Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Chimaera2000 07-20-05, 12:10 AM	I've been working on a number of house rules for some time, and I was interested to see what the online community had to say about them. Take a look, if you'd like! Chimaera2000's House Rules Checklist Light House Rules ____ You don't have to be a spellcaster to use Craft (Alchemy) ____ Roll confirmation rolls for critical failures. ____ Mage blade, shadowknight, and shadowdancer are offered as new base classes. ____ Swashbuckler is changed from the Complete Warrior version. Medium House Rules ____ Fighter gains Knowledge (War) and gains armor and weapon abilities. ____ Short swords can do either slashing or piercing damage, like daggers. ____ Sorcerors gain Eschew Materials at 1st level as a bonus feat. ____ Sorcerors gain 4 + Int skills and Diplomacy and Intimidate as class skills. ____ Multiclassing penalties and favored classes are ignored. ____ The Decipher Script and Speak Language skills are combined into the Linguistics skill. ____ Natural Spell is turned into a metamagic feat. ____ Improved Critical stacks with keen effects. Radical House Rules ____ The modified Vitality/Wounds system is used ____ PC classes gain their level in HP per hour of rest. ____ Your caster level functions like your base attack bonus, making spells more powerful even when you multiclass. ____ Cleric and druid use the wizard's spells per day and spells known, plus they gain access to the Spell Mastery feat.. ____ The destruction, divine power, miracle, and polymorph spells are scaled back. ____ Humans, half-elves, and half-orcs gain the Adaptability trait, allowing them to use trained skills (like Knowledge and Tumble) as if they were untrained. Races 1) Humans, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs receive the "Adaptability" trait: any skills that would normally require training to use (such as Knowledge or Tumble) may be used untrained. In addition to receiving the Adaptability trait, half-orcs also receive a +2 racial bonus on Intimidate and Survival checks and weapon familiarity with the orc double axe. Classes 1) Multiclassing penalties and favored classes are ignored. 2) The cleric, druid, fighter, sorceror, and swashbuckler (from Complete Warrior) have been changed. Summary of changes are below: Cleric and Druid * Clerics and druids now use the wizard's chart to determine spells per day, though clerics still receive domain spell slots as normal. They also learn spells in the same manner as wizards, using scripture or ritual fetishes rather than spellbooks. Fighter * Fighters gain Knowledge (War) as a class skill. In addition, the "Special" column now reads as follows: Special 1st Bonus feat 2nd Weapon focus, armored efficiency 3rd Bonus feat 4th Weapon specialization 6th Armor focus 7th Bonus feat 8th Greater weapon focus 9th Bonus feat 10th Armor specialization 11th Bonus feat 12th Greater weapon specialization 13th Bonus feat 14th Greater armor focus 15th Bonus feat 16th Supreme weapon focus 17th Bonus feat 18th Greater armor specialization 19th Bonus feat 20th Supreme weapon specialization Bonus Feat (Ex): As the PHB class feature, but at every odd level. Weapon Focus (Ex): The fighter gains this as a bonus feat at 2nd level. Furthermore, he gains increased benefits with from this feat as he gains levels. At 8th level, the bonus to attack rolls provided by the Weapon Focus feat increases to +2 and reaches to +3 at 16th level. Armored Efficiency (Ex): At 2nd level, a fighter becomes more comfortable with the use of armor. As such, he reduces his total armor check penalty by one. Weapon Specialization (Ex): At 4th level, the fighter's skill with his chosen weapons increases. He adds a +2 bonus to damage rolls for all weapons for which he possesses the Weapon Focus feat. This bonus to damage rolls increases to +4 at 12th level and reaches +6 at 20th level. Armor Focus (Ex): At 6th level, the fighter gains this as a bonus feat (see below), reducing the armor check penalty and increasing the maximum Dexterity bonus by one for one armor type, such as chain mail. The armor check penalty reduction stacks with that provided by Armored Efficiency. At 14th level, the armor check penalty of that armor type is decreased further by one, and maximum Dexterity bonus is further increased by one. Armor Specialization (Ex): At 10th level, a fighter's skill with his chosen armor increases. He gains a +1 competence bonus to AC when wearing armor for which he possesses the Armor Focus feat. This bonus increases to +2 at 18th level. Sorceror * Sorcerors now receive 4 + Int modifier skill points per level, as well as receiving Diplomacy and Intimidate as class skill. They also gain Eschew Materials at 1st level as a bonus feat. Swashbuckler * Refer to the my signature for information on the revised swashbuckler. 3) The mage blade and shadowknight have been added as base classes. Refer to other links in my signature for exact descriptions of these classes. Skills 1) You do not need to be a spellcaster to use Craft (Alchemy) 2) The Decipher Script and Speak Language skills have been merged into the Linguistics skill; it is a class skill for classes who had either skill. LINGUISTICS (NONE; TRAINED ONLY) The Linguistics skill relates to the speaking, reading, and comprehension of language. It has several uses, as detailed below. Learn Language: This use of the Linguistics skill doesn’t work like other skills. Languages work as follows. You start at 1st level knowing one or two languages (based on your race), plus an additional number of languages equal to your starting Intelligence bonus. With every rank you gain in Linguistics, you choose a new language that you can speak. You don’t make Linguistics checks; you either know a language or you don’t. A literate character (anyone but a barbarian who has not spent skill points to become literate) can read and write any language she speaks. Each language has an alphabet, though sometimes several spoken languages share a single alphabet. Decipher Speech: You can make a Linguistics check to recognize and use basic phrases of a language that you do not understand, such as "hello," "goodbye," "thank you," "I am peaceful," or any other basic phrases that the DM allows. The DC to comprehend basic phrases is 15 for common languages, 25 for uncommon languages, and 30 or higher for rare or forgotten languages. Decipher Script: You can make a Linguistics check to decipher writing in an unfamiliar language or a message written in an incomplete or archaic form. The base DC is 20 for the simplest messages, 25 for standard texts, and 30 or higher for intricate, exotic, or very old writing. You cannot make checks to decipher script if your character is illiterate. If the check succeeds, you understand the general content of a piece of writing about one page long (or the equivalent). If the check fails, make a DC 5 Wisdom check to see if you avoid drawing a false conclusion about the text. (Success means that you do not draw a false conclusion; failure means that you do.) Both the Speak language check and (if necessary) the Wisdom check are made secretly, so that you can’t tell whether the conclusion you draw is true or false. Action: Deciphering the equivalent of a single page of script takes 1 minute (ten consecutive full-round actions). Other uses of Linguistics do not require an action. Try Again: No. Special: A character with the Diligent feat gets a +2 bonus on Speak Language checks to decipher scripts. Synergy: If you have 5 or more ranks in Linguistics, you get a +2 bonus on Use Magic Device checks involving scrolls. Feats 1) The Natural Spell and Spell Mastery feats have been changed as follows: Natural Spell [Metamagic] You can cast spells while in a wild shape. Prerequisites: Wild shape ability Benefit: A natural spell can be cast while in a wild shape. A natural spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level. Special: You can use any material components or focuses that you possess to cast a natural spell, even if such items are melded within your current form. Spell Mastery: [Special] Prerequisite: Wizard, cleric, or druid level 1st. Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier for a wizard, or your Wisdom modifier for a divine caster, that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook. Normal: Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to prepare all your spells, except read magic or spells that you can cast spontaneously. 2) Armor Focus has been added as a new feat. Armor Focus [General, Fighter] Your long familiarity with armor allows you to reduce the penalties of its use. Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected armor, fighter level 6th Benefits: Choose one type of armor, such as studded leather or breastplate. You reduce the armor check penalty and increase the maximum Dexterity bonus of that armor by one. 3) Improved Critical can stack with keen effects. Combat 1) When you roll a natural one on an attack roll, you roll a second confirmation roll to determine if it's a critical failure. 2) Short swords can do either slashing or piercing damage, like daggers. Magic & Spells 1) Your caster level now functions similarly to your base attack bonus for determining how effective your spells and other such effects. Under this variant, your caster level is determined to varying degrees by each of your classes, races, and templates, not just single spellcasting classes. In this way, it treats your caster level like your base attack bonus, using the same rating system of "good," "fair," and "poor." "Good" has a rating equal to your class level, "fair" has three-quarters your class level, and "poor" has one-half your class level, like the base attack bonuses of fighters, clerics, and wizards, respectively. Like base attack bonus, base caster level from different classes stack. "Good:" Bard, cleric, druid, wizard, sorceror. "Fair:" Paladin, ranger "Poor:" Barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, racial Hit Die or level adjustment*. *Note: Creatures with the racial ability to cast spells (such as the rakshasa) have a caster level of either half their ECL or that provided by their spellcasting ability, whichever is higher. Increases in caster level do not grant more spells per day or spells known, nor does it allow you to use wands and scrolls without making Use Magic Device checks unless you could do so already. 2) The following spells have been changed: destruction, divine power, miracle, and polymorph. These spells have been changed as follows: * Destruction (Clr 7) has been raised to an 8th-level spell. * Divine power (Clr 4) causes you to lose your spellcasting ability (including your ability to use items such as wands) while the spell is active, like the spell Tenser's transformation (Sor/Wiz 6) * Miracle (Clr 9) requires 5,000 XP to cast for all uses of the spell, like wish (Sor/Wiz 9). * Polymorph (Sor/Wiz 4) has been changed as follows: you no longer gain the physical ability scores of you new form; you lose the racial bonuses and penalties to physical ability scores of your old form, but gain the racial bonuses and penalties of the new one; you cannot gain more of a natural armor bonus than your caster level; and you retain the creature type of your old form and do not gain the creature type of your new one. Miscellaneous 1) (Tentative idea) For both a more heroic feel and to make parties without healers more viable, I've come up with a variant on the Star Wars Vitality/Wounds system instead of the HP system. This variant doesn't change many things from a mechanical perspective, but provides some good flavor reasons for how fantasy combat and recovery works. Here's a quick run-down of the system: - In addition to your HP, you have a number of Wound Points (WP) equal to your Constitution score. Damage is dealt to your HP like normal, though you do not become disabled at zero HP, dying at -1 to -9 HP, or dead at -10 HP. Instead, when any damage that would cause you to go beneath zero HP is instead applied to your Wound Points. When you reach zero WP, -1 to -9 WP, or -10 WP, you suffer the same effects as those previously for HP (disabled, dying, and dead). - When you take Wound Point damage, you are fatigued until you rest for eight hours or until all of your WP damage is healed. In addition, when you take WP damage, you must make a Fortitude save (DC 5 + WP damage taken in that round) or be stunned for 1d4 rounds. A character may spend a standard action to stop an adjacent character from being stunned in this manner. - You restore your level in HP with each hour of rest, while you restore one wound point per eight hours of rest, or two wound points for twenty-four hours of rest. Using the Heal skill for long-term care can double the rate of healing in both cases. Magical healing can be used to restore an amount of HPequal to the normal amount healed by the spell or to restore a number of wound points equal to the spell's level. For example, a 3rd-level cleric casting cure moderate wounds (a 2nd-level spell) can heal either 2d8+3 HP or two WP. Mass cure spells can be used to heal a number of WP equal to the amount restored by the base spell, while heal spells can restore double the spell's level in WP. Most monsters and NPC's receive both HP and WP as well. If a simpler variant is desired, you can say that PC classes restore their level in HP with every hour of rest, though it might strain realism (i.e. you go from mortally wounded to tip-top shape with a good night's rest). What do you think?
Board_Rider 07-20-05, 12:33 AM	Strangely this isn't too bad. The only thing that oddly disturbs me is the HP gains during rest. At mid levels the Cleric may become less and less needed. If it works for you than that is all that matters.
Reinforcements 07-20-05, 12:58 AM	I'm adverse to house-ruling as a general rule (heh), but I don't see anything untoward here. I like the variant fighter very much, and on a slightly unrelated note I love the mage-blade class. It's like a spellsword from level 1, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Dragonsblood 07-20-05, 01:05 AM	Too much. Waaay too much. DnD is carefully play tested for balance, and while not perfect, it's good for the most part. You're introducing alot of radical changes that could drastically affect monster encounters. This leads to encounters that are either a breeze or TPK. You have no guide to judge difficulty level in advance, where a normal DnD game has a clear formula. I just don't see the point.
Bloodtide_the_Red 07-20-05, 01:32 AM	Well, changing this much is realy going to cause Balance problems. The one that realy stands out is the whole Hp/Wounds. Lets see if I got this right. My first level wizard has 5 Hp(4+con of 12+1), plus 12 wound points(so that's basicaly 17hp). So this makes our wizard much stronger. And after thoes first five hits, the next 17 realy 'hurt' because they are fatigued and could get stunned. And on top of that, thoes 17 wound points are hard to heal. Our wizard with 12 wound points of damage needs six days of rest. And magical healing is almost useless..12 cure light wounds? 6 cure moderate wounds? Ect.... This would sure keep the players always fatigued. So they always can't charge and run and always have a -2 pentaly to Str and Dex. They would have to waste all their magic on always curing thoes wound points, on top of the HP too. Or rest for days and days....'Well we fought that goblin scout party...we go back to town and rest for a week so everyone gets thier wound points back.' BT
TheChilliGod 07-20-05, 01:50 AM	Wow. That is quite a lot of house rules you got there, I wonder what encouraged them... Actually, I can't talk. If I bothered counting up the house rules I make up on the spot to prevent any arguments, I'd have about the same amount. Anyway... -Adaptability: Hm, so wizards can pick locks, because they're human? Half-Orcs have knowledge of stuff? -Half-Orc benefits: Remind me to pick Half-Orc with an orc double axe at first level. I think you've got 'Barbarian' and 'Half-Orc' mixed up. Sure, barbarians are their favorite class (which you crossed out anyway...) but because they have those skills doesn't necessarily mean every orc knows about the wild. -No Multiclass Penalties: This does sort of balance off the benefits given to humans. However it allows for more munchkin'd characters, with more classes than Elminster, plus prestige classes to boot. I don't think it's much of a good idea, but I won't argue about it. -Cleric and Druid Nerfs: The spellbook-requirements doesn't really work out. Are you saying that Clerics and Druids, who usually get their divine spells through links with deities, have to study religious scriptures? The spells/day thing does make the cleric class a bit nerfed. Okay at earlier levels but later on, the cleric spells just won't match up to the wizard's elite firepower *Eep! Stop! No Arcane vs Divine stuff here!* -Fighter upgrade: That's it. My next character in your campaign is a Half-Orc Fighter with Orc Double Axe. And I will pwn all. You're giving the fighter here twice his normal feats, generally speaking. Too broken to be true. Not even WotC would be silly enough to do this. -Sorcerer Benefits: What? Eschew Materials? House rules usually make that feat obsolete anyway, except for exceptional circumstances. And sorcerers aren't supposed to be skill-heavy. They're supposed to be blowing things up with spells from hell. But, if the definition of Sorcerer in your campaign is different, then go ahead. But it does kind of shorten the gap between Bard and Sorcerer. -Non-core Classes: Your campaign, your rules with those. I don't have anything against them. -Craft (Alchemy): It does make sense, but one question- Do Divine spellcasters count? It's silly, I know. -Linguistics: Makes sense... Gives players more reason to use the skill, I suppose. -Metamagic Feats: Natural Spell's change isn't too much for players to complain about, that's fine. And I understand why you would change Spell Mastery. -Armor Focus: Eeerm... I don't know whether to pass it by or to rant... I'll pass it by for now... -Improved Critical: Yep, Half-Orc Fighter with Double Axe for me. By 8th level, I'll have a keen Double axe and be able to crit on at least every 5 times and using my fighter feats for Two-Weapon Fighting goodies, I'll be landing a crit nearly once a round! Adding the damage bonuses thanks to weapon specialization and attack bonuses from weapon focus, adding to the multitude of -'s to armor check penalties and the use of Tumble, I am bloody indestructible! -Critical Failures: I won't have an opinion until I know what a Critical Failure is. -Swords: Makes perfect sense. No complaints. -Caster Levels: Too complicated. I bet you'll have players how forget that rule and cast a spell with their paladin while forgetting the caster level rule. Also, if caster levels (in the original sense) don't determine spells/day, what does? The caster's level? What about prestige classes with the "+1 of spellcasting class" spells per day? -Spell changes: No problem with Destruction. (I'm not bothering to find if that change is justified or not anyway) I'm a little concerned about Divine Power, however. It just gives the caster a little... divine power. Nothing should be able to halt spellcasting ability. No problem with Miracle. Polymorph is needlessly adjusted. There's nothing about it, you're taking something about changing into a fake creature away, then giving something a fake creature shouldn't have to it. There's no logic behind it. -Hit point system: Already in Unearthed Arcana (page 116). No comment. Phew! I had to take a break in between, but there's my opinion on all of them. Overall I believe there are some house rules in there that are okay to include in a campaign (swords dealing piercing or Linguistics, for example) but the majority of those rules will draw munchkins like moths to light. And you might need to install an insect shocker, which the moths don't like. So you won't have any of the nice, happy moths to play with. (Moths=Players) Really, I would like to know what provoked you to make this many house rules in the first place, and why this shouldn't go into the House Rules board.
ragingmaro 07-20-05, 01:51 AM	I think thats just a little bit to much. If you want to change so much then maybe you should consider designing a new game.
WCH 07-20-05, 02:27 AM	While you're adding copious new abilities to classes, please add Knowledge (religion) to the class skills for Favoured Souls. Not that I'll ever be playing one in your campaign, of course (I don't even know you), but I feel for anyone who does. It seems like such an obvious skill to take, and yet you can't... :(
UltimateReality 07-20-05, 03:45 AM	Trying to encourage gish builds muchs? :P
SeidonVanDolf 07-20-05, 07:59 AM	Some of these I wouldn't even consider having in a game I'm running but on the other hand some of them I really like. Only a couple of them mind you but still it's worth a look. Nicely thought out either way so long as it works for you and you are ready for the munchkins to come on down and settle in. I'm a firm believer in "if it works for your game then cool". So if you and your players like the rules and are having fun with them then that is all that matters, I guess. It is a game and not everyone plays it the same way. :plotting: :lightbulb :ayyyy!:
Thoronmir 07-20-05, 09:59 AM	I have neither the time nor the inclination to rewrite the RAW. And I’ve played under enough different systems to know that once you start making wholesale changes, you’ve almost certainly disrupted balance … perhaps in ways you haven’t even considered yet. Therefore, my philosophy regarding house rules is that they should be used very sparingly and only to target specific problems in the RAW. I prefer to see house rules used as a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. For example, long ago, my players and I had grown frustrated with the vagaries of rolling a d-whatever for hit points. Having seen a few Fighters end up the same HP as the party Mages, we all agreed to try a new system. After experimenting with a various alternatives, we settled on a house rule that guaranteed that most classes would gain at least half their maximum number of HP per level, while preserving an element of randomness to the process. However, a few years ago, I decided to attempt a massive overall of 3.0 D&D for a new campaign set in my homebrew world. My players and I wanted a departure from several elements of RAW D&D … Alignment, the pervasiveness of magic, the dichotomy between Arcane and Divine magic, the direct influence of religion in game mechanics, etc. I labored for months trying to rework D&D into a set of rules that incorporated all the changes we sought. I labored in vain. Every change I made required many more revisions to retain balance within the game. Ultimately, we opted to use a different game system entirely for our world. We turned to Wheel of Time RPG rules and the campaigns run using those mechanics (with only a very few house rules) went very well. I am very reluctant to house-rule anything that is race or class-specific. I don’t feel that the Core races or classes need any adjustments. I’m more likely to tinker with a rule that applies equally to all. For example, via house rule, we require training to progress in level in our campaigns. No one can claim that they feel “singled out” by such a rule. I suppose I’ve spent too much time reading and writing about the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution … I seem to have incorporated the “Strict Scrutiny” test for any class-based legislation. When evaluating any house rule that only affects certain characters, I expect to find both a “compelling need” for the rule and that the rule is “narrowly tailored” to address that need. Many of the OP’s proposed rules seem arbitrary in that I don’t see any pressing need for the changes. For example, he augments Fighters but he dilutes the importance of Clerics. If his particular group of players prefers to play a lot of Fighters and no one wants to play a Cleric, then his rules make more sense. But tailoring rules to satisfy a few specific players is quite different from proposing “general” revisions to the game. If these rules were designed to appeal to his players, then I’m sure they’ll be pleased with the results. But I would be hesitant to join a game that needed so many custom rules.
celtredleg 07-20-05, 10:51 AM	I try to not use house rules at all anymore. When I was younger, I did a LOT of them. IME it is best to introduce them one at a time, and get several session behind you before the next one. That way your players get a chance to get used to them. Also it give them a chance to exploit any loopholes you have left. And players always find loopholes, and they are always there.
Feriin 07-20-05, 11:11 AM	Why are so many of you saying game balance will be thrown out of whack? Granted I am not truely familuar with the wounds system, but I see nothing here that is game breaking. Here is a varient we use for critical hits. After crit is comfirmed , roll die again at the attack bonus you have for the attack that critted. If you get Armor Class + 5 then you score another crit , roll again this time if you score Armor Class + 10 then you score another Crit, roll agian this time if you score Armor Class + 15 then you score another crit, ECT... what this means is if you have a greatsword ( 2 x damage on a crit) and score 4 crits you would do 5 x the damage rolled. Has it screwwed me over a few times , yes but it is also fun to do an insane amount of dmg too.
rbrt_Spade 07-20-05, 11:18 AM	i just use raw!-none of this house rule things!-does every dm have to make house rules?
Feriin 07-20-05, 11:34 AM	i just use raw!-none of this house rule things!-does every dm have to make house rules? You answered your own question. House rules just reflect the DM and the Players in how they like thier game. It adds to it more than anything else IMO. I feel that if you do not use house rules you are not playing the game in the spirit it is meant to be played..
rbrt_Spade 07-20-05, 11:36 AM	thanks for pointing that out, i never thought that out! :)
babysamurai 07-20-05, 11:43 AM	I feel that if you do not use house rules you are not playing the game in the spirit it is meant to be played.. Quite the opposite, if you're using house rules, you're playing the game in the spirit in which you think it should be played. As long as your having fun, that's the spirit of the rules.
olshanski_home 07-20-05, 11:51 AM	Additional rules are never a supplement for imagination and good roleplaying. If you want to run a game that is more like analyzing spreadsheets, then go ahead and add additional rules. It is my opinion that there are already so many rules that combat takes for ever. That is one of my main gripes about the plethora of supplements, complete series, races of X, terrain books, etc... that these just add more and more feats and classes... without improving the overall game, and in fact the additional rules make it a steeper learning curve to get into the game. But to your specific rules: I see you have qualifications for when critical failurs occur, but not what a critical failure is. Your nerf to polymorph is hardly a nerf. (if that is what is intended). I am not aware of many cases in which natural armor would exceed caster level, unless you consider "Alter Self" and troglodyte. In any case, it is hardly game breaking and I don't see the change as necessary. As long as you are giving sorcerer Eschew Materials for free... I'd limit the feat to ONLY working for sorcerer spells... any additional cleric or wizard levels would still require the focus. Your rules to account for caster level seem fairly complex, I know that some supplemental books have already tried to address the shortcoming with various feats.. this is very important for caster level checks to overcome spell resistance. I also have house-ruled a system that is about 100 times simpler than your system.
astute1 07-20-05, 11:57 AM	I don't see too much here that will disrupt game balance. Some issues: 1. Giving humans the adaptability trait makes them a lot better than many other races. I don't forsee any major problems with giving it to half-elves, or half-orces. Overall, though, I think that the trait is poorly reasoned. I think that you should change it around a bit. 2. Diminishing the power of divine classes probably won't hurt them too much. You may have gone a bit overboard (I would never want to play a cleric with the number of spells of a wizard.) 3. That fighter... woah. Way overpowered. Way, way, overpowered. You need to pull out some bonus feats or something. 4. The vitality/wounds system... sucks. We used it in a campaign I played in recently. We found it to be a major pain and ended up dropping it after a few sessions. I would suggest you not use it. 5. The rest seems OK. I usually worry about tampering with the rules too much, but you seem to have tried to balance everything pretty well (except the fighter - what were you thinking!)
Chimaera2000 07-20-05, 10:46 PM	"But wait! There's more!" ____ Use Rope is removed as a skill and Deft Hands (+2 bonus on Sleight of Hand and Use Rope) is removed as a feat. The Thievish feat (+2 bonus on Appraise and Sleight of Hand) is added instead. * Use Rope is removed as a skill. Its uses are covered in the following ways: (From the 3.5 SRD) Use Rope DC Task 10 Tie a firm knot 10* Secure a grappling hook 15 Tie a special knot, such as one that slips, slides slowly, or loosens with a tug 15 Tie a rope around yourself one-handed 15 Splice two ropes together Varies Bind a character *Add 2 to the DC for every 10 feet the hook is thrown; see below. Tie a firm knot, tie a special knot, or tie a rope around yourself one-handed: Use Dexterity checks to resolve each of these uses, assuming rolling for them is required at all. Secure a grappling hook: This use can now be covered by the Climb skill. Bind a character: This can be covered with a Dexterity check that adds a +15 bonus when using normal rope or a +20 bonus when using silk rope. This means, on an average roll of ten, a character with 10 Dexterity can tie up a character with an Escape Artist DC five lower than you would have by using equivalent manacles. * The Deft Hands feat (+2 to Sleight of Hand and Use Rope) is removed. Instead, add the following feat: THIEVISH You have an eye for valuables and the hands to take them. Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on Appraise and Sleight of Hand checks. It's something I came up with more or less off the top of my head, and I doubt that we'd actually use it in our game, but I think it might bear some looking at all the same. Comments? I've also categorized the house rules in my original post to better organize things.
UltimateReality 07-20-05, 10:58 PM	Chimaera2000, I take back my earlier post. I have one question for you: why are you making these changes? It seems to me personally, that you're fixing a lot of things that IME are fine...are you running into problems somewhere? Are you wanting to change the flavour of some things drasticly? Are you wanting to encourage some choices and discourage others (and if so, why)? I would feel more able to comment on the changes if I knew why they were being made.
TheChilliGod 07-20-05, 11:16 PM	With the recent "Changes" to skills, I feel inclined to respond again. First of all, can you please respond to our questions and comments. If you aren't taking any of what we're saying in, there is no need to continue posting. I'm not saying you aren't taking it in, but you certainly ain't showing any sign of it. Secondly, Why get rid of Use Rope? It means that making opposed Escape Artist and Use Rope skills will just be Escape Artist vs Dexterity checks. Using a rope IRL is an actual skill that people can learn in order to get better at it, which is why it's a skill. You've just made it so nobody can actually learn to tie a knot, that it all depends on how nimble their fingers are. Thirdly, the Thievery feat, you'll need to nerf the feat Diligent as well. I think it's one of D&D's things about the rules that feats which grant +2 on two skills don't have the same skill for two feats, or it could get nasty with more... more people who will take advantage of these rules. Whats more, many thieves don't know the value of stuff they steal. They usually go to other expert-type classes to get them appraised and sold. It's a useless change. Finally, please respond to our questions and comments. I wanna feel like I'm not talking to a stone wall.
imperialjunkie 07-20-05, 11:21 PM	I didn't read the whole list of house rules. But in the Light/Medium/Radical lists what stuck out to me was the variant hp rules. Vitality/Wound Points is an interesting system that I think simulates the concept of battle: hit points don't represent the amount of damage that can be taken, but the amount of damage that can be avoided due to experience. Once a land really hits, there's a good chance the character might die. The classic hp system seems convoluted to me, i.e. that an individual could take repeated serious weapon blows and still survive. That said, the Vitality/Wound variant is best for a low-magic world where healing is a little harder to come by. Add your very high rest recovery rate and you pretty much have nerfed the cleric without even touching that class. It doesn't appear that your campaign is low-magic based on some of your other house rules, so you might want to rethink this. It could easily make the PCs over-powered. Reason: they could continue fighting on and on without the serious need to rest or recover. Of course that may be the desired intent. It's just not the intent of the game.
IceFractal 07-21-05, 04:21 AM	Here's my thoughts on the subject. I used coloring instead of quotes because quotes take up more space, and I wanted to respond line by line. You don't have to be a spellcaster to use Craft (Alchemy) I already use that one, why not let the non-mage expert chemist make stuff? Roll confirmation rolls for critical failures. I don't know what critical failure system you use, so I can't comment. I will say that most critical failure systems penalize expert characters more than novice ones. Mage blade, shadowknight, and shadowdancer are offered as new base classes. Swashbuckler is changed from the Complete Warrior version. Sure, why not? Fighter gains Knowledge (War) and gains armor and weapon abilities. Some pretty sweet abilities there. They're a pretty big powerup, but since the Fighter is currently somewhat weak, they might be ok, you'll need to playtest it to see. Short swords can do either slashing or piercing damage, like daggers. Sounds fine. Sorcerors gain Eschew Materials at 1st level as a bonus feat. Sorcerors gain 4 + Int skills and Diplomacy and Intimidate as class skills. Makes sense, and lets Sorcerers learn something besides Knowledge(arcana), Spellcraft, and Concentration. Multiclassing penalties and favored classes are ignored. IMC as well. The Decipher Script and Speak Language skills are combined into the Linguistics skill. Works for me. Natural Spell is turned into a metamagic feat. Definitely a good idea. The current version is rather outrageously broken, and this pulls it much more into line. There should also be a "Sudden" version, usable 3/day like Sudden Still and Sudden Silent. Improved Critical stacks with keen effects. Some people may say this is overpowered, but I've seen an analysis, and this stacking is necessary for crit based fighters to be at all comparable with damage based fighters. Even with this, they have to spend more feats for the same result and are weak against undead/constructs/plants. The modified Vitality/Wounds system is used PC classes gain their level in HP per hour of rest. The vitality system is interesting - PCs will be a bit more likely to survive, but if they get significantly hurt they'll be feeling it. The faster healing rate should work well with the lower spells/day for Clerics - without needing to spend so much capacity on healing they'll be able to focus on other spells if they want. Your caster level functions like your base attack bonus, making spells more powerful even when you multiclass. Interesting, you'll have to see how this works in practice. WotC actually seems to be heading this direction with the Mystic Theurge and Practiced Spellcaster. Cleric and druid use the wizard's spells per day and spells known, plus they gain access to the Spell Mastery feat. A good step to bring them in line with the Wizard from their peak of excessive power. I think the limited spell list vs better combat ability is a good trade-off. IMO, Clerics should have their domain spells count as "mastered" (as if with Spell Mastery), as that would emphasize their particular type. The destruction, divine power, miracle, and polymorph spells are scaled back. Seems fine, although perhaps now Divine Power should grant slightly better bonuses. With polymorph, how is getting the racial modifiers different than getting the stats? Most monsters are built with either the 10,10,10,11,11,11 array or the 8,10,12,13,14,15 array at best, so this may actually be slightly stronger. As for the armor bonus, probably people will simply avoid highly-armored forms in favor of ones that are stronger in other ways. As for the type, I'm split on this - personally I'd say you gain the physical characteristics of the type but not the mental ones, so you would still be subject to "Charm Person", but you might become immune to critical hits. Humans, half-elves, and half-orcs gain the Adaptability trait, allowing them to use trained skills (like Knowledge and Tumble) as if they were untrained. There's a feat that does this - Jack of all Trades, so you could grant that as a bonus feat. Half-Elves and Half-Orcs really need this, Humans are already pretty good, but this isn't too powerful and makes sense logically.
Cantankerous 07-21-05, 05:32 AM	The one thing I've seen right off the bat is that by so drasticly upgunning the Sorcerer, you've nerfed the Wizard into uselessness. Was that your intent? Isshia
Dragonchild 07-21-05, 10:19 AM	My only comment re: the initial post is that it's WAY too much to review. I wouldn't be scared from joining the campaign per se, but as a casual poster on these boards, I don't have the spare time to read so much. As for house rules and game balance, you guys are missing the point. House rules don't "upset" game balance or necessarily fix what's broken. Changing game balance is the entire purpose of house rules. For example, D&D is inherently weighted towards offense; at higher levels, AC just doesn't keep up with absurdly high attack bonuses fighters can rack up. I prefer a more defensive game, so I invented new types of armor and feats to weigh game balance back towards defense. I didn't "fix" any "broken" rules or "upset" anything. The sky didn't fall. Armor just suddenly became a lot more important, and hits weren't automatic at 20th level anymore. And the Game Operations Director (G.O.D.) saw that it was good. Futhermore, historically, many of my house rules indeed made it into later editions of games. I wasn't on any d20 design/playtesting teams and won't claim to be a genius; it's just that most experienced gamers tend to pick up on the same flaws. A friend of mine nerfed the heal spell in 3rd Ed. Guess what? It's nerfed in 3.5. So, I ask the purists, was my friend really nuts to nerf heal via house rule before 3.5 made it official? I speak for myself, but the rules are secondary to the fun. If I want to shape my campaign a certain way, hopefully for the better, I make house rules. I run the rules, not the other way around.
MoogleEmpMog 07-21-05, 10:39 AM	Looks very good to me! :) I'd enjoy playing d20 with those rules much more than the existing D&D core rules.
Chimaera2000 07-22-05, 08:39 PM	Thanks for all the replies, and sorry for not responding earlier. I've been reading through and considering everything that's been said, and it's good to see that these house rules have received both positive and negative feedback. It looks like there's a whole lot of replying to do, and I might as well finish up as much as I can in one post. Here goes! First and foremost, I've two reasons for coming up with these house rules. The first one was theoretical; there are some things that I think are flaws in the D & D system that I wanted to correct, such as parties without magical healing not being viable or the fact that multiclass casters are hurt so badly under the core rules before the enter a PrC. It's a point of interest for me. As well, I'm doing it for the reason that drives (most) any DM: to help their players have fun. Though olshanski_home is correct in that imagination and good roleplaying are indeed more important that mechanics, good mechanics often enable imagination and good roleplaying, especially for newer players. Of course, I do realize that I've come up with an awful lot of house rules. My players feel the same way as well (we're in the "off-season" right now for D & D), and I've no desire to push a "balanced" house rule into a game if it would reduce the amount of fun that the group has. As a result, many of these house rules are simply going to remain theoretical for me. Since some of these might wind up in my game, however, I was interested in getting some feedback. It's also for the reason that several of these rules would end up in our game that I posted this on this forum rather than the house rules forum. From what I've seen and posted on there, many of the rules remain primarily theoretical; though some of my house rules will probably remain that way as well, several of these will end up in my game. As such, I thought I'd consult with my fellow DM's to see if we could guess at what the effects might be (hope that answers your question, TheChilliGod I'll go through my reasons for each house rule to help clarify things, then I'll try answer any questions afterwards that remain. Be warned; there's a lot of house rules, so there's going to be a lot of explaining to do..... You don't have to be a spellcaster to use Craft (Alchemy) This house rule was made because it seemed somewhat silly otherwise; one of the purposes of alchemical items is precisely to have interesting items that don't need magic to be made, whether divine or arcane (nods to TheChilliGod again). Besides, I've always liked the idea of the mundane apothecary or sage. ____ Roll confirmation rolls for critical failures. In many games, a natural one is considered a critical failure on an attack roll. In our campaign, we simply make it like threatening a critical hit in reverse. A natural one is an automatic miss, then you roll a second confirmation roll. If the confirmation roll wouldn't hit your opponent's AC, then it's a critical failure, which means you drop your sword, draw an AoO or the like. It allows critical failures to be used without unduly hurting high-level characters. ____ Mage blade, shadowknight, and shadowdancer are offered as new base classes. Pretty self-explanatory; I wanted to have a class that filled some essential archetypes (the arcane warrior and the dark knight, respectively), plus one player's concept was built around a shadowdancer with more physical abilities and less summoning and illusions, so we went and statted it out as a base class. ____ Swashbuckler is changed from the Complete Warrior version. I did this because the swashbuckler seemed underpowered, not really worth taking beyond level three, and didn't even have much of a swashbuckler feel (good Fort save and bad Reflex?!?). ____ Fighter gains Knowledge (War) and gains armor and weapon abilities. This variant was based on the alternate fighter originally posted by fractal on the "Classes and Prestige Classes" forum. For what I was thinking while I made it (winks at astute1), I've been doing a lot of research on the message boards and taking a look at the class itself. In my mind, the fighter seems underpowered, mechanically flawed (they get nothing for nine out of twenty levels; think about it!), they have troubles fulfilling the officer archetype (no Knowledge (War)), and they don't really have any distinguishing class features (several classes gain bonus feats). This fix is a power-up, no doubt about it, and it was made with the assumption that the PHB fighter is underpowered beyond the earliest levels. It's got a lot of positve reviews amongst my gaming groups, playtesting hasn't shown it to be overpowered, and if nothing else it's a lot cooler to be seeing new things every level instead of "bonus feat, nothing, bonus feat, nothing....." ____ Short swords can do either slashing or piercing damage, like daggers. Made sense to me and my gaming group. ____ Sorcerors gain Eschew Materials at 1st level as a bonus feat. ____ Sorcerors gain 4 + Int skills and Diplomacy and Intimidate as class skills. Basically, I compared the wizard and the sorceror like so: Wizard Sorceror More spells known More spells per day Faster spell advancement Spontaneous casting Less use out of metamagic Can't use Quicken spell and metamagic is a full-round action Better casting stat (more skill points) Um..... Scribe Scroll at 1st level Yeah.... Four bonus feats Right. As such, I gave them those changes to even things out, not to overpower the sorceror. Hope that answers your question, Cantankerous. ____ Multiclassing penalties and favored classes are ignored. In my mind, all that multiclassing really does is restrict player creativity and enforce racial stereotypes. In response to the worry of "munchkins and level-dipping" consider this: under the core rules, you can be a rogue 1 (at 1st level, of course)/fighter 2/monk 2/paladin 2/ranger 2 and have the level-dipping munchkin suffer no penalties, whereas your halfling ranger/druid is getting hit. Besides, even if you want to do that sorcer 18/paladin 2, the munchkin playing a human can and will do it; on the other hand, the roleplaying half-orc paladin/cleric gets hit. :bored: ____ The Decipher Script and Speak Language skills are combined into the Linguistics skill. I did this because I honestly have never seen a single Decipher Script check made in any game that I've played or DM'ed. It seems to me that it's like 3.0 skills like Innuendo or Intuit Direction; it might make sense that they're skills, but if they're of so limited use..... (shrugs) ____ Use Rope is removed as a skill and Deft Hands (+2 bonus on Sleight of Hand and Use Rope) is removed as a feat. The Thievish feat (+2 bonus on Appraise and Sleight of Hand) is added instead. For the same reasons, although I didn't realize that Diligent added to Appraise (thanks, TheChilliGod). ____ Natural Spell is turned into a metamagic feat. This one was done for balance reasons; who really wants to see druids outfighting fighters while still having full spell capacity? ____ Improved Critical stacks with keen effects. With the nerfing of the vorpal weapon, I didn't see why these things couldn't stack; one is a property of the person, the other the property of the weapon. It makes sense flavor-wise that they can stack, and if IceFractal is correct, it makes sense mechanics-wise that they do as well.. ____ The modified Vitality/Wounds system is used ____ PC classes gain their level in HP per hour of rest. These systems were designed to make parties without healers viable. After all, the whole premise of 3rd edition is "options, options, options;" why, then, is the game built under the assumption that parties must have magical healing to be effective? The vitality/wounds system in particular made sense to me because it provides a rationale for why you can heal quickly through rest but can still be wounded. In response to Bloodtide_the_Red, consider that the comparison is based only the PC's at 1st level; the 1st-level wizard in the example provided is even benefitting because he's more likely to survive to 2nd-level! As for wounds being difficult to heal, that's the point of the rule. I'm open to revisions, but I found the Unearthed Arcana variant made it too easy to heal wounds. ____ Your caster level functions like your base attack bonus, making spells more powerful even when you multiclass. A fix for multiclass and monstrous casters that doesn't require you to take a non-core feat (Practiced Spellcaster) to be effective. I think the game would've benefitted if this was how the system was run initially. In response to TheChilliGod again, your level in the appropriate spellcasting classes determines spells per day, whereas your base caster level from all of your classes determines the power of your spells. ____ Cleric and druid use the wizard's spells per day and spells known, plus they gain access to the Spell Mastery feat. ____ The destruction, divine power, miracle, and polymorph spells are scaled back. My research and experiences in-game seem to point out that the sorceror and fighter seem to be the weakest classes, while the cleric and druid are the strongest. I scaled this back in order to rebalance things (at least theoretically), plus this makes sense if my Vitality/Wounds system was used. In response to the comments about polymorph, the changes were mainly made to prevent the cheese of druids maxing out their mental stats and completely ignoring their physical ones by relying on wild shape. With my changes to Natural Spell, this change may not be necessary, though we'll have to see. ____ Humans, half-elves, and half-orcs gain the Adaptability trait, allowing them to use trained skills (like Knowledge and Tumble) as if they were untrained. As you guessed it, IceFractal, this ability is based off of Jack of All Trades. It was done to compensate humans and half-elves for their "loss" of their "favored class: any" ability, plus it provides a much-needed boost to half-elves and half-orcs. Since I agree with IceFractal that humans are already good and don't really need the ability, I'd probably revise the flavor to something like "half-elves and half-orcs, though not as versatile as humans, still show some of that race's adaptability." Whew, time for a breather for me and everyone else, I think. Thanks to everyone who's commented so far, and I commend everyone who's had the patience to see this thing through. Thanks a lot; your comments are a big help and are very much appreciated.
UltimateReality 07-22-05, 08:47 PM	And lo, the OP did return upon that day, to bequeath unto the masses his Answers To Their Questions. And the people rejoiced. :) It was done to compensate humans and half-elves for their "loss" of their "favored class: any" abilityFWIW, I believe the general feeling is that humans are already compensated by that extra feat at first, and the extra skill point per level...at least that's the way my group feels, and I recall a thread awhile back with the same consensus. YMMV. Thanks to everyone who's commented so farthanks for coming back to answer our questions. :)
Chimaera2000 07-22-05, 08:57 PM	(laughs, then blushes) Well, it's nice to see that my words have had some effect, at least. :)
TheChilliGod 07-22-05, 09:11 PM	I also would like to thank you for taking the time to reply and answer our questions. I do indeed rejoice. I'd just like to point out a few things you missed with the Wizards/Sorcerers comparison. Sorcerers get more weapon proficiencies, and they don't depend on spellbooks. But wizards get specialization options. That's all, though. No further comment.
olshanski_home 07-22-05, 11:36 PM	____ Roll confirmation rolls for critical failures. In many games, a natural one is considered a critical failure on an attack roll. In our campaign, we simply make it like threatening a critical hit in reverse. A natural one is an automatic miss, then you roll a second confirmation roll. If the confirmation roll wouldn't hit your opponent's AC, then it's a critical failure, which means you drop your sword, draw an AoO or the like. It allows critical failures to be used without unduly hurting high-level characters.Lets start with the basics: A person who gets one attack in a round, like a 3rd level fighter, isn't actually swinging thier sword only a single time in six seconds... this represents a lot of back-and-forth activity, but the 3rd level fighter only finds 1 opportunity to land a telling blow in six seconds... The 11th level fighter gets 3 attacks in a round... this is not because they are swinging thier weapon 3 times as fast, it is because their skill grants them 3 chances to land a telling blow in a single round. This explanation can be found in the players handbook. If you disagree with this, speak up, because that is the baseline assumption I am working from before I apply irrefutable mathematics. Now lets take your strategy of critical failure... you say that on a roll of a natural 1, a second roll to "confirm" the critical hit must be made... Lets assume for the sake of argument that you have a 3rd level fighter with a 16 strength and weapon focus using a masterwork longsword. His attack bonus is +8... (3 BAB, +1 Masterwork, +3 Strength, +1 Focus). Lets compare this fighter to an 11th level fighter with the same attributes, the same weapon, he bumped his strength at levels 4 and 8, and he supplemented his feats with greater weapon focus (longsword). His attack bonus then is +18/+13/+8. (11 BAB, +1 masterwork, +4 Strength, +2 greater focus) If these fighters are in combat with an army of Orcs wearing full plate and heavy shield (AC21), and Dex 12, this is how often critical failures occur: 3rd level fighter: a 5% chance per round of fumble threat, and a 60% chance that the fumble will be confirmed (rolling 12 or less on the confirmation roll), this breaks down to a first level fighter dropping his sword about 1 time every 33.33 rounds. The experienced 11th level fighter, using the same sword, and with weapon focus, has in one full attack a 5% chance of fumble threats on his first attack with a 10% chance to confirm, a 5% chance of a fumble threat on his second attack with a 35% chance to confirm, and a 5% chance of a fumble threat on his final attack with a 60% chance to confirm. This breaks down to an 11th level fighter dropping his sword about 1 time every 19.04 rounds. The 11th level fighter is 50% more likely to drop his weapon than a 1st level fighter, even when engaged against the same opponents. If you up the ante a bit, and compare a 5th level fighter to a 16th level fighter, it gets worse... the 16th level fighter is twice as likely to drop his sword as the 5th level fighter in the same amount of time against the same opponents. Personally, I have a problem with any rule that says an experienced fighter drops his weapon twice as often as a fighter more than 10 levels lower. If you want to salvage your rule but keep critical fumbles, then the only fair thing to do is to say that only the first iterative attack can have a possibility of a critical fumble... otherwise, you get into the quagmire of the skilled fighter being more likely to screw up.
Cantankerous 07-23-05, 02:22 PM	I see then that you put almost no value on spontanaity. Equating it to advancing to a new spell level one level faster is like equating mass murder to jay walking as crimes. Half again as many spells per day could be equated to the versatility of the Wizard, but another part of that that you leave out is that the Sorcerer ONLY knows spells that he feels are important to him. The Wizard has spells that he knows he'll only use in certain very specific situations and doesn't mind that. Take a Wizards spell book away from him and he's a really poor excuse for a Fighter with no useful combat Feats and bad stats. Take a Sorcerers "spell book" away from him and it means that he'll have to hide his Penthouse mag in a different book. "We don't need no stinking badges.... errr, books" I would also guess that you don't use social skills much at all in your games? With the exception of the Wizard in our present campaign, in the last four campaigns, so roughly twenty other player characters, AND not counting those who were Sorcerers, Charisma was the dump stat for exactly ZERO of them. I imagine Bards are also disliked in your games? It's your game. Of course, do as you and your players deem best. I wasn't trying to be hyper-critical, it's just that the Sorcerer seems so over powered to begin with that I couldn't imagine adding more power to them. Giving them the Eschew Materials Feat free at 1st level seemed like over kill. It's so wildly useful. With it and spontaneous casting you have a massive powerhouse. The PC is literally never at a disadvantage. The Spell Mastery Feat is a biggie in our games. Being able to just cast without a spell book, never mind the extra added umph of spontaneity, is just soooo bloody huge. Anyway though, your comment about the Charisma attribute being less useful as it's Intelligence that determines extra skill points per level me thinking about a discussion I've been haing with my own group and a fix we have in mind for the next campaign. I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but as a brain teaser we have the following thought up. ------------------------------------------------------------ For the next campaign we do, the manner in which we are going to attempt to get around the Intelligence for skills problem is a bit different. We've going to have a stat/skill tree implemented which will make each stat (other than Constitution) important when buying skills from that stat tree. So, Fighter(plus Ranger and Paladin)/Rogue types will pay little for Strength or Dexterity related skills, more for Wisdom or Intelligence related skills and a standard amount for Charisma related skills. Clerical(and Druid)/Wizard types will pay less for Intelligence and Wisdom related skills, more for Strength or Dexterity related skills and a standard amount for Charisma related skills. For Monks, they will pay a standard amount for ANY skill type except ONE which they designate (or that corresponds to their order perhaps) , while Sorcerers will pay less for Charisma one other chosen stat related skill at their choice, more for the corresponding least important two and a standard amount for any single stat dependant type. Bards will have Charisma and Dexterity as important, and their choice of TWO as standard and one as unimportant, as befits their jack of all trades style. So, the Sorcerer here could have Charisma and Intelligence chosen and be more cerebral or Charisma and Dexterity(or Strength) chosen and be more physical or Charisma and Wisdom chosen and be more spiritual. Each individual class would have a given number of skill points per level. I'm in the process of firming some of this up and will post it at some point for whoever is interested. Isshia
Chimaera2000 07-27-05, 08:23 PM	olshanski_home, thanks for both the analysis and the suggestion. I'll definitely keep it in mind, and the rationale used for your idea of only being able to fumble on the first attack does make sense. I'll run the idea by my group. In response to Cantankerous, I'm actually surprised at how different our opinions of the sorceror are. I never really placed a lot of value on Eschew Materials or being able to cast without a spellbook; they can be valuable in certain situations, but I find that they don't tend to come up as an issue in a typical campaign. I included Eschew Materials more for flavor than anything else, the class skills to match mechanics with flavor (they're mentioned as being "party faces" yet only have Bluff), and the skill points to make up for the wizards gaining four bonus feats. I do place value on spontaneity, but I do think that it's balanced by the wizard's faster spell advancement. Jumps in spell power tend to be exponential; there's a huge difference between magic missile and scorching ray, just like there's a huge difference between scorching ray and lightning bolt. Being able to cast ascend the next plateau of power one step earlier makes a big difference. In other news, I came up with some other ideas for removing Use Rope. Keeping TheChilliGod's observation about Use Rope as a real-life skill in mind, I thought that shifting it into another skill might be in order. The skills that I thought might be appropriate would be Survival (boy scouts, anyone? :P ) or Sleight of Hand (general expertise with your hands). I'm currently leaning towards the former at the moment, though it would bring up the issue of why the rogue wouldn't have it as a class skill.
olshanski_home 07-27-05, 09:09 PM	If you absolutely must do away with "Use Rope", this is what I suggest: "Tie a firm knot" (IE, to hold yourself or a companion in place) = free... anyone does it automatic success... really, how lame is it for someone to tie a knot incorrectly? Has any DM actually used the skill this way? Throw a grappling hook = "Climbing" skill... since experienced climbers use ropes, and throwing a grappling hook goes hand in hand with climbing the rope. Tie up someone = Survival or Profession [sailor] or Sleight of Hand... user's choice. Survival represents tying up animals, constructing shelters, hanging tarps, etc... thus a fair amount of firm knot-tying is appropriate. Sailors traditionally need to know how to tie a variety of firm knots for the sails and whatnot. Sleight of hand represents the roguish/bondage knot tying... all would be applicable for tying up a prisoner. All of the above would be opposed by Escape Artist. Tie a specialized knot (slipknot, etc)... again, this is user's choice of any of the 3 skills above.
Vaelan 07-28-05, 03:41 AM	The VP/WP system can get pretty ugly if you allow Improved Critical and Keen to stack. A Falchion dealing damage to Wound Points approximately two-thirds of the time is pretty deadly.
Chimaera2000 08-01-05, 09:47 PM	You know, I just had the weirdest image of the 3.5 designers discussing what to do about the Use Rope skill. Designer #1: "We got rid of Innuendo, Read Lips, and Intuit Direction, all right! Let's see, Tumble is good, Use Magic Device is good.... Use Rope? What should we do about that?" Designer #2: "Well, it's not that useful as a skill, so we could probably get rid of it. I don't think anyone worries about tying knots, and grappling hooks don't tend to come up all that often..... basically, it only has one real use." Designer # 1: "Let's get rid of it, then! Put it into Survival!" Designer #3: "Wait a minute, that means that the rogue can't tie people up anymore!" Designer #2: "And we've never had one use covered by two skills...." Designer #1: (grumbling and cursing) "Fine, let's leave the bloody skill!" I've no idea if that's how it actually turned out, but I can't help but wonder. :rolleyes: Thanks, olshanski_home, for the suggestions; our ideas on this are quite alike. Realistically, I'd probably just leave the skill alone. It seems like a remarkably limited skill, in my opinion, but I might as well leave it as is and save myself some headaches. I did come up with a way of solving the +2/+2 feat problem that I encountered earlier: remove the Diligent (+2 to Appraise and Decipher Script) and Deft Hands feats (+2 to Sleight of Hand and Use Rope), then add the Thievish (+2 to Appraise and Sleight of Hand) and Expressive feats (+2 to Linguistics and Perform). BTW, Vaelan, my Vitality/Wounds system doesn't have crits go through to wounds. Point taken, though.
Chimaera2000 08-06-05, 08:31 PM	I've decided on the house rules that I'll be introducing in our game. If the players are interested in using any others, we'll give them a try. Here are the ones that we're using: Checklist Light House Rules __x__ You don't have to be a spellcaster to use Craft (Alchemy) __x__ Roll confirmation rolls for critical failures. __x__ Mage blade, shadowknight, and shadowdancer are offered as new base classes. __x__ Swashbuckler is changed from the Complete Warrior version. Medium House Rules __x__ Fighter gains Knowledge (War) and gains armor and weapon abilities. __x__ Bards can cast spells while maintaining bardic music. __x__ Short swords can do either slashing or piercing damage, like daggers. __x__ Sorcerors gain Eschew Materials at 1st level as a bonus feat. __x__ Sorcerors gain 4 + Int skills and Diplomacy and Intimidate as class skills. __x__ Multiclassing penalties and favored classes are ignored. ____ The Decipher Script and Speak Language skills are combined into the Linguistics skill. ____ Use Rope is folded into the Climb and Survival skills. __x__ Natural Spell is turned into a metamagic feat. __x__ Improved Critical stacks with keen effects. Radical House Rules ____ The modified Vitality/Wounds system is used ____ PC classes gain their level in HP per hour of rest. ____ Your caster level functions like your base attack bonus, making spells more pwerful even when you multiclass. ____ Cleric and druid use the wizard's spells per day and spells known, plus they gain access to the Spell Mastery feat.. ____ The destruction, divine power, miracle, and polymorph spells are scaled back. __x__ Half-elves, and half-orcs gain Jack of All Trades (Complete Adventurer) as a bonus feat. Half-orcs also gain a +2 racial bonus on Intimidate and Survival and weapon familiarity with the orc double axe. The only thing that I'm not sure of is whether it would be better for the sorceror to have a base four skill points per level or not. I also came up with another idea for the bard that would allow them to use bardic music and spells simultaneously, like the virtuoso prestige class. I think that this would increase the flexibility of the bard class, and flexibility is always a good thing for them. What do you guys think?