Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 3644829" data-attributes="member: 51942">First off:  It's too long.  I'm positive you can get the same experience without modifying so heavily.  Many of your house rules have very little impact; they're nothing more that minor differences.  Consider that each house rule has a cost; they reduce predictability (everything is balanced with core rules in mind and new rules might upset the balance when used in combination with your rules), and they increase the cost of learning all the modifications.  Rules which are more complex that the rules which they replace are especially questionable.For instance; you use fractional base attack bonuses:  realize, however, that this means specifically that many classes' first level has received a significant boost.  Level dipping in character optimization is already a good strategy often, and the "cost", say, of one level in "that class you want" has now decreased significantly.  Fractional bonuses sound fairer, but ask yourself if that's really what you want, and why you need the additional balance issues it makes.You use fractional bonuses, but now you're not really improving the situation by just replacing one table with another.  Why not actually seriously really USE fractional bonuses instead of just another lookup table?  It's not making anything simpler.The divine casters spell list isn't clearly described.Clerics are too powerful - they were powerful, but your modifications significantly up their power (esp. the spontaneous version...!).The wizards penalty for losing a familiar should not be greater as his level increases.  As written, a familar is something you want to get rid of a soon as possible.  Given how familiars work in game (namely mostly as roleplaying devices) this means that you're waiting until they make a stupid mistake and it dies.  In any case, what's the point of the new rules surrounding familiars?Improved toughness is called "improved" but does not require toughness as prerequisite.Half-elves and humans are less powerful in this variant because they lose their multiclassing advantage.  You may want to give them something in return, esp. the half-elves which are underpowered anyhow.I like my Death&Dying variant better <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />. OK sorry, I had too! <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=199228" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=199228</a>I don't see a house rule concerning character ability generation, which you want to add, just to be complete.All in all, pretty nice house rules, but simply too many, for a too vague benefit.  If you're sure this is actually going to increase your player's enjoyment of the game, then sure, go ahead.  But I think most of it are minor balance tweaks that aren't really important enough to include.  What you could do, is try to make two documents:  One with real changes, and try to keep it to an absolute minimum, and another with extra character options, and try and place as many of your changes into that.  That way, people can choose what level of investment into your rules they want.  Many of your class modifications and even things like fractional increases to BAB and saves could be made optional to the player.  As an added benefit, you can then see how important people really find those alternative rules (as in, if they aren't much more powerful, how many people choose to use the alternative?)</blockquote>

Verification