House rules designed to facilitate competence (and therefore fun) at lower levels

[Funksaw]

Wanted to get your opinion on these houserules, mainly designed to increase character competence at lower levels.



>
> Core Competency: In a core competency, chosen at character creation but approved by the GM as appropriate to your class, you can roll d20+d6 to determine the result instead of the normal d20. For example, a fighter may roll d20+6 for melee combat, a spellcaster may roll d20+6 for concentration checks, a rogue may roll d20+6 for REF saves... (You may purchase additional core competencies as feat slots, and certain classes get specific core competencies for free as they progress up the level chart)
>
> HP Kicker: All characters get +10 HP in addition to their normal starting XP. This debt is paid off by subtracting two from each next HP add per level for the next five levels. (This is mainly to prevent early TPKs before everyone gets a handle on the rules.)
>
> Action Points (Revised): Action points result in an 2d6 bonus, not a 1d6 bonus. Players can also spend as many points they want on a single roll.
>
> Plotbending: Characters may, with GM approval, bend the plot slightly if they can establish a plausible scenario where they can get the advantage (and, optionally, spend an action point.) For example, the trap which seemed difficult to disable had an easily overlooked flaw, the town guard you're trying to fast talk turns out to be a friend of the family or is in a particularly good mood that day. Circumstance bonuses vary but usually will generally lower the DC of an action by 3-5, depending on the plausibility of the action (I.e., a reasonable expectation: The heat from the fireball the mage cast two years ago may have loosened the hinges on this locked door - plausible.) I recommend increasing the bonus if the altered circumstance would help significantly advance the plot in ways unforseen to the GM.
>

 

[Reaper Steve]

>
> HP Kicker: All characters get +10 HP in addition to their normal starting XP. This debt is paid off by subtracting two from each next HP add per level for the next five levels. (This is mainly to prevent early TPKs before everyone gets a handle on the rules.)
>

>

Give the +10 without ever having a payback. I do essentially the same thing...a 1st level character had his base racial hit die (max + Con) and then his 1st level hit die (max + Con).

 

[XCorvis]

I'm not sure of the necessity of having additional rules to help out the players. Why not just use weaker monsters and easier traps? The extra rules serve as a crutch that will get taken away later and actually make the game slightly more complex for the unfamiliar player.

 

[papastebu]

I think that if you do this, it should be more of a medium-range addition, or change certain rules for good, and don't take them away at later levels. If you give them 10 hit points in addition to their dX roll, don't take it away. If they need them in the beginning, they'll probably need them later.
I used a hit point/wound threshold system that is a version of the Earthdawn system, and my group liked it. We didn't go back.
If you're worried about new players not succeeding enough to make the game fun, then the only changes you should make would be to streamline the rules for ease. I have found that the only time I didn't enjoy playing was when I didn't have a chance to do anything, when combat or some scene dragged out too long, or when I died. Avoid these things, and your players should be O.K.

 

[Funksaw]

I'm not sure of the necessity of having additional rules to help out the players. Why not just use weaker monsters and easier traps? The extra rules serve as a crutch that will get taken away later and actually make the game slightly more complex for the unfamiliar player.

Mostly because weaker monsters and easier traps would achieve the opposite effect that I'm trying to go for.

What I'm basically trying to avoid is the "whiff" factor and the "We're so lame a single Kobold took out three of our party" factor, and the "why bother rolling, I'm going to fail anyway" fatalism.

Weaker enemies and traps would make the players feel like the characters are even lamer than they actually are. "Ooh. I beat a slug. I feel like a big heroic hero now."

 

[Celebrim]

Mostly because weaker monsters and easier traps would achieve the opposite effect that I'm trying to go for.

Competance is always relative.

What I'm basically trying to avoid is the "whiff" factor and the "We're so lame a single Kobold took out three of our party" factor, and the "why bother rolling, I'm going to fail anyway" fatalism.

The whiff factor is actually a bigger problem at high level than low level, and your 'core competancy rule' just encourages it. At low levels, the difference between the saves and attack bonuses of the different classes is small, so that a wizard isn't gauranteed to miss in combat and a fighter isn't gauranteed to fail his Will (or reflex) saves. At higher levels, this is no longer true. Likewise, no kobold is going to take out three of any party unless you greatly heighten kobold competancy, and no one is gauranteed to fail at low levels unless you greatly heighten DC. It's at higher levels that you 'don't bother rolling', and by increasing the disparity in a players competancy you are encouraging that at low levels.

Weaker enemies and traps would make the players feel like the characters are even lamer than they actually are. "Ooh. I beat a slug. I feel like a big heroic hero now."

This sounds like a presentation or metagame problem rather than an actual artifact of the rules. (Giant) slugs are terrifying. Orcs can be a serious opponent if you present them as a serious opponent. It sounds like your players aren't comparing themselves to the opposition, but are instead comparing thier current characters to thier future selves. But this is problem at every level. You can always say that your current character is a wimp compared to his potential self. Presenting a player of any level as a hero depends entirely on how the DM handles the combat. If the DM makes the player feel incompotant, then they'll be incompotant. If the DM makes the player feel like they are accomplishing something, then that perception of incompotance won't be there.

The action point rules are mostly fine, so long as you keep the number of action points per session small. I wouldn't even mind a extra +1d20 per action point to d20 checks (attack rolls, skill checks, etc), provided that the character could use this only in a dramatic fashion. If you did that though, you'd probably want to disallow stacking multiple points on the same role. Also, if you allow stacking multiple action points, you might want to disallow it on damage rolls even with just 2d6's.

The plotbending rules seem pointless. They are just the action point rules in disguise because lowering the DC and adding a bonus are effectively the same thing. It's just a matter of fluff, not a matter of crunch.

 

[Felnar]

Weaker enemies and traps would make the players feel like the characters are even lamer than they actually are. "Ooh. I beat a slug. I feel like a big heroic hero now."

characters arent heroes at 1st level, most NPCs are 1st level, so the only way to feel heroic is to be inspired by the DM.

besides, once they've beat enough slugs they can go on to tackle something harder, like a rat.

also, what Celebrim said

 

[javcs]

I'd consider cutting action points as a whole - it's a mechanic that a lot of groups use, but a lot of other groups don't use. As as mechanic, it's okay, but can be complex to figure out.

 

[BRP2]

characters arent heroes at 1st level

Correction: The characters aren't heroes at 1st level if the DM doesn't want them to be.

 

[Doug McCrae]

most NPCs are 1st level

commoners.