Houserules - Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter dungeon blaster
- Start date
dungeon blaster
First Post
perhaps "major changes" is putting it to strongly, and "moderate" wound have been a better word. But, I do feel that making changes to the races and core classes is more significant than adjusting a few spells or feats.
My next question is: What is your primary reason for having house rules? Is it to balance problematic spells/feats/classes? Is it because you have a homebrew world that does not conform to standard D&D styles of play? What if you are DMing FR or Greyhawk? Is it less likely you will use house rules?
My next question is: What is your primary reason for having house rules? Is it to balance problematic spells/feats/classes? Is it because you have a homebrew world that does not conform to standard D&D styles of play? What if you are DMing FR or Greyhawk? Is it less likely you will use house rules?
frankthedm
First Post
Same here.Dykstrav said:
I really dislike ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ not to use perceived ‘nuclear options’. If something is so bad that it would detract from the game if used, like say Mord’s Disjunction, then it should be changed, not left alone, hoping it never comes up.
Grapple rules hurt the front liners too much? Take off the -4 penalty on light and natural weapons, and let one handed weapons be used in the grapple at the -4!
Dislike the 3.5 darkness’s ‘shadowy illumination’? See my sig!
der_kluge
Adventurer
I've learned my lesson on HRs. Last campaign I ran, I had pages and pages of minor tweaks and enhancements to the rules. It's the enhancements that can really come back to bite you in the ass.
And while my current game has a number of house rules, many of them *remove* rules from the game.
For example -
no small creature weapon damage rules
no "favored class" rules
I don't use XP
I use Action Points
I have a detailed list of what players can do with APs.
I've also modified Sorcerers quite a bit (an experiment for a PbP I'm starting)
And I've also introduced some new rules regarding alchemy. In fact, my PbP has more house rules than my RL game.
But a lot of my rules are there to A) increase the fun, and B) increase the pace - which also increases the fun.
And while my current game has a number of house rules, many of them *remove* rules from the game.
For example -
no small creature weapon damage rules
no "favored class" rules
I don't use XP
I use Action Points
I have a detailed list of what players can do with APs.
I've also modified Sorcerers quite a bit (an experiment for a PbP I'm starting)
And I've also introduced some new rules regarding alchemy. In fact, my PbP has more house rules than my RL game.
But a lot of my rules are there to A) increase the fun, and B) increase the pace - which also increases the fun.
Homebrew
My current game is a homebrew with customizations to races/classes but nothing too alien. As for standard gaming systems (combat, magic, skills, feats, etc.) I use 3.5 by the book.
In my campaign there are angels and demons that have interbred with humans and elves, giving rise to new half-races. Dwarves and elves are changed to represent the effects of a major cataclysm in the gameworld's past, and there are no subraces. I also created a combo Ranger/Barbarian called the Nomad. No gnomes or halflings this time.
I usually customize something, at least local races/subraces, but I like to play the rules by the book.
My current game is a homebrew with customizations to races/classes but nothing too alien. As for standard gaming systems (combat, magic, skills, feats, etc.) I use 3.5 by the book.
In my campaign there are angels and demons that have interbred with humans and elves, giving rise to new half-races. Dwarves and elves are changed to represent the effects of a major cataclysm in the gameworld's past, and there are no subraces. I also created a combo Ranger/Barbarian called the Nomad. No gnomes or halflings this time.
I usually customize something, at least local races/subraces, but I like to play the rules by the book.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
House rules are one of the core rules of D&D. If only the core classes, races, spells, monsters, etc. are used instead of creating one's own, then play is... not as creative as it could be.
Li Shenron
Legend
dungeon blaster said:
If you mean changes to mechanics, I have used a few variants, but usually not more than 1-2 per campaign, just to see how the game changes.
If you mean "fixes" to spells, equipment or other tiny pieces of the game, I've also used a couple in the past (at the moment I remember at least giving a ST to Harm and decreasing the duration of Miasma). This happened specifically because in some campaign there was some abuse of these, but then in newer campaigns I don't "inherit" these previous HR.
If you instead mean variant classes, additional material, or even restrictions done for the setting, then I definitely used quite many, but I don't call these "house rules" but rather "setting rules".
Inconsequenti-AL
Breaks Games
I try to keep them as light as possible. Like to keep the quantity small enough that players will reasonably know them.
Do tend to house rule races and classes a bit - but I consider these to be less invasive changes - the coping with them tends to be up front rather than being done every session?
Do tend to house rule races and classes a bit - but I consider these to be less invasive changes - the coping with them tends to be up front rather than being done every session?
greywulf
First Post
Not a lot, really:
- Initiative = Reflex save. Improved Initiative still adds +4 to the roll
- No AoOs
- Characters start at 2nd level for new campaigns, using the stat array 10,12,13,14,15,16
- Sorcerers don't use material components and can take Arcane Attunement (as per Duskblade) in place of a familiar at 1st level
- Paladins can be of any alignment
- Clerics must have a god
- Monks can multi-class at will
Umm....that's about it
- Initiative = Reflex save. Improved Initiative still adds +4 to the roll
- No AoOs
- Characters start at 2nd level for new campaigns, using the stat array 10,12,13,14,15,16
- Sorcerers don't use material components and can take Arcane Attunement (as per Duskblade) in place of a familiar at 1st level
- Paladins can be of any alignment
- Clerics must have a god
- Monks can multi-class at will
Umm....that's about it
Drawmack
First Post
I have always divided the rules in to two types. There are play rules and setting rules.
Play rules are things like to attack you roll a d20 add your attack bonus and compare that to the opponents AC to see if you hit. These rules I do not feel should be changed much. Changing these rules, while it can be positive, has three negative effects I am not willing to deal with. The first is that new players have a hard time joining the group and getting up to speed. Secondly, if you are teaching someone to play the game and you are using house rules they are likely to become very confused when they keep finding things in the book and you keep saying we do not use that here. The player can even feel that the game is stacked against them if this happens too much. The last disadvantage is that the more house rules I have the more crap I have to carry to the game. That being said I do have a couple house rules that I use, but I can count them on one hand.
Setting rules are things like races, classes, prestige classes, and the magic system. When it comes to these rules I feel it should be change at will. Changing these things are what gives a world its own unique flavor. Changing these rules does not really have any of the detriments mentioned for changing the play rules either. Firstly if you look at the PHB all of these areas have their own chapters and you can simply state instead of chapters x, y, and z in the players handbook we are using this document or this sourcebook here.
When I homebrew I change the races and classes a lot. I also make it so that a character cannot have a prestige class unless the training is offered in game. However, I leave those base rules alone. I learned my lesson when I tried to run a grim and gritty campaign, it lasted less then one session before we returned to the standard battle rules.
Play rules are things like to attack you roll a d20 add your attack bonus and compare that to the opponents AC to see if you hit. These rules I do not feel should be changed much. Changing these rules, while it can be positive, has three negative effects I am not willing to deal with. The first is that new players have a hard time joining the group and getting up to speed. Secondly, if you are teaching someone to play the game and you are using house rules they are likely to become very confused when they keep finding things in the book and you keep saying we do not use that here. The player can even feel that the game is stacked against them if this happens too much. The last disadvantage is that the more house rules I have the more crap I have to carry to the game. That being said I do have a couple house rules that I use, but I can count them on one hand.
Setting rules are things like races, classes, prestige classes, and the magic system. When it comes to these rules I feel it should be change at will. Changing these things are what gives a world its own unique flavor. Changing these rules does not really have any of the detriments mentioned for changing the play rules either. Firstly if you look at the PHB all of these areas have their own chapters and you can simply state instead of chapters x, y, and z in the players handbook we are using this document or this sourcebook here.
When I homebrew I change the races and classes a lot. I also make it so that a character cannot have a prestige class unless the training is offered in game. However, I leave those base rules alone. I learned my lesson when I tried to run a grim and gritty campaign, it lasted less then one session before we returned to the standard battle rules.
Similar Threads
