Berate me for my house rules

Ciaran & seasong: Tumble, handle animal, Bluff, Sense motive, etc., all depend on having 5 ranks to get a synergy bonus. The use of this feat allows characters with low skill points (2 a level) or bad class lists (Barbarian, Druid) to more easily attain these bonuses.

Yes, it's not that usefull a feat at high level. Neighter is Toughness. At least now I can see more people taking it.

seasong: welcome to my party! New members have to buy the snacks first session - I'll send you the bill -we play Saturday :D

Drawmack: WRT to your Q's below

1) Yes, but characters of higher or lower level get XP adjustments becasue the comabt was relatively less or more risky for them.

2) Yes, I give a general roleplay session award (same amount to everyone), then during the week, the players submit in-character journals of 3-5 paragraphs. They get a highly individualized reward for this.

Also, the individual who writes up the session report to summarize what happned gets some bonus XP. the session report in done from a out of game perspective. Help me keep track of events in the past.

I wanted a way to penalize players from taking an 8 CHA so they could have an 18 DEX, AND an 18 STR (or whatever), not many people want to start the game with an XP penalty. For those characters who bit the bullet and played a sorcerer, or bard I wanted a way to give them a bonus for having to have 6 decent scores rather than 5.

It basically works out that you are avg party level, +1, for 50% of the time if you have 16 CHA or higher.


What about the rogue who has to be in melee to get the sneak attack?

What about him? For a canonical party You have a cleric and a fighter in heavy armor, with a good STR. The rogue is more of a sniper, or tactical fighter.

If you are non canonical, then assign a high CON to offset the low HD. Fighter types neeeded the xtra HP they are melee. Clerics really don't need a HP bump, but Druids, and monks could certainly use it. Thus the change. It's not statistically significant , except for Barbarians - I'm surprized were having even this much discussion about it.

I am assuming that the DC is in someway tied to CR.

Know hat happens when you assume Drawmack?

A Ogre and an Imp both have 2 CR.

Know (Monst) for an Ogre: 10
Know (Monst) for an Imp: 20

how else do you simulate heroic character knowledge of well known legendary monsters. Players know that a Medusa turn people to stone with her gaze, but they may not know how "relatively" dangerous she is - comapred to say a cockatraice. Which is by far less legendary. This give me a metric to judge difinitively what a character knwos, and to step on player metagaming about monster stats, abilities.

Example: Party runs into a rhemoraz, and player 1 rolls Know (most) as a free action on his turn. He fails. He then annouces he is casting Protection from Elements: Fire.

Now I have something to point to say no. Without this skill a Savvy player might try and argue his character used to be from the "north" so he might have heard of rhemorazs before. DM is left without a way to quantify how much a chracter would no without a lot of hand waving.

WRt your commetn about trolls - the CHARACTER does not know the Troll has fast healing X, the player knows. Just as the CHARACTER does not understand he is down 25 hp, he just knows he is moderately wounded. This is simply a method to adjucate.

Clearly you don't approve - but it is a useful tool.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

incognito said:
What about him? For a canonical party You have a cleric and a fighter in heavy armor, with a good STR. The rogue is more of a sniper, or tactical fighter.

If you are non canonical, then assign a high CON to offset the low HD. Fighter types neeeded the xtra HP they are melee. Clerics really don't need a HP bump, but Druids, and monks could certainly use it. Thus the change. It's not statistically significant , except for Barbarians - I'm surprized were having even this much discussion about it.
Sorry if I seem to be really digging.

As far as knowledge (monsters) I wouldn't use that mechanic but it's not my game. I would use something similar I just wouldn't give the player metagame info. Not a really big deal.

However, on the HD+1. So a cleric doesn't need this bonus, not even when the tank fighter drops at the feet of a troll and needs healing? The reason I pointed out the ''non-canoniacl'' rogue is to make a point. You are discouraging interesting characters when you base a rules fairness on the canoniacle.
 

However, on the HD+1. So a cleric doesn't need this bonus, not even when the tank fighter drops at the feet of a troll and needs healing?

Well part of the point is to make it more unlikely that the fighter will drop, eh?

The reason I pointed out the ''non-canoniacl'' rogue is to make a point. You are discouraging interesting characters when you base a rules fairness on the canoniacle.

Well, I'm not sure that giving the rogue minor options for rolling hp really discourages/encourages this.

2-5 really that much better than 1-6? especially when I can take 3 if I'm really nervious? Nah. Better to have a 20 CON (dwarf) and have +5 HP a level regardless.

Don;t worry about digging - isn't the title of my thread "Berate me..."

Still hoping for seasong to show up this saturday with snacks...
 

Well, I for one really like a lot of Incognito's HRs. I'll probably be stealing some of them for my own HRs.

That said, I have a similar skill for monster knowledge, but I break it up into monster type (ooze, dragon, etc). It's not free; you have to take it like any skill, though.
 

I like the majority (Especially that Harm one, and a few).

The Skill Focus issue, the Non-spreadout HP one, the Cha-related situation, and the reduction of negatives with point buy (Elf with 14 instead of 16 cha) are the big beefs, but my biggest is this:

Paladins are Prestige Classes.

I just don't like that. I like the good ol' character class. While I do think that there could be other classes taking the PrC, and it would offer different concepts (I.e, a Wizard paladin instead of a Fighter paladin), it still kinda bugs me.

Then again, I like the idea of a Paladin Template, adding abilities to your class that reflect the Paladinhood aspect, while still retaining your Class (Ergo the Paladin Wizard ideal).
 

Xarlen said:

I just don't like that. I like the good ol' character class. While I do think that there could be other classes taking the PrC, and it would offer different concepts (I.e, a Wizard paladin instead of a Fighter paladin), it still kinda bugs me.

Xarlen! D00d!

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/knight.htm

... assuming you don't care for the whole "champion of Gawd" aspect of the regular paladin class, and would rather play it as a straight "bright, shining hero".

Then again, I like the idea of a Paladin Template, adding abilities to your class that reflect the Paladinhood aspect, while still retaining your Class (Ergo the Paladin Wizard ideal).

Xarlen! D00d!

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/britannia/virtue.htm#inplay


Hong "iconic pimp" Ooi
 

incognito said:
Well part of the point is to make it more unlikely that the fighter will drop, eh?
Not by that much.

2-5 really that much better than 1-6?
2+3+4+5/4 = 14/4 = 3.5 average roll
1+2+3+4+5+6/6 = 21/6 = 3.5 average roll

hmm however with odds

2-5 = 50% chance of rolling above average.
1 - 6 = 50% chance of rolling above average.

hmm, looks that they are both exactly the same to me except there is no possibility for a 1 or a 6. Okay not that I've looked at it this way, whatever man it's all the same anyway.
 

incognito said:
Plane AND seasong:

No Sorcs yet...these rules were created to help make them more playable

Understand that some players will not play certain character classes no matter how much you alter it. I had a player once that so much hated the concept of the cleric class that I could have given them unfettered access to every spell in the game and he wouldn't have played it. He was also the group's premier min-maxer.

Trying to push the players into trying out certain classes is only going to backfire one way or another. The two most likely outcomes are

1) A new player to the group takes you up on the offer and starts wailing on the monsters with their uber character, all the while breedig resentment by the other players against the newcomer and possibly you.

2) An existing player caves in to the shoehorning and plays the class you want instead of what they want to play - and they are miserable the entire time.

Don't make changes to the rules with the view of forcing the players to play a particular race or class.

And always remember...

The players hold the final vote over the campaign: They can refuse to play.
 

incognito said:
seasong: welcome to my party! New members have to buy the snacks first session - I'll send you the bill -we play Saturday :D
Alas, my character has player-created content ;). I'll have to decline, lest my Chanters expand their cultural ways into your setting - fear not for me, I shall live to play another day!

More seriously, the rules look good. There's some I'd change, but it's more a matter of style, I think.
 


Remove ads

Top