Korimyr's House Rules (update 20 Feb, now with Paragons!)

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Sadly, most of this is adaptation of existing races and classes to system changes I've made using the Unearthed Arcana rules. There really should be a disclaimer about how much work these changes require to implement properly.

It includes conversion of Favored Class into Favored Gestalt, a modified form of Class Defense Bonus, implementation of Weapon Group Proficiency with non-PHB classes, a modified, more robust form of Armor as DR, and a number of race/class tweaks.

The main things I need to work on to finish this are to re-build the Paragon classes and go through and modify spells whose effects run afoul of the system changes.

There are some non-OGC names in here, but I've avoided including any original mechanics or flavor text that might be copyrighted-- as I note in the introduction, nothing in this document can be used without owning the appropriate books, except for a couple of Unearthed Arcana variants I added to explain in-depth in order to explain my implementation. I'm hoping this is enough to make it acceptable for posting.

Warning, this is about 60 pages long.

edit: Updated. Now includes the Kreschk race (a ratling humanoid scavenger), and Gestalt Paragons for all of the core races, planetouched, and the psionic races save the Duergar and Half-Giant (because I do not allow them) and the Xeph (because I simply have no feel for what they're supposed to be). I can put together a Gestalt Paragon for the Warforged and Shifter if anyone is interested.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Sorceror Ancestral Spells - are these spells which are simply automatically cournted as part of the Spells Known for the character, or are these in addition to Spells Known (kinda like domain spells?)

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I had originally planned on making them occupy the Sorceror's regular spells known list, but I decided that Sorcerors' spell selection didn't need to be more limited than it already was (unlike the Favored Souls).

They're added to the Spells Known list.

edit: I've also got all of my Paragon classes (except for the Eberron races and the Xeph) written up. I'm typing them into the document right now. I think when I update, I'm just going to save myself the trouble and remove the Eberron races from the House Rules. As for the Xeph, I just have no idea how I'd go about creating the Paragon.

Update should be tomorrow.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Bumped for update. God, I'm glad that's done.

 

[Ferrix]

Hiya Korimyr, I'm looking through your long document currently and was wondering about some of the disallowed gestalt combinations. I can see some of them being basically disallowing what could be direct opposites (Hexblade/Paladin) but those are already stipulated via alignment restrictions. A number of the other ones I could easily see character concepts springing to mind for many of them. I was just wondering your intent with those since you espouse giving your players options/choices.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Well, things like the Paladin/Hexblade and Paladin/Warlock are banned because they are contradictory in flavor-- and the bans are necessary because of how much I've loosened alignment restrictions. I can easily see a Neutral or Chaotic Monk, a Chaotic Good Paladin, or a Neutral Good Warlock, but I cannot picture a Barbarian/Monk or a Paladin/Hexblade.

I don't allow full casters of the same type (Cleric/Druid, Wizard/Sorceror, Psion/Wilder), because they don't make sense to me, and because part of my reasoning in using Gestalt rules is to make characters more well-rounded. A Wizard/Sorceror is just as much a one-trick pony as a regular Wizard-- they just have a longer-lasting trick. I include Warlock in with the full-arcane casters.

Along the same lines, I don't allow Aristocrat/Bard or Expert/Rogue because they fulfill the same function in-game, but in different ways.

Aristocrat, Expert, Monk, and Warmage require a certain level of discipline and civilization, which bars them from Barbarian. Monks and Druids both reject the kind of wealth and privilege the Aristocrat relies on. I might see either Monk or Bard combining with Warmage, representing an extra-disciplined Warmage or someone who combines Warmage training with the power to inspire others.

Druid/Rogue I might be convinced to allow, but they strike me as contradictory. Druid/Hexblade and Druid/Warlock are banned for the same reason those classes may not combine with Paladin-- flavor issue. I see Hexblades and Warlocks as a kind of unnatural force, though I might allow Druid/Hexblade.

Fighter/Psychic Warrior is disallowed to avoid the issue of whether and how Fighter/Psychic Warrior bonus feats stack. This combination is either abusively good or nearly worthless, depending.

Barbarian is banned from Wizard due to literacy, and Psion because of Rage-- it seems to me that raging psychics should go Wilder.

What character concepts do you have in mind that are forbidden by these rules?

 

[HellHound]

For me it would be the druid gestalt restrictions. But then again, I have different views of druids than most. Druids are the priests and elders of ancient nature deities. I don't see how being a high priest of an ancient religion of earth worship would preclude a character from being an aristocrat (druids were often the leaders of their peoples, gathering political power, favors and wealth along the way...). Likewise, a druid / rogue could be an ecoterrorist, or just a druid with a feel for skullduggery. We have a druid/rogue in our campaign, she's a goblin worshipper of an earth deity, who prefers to remain unseen as she manipulates and kills.

For the barbarian gestalts, I prefer to think of the barbarian as a berzerker. Even in the wilds of the classic barbarian, there are 'nobles' and clan leaders who I would have as aristocrats. And I can REALLY picture a berzerker / warmage... someone who gets completely unhinged in combat when the range closes from spellcasting to melee. Ditto for barbarian / wizards and other barbaric spellcasters.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Likewise, a druid / rogue could be an ecoterrorist, or just a druid with a feel for skullduggery. We have a druid/rogue in our campaign, she's a goblin worshipper of an earth deity, who prefers to remain unseen as she manipulates and kills.

This strikes me as fairly interesting. I may have to reconsider.

For the barbarian gestalts, I prefer to think of the barbarian as a berzerker. Even in the wilds of the classic barbarian, there are 'nobles' and clan leaders who I would have as aristocrats. And I can REALLY picture a berzerker / warmage... someone who gets completely unhinged in combat when the range closes from spellcasting to melee. Ditto for barbarian / wizards and other barbaric spellcasters.

For me, Barbarian must contain a cultural component-- it's not enough to have a hot temper. Barbarians don't live in cities, they don't belong to formal military units, and they don't undergo a training regimen. Barbarians are raised, not trained, and the kind of upbringing that creates a Barbarian doesn't lend itself to study or introspection. Barbarians with a knack for arcane magic develop it innately, as Hexblades, Sorcerors, or Warlocks.

As far as Barbarian leaders, I pictured Barbarian leaders as being, more or less, Barbarian/Bard. Aristocrats and Bards perform many of the same tasks in a party, with the Aristocrat being a leader within a framework of laws-- he relies as much upon legal authority as he does upon personal charisma. This doesn't work in Barbarian societies. Same with Druids, more or less-- the kind of civilizations in which the Druid wields political power would be led by Bards more than Aristocrats.

I see Warmages, as a class, being as rigorously disciplined as the Monk-- in fact, the original reasoning behind prohibiting the combination was that the two forms of training were too rigorous to be undertaken simultaneously. Upon reflection, I can see certain incredibly militaristic Monk orders training Initiates as Monk/Warmages.

 

[Ferrix]

I can understand wanting characters to diversify their skills and in some ways I can definately appreciate that, but at the least you are limiting options which a player could come up with a very interesting backstory for. And generally you only doing this on one side of the coin (spellcasters), you aren't disallowing any of the fighter-ranger or fighter-barbarian or fighter-paladin gestalts which are basically of exactly the same general type (warrior). If you go halfway go all the way or don't go at all else it'll seem like you are favoring a specific side.

Druid-Rogue was one of my thoughts as well. For one I don't see any opposition here and find that they can very interestingly complement each other.

Paladin-rogue, I know this could come off at first glance as contradictory, but rogues can be of any alignment under base D&D so you can have a paladin/rogue. Heck, it could easily stand for a batman style character, think halfling also.

Barbarian-monk, this one is a bit harder to justify as under Core it won't happen without becoming an ex-monk, however I think the internal conflict such a character would have could lead to excellent roleplaying options. A specialized school of warriors from a savage land who tap into the powers of their mystic ancestors to grant them amazing powers. They walk a fine line between savagery and reverence.

Monk-aristrocrat - think of the son of a wealthy noble family who is trained in the ancient family art while brought up in the wiles and intrigues of the noble court. This one really actually appeals to oriental feel where there are very structured courts and family lines.

Paladin-warlock - tormented by the demons raging within his soul yet striving for the purity of good. The battle for good and evil not only rages within the world but within the very core of this warriors being. (Paladin of Freedom-Warlock would be allowed without dropping alignment restrictions)

Paladin-druid - A benevolent warrior of the wilds. A templar of the druid hierarchy, routing out the evils which attempt to corrupt the natural world. Screams elf all over it to me.

These are just some of what I think are the "harder" examples to defend and I think with a bit of imagination they can be defended quite rapidly.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

If you go halfway go all the way or don't go at all else it'll seem like you are favoring a specific side.

It does appear that I am somewhat favoring the warriors and the skill-users over the spellcasters. I'm comfortable with that, and my group actually appreciates it, given their anti-spellcaster bias.

Druid-Rogue was one of my thoughts as well. For one I don't see any opposition here and find that they can very interestingly complement each other.

I believe you're right. Upon reflection, I think I shall go back and alter this to allow it. Thank you-- part of why I posted this was for comments and opinions that might improve it.

Paladin-rogue, I know this could come off at first glance as contradictory, but rogues can be of any alignment under base D&D so you can have a paladin/rogue. Heck, it could easily stand for a batman style character, think halfling also.

I would not consider Batman a Paladin. He's a Fighter/Rogue with extensive martial arts. Maybe some Ranger and/or Scout. Different DMs have different standards for how ruthless Paladins are allowed to be-- and I give them a better-than-average degree of freedom-- but I cannot picture a "stealth Paladin". A Paladin might sneak, might hide, in order to get close to the target, but when a Paladin strikes down his enemy, he makes sure the villain knows who is killing him and why he's doing it.

Paladins are free to combine with Bard, Ranger, or Scout in order to get the ability to sneak. They just don't get the ability to sneak attack.

Barbarian-monk, this one is a bit harder to justify as under Core it won't happen without becoming an ex-monk, however I think the internal conflict such a character would have could lead to excellent roleplaying options. A specialized school of warriors from a savage land who tap into the powers of their mystic ancestors to grant them amazing powers. They walk a fine line between savagery and reverence.

Barbarian/Monk is not merely contradictory-- it is opposed. I see Barbarians and Monks as being polar opposites, like Paladins and Blackguards. This is why, for the Planetouched, Fire Genasi are Barbarians and Water Genasi are Monks, or why Zenthyri are Monks and Chaonds Barbarians.

As for your example, I think Barbarian/Psychic Warrior would cover it quite nicely.

Monk-aristrocrat - think of the son of a wealthy noble family who is trained in the ancient family art while brought up in the wiles and intrigues of the noble court. This one really actually appeals to oriental feel where there are very structured courts and family lines.

On reflection, I might remove the restriction on Aristocrat from both Monks and Druids. I see Bard as making more sense for a Druidic diplomat and leader, but there's no real need to prohibit it. I actively dislike the concept of Aristocrat and Monk, as I think they have contradictory flavor, but your character idea makes a fair bit of sense.

Paladin-warlock - tormented by the demons raging within his soul yet striving for the purity of good. The battle for good and evil not only rages within the world but within the very core of this warriors being. (Paladin of Freedom-Warlock would be allowed without dropping alignment restrictions)

But, if the Paladin is struggling against the source of his Warlock powers, how could he justify using them? This goes for the Paladin of Freedom every bit as much as for the Paladin of Honor.

Paladin-druid - A benevolent warrior of the wilds. A templar of the druid hierarchy, routing out the evils which attempt to corrupt the natural world. Screams elf all over it to me.

Paladins aspire to the Celestial-- they reach beyond the material world. The Druid is dedicated to the natural world, and even Lawful Good Druids consider Celestials to be unnatural influences. More tolerable, surely, than Fiends, but still alien creatures that do not belong in the Material Plane.

It's the same reason I do not allow the Druid/Warlock.

These are just some of what I think are the "harder" examples to defend and I think with a bit of imagination they can be defended quite rapidly.

Indeed-- between yourself and Hellhound, you've turned me around on some of the Aristocrat combinations, and on the Druid/Rogue. I'll update my rules document accordingly, though I won't be posting a new updated version.