Design & Development: Dislikes

[Glyfair]

I'd just as soon get rid of randomness altogether in hp (ability scores are another matter). I'd give characters the average for their HD every level, rounded up:

d12 = 7
d10 = 6
d8 = 5
d6 = 4
d4 = 3

This is very similiar to how the RPGA Mark of Heroes campaign works it. However, a d12 gives you 8 and d4 gives you 2.

I used to have a house rule that you could take the numbers you listed, or roll. One of my players pointed out that a wizard should never roll. He can at best gain an additional hit point from rolling, and can just as likely lose 2 hit points.

 

[Psion]

This is very similiar to how the RPGA Mark of Heroes campaign works it. However, a d12 gives you 8 and d4 gives you 2.

Look up. Somebody has already mentioned this.

I personally don't like this. I don't see many barbarians in my games, but for wizard types, their average is low enough as it is. I find giving them less than average would be out of the question.

 

[Glyfair]

Look up. Somebody has already mentioned this.

I personally don't like this. I don't see many barbarians in my games, but for wizard types, their average is low enough as it is. I find giving them less than average would be out of the question.

Yeah, I noted this too late. Since my other point hadn't been made, I didn't bother to change it.

Personally, my house rule is giving lower than average, or roll. Players still always roll, but the few who consider themselves unlucky might roll.

I'm right now considering switching over to the "Mearls System." I don't think it would be appropriate for all D&D campaigns, but it seems like it might fit the flavor of my Eberron camaign.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Look up. Somebody has already mentioned this.

I personally don't like this. I don't see many barbarians in my games, but for wizard types, their average is low enough as it is. I find giving them less than average would be out of the question.

It's worth noting, but the "stock" HP if you don't roll is round down/ low average. 2 for d4, 3 for d6, up to 6 for d12.

I had one DM that had a rule where you couldn't roll less than your constitution modifer. So, if you had a Con mod of +3, you couldn't get a number less than three. It worked great for me, since I was a gnome wizard with a (3e) toad familiar. I had +5 con bonus, so I got 9 hp every level. Really simplified the math.

 

[Victim]

Antimagic shield, though, I just don't see the problem. Is it magic? Then it doesn't work. If it's area effect, it's only suppressed within the shield, except for bursts or other "origin" effects. None of the scenarios given took more than a heartbeat to figure out, and my thoughts didn't change after more reflection. Honestly, antimagic shield seems to be one of the easier spells to deal with. *shrug*

A Polymorphed or Shapechanged creature with natural reach attacks into the AMF from outside of it. The base creature doesn't have natural reach. What happens? Is the attack even possible?

Magically buffed up ranged weapons or a weapons with lots of innate reach attack into and out of the field. For example, a large character with his 20ft spiked chain. Which buffs apply?

In terms of game effect, the spell totally destroys magic based characters (and villains). It's absolute strength reminds one of the old Stoneskin or Immunity to (non) Magical Weapons spells. Considering these spells were removed or weakened for 3.x because they made it too easy to shut out physical damage, it's surprising that Shell/Field defensive spells weren't hit with the nerf bat as well.

Because characters will probably have more magical bonuses at one time than in previous editions, adjusting characters' stats as they enter and leave the field is a bigger pain.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

It was nice to know there are designers that share my loathing for the animated shield. My game experience was of my s&b paladin who adventured with a polearm fighter (& others) through the low to mid levels & we knew our tradeoff & our place. He dies & in comes a minotaur greatsword fighter with an animated shield. Virtually similar AC & almost 2* damage.

After taking into account the fighter superiority, the animated shield _still completely invalidated_ my character choice. Needless to say I packed an almighty sad to protect my characters niche & instituted an auto-ban when I dm'ed.

 

[Psion]

It's worth noting, but the "stock" HP if you don't roll is round down/ low average. 2 for d4, 3 for d6, up to 6 for d12.

You mean the stock HP for creatures and NPCs in the DMG? No, it's not. Its the actual average per level, rounding down AFTER you multiply the HD or levels past 1st.

 

[Vocenoctum]

You mean the stock HP for creatures and NPCs in the DMG? No, it's not. Its the actual average per level, rounding down AFTER you multiply the HD or levels past 1st.

Whoops, my mistake. We've been using the house rules for so long, didn't notice 3.5 had changed it.
3e page 42, low average
3.5e page 198, low at even levels, high at odd levels.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I've been using "Adjusted Average" since 3.0, myself. It gives Wizards a little of a bump, but, seriously, with 3hp a level, Wizards remain a good smack away from death anyway.

For me, as a GM, it just made my life easier. I knew the HPs of all the characters throughout their progression and it helped me balance encounters (since I like to run Adventure Path type things and then change them around, so I'm often plotting encounters out the PCs might not get to in a level or two).

It worked for my group.

I honestly don't like alot of randomization in character-generation aspects of the game. I'm also a strictly-pt-buy kind of guy. I mean, I played in a game about two years ago, the last I've played that we rolled for, and I rolled up a character with something like 17, 17, 16, 15, 14, 14 ... it helped that the GM was using 5d6, Reroll 1s, Drop Two Lowest. At that point, why not just let everybody play with all 16s and be done with it. In my time gaming in 2nd and early 3rd, it seemed like GMs kept messing with their "Rolling System" to give the players what they wanted ... which, honestly, was More-Better All 18s Guy.

I'm probably going to yoink that Negative Level rule. I've never been much of a fan for the system As Is. With AP games, like I run, if you let people Res or come in 1 level back, people usually opt to come in with a new character with more optimized equipment. I'd like to see people be willing to res up their PCs and stay attached to them.

Secretly, I don't like the flavor of Res, though. Not so much in that I don't like resurection IN GENERAL, but I don't like that the D&D universe seems to sort of ignore how easy it is for people to come back to life. Really it just divides the rich from the poor. But you still see murder mysteries and convoluted plotlines trying to avoid that res magic. "Oh, but he was poisoned with this super-special poison that won't let him be resed." Or the body is stolen or destroyed or whatever. Or the writer just forgets that a high level and wealthy NPC could be resed and the rest of the plotline is sort of null.

I like to use Action Points, instead. A character can be Left For Dead for a certain number of APs, regardless of HOW he died, and we write him in somehow. It works better for me than "Let's drag Bob's body back to town, here's his bag of diamonds." or "Oh no, our wizard died ... luckily we found this other wizard locked up here in the evil castle. Get in party formation, wizard we just met!"

--fje

 

[Plane Sailing]

My resurrection house rule (since we are sharing) is that there is no level loss. Instead

Raise Dead = -2 Con
Resurrection = -1 Con
True Resurrection = no Con penalty.

The raised person is slightly frailer than before, and thus it can only work a limited number of times, but you don't have to recalculate BAB, feats, spells etc. etc.