Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 4807193" data-attributes="member: 3146">You have a funny idea of quirks--some of these are flat-out wrong and others don't strike me as quirky at all. I didn't house rule very many of these--my house rules were focused in other places.Sure there is. The expected wealth by level guidelines tell you how much magical bling the PCs are expected to pack. Now, it can be as gaudy as the PCs want, but assuming the players make reasonably rational choices as to what bling to pack, the system works fairly well on that basis.In general, the monster advancement rules worked pretty well as long as you did not set out with the intention to create something that was tougher or weaker than its CR would otherwise indicate.This one does seem a little funny, now that I think of it. I never houseruled it, but there is a lot further you could go along these lines--particularly with prestige classes. Spellsword, eldritch knight, and duskblade, for instance, all cover the same conceptual ground with different mechanics and different degrees of success.I house-ruled this one. Depending upon where you chose your character to be from, you could be illiterate.Speed boosts were actually available through feats as well--dash, for instance.Evasion and Uncanny Dodge are also definitely better than the feats you have listed. You might as well complain that there was not a feat that allowed you to cast haste.Hardly a quirk unique to 3.x. It's been true of D&D from the beginning. I also house-ruled it. Point buy and fixed hp. (It is also necessary for the game to be playable. Rolling for stats produces some imbalances but, on the whole, tends to produce characters who are in a similar range. On the other hand, rolling for level or class would produce unplayable characters or unplayable parties--but you know this, don't you).You also generally had lower speed and reduced carrying capacity. The small-lite aspect of the rules seems more the norm in role-playing games than a quirk of 3.5. Seeing how much further both previous editions and 4th edition took this aspect, it's not really a quirk of the system--the quirk is size having non-cosmetic effects at all.I would advise you to read the tracking rules. It is easier to track large creatures than small ones. (Also, you will note that changing size does produce larger increases in statistics (strength, grapple, etc) as the size categories become larger or smaller).Not too surprising given the source material. (In LotR, saruman's half-orcs were able to blend in in places like Bree and become a part of the local community but true orcs were not). I suppose this was another house rule of mine in some games. One game I ran was human only; another had humans, orcs and half-orcs.I take it you mean paladin and monk multiclassing restrictions? Regardless of those, 3.x had the most robust multiclassing system of any class based RPG before or after.As for alignment restrictions, they are essential to certain concepts--particularly the paladin--whose abilities primarily made sense within a context of behavior and ideals that fit the lawful good alignment as commonly described.One is also p/b (and thus able to become keen and potentially defeat a rakshasa's DR) while the other is only b. As for the rest, there is a long tradition in D&D and most mainstream RPGs that tie specific stats to specific weapons making mechanical distinctions between, for instance, a battle axe and a war-sword. It would be quirky if 3.x had followed a few indie-RPGs and discarded all differentiation between weapons.Nothing particularly quicky about that. The conceptual difference is that with the sword you are trying to cut through something, but with many (most) spells, you cast the spell and it happens--you don't have to hit. The question is whether the other guy can resist. Admittedly, this is more clear conceptually with spells like finger of death than fireball, but there is a conceptual distinction.Turn undead was always a wacky mechanic. I never house-ruled it, but I'll admit it was odd.Death by massive damage. That's hardly the "OK for everyone to have dozens of hp" mechanic. (Really, at level 15, dozens of hit points could go away just as quickly as a handful of hit points went away at level 2). It was a bizarre rule though and one that I house-ruled.Not quite true on either count. (It's not always great for rangers and there were corner cases that could make it worthwhile for others). I must say, however, that I greatly preferred that quirk to the 2e and 4e versions where everyone wanted to dual wield all the time.Can't say those particular ones ever bothered me. Now, there were quite a few splatbook spells that did bother me--blast of flame, orb of force, etc should have been evocations.What "other options" are you talking about? Pretty much, it's just power attack. And it was optional in the sense that you could be effective without using it (in fact, you would be more effective if you were not a good judge of how much to power attack for in what situation). Also, there were a number of classes or concepts that had no use for such mechanics. Archers, for instance, did not have one and did not need one. Spellcasters likewise had no comparable mechanic.</blockquote>

Verification