Opinions wanted on house rules

[Fieari]

I'd just like to mention that in my games, personally, it's rare that a Balance check WON'T come up at some point, what with ice, rushing winds and water, precarious ledges, and other non-monster challenges I throw at my players. On the other hand, they nearly never tumble, which I think is probably even more rare for a group.

Go figure.

 

[Roxlimn]

1. Combining Move Silently and Hide into Sneak. I've seen this one a few times, and think it's a good idea, but I wonder if the skill point boon to Rogues and others is a bit unbalancing.

I usually call for Hide and Move Silently rolls at different times and for different reasons. Move Silently opposes Listen for pinpointing Invisible characters. Likewise, broken glass affects Move Silently rolls, but not Hide rolls. Good lighting affects Hide rolls, but not Move Silently rolls.

In general, keeping them separate works well for the skill classes, too. They generally want more skills, but then again, so does everybody.

2. Combining Balance with Tumble. When was the last time someone used Balance? I've been running a game for a year and a half, and nobody's ever used it.

Definitely no. Lots of people use Tumble for various purposes. Conversely, lots of people use Balance for wholly different purposes. Aside from the environmental usages, Balance can turn an impassable River into a passable obstacle with nothing more than a piece of rope. Obviate the Climb skill, even.

3. All characters receive either 1 rank in a Knowledge skill or 2 ranks in any Craft, Perform, or Profession skill. This is to flesh out the characters at first level (my traditional starting place), and is subject to DM guidance and approval.

Generally speaking, I just increase the frequency at which I call for Craft and Profession checks. If you look for these opportunities, you'll generally find occasions for which DM rules checks are possible. Encouraging "rounded out" characters by actually asking for skill checks that rewards well rounded characters puts those skills squarely on the game mat and highlights them better than simply having them listed on the PCs character sheets.

4. Craft (Alchemy) does not require spellcasting ability. Alchemy works in spite of, not because of, magical ability.

I typically relax the skill requirement when it comes to Artificers, but generally for little else. I don't see how ruling it otherwise is strictly inadvisable, however, as this is mostly a matter of taste.

5. Sorcerers get 4 skill points per level, and metamagic feats like the Wizard, but no familiar (per this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=116376).

I found this to be more or less OK, having tried it for quite a while. The balance would minutely be in favor of the Sorcerer in that case, but not by much. Hardly noticeable, really.

6. Monks are limited to Humans only, with no "bonus feat" at first level. It's a low-magic pseudo-European setting, and I'm tired of Monks kicking much ass.

I think you should just axe the Monk altogether.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

1. Combining Move Silently and Hide into Sneak. I've seen this one a few times, and think it's a good idea, but I wonder if the skill point boon to Rogues and others is a bit unbalancing.

It's a big handout to Rogues. I don't think it would wreck your game, though.

2. Combining Balance with Tumble. When was the last time someone used Balance? I've been running a game for a year and a half, and nobody's ever used it.

I don't see a problem.

3. All characters receive either 1 rank in a Knowledge skill or 2 ranks in any Craft, Perform, or Profession skill. This is to flesh out the characters at first level (my traditional starting place), and is subject to DM guidance and approval.

If you're going to do this, I'd give 2 points to any of those skills, period. Knowledge doesn't strike me as better than Craft or Perform.

4. Craft (Alchemy) does not require spellcasting ability. Alchemy works in spite of, not because of, magical ability.

I use this in my campaigns and agree wholeheartedly.

5. Sorcerers get 4 skill points per level, and metamagic feats like the Wizard, but no familiar (per this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=116376).

No, no, no, no, NO! The metamagic feats the Wizard gets are part of the reason Sorcerors get extra spells per day. I can see the argumentation for increased skill points, similar to the Wilder, but I don't think the class needs it.

Also, acquire familiar is worth one feat, not five.

If you're going to give them bonus feats, you need to do something to limit them. I give them Draconic feats, but I also force one of their spells known per level to be determined by their Draconic ancestor. There's no reason to give Sorcerors extra feats for free, and metamagic doesn't really make sense for them, flavorwise.

6. Monks are limited to Humans only, with no "bonus feat" at first level. It's a low-magic pseudo-European setting, and I'm tired of Monks kicking much ass.

That's fine. The Monk's powerlevel isn't really a problem, but flavorwise they're a little annoying, even in games with pseudo-Asian influences. (Why are their fists more powerful than any weapon they can wield? Even in the mythologies they're based in, monks fought better armed than unarmed.)

Certainly! It's nice to see a post like this where the poster has a *reasonable* number of house rules to look at. I saw one such post where the guy had a 30 page PDF. Umm, no, not all at once!

You could be talking about my house rules, there. If so, sorry about that-- I was more interested in sharing them with people than asking for their feedback, though feedback is always welcome.

 

[hero4hire]

Okay, I'm considering the following house rules (among others). Please let me know your thoughts.

1. Combining Move Silently and Hide into Sneak. I've seen this one a few times, and think it's a good idea, but I wonder if the skill point boon to Rogues and others is a bit unbalancing.

2. Combining Balance with Tumble. When was the last time someone used Balance? I've been running a game for a year and a half, and nobody's ever used it.

3. All characters receive either 1 rank in a Knowledge skill or 2 ranks in any Craft, Perform, or Profession skill. This is to flesh out the characters at first level (my traditional starting place), and is subject to DM guidance and approval.

4. Craft (Alchemy) does not require spellcasting ability. Alchemy works in spite of, not because of, magical ability.

5. Sorcerers get 4 skill points per level, and metamagic feats like the Wizard, but no familiar (per this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=116376).

6. Monks are limited to Humans only, with no "bonus feat" at first level. It's a low-magic pseudo-European setting, and I'm tired of Monks kicking much ass.

Thanks for your feedback,

Telas

I like almost all of these and have used some of them...The exception is Monk.

You might as well ban the class if it doesnt suite your tastes. Nerfing a balanced class, just because you dont like it leaves a bad taste.

 

[Staffan]

There's no reason to give Sorcerors extra feats for free, and metamagic doesn't really make sense for them, flavorwise.

I think metamagic makes excellent flavor-sense for sorcerers. Wizards use precise formulas for their magic, both in preparation and in casting. Sorcerers, on the other hand, have a more artistic approach to it, so it makes more sense that they could modify the spells.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I think metamagic makes excellent flavor-sense for sorcerers. Wizards use precise formulas for their magic, both in preparation and in casting. Sorcerers, on the other hand, have a more artistic approach to it, so it makes more sense that they could modify the spells.

It's the Wizard's understanding of precise formulas that allows them to use metamagic so easily. In essence, they understand "magical grammar" and can thus easily modify their spells. Sorcerors, with their less rigorous approach, do the magic that comes naturally to them-- the simple, unmodified spells listed in the PHB.

 

[tigycho]

I used to house rule that the Sorcerer got a bonus to Known and Per day spell slots based on their CHA, but I have since vetoed that rule and play the sorcerer as is.

Here's a question I've had for a long time about bonus spells per day: Wizards get them for intelligence, clerics get them for wisdom, and sorcerors get them for charisma. Why doesn't that bonus extend down into the 0-level spells?

 

[Orius]

1. Combining Move Silently and Hide into Sneak. I've seen this one a few times, and think it's a good idea, but I wonder if the skill point boon to Rogues and others is a bit unbalancing.

My preference would be to keep them seperate, since there are situtations that require them to be used individually. Your call though.

2. Combining Balance with Tumble. When was the last time someone used Balance? I've been running a game for a year and a half, and nobody's ever used it.

That's because you don't have enough wide pit traps with only 6'' or less of clearing around the edges or narrow ledges along very high cliffs or above pools of lava. If you did, your players would use Balance more (they sure as hell wouldn't use Tumble!). My players get lots of use from Balance.

3. All characters receive either 1 rank in a Knowledge skill or 2 ranks in any Craft, Perform, or Profession skill. This is to flesh out the characters at first level (my traditional starting place), and is subject to DM guidance and approval.

Shouldn't make a difference in the long run, but free ranks in Perform might be unbalancing when used with a bard.

 

[fuindordm]

I agree that balance and tumble should be kept separate unless you're completely overhauling the skill system. If your players aren't using it, it's because they don't need to. If you want them to use it, try for more cinematic encounters--fighting on the deck of a ship, or on an unstable or slippery surface (e.g. a suspension bridge in a light rain that sways back and forth) from time to time. The extra element of challenge will spice things up, and balance DCs for that sort of thing are comfortably low in the 10-15 range, so that even unskilled characters will have a chance of keeping their feet.

I think that Hide and MS could be combined into sneak without much trouble. You're giving rangers and rogues an extra skill, but I think rogues are underpowered anyway and got devalued further in 3.5.

Giving free ranks in Knowledge, Craft, Perform, and Profession is probably OK. You might simply require that these ranks be applied to things that are wholly outside their class core interests--no Wizards spending them on Knowledge Arcana, no Bards spending on Perform, no Warforged spending them on Craft, etc. What might be even better is for you to only grant them to characters that write up their background, and assign the ranks yourself based on that background.

When alchemy starts creating things like powdered water (as I saw in one dragon article) I think it's fair to require spellcasting--if you restrict yourself to the items in the PH, however, I don't see the need.

Monks and Sorcerers: I think that both classes are actually slighlty underpowered, although for monks it depends heavily on the level of stats in your game. Restrict monks to humans if you want, but don't take away one of their precious feats. I think the change to sorcerers would be fine.

Ben

 

[ARandomGod]

1. Combining Move Silently and Hide into Sneak. I've seen this one a few times, and think it's a good idea, but I wonder if the skill point boon to Rogues and others is a bit unbalancing.
Telas

I personally recommend combining spot and listen into percieve to counter this.

I think this is too much, especially because I don't believe giving up the familiar is worth anything.

A familiar is generally worth at least a medium level feat. Meaning, if your games are set up so that you don't use the familiar for anything else, it grants Great Fortitude or Lightning Reflexes. Sure, it grants alertness too, but most (note that most) mages don't really use that. Arcane Tricksters certainly do, and there are other builds which do too.

Also a mid level mage that uses knowledge skills will get a +2 aid another bonus to any knowledge he's really invested in. And even low level mages have a chance to get that +2, it only takes a 10 on aid another. That's using the familiar to the least of it's abilities.

I don't really think that monks are powerful at all, not even in 3.5. Their damage is very poor and their armor class isn't that great unless you use high-powered rolling methods or high point-buy (36 to 46+).

f you don't think they fit the setting you can just ban them, but I don't think your judgement on their power is fair.

Also, I like the idea of dwarven pugilists. If you're intent on your change as-is, why don't you just remove their bonus Improved Unarmed Strike at level 1, forcing (basically) all monks to take it? That way any race is viable.

I have to agree with the main of this, that in general the power of the monk is pretty low. However I suppose that if you're really running a very, very low magic world they'd become good. I also agree with the general idea of not removing the general feat, instead remove a monk bonus feat..

However, if you're stuck on the 'monks aren't pseudo-european', I say remove all monk weapons, and make all simple weapons monk weapons. Presto! They fit into the world as is. They're just superior unarmed fighters.

Oh, and I agree that the sorc should get 4+ int mod. I'd also give him a few more class skills, I give diplomacy, intimidate, and handle animal. It's clear that the sorc was losely based on the wizard, and that they "forgot" that the main stat, intelligence, of the wizard improves his skills whereas the main skill of the sorc does nothing. On the other hand, in my last game I was talked into (by a group, not a sorc player, I don't even have one in that game) simply allowing the sorc to have two extra class skills of his choice, set at first level. I think that also makes much sence.

I do have a powergaming Monk in the campaign, however, and he's running roughshod over the other characters. (We use the 32-point buy system.) He can out-stealth the Rogue, out-save everyone, Tumble so much that he never suffers AoOs, and is unhittable with one missile weapon a round. His damage isn't much, but he already gets the "magic fist" while the other PCs are fighting over oils of Magic Weapon. In combat, he accounts for as many kills as anyone.

In a low-magic setting (4-5th level, two magic weapons in a party of seven), the monk is a badass. In Greyhawk, non-human monks aren't a regular sight (early rules didn't have nonhuman monks), so it fits the setting, too.

Yea, like I said, in a non-magic campaign the monk would indeed become decent. The game is designed around the idea that the characters will have access to magic weapons. Now, once they GET those weapons, you'll still discover that the monk is virtually untouchable. But that's ok, because he can't hit anything either.

:
I have seen all sorts of arguments about the power level of the Sorcerer. On paper they do appear weak. However, its been my experience that the Sorcerer in actual game play holds their own. I used to house rule that the Sorcerer got a bonus to Known and Per day spell slots based on their CHA, but I have since vetoed that rule and play the sorcerer as is.

Well, depending on what you mean by power, or by holds their own. On the basis of spellpower with their chosen spells they completely excell. But outside of that they're nothing. A few extra skill points thrown their way helps make the class feel less two dimensional, more real. But indeed, in 'actual gameplay' assuming that gameplay is blasting (for a blaster sorc) they do more than hold their own. Generally they can even make up for that pathetic monk. Who pulls his combat weight by standing in front of the sorc and stopping people from hitting her.

It's the Wizard's understanding of precise formulas that allows them to use metamagic so easily. In essence, they understand "magical grammar" and can thus easily modify their spells. Sorcerors, with their less rigorous approach, do the magic that comes naturally to them-- the simple, unmodified spells listed in the PHB.

This opinion just shows how people view things differently (from me). In my games, I'd laugh at any non sorc who ever took a metamagic feat. If a wizard wants a better spell, why waste a feat on it? Really he should just research the spell. It'll ALWAYS be at least some better, in that it'll have a higher save DC at least. Sorc's on the other hand, they understand magic on an instinctual level. They don't have the intellect to sit down and design a new spell, they just wing it, take a little longer to cast and alter the spell some. Spontanious casters are the only types who should ever take a metamagic feat. It practically doubles their 'spells known'. A preparatory caster is just being lazy.

Here's a question I've had for a long time about bonus spells per day: Wizards get them for intelligence, clerics get them for wisdom, and sorcerors get them for charisma. Why doesn't that bonus extend down into the 0-level spells?

Ha!
That's one of my tests for a good GM. IMO, a good Gm says 'yes' to things as long as they're not going to overpower. Cantrips do practically nothing, and there's NO reason (that I can see) why they don't get bonus spells per day too. It's senseless that a high level caster can cast more first level spells than cantrips. Oh, he's smart enough to get several bonus spells, sometimes up to ninth level, but not smart enough to cast light once more per day?