Variant Rules from the DMG, for Combat in My Campaigns

[Azlan]

When I first got into 3E D&D, I heavily house-ruled it, because over the years I had painsakingly developed lots of house rules for 2E D&D, mostly for combat, and I wanted to continue with the "look and feel" of combat that I had developed.

However, with the advent of 3.5, I want to discard my old, heavy-handed house rules, and go instead with what I call "house rules lite". (Some of you may think I'm still being heavy-handed here. But believe me, this is indeed "lite" compared to what I formerly used, with 3E.)

Here are some rules variants, most of which are from the DMG, which I'm considering using in my campaigns. (Note that I have slightly modified some of these variants.)

Comments, observations, criticisms, and so forth are welcome here. (However, if all you have to say is, "I like D&D the way already it is, thank you," then, please, don't bother.)

1. INITIATIVE: ROLL EACH ROUND

Well, not "each round"...

I think rolling initiative at the beginning of each round (and then gathering and re-recording those initiatives on whatever you use to keep track of each PC, NPC, and creature in combat) is too much, as it slows down combat considerably. However, I also think it's not enough, rolling once for initiative at the beginning of each encounter.

So, my compromise is to use "median" rolls for initiative. What this means is, you roll three d20 at the beginning of each encounter; you discard the highest and the lowest of the three rolls, and you apply your initiative bonus to the remaining roll. That determines your initiative for the entire encounter.

2. INCREASED CRITICALS

This rules variant makes combat a little more deadly.

The threat ranges of *all* melee and missile attacks is increased by one step.

Example: Using this rules variant, a weapon with a critical of "19-20/x2" becomes "18-20/x2", whereas a weapon with a critical of "x3" becomes "19-20/x3".

Whenever a threat range is "doubled" by something (such as by a weapon with the "keen" enchantment, or by the Improved Criticals feat), it is instead increased by two steps.

Example: Using this rules variant, a rapier has a threat range of 17-20; a "keen" rapier, a threat range of 15-20; and a "keen" rapier used with the Improved Criticals feat, a threat range of 13-20.

3. DEFENSE ROLLS

For simplicity and to reduce the number of rolls, you and your opponents are normally considered to be "taking 10" on your defense rolls, and thus you are using a base 10 for your AC.

However, you can elect to *roll* your defense against a particular attack. You have to declare this before the attack itself is rolled. By rolling your defense, you hope to roll better than a 10 on the d20, thereby improving your AC against that attack. (Of course, you may end up rolling lower than a 10, thereby worsening your AC.)

Note: I'm using this rules variant mostly because I also use "heroic luck" rules that allow players to re-roll the dice, a certain number of times per game session based on a character's Cha and alignment.

4. FUMBLES

Whenever you roll a natural 1 on an attack roll, you not only automatically miss your target, but there is a chance you will fumble.

To avoid a fumble, you must make a Reflex save, and the DC for this is determined by the weapon you used in the attack, as follows...

Unarmed attacks (including the natural weapons of creatures): DC 15.
Light melee weapons: DC 17.
1-handed melee weapons: DC 19.
2-handed melee weapons: DC 21.
Ranged weapons: DC 19.

If you fail this Reflex save, you fumble, and you must spend a move equivalent action on your next turn recovering. Until you have recovered, you are considered to be stunned, i.e. you lose your Dex bonus to AC (if any), and foes gain a +2 attack bonus against you.

 

[Dalamar]

Whenever a threat range is "doubled" by something (such as by a weapon with the "keen" enchantment, or by the Improved Criticals feat), it is instead increased by two steps.

Here's the part that struck my as something I need to comment on.

As you currently present it, threat doubling works just as it did before to those weapons that previously had no extra threat range (for example, axes), since they still get double. But the scimitar, for example, is losing either 1 point (if you consider doubling the original) or 2 points (if doubling the new, increased range) of threat range. This isn't 'fair', to the character who already got shorthanded in the threat increases (he only gained a one-third increase, whereas the axe-wielder doubled his threat range).

I don't really have a good suggestion how to make it 'fair', but I thought I'd express my opinion anyway.

 

[Azlan]

I don't really have a good suggestion how to make it 'fair', but I thought I'd express my opinion anyway.

But with my rules variant for "increased criticals", I think it's already been made "fair".

I, for one, think that the *doubling* of threat ranges through the Improved Criticals feat and the "keen" enchantment was unbalancing when used in combination with weapons such as rapiers. (In fact, I think the *doubling* of practically anything in D&D -- such as the doubling of movement with boots of striding, as they were 3E D&D -- can be unbalancing, when combined with certain abilities and/or feats.)

With my rules variant for "increased criticals", it's easier to maintain game balance, since the increase of threat ranges is linear, all across the board.

 

[Dalamar]

Yes, linear increases make the game more balanced, but as a consequence, the rapier-guy is getting relatively less than the axe-guy.

Consider it this way:
Case 1:We have a guy with Improved Critical applied to his keen rapier under your increased threat range rule. His threat range is 13-20 compared to the 17-20 it would be without either, in other words, the chance that he will threaten a critical is 40% compared to the 20% it was before.
Case 2: Same set-up, but with a battleaxe. Improved thread range is 15-20 compared to the normal of 19-20, translating to 30% compared to 10%.

The first guy has spent a feat and dished out a considerable sum of cash (presuming he wants his weapon to more than +1 keen) to double his threat. The second guy has done excactly the same things, but he has tripled his threat range instead. Which one would you want to be?

Because the weapons are (or at least should be) equal in power to weapons of the same category (in this case: one-handed martial weapons) by default, the only way for feats and abilities that change some aspect of the weapon to be equally profitable to all weapons, is to change those factors by multiplying them.

 

[CRGreathouse]

But with my rules variant for "increased criticals", I think it's already been made "fair".

I, for one, think that the *doubling* of threat ranges through the Improved Criticals feat and the "keen" enchantment was unbalancing when used in combination with weapons such as rapiers. (In fact, I think the *doubling* of practically anything in D&D -- such as the doubling of movement with boots of striding, as they were 3E D&D -- can be unbalancing, when combined with certain abilities and/or feats.)

With my rules variant for "increased criticals", it's easier to maintain game balance, since the increase of threat ranges is linear, all across the board.

Your rule makes (say) heavy picks more powerful, and rapiers much weaker. 17-20/x4 is the same power as 9-20/x2, assuming that a 9 hits -- it's even better if 9 misses.

 

[Iron_Chef]

Why are you wasting time rolling "best 2 out of 3" for initiative? Makes no sense to me. One roll to rule them all, says I! It'll speed things up.

 

[Azlan]

Why are you wasting time rolling "best 2 out of 3" for initiative? Makes no sense to me. One roll to rule them all, says I! It'll speed things up.

As I said, this rules variant gives you a "median" result, which over the course of several rounds of combat, it pretty much what you'd get anyway, if you were rolling every round.

Again, it's a compromise between the "rolling every round" and the "rolling once at the beginning of an encounter" initiative methods, both of which are in the book(s).

 

[Azlan]

Your rule makes (say) heavy picks more powerful, and rapiers much weaker. 17-20/x4 is the same power as 9-20/x2, assuming that a 9 hits -- it's even better if 9 misses.

Hmm...

With this rules variant, a hvy. pick has a critical of "19-20/x4", whereas a rapier has a critical of "17-20/x2". So, the rapier has twice the chance of a pick for rolling a threat, but if a critical is scored, the pick inflicts twice as much damage as the rapier.

A "keen" hvy. pick has a critical of "17-20/x4", whereas a "keen" rapier has a critical of "15-20/x2". So, now the rapier has x1.5 the chance of a pick for rolling a threat. Still, if a critical is scored, the pick inflicts twice as much damage as the rapier.

A "keen" hvy. pick used with the Improved Critical feat has a critical of "15-20/x4", whereas a "keen" rapier has a critical of "13-20/x2". So, now the rapier has roughly x1.3 the chance of a pick for rolling a threat. And still, if a critical is scored, the pick inflicts twice as much damage as the rapier.

To me, this is not such a big deal. With combat encounters that last for only a few rounds, the rapier has an advantage, probability-wise, over the pick. With encounters that last for many rounds, the pick has the advantage.

Besides: How else can you increase the likelihood of criticals, across the board, without giving weapons like rapiers too much of advantage, when combined with the "keen" enchantment and/or with the Improved Criticals feat?

 

[Azlan]

The first guy has spent a feat and dished out a considerable sum of cash (presuming he wants his weapon to more than +1 keen) to double his threat. The second guy has done excactly the same things, but he has tripled his threat range instead.

Couldn't the same line of reasoning be applied to standard "plus" enchantments, making them seem unfair... ?

One guy dishes out a considerable sum of gold to replace his non-magical rapier with a +4 rapier. Another guy does the same thing, but with a greataxe. The first guy increases the maximum damage of his weapon by nearly 65%, but the second guy increases the maximum damage of his weapon by only a little over 15%, though both guys spent about the same amount of gold.

 

[Dalamar]

One guy dishes out a considerable sum of gold to replace his non-magical rapier with a +4 rapier. Another guy does the same thing, but with a greataxe. The first guy increases the maximum damage of his weapon by nearly 65%, but the second guy increases the maximum damage of his weapon by only a little over 15%, though both guys spent about the same amount of gold.

Hmm... Actually, if you'll check your math, you'll notice that the axe-wielder's maximum damage is now 12, which is 1.5 times as much as 8, meaning an increase to maximum damage of 50%. The rapier wielder, on the other hand, multiplied his maximum damage by 1,667 (added 66,7%).
Both multiplied their minimum damage by 5.
Rapier-wielder multiplied his original average damage of 3.5 by 2,143 to 7.5, the axe-wielder went from 4.5 to 8.5 with a multiplier of 1,889.

So, at most, the difference is approx. 35% compared to the 100% that results from keen. Of course, we can deduce that the rapier is gaining slightly more from the +4 to hit, since that means it has more chances to take advantage of the larger threat range it has. This also tips the balance in the rapier's direction.
This goes on to show that the system is inbalanced in this contex from the start, do you really want to dip the balance to another direction under other conditions?

Since you're shooting for more lethality in the combats, may I suggest increasing weapon damage by one die-size instead? This is the closest to fair that I can think of, and is equal to an increase of +1 in threat range or critical multiplier according to WotC (since a rapier with d6 and 18-20/x2 is supposed to be equal to a longsword's d8 19-20/x2 and battleaxe's d8 x3).
This way you would get your increased deadliness to combat, but you don't have to go tampering with the crit/threat system.