D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 HR – Codex Gigas

[Celebrim]

For example, I always thought there should be an option for a character with good hand-eye and aim, but poor agility; and vice versa. Perhaps a feat, or character trait - "Reduce Dex by two points. For ranged attack rolls and [X hand-eye skills], it is considered 4 higher."

Wouldn't it just be a whole lot simplier to say, "You have a +1 bonus to hit on ranged attacks.", or "You have a +3 bonus on sleight of hand skill checks"? We already have mechanics that reflect having greater agility than dexterity, and really all that remains is allowing greater flexibility during character creation. More complex options during character creation are far superior to options that change play because character creation happens once, and then its over. A mechanic that effects play on the other hand is going to impact everything. I don't find your suggested fix to be better than the one you are criticizing.

As for the problem with going to more than 6 skills, it's not bookkeeping that is the main issue, but first in avoiding creating attributes that are so narrow that they are clear dump stats for all but a very few concepts and secondly in maintaining balance in any sort of point buy system when by necessity you have more points to spend. Unevenly dividing the abilities up greatly favors making some concepts over making others since now you must pay twice for what you only had to pay for once before the split. That concept is now disadvantaged against one that still only has to pay once to achieve virtually the same degree of utility.

However, you implemented it as a NEW ability score instead, meaning a potential change to about 100 feats and a bunch of skills, and you have to check each one every time it comes up. You have to change every monster based on whether or not you think it's good at aiming or good at dodging or both.

This wouldn't be a particularly big deal in a completed system, but the house rules presented are decidedly incomplete.

There is nothing inherently better about having more attributes, and given the overall design of D&D (which hasn't changed much in these house rules) going to more attributes doesn't gain anything of real value and has too much down side.

Another example is the weapons, which I gave up on about 5 tables in. No one is ever going to memorize complex lists of numbers like what Strength score is required to wield a certain size of weapon, or how many attacks you get with a certain size of weapon at a certain level. And then there's the list of weapon groups and - oh lord - COMBINED weapon groups. That is where I gave up reading.

More importantly, the author thinks that these rules create interesting tactical complexity, and it doesn't really. Oddly, PP does a better job at creating new combat options with alot less trumpeting of its success. The author would be better off if he was going to adopt old 1st edition style mechanics like weapon speed factors (which even Gygax ultimately said was a bad idea) in using something like 'Weapon vs. AC modifiers' which at least does offer some complex tradeoffs, albiet probably not ones that are worth it given the already complex nature of 3rd edition combat.

 

[Kerrick]

I'm not sure about the assertion that the psionics weren't invented to cover folk lore archetypes.

I think (and I have no proof to back this up; it's simply my opinion) that psionics are simply psychic abilities translated to D&D mechanics. 1E was simply an amalgamation of oddball rules that Gygax and co. tossed together. I read somewhere that he read all kinds of books on geology, botany, weapons and armor, etc. to come up with all this stuff, so it's not inconceivable that he thought "Hmm.. psychic powers. Why not!"

Again, thanks for sharing your house rules. They're not the flavour that I'd choose, but some of the ideas are interesting.

Same here. I found a few things that I'm definitely borrowing, but overall, it's radically different than anything I'd use. See below for more comments.

I actually have the reverse problem with PP. PP is well organized, well written, and tends to avoid rules changes that are only the product of personal taste, but on the other hand tends to not have very deep understanding of the limitations of 3.X and what exactly it is that needs to be fixed. For example, nonsi's fighter shows a much clearer understanding of what is wrong with the 3.X fighter than PP does. I'm not fully happy with it, and I find its implementation clunky and the writing terrible, but I'd use it over the PP fighter on the very simple grounds that it actually improves the situation.

Heh. I'm working on that. But thanks for the compliment.


A few random comments on the system as a whole:

1) You're assuming that we (the readers) have access to various non-core books. Never assume - you know what that leads to. I realize you can't reprint stuff verbatim because of copyright issues, but you can at least give us the gist of what an ability does. There were many times where I just said "Huh?" because I had no idea what, for instance, a Hexblade's Mettle ability does, or what a Hexblade in general does. Likewise, you list a lot of feats and spells from non-core books; I had to skim over them because I don't know what they do.

2) I like the critical hits system, except... it seems to me that it would lead to a LOT of crits with touch/ranged touch attacks, and with fighter-types against low-level opponents with poor AC. Granted, the second isn't really an issue, but the first is - ray spells especially would get a huge boost. Or maybe I'm overreacting; how has it worked in play?

3) I also like the resistance to mind-affecting thing; being able to affect undead, but with a penalty, is a good idea. Just because you're undead doesn't mean you weren't once alive and know what fear, love, etc. were, and thus can still feel them. Definitely yoinking that one.

 

[nonsi256]

Well, in Steinhauser's defense, I personally found whatever good ideas and deep understanding of the limitations of 3.0 where on display in nonsi256's rules set was completely offset because of poor writing skills, poor organization, bizarre attempts to fix things that aren't really broken, and new rule innovations that simply reflect his personal taste rather than a widespread criticism of 3.X.​

Let’s see what we’re talking about here.​

- Poor writing skills: if you refer to the fact that not all the info is there, that’s because I see no reason in repeating the things that remains consistent to the RAW. If you’re talking about something else, I’d like to know what it is.​

- Poor organization: I’d like to see someone else do a better job with 50,000 chars per entry limit.​

- Bizarre attempts to fix things that aren't really broken: name them and I’ll show you my motivations and what I was aiming trying to achieve.​

- New rule innovations that simply reflect his personal taste: not a single rule is in there purely for satisfying my personal taste. There’s almost nothing in there that didn’t undergo several transformation before I was convinced I got it right. I have no sacred cows.



​

nonsi256 tends to show alot of the bizarre fiddliness that crept into the 1st edition design as people randomly tried to achieve various goals often with little clear idea what the consequences were or why they were trying to acheive it.​

I don’t know why you gt this impression, but I assure you this is not the case.



​

I often find myself in perfect agreement with nonsi256 about the big issues - what the fighter needs to compete, the pointlessness of psionics as a separate subsystem - but alternately utterly baffled by or simply disinterested in his particular implementation.
​

Then just ask.



​

I actually have the reverse problem with PP.​

What or who is PP?



​

nonsi's fighter shows a much clearer understanding of what is wrong with the 3.X fighter than PP does. I'm not fully happy with it, and I find its implementation clunky and the writing terrible, but I'd use it over the PP fighter on the very simple grounds that it actually improves the situation.
​

Clunky in what way?​

What’s not clear about the class or makes orientation a difficult task?

There are some good ideas in both rules set, but taken as a whole I couldn't endorse either of them. Nonsi256 needs to work on his writing skills and needs to create more elegant, unified approaches throughout the work.

I’ve encountered this claim here & there, but constructive suggestions on the actual problems or remedy never came.

As for the problem with going to more than 6 skills, it's not bookkeeping that is the main issue, but first in avoiding creating attributes that are so narrow that they are clear dump stats for all but a very few concepts.

None of my 8 stats can be referred to as “mostly dump”.

​

This wouldn't be a particularly big deal in a completed system, but the house rules presented are decidedly incomplete.
​

How so? What do you find crucially missing?​

There is nothing inherently better about having more attributes, and given the overall design of D&D (which hasn't changed much in these house rules) going to more attributes doesn't gain anything of real value and has too much down side.

6 is purely traditional.

In OD&D Cha was pure dump for everybody, Wis was useful only Clerics and Int only for Magic Users (which had absolutely nothing useful to do with Str).​

In 3e every attribute can augment every stat with the appropriate feat (gave up any attempt to analyze 1e & 2e).

More importantly, the author thinks that these rules create interesting tactical complexity, and it doesn't really.

They create more options to mold your character as you envision it and each selection has its advantages over other selections during gametime, and... you don’t get your weapon prof shoved down your throat.

The author would be better off if he was going to adopt old 1st edition style mechanics like weapon speed factors

You’re kidding, right?

Rolling for init each and every round?... and then applying the augmentations on a case by case scenario?​

What is that if not bookkeeping?

​

 

[Kerrick]

What or who is PP?

Project Phoenix, my 3.5 revision.

I’ve encountered this claim here & there, but constructive suggestions on the actual problems or remedy never came.

Welcome to the internet.

6 is purely traditional. In OD&D Cha was pure dump for everybody, Wis was useful only Clerics and Int only for Magic Users (which had absolutely nothing useful to do with Str). In 3e every attribute can augment every stat with the appropriate feat (gave up any attempt to analyze 1e & 2e).

The 2E PHB has the best summary of stats and what they do:

Str: Attack/damage, weight allowance, and open doors/bend bars/lift gates.

Dex: Reaction adjust (init modifier), ranged attacks, and AC

Con: Hit points (duh) and system shock/resurrect survival. Very high scores gave a poison save bonus and regeneration.

Int: Number of languages; all other functions (max spell level/max spells per level, and chance to learn a spell) are wizard only. Very high Int grants illusion immunity.

Wis: Modifier vs. mind-affecting spells, divine caster bonus spells/chance of spell failure. High Wis grants immunity to certain spells.

Cha: Max # of henchment, loyalty base, and reaction adjustment.

NWPs aside (since most NWPs had a stat that modified them), the mental stats are pretty much dump stats for all non-spellcasters, unless you're really obsessed with getting immunity to spells or you want lots of followers. 1E/2E had stat requirements for classes, however, which made playing a paladin (17 Cha) or bard (15 Cha) really annoying, since Cha didn't actually DO anything.

 

[Kerrick]

I decided to reply over here about the weapon speed thing, since we're discussing your system and not mine.

I took a second, closer, look at it, and now I understand it better. A heavy weapon grants iteratives at -6, a medium at -5, and a light at -4. I assume the parenthetical notations (med./light/no armor; med./light load; a small/no offhand weapon/shield, frex) are the requirements? I can see the tradeoff on more fewer, more powerful attacks vs. more numerous, less damaging attacks, which helps to add a little balance between weapon types, but I think it's a bit too fiddly for my taste.

Some problems I'm seeing with this:

1) Most groups don't bother with encumbrance - as long as you're not carrying more gear than a packmule, the DM will just handwave it in most circumstances.

2) You're screwing sword/board fighters (who generally go for heavy armor, a heavy shield, and something like a longsword or heavy mace) because they'll get the same number of attacks as a two-hander (more quickly, granted) but do less comparable damage. IME (and that of many other folks), characters go for the heaviest armor they can handle, as soon as they can afford it - this means fighters will go for breastplate or platemail, unless they're Dex-based (in which case they go for chain shirts).

3) You're also hurting two-handers. They rely on those extra points of BAB for Power Attack. It's only a few points at the last attack, but still, something to think about.

4) Giving light weapons 6 attacks is nice, but no one but fighters will be able to take advantage of it at higher levels (and maybe not even then). I've played a rogue at epic levels (30th); my highest attack was +45, and my last attack (+35) almost always missed. It got to the point where I just rolled the first two with each hand and dropped the last one to save time, because it wasn't worth the miniscule chance of a crit.

 

[nonsi256]

I took a second, closer, look at it, and now I understand it better. A heavy weapon grants iteratives at -6, a medium at -5, and a light at -4. I assume the parenthetical notations (med./light/no armor; med./light load; a small/no offhand weapon/shield, frex) are the requirements? I can see the tradeoff on more fewer, more powerful attacks vs. more numerous, less damaging attacks, which helps to add a little balance between weapon types, but I think it's a bit too fiddly for my taste.

You got it correct.

Some problems I'm seeing with this:

1) Most groups don't bother with encumbrance - as long as you're not carrying more gear than a packmule, the DM will just handwave it in most circumstances.

Handwaves are quite satisfying as far as encumbrance goes. I even encourage it in the "Good DMing Thumb Rules" spoiler.

2) You're screwing sword/board fighters (who generally go for heavy armor, a heavy shield, and something like a longsword or heavy mace) because they'll get the same number of attacks as a two-hander (more quickly, granted) but do less comparable damage. IME (and that of many other folks), characters go for the heaviest armor they can handle, as soon as they can afford it - this means fighters will go for breastplate or platemail, unless they're Dex-based (in which case they go for chain shirts).

There's always supposed to be some sort of a tradeoff - the indecision between the options. Take longsword vs. bastardsword for instance. Either you go for speed of attack and low ACPs or you go for the AC and power sunder/disarm (the dmg diff is too negligible to be a factor anyway).
You might also swap tactics according to your BAB if you're willing to pay the feat toll for alleviating armor penalties
This is exactly the result I was aiming at.

3) You're also hurting two-handers. They rely on those extra points of BAB for Power Attack. It's only a few points at the last attack, but still, something to think about.

It's not about hurting 2H-ers, but to balance 2H style vs. the others. Also, don't forget that a solid hit from a 2H weapon can easily amount to 2 solid hits from a 1H weapon.

4) Giving light weapons 6 attacks is nice, but no one but fighters will be able to take advantage of it at higher levels (and maybe not even then).

My Hexblade and your Ranger/Paladin could benefit just as the Warrior/Fighter.

I've played a rogue at epic levels (30th); my highest attack was +45, and my last attack (+35) almost always missed. It got to the point where I just rolled the first two with each hand and dropped the last one to save time, because it wasn't worth the miniscule chance of a crit.

I didn't dig too deeply into the epic realm. Given it doesn't offer new stuff using my rules, I find it quite an uninteresting territory. As for 3.0e's epic rules - they're totally uninspiring in my taste. All they did was to inflate the names (awesome this and devastating that) and the stat boosts, and to create totally wacky magic, using obscure and complicated rules.

 

[Kerrick]

It's not about hurting 2H-ers, but to balance 2H style vs. the others. Also, don't forget that a solid hit from a 2H weapon can easily amount to 2 solid hits from a 1H weapon.

Yeah.

My Hexblade and your Ranger/Paladin could benefit just as the Warrior/Fighter.

Yeah... "fighter" pretty well encompasses "any class with a good BAB".

I didn't dig too deeply into the epic realm. Given it doesn't offer new stuff using my rules, I find it quite an uninteresting territory. As for 3.0e's epic rules - they're totally uninspiring in my taste. All they did was to inflate the names (awesome this and devastating that) and the stat boosts, and to create totally wacky magic, using obscure and complicated rules.

Got it in one. Epic is hardly all balanced, barely playtested (the rules were leaked early, which leads most folks to believe they rushed the final book out before it was fully tested), and not at all interesting. I, however, enjoy epic play (as do other folks), so I did some work to make it playable. But, as long as you acknowledge that your system was only designed up to 20th level, that's fine too.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

A heavy weapon grants iteratives at -6, a medium at -5, and a light at -4.

This is very similar to an houserule I was working on, at one time, to solve the issue of every fighter always taking a two-handed sword. I've, since, decided to go with a variation of the Trailblazer version of iterative attacks (all attacks use the same attack bonus, but I haven't firmly established the variances for different weapons).

 

[Kerrick]

This is very similar to an houserule I was working on, at one time, to solve the issue of every fighter always taking a two-handed sword. I've, since, decided to go with a variation of the Trailblazer version of iterative attacks (all attacks use the same attack bonus, but I haven't firmly established the variances for different weapons).

You should take a look at nonsi's version of that rule. He does it so that heavy weapons get fewer attacks/round, while lighter weapons get more. It balances out the overall damage output, as I noted; not my thing, but you might find it useful.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

You should take a look at nonsi's version of that rule. He does it so that heavy weapons get fewer attacks/round, while lighter weapons get more. It balances out the overall damage output, as I noted; not my thing, but you might find it useful.

I've got it saved. His houserules for it are more complex than mine (for example, taking shields into account w/medium weapons).

My first version had a greater difference between the weapons.

-3 for each iterative for light weapons
-5 for medium weapons
-7 for heavy weapons​

My second version used Gygax's weapon speed tables from AD&D and attempted to really balance out all the weapons so that they averaged the same. But, that resulted in having to check the table for practically every weapon used in combat. Too complex.

Third version (and untested) is a variation on Trailblazer's identical bonuses for iterative attacks. TB uses a standard -2 that applies to both attacks and no one gets more than two attacks (without some sort of exception through feats and such). My variation of this that I'm considering is using -2 for light weapons, -4 for medium weapons, and -6 for heavy weapons. It's very simple (at least, I think so right now). And, I like using the same bonus for all of a character's iterative attacks. Downside is that it may weaken medium and heavy weapons too much. I haven't attempted to do the math, yet, to see how balanced or unbalanced it might be. I know it weakens medium/heavy weapons and improves light and natural weapons in relation... And, I LIKE that (just as I like Nonsi's version and my previous version that was similar).