PDA

View Full Version : Suggested 'House Rules'?



Voleta
2006-08-02, 08:21 AM
Hola!

I will be starting a new campaign (well sortof. I've used a homebrew setting in a past campaign, and this will be reusing that setting) where in the players will be influential people in a small town. This will be a slightly silly, heavy roleplay game. I've already come up with a list house rules, but would like some suggestions. Current rules can be found here (http://www.voleta.com/dnd/rules.htm)


In summary: What are your house rules, or ones you think are a good idea (even if you dont use them yourself)?


[Edit: Yes, some of the rules I will be using are direct quotes from other posts on these boards. The folks here have wonderful minds, and often see things I miss, hence why I am asking for further advice/rule suggestions.]

martyboy74
2006-08-02, 08:48 AM
Rule #!: No Sarruhk, in any way, shape, or form.

Yuki Akuma
2006-08-02, 08:48 AM
The sneak attack rule seriously weakens rogues, you know.

Edit: And the stats listed in the Monster Manual are averages, not minimums. ;)

Edit 2: And the super-low HP rule is stupid. Does this mean characters with Con 8 will LOSE HP as they level?

NullAshton
2006-08-02, 09:12 AM
Why not Sarruhk? If your players attempt to do that, then just kick them out of your D&D group and never let them in again.

EDIT: Also, about your sneak attack house rule... Yes, it makes rogues pretty much near useless, I think. A rogue that gets all it's sneak attacks in a full attack on a turn does about as much damage as a rogue of that level, I believe. But that's hard to do, and tends to put you at risk. The rogue has to either flank, or that monster has to be grappled. Or flatfooted, but that only happens once every combat encounter.

Voleta
2006-08-02, 10:03 AM
Eek, I had a nice post typed out, but it was moved. My fault for not thinking when I created it.

About Sneak attack : This was done for realism. Once you hit someone, they expect more to come after. Now that I think of it, however, the amendment 'unless you are hidden from their view'. So you could full-attack from behind and get sneak (if the rest of the prereqs are met), or from in a tree with cover, etc.

About the HP: The example given in the rules explains why I feel this is nessicary. There is an AC boost to counteract the low hp. Monsters will gain hp the same way that PCs do. Thank you for catching the negative con mod thing, I forgot that was possible. At the least, I will amend it to be 'with a minimum of 1 hp'. Alternatives:

A) You gain your Con Mod +1d4hp with a minimum of 2hp, and your base ac increases to 10+ mod listed in chart (Actually, I may just increase all the ones in the chart by 10, and just say 'base ac is the amount listed in chart).

B) You gain Con mod in hp,with a minimum of 1hp per level. Your base ac increases to 10+BAB+Mod in chart.

C)You gain Con mod+1d4 hp with a minimum of 2hp.Your base ac increases to 10+BAB+Mod in chart.


Also, when I say 'base ac' I mean the 10 you add to all your modifiers. Ie 10+dex+armorbonus+nat+shieldbonus+misc would turn into (10+Mod)+dex+armor+nat+shield.

Rune_Full_Moon
2006-08-02, 10:19 AM
I have some of the same houserules as you. Such as: knowledge prompts, sorceror, bard countersong, smarter than the average bear, and "really?". I do the core books as well, but to a lesser extent: just for classes. :)

I've houseruled in:

* Clerics get sense motive as a class skill. (Wanted to give them something useful.)
* NPC interaction played out. (As in, if you want the cap'n of the guards to help you with an ambush, you go talk to him. You DON'T say "Okay, where's my ambush!!")
* Actions have consequences. (Too often I've seen a DM say "you can't do that". I don't believe in that -- you can do whatever you want, but if the barbarian gets mad at you because your gay wizard groped him, it's not my fault.)
*Friendly NPCs will NOT do whatever you want. (When our players command the NPCs to do something in the not-mine game, I cringe. Just because someone's your friend doesn't mean they'll appreciate only being told to cast Bear's Endurance everytime you talk to them.)
* Frenzied berserkers are, in my opinion, unfit for a PC class. I'll allow them, but only under promises of NOT playing it like the last one we had, OR by paying me $75.

Looking back, most of those are really just common sense rules, but they really need to be stressed, especially in heavy-roleplaying. The cleric is just opinion (I'd honestly though they ALWAYS had Sense Motive, and just said they did when they really didn't), as is the frenzied berserker, but the others are pretty vital to any game.

PinkysBrain
2006-08-02, 11:20 AM
About Sneak attack : This was done for realism.
HAHAHA, so ... you taking away the spells from the caster classes too?

Once you hit someone, they expect more to come after.
In combat they expect to get hit regardless.

Now that I think of it, however, the amendment 'unless you are hidden from their view'. So you could full-attack from behind and get sneak (if the rest of the prereqs are met), or from in a tree with cover, etc.
There is no behind in D&D unless you houserule in facing rules (which slow down combat even more than usual).

The normal rules already take into account that if you become visible after your first attack you stop making sneak attacks.

When you are flanking it is the assumption that throughout the entire round the enemy has to pay attention to both his attackers, and thus will leave himself open more than once.

One houserule you could introduce is that a creature (if intelligent enough) can concentrate on one opponent when flanked, loosing his dexterity to armor class to all other melee opponents but no longer counting as flanked. It's a big nerf to rogues though, and rogues have a hard enough life as is.

About the HP: The example given in the rules explains why I feel this is nessicary. There is an AC boost to counteract the low hp.
Which does nothing for magic. Also having higher AC only helps on average ... basically everything in combat becomes Save Or Die. You are either going to have to resurrect the PCs every second combat encounter, or tell them to bring a stack of backup PCs.

You could use the Giant's diplomacy rules.

Peregrine
2006-08-02, 11:45 AM
Threat Ranges All effects (keen, Improved Critical etc) that doubles threat range does not double threat range. It increases it by 1. These effects stack.
This gives high-multiplier weapons (e.g. scythe) a heavy advantage over the equivalent high-threat range weapons (e.g. falchion). A 19-20/x4 scythe is on par with a 15-20/x2 falchion (which is the RAW's 'doubling' makes it), and way, way better than a 17-20/x2 one (which is what your rule makes it). I suppose the intent is to allow effects to stack without getting crazy threat ranges?

Voleta
2006-08-02, 11:49 AM
Magic was something I had forgotten to account for, thank you for pointing that out, Pinkysbrain.

I also forgot to mention that my game world is extremely low magic, low psionics. The previous game was when the PCs 'brought back' the gods. Some of the PCs were deities themselves, just needed to be 'awakened' by their brethren. Long story. Before then, there was zero magic (including items), and as it is a few hundred years later, there will be SOME.. but few and far between.


In combat they expect to get hit regardless.

In a normal game yes, but with these rules, you should expect to NOT get hit, because as you level you are more adept at doing just that. If you can only survive one or two blows, then you learn to avoid them. If you weren't able to survive 15 arrows to the gut in six seconds, you would try and avoid putting yourself in that situation, right? This could turn into a circular discussion :-/

You folk have helped me re-think the sneak attack change, and I've decided to drop it.

The low hitpoint rule, however, is still in effect. Which of the options above is the best one, do you think? Would adding an equal bonus to saves (something I utterly forgot) better balance the game? I'm leaning twoards Option C.

Example : A level 10 fighter is nude with 10 in every stat (Absurd, but it makes math easy). He would have: 10d4hp, Ac 27(BAB of 10+17 base ac), BAB of 10/5, Saves would be 14 fort, 10 ref, 10 will.

He would be hard to hit (keep in mind, the above is with no dex bonus or armor), hard to hit with spells, but when you DID hit him.. it would hurt.

Voleta
2006-08-02, 11:56 AM
This gives high-multiplier weapons (e.g. scythe) a heavy advantage over the equivalent high-threat range weapons (e.g. falchion). A 19-20/x4 scythe is on par with a 15-20/x2 falchion (which is the RAW's 'doubling' makes it), and way, way better than a 17-20/x2 one (which is what your rule makes it). I suppose the intent is to allow effects to stack without getting crazy threat ranges?

Yes, that is the intent.
I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. :-/
A plain Scythe is 20x4. A plain Falchion is 18-20x2.

Making them both keen with my rule, would be a 19-20x4 and a 17-20x2. The way I see it, a keen scythe would crit half as often as a keen falchion, but when it does, it would do twice as much as said falcion.

Fax Celestis
2006-08-02, 12:21 PM
As for HP, I rule that my players roll the die, and if it is less than half the die's maximum, it turns to whatever half the die is.

For instance, if, on rolling a d8, one comes up with a 2, it becomes a 5 (which is more than half), and then adds one's con mod.

This prevents Paladins with 1 hp.

Fax Celestis
2006-08-02, 12:22 PM
Yes, that is the intent.
I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. :-/
A plain Scythe is 20x4. A plain Falchion is 18-20x2.

Making them both keen with my rule, would be a 19-20x4 and a 17-20x2. The way I see it, a keen scythe would crit half as often as a keen falchion, but when it does, it would do twice as much as said falcion.
Right, but normally, the scythe'd be a 19-20/x4, while the falchion'd be a 15-20/x2. Your house rule is making the larger crit weapons more powerful.

PinkysBrain
2006-08-02, 12:31 PM
No matter how hard to hit you are, you are going to get hit > 5% of the time.

NullAshton
2006-08-02, 12:33 PM
...One houserule you could introduce is that a creature (if intelligent enough) can concentrate on one opponent when flanked, loosing his dexterity to armor class to all other melee opponents but no longer counting as flanked. It's a big nerf to rogues though, and rogues have a hard enough life as is...

The spooooky wizards made a house rule for that. Basically, you can choose to ignore an opponent that's flanking you, and they don't help other people flank(But they get flanking bonuses themselves.). However, when they move in to flank, if you ignore them they get a free AoO. That way, you don't have the big nasty guys with no dexterity bonus to speak of ignorning all enemies except the one they're stabbing/slashing to death.

Peregrine
2006-08-02, 01:15 PM
Right, but normally, the scythe'd be a 19-20/x4, while the falchion'd be a 15-20/x2. Your house rule is making the larger crit weapons more powerful.
Yes, slightly more powerful (by allowing multiple crit-range effects to stack), while making the large-threat range weapon far weaker.

You're gypping swords. This is my point.

Gorbash Kazdar
2006-08-02, 01:42 PM
Counts me as one who finds the HP rules problematic, even given the points you've made. Personally, for more gritty worlds based of d20 and D&D in particular, I find that either a) simply having a set HP bonus for each class per level or b) using vitality and wound points works much better.

Peregrine's right about the fact that the keen house rule nerfs swords to a rather significant degree. My suggestion is that the first of these abilities doubles, and all later ones add 1 to the threat range. This does benefit high mult/low range weapons more, but doesn't screw over large range/low mult weapons to nearly the same degree.

I don't particularly like the sneak attack rule - about the only way to get full attack sneak attacks is via flanking or greater invisibility (the latter of which is limited by level). Also, many creatures are immune to sneak attacks out-right, and numerous other creatures/NPCs (higher level barbarians, for example) cannot be flanked. A rogue who manages to get herself in position to pull off several sneak attacks, IMHO, deserves them. If you find sneak attacks that concerning, I strongly favor the "I'm ignoring the flanker" suggestions instead.

Your call on the exploding/gambling dice, but I find these to get really wonky over time. I also strongly suggesting using one or the other - both can get confusing.

All characters are already automatically considered proficient with unarmed strike, I believe.

I don't quite follow the reach rule - either a weapon has reach or it doesn't, and either a creature has reach or it doesn't. I don't think allowing characters to simply say "oh, my greatsword is twelve feet long (which is totally unrealistic to point of damaging suspension of disbelief)" and get reach as a result is at all fair or balanced, if that's what you're getting at.

RoboticSheeple
2006-08-02, 01:50 PM
with your HP rules, well that's enough to make me say hell no. One fireball should not result in a total party wipe.

Voleta
2006-08-02, 03:15 PM
Constructive criticism is greatly appreciated. An opinion with no backup (reason) is not constructive criticism.

Anywho, I do see your points about the crit range 'nerf'. I agree with you to some extent as well.. but the way it is is not the way I feel it should be. I've never seen anyone use any of the high-multipler weapons (Except for me, for flavour reasons) versus the high-crit ones. I feel like my change brings them more in line with each other, with similar amounts of playability. I will have to discuss it with my players to get the final say, but this discussion has brought up points I did not consider, and weakened my vote to keep the rule. Treatin the first effect as a double and all other ones as a single point increase is a good idea, in the spirit of what I wanted, but I will need to think about it more. Consider this one off the list for now.

On the topic of Sneak Attacks.. I have not seen many rogues in combat (other than me), and the ones I have seen added sneak attack to 90% of their attacks, even on full attack. I will go over the SA rules with my group and make sure we are doing this correctly in our other games, because if getting full round sneak attacks is as uncommon as you say, then we're definately screwing up somewher. I will mark this rule off the list for now.

On the topic of lowered hp, raised etc... Again, I ask for input on the optional rules. I, and several of my players, feel that there is need for a change with how players/monsters/npcs gain hitpoints.

Ah, the 'Reach' rule. One of the fellows I game with likes to use.. different weapons. Such as a door, a dead body, etc. That rule was in place not so much for normal weapons (Agreed, only a giant could handle a 12' long greatsword, and even they would have reach already), as it was for improvised ones. I will clarify that, thanks!

Fax Celestis
2006-08-02, 03:23 PM
Anywho, I do see your points about the crit range 'nerf'. I agree with you to some extent as well.. but the way it is is not the way I feel it should be. I've never seen anyone use any of the high-multipler weapons (Except for me, for flavour reasons) versus the high-crit ones. I feel like my change brings them more in line with each other, with similar amounts of playability. I will have to discuss it with my players to get the final say, but this discussion has brought up points I did not consider, and weakened my vote to keep the rule. Treatin the first effect as a double and all other ones as a single point increase is a good idea, in the spirit of what I wanted, but I will need to think about it more. Consider this one off the list for now.
You should've seen my weaponmaster in NWN then.

Between a Keen Scythe, Improved Critical, and the Weaponmaster's Improved Ki Critical class ability, she criticaled between 12-20, for a x6.

It was pretty insane. She criticaled about one swing in three, and dealt upwards of three hundred damage. Whirlwind Attack killed everybody.

Collin152
2006-08-02, 08:07 PM
You should've seen my weaponmaster in NWN then.

Between a Keen Scythe, Improved Critical, and the Weaponmaster's Improved Ki Critical class ability, she criticaled between 12-20, for a x6.

It was pretty insane. She criticaled about one swing in three, and dealt upwards of three hundred damage. Whirlwind Attack killed everybody.
Do those things stack? i am pretty sure they don't.

Cornugon
2006-08-02, 08:37 PM
They stacked in 3.0, in 3.5 they no longer stack. NWN was 3.0 and therefore very exploitable. I think it's really one of the things that let WoTC know how broke 3.0 really was.

I have to agree that the sneak attack thing is kind of messed up.

As for the hit-points, I generally use the d20 Modern Massive Criticals rules to help with realism. Take more than your Con in a single hit? Get rolling a Fort save.

Yossarian
2006-08-02, 09:14 PM
Making them both keen with my rule, would be a 19-20x4 and a 17-20x2. The way I see it, a keen scythe would crit half as often as a keen falchion, but when it does, it would do twice as much as said falcion.

This analysis is flawed. Both the falchion and scythe do 2d4 damage with every hit. A keen scythe has a 10% chance to do an extra 6d4 damage; a keen falchion with your houserule has a 20% chance to do an extra 2d4 damage. Your houserule advantages the falchion, whereas the rules as written keep the two balanced vis a vis each other.

BelkarsDagger
2006-08-02, 09:23 PM
D&D House Rules, hmm?

-Any improvised weapons made of glass break on impact, dealing 1 extra 'shrapnel' damage to the creature hit (unless its an inanimate object).
-Fire causes d6+2 damage per round. I mean, come on! d6/round takes forever to kill somebody... Except commoners.
-Any and all wild game that the players dont specifically say that they cooked it receive a 50% chance to Naseate (sp?).

DMgrinder
2006-08-03, 01:50 AM
I disagree on alot of the crunch house rules, but I'm not interested in that, when I can go whoring :D!

"Experience Whore At the end of the session I run something I like to refer to as Whoring. This idea was taking from another DM who took it from another before his and so on and so forth. When whoring, each player tells me what amazing things that they did that particular session (doesn't count combat). This includes puzzles, role playing, story line things, etc. After everyone has finished whoring, I give out bonus fate chips based off of what the players whored for that I thought was valid. What it ends up doing is making everyone pay attention and participate in a game."

Intead of fate chips, I will give out some "Whoring XP."

Peregrine
2006-08-03, 02:08 AM
Anywho, I do see your points about the crit range 'nerf'. I agree with you to some extent as well.. but the way it is is not the way I feel it should be. I've never seen anyone use any of the high-multipler weapons (Except for me, for flavour reasons) versus the high-crit ones. I feel like my change brings them more in line with each other, with similar amounts of playability.
The lack of use of high-multiplier weapons is not a problem with the rules as they stand. As it is, they're more or less balanced. (High-mult low-range weapons are slightly better against particularly hard-to-hit targets, whereas low-mult high-range weapons have an edge against numerous enemies against whom a x2 crit is 'good enough'.) If people aren't taking the high-multiplier weapons, that's their choice.

Under this houserule, they'd be fools not to. I'm afraid your analysis, while reasonable, doesn't work. The reality's a little more complicated: you have to take off the normal damage to properly compare the criticals. You say a x2 with twice the threat range balances a x4, but actually it's a x1 extra damage against a x3 extra damage: you need three times the threat range to be on par, which is what the current rules provide.

(I did the number-crunching on this extensively a while back... at the time, I was complaining that high-mult weapons were much better than high-range weapons, due to a misunderstanding of threat range improvements. Your houserule makes my misunderstanding correct. :))


This analysis is flawed. Both the falchion and scythe do 2d4 damage with every hit. A keen scythe has a 10% chance to do an extra 6d4 damage; a keen falchion with your houserule has a 20% chance to do an extra 2d4 damage. Your houserule advantages the falchion, whereas the rules as written keep the two balanced vis a vis each other.
No no no. Look at the numbers, your own numbers. Twice as much chance, but only a third as much extra damage. The falchion is disadvantaged by this house rule.

Tallis
2006-08-03, 03:05 AM
Instead of those hp and ac rules I would use wp/vp. Your Wound Points are equal to your constitution score, with vitality points being your normal hp. Vitality points represent your ability to avoid damage, while wp is your ability to absorb damage.
Once your vp are gone damage goes to your wp. However on a critical hit (getting shot in the face with a arrow for instance) the damage bypasses your vp and is applied to your wp. Note that critical damage is not multiplied in this rule ( a longsword still does d8 damage on a crit, not 2d8, but the damage is wp instead of vp).
This would give you added realism, but would not be so easily overcome by magic.

NullAshton
2006-08-03, 10:42 AM
With the HP rules... a level 20 rogue gets about 20 HP. Considering that you don't allow the HP a level to go below 1. Then you have harm. On a successful touch roll, and a successful save by the victim, a level 15 cleric does 75 damage. With no save.

Then take the fighter. Level 18 or so. A constitution of 18, for 72 HP. A lower touch AC than the rogue. Mmm... 1 HP left...

EDIT: Also, take a look at power word kill. Can kill anyone with less than 150 HP. With your variant, noone will have 150 HP until sometime in epic levels. Or unless they're at least level 19 with a +8 constitution modifier.

Kevlimin_Soulaxe
2006-08-03, 10:51 AM
NPC interaction played out. (As in, if you want the cap'n of the guards to help you with an ambush, you go talk to him. You DON'T say "Okay, where's my ambush!!")
* Actions have consequences. (Too often I've seen a DM say "you can't do that". I don't believe in that -- you can do whatever you want, but if the barbarian gets mad at you because your gay wizard groped him, it's not my fault.)
*Friendly NPCs will NOT do whatever you want. (When our players command the NPCs to do something in the not-mine game, I cringe. Just because someone's your friend doesn't mean they'll appreciate only being told to cast Bear's Endurance everytime you talk to them.)

These aren't house rules, they're just roleplaying and common sense.

Gyrfalcon
2006-08-03, 02:45 PM
And granted, while it's a low-magic setting, that rare level 5 wizard will be able to drop or kill the entire party, even at level 10 or so (as long as he has a few people between him and them) - 5d6 fireball is going to hurt everyone in the party very badly.

dauphinous
2006-08-05, 02:58 PM
I would point out that a 1st level human fighter already gets 3 feats. An extra bonus feat means 4 for them.

I understand your annoyance with declaring Dodge, but it is a great deal more powerful if it is always active. It is essentially worth the same as a magical item that gives +1 to AC without the hassle of taking up a magic item slot. And it is a dodge bonus, so it stacks with everything, unlike bracers of armor, which give an armor bonus, for example.

knightsaline
2006-08-06, 05:20 AM
heres a house rule I came up with when I read a post about a good cleric casting animate dead

justifiable evil/good clerics can cast ANY spell they wish to, yet must be able to justify its use (example, the population of the village has been killed by orcs, enter party, good cleric casts animate dead to temporarily bring back the villagers as zombies to get revenge on the orcs). any cleric, paladin or druid abusing this rule will have their alignment changed to the appropriate alignment, losing class features that rely on alignment.

this adds some sort of "darkness/ evil turns on itself" kind of thing