My House Rules

[scars_of_carma]

If you're going to reroll anything under 8, how about 2d12, pick best, add 8?

That could work except the minimum stat would be a 9 instead of an 8.

6+2d6 would give you a minimum of 8 and a max of 18 before racial modifier.

That's true but my old group was spoiled. They used the 4d6 subtract the lowest, re-roll ones, if you roll 4 identical numbers add them all together. Typically the DM would throw out 4-8 points, per player, on top of those stats even to balance out the lower sets with the higher sets.

As a result our old group had rediculously high stats all the time. I didn't want the same level of power gaming when I introduced my new world. At least with the 2d20 they think they could get a high stat but on average they dont. It was a compromise and I do admit it allows humans to have higher-then-normal starting stats.

Only a couple comments here.

Helmets: All armors include helms; since they have no in-game effect, they're just not noted. It's perfectly reasonable to attach penalties to certain types of armor, or rule that you can use different helms with different types of armor. If you go the latter route, though, players using a leather helm with plate mail (for example) should be especially vulnerable in battle, since enemies will notice an obvious weak point and target it.

You could houserule that ACP applies to Listen and Spot, or maybe ACP/2 or something.

Ever since 3e came out and I saw the pictures of what Wizards thought armor should look like it's made me grumpy... they turned armor that was once something based on real armor into fantasy nonsense armor.

The Wizards attitude about armor ruined the tradition of D&D. For example:
- If your rogue character doesn't choose to wear a helm does that mean they can opt to leave the helm at the armory and get a discount?

- If your fighters helm gets knocked off into a a pit of lava do you even know how much a replacement costs or how much weight is lost?

3e players treat armor like a middle-earth fashion accessory. In 2e armor was a big deal and players knew what a greave and a coif was! I'm trying to bring something of that tradition back without imposing the old 2e system that new D&D players can't comprehend and have no desire to learn.

If I really wanted to go all-out I would make the rest of the armor have hardness/hit points not just the helms. I would even make players keep track of which part of their armor got damaged in case an enemy notices a weak spot and tries to go for a called shot.

As for my class rules, I am just trying to discourage the rampant multiclassing, min-max'ing, that happens in 3e. I want players to pick a class and do their best to make the best of it making that class an important part of their characters identity.

I never liked that rule due to the ability of high level monsters/players to do a lot of combat.

My combat rules are harsh I know that. I want my players to fear death and combat in general. Combat should only be done when the characters need to be brave and risk their lives. Not just when they decided they need to hunt for more experience points.

I balance this out by rewarding good roleplaying and problem-solving a lot more. If a group has to make a decision to avoid a dangerous monster thats too risky to fight the players shouldn't feel like they are jipping themselves out of a lot of xp.

I designed Power attack, criticals and called shots to have the same effects. It balances rogues and fighters much better this way.

As for high-level players doing a lot of combat... if a high level fighter swats something weaker then them they better be able to kill it otherwise it doesn't make sense that they became so high-level in the first place... By the same token however... even a high level fighter should consider that anything could get lucky and kill them in one hit. Once again that brings back the proper need to fight or not need to fight motivation.

 

[concerro]

I designed Power attack, criticals and called shots to have the same effects. It balances rogues and fighters much better this way.

I dont understand. I am not picking at your rules by the way. I just like to see(understand) other people's reasoning. I have picked up a lot from different people on various boards, and I don't always "get it" at first.

 

[scars_of_carma]

I dont understand. I am not picking at your rules by the way. I just like to see(understand) other people's reasoning. I have picked up a lot from different people on various boards, and I don't always "get it" at first.

This is what you said...

Std. Save vs. Massive Damage = DMG dealt +1/2 character level or 1/2 HD of attacker whichever is higher. Failure to save vs. massive dmg results in one of three things... death from shock + bloodloss (failing the save by -10), incapacitation from shock + bloodloss (failing the save by -5), or just shock. A character in shock can do nothing but a 5ft step and a minor action, each round, until they make the save. Anyone in shock will suffer bloodloss (internal or otherwise) at twice the normal rate...

Power Attack: This feat allows you to break bones with a bludgeoning weapon, impale with a peircing weapon or cut to the bone with a slashing weapon on a successful hit. YOU MUST HAVE A BAB of +5 and -5 FROM EACH ATTACK to receive this benefit.

Roll D20 to determine which body part. 1-3 Right Arm (cannot use weapon), 4-6 Left Arm (cannot use weapon), 7-9 Right Leg (half move), 10-12, Left Leg (half move), 13 Right hand (cannot hold item), 14 Left Hand (cannot hold item), 15-16 Gut (-1D3 Con) 17-18 Ribs (Punctured Lung, -1D6 Con) 20 Skull (Roll save vs. massive damage)


same as called shots

I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say but I tried to answer you anyway lol

 

[Kerrick]

That's true but my old group was spoiled. They used the 4d6 subtract the lowest, re-roll ones, if you roll 4 identical numbers add them all together. Typically the DM would throw out 4-8 points, per player, on top of those stats even to balance out the lower sets with the higher sets.

4d6, reroll 1, and drop the low die is a perfectly reasonable system. Where your DM went wrong is allowing the "if you roll 4 of identical numbers, add them all" and adding 4-8 on top of that. My old DM used the 4d6 system; we ended up with slightly-above-average stats (11-16, with the occasional 17-18). Standard PHB method is roll 4d6 and drop the low die.

Ever since 3e came out and I saw the pictures of what Wizards thought armor should look like it's made me grumpy... they turned armor that was once something based on real armor into fantasy nonsense armor.

No argument there. I blame Todd Lockwood - not that he isn't a talented artist, but his depictions of armor are completely unrealistic.

The Wizards attitude about armor ruined the tradition of D&D. For example:
- If your rogue character doesn't choose to wear a helm does that mean they can opt to leave the helm at the armory and get a discount?

- If your fighters helm gets knocked off into a a pit of lava do you even know how much a replacement costs or how much weight is lost?

Handwave it, or make a judgment call. Something like that would happen so rarely as to be a non-event.

3e players treat armor like a middle-earth fashion accessory. In 2e armor was a big deal and players knew what a greave and a coif was! I'm trying to bring something of that tradition back without imposing the old 2e system that new D&D players can't comprehend and have no desire to learn.

That's cool. Just don't go overboard with it.

If I really wanted to go all-out I would make the rest of the armor have hardness/hit points not just the helms. I would even make players keep track of which part of their armor got damaged in case an enemy notices a weak spot and tries to go for a called shot.

Like I said... don't go overboard. PCs are most often the ones wearing armor (unless you plan on using a lot of humanoid opponents), so they're the ones who will suffer from such a system.

As for my class rules, I am just trying to discourage the rampant multiclassing, min-max'ing, that happens in 3e. I want players to pick a class and do their best to make the best of it making that class an important part of their characters identity.

Amen to that. <shameless plug>You should check out Project Phoenix. It attempts to achieve much the same thing.</shameless plug>

My combat rules are harsh I know that. I want my players to fear death and combat in general. Combat should only be done when the characters need to be brave and risk their lives. Not just when they decided they need to hunt for more experience points.

I balance this out by rewarding good roleplaying and problem-solving a lot more. If a group has to make a decision to avoid a dangerous monster thats too risky to fight the players shouldn't feel like they are jipping themselves out of a lot of xp.

If you reward smart decisions with XP, they won't feel that way. Let me tell you a story:

Many years ago, I played in a Rifts campaign. Rifts, if you're not familiar with it, is a post-apocalyptic sci-fi game that takes place on Earth. Our group was on a mission to collect several artifacts for our patron; one of them took us to Dachau (yes, the German concentration camp) to recover an item that was in the showers. We got there to find a large military base in the valley below. A large, well-guarded military base. I came up with an idea: "Hey, let's scout around and get an idea of what we're up against." So we walked around the edge of the valley... and what did we find? The ruins of Old Dachau, the original camp. We found the showers, recovered the artifact, and got away without firing a single shot. The DM was so impressed that he gave us 2,000 XP (IIRC, it was enough to bump us up a level).

I designed Power attack, criticals and called shots to have the same effects. It balances rogues and fighters much better this way.

Crits are random and special - it's kind of hard to balance them against anything. I made up a called shot system not too long ago that looks pretty close to yours, but after people told me that it would penalize the PCs more than the monsters, I dropped it. It's the same with random critical effects - the PCs will be involved in far more battles than the bad guys, and thus bad luck will catch up with them more quickly.

 

[concerro]

When I said same as called shots I was probably saying I did not agree with the concept. I probably should have said "see called shots"

I also forgot the "]" to end the quote. It has been corrected now.

 

[scars_of_carma]

4d6, reroll 1, and drop the low die is a perfectly reasonable system. Where your DM went wrong is allowing the "if you roll 4 of identical numbers, add them all" and adding 4-8 on top of that. My old DM used the 4d6 system; we ended up with slightly-above-average stats (11-16, with the occasional 17-18). Standard PHB method is roll 4d6 and drop the low die.

Well the problem is... the old group is the one that came up with the 2d20 thing and they were the first group to play in my new world. For the sake of consistency I didn't want to change the rolling method per group that just wouldn't be fair. In hindsight I miss the days of 3d6 for stats lol.

Amen to that. <shameless plug>You should check out Project Phoenix. It attempts to achieve much the same thing.</shameless plug>

Nice, I'm checking that out. I also joined your group of revisionists lol.

Crits are random and special - it's kind of hard to balance them against anything. I made up a called shot system not too long ago that looks pretty close to yours, but after people told me that it would penalize the PCs more than the monsters, I dropped it. It's the same with random critical effects - the PCs will be involved in far more battles than the bad guys, and thus bad luck will catch up with them more quickly.

Eh, I don't get the logic that called shots penalize the pc's more then the monsters? Of course the PC's are (seemingly) gonna be involved in more battles they are the center of the story!

Saying its unfair give the PC's an equal chance to die as the NPC's is just silly. The PC's at least get to choose their battles most of the time. NPC's and monsters are an expendable, renewable resource. They always die off faster then the PC's. If they didn't it would be a very short game and I would be a very lousy Dungeon Master.

If a PC gets thrown into an arena and forced to fight a veteran gladiator should they not be scared? Is it wrong to assume that gladiator is a survivor of many battles without actually proving it? Should I complain if the PC's outnumber a giant six-to-one because they get to roll many more attacks then he does and they therefor have a higher chance of rolling an instant kill?

Any player that bitches that a PC's life is ultimately finite should be congratulated for stating the obvious. Death is innevitable unless you choose to retire a character. Just think of it as fate. The only real control a player has involving his characters death is how often he risks his life and for what reason. I reward players that martyr themselves for good reason by giving them more leway on their next character.

I guess in a sense it takes many PC deaths before a player really proves that he is selflessly roleplaying. If a player can't do that D&D will never be as rewarding for them because they are in essence cheating themselves. The Dungeon Master is not to blame for that.

 

[Kerrick]

Eh, I don't get the logic that called shots penalize the pc's more then the monsters? Of course the PC's are (seemingly) gonna be involved in more battles they are the center of the story!

The law of averages.

Saying its unfair give the PC's an equal chance to die as the NPC's is just silly. The PC's at least get to choose their battles most of the time. NPC's and monsters are an expendable, renewable resource. They always die off faster then the PC's. If they didn't it would be a very short game and I would be a very lousy Dungeon Master.

It's not unfair, per se... but it isn't very fun if your PC is getting killed off every other session, IMO. There should be fear of death, yes - but the PCs are heros - they're the folks who spit in the face of death, who persevere through adversity, blah blah blah. You can "selflessly roleplay" without multiple (or any!) deaths by simply being intelligent and picking your fights (having a DM who isn't out to kill you is a good thing too ).

The problem with things like called shots is that they rely on the DM to use them in moderation against the PCs - they have little to do with the players. If he has every goblin assassin making called shots against the fighter's eyes, it's going to get really old really fast. Used in moderation, sure - it can be a great device, though it seems to me to be close to the "save or suck" spells in determining the victor in combat - blind the giant, for instance, and you can just dance around him and hack away.

 

[scars_of_carma]

It's not unfair, per se... but it isn't very fun if your PC is getting killed off every other session, IMO. There should be fear of death, yes - but the PCs are heros - they're the folks who spit in the face of death, who persevere through adversity, blah blah blah. You can "selflessly roleplay" without multiple (or any!) deaths by simply being intelligent and picking your fights (having a DM who isn't out to kill you is a good thing too ).

The problem with things like called shots is that they rely on the DM to use them in moderation against the PCs - they have little to do with the players. If he has every goblin assassin making called shots against the fighter's eyes, it's going to get really old really fast. Used in moderation, sure - it can be a great device, though it seems to me to be close to the "save or suck" spells in determining the victor in combat - blind the giant, for instance, and you can just dance around him and hack away.

I'm not out to kill PC's every session. I've killed off two pc's in the last 2 sessions but it wasn't because of called shots or critical hits. They were first level, they were spellcasters, and they were either wandering off alone or standing their ground when they shouldn't have. In both cases they admitted it was their fault for underestimating where they were or what they were facing.

I am throwing completely unfamiliar monsters at them its true... that's one of the challenges of my world... but there was always a means to avoid them if they were thinking more clearly. Besides my players are noobs so they have to learn the hard way.

Now instead of spellcasters they are playing monstrous-humanoids and are doing much better because their class skills are better suited for their skill level surviving the game. In other words, my rules may be harsh but they do teach a lot of harsh lessons which steepen the learning curve lol.

I wish they thought about more backstory-based goals, but for now they are happy with the day-to-day challenges they face wandering around so meh...

As for goblins, there are no goblins on my world. If there were it would be even easier to kill them. I have proven I can kill any PC with a single clever goblin lmao.

 

[Ashtagon]

As for goblins, there are no goblins on my world. If there were it would be even easier to kill them. I have proven I can kill any PC with a single clever goblin lmao.

This strikes me as something that only a bad GM would normally say. D&D is not a competition of players vs. GM.

 

[scars_of_carma]

This strikes me as something that only a bad GM would normally say. D&D is not a competition of players vs. GM.

It was a joke...

Any good DM can humble a player whenever they want.