Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 5295673" data-attributes="member: 5038">And 3e has a  lot of options too.  Many of them are right in the core booksPHB: Both editions had a section on class variants 3e DMG (I don't own the 3.5 DMG so I cannot comment):P.25-26  Modifying Classes    - Modifing Character Classes    -  Spell Lists for Variant SpellcastersP.27  Prestige Classes"Allowing PCs acces to prestige classes is purely optional and always under the purview of the DM" " Prestige classes are idiosyncratic to each campaign, and DMs may choose to not allow them or use them only for NPCs" P40-42  Variant 1st Level Multiclass CharactersP41 Advancing Levels-    Access and Training-    Variant Learning Skills and Feats-    Variant Learning New Spells-    Researcing Original Spells-    Variant Gaining Class Abilities-    Variant General Downtime-    Variant Gaining Fixed Hit Pointsp.66 Combat: Damage      -    variant Clobbered      -    variant Death from Massive Damage Based on Size      -    variant Damage to Specific Areas p.161-164 Building a different worldp.167 -  Variant : Faster or Slower Experience-  Variant: Free Form Experience-  Variant: Story AwardsIn some of the splats you had class variants (e.g., Urban Ranger)In 3.5, you also had things likea. Unearthed Arcanab. Urban Wilderness skills replacement (Cityscape web enhancement)c. Spellless Paladin and Ranger variants in Complete Warrior and  Complete ChampionHow is this a bad thing? if it works for a group that is a good.  However, while it may have stopped you and many others from houseruling, it did not stop myself and others.  There were  active and are active houserule sections here, on WOTC's boards, Monte's boards, and Sean Reynolds' boards along with plenty of websites.  Andy Collins, Monte Cook, Sean Reynolds and other designers would post house rules/options on their own sites.If they built trust that is cool. There is nothing wrong with that. Personally, I didn't like most of their supplements (Unearthed Arcana, Fiendish Codex I and a few other supplements withstanding).  More often than not, I didn't like the flavor or the mechanics and would say no based on that (and would offer some UA variant, third party alternative, or houserule instead if it fit my vision of the campaign I was running).  Heck, there are some issues with core that I didn't like and changed or banned.As for , there are a lot of people that might disagree too- Codzilla if you There weren't rules for grappling someone in 2e?  What about those funky and ,imo, lame charts (or did they first appear in Complet Fighter's Handbook)?Regaring conciously saying, "No",  you should be conciously saying, "No" to rules you don't like and want to change or ignore.  If it is concious, you are aware why you are doing it, you explain your reason to your players, and, hopefully, work towards a suitable fix to ensure everyone is on the same page.  However, having a default is good for those players that may want or need it.I agree this can be an issue.  However, pointing out what is expected is good for newer DMs, those running (and not wanting to modify) published adventures, and those doing Living campaigns.  It is also good to note for DM, who might want to deviate from the standard assumptions by making them aware of them.However, I don't see it as a problem for an experienced  DM provided that the player's don't feel a sense of entitlement.  The DMG tells the players that they can change the assumptions.Among my group of friends and gamers that I know, houseruling is a given. If the DM does not like something or feels it doesn't fit the campaign, it gets changed.  Players are very accepting- especially, those that DM themselves.The one exception was a friend that had never DM'd before and took over  DMing an existing campaign for a 3e group with whom he was first introduced to D&D.  Still a newbie, he did not know that he could ban problem items or tell players "No" if they were abusing the system .  He thought he had to say, "Yes" to whatever WOTC published until he talked to me about the problems in his game.  However, he never fully read the DMG. The first thing that I did was show him the same passages I quoted in this thread and then talked to him.  Then, we discussed the problems he was having, the campaign that he wanted to run, and some options he had to tailor it (admittedly, I don't like or have much experience with 3e past 10-12th level so the advice that I could give him on the last point was limited).  His eyes lit up when he saw he could make changes and take control to reign in the campaign and tailor the game for future campaigns.We also take into account the characters we have (as suggested in the DMG) when building adventures.  We take into account the magic items given when it comes to monsters. We take into account skill bonuses when designing encounters.  This might be one reason we didn't have some of the problems people had with disparity in bonuses between characters.</blockquote>

Verification