Who plays DnD without messing with it?

[freebfrost]

I always end up tweaking the rules - there is always some situation in the rules that I feel is not cohesive enough for my campaigns, and once I find one I usually find more.

Sometimes it is a "variant" ruleset, such as using minimum weapon damage from the Conan OGL rules in my current campaign, but other times it is something I decided to throw into the mix to see how it works. But there is always a house rule sheet by the end of the campaign.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

This is the list my players and I use from Unearthed Arcana:


Racial paragons (page 32)
Totem Barbarians and Bard Variants (page 48)
Monk Styles (page 52)
Urban Ranger, Wild Rogue, and Battle Sorcerer (page 56)
Spontaneous Divine Casting (page 64)
Favoured Environment (page 65)
Wild Shape: Aspect Of Nature (page 67)
Maximum Skill Ranks, Limited Choices (page 80)
Spelltouched Feats (page 92)
Weapon Group Proficiencies (page 94)
Defense Bonus (page 110)
Armour as DR (page 111)
Summon Monster Variants (page 137)
Recharge Magic (page 158)
Incantations (page 174)
Contacts and Reputation (page 180)
Taint (page 189)
Sanity (page 189, somewhat modified for the setting)
Level-Independent XP (page 214)

In addition, we use Spycraft Action Dice, but with many more uses.

As well, we don't use miniatures, AoOs, whatever. In fact, when a proposed character action would look cooler and more cinematic or dramatic than the rules would allow, we go with it, and eyeball a DC for a simple D20 roll with relevent modifiers. We're all playing an action/adventure TV series, and structure our games and characters accordingly.

The "Zero Lethality Without Consent" paradigm (You don't kill off Jack O'Neill or Jean Luc Picard without knowing they'll be back really quick) would make the D&D core impossible to properly use. However, we like the race/class/D20 feel and familliar spells from it as the "skin" for our game.

In the end, most rules are optional depending on circumstance, and if we feel they would add drama and enjoyment to the scene, we use them.

 

[Ibram]

I tinker endlessly with the system, changing things here and there all the time. Currently my campaings are closer to core Conan d20 then core D&D (I love the defense progression, armor as DR and the High Living rule).

My current project is tinkering with the magic system, right now its just reworking the spell organization and not actual changes to the casting system (I'd like to do a spell point system, but have yet to figure out a good way for it to work).

 

[maddman75]

I've toyed with non-magical healing, but I think the simplest solution is just to let Wizards & Sorcs cast the Cure spells. No balance issue that I can see.

That just shifts it to 'someone must play a spellcaster'. It doesn't address the fundamental problem. I'd like the cleric to be handy, but not a requirement.

 

[fusangite]

I try to keep the changes to a minimum when I'm playing D&D because so much of the game is about balance and I don't have a good enough head for numbers to know my little tweaks will preserve it. My usual changes: placing certain skills or classes off-limits, making alignment coherent and capable of portraying a wider range of cultures... that's about it usually.

 

[RFisher]

Whenever I first play a game, I try to stick to the rules as close as possible. I'll take the time to stop the game & look things up.

Then, once I feel comfortable with it, I'll start house ruling & make on-the-fly calls & look up unclear things after the game.

I might do the same if I haven't played a game for a long time.

 

[Lorgrom]

Very dependednt

It depends on the champaign I am DMing. The most recent campaign completly changes the magic and psionic systems [the campaign uses a modified verion of the Epic spell seeds], and a modified spell/psionic point system.
While the last one I ran, was almost completly "by the book" type of campaign.

 

[RuminDange]

Essentially, I feel the rules are a starting point. I write up a campaign, tweak the set of rules that are closest to the feel of the campaign concept, and go from there. ...

Why? Because I am trying to create the campaign that I and my players will really like. In the end, the setting is more important that the rules.

Couldn't have really said it any better myself.


RD

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

My game is heavily modified, using Unearthed Arcana variants, and then modifying those. I leave spellcasting the same, though I've tried to make the spellcasting classes more distinct, I use Gestalt classes, maximum HP, and a grittier massive damage system, combined with a more cinematic feel-- any hit can be deadly, but characters can pull of significantly more heroic feats. I use Armor as DR and Class Defense Bonus, but using a different system than proposed in Unearthed Arcana, so that going armorless is an option, but wearing armor is still appealing.

I am sorely tempted to start using Variable Modifiers, and I'm considering changing the way classes work, to have characters combine one Generic class and one from a simplified base class list. Figure if I do that, I'd have to start calling my game Alternity 2.0 instead of D&D 3.5, though...

Speaking of Unearthed Arcana (hijacker alert!) How's the class Armor and Armor as Damage reduction balancee out?

Broken as hell if you use both, unmodified, together. Since they based the class defense bonus on the Armor Proficiencies, you end up with the characters with the highest AC also being the ones with the highest DR.

If you're interested in using it, I'd recommend basing Defense off of combat ability and agility, with heavy armor-dependent classes receiving lower Class Defense than characters that can operate without it.

 

[Nifft]

I tweak. I am a tweaker. I could not play any game for very long without significant tweakage. Except maybe Exalted, but in that case I'd probably end up writing a CR system or something instead.

-- N