Personal house rules

[epicbob]

This is a mix of my theoretical house rules.


Changes
-------

Basic rules:

-The standard coin is silver instead of gold.


Combat:

-Shields add the wielder's Strength bonus to AC, with a maximum of +2.

-The Two-Weapon Fighting style and Dual Wielder feat exchange their abilties to add +1 to AC and adding ability modifier to off-hand damage.


Magic:

-Your Charisma modifier determines the saving throw DC for your spells.

-Your Wisdom modifier determines the attack modifier for spells and other bonuses indicated by the spell.


Melee Weapons:

The Long property is basically the Lance's disadvantage on attack rolls when attacking adjacent enemies.

 

[Khaalis]

-The standard coin is silver instead of gold.

I've thought of the same thing as it was done this way in Fantasy Craft as well. So the assumption is that all GP costs are now SP costs. How will you scale conversion rates of other coin?

i.e. A 1gp item, now costs 1sp

What are the exchanges of other coins? Will you invent new lower metal coins? This is the table I would go with. PP become something only used in large trade.

Coin	cp	ip	bp	sp	gp	pp
Copper (cp)	1	1/10	1/50	1/100	1/1,000	1/10,000
Iron (ip)	10	1	1/5	1/10	1/100	1/1,000
Bronze (bp)	50	5	1	1/2	1/10	1/100
Silver (sp)	100	10	2	1	1/5	1/50
Gold (gp)	1,000	100	10	5	1	1/10
Platinum (pp)	10,000	1,000	100	50	10	1

-Two-Weapon fighting in general lets you roll the damage dice of both weapons as part of a single attack.

Not sure I like this. It is turning the Possibility of dealing damage on a second hit into an automatic double damage attack for one hit.

-The Versatile weapon trait gives a +1 bonus to damage rolls when holding the weapon with two hands.

I don't like this one either as its too OP. I know it's a hold over from older versions and one that is obsolete. Keep in mind that by wielding a Versatile weapon two handed you are already getting an 1-1.5 points extra damage because the die type for damage increases from the versatile property already. A longsword does 1d8 one-handed and 1d10 two-handed.

-Shields add the character's Strength modifier to their AC bonus.

Way too OP considering bounded accuracy. AC is not supposed to go up with huge amounts of bonuses. It is meant to stay at a relatively small curve. I could see adding STR to damage if a shield is used to bash something, but not to AC.

-The Great Weapon Fighting style adds your proficiency bonus to your damage if your damage dice roll a total of 1 or 2. You must still hold your melee weapon with both hands.

This one I'm meh on. In fact I think its actually quite a bit weaker. Even when your Prof.Bon.=+6 you are still giving up the option to roll max damage on a two-hander that ranges from 8-12 to do 6 instead. At lower levels its even worse. Until 9th level you don't even have a chance to make up half the damage. I'd take my rerolls over adding my Prof. Bon. any day.

Magic:
-Your Charisma modifier determines the saving throw DC for your spells.
-Your Wisdom modifier determines the attack modifier for spells and other bonuses indicated by the spell.

This one makes no sense to me. Are you saying it should be this for all spellcasting classes? Different classes should use different stats. Not a universal one. Not to mention this enforced M.A.D. on casters when it is unnecessary.

Melee Weapons: The Long property is basically the Lance's disadvantage on attack rolls when attacking adjacent enemies.

Why reinvent the wheel? This is already pretty clearly stated for the Lance.

JMHO.YMMV.

 

[epicbob]

I've thought of the same thing as it was done this way in Fantasy Craft as well. So the assumption is that all GP costs are now SP costs. How will you scale conversion rates of other coin?

I'm intending to otherwise keep the coin system as is. The idea is to reduce the quantity of coins and to give copper actual value.

Not sure I like this. It is turning the Possibility of dealing damage on a second hit into an automatic double damage attack for one hit.

I know it makes a big difference in damage. Mostly because two-weapon fighting, in its current form, only gives at BEST double damage...while you're in the early levels. Later on, it's strictly worse than ANYTHING else.

I don't like this one either as its too OP. I know it's a hold over from older versions and one that is obsolete. Keep in mind that by wielding a Versatile weapon two handed you are already getting an 1-1.5 points extra damage because the die type for damage increases from the versatile property already. A longsword does 1d8 one-handed and 1d10 two-handed.

Can you elaborate on why +1 to damage is OP?

Way too OP considering bounded accuracy. AC is not supposed to go up with huge amounts of bonuses. It is meant to stay at a relatively small curve. I could see adding STR to damage if a shield is used to bash something, but not to AC.

Again, anything else is strictly better than the current method. Even with the smaller overall bonuses, +2 to AC is still not worth a ~50% increase to damage. Besides, the best bonus it can ever get is +5 from Strength. Unless you roll your stats, that takes a long time to get.

This one I'm meh on. In fact I think its actually quite a bit weaker. Even when your Prof.Bon.=+6 you are still giving up the option to roll max damage on a two-hander that ranges from 8-12 to do 6 instead. At lower levels its even worse. Until 9th level you don't even have a chance to make up half the damage. I'd take my rerolls over adding my Prof. Bon. any day.

You're not doing 6. You're ADDING 6. Which your 1-2 would turn into a 7-8. Although, it would have the off effect of making your D6 versatile weapon deal damage out of dice range. The other idea I had was to return (max dice / 2). Either way, the idea is to make quicker gameplay.

This one makes no sense to me. Are you saying it should be this for all spellcasting classes? Different classes should use different stats. Not a universal one. Not to mention this enforced M.A.D. on casters when it is unnecessary.

Even in this new version, we still have the issue of quadratic spellcasters. Their spells are still much better than whatever class abilities melee classes can come up with.

Some M.A.D. will give that power curve a much needed trim job. Not to mention it will add a bit of variety between members of the same class.

Why reinvent the wheel? This is already pretty clearly stated for the Lance.

JMHO.YMMV.

Mostly because I consider "Long" to be more descriptive than "Special".

 

[AslanC]

Way too OP considering bounded accuracy. AC is not supposed to go up with huge amounts of bonuses. It is meant to stay at a relatively small curve. I could see adding STR to damage if a shield is used to bash something, but not to AC.

How about it lets Fighters substitute their STR Bonus for DEX bonus to AC, or +2, whichever is greater?

Everyone else it's the bog standard +2

Sorry for the thread necro

 

[Khaalis]

How about it lets Fighters substitute their STR Bonus for DEX bonus to AC, or +2, whichever is greater?

Everyone else it's the bog standard +2

Little confused here. Shields only normally give flat +2 to AC. Are you saying you want to add a Trait to shields that says something like "In the hands of a Fighter, a shield grants AC equal to the Fighter's STR modifier if higher than +2."
If so, I honestly think it's pushing the bounds of AC. As designed a Fighter (plate + shield) is AC 20. Defense fighting style adds +1. Another possible +1 from Dual Wielder feat for a total of 22 short of magic. This is the top AC withing the bounded accuracy. By making Fighters have the ability to automatically add another +3 for a base AC 25 is a pretty big deal. I really wouldn't tack on any additional AC granting bonuses, unless you plan on upping the Attack Bonus of all creatures faced by an equal amount because if you don't, the Fighter becomes nigh invincible. However, on the flip side, if you up the Attack Numbers of foes so they can deal with this new more powerful fighter, they will flat out annihilate anyone NOT at the Fighter's extra super high AC.

Sorry. I really don't think granting the flat out bonuses to AC for the fighter is a good idea.

 

[AslanC]

Geez man, it was just a thought.

My bad.

Won't do it again.

 

[Khaalis]

Sorry if I somehow offended you. You ask for opinions, so I gave mine. When I do so I try to be as thorough as possible to explain the logic behind my opinion. I tend to find most people appreciate it more than the "No" or "no it sucks" trolling answers that we see around here so much. But hey, take anything I say with a grain of salt, its your game, do what you want. Its no skin off my nose.

If it makes you feel better, here's my other opinion. "Just enjoy D&D your way and don't ask for permission or approval."

 

[AslanC]

Hey Khaalis (which sounds a lot like Caalice here in Quebec, which makes me giggle),

First, you didn't offend me, at worst you annoyed me.

Second, you seem to have me confused with the OP, Epicbob, whom I was making my suggestion to.

Third, I didn't specifically ask for anyone's opinion, I offered a suggestion.

Fourth, I found your reply to be off-putting, preachy and a bit know-it-all. So I wrote what I wrote.

I, in the same situation, would have laughed and realized I was coming off like a bit of a "I know better" and made a brief tongue-in-cheek apology for being so and then either restated with some levity or offered a way to possibly make it work.

That's me though, I shouldn't and wouldn't expect you to react the way I would, it would be silly of me.

Last, your final words "Just enjoy D&D your way and don't ask for permission or approval" feels dismissive and just a bit offended. Especially coming from someone who has posted as much material as you have seeking others input and advice.

Ours is a social hobby made up of some of the most anti-social people in the world, add to that the limits of text and forum to convey anything other than a blunt force impact of wording, and well, sometimes everything gets all tangled up in confusion, passive aggression and active aggression.

In the end, I think Epicbob was on to something and his idea was a good one. Maybe make it a Feat or something, I don't know. All I know is that his suggestion about using STR instead of DEX with a Shield resonated with me and I liked it. I don't pray at the alter of "bounded accuracy" anymore than I do the alter of "game balance" since I find both rather silly in a game where with a the wave of a hand a comet can strike down from the heavens and wipe the game world clean (roll for half damage on apocalypse?), but I do understand that for some they make the game.

So allow me, in my oh-so Canadian way, to apologize for offending you with my reaction to your post.

Let's shake hands, put it behind us and move forward as allies and comrades in arms, ready to slay whatever creatures lie under that hill.

Cheers!

P.S. Love the Light Fighter by-the-way, that class fits my campaign world perfectly.

 

[Michael Morris]

This is a mix of my theoretical house rules.


Basic rules:

-The standard coin is silver instead of gold.

Why?

In my own setting I point out to the players that, while they can track their wealth the way it is presented in the PHB, the reality is that their character use several pieces. To make things more fun the units do not break down in a decimal manner. And to make matters more fun different countries use different coinages, meaning the player characters lose about 5% of their wealth to money changers whenever they swap out currencies.

Which is to say, if your world's largest coin is a silver piece, so what? In the country my players spent most of their time in last game this way also true - the largest commonly used coin was made of silver and the size and weight of an Eisenhower silver dollar. This however is color - it is best to let the players know about the color, but for convenience continue to use the currency notations they are used to.

 

[epicbob]

I've made some changes to the OP.

My rationale behind adding the Strength bonus to shields is to reflect the dynamic nature of defending with a shield. Just like weapons are better with more Strength, shields are more effective with some good muscle moving them around.

Although, one thing I have to admit is that, at level 8, uncapped strength bonuses would make a fully armored Fighter extremely hard to hit. I am considering adding a Strength cap, much like armor has a Dexterity cap.

Just that would increase chances to hit exponentially while still giving stronger shield users an edge.

Also, I've been heavily considering swapping abilities between the Two-Weapon Fighting style and the Dual Wielder feat.

I would exchange the fighting style's ability with Dual Wielder's bonus to AC while treating the off-hand weapon as a shield for the purposes of my Strength to AC.