Got a house rule document? Share it!

[pabelfly]

Are you sure this is house rules? I think it's standard rules.

I've always thought the rules here were not clear. For the sake of a couple of lines I was happy to clarify those two points.

[Darg]

The only complaint the monk has had so far is that their play feels a little plain (this is someone who usually plays casters), and many of Fizbans fixes would remedy this.

Oh, this reminded me of another houserule I implemented to fix this issue. Disarm, grapple, and trip attempts on failure do not give the opponent a free attempt in return; however that effect was added to the improved feats for them. Makes these special attacks much less dangerous to attempt and players are much more likely to make use of them. Grapple monk is really fearsome, disarming with a staff or tripping is an incredible debuff. Personally I think there is a lot to do as a martial, the game just makes them hard to take advantage of.

Monks are kind of in a strange place base monk out of the gate is pretty bad and yet some super unoptimized groups will swear its the most broken class and not allow it in their games. Yet in a group with decent optimization standard monk tends to fall behind pretty quick. With that said even in the standard game, gishing with kung fu genius wizard enlightened fist and abjurant champion is pretty powerful, so is tashalatora into psychic warrior or other psionic classes, going cleric/monk/sacred fist or fist of the forest are other good choices, the real issue is base monk is a bit derpy and dysfunctional.

I think it's really that monk is different from the other martials. It relies a lot on party support and consumables to really shine and making use of its many attacks is also a bit harder to take advantage of. Monk is just not as intuitive and so seems weak in comparison to other classes. At levels 1 and 2 especially so. After that though it starts scaling exceptionally well. In my opinion it's a lot like the wizard of martials. You need to think outside of the box to really leverage your strengths. When you do, monk starts feeling overpowered compared to the other martials because they have so many avenues of scaling.

If you are wanting to play around with more AC I would suggest using the defense bonus and armor to DR alternate rules. across the board I think that is a better system than standard armor.

I really like the armor as damage reduction rules. It baseline allows DR/- to stack and it also provides provides a mechanical expression of monk being more "dodgey."

I suppose I could try to add a note regarding that to the Monk section, since I have nerfed both Mage Armor and Shield (by a mere -1 or 2 each but oh boy did people rage in the thread where I brought it up), and Animated Shields are mega-banned for violating the entire concept of shields. Wording the Monk's AC bonus to explicitly never stack with any sort of armor or AC bonus is easy enough, I don't recall if I avoided doing so to keep it short, or because I thought that was a bit extreme and wanted to allow some cross-play.

As for Monk+Polymorph, I'd put that under Polymorph problems to deal with as needed. I'm entirely cool with ruling that your humanoid kung-fu does not in fact work in bodies outside of your own, the fact that it doesn't is really a massive oversight (for that matter, another option would be shutting down feats!). I can add that to the Polymorph section.

The numbers assume that characters eventually gain access to shield AC. While bucklers are an option for non-monks, monks need the animated quality or their consumption of consumables can get a little out of hand. Maybe a feature that lets them use their UAS as a shield to represent their ability to deflect blows with their body. They already get access to deflect arrows. Give it the ability to be considered a shield for spells and effects. Level 7 seems like a good time for a +1 shield AC bonus.

Polymorph is definitely something that can get out of hand. However at the same time it's an enabler for some cool combos and one of the only ways a martial can keep ahead of a permissive planar binding. It's basically the not selfish version of divine power. It is weird that a creature would be proficient in the new "random" form, but I look at it similarly to how tensor's transformation can grant proficiency with weapons. "Magic" explains all the loopholes away. Then again, outside of pounce, increased base speed, natural armor, and the ability to get to huge size I guess it really isn't necessary if you could get access to these another way.

[Jay R]

Most of my "Rules for DMs" document isn't house rules; it's just my approach. But the rule for wishes certainly is. I've honed it for decades, starting with original D&D in the 1970s. It's general enough to apply to any edition, and it's the document my players have on how wishes work in my world.

Spoiler: Jay R's approach to wishes

Show

53. Wishes ought to be a social contract between the players and the DM. Don’t try to screw up the game, and I won’t try to screw up your character.

a. If a game system has clear, unambiguous limits for wishes, and a wish falls within the limits, then it should work as intended.

b. Wishes should rarely go wrong.

i. The best way for a wish to fail is to have no meaningful effect at all. Wasting a wish is well-attested in fantasy literature. It doesn’t hurt the game or the PC.
ii. When a wish actually goes bad, it should not cripple or destroy the PC, but at worst put the character in a difficult and threatening situation. Difficult and threatening situations are a DM’s stock in trade.
iii. When a wish has an actual negative effect on a PC, it should be a challenging obstacle, not a character-destroying tragedy. And it should end before it stops being challenging and becomes merely a boring weakness.

c. There is no sentient entity processing the wish (other than the DM). It is a pure magical effect – akin to programming a computer. There is neither benevolence nor malevolence involved. The risk of a wish is the same as the risk of a car or a power saw; it goes where you steer it, not where you intended to steer it.

i. If somebody else is phrasing the wish for you, there could be malevolence (or benevolence) in that action. Efreeti can be malevolent because they are phrasing the actual wish.
ii. But after the wish has been phrased, it remains a pure magical effect with no sentient entity processing the wish.

d. Unless it will screw up the game, the DM should follow the exact wording of the wish. This is usually, but not always, the same as the intent.

i. Following the exact wording of the wish does not mean abusing homonyms. If they ask for an extra feat, they don’t get extra feet.
ii. Following the exact meaning of the wish does not mean a bizarre, unlikely meaning. It means the most reasonable meaning of those exact words.
iii. If it took the DM more than a few seconds to come up with that interpretation, then it isn’t the obvious meaning of those words.

e. A wish will be fulfilled in the simplest manner possible. If a player wishes to have the only sword in the world, it is easier for the magic to put him and his sword on a separate world than to find and destroy every other sword on the primary gameworld.

f. An unselfish wish is always much safer. Wish for bumper crops near the village, or for the plague to end, and the magic flows much more smoothly.

g. A wish grants one effect. If the PC wishes for a sword and a shield, then he gets a sword. The shield is another wish. If he has two wishes, he gets the first two effects requested. If he wishes to travel to another continent to be introduced to the king and marry the princess, then he gets the travel and to meet the king, and his wishes are done.

i. Among other things, this means that long contract-like texts of legalese won’t work. Only the first clause is enacted.

h. The primary principle remains this: Don’t try to screw up the game, and I won’t try to screw up your character.

[GameMaster_Phil]

Dammit, I got the threats all mixed up. Here is my stuff:

This is for Pathfinder 1E primarily, but it is also basically a list of allowed material combined with house rules.

Allowed Races:
Core races,
Aasimar (variant aasimar heritages allowed)
Dhampir
Drow (care for reactions from surface-dwellers)
Goblin
Ifrit (known as fire genasi in the Realms, same rules)
Kobold
Orc
Oread (earth genasi)
Sylph (air genasi)
Tiefling (variant tiefling heritages allowed)
Undine (water genasi)

Concerning Hit Dice /Attributes:
First level HD max as standard, second HD maximum, after that it's rolling normally. No Point buy buydown below 8.

Allowed Material:
Pathfinder Core Rulebook
Advanced Players Guide
DSP Path of War and Path of War Expanded. Use only the errata parts which benefit you. But no extra material through web enhancements or articles.
The Magus Class, its feats, spells and archetypes from Ultimate Magic (not from other sources). The rest of Ultimate Magic is not allowed.
Tome of Battle from 3.5. For the usual suspects, my rulings apply (no IHS on the sun...). If in doubt, ask. See house rules. If a feat or other object is very similar to a PoW-object, use the PoW object instead.
Psion and Psychic Warrior from Dreamscarred Press with their psionic feats and powers from Ultimate Psionics
The book restrictions apply to races (The Alternate Racial Traits are allowed for all allowed races, though.)
Firearms do not exist in Faerûn
No traits, no drawbacks.

House rules:

XP is only given for treasure found and brought back to civilization (not for killing, but rewards for jobs done in the wilderness or dungeon give XP, too). 1 GP = 1 XP. Loot items which are worth less than 1GP do not give XP.
Leadership is not allowed.
The only allowed item creation feats are:
Brew Potion
Craft Wand
Scribe Scroll
If your character would get another item creation feat, substitute with a normal bonus feat instead.
All classes without spell progression, extract progression or psionic power progression get +2 skill points per level
All full BAB classes get knowledge(martial lore) as class skill
All classes with knowledge(arcana) get knowledge(psionics) as class skill and vice versa
Most (not the big 6, rather the more useless) magic items have their prices reduced.

Use PoW errata.
Crusader: HD are d12. Crusader gets new stances on the same levels like a Warder.
Warblade: Has heavy armor proficiency.
All three ToB base classes can freely add one discipline from all three books (ToB, PoW, PoWE) to their disciplines known at first level.
For more details regarding ToB porting, ask me.
If it comes up: no off-screen crafting before campaign start. Crafting in downtime is fine, obviously.

Feat Tax rules apply: http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/ Only use the blog post, that should be reasonably simple and effective.

Fighter: At level 1, gets weapon aptitude like a warblade. This can only be used to change feats gained while taking fighter levels, but it can also be used to change weapon groups of the fighters' class features.

Every character gets one of my fate points at creation. This fate point can be spent to either change one saving throw into a natural 20 after rolling, or stave off death once (the character ends up at -1 and stable and is unconscious from the trauma for several minutes instead of dying. This unconsciousness cannot be prematurely ended by any means. You almost died, received horrible trauma and are out for ~5 Minutes flat.)

You can have a maximum of 2 fate points, and you only get them at DM's discretion (usually after a major achievement).
If you, for whatever reason, run into the XP cutoff (if you would get 2 levelups or more at once, you stay 1 XP short of the second level up and all extra XP is discarded), you get a fate point. Because that is a major achievement.

Martial Traditions are changed: They do not exist. All initiating classes can, on their first level, trade one of their disciplines known for another from PoW or PoWE. This choice is permanent for this character and class and can not be changed. Basically, you can still do the same school switching, but it is permanent.

Expect homebrew, and ported 3.5 material if it catches my fancy. You may or may not be able to use that material for yourself (depends on your ability to loot it). I reserve the right to change stuff like switch from normal summoner to unchained summoner, or allow unchained rogues etc. If it starts breaking the game, I need to change it. If that happens to one of your characters, you can rebuild, of course. I consider it improbable to come up, however.

I will be using AngryDMs Tension Pool mechanic.

[Mordante]

I have a houserules document. It used to be longer and more complex, but I've found that simpler is generally better and less prone to unintended consequences, ie, stuff that needs to be fixed because of the house rules.

---

Note: You may choose to use the default rules for DnD 3.5 and ignore all changes here.

Levelling Changes
Starting characters get one stat at 18 for free. All other stats are 4d6 drop lowest.

Players get three ability score boosts every fourth level. These stat boosts must be spent on three different ability scores. If an ability score is below 16, the ability score is boosted by 2. If the ability score is 16 or more, it is boosted by 1.

General Feat Changes and Additions
Changes to existing feats are in addition to the rules the feats originally have.

Adept Learner (New Feat): You gain 1 extra skill point per level. You spend these skill points as normal. You cannot exceed the normal maximum point for your level in any skill. You cannot have both this feat and “Nymph’s Kiss”.

Alertness, etc (Changed Feat): If you have 13 or more ranks in one of the skills that are part of the feat, the bonus increases to +4 for that skill.

Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes (Changed Feat): The bonus to saves is 2 and +1 for every five character levels (maximum of +6 at level 20).

Pounce (New Feat): When a character charges a foe, it can follow with a full attack. A fighter may select Pounce as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Skill Focus (Changed Feat): The bonus from Skill Focus increases to +6 when 13 ranks are invested in said skill.

Spellcaster Changes
There are no limits to the use of level 0 spells.

Lost Traditions (New feat) (modified from 3rd Party)
Choose one spellcasting class. You may change which ability score governs spellcasting (both the casting stat and the stat used for save DCs). You may only choose from INT, WIS, or CHA for your casting stat. You may take this feat multiple times, but each time it applies to a different spellcasting class.


Martial Changes
Unarmed Combat
Unarmed strikes get extra attacks due to a character’s base attack bonus

A Monk’s Flurry of Blows can be combined with Two-Weapon Fighting. The negative attack roll penalties for both are combined.

Martial Feat Changes

Ignored Feats
These feats are ignored should they be required for other feats, prestige classes, etc. These feats can still be taken should the player want the benefits of these feats.

Dodge, Point-Blank Shot, Toughness, Combat Expertise

Example – Rapid Shot normally requires the player to take Point-Blank shot as a feat beforehand. With this rule, the player can take Rapid Shot without taking Point-Blank Shot first.

Feat Changes
Two-Weapon Fighting:
A player with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat automatically receives the feats Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting. They need to meet BAB and ability score requirements for said feats before receiving them.

Two-Weapon Defense
A player with the Two-Weapon Defense feat automatically receives the feats Improved Two-Weapon Defense and Greater Two-Weapon Defense. They need to meet BAB and ability score requirements for said feats before receiving them.

Weapon Finesse
Weapon Finesse is a free option and doesn’t cost a feat. When Weapon Finesse is applied to a weapon, players calculate bonus damage using the dexterity stat instead of the strength stat (you cannot add both STR and DEX without the use of class features and/or feats). The bonus damage is halved for offhand weapons. Weapon Finesse only applies to light weapons, the rapier, whip, or spiked chain.

Why so many changes?
What is the point of so many ability score increases? Last campaign we started some people did points buy, some made up stat (between 8 and 16) and some just rolled. It doesn't really impact the game much.

With my group I don't think we have any written house rules. We don't use XP once in a while the DM says " you all gained a level" and then we level. If I want to play something custom or outside of the rules I discuss it with the DM f2f while drinking a beer or whisky.

[Biggus]

Why so many changes?

Dude, this is NOT a lot of changes. My houserule document is 38 pages long and still not finished, Fizban's is over 200 pages long. And the reason to make a lot of changes is that 3.5 has lots of stuff which is badly designed, PF is better but still has plenty.

What is the point of so many ability score increases? Last campaign we started some people did points buy, some made up stat (between 8 and 16) and some just rolled. It doesn't really impact the game much.

It can make a big difference if the scores are extreme enough. I played in a game with a Rogue who was unlucky enough to roll really bad stats (I calculated it at about the bottom 1% level) and the DM wouldn't let him reroll, and he sucked. Really struggled to keep up with the rest of the party.

As for the multiple increases, one benefit of giving multiple increases which must be for different stats is that it helps out MAD classes compared to SAD classes; the worst offenders who need 4 or 5 stats high to really shine can find it really difficult to keep them all where they need them to be.

[Ozreth]

My houserule document is 38 pages long and still not finished, Fizban's is over 200 pages long. And the reason to make a lot of changes is that 3.5 has lots of stuff which is badly designed, PF is better but still has plenty.

Fizban's is actually over 300

However, it is worth noting that a lot of peoples house rules are also implemented not to fix design issues or balance etc, but to keep with a certain tone and aesthetic of game. I think a lot of Fizban's changes are in line with this and it is also why I often make house rules. In Fizban's case, he makes it clear that there is a cutoff point where 3.5 starts diverging from the design philosophy of 3.0 and many of his changes are an attempt to keep the game in line with playstyle and tone expectations of early 3e and 3.5.

I recommend everyone who makes house rules for similar reasons peruse his document as much as you can. I read around 100 pages of it (some parts just weren't relevant enough for me to read, but I skimmed those parts at least) and it is one of the more interesting 3.5 and D&D in general projects I've read in some time.

[glass]

I have a houserules document. It used to be longer and more complex, but I've found that simpler is generally better and less prone to unintended consequences, ie, stuff that needs to be fixed because of the house rules.

Mine was more complicated, and then I decided it was too much and started over, and now it has grown to being pretty complicated again (although still probably less so than its peak).

Here's mine. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

Interesting stuff there, I like the way you think. Some things there are pretty similar to mine, and others I hadn't thought of but am now considering (although I start from PF1 as the base rather than 3.5).

Are you sure this is house rules? I think it's standard rules.

Unarmed Strikes getting iteratives just is definitely not a houserule, but not a bad idea to add a clarifications if people are getting confused by it. TWF working with Flurry is a houserule IMO, but I have seen people argue otherwise - either way, best to indicate which way you come down on that also.

Why so many changes?

I agree with Biggus; that's not a lot of changes in the grand scheme of things. Most of the people in the thread have more (including me).

---

My houserule document is 16 pages, although the format is fairly verbose, so it might not be as quite as many changes as that page count implies: Some things (for example, Knowledge Skill categories and their uses) are reproduced in full modified form instead of or as well as bullet point changes) - since the site I used to use became to add infested that include a full (modified) representation of the gestalt rules. There are a bunch of guidelines on adapting 3.0 and 3.5 stuff such that in most cases it can be done automatically (as mentioned above, we use PF1 as the main system, but we still use 3.5 content extensively). There is a ToC, and Introduction, a fairly extensive index, and a change log.

Obviously, I am not going to reproduce the whole thing here, but section 1 is the big ticket items: The things that effect all characters, or at least a significant majority.

Spoiler: Section 1

Show

1.1 There is no required randomness in character creation and advancement:

• Starting gold is 150 gp for all characters (regardless of class) starting at first level (characters starting at higher level get wealth as per Table 12-4 on page 399 of the CRB).
• Hit points after first level are the average for the hit die rounded up, not rolled randomly.
• Players may roll for height and/or weight starting age if they wish, but are not bound by the results and may reroll or simply choose a result. However, the chosen height and weight must be within the range that could be rolled for their species.
• Similarly, players may roll for starting age or simply choose. In this case, if they choose they must respect the minimum for their initial class, but otherwise may select any age below venerable for their species. However, if they are middle-aged or old, they must apply the appropriate ability-score modifiers.
• This does not apply to skill checks (such as Spellcraft to learn spells), which must be rolled normally.

1.2 Ability score point buy depends on class (and possibly archetype, if it changes spellcasting):

• 9-level casters get 20 points.
• 6-level casters get 25 points.
• 4-level and non-casters get 30 points.

After first level, you can multiclass freely between classes at the same or higher point-buy value, but cannot multiclass into a class that would have given a lower point-buy total until you have at least three levels in appropriate classes. Classes that do not technically cast spells but have abilities that closely resemble them (such as Investigators and Alchemists) count as spellcasters for this purpose, as do manifesters (but not martial initiators or meldshapers/veilweavers, unless they also have casting).

1.3 As a partial exception to 1.2, a character who intends to multiclass can select a select a 6- or 9-level caster class at first level and still claim the higher point buy. However, if they do so they cannot take any further levels in that class until they have at least three levels in a suitable class, and until that point they gain no spellcasting from the first class other than cantrips (although they still have the spell list for the purposes of spell trigger and spell completion items).

1.4 All classes that are not Int-based 9-level characters get a minimum of 4 skill ranks per level (before Int modifier, and favoured class bonus or species bonuses where applicable). If an archetype for such a class would increase skill ranks from 2 to 4, it instead increases them from 4 to 6. Archetypes which change the spellcasting ability score or progression may change whether a class qualifies for the 4-rank minimum (in either direction).

1.5 The essence, primal, and occult magical traditions exist (with occult being distinct from psychic, although some classes are assigned to both). Appropriate classes are assigned to one of more of these, and sometimes the player can choose – in that case the choice should be made when the first magical ability is received, and is thereafter treated as a class feature for the purposes of retraining. See Appendix 3 for class/tradition assignments.

1.6 The skill list is tweaked to better integrate certain variants, improve balance, and reflect actual play and common sense. In particular, the Appraise skill is deleted, the third-party Knowledge (Martial) and Knowledge (Psionics) skills are included (with the latter being renamed Occult), and other Knowledge skills are tweaked. See Skill Changes below for details.

1.7 Non-broken third-party & D&D 3.5/3.0 content is available, subject to GM approval - a “3.P” environment. See “Using D&D 3.5 & 3.0 Content”, below.

1.8 Using a swift action on your turn does not impact your ability to use immediate actions (and vice versa).
 
1.9 Creatures can charge as a standard action, even if they have a full round’s worth of actions available. They may move (or take a different move action) before, but not after the charge – only a swift action can be taken after the charge. Each space moved when charging must be closer to the target than the previous square, but otherwise chargers may move as they wish. They may stop in any square from which they can make an attack, as long as they can reach it without violating the above rule. Charging as a standard action never allows more than a single attack at the end, regardless of abilities such as pounce that would normally allow more.

1.10 The core monk and rogue are considered NPC classes and are not available to players. Use the unchained monk or legendary monk, and the unchained rogue, swashbuckler, investigator, slayer, ninja or legendary ninja respectively, instead.

Annoyingly, they don't quite fit on one A4 page. Section 2 is rather longer, but is reserved for things that don't affect many characters, or things that are how you'd expect it to work anyway if you weren't the sort of person who has spent the last 20 years talking about game rules on forums! Section 3 spells out in more details the Skill changes mentioned in item 1.6.

[pabelfly]

Why so many changes?

As other people have said, it's not many changes at all, especially compared to what other people have done.

The intent of my quick list of house rules:
1) fix what I think are the worst problems and biggest deficiencies of the game at my table in a way that's simple and easy to communicate.
2) Steal some of the more fun improvements from later 3e-derived games

What is the point of so many ability score increases? Last campaign we started some people did points buy, some made up stat (between 8 and 16) and some just rolled. It doesn't really impact the game much.

That's some of the most popular changes.

Having one score automatically be 18 means that players don't feel so bad about bad ability score rolls. You feel good about having an 18 in your ability score set to allocate, even if that 18 is automatically included.

Using PF2e's ability score increase rules means that players will spend some time thinking about where to put ability score increases. I find 3e's way of doing ability score increases quite uninteresting by comparison, since very little changes every four levels.

Mechanically, there's not a major difference: besides boosting their preferred casting/combat stat, maybe a character gets a slight boost to stuff like CON, DEX, or WIS, etc. Still, I think it's a fun change, that's why it made it in and hasn't left the document.

[Fizban]

Fizban's is actually over 300

However, it is worth noting that a lot of peoples house rules are also implemented not to fix design issues or balance etc, but to keep with a certain tone and aesthetic of game. I think a lot of Fizban's changes are in line with this and it is also why I often make house rules. In Fizban's case, he makes it clear that there is a cutoff point where 3.5 starts diverging from the design philosophy of 3.0 and many of his changes are an attempt to keep the game in line with playstyle and tone expectations of early 3e and 3.5.

I recommend everyone who makes house rules for similar reasons peruse his document as much as you can. I read around 100 pages of it (some parts just weren't relevant enough for me to read, but I skimmed those parts at least) and it is one of the more interesting 3.5 and D&D in general projects I've read in some time.

I'd guess much of the "supplementary" section, the longer class overhauls, and warlock content are the most skippable as being both longer reads and easily parsed as relevant or not for a given game?

[Ozreth]

I'd guess much of the "supplementary" section, the longer class overhauls, and warlock content are the most skippable as being both longer reads and easily parsed as relevant or not for a given game?

I actually read the supplementary section I believe. I did skip most of the classes but will be re-visiting them as they come in my game, also skipped most of the spell stuff but plan to keep referencing the whole document as my campaign progresses and these things come up.

[Jay R]

My house rules are different in every game I've run. Giving you a specific set is probably meaningless. But here's how I approach house rules, as described in my "Rules for DMs" document. [Yes, there's some redundancy here. I wrote a couple of these this morning, after reading this thread. Editing will come later.]

Spoiler: Jay R on House Rules and DM Rulings

Show

11. The DM can change, annul, or overrule any rule in the rulebook. This is not a toy or free privilege to change the game at whim. It’s a heavy responsibility to make the game go right, and to be fair to the players, even when the rules aren’t right for a specific moment.

a. Printed rules should be the standard. Rules changes should be the exception.
b. Never ignore the rules. When you change or make exceptions to the rules you should be most focused on the written rule, its intent, and its effects.
c. Applying the published rules is like eating food. That should always happen. Changing the rules is like taking medicine; it's only a good idea if something is wrong, you know how it’s wrong, and you know how to fix it.
d. Never change a rule unless you know why it was written.

12. The more completely you know the rules, the better you can be at disregarding them when necessary.

a. "When necessary" means it should be rare, forced by an unusual situation, and non-intrusive. [And some people believe it should not happen even then.]

13. Do not confuse house rules with rulings that overrule the book. House rules are the conditions that make your world distinct. Overruling the rulebook is preventing a rule from messing up the game. They require different approaches.

a. House rules are conditions of the world. They should be planned in advance. You can do it just to explore a new idea, or to create a unique situation.
b. Overruling the rulebook is fixing an immediate problem. You should do it when the rules give an unfair or otherwise bad answer.

14. House rules are ways to create a new, exciting, unique world, with new concepts for the PCs to explore. They are not merely tools to stop standard tactics from working.

a. When you introduce a house rule, ask yourself “Why?” Will this make the game better for the players?
b. They should almost always be introduced before the game starts. It’s fine for your goblins to have deadly fangs; it’s not fine for your goblins to suddenly develop deadly fangs halfway through the game, after the PCs have faced them and learned about them.
c. Tell the players any house rule that is a generally well-known fact in the world. If necromancy is more powerful when the second moon is up, then anyone with necromancy spells will no that. But if hippogriffs can be tamed with their addiction to coffee beans, then maybe nobody has learned that yet.
d. Most especially, tell them any house rule that might affect character creation.

15. There must be enough rules consistency, and world consistency, that the players know what they can count on.

a. They should also know what they cannot count on. It’s OK for your goblins to be different from the goblins in the rules. It’s OK for them to not know what goblins are like. But it’s not OK for them to believe that goblins will be rules-goblins.

16. When you change rules, you don’t necessarily have to tell the players the new rules, if it is something that their characters wouldn’t know. But you should tell them not to assume all D&D rules apply.

a. If you changed dragons because most people in that world don’t know details about dragons, you don’t have to tell them those details. But you should tell them that dragons aren’t color-coded for their benefit.
b. Not knowing about the monster is a challenging adventure of discovery. Knowing things that are false is just a failure mode. No resemblance.
c. Changing rules has consequences elsewhere. Think them through in advance. If dragons aren’t color-coded, what does Tiamat look like?

...

56. No matter what the game rules say, no matter what this document says, don’t do nothin’ stupid.

a. Exceptions exist. They do not invalidate general rules; they modify and limit them.
b. Some of these rules obviously don’t apply to certain games, or certain tables. Don’t apply them in those games.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't have a google document, but I have a forum page with various topics for Classes, Spells, etc...

https://torchofspirit.proboards.com/...es-information

[loky1109]

My HR are mostly on Russian. Do you need it?

[RedMage125]

A rule that I thought would be common, but actually turns out isn't from my interactions on this board, would be that rules that can conflict only in part do so only in so far as they have to conflict. An example would be that you can't cast spells of a certain level unless you reach a level in the class that would allow you to cast the spell. The versatile spellcaster feat allows you to cast spells of a higher level. The way this rule would work is versatile spellcaster can fully function without violating the first rule and does not specifically mention it does. Therefore it does not violate the rule. Versatile spellcaster cannot let you cast spells of a higher level than your class level allows.

That's not a house rule. Page 7 of the PHB is quite explicit that spells of a certain level require a high enough class level in order to cast, and one is then referred to Chapter 3 for details.

For my part, while I *do* use some house rules, they're all very player-friendly, and can be printed out on one sheet of paper, which I hand out to my players during character creation, as all rule changes should be. For the most part, if the RAW cover it, I rule that way, because I want my players to be able to read the books on their own and have a reasonable expectation of how something will work.

Regrettably, my computer died, and the Geek Squad is currently attempting data retrieval on it, but I will post as many as I can remember.

• Maximum HP at first AND second level. After that, a player may roll for HP, but take the average (rounded up) if they roll lower than that. HP are a metagame concept anyway, and it's not fun to have a 5th level fighter with under 30 HP. And yes, this means d4 HD classes will only ever get 3 or 4 plus CON modifier.
  
• Healing a character in negative HP sets the target's HP to 0 and then applies healing (this was a 4e rule I adopted). So if the barbarian is at -7, and the cleric heals him for 5, the barbarian has 5 HP. This allows the downed player to act on their turn, and ensures the cleric player doesn't feel like their turn was wasted due to an unlucky roll.
  
• Dodge is a flat +1 AC, and Toughness grants 3 HP, and one additional HP per Hit Die over 3 (so 1 HP per level if you take it over level 2). I also allow all Improved/Greater iterations of TWF for the cost of the one TWF feat.
  
• Hide and Move Silently are one skill, Stealth. Having different skills for each may be more accurate simulation, but this is a game, not a simulation, and a single roll makes play go smoother. Related to that, Spot and Listen are one skill, Perception. This is to make sure NPCs dont get 2 chances to notice a character attempting to Stealth. Search remains a distinct, INT-based skill, as it represents actively looking, as opposed to noticing something. This has cascading effects, so anything that provides a bonus to one of those skills boosts the merged skill instead. If something boosts BOTH of the "pre merge" skills (like Alertness), it grants a +3 to the merged skill (just like Skill Focus).
  
• Piggybacking on that, a nat 20 or 1 on a Skill roll are treated as a "die roll" of 30 and -10, respectively. Then modifiers are applied. This allows characters with insanely high skill modifiers to still have a chance of success, even when they're at their worst (a rogue with a +28 to Stealth gets a nat 1, for a total of 18, still enough to bypass most guards' Perception mod of +2 at best). Contrary wise, a low level Ranger with a Survival mod of +7 wants to track a single goblin over hard terrain, 24 hours later, after 12 hours of rain, at full speed, at night. That's a DC of 40, and he's taking a -5 to the check. A natural 20 only gets him a 32. With his level of skill, such is quite simply beyond his ability, no matter what.
  
• Some checks I make for the player, specifically searching for traps. This is to assist roleplaying. I've seen players react drastically different when they don't find traps if they saw the die roll was low vis a high die roll. I make the roll behind the screen and simply tell them if they did or didn't find traps.
  
• Similar to that, is that I will always roll a Bluff check if players ask to make a Sense Motive roll. My hpuse rule is "Any character who believes they are telling the truth gets a +30 circumstance bonus to this roll". And if the NPC wins the contested roll (regardless if they're telling the truth or not), my verbal response to the players is "you trust him/her implicitly".
  
• I think Read Magic is a stupid spell. It's gone, and its effects are folded into Detect Magic. Furthermore, the ability to detect magic is kind of key for the primary arcane spellcasters. Sorcerers get Detect Magic as a bonus cantrip known, but still must spend a 0 level slot to cast it. Wizards treat it like the spontaneous healing of clerics. A wizard can prepare other cantrips, and then spend one 0 level spell slot to cast Detect Magic instead. I figure wizards studied hard to learn magic, that most basic function should be the easiest to do. It also keeps the warlock's ability to do it at-will unique.
  
• I allow my players to decide whether or not we use confirmation rolls for critical hits. But monsters will use the same rules. However, statistically, PCs have higher AC than monsters, and confirmation rolls mean the party receives less critical hits. If they vote to do away with them, they may, at any point in the campaign, return to using them if they unanimously agree. But once confirmation rolls are back, they stay.
  
• Critical misses use confirmation rolls even if hits do not. If a nat 1 is rolled, a "confirmation roll" is made. If that is a "hit", then it's just a regular miss. Missing the confirmation roll means it's a critical failure. This allows for the fun of critical misses, but softens them a bit. Of note is that natural weapons and unarmed strikes cannot "critically" miss.
  

I've had people ask about the "healing from 0" rule and how it interacts with the Diehard feat and the Deathless Frenzy of the Frenzied Berserker. Diehard still works with the rule, and I've had a player play a FB with these rules in play. A FB must be healed through negative HP normally if below -10 until they get above that threshold before their frenzy ends, or they die. My player had no problem with this dynamic, and said it was entirely fair.

As with anything I post, I encourage people to cherry pick or yoink wholesale anything they like.

[rel]

Interesting to see so many changes to classes and similar home brew built directly into campaign house rules. Not how I normally do things.

Each game I run has its own house rule document. Some elements are common to all or most games I run, but each new campaign will have a custom ruleset constructed alongside the custom campaign setting.

Further, house rules tend to get added in response to what the players end up doing and how the campaign progresses.

Here are a few examples from my games.

From my current 3.5 campaign (narrative, mission focused, very custom setting):
Rules Document 2022

From a short lived campaign from 2017 (exploration and resource management focused):
Rules Document 2017

from a 2012 campaign (player driven, magic focused, sandbox):
Rules Document 2012

from a 2009 campaign (high lethality, combat focused, ad hoc player formed parties)
Rules Document 2009

[Eladrinblade]

https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...64&postcount=1

[glass]

https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...64&postcount=1

Having read what's at the other end of that link, a couple of questions if I may:

1. The revised Point Blank Shot seems to suggest that you have houseruled out the usual restriction of 1 AoO for movement, but I cannot see that directly stated. Am I missing something?
2. You mention "beastskin" a couple of times -what is that/where is it from?
3. What is the significance (if any) of the asterisk saying you can swap domains for Cold rather than just adding Cold to those lists?

[Awakeninfinity]

I've had DnD stuff on the backburner for a while so there haven't been any major updates to upload a new version for, just little editing bits. If/when I do I'll mention it in the sig and can send out PMs if anyone's interested.

(And here's the google drive link for posterity, in case the sig is lost in the future for some reason).

I like your take on Briagandine Armor. I might want to borrow that if that's okay.

Also that document is rather large... you have made a lot of changes. I do have a query though; let's say someone tries to play a fighter/sorcerer/eldritch knight; is it assumed that they are using armor or no?

Spoiler: On the topic at hand... these are my houserules (And some OoC stuff) for 3.5e

Show

Level Drain is just a persistent negative level- I don't want to even chance a cycle of constantly falling behind so I'm removing the possibility. You will notice that this is from Pathfinder; yes I did.

In specific circumstances; ( I.E. weapon being hit with the Grease spell) ; a natural one on attack rolls will cause a DC 10 Dexterity check to avoid dropping your weapon (I will mention when it is relevant). In no other circumstances will it come up with any regularity.

I do allow rebuild requests; if a character isn't working the way you intended; talk to me (I will restrict rebuilding if you start rebuilding specifically to meet various encounters every session).

Track and Urban Tracking give their respective skills as permanent class skills.

All XP cost are multiplied by 5 and made into rare material components (you may have to quest in order find these).

Reroll 1's on hp; if you roll lower than half your potential max on even levels- you may reroll until you get a number above half.

I am doing a background skill variant; you may chose 3 skills to always be class skills; you gain (8+(2/level-1)) bonus skill points to spend on these three skills.

I do not have Favored Classes in my game.

Stabilization is a flat DC 10 Con check with a penalty equal to your negative hit point total

When your Intelligence modifier increases; you retroactively gain Skill points as if your score was always that amount.

I have the Catfolk writeup from Pathfinder 1st edition in my game; they have the Clever Cat Racial trait (which also applies to Gather Information).

I have locked certain classes behind Trainers; meaning that you must have met and had them teach you how to properly refine the techniques. This list is subject to change.

Master Specialist : 2-3 per Specialization (all unknown)
Abjurant Champion: 1 (unknown)

Rangers are proficient with Medium Armor and can wear it without losing any of their class features; They also gain improved evasion at level 16; and they can add their favored enemy bonus on attack rolls.

Marshal's Major Aura's bonus is now equal to the number of allies within 60' (Maximum bonus of one half of your Marshal Level; rounded down) or the normal Major Aura Bonus; whichever is higher.

True Strike is disallowed on permanent Rune stones and permanent Gem Stones.

Factotum is Banned.

1/2 caster's caster level is equal to Class Level minus three

The fighter alternate class features Elusive Attack; Counterattack; and Overpowering Attack are standard action attacks and not Full Round Attacks.

[Fizban]

I like your take on Briagandine Armor. I might want to borrow that if that's okay.

Of course, it wouldn't be out there if I didn't want people to use it. Though I would recommend using the rest of the armor table/section as well, since without the granularity putting brig at +3 would massively sell it short. Compared to standard dnd armor, Brigandine should basically be as good as "Breastplate", and indeed that's where it lies in Arms and Equipment guide. But standard medium armor sucks and caps at +5, and the whole system lacks the recognition that chest/torso armor can be worn alone, or with extra stuff on the arms and legs. I'm sort of hedging there already, letting the light breastplate have +4 over the brig's +3 (because a single piece is technically better than the brig's bands) even though the brig stipulates that it has a gambeson under it for arm/thigh coverage.

If all you want is to rename studded leather into brigandine, that works too, just remember that it's metal plate armor and the only reason "chain shirt" would have better AC is because the chain shirt must then be covering a lot more. I'd actually recommend using the brig as a replacement for standard chain shirt, with the shirt taking the old studded leather's stats. The only reason it's not basically that on my table is because I wanted the iconic breastplate with no accessories (which was plenty common), which has to be light, and has to be better than brig, and I cant' just delete chain shirt either. I believe at one point I actually had the light brig and breastplate equal in stats with the breastplate just being more expensive, but that didn't sit well with me either.

Fixing the 3.x armor table to make it both representative of a range of armors, across centuries of development, and make them all mechanically relevant, is always doomed to compromise somewhere.

Also that document is rather large... you have made a lot of changes. I do have a query though; let's say someone tries to play a fighter/sorcerer/eldritch knight; is it assumed that they are using armor or no?

They get to live in the grey area of the original ASF system. They have armor proficiency, so they can wear anything without attack penalties, but they don't have an Armored Mage ability. I would expect them to wear as much as they could offset the ASF of, which would generally be a +4 base light armor, with mithral and twilight, as well as a mithral targe or mithral twilight heavy shield (the kite shield is specifically out of range for 0% ASF, unless githcraft is allowed). You can go further stacking some armor templates and adjustments, which are on the tables, and I've placed the +6 base medium half-plate at 25% ASF, so mithral twilight feycraft is within range. Where exactly they would land on that spectrum would depend on how their gear is working out, which would depend on the game itself.

I will note that among the updates I've been pulling together (but haven't put out yet), I've settled on a ruling for Mage Armor/Shield: Mage Armor stays at +3, while I've decided that Shield acts like a Shield- a heavy shield giving +2 AC, which thus takes up your hand, though it's weightless and has no other penalties.

[Eladrinblade]

Having read what's at the other end of that link, a couple of questions if I may:

1. The revised Point Blank Shot seems to suggest that you have houseruled out the usual restriction of 1 AoO for movement, but I cannot see that directly stated. Am I missing something?
2. You mention "beastskin" a couple of times -what is that/where is it from?
3. What is the significance (if any) of the asterisk saying you can swap domains for Cold rather than just adding Cold to those lists?

1. I don't know of that rule
2. I think its in complete adventurer
3. that's it, nothing else; you have to replace one of those domains with cold if you want cold

[Darg]

1. I don't know of that rule

It's part of the Combat Reflexes feat.

Benefit:

When foes leave themselves open, you may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Dexterity bonus. For example, a fighter with a Dexterity of 15 can make a total of three attacks of opportunity in 1 round—the one attack of opportunity any character is entitled to, plus two more because of his +2 Dexterity bonus. If four goblins move out of the character’s
threatened squares, he can make one attack of opportunity each against three of the four. You can still make only one attack of opportunity per opportunity.

With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.

The SRD leaves it out so some people don't realize it's there.

[RedMage125]

1. I don't know of that rule

He's right. If you have a melee character with Combat Reflexes wielding a spiked chain (10 foot reach, all squares within reach), who gets enlarged (20 foot reach, all squares), an enemy who provoked an AoO from their first bit of movement is now free to dance all throughout the character's threatened area.

So your proposed change to PBS makes them able to take more than one AoO against the same enemy for the same move action, which melee characters do not get, even with Combat Reflexes.

[Eladrinblade]

He's right. If you have a melee character with Combat Reflexes wielding a spiked chain (10 foot reach, all squares within reach), who gets enlarged (20 foot reach, all squares), an enemy who provoked an AoO from their first bit of movement is now free to dance all throughout the character's threatened area.

So your proposed change to PBS makes them able to take more than one AoO against the same enemy for the same move action, which melee characters do not get, even with Combat Reflexes.

I didn't know that, and I think it's stupid so I'm going to change the rule itself.

[RedMage125]

I didn't know that, and I think it's stupid so I'm going to change the rule itself.

Well, this IS a thread about House Rules, so you do you.
For what it's worth, the intended benefit of Combat Reflexes by RAW is that a character can make AoOs against more than one creature that moves through their spaces. Also, note that it's one "per opportunity". So if there was a caster adjacent to that enlarged chain wielder I mentioned, he may back up 15 feet (provoking an AoO), but if he then casts a spell (without casting defensively), he provokes another AoO, even by RAW. Those are separate opportunities.

[Fizban]

I looked a bit more closely at some of Eladrinblade's and hey, a bunch of those are rather familiar. Also plenty I'm not interested in, and just skimming, but-

-you can be healed back up from -10* or lower, as long as it happens within a few minutes, but you will never do so naturally (however, a lost limb cannot be healed except with regeneration), you cannot stabilize until above that number, and fast healing stops working when you are below it

Another perfectly decent way to expand the death range. My first thought is 1 min/HD, and a note that healing resets the timer if needed.

armor table

Very nice and functional if you're willing to leave out lone breastplate. I have some disagreement with the scale mail- the big "upward stab ignores it" that makes it be rated lower in most discussions isn't necessarily true since the scales can be made to lock with those below them and prevent that (any more than you can just stab through mail), I suspect the main reason scale armors were mostly skipped is that level of scalework being even more annoying and they just went straight to bigger bands/plates instead. Except in Japan/etc where lamellar was made of little bits, notably without multidirectional interlocking scales.

But since you're also defining the setting rather than all possible armors, it makes sense to basically leave out the transition armors.

-Range increments past the first are halved, except against stationary targets
-Reach weapons are treated as one-handed weapons in regards to damage modifiers/offensive combat maneuvers
-You may use a reach weapon against adjacent enemies with a -2 penalty if there is at least 5ft of empty space on the other side of you from them, it is treated as a two-handed weapon while doing so (if held in both hands); you can change your grip on a weapon as a free action
. . .
-Animated shields and the bashing, dancing, keen, & merciful enhancements do not exist
. . .
-shortspears, spears, and longspears are considered the same weapon in terms of feats like weapon focus
-xbows can be fired in melee without provoking an AoO

Interesting.
-Reducing the effective direct fire range of projectile weapons seems plenty reasonable to me, though it cuts off later level ridiculous feats of heroism. A mass of archers can hit things when arcing out to maximum technical range, but that's not the range at which direct target fire was used.
-Nerfing reach weapons compared to 2-handed is also clever, forcing the choice between maximum damage and control/reach parity/etc. Gut response is that I want longspears and cool polearms to be good and if people are going to use 2-handed I'm rather them do something interesting rather than greatsword/axe (but not spiked chain ). Still, this does add more tradeoffs in damage vs defense vs reach vs monsters.
-I have my own rule for attacking inside your reach weapon's reach, no penalty but it's basically just a quarterstaff end- but if you're losing 2-hand damage it makes sense to at least keep your normal damage, and with this plus the one-handed damage status there's much less char-op push for the spiked chain.
-Ya know, if I want to get rid of the "shields are for bashing!" mentality, banning Bashing shields is a good idea. I should probably dump Merciful too since I hate prisoner problems, though I would expect its use more for NPCs than PCs.
-All spears as a focus/spec family is certainly one way to make them more attractive, or at least try.
-Hey, it's the gun rule! Yes, crossbows that are loaded and ready to fire are threatening and should not count as giving someone an AoO when you point them. It's the reloading that leaves you vulnerable.

-shield bash (bludgeoning) is a simple weapon, shield spikes are martial

Hmm. If I have haft strikes as simple I should probably have bashing as simple. Shield spikes I only leave in because tradition as all I ever hear is they never existed. . . so I should remove them.

Weapon Costs:
MW/enhancement bonuses/special materials costs for weapons differ:
-two-handed weapons stay the same
-one-handed weapons cost .75%
-light weapons cost .50%
-light throwing-only weapons cost .25%

I went through a whole trouble to make a Paired specific flat-cost property to help TWF without changing the weapon rules, but this does sound tempting. A bit of a discount for one-handers that can offset some shield cost, and 1/4 cost throwing weapons makes it easy to have 1-2 for emergencies while being a far cry from arrows (combine with my lethal shot/throw feats and four throwing weapons is enough for four rounds of big single throws). The problem comes up at higher values: early on the exponential bonuses mean that 1/2 price and +1 bonuses and such can all end up surprisingly close, but later on you get a +7 light for about the price of a +5 (2-handed in this system), or a +10 for the price of a +7. The difference between light and 2-hand is about 1d6, but eventually the available magic beats that out, but +10 is the max so the damage can swing back to 2-handed and one-handed weapons at 75% get weird (looks like they can afford about +1 more from +7 onward). It sounds like a potentially great idea, letting einhanders have more powerful magic or non-TWF rogues have more gadgets or just anyone have a better sidearm, but I'd have to see it in action. And most likely in action it would end up being fine, because the high levels where the costs diverge are the same levels where the table's dynamics start to eclipse base game mechanics.

Each +1 enhancement bonus on a magic weapon defeats 5 points of DR/magic (so +3 = DR 15/magic)

A fair compromise to the 3.0 but I'm fine with the new version.

Deflecting enhancement for shields, grants shield AC bonus to touch AC vs spells & spell-like abilities, is a +1 enhancement on its own and is included with the Reflecting enhancement

Is this published somewhere? Feels like it has to have been, though if it has I don't remember. Should probably add this to mine, though it does step on the toes of some feats.

(element) Burst weapons allow you to "throw" the elemental damage as a ranged-touch attack (20ft for light/40ft for one-handed/60ft for two-handed) instead of a melee attack, can't sneak attack/crit/no damage bonuses (except cha).

I feel like I commented on and/or suggested this at some point in the past. Not particularly gung-ho myself, would rather keep that sort of thing to Specific weapons.

elixirs

I like specific potions. I'm not sure I like many of these, and I'd have to compare to the prices I've got set for similar things myself, but I definitely like the structure of the weaker effects with lower price and longer duration into the stronger ones with higher price and short duration. Four tiers of linked price+time is neat and tidy, and I might consider writing/modifying effects to fit into it.

bard

As much as I hate the term "archetype," these are some nice low-key buffs to make Bards do things, though I would say the warrior goes a bit too far with full BAB and the mage rather needs a set of extra slots to cast their spells.

skills

I like the notes on survival, swim, and tumble penalties, and mass-handling animals is a good point. Though I might have the mass handle apply to animals in order of choice or in order from closest to you with the penalty going up for each check after the first, so that some are more likely to obey than others rather than some just randomly listening and others not (it would also be appropriate to have a follow the leader trick if you're training packs of attack animals). Using Heal to mitigate the harsh 3.x level drain is a great idea, though I might fear this would make it a little too easy to power through (gotta keep some scary stuff in the arsenal).

-Quick Draw also lets you draw weapons without provoking an AoO

Drawing weapons already doesn't provoke AoOs- retrieving an item from a backback does though. See the tables for Actions in Combat here, drawing a weapon is on the Move action table halfway down.

-Continual Flame can only be cast on permanent fixtures

An interesting nerf (I have a higher level version that's meant to be stationary myself)- out of curiosity then, what is your expected lighting method?

[Eladrinblade]

and a note that healing resets the timer if needed.

That's a good idea, but I still don't think I'd use it because they can never stabilize until above their threshold. I specifically left the time limit vague because I want to decide at the time if its too long or not and the players shouldnt know something like that anyway.

lone breastplate.
since the scales can be made to lock with those below them and prevent that

The armor names/"categories" aren't quite set in stone; if something would be basically equivalent you can have that instead. So like a breastplate + helm over a gambeson might be a "chain shirt", or maybe leatherplate or chainmail covering everything else would be the same as a brigandine-coat. I had to be sparse with explanations because the post runs right up against the word limit, but in general a heavier/more advanced armor incorporates the lighter/simpler armors. So like a brigandine-coat has chainmail or maybe leatherplate covering everything else (everything past leatherplate comes with a metal helm or helmet already). Platemail has chain to cover its gaps. A gambeson doesnt quite equal padded armor, but from chain-shirt up you probably have a gambeson under the armor.

Reducing the effective direct fire range of projectile weapons seems plenty reasonable to me, though it cuts off later level ridiculous feats of heroism. A mass of archers can hit things when arcing out to maximum technical range, but that's not the range at which direct target fire was used.

Indirect fire would count as a stationary target for me. The rule exists because I don't think the range penalties are enough. It's very easy to step out of the way of an incoming projectile past a certain point, and also it becomes impossible to predict where a target is going to be by the time the projectile gets to it if its moving erratically (like a bird flying in circles, but not perfect even circles). I almost removed the rule once or twice because of the added complication, but it just makes too much sense to me.

Ya know, if I want to get rid of the "shields are for bashing!" mentality, banning Bashing shields is a good idea.

I actually made shield-bashing an easier/better choice, but the bashing enhancement is just lazy and imo not even a good choice.

Shield spikes I only leave in because tradition as all I ever hear is they never existed. . .

Armor spikes too, but they're a fantasy staple imo so I'm keeping them. Now, armor spikes being used offensively but not defensively (harming those who grapple you) seems like a strange omission, but I haven't got around to homebrewing anything yet.

Is this published somewhere? (deflection)

I don't remember where I got the idea, but I did get it from somewhere.

I feel like I commented on and/or suggested this at some point in the past.

You probably did; I made a thread about it a year or two ago. Got the idea from the skyblivion videos where they show Goldbrand.

I like specific potions. I'm not sure I like many of these

I really liked baldurs gate 1 potions; I tried to replicate most of them (without being OP).

As much as I hate the term "archetype," these are some nice low-key buffs to make Bards do things, though I would say the warrior goes a bit too far with full BAB and the mage rather needs a set of extra slots to cast their spells.

Bard are advertised as a "step in and cover a role" class, but they're not. The idea here is you pick another role (besides what bard already does) and are good enough at it. A party with an adventurer rogue for instance can get by without a real rogue, in addition to having their "face"/"buffer"/whatever, or at least thats the idea. Warrior bards are probably going to stick with light armor and have to split up their stats too much to truly compete with a real fighter, so I don't worry about it. If a player thinks its too strong they are welcome to play one. The mage actually had bonus slots originally but people kept saying it was too good and I kinda agreed. Mage bard is the default/standard bard. I'm open to suggestions but I dont think they need much more.

Drawing weapons already doesn't provoke AoOs

That seems counterintuitive, but there it is.

An interesting nerf (I have a higher level version that's meant to be stationary myself)- out of curiosity then, what is your expected lighting method?

There's tons of choices. Lanterns (they have better reach than most sources), sunrods (the best, but expensive over time and kinda short-lived), the light spell (cheap and has a decent duration), enchanted glowing weapons (probably the standard past low levels), I've even homebrewed some new light spells , but these are the kind you've have to find or make on your own rather than just pick as you level up.

I like the various options for lighting, such as one person using a hooded lantern for an aura of light around the party and another person using a bullseye to look down hallways or target things farther out, or leaving light sources in a specific spot while the party is somewhere else, or casting light on an arrow and firing it off into the distance; that kind of thing. I also like the players having to manage resources; continual flame is cheap and lazy imo, but I also don't mind dungeons or cities having some permanent magic light if they're willing to pay for it.

[glass]

1. I don't know of that rule

It's part of the Combat Reflexes feat.

I didn't know that, and I think it's stupid so I'm going to change the rule itself.

Fair enough, like someone said, this is the thread for it!

FWIW, I am almost certain there is further text beyond what is in Combat Reflexes that specifies that any an all movement from a given creature on a given turn counts as one opportunity, although it is a bit vague on how exactly that works. My group plays it as "if an enemy leaves more than one of your threatened squares, you only get one AoO but you get to choose any of the squares they leave".

Of course, in practice it is almost always the first square since you rarely know at that point that they are going to give you another opportunity, but it feels more sensible. The only other options we could think of were mandating the first one or mandating the last one, neither of which made much sense.

12. I think its in complete adventurer

So it is. Weird how little fo that book I remember. I will try not to forget it next time I play a druid.

Now I've got the book out, I am almost certain there was something else I wanted to look up in it, but if so I have no idea what....

13. that's it, nothing else; you have to replace one of those domains with cold if you want cold

Fair enough. I guess the practical upshot is that Clerics of Abadar cannot take both Earth and Cold and Cleric of Gozreh cannot take both Air and Cold (and Clerics of Talos cannot take all three of Air, Water, and Cold although obviously that'll only matter if they get an extra Domain somehow).

BTW, I like the mix of (mostly?) FR, GH, and Golarion gods. Only one I cannot place is Zarus.

Drawing weapons already doesn't provoke AoOs- retrieving an item from a backback does though. See the tables for Actions in Combat here, drawing a weapon is on the Move action table halfway down.

I knew there was something else I meant to mention....

[StreamOfTheSky]

The SRD leaves it out so some people don't realize it's there.

The SRD has the rule under the AoO rules:
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/at...combatReflexes

If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

[Darg]

The SRD has the rule under the AoO rules:
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/at...combatReflexes

There we go. Another rule people don't realize is that using the move action provokes AoOs. This is in addition to that of moving out of a threatened square. You can find this in the move action table. Just one more reason spring attack is actually good.