Here are my current set of house rules - please critique

[Sadrik]

Multiclassing however could be a problem. Multiclassing already allows players to make single class character look like wimps next to there multiclassed compatriots. Bumping up the class abilities essentially making them higher leveled characters (just without the numbers), increases their comparitive abilities even more compared to a single class character. Now, unless you specifically want everyone in your game to be multiclass, I think anyone who chooses a single class is going to feel like they're being penalized.

The multi-class rule will allow spellcasters to compete with not spell casters in multi-classing.

Here are some examples:
10/10 --> class features as a 15/15 in all other ways it is an 10/10
2/2 --> 3/3
9/1 --> 9/2
7/7/6 --> 13/13/12
4/4/4/4 --> 8/8/8/8

Certain classes should always multi-class just as per the RAW but with this no fix-it PrCs will be required and class features will advance in an ordered fashion that should not out-of-balance the character. Of course their are countless permutations so only time will tell.

Anyways, other than that I don't see any problems with your houserules. In fact, it looks like a very fun campaign your preparing. One that I'd probably enjoy myself. Just one other thing though, make sure your players like these rules too.

Thanks, hope it all works out as well.

 

[Megahedron]

It seems like you are making this very complicated. A lot of these rules aren't necessary because they already exist. You made toughness into improved toughness, a feat that already exists. You made the wizard spell book cost money per spell, that already exists. You turned the cleric into the favored soul, a spontaneous cleric caster that already exists. Some earlier posts said the paladin changes weren't necessary. I agree, but I think you made it broken. You pretty much ruined the monk. The monk can't get the magic weapons that other classes can, so they rely heavily on that damage increase. You made power attack max at 5, when it already maxes at 5. What you did to multiclassing class features is broken. It seems like you created night-vision instead of low-light vision, but it's just a copy of darkvision. Your hp system isn't bad, but IMO it should be the average of the HD. Like d4 would be 2 at even levels and 3 at odd levels, but I like the system to cut down on cheating. It also makes the players a little better off if they aren't cheating because high hp is not as beneficial as low hp is detramental. I don't really see what you did to change criticals or SA. It looks the same to me. 500 gp is going to leave the players grossly underequipped, which can work if it's what you're trying to do. The bonus xp for backstories is a nice little incentive, but I wouldn't do it. IMO players should have be required to write one. It seems like you are making it very complex, and, I don't know your players but, you might end up discouraging them from playing. You really have to be careful homebrewing. You set yourself up for a lot of balance and continuity issues as well as having slow-crawling, confusing gameplay.

 

[Sadrik]

It seems like you are making this very complicated. A lot of these rules aren't necessary because they already exist.

I am trying to play with just the core books, so many of the feats, classes and other things that you list that exist in other supplements in effect do not exist. Some of the things you should check your rules again they work differently than you think.

You made the wizard spell book cost money per spell, that already exists.

I had a problem with them costing too much money at low level and making the party rich. I lowered their value, not that big a deal.

You pretty much ruined the monk. The monk can't get the magic weapons that other classes can, so they rely heavily on that damage increase.

Ah but in this, I allow the monk unarmed damage bonus to apply to monk weapons. So if you have a shuriken you can make it hurt and with a magic one it can hurt real bad... Sam goes with katar or spiked gauntlets...

What you did to multiclassing class features is broken.

This is fair, if you were in my game I guess you would multi-class then. I think it is strong, I am not convinced it is broken single class still is very good.

Your hp system isn't bad

Thanks, I like it too.

500 gp is going to leave the players grossly underequipped, which can work if it's what you're trying to do.

Equipment for the group is never a problem. I never really like the style of gaming wear everyone has exactly level equivalent items it does not make good story.

The bonus xp for backstories is a nice little incentive, but I wouldn't do it. IMO players should have be required to write one.

The more I think about this rule the more I don't like it. It is one of my oldest rules too! I think it has been ok all this time because no one has ever opted to not write a background in one of my games. Even if it was just 2 paragraphs of sloppily written disjointed text that was fine and we ran with it and made it work. Now though I have this notion more and more that the players should remain at the same XP. I don't know, any thoughts on that?

 

[Ashtagon]

I had a problem with them (spellbooks) costing too much money at low level and making the party rich. I lowered their value, not that big a deal.

I don't get this. The wizard gets a free spellbook. So far so good. He could sell it for a quick cash boost i suppose, but his class powers are then effectively neutralised. And re-scribing those spells will cost twice as much as the amount he gained by selling the book in the first place. This isn't free money for new characters. It's a money-sink in case they lose the book.

This is fair, if you were in my game I guess you would multi-class then. I think it is strong, I am not convinced it is broken single class still is very good.

The definition of a broken feature is would it be a no-brainer decision to take it. I'd keep it, with the exception that it does not apply to spell-casting progressions. Full casters are insanely powerful as it is. Making a maxed out arcane caster be Wizard 15 / Sorcerer 15 is just too much. He'll take up too much real-life preparation time choosing his spells, even if you consider him balanced.

 

[Sadrik]

I don't get this. The wizard gets a free spellbook. So far so good. He could sell it for a quick cash boost i suppose, but his class powers are then effectively neutralised. And re-scribing those spells will cost twice as much as the amount he gained by selling the book in the first place. This isn't free money for new characters. It's a money-sink in case they lose the book.

You must never have your characters fight low level wizards and then recover their spell books. Or are you one of the DMs that says the spell book is never on the wizard and then the players search for it and never find it. If you have the players fight 8 3 level wizards that is a serious chunk of cash just in the spell books alone 100gp per page cantrips are 1 page and spells are spell level - a full spell book is worth 10,000gp. Under my rule a full spell book is worth 1,000gp - a big difference in my book.

The definition of a broken feature is would it be a no-brainer decision to take it. I'd keep it, with the exception that it does not apply to spell-casting progressions. Full casters are insanely powerful as it is. Making a maxed out arcane caster be Wizard 15 / Sorcerer 15 is just too much. He'll take up too much real-life preparation time choosing his spells, even if you consider him balanced.

I agree that full casters are insanely powerful by the raw. This is a problem with full casters, not the multi-classing system that I have come up with.
And again, it may be a no-brainer for one player but not necessarily so for another player. It is an equally available option for all players and NPCs so in that sense it is balanced. Additionally as before certain classes are better off multi-classing in any 3e multi-classing system and they still are... Fighter I am looking at you.

Speaking on the fighter it might be a good idea to make weapon specialization a class feature that scales by fghter level. The feature could say something like every weapon you have weapon focus in gets a damage bonus equal to 1 + 1/4 your level or something and then delete the weapon specialization feat. I like that I think I will add that to the fighter...

 

[Sadrik]

Oh yeah post 1 updated.

Change log:
Fighter added weapon specialization as a class feature
Deleted weapon specialization feat
Added staggered and disabled conditions to failed Stabalize rolls
Removed background story XP bonus
Added that the bonus item could be determined by the player if they write it into their background
Ranger gets their damage bonus at 4th level instead of 1st.
Removed unlimited 0 level spells
Added bonus 0 level spells for high stats
Changed summoning polymorph spells to a specific creature for each spell.
Cleaned up:
The Sneak attack and critical entry
The Spell resistance entry


Also, I would like to come up with a rule that helps mitigate save or die spells by basically doing CON damage. Does anyone have any suggestion on how to do this?

I would also like to simplify AoO, any suggestions there?

 

[Megahedron]

I guess you could scrap the rule. That's the only thing I can think of. Or make backstories mandatory.

 

[Sadrik]

Posted another update to the house rules post #1.

Change log:
Many...