| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Galuf the Dwarf
Senior Scribe
USA
675 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Feb 2025 : 15:44:01
|
I was thinking about this recently and though I don't (currently) run an campaign of my own, here are some 3.5 Edition house rules or modifications I'd make:
1) Axes do bludgeoning as well as slashing damage in the same attack. This also makes them applicable for enchantments like the Disruption ability, but the Keen and Impact enchantments do not stack; only one applies. I would also modify the throwing axe Azuredge (as featured in Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn) to be a +3 disruption returning throwing axe by this rule set.
2) Gold Dwarves favor the Cleric class instead of Fighter. While they do have a strong martial tradition, they also have a VERY strong divine tradition and I figured this plus their penalty to Dexterity instead of Charisma would make this a decent favored class for them.
3) Mountain Orcs and Gray Orcs have Weapon Familiarity with the Orc Double-Axe, because why not?
4) Strongheart Halflings favor the Ranger class instead of Rogue. This class seems to fit that culture better, from what I gather.
5) Ghostwise Halflings are considered naturally psionic and their psionic favored class is either the Soulknife or the Wilder (can't decide which; might leave that up to any DM who wants to use my house rules). They also start with 2 bonus power points at first level.
That's all I can think of at the moment. What about you folks?
|
Galuf's Baldur's Gate NPC stats: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8823
Galuf's 3.5 Ed. Cleric Domains: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14036
Galuf's Homebrew 4th Edition Races: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13787
Galuf's Homebrew Specialty Priest PrCs: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14353
Galuf's Forgotten Realms Heralds and Allies thread: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8766 |
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2460 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2025 : 17:16:16
|
Psionic classes have a problem of d20 psionics rules being introduced in that Complete Shrooms book. Who called the shots and how this mess was edited is not clear, but Bruce R. Cordell later also wrote a 3rd-party rulebooks Mindscapes (2003) and Hyperconscious (2004). And then just he left Wizards.
Other than this, it makes sense, but... I'm sorry, what's the point? Modding is fun, sure, but minor tweaks for d20 are like a hunt for stink bugs in a log jam that is still overflowing... and on fire. Does it fix horrible brokenness of skills? Painful clunkiness of feats? Crudeness of saving throws? Does it balance casters and non-casters more sensibly? Does it make the whole thing generally more viable in any environment other than carefully measured Monty Haul (must have them level-appropriate encounters, so everyone is expected to have a weapon +X at level Y, and etc)? If not, why bother? |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
 |
|
|
Galuf the Dwarf
Senior Scribe
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2025 : 18:54:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Psionic classes have a problem of d20 psionics rules being introduced in that Complete Shrooms book. Who called the shots and how this mess was edited is not clear, but Bruce R. Cordell later also wrote a 3rd-party rulebooks Mindscapes (2003) and Hyperconscious (2004). And then just he left Wizards.
Other than this, it makes sense, but... I'm sorry, what's the point? Modding is fun, sure, but minor tweaks for d20 are like a hunt for stink bugs in a log jam that is still overflowing... and on fire. Does it fix horrible brokenness of skills? Painful clunkiness of feats? Crudeness of saving throws? Does it balance casters and non-casters more sensibly? Does it make the whole thing generally more viable in any environment other than carefully measured Monty Haul (must have them level-appropriate encounters, so everyone is expected to have a weapon +X at level Y, and etc)? If not, why bother?
Why not? I don't see much harm.  |
Galuf's Baldur's Gate NPC stats: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8823
Galuf's 3.5 Ed. Cleric Domains: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14036
Galuf's Homebrew 4th Edition Races: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13787
Galuf's Homebrew Specialty Priest PrCs: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14353
Galuf's Forgotten Realms Heralds and Allies thread: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8766 |
|
|
|
Gelcur
Senior Scribe
533 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2025 : 00:37:41
|
I still run 3.5, will probably run it forever at this point. I have a laundry list of house rules if you're really interested. It all began with some minor armor rules that I didn't like:
Tumble can be attempted no matter the armor, just use the ACP. Dwarf running around in full plate wants to tumble let him.
Getting a restful night's sleep in armor can be attempted using a Concentration skill check in medium (DC 12) or heavy (DC 14) armor. |
The party come to a town befallen by hysteria
Rogue: So what's in the general store?
DM: What are you looking for?
Rogue: Whatevers in the store.
DM: Like what?
Rogue: Everything.
DM: There is a lot of stuff.
Rogue: Is there a cart outside?
DM: (rolls) Yes.
Rogue: We'll take it all, we may need it for the greater good. |
|
|
|
Galuf the Dwarf
Senior Scribe
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2025 : 01:19:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gelcur
I still run 3.5, will probably run it forever at this point. I have a laundry list of house rules if you're really interested. It all began with some minor armor rules that I didn't like:
Tumble can be attempted no matter the armor, just use the ACP. Dwarf running around in full plate wants to tumble let him.
Getting a restful night's sleep in armor can be attempted using a Concentration skill check in medium (DC 12) or heavy (DC 14) armor.
Intriguing! I'm listening.   |
Galuf's Baldur's Gate NPC stats: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8823
Galuf's 3.5 Ed. Cleric Domains: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14036
Galuf's Homebrew 4th Edition Races: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13787
Galuf's Homebrew Specialty Priest PrCs: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14353
Galuf's Forgotten Realms Heralds and Allies thread: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8766 |
Edited by - Galuf the Dwarf on 27 Feb 2025 01:20:20 |
|
|
|
Galuf the Dwarf
Senior Scribe
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2025 : 02:54:48
|
Some others I just remembered I'd make:
6) Rock Gnomes favor the Beguiler class, since this sounds more like them than being a Bard. Not saying the latter isn't common amongst them but the former class fits that race better.
7) New Paladin Orders and tweaks.
- Forest Guardians (Mielikki): This order patrols various forest to help innocents in need as well as protect flora, fauna and natural resident creatures from harm. Forest Guardians may freely multiclass as Rangers, Divine Champions and Forest Reeves (Complete Champion).
- Knights of the Silver Flame (Mystra): This order (which the DM can place where they see fit) is relatively new and focuses on promoting the safe use of magic, including hunting down arcanists who commit major crimes against the public or nature. Paladins of this order can freely multiclass as Duskblades (PHB2), Sorcerers, Wizards, Eldritch Knights, Spellswords (Complete Warrior) and Abjurant Champions (Complete Mage).
- Platinum Claws (Bahamut): This order, based in Damara focuses on protecting their home kingdom as well as combating the forces of Tiamat, their god's archenemy. Platinum Claws can freely multiclass as Fighters, Dragonslayers, Platinum Knights, Dragonriders (all 3 from Draconomicon), Vassals of Bahamut (BoED) and Divine Champions.
- Field Guardians (Chauntea) can also freely multiclass as Rangers.
- Paladins of the Harmonious Order (Milil) can freely multiclass as Swashbucklers (Complete Warrior) or Duelists.
- Paladins of the Vigilant Eyes of the God (Helm) can freely multiclass as Devoted Defenders (Sword and Fist) and Knight-Protectors (Complete Warrior) as well as Clerics, Fighters, Divine Champions and Purple Dragon Knights (I question if Arcane Devotee was a typo).
- Shields of the Golden Hills (Gaerdal Ironhand) can freely multiclass as Breachgnomes (Races of Faerun) as well as Clerics and Fighters.
- Knights of the Eternal Order (Kelemvor) can freely multiclass as Hunters of the Dead (Complete Warrior) and Sacred Purifiers (Libris Mortis) as well as Clerics and Doomguides.
8) New Monk orders and tweaks to existing ones
- Disciples of the Wild Wood (Silvanus): A ragtag order of monks who worship the Oakfather, who fight to protect natural settings, with makeshift chapters in places like the High Forest, the Cloakwood and Neverwinter Wood. They can only be of Lawful Neutral alignment but can freely multiclass as Druids, Rangers and Fists of the Forest (Complete Champion).
- Hammerhands (Moradin): Chapters of this order of Moradite Monks are seen in many dwarven clanholds, particularly in the North and the Great Rift. They showcase discipline and fight to protect their clanholds from invasions by goblinoids, orcs, giantkin and denizens of the Underdark. Hammerhands can freely multiclass as Clerics, Fighters, Dwarven Defenders and Sacred Fists (Complete Divine)
- Monks of the Shining Hand (Azuth) can freely multiclass as Enlightened Fists (Complete Arcane) as well as Wizards (no level restriction).
- Monks of the Dark Moon (Shar) can also freely multiclass as Enlightened Fists as well as Sorcerers (also no level restriction).
- Monks of the Broken Ones (Ilmater) can freely multiclass as
9) The Duergar now have a full-blown pantheon and the Dwarven Pantheon has a demigod associated with fire and forges as well as demigoddess associated with drinking and the Drunken Master PrC (as featured in my thread "Expanded Pantheons" coming soon)
10) Sacred Fist gets an overhaul to make it so Cleric/Monks can more freely multiclass between said classes and Sacred Fist (similar to the Enlightened Fist).
|
Galuf's Baldur's Gate NPC stats: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8823
Galuf's 3.5 Ed. Cleric Domains: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14036
Galuf's Homebrew 4th Edition Races: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13787
Galuf's Homebrew Specialty Priest PrCs: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14353
Galuf's Forgotten Realms Heralds and Allies thread: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8766 |
Edited by - Galuf the Dwarf on 28 Feb 2025 00:25:34 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11962 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2025 : 13:46:04
|
| getting a restful nights sleep in armor would be a hell no in my book. That SHOULD be hard. I think there was a feat that allowed something like it, but these are reasons for a player to carry some bracers of armor.... just for sleeping in. Of course, in my realms, those items wouldn't be hard to get either, as I don't play with rules where only the richest noble might have one magic item. Exceedingly minor magic items are common as heck (i.e. a +1 weapon isn't hard to find, nor is some +1 armor, nor is a +1 ring of protection, etc...), but that means also that since people have them they aren't as precious (i.e. great... ANOTHER +1 longsword). As a result as well, this also means that they don't sell as well (they sell mind you, but not as much of a profit margin), and even a lesser noble may be walking around with 3 or 4 minor magic items that give him at least a slight edge in combat against say an orc. Minor potions as well (especially healing) are also exceptionally common. Now, once you get past +1, its a lot rarer. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Ozreth
Learned Scribe
205 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2025 : 14:43:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
[Other than this, it makes sense, but... I'm sorry, what's the point? Modding is fun, sure, but minor tweaks for d20 are like a hunt for stink bugs in a log jam that is still overflowing... and on fire. Does it fix horrible brokenness of skills? Painful clunkiness of feats? Crudeness of saving throws? Does it balance casters and non-casters more sensibly? Does it make the whole thing generally more viable in any environment other than carefully measured Monty Haul (must have them level-appropriate encounters, so everyone is expected to have a weapon +X at level Y, and etc)? If not, why bother?
Kind of a weird take and assumes that we are all playing in groups who stay up late at night on the WotC char-op boards. My group of over 20 years does not see these issues. Feats are easy, skills work well for out of combat scenarios and do a good job at showing meaningful improvement, we don't use words like "viable" and aren't looking for perfect balance, and we understand that the WBL chart was meant as a rough guideline only to help DMs (Monte Cook later expressed regret in not making that more clear in the book but it should be obvious) and it is long forgotten now but everyone loves to ignore the fact that the DMG specifically says that not all encounters should be level approrpiate. The restrospective of 3e these days is painted by the internet rather than actually playing in the early 2000s, particularly 2000-2002, which was a wonderful time for 3e, when people were still playing the game with AD&D assumptions, the way that 3e was playtested.
House rules for many groups are about tone and flavor, not just balance (or maybe not at all for balance). This is generally the case with my group. We have some house rules for ease of play or for changing the feel of some mechanics. We aren't out to achieve perfect mathematical balance, which to an extent is not something we desire in a tabletop RPG, especially D&D. It was also stated as not being one of the main goals of the designers. Just as my group does, they expected that a wizard would and should be much more powerful than somebody wiht a sword. They are casting insane magic spells. Yeah it's now an archaic way of thinking compared to modern game design, but that's part of the charm that we enjoy, and my players aren't competing against eachother to have balanced output. The fighters are glad they have somebody as strong as a wizard on their team.
Some groups just play the game for what it is and I guess I'm lucky to have a group that does so rather than over-analyze the mathematical faults. |
Edited by - Ozreth on 27 Feb 2025 14:56:52 |
|
|
|
Ozreth
Learned Scribe
205 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2025 : 14:45:35
|
Our house rules change from campaign to campaign. Currently we aren't using many:
- The Dodge feat grants a flat +1 bonus to AC without the need to declare.
- The Natural Spell feat does not exist, per the original core 3e rules.
- Enemies die at 0 hit points, not -10.
- Keen weapons and Improved Critical still stack, per the original 3e rules.
- Initiative: When more than 4 players are present, when two or more characters would go in a row, they instead act as a group, choosing who goes when based on agreed upon tactics or simply who is more ready to act.
- Half-Orc: No INT penalty.
- Druid: Druids do not receive Spontaneous Summoning, per original 3e rules.
- Ranger: Favored enemy bonuses apply to Knowledge checks against creatures of the relevant type.
- Sorcerer: Add Gather Information, Intimidate and Use Magic Device as class skills. Receive 4 skill points instead of 2.
Because sorcerers gain their spells from innate power, they have no need to worry about material components. Spells with costly material components require a little extra personal power on the sorcerer’s part. They still do not need to obtain the material component, but must instead pay a price in experience points for casting the spell. The sorcerer pays 1/25th of the gold-piece cost of the component in XP (minimum loss of 1 XP). Thus, if a sorcerer casts stoneskin, which requires 250 gp worth of diamond dust, the sorcerer instead pays 10 XP (250 divided by 25 is 10). Spells that already require an expenditure of experience points are handled normally. Spells with a focus still require the focus. (This is taken from Monte Cook's alternate Sorcerer in BOEMII).
Current Classes (we are playing Greyhawk):
All PHB Classes
Witch (Green Ronin Witch's Handbook)
Beguiler
Duskblade
Healer
Marshal
Wilderness Rogue
Scout
All options beyond the PHB are approved on a case by case basis as to whether they fit the tone of the game (feats, classes, ACFs, equipment, spells etc). They go into playtesting status for quite some time before becoming officially approved and added to our approved spreadsheet. This way we build a log of options specific to our world and campaign without going overboard.
|
Edited by - Ozreth on 27 Feb 2025 15:06:09 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2460 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2025 : 18:19:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Galuf the Dwarf
Why not? I don't see much harm.
Harm, no. But cost of opportunity? It takes much the same to polish something great and polish turd, but in the latter case, the best result you can get with superficial changes is turd well-polished in a few places.
Also, most of it is both hidden in rabbit holes and massively redundant.
I mean, rules on the effects of armor were around how long? At least from Wilderness Survival Guide? Then there were houserules in Dragon, then the same bicycles reinvented from scratch on dozens of homepages... then the same bicycles reinvented from scratch where few people see them, but now also starting with core rules that are so focused on hack & slash that there aren't even other sources of XP. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Ozreth
Learned Scribe
205 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2025 : 20:45:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Galuf the Dwarf
Why not? I don't see much harm.
Harm, no. But cost of opportunity? It takes much the same to polish something great and polish turd, but in the latter case, the best result you can get with superficial changes is turd well-polished in a few places.
Also, most of it is both hidden in rabbit holes and massively redundant.
I mean, rules on the effects of armor were around how long? At least from Wilderness Survival Guide? Then there were houserules in Dragon, then the same bicycles reinvented from scratch on dozens of homepages... then the same bicycles reinvented from scratch where few people see them, but now also starting with core rules that are so focused on hack & slash that there aren't even other sources of XP.
The Dungeon Master's Guide (3e and 3.5) gives guidelines on how to award experience points for other kinds of activities and stresses that it shouldn't always be from combat. Not much different from how things were presented in 2e. Again, nobody really remembers what 3e tried to achieve as they haven't read the books in 20 years but instead just internalize a lot of weird online dogma.
If you're promoting the idea that 1e style xp for gold is the prominent way the game should be played, that's fine, but I do wonder if you also contrast 1e with 3e in terms of balance, something that you seem to be hung up on. You must know that 1e lacked any notion of balance both by design and by ideology. Which is also fine and something I still enjoy.
That would leave you with 4e or 5e, and many people here could tear those apart like you are doing to the system that many, many others still enjoy and are expressing their enjoyment of in this thread. I'm surprised you have such a high post count with how little friends you must make around here. |
Edited by - Ozreth on 27 Feb 2025 20:46:58 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4457 Posts |
Posted - 28 Feb 2025 : 21:12:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
getting a restful nights sleep in armor would be a hell no in my book.That SHOULD be hard.
Except it's not though. Whether or not someone has the ability to sleep in armor (or just in what might commonly be considered uncomfortable) is unique to that individual. As someone who has slept in half-plate (plate+gambeson) and then fought the next day (I was a big time LARPER) I can confirm that it doesn't really hinder you that much. It certainly wouldn't hinder you in a life or death situation, a scenario that D&D often puts characters in.
RE: Homebrew Rules
So I have a list of things that I typically add in my games, though I run multiple editions so it definitely changes.
3.5 -
• I do not require confirmation rolls for natural 20 Critical Hits. I just don't. For crit ranges 19<, then I do and it follows the standard rules.
• I just don't track non-expensive Spell components. Meaning anything Under 5 gold pieces, I tend not to give a crap about unless it's like a focus or something that you're going to use all the time then yeah you might need to have that.
• I tend to use Pathfinder classes for the tier 4 and 5 ones, and Pathfinder unchained classes for the Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue.
• Sorcerer's get free Eschew Materials at 1st level plus a Metamagic or Heritage feat at the same levels a Wizard gets bonus feats.
• if you choose a familiar, you don't get an XP loss if it dies, otherwise no one ever chooses them because it's just not worth it.
• I use weapon groups for feats as they're seen in unearth Arcana.
4E -
• I've added in firearms because they're fun.
• anybody who grabs the two-weapon fighting feat automatic gets a minor action off hand attack (at a -2 penalty). The penalty drops off by one at each tier to zero at Epic.
• I let players swap out their at-will abilities on a daily basis. Also, if they want to exchange a daily ability for an additional use of lower daily or encounter ability they can, even if it was already used.
• I'm very liberal in allowing people to cater their character to a concept rather than strict roles. So if someone is a Wizard and doesn't want Combat focus or attack spells, I'd help them either A) grab powers of other classes to facilitate their concept or B) make up new ones that does this.
• I don't limit players on using their Magic item abilities (I think the initial rule was 1/encounter at heroic, 2/Paragon, 3/epic or some BS like that.)
5E -
None than I can think of off the top of my head. |
|
|
|
Ozreth
Learned Scribe
205 Posts |
Posted - 28 Feb 2025 : 22:56:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
• Sorcerer's get free Eschew Materials at 1st level plus a Metamagic or Heritage feat at the same levels a Wizard gets bonus feats.
I've been back and forth on adding this one to my house rules for ages. Still have not comitted. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4457 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2025 : 00:05:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
• Sorcerer's get free Eschew Materials at 1st level plus a Metamagic or Heritage feat at the same levels a Wizard gets bonus feats.
I've been back and forth on adding this one to my house rules for ages. Still have not comitted.
Personally, I think the designers placed FAR too much emphasis on how powerful they thought spontaneous casting is, enough that they said "no other class features." for the Sorcerer. Further, Eschew Materials makes sense for a class that is all about innate magic. Not to mention the class initially couldn't even get Quicken Spells (later options alleviate this situation, but I digress).
They're still tier 2 (power wise) and I don't think the few added feats makes them that more powerful. |
|
|
|
Alberto_Magnus
Acolyte
Italy
19 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2025 : 10:56:01
|
I know D&D is not a simulation but at my table (5e 2014 rules)
- Short and long rests only grant some HPs that are not related to wounds (what I conceive as fatigue, concentration etc). This is also valid for foes, of course. Being my table not combat-focused, it works. Also, they seek healing and learn to stack on healing spells, first-aid kits and potions.
- Regular healing potions (until greater) grant full HPs if drunk as an action. Roll dice to drink it as a Bonus Action. After greater (superior, etc) this rule doesn't apply, you always roll but if you drink it as an action or outside combat you re-roll on 1s and 2s.
- No Ability increases on levelling (I grant those for RPing and certain events), but you choose feats relevant with the character and the story.
- Based on rp-ing I grant some skills for free (like an instrument if they practice, or bonuses to survival if they spend a long time in the wilderness).
|
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2460 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2025 : 14:08:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
The Dungeon Master's Guide (3e and 3.5) gives guidelines on how to award experience points for other kinds of activities and stresses that it shouldn't always be from combat. Not much different from how things were presented in 2e.
1. As a matter of fact it is different, in that AD&D2 style specific awards serve a purpose: connect mechanics to role playing. Okay, PHB only mentioned these rather than listing, but then this approach was improved and expanded outside the core, e.g. in Dark Sun campaign book. What it does as an option buried in DMG?
2. This returns us to the point of what is being improved.
Individual award system was trivially tackled onto d20 as an option, yes. Obviously, it could also be tackled onto just about anything else. OSR that does not already have it, or Alternity, or d100, etc.
quote:
Again, nobody really remembers what 3e tried to achieve as they haven't read the books in 20 years but instead just internalize a lot of weird online dogma.
Projections aside, did it actually achieve those mysterious goals it "tried to"? And how much does remembering these matter, if they were missed?
quote:
If you're promoting the idea that 1e style xp for gold is the prominent way the game should be played,
I am promoting the idea that mechanics exist to serve a purpose, otherwise it's just messing about. Specifically, XP awards:
1. inform the players of their characters' objectives or motivations and
2. give an obvious incentive to actually follow those.
Thus, if for example certain PCs (such as most bards) are expected to try and get as much fame as possible, while others (such as most thieves) do not benefit from notoriety, mechanics reflecting this are desirable. Conversely, leaving all and any objectives as an occasionally mentioned notion not connected to the game in any way is a failure (or maybe expectation of railroading?).
If activities relevant to the character build are desired, something like AD&D2 style individual XP award system is desirable. If the purpose is to have all PCs roam after loot, XP awards per GP reflects that. And so on.
It's not the only way to do this, and not always the best (e.g. for personal motivations Spellbound Kingdoms style values obviously fit better), but it's simple, transparent and actually worked.
quote:
that's fine, but I do wonder if you also contrast 1e with 3e in terms of balance, something that you seem to be hung up on. You must know that 1e lacked any notion of balance both by design and by ideology. Which is also fine and something I still enjoy.
It's a very old notion, and it was already a natural anti-concept back when it crawled out of the sea.
As in: it's not clear what do you even mean under "balance" here. Are you trying to claim that in d20 different classes (casters and non-casters) of the same level are mostly interchangeable as far as total strength of a group (vs. wide range of challenges) is concerned? Well, d20 failed at this so badly, certain developers figured out it may be easier to convert the fighting classes into fancy casters than to fix it. If not, then what exactly?
quote:
I'm surprised you have such a high post count with how little friends you must make around here.
If the only link is nodding together while moving in roughly the same direction, the term is "herd-mates" rather than "friends". Once again, a matter of objectives and incentives.  |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Ozreth
Learned Scribe
205 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2025 : 15:15:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
The Dungeon Master's Guide (3e and 3.5) gives guidelines on how to award experience points for other kinds of activities and stresses that it shouldn't always be from combat. Not much different from how things were presented in 2e.
1. As a matter of fact it is different, in that AD&D2 style specific awards serve a purpose: connect mechanics to role playing. Okay, PHB only mentioned these rather than listing, but then this approach was improved and expanded outside the core, e.g. in Dark Sun campaign book. What it does as an option buried in DMG?
2. This returns us to the point of what is being improved.
Individual award system was trivially tackled onto d20 as an option, yes. Obviously, it could also be tackled onto just about anything else. OSR that does not already have it, or Alternity, or d100, etc.
quote:
Again, nobody really remembers what 3e tried to achieve as they haven't read the books in 20 years but instead just internalize a lot of weird online dogma.
Projections aside, did it actually achieve those mysterious goals it "tried to"? And how much does remembering these matter, if they were missed?
quote:
If you're promoting the idea that 1e style xp for gold is the prominent way the game should be played,
I am promoting the idea that mechanics exist to serve a purpose, otherwise it's just messing about. Specifically, XP awards:
1. inform the players of their characters' objectives or motivations and
2. give an obvious incentive to actually follow those.
Thus, if for example certain PCs (such as most bards) are expected to try and get as much fame as possible, while others (such as most thieves) do not benefit from notoriety, mechanics reflecting this are desirable. Conversely, leaving all and any objectives as an occasionally mentioned notion not connected to the game in any way is a failure (or maybe expectation of railroading?).
If activities relevant to the character build are desired, something like AD&D2 style individual XP award system is desirable. If the purpose is to have all PCs roam after loot, XP awards per GP reflects that. And so on.
It's not the only way to do this, and not always the best (e.g. for personal motivations Spellbound Kingdoms style values obviously fit better), but it's simple, transparent and actually worked.
quote:
that's fine, but I do wonder if you also contrast 1e with 3e in terms of balance, something that you seem to be hung up on. You must know that 1e lacked any notion of balance both by design and by ideology. Which is also fine and something I still enjoy.
It's a very old notion, and it was already a natural anti-concept back when it crawled out of the sea.
As in: it's not clear what do you even mean under "balance" here. Are you trying to claim that in d20 different classes (casters and non-casters) of the same level are mostly interchangeable as far as total strength of a group (vs. wide range of challenges) is concerned? Well, d20 failed at this so badly, certain developers figured out it may be easier to convert the fighting classes into fancy casters than to fix it. If not, then what exactly?
quote:
I'm surprised you have such a high post count with how little friends you must make around here.
If the only link is nodding together while moving in roughly the same direction, the term is "herd-mates" rather than "friends". Once again, a matter of objectives and incentives.
First of all, the 2e rule you mention is literally listed under optional rules and by many accounts was not actually used. I know the 2e group I played with did not use it. I too applaud the idea of connecting experience points to role playing mechanics. But unfortunately this is not given as the main way to do XP in 2e, it was an optional rule.
Now, the 3e rule is not given as optional, it is part of the section on how to award experience points and gives all sorts of reasons that you might give experience points, and even suggestions that for some groups it might make sense to not give XP for killing monsters at all, but rather for all of the other suggetions it gives on how to award XP.
Now, was this used by the majority? Of course not. But first of all, you need to realize that many, many groups were not doing this in AD&D either. It is part of the reason it was changed as early as 1989 when xp for killing monsters became the standard. If your group did this, then great, but many didn't. I don't know if you actually played back then or if you got into older D&D through the OSR, but the OSR is very revisionist in a lot of ways and does not always reflect how groups were actually playing, which is all over the map.
Also, you must remember when 3e was released. The designers were TSR staff and intentionally designed and playtested 3e to reflect how people were playing AD&D by the mid-late 90s. They looked at all the house rules people were using, especially the most standard ones, they looked at how combat was playing out (almost always with a grid and miniatures by this point), they saw how badly people wanted to be able to express actions outside of combat actions and to be able to see them meaningfully grow (skills) just like the other games on the market that were becoming more popular (Runequest etc), and they built a game that reflected what the community mostly wanted and it was a MASSIVE hit. Flavorwise they aimed it at the 1e AD&D group and it worked. If you remember, people flocked back to D&D who hadn't played during the 1e days or who were playing 2e but eventually dropped out of gaming or moved onto other games because the game had fallen so far behind what people expected to be able to do with their characters and because DMs were still at a loss for how to handle a million different situations without binders full of house rules. You can go back to early Enworld posts from the first few years of 3e's release and find so many responses of people saying that the game did everything they wanted it to do and fixed all the issues they had with D&D and that it felt like AD&D 1e again. And, indeed, if you remember interviews and articles from the 3e designers back then, or if you know 3e well, you can see how so many of the rules and the flavor are a nod to 1st edition and how many of the features are a cleaning up of late 2e rules.
However, this was also the internet boom. When you combine how many new players with no history of D&D and its conventions and assumptions with the way message boards work, you ended up with people taking the syste and treating it in ways that it was never expected to be treated and running wild with it. The game assumed you were coming from an AD&D background. AD&D players were the main audience, and those people played it like they played AD&D. But many others did not. Second, many of the original TSR staff (and many wotc staff), were laid off as soon as 3e was released (wotc was known for yearly layoffs), and the way the game was treated after they were gone is totally different than how it was intended. There weren't even supposed to be more classes released after the Player's Handbook because feats and multi-classing were meant to allow you to create new archetypes and act similarly to the way kits did, without having to actually release kits or new classes. Hasbro of course saw the $$ in creating new books and so the system ran wild.
But MY group, and many, many others, play in a way that does not reflect what the crazy char-op history of 3e became. And what should matter to a person and their group is not how others are playing, and you seem to really care about how others played 3e rather than being willing to take a look at what the designers intended with the game. What the game says and implies is what matters to me, not how the internet may have ruined it.
"Are you trying to claim that in d20 different classes (casters and non-casters) of the same level are mostly interchangeable as far as total strength of a group (vs. wide range of challenges) is concerned? Well, d20 failed at this so badly, certain developers figured out it may be easier to convert the fighting classes into fancy casters than to fix it. If not, then what exactly?"
No, I am not saying this at all, and in-fact I said the exact opposite. Did you read what I said? It is nearly impossible, and in my opinion undesirable to make fighters and casters equally capable at a wide range of challenges. They shouldn't be expected to be. They weren't in OD&D, 1e or 2e, and the 3e designers didn't think they should be either. It was only later designers who thought this was desirable based on what people were doing with the system and so they created those classes you speak of. This was not a part of the original 3e vision, which is rooted in the TSR era of the game and designed by TSR employees (one of the main deisngers being someone who was a player with Gygax, Skip Williams) who had a deep love for 1e. However, what they DID do is for the very firs time in D&D provide some very good guidelines for a DM to adjust the challenges they provide the party and it was a noble effort. It should not be used as perfect math and the point was not to always have a perfectly balanced encounter, and this is stressed in the DMG.
Lastly, on XP, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how you get the XP, as long as you get through the dungeon. If you are only getting XP from monsters, and monsters are scatttered throughout the dungeon, it means you have to get through the dungeon to get to the monsters. In order to get through the dungeon, thieves will pick locks, bards will support their allies and try to converse with foes, clerics will commune with the gods, fighters will break things. All of the abilities and RP of the group need to be used to get through the scenario, and you end up with XP awards by getting through it. Yes, 2e and 3e do not do a good job at incentivizing characters to avoid monsters, but obviously by the late 80s player's weren't wanting to do this anymore. The majority of the games rules have always been based around combat, and people enjoy combat. There will always be situations where a group realizes it is smarter to avoid a certain encounter, it happens in my games all the time, but the days when it made sense to do this regularly are long gone and probably haven't been popular since the late 70s. In my games when the group does a good job at avoiding the encounter, they get the same xp they would have if they had defeated the monster.
But, most importantly here, why did you come on here and start insulting peoples preferences and the way they choose to play a game (what an embarrasing, elementary way to behave)? I am a fan of 1e, 3e and to a lesser extent 2e, and I will praise those games and speak to why I enjoy them so much, but I don't do it by means of demeaning someone elses preferenecs. Celebrate what you enjoy without having to tear down something else to prove to yourself that the way you do it is superior. Just be comfortable with your own choices.
Talk to us about the edition you play and what your house rules are. |
Edited by - Ozreth on 01 Mar 2025 17:41:54 |
|
|
|
HighOne
Learned Scribe
224 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2025 : 15:42:20
|
I'm leaning more old-school lately, so my main house rule is "Only monsters have darkvision."
And no, monsters are not playable. |
|
|
|
Ozreth
Learned Scribe
205 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2025 : 17:10:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by HighOne
I'm leaning more old-school lately, so my main house rule is "Only monsters have darkvision."
And no, monsters are not playable.
IIRC elves (and maybe others) could see in darkness up to 60’ feet in AD&D. Are you considering that as different than dark vision? |
|
|
|
HighOne
Learned Scribe
224 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2025 : 14:16:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
quote:
Originally posted by HighOne
I'm leaning more old-school lately, so my main house rule is "Only monsters have darkvision."
And no, monsters are not playable.
IIRC elves (and maybe others) could see in darkness up to 60’ feet in AD&D. Are you considering that as different than dark vision?
I give Elves "lowlight vision," which allows them to see in dim light (starlight, moonlight) as if it were bright light. But they're as helpless as everyone else in total darkness. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4457 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2025 : 15:42:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
It is nearly impossible, and in my opinion undesirable to make fighters and casters equally capable at a wide range of challenges. They shouldn't be expected to be. They weren't in OD&D, 1e or 2e, and the 3e designers didn't think they should be either. It was only later designers who thought this was desirable based on what people were doing with the system and so they created those classes you speak of.
As someone who still plays and DMs later editions (especially 4e), I just want to interject that it was never the designers goal, nor was it achieved via rules, that casters and non-caster types be equally capable of dealing with every/all situations.
If anything, the focus on "roles" made them even more separate vs a system like 3e/3.5/PF1e where with some simple Multiclassing one character could achieve all and the class structure was so diluted that it rarely mattered. The best they achieved was having similar pools of resources early on (and even that changed) to draw from. What they did, what it effected, and how it was applied varies greatly.
Sorry, just wanted to chime about this particular thing. Carry on.  |
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
305 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2025 : 04:35:26
|
My Big Ones:
1.Everyone can craft magic items. All classes get a free magic item creation feat every three levels.
2.Magic item creation needs a formula, and it's always different for everyone all the time. A character needs to do research or meditate or discover the 'current formula' needed. This will be some type of rare mundane matreal for the item core, some rare monster part and most of all some sort of exotic part like "a tear of a happy elven princess". All depending on the power level of the magic item.
Both the above work great for immersion and keeping the players invested in the game. Clever players collect all the rare stuff that adventurers typical find on an adventure. And for the last one of the exotic component, often need to manipulate things to make it happen.
3.I use the mix of 2E D&D and BECMI for XP, so a character can get xp for playing a good game, doing character class based things and having a clever idea.
Plus having each player make a set of beliefs, like 2E's Planescape belief points. For bonus xp and belief points.
4.Non spellcasters get an action boost pool they can use to take bonus actions each round.
5.Shields Shall Be Splintered: Whenever you take damage, you can opt to have the damage absorbed by your shield. Fighters can splinter the shield after the damage has been rolled, everyone else must do so before the roll. The shield is splintered and destroyed, but you don’t take any damage from the blow.
6.I use the Spell Availability idea from 1E/2E. Where spells are Unique, Very Rare, Rare, Uncommon or Common to be known. Plus with regional variants. You can only pick common spells when leveling: the rest must be found.
7.I use the Spell Complexity idea from Monte Cooks 3X books. Where each spell also has a complexity, Simple, Easy, Difficult, Hard and Impossible. A spell like fireball is an easy 'fire and forget spell', but Transmutate Temporal Energy is an Impossible spell. But this is also modified by class and race and such. So it is possible to loose control of a spell 'beyond' your casting ability.
8. The gods watch and approve of all used divine magic. If the god likes why you cast the spell, you might get a small boon effect. If the god really liked it, a major boon effect. If the god did not like it, expect a bane effect. And if they are opposed, expect the spell to fail or worse.
I find this a GREAT way for players to "figure out how to play a servant of a god". As they use spells and get the boons and banes, they can figure out what their individual god likes and ways they wish their magic used.
9.Spell Absolutes are instead caster level checks vs opposition , for things like Truesight or Freedom of Movement.
10. Polymorph and other shape changing often runs the risk of your mind being lost in the new form. |
Edited by - bloodtide_the_red on 10 Mar 2025 04:41:09 |
|
|
|
EltonRobb
Learned Scribe
USA
134 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2025 : 21:30:21
|
| The biggest house rule I'd implement is replacing the D&D Vancian casting with Dynamic Spellcasting from Advanced d20 Magic. I wouldn't make any other changes in that case. |
|
|
|
Galuf the Dwarf
Senior Scribe
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2025 : 00:22:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by EltonRobb
The biggest house rule I'd implement is replacing the D&D Vancian casting with Dynamic Spellcasting from Advanced d20 Magic. I wouldn't make any other changes in that case.
Not familiar with that (namely the Dynamic Spellcasting part) at all, honestly. |
Galuf's Baldur's Gate NPC stats: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8823
Galuf's 3.5 Ed. Cleric Domains: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14036
Galuf's Homebrew 4th Edition Races: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13787
Galuf's Homebrew Specialty Priest PrCs: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14353
Galuf's Forgotten Realms Heralds and Allies thread: forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8766 |
|
|
|
Ozreth
Learned Scribe
205 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2025 : 15:41:51
|
| I love Vancian casting as I'm really big on the many, many rules and themes of D&D that were pulled directly from Sword & Sorcery novels. The entire game was basically pulled from a handful of mid 20th century literature and I think that's very unique. The game was essentially meant to emulate the novels of Vance, Leiber, Howard, Smith, Anderson etc. As a fan of the same novels I still find a lot of charm in this, despite the game moving way from those roots. |
Edited by - Ozreth on 11 Mar 2025 15:42:57 |
|
|
|
EltonRobb
Learned Scribe
USA
134 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2025 : 16:28:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Galuf the Dwarf
quote:
Originally posted by EltonRobb
The biggest house rule I'd implement is replacing the D&D Vancian casting with Dynamic Spellcasting from Advanced d20 Magic. I wouldn't make any other changes in that case.
Not familiar with that (namely the Dynamic Spellcasting part) at all, honestly.
The biggest change is that it allows you to cast any spell you know, sufficient if you can beat the DC casting with a d20 and a few bonuses. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Your House Rules or Rule Modifications (if any)?
