the PCs stay alive.
Tholas 01-29-08, 04:15 PM	As I said above, I'd like another mechanic than XP, but I haven't come up with something that suits me better, and I think just money isn't really a detriment. Agreed, you have to offer something special when you ask your deity for a new spell. But how about supplementing your hard earned XP with a valuable token of an rival cult(as a sacrifice, full cost in gp to XP) or possibly a custom crafted token of your faith(as a gift to the temple, half cost in gp to XP).
navar100 01-29-08, 11:15 PM	An idea for Spell Compendium spells for divine casters. Player tells DM what specific spells he wants at character creation. These include all spells of all levels of hypothetically reaching 20th level. The DM allows for actual game play that a player may change his mind or want some other spell previously not given later in the campaign. If player doesn't care or says "all of them", that's ok too. The character does not get the spells right away, naturally. Instead, the spells become treasure. The cleric finds a book of ancient church teaching long lost that contains a few spells. It's not that the deity could never grant the spells; the clerics of today just didn't know they were available to ask. Perhaps the cleric accomplished a great deed that is aligned with church teaching. His deity rewards him with access to new spells. These new spells are the ones the player wanted from Spell Compendium. If the player didn't care or said "all of them", then the DM picks the spells he deems appropriate to the faith.
navar100 01-30-08, 01:34 AM	Interesting approach. :-) Thank you. :-) It covers several areas. Alignment: Am I going to get screwed over playing Lawful Good? Will me behaving that way have unfair consequences to me? In other words, how do NPCs react to Lawful Good. Do I have NPC "support" with NPC Lawful Good who are of importance and power. Do party members who are not Lawful Good get roleplaying advantages because they do things I don't yet I get nothing for doing what I do. This is why I hate Ravenloft and Planescape. It's also why I don't care for Eberron because Lawful Good churches are corrupt. Also, how strict is he? Do I have to be sugar sweet or can I be a real person? Race: How are humans treated. Is everyone else playing a non-human and not only getting the mechanical benefits, but roleplaying benefits as well while I get the shaft? This is why I don't care for Eberron. Elves become deathless? It's not enough they "live forever", now it's literal. There are dragonmarks for humans, but it's to be security guards. It's an important function, but flavor text implies not as glamorous or powerful has gnome scribes and halfling hospitality. Class: Does the DM have a beef with clerics? Does he think them so uberpowerful he needs to nerf them to uselessness? Does he think them so pathetically weak as nothing more than healing robots such that anything I try that does not involve healing or remove affliction won't work, has a drawback, or otherwise my deity starts giving me omens of disapproval? How are clerics in general treated in the game? (Another reason not caring for Eberron.)
Tholas 01-30-08, 04:11 AM	The nerf on Power Attack is silly. Even RAW I'd hardly ever go above 5 anyway, but I like to know I could. Every once in a while circumstances will be just right to do so. But if the circumstances are that an enraged fire giant tries to flatten you with his 2h warhammer I'm quite glad it's nerfed. ;) I think I would have fun playing a lawful good human cleric in your game. :) I currtently play a lawful good human cleric of Wee Jas in his AoW campaign and I can assure you it is real fun. :) Alignment: Am I going to get screwed over playing Lawful Good? Will me behaving that way have unfair consequences to me? Playing a LG char always has some consequences, they depend mostly on the rest of the party's aligement and the setting. Also, how strict is he? Do I have to be sugar sweet or can I be a real person? Nobody should be forced to play his alignement in a stereotypical way. Even a RSoP can have a bad day and wouldn't dare to defy that mad evil king in is own throne room. My char may be lawful good but it helps being a cleric of a death goddess and having ranks in imtimidate. :D Race: How are humans treated. Is everyone else playing a non-human and not only getting the mechanical benefits, but roleplaying benefits as well while I get the shaft? That depends on the setting. Take our current AoW campaign aus an example: This adventure path started in Diamond Lake, which has an striking resemblance to the town in the HBO series Deadwood. Zaister said before char creation something like: If you want to play a human, elf or dwarf you are fine. Anything more exotic, like a thiefling, might end you in the local freak show. Edit: Basically it is the DM's responsibility that no one is 'getting the shaft' roleplaying or otherwise, of course if someone ignores the warnings and insists on starting something not appropriate for the campaign (half-fiendish cancer mage anyone?) ...
Zaister 01-31-08, 08:24 AM	MARTIAL ARTIST & SOULKNIFE - where do I find them? Here: Martial Artist (http://zaister.de/Class-MartialArtist.pdf) and Soulknife (http://zaister.de/Class-Soulknife.pdf)
nonsi 02-04-08, 11:05 AM	Here: Martial Artist (http://zaister.de/Class-MartialArtist.pdf) and Soulknife (http://zaister.de/Class-Soulknife.pdf) The Soulknife is actually an improvement, though I like my modifications better. Just 1 question. If Psychic Strike requires a move action to activate, how do you plan on activating and using it twice in a single combat turn ? As for the Martial Artist - it's a Monk hit with a nerf bat as far as my better judgement goes.
Totentanz 02-04-08, 12:13 PM	I think the Cleric/Druid spell rules are a bit harsh. I can see requiring gold, but not xp. Perhaps allow divine casters the opportunity to choose certain spells, subject to DM approval, at a given level. For instance, when a Cleric hits level 5 , he may choose 1 spell out of any other book of 3rd level or lower. He can now cast that spell as normal. I agree with the sentiment after playing in a campaign where any problem we had was solved by the Cleric thumbing through every book on his Hero Forge sheet looking for the perfect spell. However, I don't think a class should have to spend xp to gain access to new spells. Gold maybe, but not xp. Oh, and gold is definitely a detriment when a DM keeps good track of Character wealth. I also can understand the negative effect of Item Creation feats, but don't you think banning them is a bit much? DM's have more tools in their box than "ban" and "allow" when it comes to feats. Using one of your group's decision as justification is just plain unfair to everyone else. Back it up on its merits, or let every group have a voice. If you have a problem with high-level starting characters, put some kind of limit in place. They still have the associated xp cost, right? Maybe limit them to a certain amount of total gold that can be spent in item creation. The Power Attack nerf I think is undeserved. That feat is the key to keeping melee characters at least halfway viable as compared to casters. If you have a problem with it, why not apply a scaling limitation? Something like 3/4ths BAB or 1/2 BAB could do it. I like the XP Debt rules and will probably incorporate them if I ever run another 3.5 campaign. 4E claims to have removed this particular annoyance; we shall see. Overall I think you did a great job articulating and organizing your rules, and most are appropriate for the style of campaign you want to run. I think a few of them have been poked enough that you should consider revising them. That is, after all, the point in posting and asking for a critique? :P