My House Rules Reference List

Talix said:


Well that's pretty freaky. ;) So "light" is a free action, but "ray of frost" isn't? Usually, casting a spell is casting a spell, regardless of the effects, and trying to determine what is an "attack" and what isn't to determine how long it takes would be pretty funky, IMHO.

Actually he was saying if a rogue wanted to use the ray of frost to sneak attack, then it would be considered an attack action.

On a slightly different note, I agree strongly with the idea of limiting the Natural Cantrips feat. I'd recommend both limiting the castings per day and raising the casting time to a standard action.

Otherwise everything looks splendid and I can't wait to get more in depth into it. (also I can't wait to see the finished product. Wonderful stuff.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Two Fisted Crossbows: The character can use a pair of crossbows at least one size smaller than himself simultaneously; this gives him an extra attack using the second crossbow. Both crossbows suffer a –4 penalty to hit, in addition to the normal penalties for an off-hand weapon. Firing at two different targets gives an additional –2 penalty to all attacks.

Um.

So I can spend a feat to fire two light crossbows at two different targets, at -10 on my attack rolls...

... or I can not spend a feat and fire two heavy crossbows at two different targets, at -6/-10?

(Assuming TFCB negates the normal off-hand -4 without Ambidexterity... otherwise your feat gives -10/-14...)

That's worse than Eagle Claw Attack - at least ECA does nothing, it doesn't make you worse...

-Hyp.
 

Hypersmurf said:
Um.

So I can spend a feat to fire two light crossbows at two different targets, at -10 on my attack rolls...

-4 each
-4 for the off-hand
-2 for two attacks...
yields -6/-10. However, see the following:

... or I can not spend a feat and fire two heavy crossbows at two different targets, at -6/-10?

Honestly, I missed this: nowhere in two weapon fighting or the appropriate feats does it say "melee". I thought it did. Based on my thinking it said "melee", you would not be able to attack with two crossbows. Based on THAT, this feat opened up a new possibility.

As it is, the two-weapon fighting feat just became stupid - training with two swords lets you fire two crossbows? Ugh.

Well, I need to think about that. I'll probably rewrite the two weapon fighting feats to say "melee", but allow two-crossbow fighting at the usual -6/-10, and change the two fisted crossbows feat to be equivalent to two weapon fighting.
 

-4 each
-4 for the off-hand
-2 for two attacks...
yields -6/-10.

You said that the feat penalty was on top of the normal penalty for attacking with two weapons : -4/-4 in the case of two light crossbows (where the off-hand weapon is light).

Edit - Oh, I see. You weren't referring to the Two Weapon Fighting penalties, just the right-handed guy using his left hand penalty. My mistake.

As it is, the two-weapon fighting feat just became stupid - training with two swords lets you fire two crossbows? Ugh.

Well, I need to think about that. I'll probably rewrite the two weapon fighting feats to say "melee", but allow two-crossbow fighting at the usual -6/-10, and change the two fisted crossbows feat to be equivalent to two weapon fighting.

Read the description of Heavy Crossbow in the PHB p100. It specifically addresses the use of two crossbows.

The Two Weapon Fighting feat does not apply to melee weapons. However, the Attacking With Two Weapons rules do.

Someone with all the right feats stabbing with two daggers (off-hand weapon Light) attacks at -2/-2 because :

-6/-10 base
-6/-6 Ambidexterity
-4/-4 Off-hand Weapon is Light
-2/-2 Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

Someone throwing a dagger with each hand attacks at -4/-4 because :

-6/-10 base
-6/-6 Ambidexterity
-4/-4 Off-hand Weapon is Light
Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not apply, as it represent skill with melee weapons, not ranged weapons.

-Hyp.
 
Last edited:

Hypersmurf said:
Read the description of Heavy Crossbow in the PHB p100. It specifically addresses the use of two crossbows.
And yet the hand and light crossbows don't. Weird.
The Two Weapon Fighting feat does not apply to melee weapons. However, the Attacking With Two Weapons rules do.
They really should specify "melee" in the feat. Since they don't, I will.

Thanks!
 

And yet the hand and light crossbows don't.

Light Crossbow says to see Heavy Crossbow.

Hand Crossbow is covered in the FAQ.


I've been party to a six-page argument as to whether the TWF feat applies to, say, throwing axes.

Some people claim that the line "... because it represents skill with melee weapons, not ranged weapons" really means "with melee weapons and non-crossbow ranged weapons, not ranged weapons that are crossbows", because of the location of the rule.

Bah, I say.

Um, anyway, that's why the feat stood out as bizarre.

Now, if you gave it a cool name, like Eagle Claw Attack!...

-Hyp.
 

Two edits: natural cantrips is replaced with natural spells, blessed, and nature's gift; and two fisted crossbows has been rewritten to take advantage of pre-existing rules. I am also thinking about a "off hand throw" feat that will allow you to draw and throw a weapon in your off hand while fighting with a one handed weapon, at a lower penalty.

With that said...

As I may have mentioned, the feats are still under construction. As I work on the setting, different ideas come to me, and some of the old ideas get shifted around a bit. The natural cantrips feat, for example, was originally intended as a way for rakshasa and fey (two of the setting races) to develop additional spell-like abilities.

However, the more I thought out the background, the more I liked the idea of sufficiently intelligent people with knowledge of magic achieving something short of true magic. So it has been replaced with a feat chain that allows one to develop spell-like abilities at increasing levels, but with a limit on the number per day, and standard actions (and material and XP components) required. I also expanded it to include divine and nature spells (as separate feat chains).

And I may drop it entirely once I've worked out what impact this is going to have on the setting. A 3rd level expert could develop purify food/water and plant growth once per day each; and while ~200 square miles per year of plant growth is not quite as impressive as what a cleric or priest can dish out per year, experts are more common. Of course, the clerics and priests will be doing that anyway - the main city I'm playing with right now only requires two 5th level priests to maintain all crops associated with the city, its subsidiary towns, villages, etc. So maybe this won't have a huge impact, other than freeing up a few extra heals per day.

This is why I'm trying to keep the house rules as non-invasive as possible. I want to maintain a feeling that this is a D&D world, one where the People have taken advantage of the Natural Laws of their world. Some of the Natural Laws, I don't like, and those I'm house ruling away (like cheap raise dead*), but those are highly specific and usually (I think) very understandable.


* If you have a death rate of 5%, which is pretty decently high, a single cleric able to cast raise dead once a day can provide death insurance to 7,300 people. Add a second cleric to reduce the workload (to one every other day) and charge 50 GP per year per person (the raise dead is "free"), and you're set. That's just too video-gamish for me.
 




Remove ads

Top