|
I’ve been thinking a bit about ways to improve 3.5 and creating my own version of 3.75. My main concern has been combat. The thought process I use is that making combat faster requires eliminating large numbers of multiple attacks, and making the fewer attacks do more damage and be more threatening.
The following are some house-rules I’m working on for my current campaign.
1, Weapon Specialization doesn’t simply add +2 to damage, but instead increases the weapons damage by one die category, as if the weapon was make for a creature one size category larger then the base weapon. This reflects a person’s detailed study of the weapon and ways to get the best performance possible out of it.
2, Lowering the massive damage threshold from 50 pts to 20, although I’m also thinking about 30 if 20 proves to be too low. A 1st level Fighter with a Str of 15 and wielding a Longsword would only be able to get a 20 on damage if he/she rolled the maximum on weapon damage. Still, this makes even a 1st level character deadly in an extreme case and should help keep the fear in combat so that even higher level characters might want to seek another solution before drawing weapons.
3, My current campaign doesn’t allow characters to advance further than 6th level. I’ve added an ability to still get more feats so advancement doesn’t totally stop. The effect of this is that even fighters don’t get more then two attacks a round, unless they use two-weapon fighting in which case they don’t get more then four. I’m considering adding in more feats that will allow a fighter or barbarian, the classes that really lose out with this change, the option of simply increasing weapon damage. Maybe opening up weapon specialization to the Barbarian and then allowing the feat to be taken multiple times for the same weapon with the effects stacking.
Another effect of this is magic, I’m hoping that this will avoid the more campaign destabilizing spells, like Wish, and relegate those spells to really powerful magic items. Aladdin’s Lamp for instance.
However, should people like advancement beyond 6th level, and therefore access to prestige classes, why not simply keep the attack-per-round limit of two or four but still allow the BAB to continue to go up? Add in the increase to weapon damage and it seems like the loss of the extra attacks won’t be felt as much. Continue this trend up to the Epic Levels and combats should be significantly shorter.
4, I’ve had issues with the lack of usefulness of the shield. It seems like people take it simply for the one or two point increase to AC but then ignore it. I’m working on a way to make a shield more of an active defense. My main idea is that a character could take a feat which will allow them to sacrifice the shield bonus to AC and instead make a Shield Block roll against their opponent’s attack roll. If they roll equal to or higher then their opponent’s attack roll then their shield takes the damage instead. This is where the shield hardness and hit points table comes in handy, as well as the option for making different kinds of shields. The mechanic for the roll would look just like an attack roll; BAB+Str+Feats+Masterwork or Magic=Total Shield Block Bonus.
Of course this would only work against one attack per round, and would have to be declared before the opponent makes their attack roll much like a dodge. A natural 20 always blocks, a natural 1 always fails. The shield bonus to AC would be lost for the rest of the round. A character could only apply this Shield Block to an attack they are aware of, not against Sneak Attacks. Perhaps allow the Shield Block feat to be taken multiple times with each new one allowing another Shield Block roll to be made each round against a different attack, or attacker.
I’m hoping that these house-rules will make combat faster paced and more exciting, with more options for melee fighters. Still, they haven’t been play-tested yet. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
Also, does anyone else ask their players to simply write all the special rules, favorite spells, and such on their character sheet, or notebook paper attached to it, so that you don’t have to look the stuff up in a book? I’ve found it fun to actually create a “Spellbook” for my Wizard characters.
So, what kinds of house-rules do other people use with their 3.5 games? How have they worked out?
|
|
Hmm, it appears that I can’t edit this first post. Ah well, sorry for the double posting.
I suppose it may be important to note that these rules I am suggesting assume that magic items are few and far between and that the heroes have to rely more upon their own abilities then the latest magical device or weapon.
I’ve been thinking a bit about ways to improve 3.5 and creating my own version of 3.75. My main concern has been combat. The thought process I use is that making combat faster requires eliminating large numbers of multiple attacks, and making the fewer attacks do more damage and be more threatening.
An admirable goal. Here is my Tome of House Rules, not all of which I use, but all of which make the game simpler, faster and more fun.
1, Weapon Specialization doesn’t simply add +2 to damage, but instead increases the weapons damage by one die category, as if the weapon was make for a creature one size category larger then the base weapon. This reflects a person’s detailed study of the weapon and ways to get the best performance possible out of it.
That makes great swords cooler, but makes daggers suck for a fighter. (I know, not many fighters spec in daggers anyway but I have heard of such interesting characters)
2, Lowering the massive damage threshold from 50 pts to 20, although I’m also thinking about 30 if 20 proves to be too low. A 1st level Fighter with a Str of 15 and wielding a Longsword would only be able to get a 20 on damage if he/she rolled the maximum on weapon damage. Still, this makes even a 1st level character deadly in an extreme case and should help keep the fear in combat so that even higher level characters might want to seek another solution before drawing weapons.
Yes, this makes low level combat more deadly, but leaves high level combat just the same. Massive damage is still "Oh I took 20 damage...*rolls Fort save*...oh look I passed by rolling a 2..." *yawn* I list two massive damage variants in the Combat Chapter of my Tome of House Rules.
3, My current campaign doesn’t allow characters to advance further than 6th level. I’ve added an ability to still get more feats so advancement doesn’t totally stop. The effect of this is that even fighters don’t get more then two attacks a round, unless they use two-weapon fighting in which case they don’t get more then four. I’m considering adding in more feats that will allow a fighter or barbarian, the classes that really lose out with this change, the option of simply increasing weapon damage. Maybe opening up weapon specialization to the Barbarian and then allowing the feat to be taken multiple times for the same weapon with the effects stacking.
So you're using E6? I personally don't care for that variant, but I've heard good things about it.
|
Currently I've subsumed the use of the Stealth and Perception skills from 4th; a much friendlier system for rogues who like to be sneaky. I also allow a higher-powered rolling system (re-rolling 1's) and average hit points per level if the player doesn't want to roll for it. I've used the critical hit deck and found it amusing if a bit distracting/ disrupting game flow. I've tweaked racial stats and class bonuses to fit my players' tastes as well. As I've said once before, Rule 0 is a great tool for DMs.
|
Hey there Wiglaf,
With the announcement of 4e, I feel less obligated to stick with the RAW, so I've implemented some streamlining of my own.
On what you wrote:
- The massive damage threshold isn't the problem, it's the save. Since it's DC 15, it turns into 'who can roll a 1'. I've kept the 50 pt (40 pt for small, etc) threshhold, but I've made the save DC 15 +2 per 10 points over the thresshold taken.
- If you don't want to have characters advance too high, simply scale back the XP and treasure awarded. If you award 50% of listed XP, the advancement will scale much more slowly.
Things I've done in my game that work well:
- Tumble DCs are 10 + opponent's Reflex save. It puts some mystery and scaling into a skill check that becomes pretty much automatic by 5th-8th level.
- Defensive Spellcasting DCs are 10 + opponent's Base Attack Bonus, for the same reason as above.
- If a character gains enough XP to level up mid-adventure, they gain a 'positive level' (+1 to all saves, to hit, skills, and 5 temp hp). When they actually denoument, they can take a level of some class.
- stabilization rolls are DC 20 Fort checks. If the dying person fails by 5 or more, they take 2 hp damage, not 1.
|
|
The *average* damage increase for anyone using a weapon that does a d6 or less is only going to be 1 pt. under your version of Weapon Specialization. The 'die size increase' chart is a bit wonky in that way. Longsword Specialization, for instance, is going to be *way* better than Shortsword Specialization.
It could simply be level-based. A Weapon Specialist might start out with +2 damage at 4th level, and add another +1 damage / 2 or 4 levels thereafter. Alternately, Greater Weapon Specialization might become available at 8th level and give +4 additional damage, allowing a somewhat larger increase in damage, but at a cost in Feats.
|
|
Thank you, Tequila Sunrise, for your insight, and for the link. I’ve already downloaded it and plan on reading through the whole thing tomorrow during my downtime. I’ll admit that the damage die increase is a bit rough. I was thinking that it would be good for daggers too simply because they could do more damage, but you and Set have made some good points.
I’ll admit that I’m not sure that I like a flat bonus to damage though. It just feels odd, to me, to have a damage bonus higher then the damage roll itself could ever be. That was why I wanted to increase the dice rolled instead. I’ll see if I can tweak this and come up with something better then what I posted before. Not that I don’t like your idea Set, I just want to explore another option first. Thank you for giving me, and everyone else, something to think about.
So, the fortitude save is the thing which should be changed. I like the idea of a +2 to the DC for the save every 10 points of damage over the threshold. However, why not make it simply a +1 every 5 points over. That could make the modifiers more likely to come into play, while still remaining easy to remember, and isn’t more powerful then the system you suggest. Please, let me know what you think about this Archade. I’ll admit that I’m still partial to lowering the threshold a bit, perhaps simply to 20/30 instead of 40/50. Couple that with the increased DC and I’m thinking that even High level characters would hesitate to fight unnecessary battles.
Unfortunately, I’ve never DMed anything higher than 12th level, and that was when the game really slowed down for my players and I due to multiple attacks and special abilities. This has undoubtedly affected my perception of high level combat. It just wasn’t challenging for the players anymore, or at least that was the impression I received. Please let me know if you think I am overcompensating for this.
I enjoy the concept behind e6, and here is a link for those who don’t know.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=352719
But I will admit that it makes the most sense when used along side this document. Most people have probably read this at some point, but just in case here is a link. It describes how a level 5 or 6 character is really reaching towards the peak of the realistic spectrum of human ability.
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html
I’m sorry if these don’t link properly, I haven’t quite figured out how to do that here on the Paizo boards yet.
Vendle, how have you implemented the Stealth and Perception skills. This sounds like a good idea. Did you just get rid of Move Silently and Hide in Shadows, exchanging then for Stealth, and do the same with Spot, Search, and Listen when it comes to Perception? If so what Ability scores did you base these skills off of, and what classes would you suggest making these class skills for?
Archade, I really like what you have said about the Tumble checks. I will be using this myself I think. Just to clarify, does the opponent roll their Reflex save against each Tumble check, or is their total Reflex modifier simply added to the DC? I also like the Stabilization check idea. I don’t have room to comment about casting defensively, nobody I’ve played with has ever used those rules, so I’ll leave that to others.
I’m also curious to hear what people think about the Shield Block idea posted above. Is it too powerful? Too weak? Would players use it or simply keep their +1 or +1 to the AC like normal? To clarify something, the shield Block would only use the highest BAB, and ignore all of the others. The only way for a character to use it more than once per round would be to take the required feat more than once.
It is really fascinating to read about everyone’s house rules. Please, keep it coming. Anyone use the rules for armor as Damage Reduction from UA?
|
|
Well, I’ve been trying to apply myself to a way to work out a new system for some other portions of the game which have been noted as places where play slows down, or simply gets confusing. I think that I have an idea for Turning Undead.
Turn Undead; When attempting to turn undead a cleric makes a Turning Check. 1d20 + Cleric’s Caster Level + Charisma Mod + Feats = Turning Points. The cleric then spends turning points on each of the undead within 40ft, starting with those closest to the cleric. They cleric may not spend more turning points then his/her Caster Level on any single undead. Each of those undead must make a will save, DC is Cleric’s Caster Level + Cha Mod + Turning points spent. Failure means that the undead is affected like with the Fear spell. If the number of turning points spent on a single undead is double or more of that undead’s Hit Dice then a failure indicates that the undead is destroyed.
Rebuking would work the same way, just with failure indicating that the undead is now under the cleric’s control.
Pros; This seems a bit more streamlined and doesn’t require a chart to figure. Also, it could start a guessing game where players try to estimate the HD of the undead before them. “Do I try to turn this larger creature, or ensure that I can destroy more of his minions? Also there is enough of a chance of undead rolling a natural one, or twenty, that this could reflect the sudden surges of faith, or the flagging spirit, which might cause a relatively low level cleric to be able to turn a creature which would have otherwise been beyond his or her ability to face.
Cons; It is a different system that might require a new selection of feats to accompany it, and it makes the end results less certain since even the lowliest Zombie could roll a natural twenty and resist the turning attempt. It is potentially les damaging thn the other system, but has a higher minimum damage output.
Conclusions; I’m interested in play testing this, Anybody else willing to give it a shot and let us know how it works? Anyone tried anything similar? Thoughts, comments, or questions?
|
If you haven't, pick up Monte Cook's PDF Book of Experimental Might. Plenty of good ideas for easing play, even tho I don't feel the need for spell levels 1-20. The disciplines are nice, letting casters use their spells and still have something to support them the rest of the day, and gives the paladin and ranger some support. I'm working off and on on adapting the D20 Modern talent trees as fighter disciplines myself.
On the subject of multiple attacks and combat slow down, in another thread of house rules was put forth the 'One Big Swing', where you give up your extra attacks to multiply your base weapon damage. IE, Fighter with longsword and +13 BAB making one attack does 3d8 plus STR and such. Something like this could work well with you if you don't go above 6th. Only full BAB classes could get the double die damage.