PDA

View Full Version : House rules that work



Kol Korran
2008-05-01, 09:16 PM
this is kind of a general thread, partly out of curiousity, partly out of interest. i've been away from playing for some time, but i might DM a campaign soon. i am however interested in what sort of house rules other DMs use, and for what purpose.

so, this is what i ask of you, fellow gamers and GMs- write down house rules that both worked, and contributed to the gaming experience. now, since there are many sort of groups out there, i think a few basic details before the house rules might come in handy (yeah, i know, i like formats. sue me).

some ideas:

game system
group: ages, number of players, familiarity between players, experience with the system.
gaming style/preferences of the group: serious/ goofing off, heavy roleplay, heavy optimization, cautios/ bold and more...
campaign/ setting: anything that might influence or explain the house rules. anything of relevance realy.
the reason for the house rule: whether it was a problem, or soemthing you sought to improve. basically, the reasoning behind it.
the house rule.
contribution to the game: either what you expected, soemthing unexpected, or both.


hopefully, others and myself will find tidbits of insight here to make their games better. thanks in advance,
Kol.

Skjaldbakka
2008-05-01, 09:24 PM
As much as I hate to be "that guy," I think you would benefit greatly from browsing the Homebrewing forum.

This subject is to general to be posted there, but it would be a good resource for you to look at. I think it has a thread that catalogues all the homebrew posted there.

Danzaver
2008-05-01, 11:44 PM
I use lots of house rules, based under the one basic rule: If I don't like the rule, I will change it. DM is God.

Let's see... I will probably only remember a couple... I generally only remember them when they come up.

- Monks deal half damage when they deal real damage and full damage with subdual, and before you start lamenting how nerfed they are already, i use 3.0 and I have always found monks to be a bit overpowered. Plus I made all these extra rules to give them extra grappling options and allow them to start "semi-grapple situations" (hard to describe - it's like, they can grapple you but you don't count as grappled for the first round but you must take a step away or and attack or you will in the next round) without provoking attacks of opportunity.

- Half Elves get to choose between an Extra feat at first level or extra skill points every level and must choose their favoured class at level 1.

- Critical threats reduce concealment miss chances by half

- I have kept the old 'called shot' rules from 2nd Ed, and I have been quite vocal on these boards about how they are needed, and how stupid Wizards have been in making no attempt to build a replacement system.

- Concealment does not make you immune to sneak attacks, but rather you roll an additional concealment miss chance d100 and if it indicates a hit then you can sneak attack as normal.

- when it does not slow gameplay, I like to use critical hit charts from Hackmaster, much to my players' dismay. :smallamused:

- When there is a fight between npcs i just roll a d10 fro each side and add a number to each depending on how powerful each side is. However rolls higher wins, and if they roll much higher they win by a larger margin.

- I don't use alignments. Click on the link kin my signature to see how I have modified alignment-specific spells to work with this.

...I'm sure I have a lot more, I just can't remember.

Kizara
2008-05-01, 11:48 PM
Check my sig for my work, if you want a complete copy of my Tome of House Rules (on v1.54 currently) just PM me and then get on MSN and I'll send you a copy.

RTGoodman
2008-05-02, 12:37 AM
Since you wanted it in your format, here you go:

Background:
System: D&D 3.5
Group: Various groups of college-age males and females of varying degrees of familiarity, with some new, many slightly experienced, and very few "experts."
Gaming Style: A bit of goofing off, minimal to moderate roleplaying, minimal to moderate optimization, heavy metagaming and cautious play.
Setting(s): Generic D&D setting for the most part

The House Rules:
Re-roll Hit Dice with a Smaller Die: this helps to prevent a Wizard with lucky rolls from having more HP than a Barbarian with unlucky rolls. If you don't like what you roll on your original hit die, you can roll again, but with a smaller die (d12 -> d10 -> d8 -> d6 -> d4 -> d3), but you have to take the new result. This upped the power level a bit, but not enough to really screw with the game. In general, people didn't want to try again unless they rolled less than 1/3 or so of their original maximum, so it didn't come up as much as one might thing.

Scaling Feats: Basically, just change a lot of feats with static bonuses to those with scaling bonuses. Some examples spoilered here for your convenience.

-Dodge provides a +1 dodge bonus to AC, which increases every 5 levels (+2 at 5th level, +3 at 10th, and so forth, up to +5 at 20th level).

-Any feat that provides a +2 bonus to two different skills provides the same bonus, but it increases at a rate of +1 at 6th level and every 6 levels after that (+3 at 6th level, +4 at 12th level, and +5 at 18th level).

-The Skill Focus feat provides a +3 bonus to the specified skill at first level, +1 at 3rd level and every three levels after that (+4 at 3rd level, +5 at 6th level, and so forth).

-The Toughness feat is replaced by the Improved Toughness feat. Improved Toughness counts as Toughness for purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes, and anything else that requires Toughness as a prerequisite.

I've only used that in one session, but it seemed like people were more willing to take (for instance) Dodge now that it gave a better bonus (and one that applied to everything instead of indicating one target). I'm betting others have used stuff like this before and probably have more experience, but I don't see how it could go wrong (except in the case of Diplomancers and such, but I don't really have to worry about that degree of optimization).


I'm also experimenting with a new Death and Dying mechanic based on an article about 4E that came out a while back, but I haven't DMed since then so I haven't had a chance to playtest it or anything.

Skjaldbakka
2008-05-02, 12:44 AM
- I have kept the old 'called shot' rules from 2nd Ed, and I have been quite vocal on these boards about how they are needed, and how stupid Wizards have been in making no attempt to build a replacement system.

Huh, funny how I've never seen this come up lately. Where, exactly, have you been quite vocal about this again? And what rules do you use for called shots, because 2e didn't use them either, at least not in any sourcebook I had at the time. There was a critical hit table, which was an optional rule.

I'm just asking because I have yet to see a called shot rule that added anything to the game.

evisiron
2008-05-02, 01:27 AM
I too have not seen much in the way of "called shot" posts.

However, there have been times where a called shot system would be useful. Mainly though I keep thinking of the 'attacking a giants shin' syndrome and the lack of benefit from climbing up it and attacking its neck, which seems to run opposite to common sense.

Skjaldbakka
2008-05-02, 01:49 AM
There is a damage to locations table in the DMG, I suppose you could go off of that.

TheCountAlucard
2008-05-02, 01:53 AM
I use Rich Burlew's rules on Diplomacy, myself.

Also, in my games, a Dread Necromancer (Heroes of Horror) is counted as having the Corpsecrafter feat (Libris Mortis) at 8th level and up for purposes of feat selection.

Da Beast
2008-05-02, 02:05 AM
I like to give maximum HP at for the first three levels. Stops characters from getting screwed over by one bad roll.

Skjaldbakka
2008-05-02, 02:22 AM
Almost every DM in my area will 'roll against' for HP and healing rolls. If we roll badly on either, we can 'take the DM's roll'. Of course, if we do, and he rolls worse, we're stuck with it.

I almost always use 32 pt. buy, and high average HP, although I had the PCs roll for my upcoming Pathfinder Alpha 2 playtest.

Danzaver
2008-05-02, 05:40 AM
Huh, funny how I've never seen this come up lately. Where, exactly, have you been quite vocal about this again? And what rules do you use for called shots, because 2e didn't use them either, at least not in any sourcebook I had at the time. There was a critical hit table, which was an optional rule.

I'm just asking because I have yet to see a called shot rule that added anything to the game.

I can't remember where I have been vocal about it, but every time it comes up I have a little whinge about it, without fail.

I use called shots as per the AD&D 2nd Ed DMG and the 2nd Ed Complete Guide to Fighters. As in, generally -4 to hit to aim for a specific location, or higher if it is a particularly tricky shot.

I have had to rule off the cuff as to how damage to specific locations actually works, but usually, if you do a certain percentage of hit points to a certain location, or a large amount in one hit, that location will be affected.

Some ways in which I have seen called shots significantly affect gaming are:
- Aim legs to slow people down, heads to knock people out, hands to make them drop weapons, stuff like that.
- Called shots to pin peoples' clothing to walls, especially good with arrows.
- Called shots to shoot a weapon out of a hand with a bow, or attack a potion on their belt, or whatever.
- Aiming for a large monster's eye to blind it (or other weak spots - Smaug's weak spot in the Hobbit, anyone?).
- A personal favourite of mine, aim for unarmoured locations, such as the typical hero in the plate mail and no helm because it messes up his hair.
- etc etc, the possibilities are endless.

All are things that people could in many cases not actually have done if you were to follow the rules to the letter of the law, but it makes perfect sense that you would be able to at least attempt to do.

The thing I like best about called shots is it makes people think in 3 dimensions in combat. They want to know what they guy is wearing, what are they holding, what is the scenery, what are they near to, what is above them. Rather than just hack and slash.

It's all about the cool cinematic stuff, rather than just beating hit points until they are all gone.

Skjaldbakka
2008-05-02, 05:44 AM
Darn. I was hoping you would post something I could use. I occasionally ad-hoc something if it is cool or makes sense as well, but a called shot system that wasn't clunky and wasn't off-the-cuff would be the proverbial 'step in the right direction' for making fighters better.

I think that Combat Manuever Bonus from Pathfinder could be modified to work with that.

Danzaver
2008-05-02, 07:10 AM
You know what, I think you are onto something.

I have always been perfectly happy ruling off the cuff, but maybe a well structured system for called shots is exactly what is needed.

I may do something about this... after these next three essays are finished. :smallfrown:

I'm thinking it will need:
- Effect of damage to specific locations
- Different minuses to hit for different locations and different maneuvers

...actually that might be about it. It sounds pretty straightforward. Unless you can think of anything else you would like to see included.

FMArthur
2008-05-02, 07:22 AM
If you roll the die off the table it's a natural 1.

game system: D&D 3.5
group: ages 17-20, 4-6 players, players somewhat familiar with each other, most have a couple years of experience with the system, but nobody else but me reads up on rules very much.
gaming style/preferences of the group: goofing off (lots of jokes), low - medium optimization
campaign/setting: varies a lot.
the reason for the house rule: Dice were rolled off the desks (we play in a classroom) quite frequently, slowing down gameplay by precious minutes that wasted our lunch hour.
contribution to the game: Funny how the "small surface" excuse disappears when they know that there are unavoidable consequences if they fail to contain their rolling. Nobody ever drops their dice anymore, including when we play outside of school. It seemed harsh when I first implemented it, but it's not noticable because of how easily prevented it is, and DMs since then have adopted the rule. No more lost dice, either.

Lucyfur
2008-05-02, 07:46 AM
I add 1 to the Monk's AC bonus. They suck and need help.

I completely redid the Reaping Mauler PRC. Because currently it's horrible.

I like those changes about the scaling of bad feats, goods idea.

Jimp
2008-05-02, 09:06 AM
Any time I've used 2e's called shot rules in 3.5e it has ended up messy. The -4 penalty is really nothing in 3.5e. Hell, my melee characters usually power attack for more than -4, give me the chance to blind someone for such a small attack penalty and I'm all for it :smallbiggrin:.
It's just a difference in systems that gets in the way. In 2e a -4 penalty to attack was a pretty big penalty. In 3.5e it's pretty easy to accumulate different bonuses to your attack so imposing an attack penalty that's too small will make things too easy but making it too large will make it pointless. Nevermind trying to scale it with level.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-05-02, 09:32 AM
The problem with called shots is exactly what Jimp said. The penalty to attack realy isn't that bad.

There was some random homebrew website i found(an't find it again) that gave a penalty to called shots AND you had to crit to get any specal effect. Which kinda makes sense if you think about it. The question is, Is making some one crit for the effect to harsh?

What do you guys think?

TheCountAlucard
2008-05-02, 10:02 AM
Any time I've used 2e's called shot rules in 3.5e it has ended up messy. The -4 penalty is really nothing in 3.5e. Hell, my melee characters usually power attack for more than -4, give me the chance to blind someone for such a small attack penalty and I'm all for it :smallbiggrin:.
It's just a difference in systems that gets in the way. In 2e a -4 penalty to attack was a pretty big penalty. In 3.5e it's pretty easy to accumulate different bonuses to your attack so imposing an attack penalty that's too small will make things too easy but making it too large will make it pointless. Nevermind trying to scale it with level.

If a player wanted to hit someone in the eye in my game, he'd have to state that he wanted a called shot, and then make an attack roll. If it doesn't threaten a crit, then it's treated as a normal attack. If the attack roll does threaten a crit, then the player rolls again. The "target area" gets a +8 Size bonus to its AC for being Fine-sized, and if the player beats the improved AC, then they hit the called area.

Wraithy
2008-05-02, 10:27 AM
For every hitpoint you lose, you drink.
It helps stop encounters getting easier as you level.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-02, 12:17 PM
For every hitpoint you lose, you drink.
It helps stop encounters getting easier as you level.I play the meatshield currently. If we took that up, I'd die after the first round.

Kizara
2008-05-02, 01:07 PM
I add 1 to the Monk's AC bonus. They suck and need help.

I completely redid the Reaping Mauler PRC. Because currently it's horrible.

I like those changes about the scaling of bad feats, goods idea.

Can I take a look at your remake?

Danzaver
2008-05-02, 01:08 PM
If a player wanted to hit someone in the eye in my game, he'd have to state that he wanted a called shot, and then make an attack roll. If it doesn't threaten a crit, then it's treated as a normal attack. If the attack roll does threaten a crit, then the player rolls again. The "target area" gets a +8 Size bonus to its AC for being Fine-sized, and if the player beats the improved AC, then they hit the called area.

Ah well, if we're talking hitting someone M sized in the EYE, that's be AT LEAST a minus 10 to hit. Probably more.

EDIT: As to the penalty not being that bad for called shots, that is fairly realistic. As someone who trains in medieval swordsmanship regularly, I can tell you it's perfectly reasonable. You do generally aim for some specific part of the body, with an effect in mind. I find disabling the arms and legs much easier than going for the body, as long as you can predict where they are going to be. And a head shot is not that difficult if they are not taking care to protect it.

Yes, introducing called shots into your fighting system is going to make them the preferable option to just hack and slash in many situations. That's the point. I hate combat rounds of doing nothing but rolling to hit and damage over and over. They give you stuff like power attack to make you think what you are doing is less repetitive, but it isn't.

But that is just a personal preference. Play how you enjoy it.

Curmudgeon
2008-05-02, 02:57 PM
game system: D&D 3.5
group: any
gaming style/preferences of the group: any
campaign/ setting: any

reason for the house rule: To save time:

Level 0 spells are always cast spontaneously.
Only call for Massive Damage saves when the damage is 50+ and also exceeds half the character's remaining hit points.
contribution to the game: time savings, with no decrease in enjoyment

reason for the house rule: Because some missile weapons get overlooked (i.e., sub-par treatment by the game authors):

Rapid Reload and Manyshot also apply to slings.
Great crossbows can take advantage of feats or special abilities wherever they specify heavy crossbows. (Great crossbows are still exotic weapons.)
contribution to the game: greater options for ranged weapon choices, without significant increase in power

reason for the house rule: For realism:

Most creatures reach terminal velocity after falling 500', not 200', so the maximum falling damage is 50d6. Characters with wings have a lower terminal velocity and use the standard 20d6 limit for falling damage.
Split a normal move around another move action; that means you can move to a door, open it, and go through in the same round. (Or maybe walk and chew gum at the same time.)
contribution to the game: fewer complaints about "unrealistic" D&D rules; also greater risk of death in aerial combat for those without wings

reason for the house rule: Because the game designers screwed up:

Ranged attacks provoke attacks of opportunity on each shot, even in a full attack. (Check it out. You'll see that, by RAW, full attacks -- without any distinction between melee and ranged attacks -- never provoke AoOs.)
You can cast Feather Fall when flat-footed, despite its redefinition as an immediate action spell.
contribution to the game: game works as intended

Jimp
2008-05-02, 03:18 PM
The problem with called shots is exactly what Jimp said. The penalty to attack realy isn't that bad.

There was some random homebrew website i found(an't find it again) that gave a penalty to called shots AND you had to crit to get any specal effect. Which kinda makes sense if you think about it. The question is, Is making some one crit for the effect to harsh?

What do you guys think?

I think the idea sounds good but might not work out in practice. The low chance of critting would deter people from trying and weapons with larger crit ranges suddenly become more useful for no real reason.

Leicontis
2008-05-02, 04:07 PM
System: D&D 3.5
Setting: Forgotten Realms
Group: College-age and higher, varying experience

Reason for houserule: Balance
Dodge feat gives a flat +1 Dodge bonus to AC

Reason: Balance and making the game more interesting
Double HP across the board. This brings healing and damaging spells more in line with non-casters for balance, and causes casters to actually run out of spells on occasion. It also makes combats take long enough to encourage players to use strategy, and mitigates lucky criticals. I've also thrown in the adapted 4E death threshold.

Reason: Making more sense
Every PC gets +1 skill point/level (4 at lvl 1) that can only be spent on "trivial" skills - skills like Profession, Perform (for non-bards) esoteric Craft or Knowledge skills, etc.. If a character grew up on a farm, they should have some skill with farming, and I don't think that my players should have to gimp their characters for RP reasons. Semi-trivial skills (normal Craft or Knowledge skills, Perform for bards, Speak Language) can be bought as if cross-class by these skill points.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-02, 04:20 PM
I can't remember where I have been vocal about it, but every time it comes up I have a little whinge about it, without fail.

I use called shots as per the AD&D 2nd Ed DMG and the 2nd Ed Complete Guide to Fighters. As in, generally -4 to hit to aim for a specific location, or higher if it is a particularly tricky shot.

It's all about the cool cinematic stuff, rather than just beating hit points until they are all gone.
It also seems to suffer from the typical called shot problem: it's still easy to make the shots, with a high AB. Plus: True Strike, shot to the eye/heart/base of the skull. Oops.


Edit: "

Reason: Balance and making the game more interesting
Double HP across the board. This brings healing and damaging spells more in line with non-casters for balance, and causes casters to actually run out of spells on occasion. It also makes combats take long enough to encourage players to use strategy, and mitigates lucky criticals. I've also thrown in the adapted 4E death threshold."
You'll regret this one when someone finally figures out debuffs and control spells beat the pants off damage spells anyway, and this just makes that worse. Double HP does nothing against that Glitterdust.

zerombr
2008-05-02, 04:26 PM
Darn. I was hoping you would post something I could use. I occasionally ad-hoc something if it is cool or makes sense as well, but a called shot system that wasn't clunky and wasn't off-the-cuff would be the proverbial 'step in the right direction' for making fighters better.

I think that Combat Manuever Bonus from Pathfinder could be modified to work with that.

how about using the ambush feats that do in essence, called shots?

Cainen
2008-05-02, 05:03 PM
how about using the ambush feats that do in essence, called shots?

The problem with that? Called shots aren't something anyone will be particularly better at without being better at hitting other things, too, and feats are far too sparse for many characters. That's a lot of the problem of relegating basic tactics to feats for anyone but a fighter - there aren't enough to go around.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-05-02, 05:25 PM
game system: D&D 3.5
group: 2-6 players, age 20+, acquainted to friendly players, generally experienced.
gaming style/preferences of the group: Lighthearted to semi-serious, nice balance between roleplay and mindless killing.
campaign/ setting: My house rules are meant for any and all settings.
the reason for the house rule: My house rules are all aimed at making the game simpler, easier to run, more balanced and just generally more fun.
the house rule: TS' Tome of Collected House Rules and Variants (http://lucasbuchanan.com/Dungeons & Dragons)
contribution to the game: As this pdf is meant for the benefit of my fellow gamers, I don't use nearly all of the house rules contained therein.


TS

Kol Korran
2008-05-03, 02:39 PM
first, to Skljaldbakka- i aimed at many kidns of hosue rules. the very case specific and number crunchy type (which you're probably right, and belong in homebrew), but also the more encompassing kinds, aimed at betterign the game as a whole. that's why i put it here.

as to the rest- interesting. might adopt a few of the ideas. thanks for the response, and share- it can only help (i think).

Blanks
2008-05-04, 01:39 PM
Hitting an eye wasnt -4, it was -16!

Yes, i am short a reference, but it as probably fighters handbook or "skills and powers".

game system: D&D 3.5
group: All my groups are using this rule now.
gaming style/preferences of the group: Semi-serious, 50/50 roleplay and rollplay.
campaign/ setting: FR, but lowpowered. It will be implemented in all campaigns though.

the house rule: HP rolls have a minimum, according to die size:
12 - min 4
10 - min 3
8 - min 3
6 - min 2
4 - min 2

Prevents people from getting almost no HPs, without raising the average very much.

I will be posting a thread about the math of this when im done with this infernal flu!