some house rules from dk [Archive] - Wizards Community

some house rules from dk [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
lunchbox1000
09-17-07, 03:30 PM I will just add some of my own house rules. I'd like some feedback. We are using them all i my group, we think they works to benefit of the game.
I'm sorry if i make any big spelling mistakes...

1. rule:
Con. rule.
if a PC, NPC or any other creature receive dmg which beyond its Constitution score they immediately rolls a Fort save. The Fort DC is equal to the dmg taken. If the creature succeeds the save, no harm is done and the creature can proceed what ever is is doing (mostly combat)
if the save fails:
failing by 1-5 = the creature is knocked prone
failing by 6-10 = the creature is knocked prone and stunned for 1 round
failling by 11-15 = the creature is knocked prone and stunned for 2 rounds
failling by more just add +1rnd/5 longer stun Duration

we thougth it was ridiculous fx: the huge giant hit the lvl 8 Bard character which takes 34 points of dmg. the bard stand perfect because he still has remaining 4 hp.
This system add a realistic reaction to massive dmg. Making a receiver of lots of dmg a noncombatant for a round or two. But not paralized which would make them too easy to kill by the hand of "coup de grace"
---------------------------------------------------------------
2. rule:

weapons-----------range incresment----str. Dmg bonus----armor penalty

hand crossbow------30 ft--------------------1-----------------2
light crossbow-------80 ft--------------------2-----------------4
heavy crossbow-----120 ft-------------------3-----------------6
great crossbow------120 ft-------------------4-----------------8

short bow-----------60 ft--------------------0------------------2
- composite---------70 ft--------------------1------------------3
long bow------------100 ft-------------------2------------------4
- composite---------110 ft-------------------3------------------5
great bow-----------120 ft-------------------4------------------6
- composite---------130 ft-------------------5------------------7

this formular shows some statistics regularing the bow/crossbow system.

Str. Dmg bonus:
- this means for crossbows an amount of dmg which is always added when rolling dmg. ex a medium heavy crossbow get a dmg = 1d10+3
- for bows this number work nearly the same way as composite bows does. but you get no penalty to you attack roll if you haven't got the maximum str bonus which you can use.

Armor penalty:
this amount is reduced from the targets AC. But it only reduces armor bonus or natural armor. AC gained from shields, Dex, deflection, and so on still counts.
This armor penalty can't reduce Magical AC gained from a magic armor, spell or any other thing like that.
If you fire a magical arrow, it has a magical armor piercing which can penetrate magical armor bonus. the magical armor penalty is equal to the bonus the magical arrow has (+1<>+5)

historical reason/Insperation source:
In the Dark ages of Europe a standard longbow in hands of a peasant could pierce a full-plate armor and killing the man in the armor. The core 3.5 system don't supports this, but this system does mostly.

critics: some of you will think this system is making bows and crossbows touch weapons:
I can not deny that thougth, and it is partly correct, but not totally right.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

two rules we use to make our game more realistic.
TwiddleStootch
09-17-07, 04:08 PM Off the top of my head, I would say the first rule, about being knocked back, should have a note that this only functions from melee attacks and I would say a Reflex save is more appropriate.
You aren't 'resisting' the strain on your body, you are having to keep from being knocked back.
Talisman
09-17-07, 08:05 PM two rules we use to make our game more realistic.

It's been my experience that, if "making the game more realistic" is your only reason for having a rule, it's a bad rule. D&D isn't supposed to be realistic. It's supposed to be fun, and to present a highly abstract version of reality. In a game, fun always trumps realism.

That being said, your 1st rule looks decent to me, if a little harsh. I may borrow a modified version of that m'self.

I have nothing to say about Rule #2. Looks like a needless complication to me.
fatmonkey
09-17-07, 09:31 PM historical reason/Insperation source:
In the Dark ages of Europe a standard longbow in hands of a peasant could pierce a full-plate armor and killing the man in the armor. The core 3.5 system don't supports this, but this system does mostly.

It is often believed that the bow was a great anti-armor weapon but most experiments (all I have seen) that compare the penetrative power of Bows vs the strength of Plate Armor show that even at close range with the most powerful of bows has no chance to penetrate the armor. Crossbows on the other hand can be far more powerful. Bows can penetrate leather armor, and even some bronze armor but iron plate armor would render any bow useless... though even the best suit of plate has areas not protected by the plate.

Crossbows on the other hand can be far more powerful and unlike a bow, do not rely on the strength of their user, and are far simpler to aim and fire.
Llawgoch
09-19-07, 05:14 PM It is often believed that the bow was a great anti-armor weapon but most experiments (all I have seen) that compare the penetrative power of Bows vs the strength of Plate Armor show that even at close range with the most powerful of bows has no chance to penetrate the armor. Crossbows on the other hand can be far more powerful. Bows can penetrate leather armor, and even some bronze armor but iron plate armor would render any bow useless... though even the best suit of plate has areas not protected by the plate.

Actually, the English Long Bow was used to lethal effect against the French during the Hundred Years War (for example). At close range, the plate-wearing French knights were slaughtered. Later, the introduction of (I believe Italian) hardened steel plate provided warriors with good protection against bowfire, even within the 20-odd metre killing zone.
ragoftag
09-20-07, 12:26 AM The French knights were wearing a mixture of armors, not all were in plate. Accuracy with the Longbow was a very real factor and the bows were far more powerful than the toys used in school 'archery' classes, the closest most get to the subject. Having hunted with a real bow (not one of those pulley and cog gizmos), I thought I was fairly accurate until a one-time Olympic prospect showed several of us how to properly 'pull -aim - shoot' in a single action. I quickly registered bull's eyes at 50 yards and felt pretty good. He did better at 80 and with no warm up. Also gave us a quick lesson in the different heads and told us that a 'pile' (I think?), or armor piercing point, could easily punch through most early plate. I have since read that select archers could aim for chinks in the armor, and having watched him, I can believe it. They key is the spin put on the arrow by the fletching, stabilizing and increasing accuracy, but the fast improving plate allowed the spin to skid off the armor. The fat, short bolt was not in a tight spin and just hit, often with a head similar to a warhammer's, turning to maximize its anti armor duty.

The Longbow was only superficially like the bow used elsewhere in Europe, but before the crossbow ever had the chance to replace either, firearms appeared and brought lethality to the masses.
McPoyo
09-20-07, 12:06 PM Most plate armor was designed to deflect arrows head on.

I've seen demonstrations involving actually shooting replica plate that unless they hit a joint, or somehow nailed a perfectly flat shot (no deflection) at close range, the arrow would not penetrate the armor.

I've also seen plate shot at within 15 feet by both .45 acp and 9mm rounds. The .45, except in one case where it had indented enough to cause a flat spot, ricocheted off the armor with minor indentation (not enough to cause much, if any, push into the wearer), whereas the 9mm's smaller cross section penetrated the plate on the second shot at the same point.

However, the impact force was more than enough to push the plate pretty good, similar to how modern ballistics body armor works. While the armor may prevent penetration, the impact force is still there.

Not to mention, in a flurry of arrows, the chances of a deflection into a joint or other catch point that would cause enough injury to severely hamper the opponent, if not outright kill them, drastically increases, especially if not in full suit of plate. Most individuals did not wear a full suit-of-plate, and wore piecemeal armor tailored to provide protection at the most critical points (head and chest, primarily), with non suit-of-plate covering the limbs.

Trust me, a full suit-of-plate is a darned good protector.
FoxmanFX
09-24-07, 05:52 PM I see rule #1 as a way to try and bring "realism" to damage (as Talisman pointed out).

HP are a completely abstract system. There is very little resemblance between them and real life. I would recommend you look at the Wound/Vitality system from Starwars d20 - I find that it works slightly better as a "concept".

Also your rule number 1 would hurt PC's far worse than the monsters. A monster is on stage for only 5 rounds on average. That monster falls down another springs up in his place. Not so for a PC.

A PC going down *hurts* the players far out of proportion to a monster going down.

In my game a bard in the senario you described would have rolled with most of the blow, still be on his feat but brusied, maybe strained a muscle or two, and will feal it the next day.

Rule number #2
You are trying to apply realism again to the game - the game is *balanced* to work in a certian manner. Changing it to be more *real* is dangerous because it can completely throw out that balance. Your adjustments VASTLY overpower ranged weapons (IMHO at least).

Something to consider though. The longbow was something that a person had to train at, and a good bowman was HIGHLY trained. Its NOT a point and shoot weapon - you have to arc to your target.

The advantage of the crossbow was that it WAS a point and shoot weapon - you could arm masses of pesants with them and hold off large amounts of calvery.

And your talking about a period of time that was in the midst of an arms race. better weapons better armour - until guns came along and made them obsolte. Its hard to balance weapons and armour from early in the arms race against stuff that comes later in the arms race. Yet D&D tries to do that, providing a fun and intresting way to use ALL of it in one place.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lunchbox1000 09-17-07, 03:30 PM	I will just add some of my own house rules. I'd like some feedback. We are using them all i my group, we think they works to benefit of the game. I'm sorry if i make any big spelling mistakes... 1. rule: Con. rule. if a PC, NPC or any other creature receive dmg which beyond its Constitution score they immediately rolls a Fort save. The Fort DC is equal to the dmg taken. If the creature succeeds the save, no harm is done and the creature can proceed what ever is is doing (mostly combat) if the save fails: failing by 1-5 = the creature is knocked prone failing by 6-10 = the creature is knocked prone and stunned for 1 round failling by 11-15 = the creature is knocked prone and stunned for 2 rounds failling by more just add +1rnd/5 longer stun Duration we thougth it was ridiculous fx: the huge giant hit the lvl 8 Bard character which takes 34 points of dmg. the bard stand perfect because he still has remaining 4 hp. This system add a realistic reaction to massive dmg. Making a receiver of lots of dmg a noncombatant for a round or two. But not paralized which would make them too easy to kill by the hand of "coup de grace" --------------------------------------------------------------- 2. rule: weapons-----------range incresment----str. Dmg bonus----armor penalty hand crossbow------30 ft--------------------1-----------------2 light crossbow-------80 ft--------------------2-----------------4 heavy crossbow-----120 ft-------------------3-----------------6 great crossbow------120 ft-------------------4-----------------8 short bow-----------60 ft--------------------0------------------2 - composite---------70 ft--------------------1------------------3 long bow------------100 ft-------------------2------------------4 - composite---------110 ft-------------------3------------------5 great bow-----------120 ft-------------------4------------------6 - composite---------130 ft-------------------5------------------7 this formular shows some statistics regularing the bow/crossbow system. Str. Dmg bonus: - this means for crossbows an amount of dmg which is always added when rolling dmg. ex a medium heavy crossbow get a dmg = 1d10+3 - for bows this number work nearly the same way as composite bows does. but you get no penalty to you attack roll if you haven't got the maximum str bonus which you can use. Armor penalty: this amount is reduced from the targets AC. But it only reduces armor bonus or natural armor. AC gained from shields, Dex, deflection, and so on still counts. This armor penalty can't reduce Magical AC gained from a magic armor, spell or any other thing like that. If you fire a magical arrow, it has a magical armor piercing which can penetrate magical armor bonus. the magical armor penalty is equal to the bonus the magical arrow has (+1<>+5) historical reason/Insperation source: In the Dark ages of Europe a standard longbow in hands of a peasant could pierce a full-plate armor and killing the man in the armor. The core 3.5 system don't supports this, but this system does mostly. critics: some of you will think this system is making bows and crossbows touch weapons: I can not deny that thougth, and it is partly correct, but not totally right. ----------------------------------------------------------------- two rules we use to make our game more realistic.
TwiddleStootch 09-17-07, 04:08 PM	Off the top of my head, I would say the first rule, about being knocked back, should have a note that this only functions from melee attacks and I would say a Reflex save is more appropriate. You aren't 'resisting' the strain on your body, you are having to keep from being knocked back.
Talisman 09-17-07, 08:05 PM	two rules we use to make our game more realistic. It's been my experience that, if "making the game more realistic" is your only reason for having a rule, it's a bad rule. D&D isn't supposed to be realistic. It's supposed to be fun, and to present a highly abstract version of reality. In a game, fun always trumps realism. That being said, your 1st rule looks decent to me, if a little harsh. I may borrow a modified version of that m'self. I have nothing to say about Rule #2. Looks like a needless complication to me.
fatmonkey 09-17-07, 09:31 PM	historical reason/Insperation source: In the Dark ages of Europe a standard longbow in hands of a peasant could pierce a full-plate armor and killing the man in the armor. The core 3.5 system don't supports this, but this system does mostly. It is often believed that the bow was a great anti-armor weapon but most experiments (all I have seen) that compare the penetrative power of Bows vs the strength of Plate Armor show that even at close range with the most powerful of bows has no chance to penetrate the armor. Crossbows on the other hand can be far more powerful. Bows can penetrate leather armor, and even some bronze armor but iron plate armor would render any bow useless... though even the best suit of plate has areas not protected by the plate. Crossbows on the other hand can be far more powerful and unlike a bow, do not rely on the strength of their user, and are far simpler to aim and fire.
Llawgoch 09-19-07, 05:14 PM	It is often believed that the bow was a great anti-armor weapon but most experiments (all I have seen) that compare the penetrative power of Bows vs the strength of Plate Armor show that even at close range with the most powerful of bows has no chance to penetrate the armor. Crossbows on the other hand can be far more powerful. Bows can penetrate leather armor, and even some bronze armor but iron plate armor would render any bow useless... though even the best suit of plate has areas not protected by the plate. Actually, the English Long Bow was used to lethal effect against the French during the Hundred Years War (for example). At close range, the plate-wearing French knights were slaughtered. Later, the introduction of (I believe Italian) hardened steel plate provided warriors with good protection against bowfire, even within the 20-odd metre killing zone.
ragoftag 09-20-07, 12:26 AM	The French knights were wearing a mixture of armors, not all were in plate. Accuracy with the Longbow was a very real factor and the bows were far more powerful than the toys used in school 'archery' classes, the closest most get to the subject. Having hunted with a real bow (not one of those pulley and cog gizmos), I thought I was fairly accurate until a one-time Olympic prospect showed several of us how to properly 'pull -aim - shoot' in a single action. I quickly registered bull's eyes at 50 yards and felt pretty good. He did better at 80 and with no warm up. Also gave us a quick lesson in the different heads and told us that a 'pile' (I think?), or armor piercing point, could easily punch through most early plate. I have since read that select archers could aim for chinks in the armor, and having watched him, I can believe it. They key is the spin put on the arrow by the fletching, stabilizing and increasing accuracy, but the fast improving plate allowed the spin to skid off the armor. The fat, short bolt was not in a tight spin and just hit, often with a head similar to a warhammer's, turning to maximize its anti armor duty. The Longbow was only superficially like the bow used elsewhere in Europe, but before the crossbow ever had the chance to replace either, firearms appeared and brought lethality to the masses.
McPoyo 09-20-07, 12:06 PM	Most plate armor was designed to deflect arrows head on. I've seen demonstrations involving actually shooting replica plate that unless they hit a joint, or somehow nailed a perfectly flat shot (no deflection) at close range, the arrow would not penetrate the armor. I've also seen plate shot at within 15 feet by both .45 acp and 9mm rounds. The .45, except in one case where it had indented enough to cause a flat spot, ricocheted off the armor with minor indentation (not enough to cause much, if any, push into the wearer), whereas the 9mm's smaller cross section penetrated the plate on the second shot at the same point. However, the impact force was more than enough to push the plate pretty good, similar to how modern ballistics body armor works. While the armor may prevent penetration, the impact force is still there. Not to mention, in a flurry of arrows, the chances of a deflection into a joint or other catch point that would cause enough injury to severely hamper the opponent, if not outright kill them, drastically increases, especially if not in full suit of plate. Most individuals did not wear a full suit-of-plate, and wore piecemeal armor tailored to provide protection at the most critical points (head and chest, primarily), with non suit-of-plate covering the limbs. Trust me, a full suit-of-plate is a darned good protector.
FoxmanFX 09-24-07, 05:52 PM	I see rule #1 as a way to try and bring "realism" to damage (as Talisman pointed out). HP are a completely abstract system. There is very little resemblance between them and real life. I would recommend you look at the Wound/Vitality system from Starwars d20 - I find that it works slightly better as a "concept". Also your rule number 1 would hurt PC's far worse than the monsters. A monster is on stage for only 5 rounds on average. That monster falls down another springs up in his place. Not so for a PC. A PC going down hurts the players far out of proportion to a monster going down. In my game a bard in the senario you described would have rolled with most of the blow, still be on his feat but brusied, maybe strained a muscle or two, and will feal it the next day. Rule number #2 You are trying to apply realism again to the game - the game is balanced to work in a certian manner. Changing it to be more real is dangerous because it can completely throw out that balance. Your adjustments VASTLY overpower ranged weapons (IMHO at least). Something to consider though. The longbow was something that a person had to train at, and a good bowman was HIGHLY trained. Its NOT a point and shoot weapon - you have to arc to your target. The advantage of the crossbow was that it WAS a point and shoot weapon - you could arm masses of pesants with them and hold off large amounts of calvery. And your talking about a period of time that was in the midst of an arms race. better weapons better armour - until guns came along and made them obsolte. Its hard to balance weapons and armour from early in the arms race against stuff that comes later in the arms race. Yet D&D tries to do that, providing a fun and intresting way to use ALL of it in one place.