Narsil said:
Well, I wouldn't consider a longbow exotic, anyway. Not in a historical context; my country (or one of them: in UK terms I'm a bit of a mongrel, really) had a specific fondness for the longbow. I'd at least give the UK-equivalent region some familiarity with them. (Treat them as martial weapons, y'know.)
I'm indeed going with the Weapon Familiarity idea (or at least I think I will). Sorry about not making that clear.
Drawmack said:
You're doing away with races, how about incorporating ethnicities.
That's a good rule. Unfortunately I wasn't very clear:
My game DOES have races, and and classes, and even magic - it's just that the rules for them are not D&D's so D&D house rules regarding these issues aren't going to be very useful.
I'm in fact pretty much using your idea. Each character gets 3 traits (a "trait" is sort-of a first-level-only feat), and their choice of traits is limited by their race. For example, all dwarfs must take the Mountain Folk trait.
In other words - don't change the rules JUST for the sake of changing the rules. The game will go much easier (for everyone) and players will be much happier.
Generally I agree with you, and for the very reasons you raise I restrict my house rules for a minimum. Take into account, however, that in this game I am literally writing a whole new game - the RAW will
already be very different from D&D, the whole game is already a huge pile of rules that will require learning just like any other game. So in this case, I believe I should incorporate as many house rules that I like as possible. I am writing the RAW, I need to decide what's in it.
My primary concern I think is enhancing game-play. I'm making a new game, I want to make the best game I can.
Again, in general I agree gameplay actually takes second place to players being comfortable using the RAW - unless something is broken to the point it ruins the game, I won't stray from the RAW. This is a special case.
Man in the Funny Hat said:
Regarding 5' step - check me if I'm wrong but 5' step is ALREADY usable at any point in your TURN - what is it you think you need to accomplish by making it both AT WILL (which I assume means that you want to allow everyone a Step, every round, no matter what other movement or actions they take - including full-round actions?) and at any point in the entire ROUND? Unless you feel the need to portray races as... I don't know, more light on their feet or somesuch, I'd like to see background reasoning/explanation for something like that. Please don't say you think it's more realistic. I'd be so disappointed.
My game isn't going to be realistic. Not at all. I don't really care about making things realistic.
The change to the 5' step is to deny tactics such as "my archer moves back 5' and fires" which my players don't find appealing (even when they're playing archers; we've suggested several house rules on that over the years). It also makes combat more dynamic, with people moving and manueavering across the battle-field.
Swapping Tumble and Concentration for AC - doubly so. AC in D&D is admittedly bass-ackwards in that armor should reduce damage as opposed to reduce the chance of being hit in the first place. Is that where you're headed? Or is this supposed to just replace Dex AC bonuses? Or... I need more information to grasp this one too.
Again this is mostly a problem of gameplay. We'd like wizards to have trouble when facing a fighter at close range, even at high levels. We'd like monks to not tumble past even the great swordmaster (slight bow to realism there I suppose). It's about what is fun in terms of tactics and choices, not about any issues with AC. (Iron Heroes actually uses DR for its armor, but that's not its appeal to me at all.)
Making Tumble and Concentration checks replace AC is in-line with the use of Rise to do the same, and seems (at first glance) to scale well. A master tumbler could tumble past a bunch of goons but would be hit by the captain of the guard as he tries to cartwheel pass him. The great wizard wastes the guards facing him with a quick incantation, but gets skewered when he tries to pull a fast one over the hero holding him at sword's edge. That's the feel we want for our game, that's what we want tumble (and casting defensively) to accomplish, and this mechanic seems like a simple way to handle it consistent with other rules (and hence easy to remember).
Making longbows exotic - I'd have least problems with this. ASSUMING, of course, that your campaign history/cultures support this. If your problem with longbows comes down to not being able to personally visualize a longbow and mounted archery together then just ban THAT, or make a feat for "Mounted Longbow Archery". Making longbows themselves actually exotic is going a bit far in fixing things that 'ain't broke.
I seperate the two both for history/cultural reasons and for gameplay. I want to create a distinction, to have the short and long bows be different so that it is sometimes advantageous to use one and at other times the other - so I disallow using the longbow from horseback, creating a niche for shortbows. Moving the longbow to exotic serves to reflect that most people in my campaign use shortbows (even though they ain't riders), and that longbows are largely an exotic weapon wielded in exotic lands (the northern highlands).
Thanee said:
Give a minimum for hit point rolls equal to half the hit die to prevent frustratingly low rolls (if you use hit points, that is).
Half the hit-dice? Ain't that a little high? I'd be creating ubermanch
I appreciate the sentiment, but I think a less drastic option would be better. Perhaps guarenteeing at least 1/3 of the HP due to HD? So a character's hit points, regardless of bad rolls, can never drop below level x (HD / 3 + Con modifier). [Better phrased, to account for multiclassin, but you get my point.]
Primitive Screwhead said:
Excellent! Makes sesne and fun alike. I'm sure to include these in my game.
Why ony 1/4 the distance in height in case the kobold is thrown straight up, though? I'd imagine it be higher than the height for a normal throw, say 1/2 the check.
Reagrding falling damage, if you're interested in realism you should certainly limit the damage to a maximum of five range increments or somesuch. Beyond a certain distance, the object obtains maximal velocity due to friction with the air, and with it maximum momentum (and damage).
The actual gain in momentum would not be linear with distance up to this point, realistically, but that's taking realism too far IMO.
