Opinions needed: Several house rules in conjunction

[Gregor]

Protection from GOOD? Protection from Chaos? Just a little too silly for me and having 4 different spells that could just as well be combined into one makes more sense. They're useless spells so I have no problem calling it "enemies."

I agree.

However, (note that alot of what I am saying here is me talking to myself out loud ) does it not greatly improve the protection spells by allowing the bonuses they convey apply against all enemies? I always assumed the spell was balanced at its level because it only applied against specific foes. Does this change warrant a higher level for the spell?

Moreover, because you dropped alignment, what happens to the good, evil, chaos and law domains. Did you remove them? If so, what did you replace them with?

What about all the alignment specific spells asides from the protection spells: holy smite, etc.

Sorry for my questionning, but I am trying to grapple with the questions I listed above and I really want to drop alignment in my game. Im curious as to how you dealt with these issues.

 

[monboesen]

* Fumbles on a Natural 1
Two options:
1) Either drop the weapon 2 squares out of reach in a random direction (d4) (or break a bowstring 1d2 full rounds to re-string) or
2) Hit the enemy for a critical and the weapon (or bow) is destroyed

To me this produces the counterintuitive situation that Lord Evil, the 14th level fighter, breaks/drops his sword three times as often (because he has 3 attacks per round) as Jim the 1st level commoner (who has one attack per round).


Breaking/dropping your weapon on every 20 attacks also seems way to often in general.


I would introduce some sort of level based save or check to avoid the fumble. So that more experienced fighters are less likely to fumble in a given round, rather than more likely.

 

[Emirikol]

Tirade On Alignment By Jay

I agree. However, (note that alot of what I am saying here is me talking to myself out loud ) does it not greatly improve the protection spells by allowing the bonuses they convey apply against all enemies? I always assumed the spell was balanced at its level because it only applied against specific foes. Does this change warrant a higher level for the spell? Moreover, because you dropped alignment, what happens to the good, evil, chaos and law domains. Did you remove them? If so, what did you replace them with? What about all the alignment specific spells asides from the protection spells: holy smite, etc. Sorry for my questionning, but I am trying to grapple with the questions I listed above and I really want to drop alignment in my game. Im curious as to how you dealt with these issues.

Overall to address your questions, I don't see it as an issue at all to just tell your players that you're not using alignment from a game mechanic standpoint. You don't need to remove any spells, gods, domains or abilities. Just don't make a big deal out of it anymore. Remove what doesn't matter. Your players will help point out issues that need to be addressed (I'll list them below):

In answer to your specific questions:

PROTECTION FROM SPECIFIC ALIGNMENT: I don't think that protection is strong enough to justify raising it to 2nd level, but I've not tested it by attacking my friends and good opponents +2deflection ac/+2 saves/immune to charm stuff/can't be touched by summoned creatures. 1min/level. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromevil.htm

HOLY SMITE STUFF: Is it an enemy of you? Well, then I guess you get to smite it then. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/HOLYSMITE.htm There's no mechanic from smiting your friends if you don't want..there's just GUILT after doing it!

As for CLERIC domains such as good/evi/chaos/law just leave them. Do your gods exist or is magic just magic just magic? Does it REALLY matter what alignment your god is because he is working in his domains rather than trying to balance some artificial system? Can a demon-god of disease meddle in a lovers quarrel with no underlying interest in causing the spread of disease? (i.e. are your gods human or are they robots who are constrained?). Without ALIGNMENT, piety becomes a role-playing issue..not just a way to get spells (which doesn't seem like "piety" in that case..unless it's a god with the GUILT and JUMP-THROUGH-HOOPS domain

PALADINS: Does it REALLY matter if a Paladin is good in YOUR campaign? How would it be game breaking if he was a downright mean bastard? Would he become TOO POWERFUL?

DRUIDS: Does it matter if a druid is chaotic evil or lawful good if magic is magic? Can a person be raised as a druid and learn to hate nature and wish it ill and want to burn down every dang tree and murder and kill pixies and treants ..if magic is just magic?

DO GOD'S GRANT SPELLS? Nope, not in my world. Magic is magic. Clerics, rangers, druids, and paladins just cast a little differently. Whoopdeeedoooo. No game mechanic change. No broken system of power escalation. Just words that allow your campaign to be different without having to have a 64 page house rulebook explaining and justifying things..plus, Robert E Howard always noted "the gods don't exist..but demons do..and that's probably where magic comes from." It's relevant to our campaign, maybe not to yours.

Alignment and "gods granting spells" are intricately linked. Lose both concepts and you can have a non-alignment type game and not have this "gods-interfering-and-granting-permission-for-your-spells-if-you-ask-pretty-please" mentality

I did the same for Psionics. Psionics is magic. You don't need to have a different "knowledge" skillset. You don't need 18 differen't dispels/detect spells. Magic is magic. One problem that this solved actually was that Psionists are no longer running around in platemail casting "spells" equal to that of wizards..who can't wear armor without the penalty

It seems so cute having 4+ categories of magic (divine, arcane, psionic, bard, etc.), but it's not necessary. It doesn't matter if you leave it or if you remove it..that's an indicator that maybe it's just for D&D-FLAVOR. I'm trying to remove some D&D-flavor. Not because I hate and detest D&D, but because I'm attempting to offer a game thats different.

These issues will not get your players upset either. In fact, they will get you talking about the game again in ways that haven't probably happened since your first days of gaming...


jh


..

 

[Emirikol]

To me this produces the counterintuitive situation that Lord Evil, the 14th level fighter, breaks/drops his sword three times as often (because he has 3 attacks per round) as Jim the 1st level commoner (who has one attack per round). Breaking/dropping your weapon on every 20 attacks also seems way to often in general. I would introduce some sort of level based save or check to avoid the fumble. So that more experienced fighters are less likely to fumble in a given round, rather than more likely.

Excellent point! I hadnt' thought of that at all. I'm going to add a simple sentence to read, "You can only fumble once per round per hand."

Jay

 

[Emirikol]

So, continuing with post #23...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm

Domain spell assessment:
Chaos Hammer..
Holy Smite
Order's wrath
Unholy blight

All of these are "Alignment" spells. Just make it "towards enemies." Since every group has one, and they're not particularly powerful spells for 4th level spells, no big change.

If you expect that your group is a bunch of heroes righting wrongs or if they're a bunch of Chinese undead who are wighting wongs, the spells are still relevant..and players will probably think about them more in terms of "them" rather than alignment as a game mechanic..."well, I'd hate to waste my chaos hammer" if the guy's chaotic evil..Bob, why don't you cast your detect law spell on him..but I don't have detect law...oh well, George, why don't you look up the monster in the manual to see what his alignment is..GEORGE: I don't have to, i have the MM memorized, i know he's lawful!.. That's not fun


jh

 

[shurai]

Because rogues are a skill-based class. If all skills are class skills, then why play a rogue? Seriously: if you boost all other classes this way, then either boost rogues or just kick the class. Either give them even more skill points, or something else that helps.

I think the number of skill points per level effectively matters a lot more than which skills are learnable, especially in a setting in which magic is going to supercede the skill list less often. Also, in a world with far fewer fireballs, those sneak attack dice start to look mighty friendly. If it were me I don't think I'd jigger rogues around.

A fighter with a dex of 12 who can do all the TWF feats is going to be much stronger than a fighter with a high dex and TWF. This is because he can sink his points into Str instead of Dex and use Str-based weapons, so he'll be hitting just as often (or more) and doing a whole lot more damage. Plus, he'll have better armor, too.

I don't think that matters as much as it seems. TWF in D&D is weaker than exotic weapon builds, greatswording, archery, and I think sword-and-shield, so removing the dex requirement probably makes it less weak rather than too strong.

Better armor? Str-based weapons? I'm not sure I understand what you mean there.

As for the weapon fumble stuff, the other piece of advice I have is: be sure to price "bowstrings" for equipment, decide what kind of check (craft?) and the DC it would take to repair a bow - OR if "restringing" is just a full-round action that provokes an AoO - BEFORE you start the campaign. Setting all this down early allows players to prepare (by buying hundreds of extra strings or investing in craft skills, etc.) and makes it more fair.

Bow strings are cheap and light, I imagine. I'd have trouble charging more than two or three coppers for one, given that you can buy an arrow for five, and arrows must be more work and cost more in materials.

To me this produces the counterintuitive situation that Lord Evil, the 14th level fighter, breaks/drops his sword three times as often (because he has 3 attacks per round) as Jim the 1st level commoner (who has one attack per round).

I think I agree; how about having a "threat" for it the way a person threatens a critical? Say, when a person rolls a 1, they make another attack roll. If that misses the target AC at whatever the fumble-threatening attack bonus was, then it's a fumble. Otherwise, it's just a regular miss.

Even on the low-bonus iterative attacks of Lord Evil the Brilliant Swordsman (has someone just beaten Twilight Princess perhaps?), his chances of hitting are still higher than Farmer John's, thanks to strength and feat bonuses. Because of this I think Lord Evil would have a lower overall likelihood of fumbling round-by-round, despite the additional number of rolls he's making.

Breaking/dropping your weapon on every 20 attacks also seems way to often in general.

How does once in maybe forty to fifty attacks sound, as it would be with my threaten-a-fumble idea above? It would happen often enough to make people worry about it, but not often enough to really change the cost of fighting a combat much.

 

[shurai]

Excellent point! I hadnt' thought of that at all. I'm going to add a simple sentence to read, "You can only fumble once per round per hand."

Gotta say I dunno if I like this rule. It won't be eliminating much of the sample space. Say you make two attack rolls in a round. A pair of ones is going to show up once every two hundred rounds or so. The odds increase somewhat if you're looking for more than a single one in more than two rolls, but not much (if it's three attack rolls, it's up to almost three quarters of a percent, I think).

Anyway this misses the other probability problem -- Lord Evil (three d20 rolls) is about three times as likely to fumble as Farmer John (one d20 roll), even if you limit it to max out at once per round. In fact, most of the time in rounds that see fumbles, only one fumble will be seen, as I showed above. The roll-to-confirm rule I suggested neatly solves this problem, with a mechanic players are already familiar with.

Edit: Ack! Math error!

 

[StGabe]

Excellent point! I hadnt' thought of that at all. I'm going to add a simple sentence to read, "You can only fumble once per round per hand."

Doesn't really fix it. You are still much more likely to fumble as you get BETTER and have more attacks.

I use the following which isn't perfect but works ok:

Rolling a 1 causes a "fumble threat". To confirm whether it is a fumble or not, make a dex check with DC 10. If you fail, you fumble according to the DM's whims. Natural attacks cannot fumble.

 

[StGabe]

Also, we play without alignment. I have always thought alignment was incredibly stupid and it was the first thing to go when I started DM'ing. For spells we simply do remove all alignment specific spells and that doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. There's still a ton of spells out there. In general, from a game-design standpoint, I also think that abilities which are only useful in very specific circumstances aren't very good. Similarly I don't care for the Ranger's favored enemies, turn undead, etc.

The hardest class to balance with this notion is the class that you are already having problems with: Paladins. For my campaign I just rewrote the paladin class (you can see one of my paladin classes here: http://www.st-gabe.com/dnd/thorn_paladin.doc).

 

[Felnar]

Excellent point! I hadnt' thought of that at all. I'm going to add a simple sentence to read, "You can only fumble once per round per hand."

this addition does nothing...
with your fumble rules, once you fumble your hand is empty (dropped or broken weapon) so there's no way to fumble with that hand again (without Quick Drawing a weapon)

I think I agree; how about having a "threat" for it the way a person threatens a critical? Say, when a person rolls a 1, they make another attack roll. If that misses the target AC at whatever the fumble-threatening attack bonus was, then it's a fumble. Otherwise, it's just a regular miss.

Even on the low-bonus iterative attacks of Lord Evil the Brilliant Swordsman (has someone just beaten Twilight Princess perhaps?), his chances of hitting are still higher than Farmer John's, thanks to strength and feat bonuses. Because of this I think Lord Evil would have a lower overall likelihood of fumbling round-by-round, despite the additional number of rolls he's making.

sort of...
if lord evil and farmer john are fighting the same opponent then yes, but mostly likely lord evil is a higher level character who fights higher CR creatures with higher ACs. given that lord evils attack bonus will grow faster than opponents AC your analysis is correct, for lord evils first attack only.
remember, because of iterative attacks are at lower bonuses, your later attacks are much more likely to fumble than your first one

a static check, like the proposed DC 10 dex check is better, but still doesnt show that more experienced characters are less likely to fumble because high level fighters often have the same dex as 1st level fighters.

the better scaled solution would be resisting a disarm of a static attack bonus, say +8, which incorporate things like the characters BAB, two-handed weapons, and locked gauntlets.