Who is houseruling 3.5 changes before they try them?

[ThirdWizard]

I'm going to run it as close as I can to 3.5. Actually, I'm going to start up RttToEE in the fall under as pure a 3.5 as I can bring myself to do. But, knowing me, I can't help myself from tinker. Thus far the only house rule, however, is Sorcerers get UMD as a class skill.

 

[MarauderX]

We'll take some and leave some, but for the classes we will try them out first just to see how they fit in.

 

[maddman75]

Well, I'm going to have my nonspellcasting ranger. The Revised ranger is a step in the right direction but doesn't go far enough IMHO. Also druids will have arcane spell failure in armor, rather than 100% failure. THe summoning warhorses I don't like for the reason Psion mentioned. Really doesn't fit in my world. I have a lot of knightly orders, many of whom are paladins. When they compete at tournament they ride their horses, not some summoned thing.

A paladin dealing with his mount being disadvantaged in a certain part of the game is part of the game. Should we let SA work on undead, so we aren't hosing the poor rogues?

The everything's square rule really doesn't matter to me. I'll use whatever my counter are for the face.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'll take virtually all 3.5 rules. There are only a few things I don't like, and most (eg ranger combat styles) are relics from 2e or 3.0 anyway.

 

[ForceUser]

As we did with 3E, we're going to convert over and play core rules as intended before house-ruling anything. House rules will only come about after we've experienced something in-game and decided we dislike it. DMs that house-rule willy-nilly annoy me; tell me, exactly, why you think you know better than a team of professional game designers and an army of playtesters?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Planning on essentially 3.5 pure until we figure out what, if anything, needs to be house-ruled. I'll give the stuff I'm not to keen on right now a chance before changing any of it out of hand.

So far 3.5 has managed to fall right in line with a lot of our existing house rules, though.

 

[Kraedin]

Generally, we're going to adopt the revised rules. Initially, the only house rules will be the once that already existed in my campaign that weren't overridden by the revised edition. (For example, alterations to simulacrum and disjunction.)

So far 3.5 has managed to fall right in line with a lot of our existing house rules, though.

I was suprised with that as well; both sheild and haste are exactly the same in every detail as my version, except that my haste has a Will negates (harmless) save so that it can affect undead and constructs.

 

[Corinth]

I'm playing the game as it's written, using nothing more than the most recent errata.

 

[maddman75]

As we did with 3E, we're going to convert over and play core rules as intended before house-ruling anything. House rules will only come about after we've experienced something in-game and decided we dislike it. DMs that house-rule willy-nilly annoy me; tell me, exactly, why you think you know better than a team of professional game designers and an army of playtesters?

Well considering that almost all my current house rules are being adopted into the revision, I think I've got pretty good instincts. I may allow a summoned warhorse now that I think about it, but not have that be the only option.

 

[Skaros]

57 votes so far, and the gap is closing between those taking 3.5 as written for at least a trial period, and those starting off with house rules.

I really expected those starting off with some house rules to maintain the much higher lead they had initially!

Skaros