Critique my House Rules [House]

[Were-Sandwich]

•Quarterstaffs and Scimitars can be used in conjunction with weapon finesse. This is because stylistically, they are light and agile weapons
•Cross-Class skills are bought at a 1:1, rather than 2:1 ratio, but still must abide by cross-class max ranks. This is to encourage diverse skill sets.
•The cloistered cleric variant replaces the normal cleric. This is because it is more like the cleric I imagine should be like
•All druids use the shape-shifting variant from PHBII
•For social skill checks (Bluff, diplomacy etc), you must roleplay out the conversation, and I will roll your check, giving a +2/-2 circumstance modifier based on your IC speech. This is because I think players should be rewarded for putting ranks in social skills, but RP shouldn’t be reduced to a single dice roll
•Paladins of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter from UA are allowed. This is because I like them
•The wound points/ Vitality points system will be used. Also a personal preference thing.
•Anything from any book I own is allowed, as well as anything written by me. I may allow other books if you give me a week to read over it. To allow variety in characters, whilst allowing some kind of censorship on my part.
•MONKEY GRIP DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!11111
Dodge gives you +1 to AC against all opponents, as if through a high dex bonus

[Peregrine]

•Quarterstaffs and Scimitars can be used in conjunction with weapon finesse. This is because stylistically, they are light and agile weapons
I don't know about quarterstaffs being light and agile, but I can see the argument for scimitars. Note however that this makes it strictly better than the rapier (also 1d6 18-20/x2, one-handed, but piercing and cannot be wielded two-handed).


•Cross-Class skills are bought at a 1:1, rather than 2:1 ratio, but still must abide by cross-class max ranks. This is to encourage diverse skill sets.
I quite like this one. :) And if everyone has it, it's not likely to be really unbalanced, although it does disadvantage skill monkeys a little, since they have more class skills and so gain less. Also, NPCs you don't (re-)write yourself may be short-changed.


•For social skill checks (Bluff, diplomacy etc), you must roleplay out the conversation, and I will roll your check, giving a +2/-2 circumstance modifier based on your IC speech. This is because I think players should be rewarded for putting ranks in social skills, but RP shouldn’t be reduced to a single dice roll
I understand things like this are fairly common. It makes sense. It's basically just an upfront statement that 'good RP is expected and will be rewarded'.


•The cloistered cleric variant replaces the normal cleric. This is because it is more like the cleric I imagine should be like
•All druids use the shape-shifting variant from PHBII
•Paladins of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter from UA are allowed. This is because I like them•The wound points/ Vitality points system will be used. Also a personal preference thing.
•Anything from any book I own is allowed, as well as anything written by me. I may allow other books if you give me a week to read over it. To allow variety in characters, whilst allowing some kind of censorship on my part.
These are all just 'I use/allow these variant/supplementary rules'. Kind of the whole point of supplements being put out, not really 'house rules'. But from what I hear about the cloistered cleric and (especially) the shapeshifting druid, both good calls.


•MONKEY GRIP DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!11111
Also understood to be a good call. ;) This is kind of covered by the previous; 'I DISallow this supplementary rule.'

[Were-Sandwich]

I don't know about quarterstaffs being light and agile, but I can see the argument for scimitars. Note however that this makes it strictly better than the rapier (also 1d6 18-20/x2, one-handed, but piercing and cannot be wielded two-handed).

Quarterstaffs can be pretty agile if they are properly sized for the user, and if the wielder has the right training (Weapon Finesse)


I quite like this one. And if everyone has it, it's not likely to be really unbalanced, although it does disadvantage skill monkeys a little, since they have more class skills and so gain less. Also, NPCs you don't (re-)write yourself may be short-changed.

I use this one, because quite often I find myself thinking "That skill really fits my character concept, but I'll eat up skill points that could be better used elsewhere." It should encourage skills that fit character concepts


I understand things like this are fairly common. It makes sense. It's basically just an upfront statement that 'good RP is expected and will be rewarded'.

This is because my group need to learn to RP properly.


These are all just 'I use/allow these variant/supplementary rules'. Kind of the whole point of supplements being put out, not really 'house rules'. But from what I hear about the cloistered cleric and (especially) the shapeshifting druid, both good calls.

Meh. If I actually point out to my players they can use this stuff, they might try using things other than Elven Archer #3564, or Dwarven Fighter #745937. Actually, all the dwarves my group play seem to be barbarians for some reason. ???


Also understood to be a good call. This is kind of covered by the previous; 'I DISallow this supplementary rule.'

I just wanted to make sure the anime fan in my group didn't shoot himself in the foot "Because CLoud does"

EDIT: Added the one about dodge.

[Pegasos989]

Nothing against those. Naturally persistant spell + divine metamagic + divine power is even more powerful with cloistered cleric than normal but it is not as if DM should allow that anyways.

I don't like the paladin variants as they seem so hastily done. I would like more to have paladins of good, evil, law and chaos (Hmm... are there those or am I off to create them?) cause it is more obiouvs of who to smite then (why are they always on good-evil axis only...). Anyways, I have nothing against allowing those.

The dodge feat, as it is "Waste prequisite feat to balance stuff" will become maybe too powerful as it is actually useful now. Though it removes whole not remembering to take the dodge, so I guess it has it's upsides.


Also, the +2 or -2 to diplomacy, bluff, etc. is a bit shady I think. If you roleplay, they already have stated what to lie about and how and there are excisting mechanics to change DC if the lie is believable as not. Thus I see this a bit useless and if it completely overrides the +20 to -20 thing, it seems just bad...

EDIT:



Meh. If I actually point out to my players they can use this stuff, they might try using things other than Elven Archer #3564, or Dwarven Fighter #745937. Actually, all the dwarves my group play seem to be barbarians for some reason. ???


Oh no! It is teh Drizzt'Do'Dwarfen effect!

Seriously, I have a huge drizzt fan in my group. When I play under him, I expect to see DMPCs (I do use that word instead of NPC cause of the way he plays them, not just manages) of orcs, drows, etc. who have turned to good. When he plays, there is a lot of rangery stuff going on with similar themes.

Currently he plays CG dwarf barbarian ranger who never felt he fit in with his clan so he left wandering around. Naturally 2 weapon dexterous fighter. He all the time notes us that his dwarf is of minium weight and maxium height for dwarves so as opposite to a dwarf as he can get.

Phear the Drizzt Do'Dwarfens...

EDIT2: And about quarterstaff and weapon finesse... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq7LTVQ0Ous

[Peregrine]

Quarterstaffs can be pretty agile if they are properly sized for the user, and if the wielder has the right training (Weapon Finesse)
Don't confuse being quick with being finessable. Or rather, don't confuse not being finessable with not being quick. That's the old 'big swords were heavy and slow' belief that I've seen debunked regularly.


EDIT2: And about quarterstaff and weapon finesse... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq7LTVQ0Ous
Nice kata, but not really proving anything about them being agile in combat. He just spins them a lot, and they seem like pretty light woods rather than ye olde steel-shod oak staff (yeah, I know the D&D quarterstaff is free because you can just cut one from any old tree, but hey). Plus, his moves with the shortstaves could be done with swords (he says he's done so in the comments) -- doesn't make them finessable, does it?

[Matthew]

I see no reason for making Quarter Staffs and Scimitars finessable as opposed to any other weapon in D&D. Fine if you want to do it, but Peregrine is right to point out that the latter is overpowered and it's worth noting that the Scimitar is listed as being the exact same weight as a Long Sword (4 lb.), which is pretty heavy for a Sword anyway.

Then again, I'm not a big proponent of Weapon Finesse, the Feat is so much better in 3.5 than 3.0...

Pretty much any weapon relies on a certain amount of Dexterity, so I wouldn't approach it from a logical or real world point of view (A Short Sword seems no more or less Finessable than a Long Sword to me).

From a mechanics standpoint, I don't see why you shouldn't make every weapon finessable and up the Rapier's Damage to 1D8 (oops, it's a Piercing Long Sword, now).

Seriously, I don't see any real problem other than what Peregrine has already pointed out. You could always rename the Cleric, Templar or Warrior Monk or something...

[fangthane]

•Quarterstaffs and Scimitars can be used in conjunction with weapon finesse. This is because stylistically, they are light and agile weapons
They should also cost more if they're intended to be more flexible weapon choices; rapiers may need a tweak too.

•Cross-Class skills are bought at a 1:1, rather than 2:1 ratio, but still must abide by cross-class max ranks. This is to encourage diverse skill sets.

Seems like it'd encourage less diversity actually; everyone's got spot, everyone's got listen and UMD and Tumbling... It all depends on your players though, really - if they're munchkins this could be a bad idea and homogenise their skill selections - but if they're roleplayers first and foremost, no problem. How do you deal with class-exclusive skills like UMD though?


Dodge gives you +1 to AC against all opponents, as if through a high dex bonus

This could be a little over the top, but so long as you keep it in check it should be manageable. Just remember that your evil beasties also get an additional +1 dodge vs everyone. :)

[NullAshton]

Quarterstaffs can be pretty agile, as I've found out for myself. That video doesn't have him doing something that's effective in combat, I think, because there's not enough grip on the sword or staff. A proper quarterstaff hit should use both hands. And, as I also know from experience, it takes quite a bit of dexterity in the hands to use one. I don't see it being unreasonable to allow you for dexterity to be used with quarterstaffs and scimitars.

The rule with cross class skills is kind of neat, actually. Makes it so that people will actually take ranks in skills such as ride.

Third one seems like a campaign choice more than gameplay choice. So there's pretty much nothing to talk about there.

Fourth rule... I don't like too much. I think that given that you're a good DM, wildshaping druids aren't overpowered.

Fifth rule is common sense, I thought. My group does this, and doesn't even classify it as a house rule.

Sixth and Eighth rules are just there to tell your players to diversify, I suppose.

Seventh rule, sweet. I want to play a soulknife with a double-bladed sword in your campaign now. Somehow.

Eighth rule was made to make Logic Ninja happy, I think. :P

Final rule... hmmmm. It's the counter of Weapon Focus, but Weapon Focus requires you to select a weapon first. People with weapon focus will pretty much only use that weapon, though, so it seems balanced. Besides, defensive feats in my opinion should be more powerful than offensive feats, and same for the relationship between any other offensive/defensive abilites or similar effects.

[Raum]

•Quarterstaffs and Scimitars can be used in conjunction with weapon finesse. This is because stylistically, they are light and agile weapons
What about spears? They're just as finessable as a quarterstaff...many of the uses are stylistically similar. And if the scimitar, why not the longsword? I think most will agree that WotC did an unrealistic job of representing the weapons (spiked chain!), but if you change one you may need to address all of them...it's a slippery slope.


•Cross-Class skills are bought at a 1:1, rather than 2:1 ratio, but still must abide by cross-class max ranks. This is to encourage diverse skill sets.
Sounds reasonable. You'll probably get more skill use from a variety of PCs with this.


•The cloistered cleric variant replaces the normal cleric. This is because it is more like the cleric I imagine should be like
•All druids use the shape-shifting variant from PHBII
Not unreasonable, an probably prevents some of the cheese.


•For social skill checks (Bluff, diplomacy etc), you must roleplay out the conversation, and I will roll your check, giving a +2/-2 circumstance modifier based on your IC speech. This is because I think players should be rewarded for putting ranks in social skills, but RP shouldn’t be reduced to a single dice roll
I'd suggest two things, first don't limit yourself to a +/-2 circumstances may warrant more...or less. Second, don't even allow a roll without a valid RP reason. In other words a bluff check claiming to be Bugs Bunny doesn't even get a roll and one claiming to be the avatar of Mystra is at severe negatives.


•Paladins of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter from UA are allowed. This is because I like them
•The wound points/ Vitality points system will be used. Also a personal preference thing.
•Anything from any book I own is allowed, as well as anything written by me. I may allow other books if you give me a week to read over it. To allow variety in characters, whilst allowing some kind of censorship on my part.
Not unusual.


•MONKEY GRIP DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!11111
I don't blame you at all. You may also want to consider adding a few of the other abusive feats.


Dodge gives you +1 to AC against all opponents, as if through a high dex bonus
Not necessarily bad, just make sure you've thought through the ramifications. You've made this almost a necessity for any combat character and potentially for all characters.

[Dragonmuncher]

All sound good- although Monkey Grip is a really bad feat. Not bad, as in "overpowered"- bad as in "awful."

The d20 board just finished a whole bunch of threads picking apart monkey grip, trying to find a way for it to be useful. The consensus was that, except in highly, highly specialized situations (which I don't recall, of course), Power Attack is better than Monkey Grip in every way possible.

So no real reason to ban it, as people who take it are just hurting themselves.