I would like to have constructive criticism, if you think my house rules suck tell me why just don't say they suck, that’s the sign of a guy/girl working to become the village idiot.
Here is the link to my yahoo group site.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DonsFRCampaign/
I have yahoo group set up for my game I want to know if you guys/girls would critique my house rules any advice would be great!
I would like to have constructive criticism, if you think my house rules suck tell me why just don't say they suck, that’s the sign of a guy/girl working to become the village idiot.
Here is the link to my yahoo group site.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DonsFRCampaign/
Looks good.
* I like the fact that you allow all races to multiclass. And that any race can be paladins. Whatabout Wizards?
* I dont care much for the whole XP bonus thing. Arent there other ways to make prereqs attractive?
* how about a +2/-2 thing for human attributes instead of +1/-1?
Some other things I would have liked to see adressed:
* Level drain.
* Saves vs. Death (Ie Poisons)
* Alignments (Oooh, a can of worms?)
* Proficiencies
Håvard
PS: I'm on vacation, so replies might be less frequent than usual :P
Looks good.
* I like the fact that you allow all races to multiclass. And that any race can be paladins. Whatabout Wizards?
I'm not that convinced that unlimited multiclassing is good, nor that dual classing is bad, either.
In general, I think class selection and multiclassing options are strictly campaign dependent -- In Mystara, for example, I would allow Human multiclasses (Fighter/Mage -> Forester) and Halfling Dual classes (Fighter/Priest -> Hin Master), and no Paladins at all (replaced with the Defender kit), but of course these choices might not fit at all in other settings.
* I dont care much for the whole XP bonus thing. Arent there other ways to make prereqs attractive?
I think this is a good choice, OTOH, not much for the prime requisite (not really needed IMO) but for the "human adaptability" factor.
* how about a +2/-2 thing for human attributes instead of +1/-1?
This isn't 3e, +2 bonuses are rarely used for standard races. +1 is enough for race characterization. OTOH, I'd rather use these bonuses for human subraces, as in the Birthright campaign setting.
Some other things I would have liked to see adressed:
* Level drain.
* Saves vs. Death (Ie Poisons)
* Alignments (Oooh, a can of worms?)
* Proficiencies
On proficiencies, I'm not convinced that mixing PO and core rules works -- certain core rules nwps will be much higher than the respective PO version.
The rest of Havard's issues don't seem that hard to me, but for level drain, which can be made temporary in some way (allowing slow but non-magical treatment, e.g.).
Looks good.
* I like the fact that you allow all races to multiclass. And that any race can be paladins. Whatabout Wizards?
* I dont care much for the whole XP bonus thing. Arent there other ways to make prereqs attractive?
* how about a +2/-2 thing for human attributes instead of +1/-1?
Some other things I would have liked to see adressed:
* Level drain.
* Saves vs. Death (Ie Poisons)
* Alignments (Oooh, a can of worms?)
* Proficiencies
Håvard
Thanks for the input!
I forgot to put in the house rules about wizards.
I have rule that wizards gain extra spells for higher intelligence as priest do for high wisdom. I think its unfair that a wizard who is much more intelligent can not memorize more spells.
The XP bonus was just another of my ideas to get players to play humans, maybe I should base the bonus on the level of of the character decreasing the bonus until a certain level is reached.
I agree with Agathokles about the ability score +1/-1 is already a good modifer.
* Level drain.; I think level drain should have at least a save with -2 penalty, but instead of that I have borrowed the lesser restrotion spell from the Balders Gate game. It gives the character a way to solve the problem quickly.
Saves vs. Death (Ie Poisons) I don't have a problem with the current saves but if you want give me some ideas on what you were thinking I like to hear them.
Alignments (Oooh, a can of worms?) I have had some problems with the alingment system with 2 edition but for the most part I do not take them into consideration unless the character is play some type of holy warrior or priest.
If you like to tell me what you think again I would be glad to have the feedback.
* Proficiencies; I like the prof system, and the skills and power I should do some research on some 3rd ed feats and skills to incorparate into my game.
The XP bonus was just another of my ideas to get players to play humans...
I find that interesting. In my campaign, the vast majority (maybe 80% or more) of our regular characters are human, and I can think of only 2 non-humans who are high level: a half-orc grandfather of assassins, and an elven fighter/archmage. The vast majority of NPCs are human too. While they can be interesting, none of us seem to have any particular desire to play non-human characters all, or even most, of the time.
I find that interesting. In my campaign, the vast majority (maybe 80% or more) of our regular characters are human, and I can think of only 2 non-humans who are high level: a half-orc grandfather of assassins, and an elven fighter/archmage. The vast majority of NPCs are human too. While they can be interesting, none of us seem to have any particular desire to play non-human characters all, or even most, of the time.
In this case, your campaign probably doesn't need any advantage for human characters. These are useful when the number of non-human characters rises so much that it threatens the campaign (i.e., a group of non-humans in an otherwise human-centered campaign).
Thanks for the input!
I forgot to put in the house rules about wizards.
I have rule that wizards gain extra spells for higher intelligence as priest do for high wisdom. I think its unfair that a wizard who is much more intelligent can not memorize more spells.
I like this. Int, Wis and Cha modifiers are rarely used so its good that there are some more specific advantages to them.
The XP bonus was just another of my ideas to get players to play humans, maybe I should base the bonus on the level of of the character decreasing the bonus until a certain level is reached.
Its not that bad an idea really. Its more of a personal dislike of mine.
I agree with Agathokles about the ability score +1/-1 is already a good modifer.
Fair enough
* Level drain.; I think level drain should have at least a save with -2 penalty, but instead of that I have borrowed the lesser restrotion spell from the Balders Gate game. It gives the character a way to solve the problem quickly.
That works. I know that having PCs loose levels permanently easily can result in taking away player motivation.
Saves vs. Death (Ie Poisons) I don't have a problem with the current saves but if you want give me some ideas on what you were thinking I like to hear them.
I dont like situations where a single die roll determines whether you die or live. In many cases, substituting the 'death' reasult with a generous sum of damage may seem more fair to the players. Ofcourse, it depends how available raise dead spells are IYC.
Alignments (Oooh, a can of worms?) I have had some problems with the alingment system with 2 edition but for the most part I do not take them into consideration unless the character is play some type of holy warrior or priest.
That seems fair. In my experience the main problem arises when GMs want to penalize players for PC actions based on _their_ interpretation of the alignment system. (Which is often highly subjective). If such cases do arise, I think it is important to let the players know before performing this action that it will have some consequences, rather than leaving this as a surprise at the end of the session. I really dislike the concept of 'bad roleplaying' in general since this is highly subjective and often becomes arbitrary.
* Proficiencies; I like the prof system, and the skills and power I should do some research on some 3rd ed feats and skills to incorparate into my game.
I wouldnt bother with feats, but the prof system could easily be improved by setting more specified difficulty numbers, possibly making it easier to increase skills through level progression etc.
Just some suggestions
H.
I wouldnt bother with feats, but the prof system could easily be improved by setting more specified difficulty numbers, possibly making it easier to increase skills through level progression etc.
That would be the PO system, where Character Points are used instead of NWP slots.
You may gauge the relative difficulty of improving a skill by modifying the CP costs.
IMC, I use the traditional NWP system (easier), but usually allow 1 slot to buy a +2 increase to an existing NWP rather than +1.
That seems fair. In my experience the main problem arises when GMs want to penalize players for PC actions based on _their_ interpretation of the alignment system. (Which is often highly subjective). If such cases do arise, I think it is important to let the players know before performing this action that it will have some consequences, rather than leaving this as a surprise at the end of the session. I really dislike the concept of 'bad roleplaying' in general since this is highly subjective and often becomes arbitrary.
I don't really get this one. Say, if you're discarding alignment because you don't want to penalize "bad roleplaying", what would you do when your paladins start murdering people at random? Or, for that matter, if clerics of Thanatos start opening charity hospitals? By your statement, that shouldn't be penalized, because it's simply the player's interpretation of the PC role (though I suppose you would admit it's rather stretched).
I don't see how alignment restriction would be different from class restrictions in this sense, especially from clerical classes. The restrictions imposed by the power that provides spells to the cleric are not unlike those given by alignments, only stricter (and therefore the adjudication of penalties is as arbitrary as for alignment). Unless of course you want to redesign everything to have clerical classes that must simply comply to a predefined (and therefore objective) list of requirements (e.g., taboos and/or required actions such as praying for a given time every day) in order to keep their powers.
I don't really get this one. Say, if you're discarding alignment because you don't want to penalize "bad roleplaying", what would you do when your paladins start murdering people at random? Or, for that matter, if clerics of Thanatos start opening charity hospitals? By your statement, that shouldn't be penalized, because it's simply the player's interpretation of the PC role (though I suppose you would admit it's rather stretched).
I don't see how alignment restriction would be different from class restrictions in this sense, especially from clerical classes. The restrictions imposed by the power that provides spells to the cleric are not unlike those given by alignments, only stricter (and therefore the adjudication of penalties is as arbitrary as for alignment). Unless of course you want to redesign everything to have clerical classes that must simply comply to a predefined (and therefore objective) list of requirements (e.g., taboos and/or required actions such as praying for a given time every day) in order to keep their powers.
Its sort of a philosophical question really. A character's personality is defined by his actions rather than the other way around. If a character who has been acting kindly previously suddenly begins murdering at random I'd rather ask the player, why his character is doing this? Perhaps the kindness was just an act all along? Or has something traumatic happened to him making him change in this way?
If the player has no good answer, or says I'm just doing it for XPs, then I agree he should probably be penalized. Ofcourse I dont give XPs for killing in any case since that tends to lead to irrational character behavior, especially among less mature players.
For Clerics and Paladins though as I said I have no problem with the alignment system, but for others I feel that the system becomes too rigid, and also does not allow for character development.
Just my opinion
H.
Its sort of a philosophical question really. A character's personality is defined by his actions rather than the other way around.
I'd say that the character's actions should be dictated by his personality -- which probably pre-exists to said actions. This doesn't mean the personality can't evolve as result of some interaction with the world (i.e., character can undergo alignment changes), but it's hard to think that a character would start as a blank slate, except in special cases (the Nameless One of Planescape: Torment, just to name one).
I'd say that the character's actions should be dictated by his personality -- which probably pre-exists to said actions. This doesn't mean the personality can't evolve as result of some interaction with the world (i.e., character can undergo alignment changes), but it's hard to think that a character would start as a blank slate, except in special cases (the Nameless One of Planescape: Torment, just to name one).
Yeah, I cant disagree with that. The character obviously starts out with a personality, based on how he was raised, previous experiences (and since it is fantasy: race, heritage etc), but I like to encourage a more fluid interpretation of this to avoid the problems of a rigid alignment system. Ofcourse, if it isnt a problem in your group then there is no reason to change it.
Another way around this that I would perhaps find more acceptable is an added bonus for those who have acted acording to their alignment in situations where doing something else would have been easier. I prefer rewards rather than penalties in general.
H.