My Bunch of Rules

[Eltern]

So, I'm going to be starting a new campaign, and it will have a big bunch of house rules. As such I'm going to be just taking the SRD, changing it with the new rules, and giving it to my players, saying "This will be the PHB for this campaign" As such, I would like to make sure that there is some balance between things before I get started editing the SRD. Here's the list of my house rules. Could you please call me out if you think any of these will have unforseen reactions with each other? Thanks! (Watch out, it's long!)

Unearthed Arcana Stuff:
-Vitality/Wound Points (Toughness is +3 WP, Imp. Toughness is +1 VP/level)
-Spell Points with the Vitalizing variant
-Weapon Groups feats, with Wep. Focus, Specialization, Imp. Crit, etc. applying to weapon groups, not specific weapons.
-Craft Points
-Cleric class is now the cloisterd cleric.
-Prestige Ranger and Paladin (still debating prestige bard, normal bard, or bard from the Book of Eldritch Might)
-Metamagic Components are the ONLY way to achieve a metamagic effect. No metamagic feats (Wizards will get a few more feats to choose from with their bonus feats to compensate)
-Defense Bonuses (Will apply all the time as a dodge bonus, and will be lower. Trying to catch AC up in the arms race against BAB as it does not do in the rules, not change how characters approach wearing armor)

Other Things:
-No Alignment
-No Multiclassing Penalties (Humans will get 2 skills permanently as class skills)
-No cap on cross class skills. If you want to spend twice the points, you can have ranks up to level +3, just like class skills.
-Core races are gnome, dwarf, halfling, human, orc, and elf.
-All races will have physical qualities and cultural qualities. A halfling that grows up among dwarves, for instance, will not have bonuses against fear or for thrown weapons, but will get stone cutting and bonuses against giants.
-No sorcs.
-Fighters gain a bonus feat in their "off" levels which can only be used for Wep. Focus, Spec, Greater Focus, Greater Spec., Imp. Crit, or Weapon Groups.
-More extensive rules on languages, with degrees of proficiency, literacy, etc. Skill points can be invested to help, but characters will start with language points based on Int.
-Because of the above, there will be no "Common." There will be a very simple trade language used in some places, and another one used in some other places.

I think that's a pretty extensive change to the rules, so I want to make sure that I'm not going to break it I know that one or two of these are pretty huge, like the metamagic thing, so I'd like feedback.

That said, I'd like some advice on MAKING a good system for the races' physical/cultural qualities and the languages. I know I've heard some good ideas in the past.

Thanks!
Eltern

 

[the Jester]

I think you're totally throwing the balance off- you're seriously buffing up fighters (more bonus feats) and seriously diminishing casters (eviscerating metamagic, cloistered clerics, no sorcerers).

If you want a combat-heavy, magic-lite system I think it'll be fine.

 

[Ferret]

I really like these rules but what the Jester said is true.

 

[Glak]

great set of rules. There is nothing wrong with improving the fighter while weakening spellcasters. I say the more the better.

Making paladin and ranger prestige classes is reasonable, but the classes presented in the book are just horrible from a flavor standpoint. The paladin should not be required to take any cleric levels first. He should be a knight that gains divine power, not a cleric that bones up on his swordsmanship. So if you go that route make your own classes for them and it will be better.

 

[the Jester]

Making paladin and ranger prestige classes is reasonable, but the classes presented in the book are just horrible from a flavor standpoint. The paladin should not be required to take any cleric levels first. He should be a knight that gains divine power, not a cleric that bones up on his swordsmanship. So if you go that route make your own classes for them and it will be better.

I've never thought about this, but Glak's right. If you want your paladins to be Lancelot types, you shouldn't require cleric spells for entry.

If you give the paladin a caster level every 2-3 levels, but don't require entry, you can have the best of both worlds. A fighter/paladin won't get spells but a cleric/paladin will gradually increase in caster level.

 

[Eltern]

Basically to Jester's comments, as the others were "Hey, that's about alright"

How does taking out sorcs weaken the other classes? Seems more flavor for the campaign thing than anything else. I think the only people who get screwed by taking out sorcs is...sorcs.

Kinda similar: How does "cloistering" the cleric weaken his magic? If anything they will focus on it more. It's basically flavor oriented, but also shifts party roles as the cleric is now a "priest." He will avoid combat as much as the wizard, now.

The fighter is weak. Very weak. I may take out Imp. Crit from the list of "off level" feats, but as it is now, he's got jack every other level, in comparison to other classes that get fun abilities or spells.

I think that spell points up the wizards/clerics' power level significantly. The vitalizing aspect is both a pro and a con, because they could potentially lose a lot of spell points if they get hit with a critical, but they can gain back points more quickly (as can vitality points, which allows the whole party to get up and ready to go again, almost fully "charged" in 1-2 hours instead of 8, something I wanted to accomplish)

Now METAMAGIC, I'll take all the comments I can get. Will doing something like this completely screw things up to high heaven? A thought I had was decreasing the prices of all metamagic components by some percentage. My thoughts concerning taking out metamagic went something like this:

-As this particular campaign is from 2-11 level, metamagic could not possibly become a big part of the rules until the last quarter.
-Characters IMCs tend not to really hit home on metamagic unless they're something like 15th level.
-I want to encourage my players as much as possible to make things through crafting, and the wizard already is getting bonus feats every few levels...
-The idea of fun things having potential magical properties really appeals to me, and I want my characters to be thinking about such things.

Now, if I decreased the cost of metamagic components by 1/2, would things be broken?

Thanks for the comments!
Eltern

 

[Eltern]

Hmm, I would really like to make sure I'm not screwing stuff up too much with the metamagic. Any thoughts on price reductions for the components?

Thanks!
Eltern

 

[HellHound]

The fighter is weak indeed... as long as there is no combat going on.

Once combat begins, the core fighter can be a MACHINE out there in the field. Doubling up his feats is going to enhance this effect.

Not that any fighters out there will complain mind you... but you will be seeing fighters with more than one or two feat chains under their belt... high level fighters will be able to take the mobility and the power attack chains without issue, and will have feats left over.

 

[ElectricDragon]

-I want to encourage my players as much as possible to make things through crafting, and the wizard already is getting bonus feats every few levels...

Maybe I'm wrong, but 1 bonus feat/5 levels equals to 2 bonus feats in 11 levels (not including the Scribe Scroll feat at 1st level where there is no choice involved). Unless you intend to increase the amount of feats gained by wizards; I don't see how you are encouraging your players to make things through crafting (magic poor campaigns tend to encourage crafting magic items just to have something). Item Creation feats are about all that is left for the wizard's choice for bonus feats if you take away Metamagic feats. That is not encouragement; it is coercion. If you remove all the other choices; they will have to choose what is left. You mentioned adding to the Wizard's bonus feat list; I expect something along the lines of : Eschew Material, Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Improved Counterspell, Magical Aptitude, and Improved Familiar. Some of these choices seem more necessary than Item Creation feats (unless magic items are few and far between). I would suggest allowing a wizard to specialize in some type of magic item construction at first level (in place of Scribe Scroll). I've never understood why it takes 12 levels before you can make a ring but most rings require a lesser level to make than that; so why put level requirements on rings unless it is higher than 12th level? (Yeah, I know, so you can figure the price.)

Cloistered Clerics need something to replace their lost combat abilities; how about a bonus feat for them, say every 3 or 4 levels (of course I don't have UA, and that imbalance was probably taken care of in that book). Make a list of feats they can choose from like: Improved Turning, Extra Turning, Plant Control, Plant Defiance, Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Eschew Materials, and Augment Summoning.


Just my thoughts. YOMV

Ciao
Dave

 

[Eltern]

Yeah, ElectricDragon, I realized the silliness of my comments soon after I posted Your list of feats, though, were all on my list of new bonus feats for wizard.

Cloistered Clerics: Eh, yeah, I think UA balanced them pretty well Granted, I think they're still better than wizards, even in that version, but now only marginally, and it's arguable.

Thanks!
Eltern