D&D N. I. M. B. Y.

[Dannyalcatraz]

The more I play, the fewer Half- races I include in my campaigns. Bloodlines? I'll accept those.

But generally, miscegenation between the species IMC requires powerful, lost magic, or extremely special conditions so I'm leaning towards not allowing them at all, absent a detailed PC background with a believable reason for a Half raced PC to exist.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Not In My Backyard.

It's one of those acronyms that actually (gasp!) predates the internet!

But of course, it was not an Acronym then, the Internet over-acronymizes everything.

 

[Vocenoctum]

1e never used:
Weapon Speeds
demihuman level limits

Just about everything else was campaign specific (sometimes we had monks, sometimes half-orcs, etc)

2e:
used Weapon Speeds in 2e, but truthfully we never fully adjusted to 2e, so not a huge deal.

3e:
Almost every change has been more campaign specific than a general "get rid of it". For power attack, I generally either make it apply as 1X to two handed, 0 to light, or make it 2X to two handed and 1X to light. The current 2X and 0X doesn't sync for me. DOuble weapons also generally count as two heavy weapons for str & PA, but never count as a two handed weapon. (So no double PA on a charge or whatnot).


For 4e, I just hope they don't follow the trend of dumbing down everything. At the least, if they offer a simplified variation, I hope it's in an Unearthed Arcana style book that address such things as (in 3e) "WHat changes if you remove AoO's" and "what changes if you remove alignment", so folks can make an educated decision, without having it forced on them.

Vancian Magic is neither here nor there for me. I have tried power point systems, and psionics, and most are flawed as well, so it's not a big deal.

 

[Drowbane]

How have you treated the alignment-related spells, effects, etc? I wanted to remove alignment but my players revolted.

Huh? I was all for the Alignment-lite.

 

[IanB]

Either you people are being incomplete, or a lot more people used the %-chance-of-getting-a-disease-per-month rules in 1e than I thought.

 

[howandwhy99]

Out of curiosity, howandwhy was this problematic?

It's a house rule and has works wonderfully so far.

In truth, it's not really removed. What was removed was the Monster Identification ability from Knowledge skills. Spellcraft was then rolled into multiple knowledge skills depending on magic type. It allowed me to include more than 2 types of magic too. I.e. arcane=arcane, religion=divine, nature=druidic/ranger, planar=elementalist/other (my players don't know), psionics=psionics, etc.

They can still use the knowledge skills to know other things, but it removes the bizarre habit of having a high Spellcraft score and no relevant Knowledge for archwizards and the like. Why even have them otherwise?

I impose the -5 penalty for identifying banned school spells when dealing with other subcategories. So there is a reason for taking more than one.

 

[kaomera]

I am surprised not to see this posted more.

(The above was regarding Monks and flavor issues...)
I think it's an issue where Monks have never really been a really popular class, and DMs generally don't like to remove stuff if they don't have to. Plus they have been made to "fit in" to a greater or lesser degree with just about every major published setting going back to Blackmoor and Greyhawk. Compare to the Bo9S classes which are much easier to powergame and are not really fluff-supported.

I've (almost) always removed Psionics, but I've always regretted it. Personally I just don't like the flavor, it impedes my ability to enjoy my D&D; but that also means I've never actually seen anyone play a really cool Psionic character in any of my games... (OTOT the one time I did allow Psi in I got a character that the player really had no idea whatsoever what to do with and another that would have been easier and more fun as a Sorcerer.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But of course, it was not an Acronym then, the Internet over-acronymizes everything.

No, actually NIMBY goes back many decades, before the Internet became available to the general public.

Blame the military...

 

[Lanefan]

Either you people are being incomplete, or a lot more people used the %-chance-of-getting-a-disease-per-month rules in 1e than I thought.

More like we've *so* deeply removed it that it never existed in the first place.

I never used the % chance per month but did roll when the situation warranted e.g. digging through the Orcs' garbage dump. That said, by the time they hit 5th level and had Cure Disease on a whim as a spell the process became redundant anyway...

Lanefan

 

[Cabled]

Either you people are being incomplete, or a lot more people used the %-chance-of-getting-a-disease-per-month rules in 1e than I thought.

Not only that, I have drug them kicking and screaming through second edition and into the third point five