Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Miscellaneous House Rules (longish; PEACH)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 9074236" data-attributes="member: 6777737"><p>It's still not really meaningful to evaluate a house rule without knowing the <em>intent</em> behind that rule. I can't really say if the change is good or bad because I don't know what you're attempting to achieve with the change.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the change to Extra Attack is pretty weird all around. It feels like you're trying to turn attacks into Cantrips, but I don't understand what the purpose of doing that is. Attack rolls are not particularly complicated enough to justify simplification. It's very unclear how two weapon fighting would work, let alone feats that grant extra attacks.</p><p></p><p>I have no opinion beyond that I don't know what the effect really is, but it seems like it would be worse overall.</p><p></p><p>Quite honestly, if I were unhappy with how <em>the attack rolls</em> worked in any edition of D&D, I would not play that edition of D&D. It's too fundamental to the game's combat.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have absolutely no idea what the result here even is. What is "step down"? What is "1.5x max"? This is extremely complicated with zero examples. It is word salad. I cannot even tell if the result is higher or lower than the core rules because I can't understand what it's trying to say.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That seems real confusing with multiclassing. Is that even allowed?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess, sure. You're likely to see a lot more long resting, meaning Fighters, Monks, and Warlocks are going to be worse.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If your goal is to make sudden character death more frequent or long rests more mandatory, this will do that. It seems very complicated to me and a lot to track, but if that accomplishes your goal then sure.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, that will achieve that goal. Again it seems very complicated. Offhand, it looks like it virtually guarantees most characters will have 6 scores above 12. It's a ton of math to completely evaluate it, so I'll just make an example.</p><p></p><p>Gnome Artificer aiming for Armorer</p><p>Str 10 (4,4,4,2,2,1)</p><p>Dex 14 (4,4,4,3,2,1)</p><p>Con 14 (4,4,2,2,2,1)</p><p>Int 17 (4,4,3,3,2,1)</p><p>Wis 12 (4,3,3,2,2,1)</p><p>Cha 8 (4,4,4,3,2,1)</p><p></p><p>Str would be 17 with 6 dice, 16 with 5, or 14 with 4</p><p>Dex would be 18 with 6 dice, 17 with 5, 15 with 4</p><p>Con would be 16 with 6 dice, 15 with 5 dice, 4 is null</p><p>Int would stay 17 with 6 dice, so it's null.</p><p>Wis is 15 with 6 dice, 14 with 5, 4 is null.</p><p>Cha is 18 with 6 dice, 17 with 5, 15 with 4.</p><p></p><p>[Edit: It seems clear that you should <em>always </em>take 15,15,15,8,8,8 for your array with 27 point buy, but this example is literally my last character, and he used standard array.]</p><p></p><p>So I'll take:</p><p></p><p>Str 14 (4)</p><p>Dex 18 (6)</p><p>Con 17 (5)</p><p>Int 17 null</p><p>Wis 14 (5)</p><p>Cha 15 (4)</p><p></p><p>So I get +4 Str, +4 Dex, +3 Con, +0 Int, +2 Wis, +7 Cha.</p><p></p><p>I guess I'm probably switching to Artillerist now? I could also take high Cha instead of Dex and then switch to Bard or Sorcerer. Or even go High Cha and Str and go Paladin.</p><p></p><p>I don't know why you'd want to do this in the game, though. Again, I don't see a design goal beyond higher stats.</p><p></p><p>It feels like I should start every game as a Monk, Cleric, Rogue, Paladin, Barbarian, Bard, or Artificer and then see if I get any broken high stats I can capitalize on. If multiclassing is allowed, then I'll multiclass as needed. If multiclassing is banned, then I'll still have a class where I can probably take advantage of whatever busted thing I have.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 9074236, member: 6777737"] It's still not really meaningful to evaluate a house rule without knowing the [I]intent[/I] behind that rule. I can't really say if the change is good or bad because I don't know what you're attempting to achieve with the change. I think the change to Extra Attack is pretty weird all around. It feels like you're trying to turn attacks into Cantrips, but I don't understand what the purpose of doing that is. Attack rolls are not particularly complicated enough to justify simplification. It's very unclear how two weapon fighting would work, let alone feats that grant extra attacks. I have no opinion beyond that I don't know what the effect really is, but it seems like it would be worse overall. Quite honestly, if I were unhappy with how [I]the attack rolls[/I] worked in any edition of D&D, I would not play that edition of D&D. It's too fundamental to the game's combat. I have absolutely no idea what the result here even is. What is "step down"? What is "1.5x max"? This is extremely complicated with zero examples. It is word salad. I cannot even tell if the result is higher or lower than the core rules because I can't understand what it's trying to say. That seems real confusing with multiclassing. Is that even allowed? I guess, sure. You're likely to see a lot more long resting, meaning Fighters, Monks, and Warlocks are going to be worse. If your goal is to make sudden character death more frequent or long rests more mandatory, this will do that. It seems very complicated to me and a lot to track, but if that accomplishes your goal then sure. Well, that will achieve that goal. Again it seems very complicated. Offhand, it looks like it virtually guarantees most characters will have 6 scores above 12. It's a ton of math to completely evaluate it, so I'll just make an example. Gnome Artificer aiming for Armorer Str 10 (4,4,4,2,2,1) Dex 14 (4,4,4,3,2,1) Con 14 (4,4,2,2,2,1) Int 17 (4,4,3,3,2,1) Wis 12 (4,3,3,2,2,1) Cha 8 (4,4,4,3,2,1) Str would be 17 with 6 dice, 16 with 5, or 14 with 4 Dex would be 18 with 6 dice, 17 with 5, 15 with 4 Con would be 16 with 6 dice, 15 with 5 dice, 4 is null Int would stay 17 with 6 dice, so it's null. Wis is 15 with 6 dice, 14 with 5, 4 is null. Cha is 18 with 6 dice, 17 with 5, 15 with 4. [Edit: It seems clear that you should [I]always [/I]take 15,15,15,8,8,8 for your array with 27 point buy, but this example is literally my last character, and he used standard array.] So I'll take: Str 14 (4) Dex 18 (6) Con 17 (5) Int 17 null Wis 14 (5) Cha 15 (4) So I get +4 Str, +4 Dex, +3 Con, +0 Int, +2 Wis, +7 Cha. I guess I'm probably switching to Artillerist now? I could also take high Cha instead of Dex and then switch to Bard or Sorcerer. Or even go High Cha and Str and go Paladin. I don't know why you'd want to do this in the game, though. Again, I don't see a design goal beyond higher stats. It feels like I should start every game as a Monk, Cleric, Rogue, Paladin, Barbarian, Bard, or Artificer and then see if I get any broken high stats I can capitalize on. If multiclassing is allowed, then I'll multiclass as needed. If multiclassing is banned, then I'll still have a class where I can probably take advantage of whatever busted thing I have. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Miscellaneous House Rules (longish; PEACH)
Top