'Standard' House Rules?

[delericho]

This seams unfair, the Barbarian loses ~41.7% of his HP per level compared to the maximum 12, the fighter and paladin loses 30% of maximum of 10, and the ranger loses 12.5% of maximum of 8.

The first, key thing I would note is that comparisons with the theoretical maximum are largely invalid - the barbarian may have the potential of 36 hit points at 3rd level, but they're highly unlikely to get that. On average, they can expect to get 25 hit points (12 + 6.5 + 6.5). My system gives 26 (5 + 7 + 7 + 7), so they come out ahead. And that's the case across the board - nobody loses as a result of this change when compared with the average roll, though not everyone gains as much.

You are correct to note that the Fighter and Paladin gain more than the Barbarian from this change. But the RAW Barbarian is actually quite a bit more powerful than the Fighter, so giving the Fighter a bigger boost really is no bad thing, IMO. (Obviously, relative power levels between the Paladin and the Barbarian are much more debateable.)

As for the Ranger...

The truth is that tying the number of hp to BAB was done following the Pathfinder approach, which is why Rangers move up to the Fighter level and Barbarians move down. (Pathfinder left the Barbarian at d12 as an exception to their general rule; I dislike exceptions, so got rid of it.)

For the medium BAB, d8 classes its a 47.5% loss.
For the medium BAB, d6 classes its a ~12% loss.

Those are huge gaps IMO.

Compared with the average, the Cleric gains 0.5 hp per level on average, while the Rogue gains 1.5. But given that the Cleric and Druid are basically the most powerful classes in the game, again, I don't see it as a problem that the Rogue (and even Bard) gain more.

(That said, the Monk doesn't do well out of this, given that she's already amongst the weakest classes and she's also the one that gains least from this change. But the problems with the Monk go much deeper than can be fixed with a tweak to hit points. So the Monk didn't feature in my consideration when making this change.)

The idea of a fixed HP gain per level is fair compared to rolls, IMO. But the best idea is to make the gain either 50% or 100%, then you get nice round numbers.

Giving 100% of hit points is a pretty significant boost to PC power levels, and really not something I wanted to do. And giving 50% has the downside of reducing everyone's hit points versus the average, which I also didn't want to do.

If I gave out the average on the die (2.5 for Wizards, 3.5 for Rogues, 4.5 for Clerics, 5.5 for Fighters, and 6.5 for Barbarians), then that would require dealing with fractions, and an endless nitpicking of PC for players who choose not to understand "round fractions down".

The final option, to give "50% plus one", was something I did in the past. But it had exactly the same problem as is seen here - Wizards were getting 75% of maximum while Barbarians were getting 58.3% (and Fighters 60%).

Having used the 7/5/3 split in a couple of campaigns now, I've found that it does work really quite well. Granted, I've avoided the Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger problem you noted because I've only ever had one "primary combatant" in the group ("primary spellcasters" are much more popular). And replacing "max hit points at 1st level" with "everyone gets +5 at first level" has the effect of getting rid of an awkward bit of multiclass math (where a Rogue 1/Wizard 1 by RAW will either have more or less hit points and skill points depending entirely on the order in which the classes were taken), and has the useful side-effect of giving all those 1st level characters that little bit more sticking power.

 

[Ragmon]

The first, key thing I would note is that comparisons with the theoretical maximum are largely invalid - the barbarian may have the potential of 36 hit points at 3rd level, but they're highly unlikely to get that. On average, they can expect to get 25 hit points (12 + 6.5 + 6.5). My system gives 26 (5 + 7 + 7 + 7), so they come out ahead. And that's the case across the board - nobody loses as a result of this change when compared with the average roll, though not everyone gains as much.

You are correct to note that the Fighter and Paladin gain more than the Barbarian from this change. But the RAW Barbarian is actually quite a bit more powerful than the Fighter, so giving the Fighter a bigger boost really is no bad thing, IMO. (Obviously, relative power levels between the Paladin and the Barbarian are much more debateable.)

As for the Ranger...

The truth is that tying the number of hp to BAB was done following the Pathfinder approach, which is why Rangers move up to the Fighter level and Barbarians move down. (Pathfinder left the Barbarian at d12 as an exception to their general rule; I dislike exceptions, so got rid of it.)



Compared with the average, the Cleric gains 0.5 hp per level on average, while the Rogue gains 1.5. But given that the Cleric and Druid are basically the most powerful classes in the game, again, I don't see it as a problem that the Rogue (and even Bard) gain more.

(That said, the Monk doesn't do well out of this, given that she's already amongst the weakest classes and she's also the one that gains least from this change. But the problems with the Monk go much deeper than can be fixed with a tweak to hit points. So the Monk didn't feature in my consideration when making this change.)



Giving 100% of hit points is a pretty significant boost to PC power levels, and really not something I wanted to do. And giving 50% has the downside of reducing everyone's hit points versus the average, which I also didn't want to do.

If I gave out the average on the die (2.5 for Wizards, 3.5 for Rogues, 4.5 for Clerics, 5.5 for Fighters, and 6.5 for Barbarians), then that would require dealing with fractions, and an endless nitpicking of PC for players who choose not to understand "round fractions down".

The final option, to give "50% plus one", was something I did in the past. But it had exactly the same problem as is seen here - Wizards were getting 75% of maximum while Barbarians were getting 58.3% (and Fighters 60%).

Having used the 7/5/3 split in a couple of campaigns now, I've found that it does work really quite well. Granted, I've avoided the Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger problem you noted because I've only ever had one "primary combatant" in the group ("primary spellcasters" are much more popular). And replacing "max hit points at 1st level" with "everyone gets +5 at first level" has the effect of getting rid of an awkward bit of multiclass math (where a Rogue 1/Wizard 1 by RAW will either have more or less hit points and skill points depending entirely on the order in which the classes were taken), and has the useful side-effect of giving all those 1st level characters that little bit more sticking power.

I understand what you did now.
Basicly the how I understand it is, the barb went down to d10, ranger got upped to d10.
And on that same note adjust he d8 casters HP gain to a d6 or up the d6 to d8... like the Pathfinder sort of switched it up.
And then apply your system. My 2 cents.

The 50% and 100% I think it would work if you apply the same system for the NPCs and monsters.

 

[delericho]

I understand what you did now.
Basicly the how I understand it is, the barb went down to d10, ranger got upped to d10.
And on that same note adjust he d8 casters HP gain to a d6 or up the d6 to d8... like the Pathfinder sort of switched it up.
And then apply your system. My 2 cents.

Yep, that's it.

The 50% and 100% I think it would work if you apply the same system for the NPCs and monsters.

That's true. Mostly, I just use monsters from the book. Reduces the challenge just slightly, but it's a lot less work.

 

[Oryan77]

Am I the only one that rules the Dodge feat as giving a +1 dodge bonus vs everything at all times rather than choosing the opponent?

Other house rules I've adopted:

Not only does -Con score equal your death, but the % chance to stabilize is also your Con score rather than 10% chance.

If you want the Toughness feat, take the Improved Toughness feat instead.

Pay off XP to eliminate a Level Adjustment (rule from UA).

Many "Save or Die" spells brings a victim to -1 HP rather than instant death.

I also converted all of the Pathfinder core classes into 3.5 versions since I thought many of them were better anyway.

 

[Weather Report]

Starting at 3rd level.

Removing Ability score enhancements and forced +X magic item having.

Spell deletion, augmenting, or adding, as the 1st Ed PHN illustrates DMs do.


...after that, things start to make sense, for me...

 

[NewJeffCT]

Am I the only one that rules the Dodge feat as giving a +1 dodge bonus vs everything at all times rather than choosing the opponent?

Other house rules I've adopted:

Not only does -Con score equal your death, but the % chance to stabilize is also your Con score rather than 10% chance.

If you want the Toughness feat, take the Improved Toughness feat instead.

Pay off XP to eliminate a Level Adjustment (rule from UA).

Many "Save or Die" spells brings a victim to -1 HP rather than instant death.

I also converted all of the Pathfinder core classes into 3.5 versions since I thought many of them were better anyway.

I think the Dodge bonus was another one we also used, since I think only one PC actually took the feat.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I second (or third? Might even be 4th at this point) one of the most widely used house rules is no multiclass penalties. Removing alignment restrictions tends to be less used.

Dodge being a +1 against everything is one of those that is usually done by more number-crunchy kind of DMs. I can't call myself a DM yet since I haven't done it, but when the opportunity comes around that's definitely on my list. Along with tuning plenty of other feats.

One of the most overlooked ones that everyone uses is monks being proficient in unarmed strikes. Yes, that's a house rule, because the actual rules don't give them proficiency since unarmed strikes are simple weapons after all. Improved Unarmed Strike doesn't give proficiency.

While we're on monk, one of my own rules is that any class that gets the medium BAB progression is automatically proficient with all simple weapons. Any class with full BAB gets full simple and full martial proficiencies.

I make the Toughness feat 3HP + 1 per level after that so it's actually a decent choice both when the character gets it and later on. Its one of the classic feat traps.

I use fractional BAB and saves as well since even through multiclassing the character will be getting more adept at combat, even if it's just a little bit.

One of the biggest ones for me though is I don't go by RAW, because it can often be RAWtarded. I go by what's reasonable and will work for the game. If a rule works as-is (note that works means it's not OP nor is it total junk) then I'm fine with it, but if it does actually cause problems in game (like the set Diplomacy checks with no opposed rolls possible) then I redo it myself or look at what other people have done and see if their system works.

Fighters get 4 + Int skills and also get listen and spot on their skill list. It is completely idiotic that a trained soldier doesn't have those skills because they are indeed a huge part of battle. And it also means they can't function as guards. I also use the pathfinder version where fighters actually get class features on odd levels.

And there are plenty of other things in the rules that don't quite hit par for me.

 

[Xath]

We have a lot of house rules, but I don't know how many of them would be considered universal.

1. No multiclassing penalties.
2. "Open Lock" falls under "Disable Device." A lock is a device, and if you pick it, it's disabled.
3. Fractional Saves & BAB
4. This one is more specific to the homebrew, but Paladin's aren't all LG, but are instead the divine champions of their particular deity. There is usually only 1 paladin per god (though BtVS slayer rules apply), and the paladin's alignment must fall within 1 step of the deity. Paladin class special abilities vary depending on the deity they champion.
5. Death at -Con, not -10.
6. For every rank you have in your primary "Perform" specialty, you gain proficiency in another type of "Perform" at half your primary bonus.
7. Super-Critical - If you're fighting something, and you roll 3 nat 20s in a roll (20, 20 to confirm, and 20 to super crit), it dies. Even if it's the BBEG. -- This has only happened once in 10 years of gaming with this rule.
8. Critical Fail - If you roll a natural 1 when doing something, roll again. If the "confirm" roll of the die is <5 you critically fail, and something extra bad happens. If the die is >5, it's a normal nat 1.
9. Hit Points - When rolling HP for leveling, you roll your die and the GM rolls. Whichever number is higher is the HP you get. (Makes it less likely that a Barbarian will roll a 1 for HP)

There are probably more. We've been playing for years and slowly tweaking the system to what works for us.

 

[WaroftheSendros]

The main house rules we used were the bag of deliverance, as many of the players were very play safe the bag of deliverance came in to reward taking chances. When characters took a chance and performed exceptional feats they were able to take a token from the bag, which included various bonuses towards xp or gold, but also 3 penalty tokens.

Aside from that we used to use AC and Init as 10+ bonuses rather than a roll for each time. I really like the fractional pooled saves, and might use it in my next campaign.

War of the Sendros