I just looked this over.
Some okay ideas, but then they're stretched out into completely new and complex mechanics that require unworkable amounts of bookkeeping.
No bookkeeping required at all - everything is already in the document.
For example, I always thought there should be an option for a character with good hand-eye and aim, but poor agility
. . .
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."
They tried the subabilities approach as an alt ruleset in AD&D 2e - it didn't work.
If you want to talk about bookkeeping, this was it.
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.
I don't understand why attributing a skill/feat to an ability score with a different name should have any effect on its balance.
You have to change every monster based on whether or not you think it's good at aiming or good at dodging or both.
There was a time when I thought so too, but if you think of it, monsters come and go all the time and no one’s really interested in breaking them down to their components, so as far as I’m concerned, they can remain exactly as they are without it having any negative effect on anything.
NPCs - either make PCs (which in the aftermath I find to be an easier challenge than with the core classes), leave them as they are or conjure the numbers on-the-fly.
Another example is the weapons, which I gave up on about 5 tables in.
Funny, I counted only 3 tables in the entire entry and you don’t need them at all once you get the hang of it.
- Medium weapons work just as given in the RAW.
- Small & tiny weapons gain iterative attacks in steps of -4 (e.g. +9/+5/+1) instead of the regular -5.
- Large & huge weapons gain iterative attacks in steps of -6 (e.g. +14/+8/+2) instead of the regular -5.
No one is ever going to memorize complex lists of numbers like what Strength score is required to wield a certain size of weapon
start with 19 and go down -4 for each category. How hard can it be ?
I used 4 for tiny weapons just because 3 belongs in a wheelchair from the get go.
, 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’s just for the character build stage. It has absolutely no in-game effect.
In return for this negligible effort, you can practically gain any weapon proficiency you fancy without having to pay for it with feats.
Other than the above, once you remember what the abbreviations mean all you need is the “
The Weapon Groups” spoiler, to remember which group houses the weapon you fancy.
That is where I gave up reading.
Too bad for you – your loss.
House rules (at least if you think other people would benefit from using them) should be simple, intuitive, and work within the existing ruleset.
They are, once you got over the initial panic.
Most of all they should be necessary and fix actual problems.
The rules for weapons fix several problems (as does most everything else you’ll find in there):
1. Burning feats for weapon prof and the build acrobatics sooo many players had to make in the history of 3e to get the exotic weapon they so badly desired.
2. More weapon-related combat options – a lot more.
3. More balance between the different weapons that leaves weapon selection to persoal taste & style rather than a selection based on power scouting.
4. The ability to assign any weapon to almost any class/character.
How’s that for fixing stuff ?
Pick any topic and I’ll show you exactly what it comes to solve/improve.
