PDA

View Full Version : House Rules. Do you have them and what are they?



Tony Misfeldt
05-05-2008, 03:42 PM
I'd started this topic on another, now apparently defunct, D&D website. Just as the title suggests, I want to know who's using homebrew or house rules, what they are, and how or why you came up with them. Here are some of mine...

COMELINESS: I've been using this rule since 1st edition. It was published in Unearthed Arcana, and is a 7th stat which is rolled to represent your character's physical beauty. It's rolled using 3d6, same as the other stats, then adjusted for race and Charisma. Half-orcs get a -3 penalty; gnomes and dwarves -1; Humans and halflings have no adjustment; half-elves and wood elves get a +1 bonus; gold elves, silver elves, and drow get a +2 bonus.
Then CHA: 2 or less gives a -8 penalty; CHA: 3 gives a -3 penalty; CHA: 4-5 gives a -2 penalty; CHA: 6-8 gives a -1 penalty; CHA:9-12 has no adjustment; CHA:13-15 gives a bonus of +1; CHA: 16-17 gives a +2 bonus; CHA: 18 gives a +3 bonus; and CHA:19+ gives a +5 bonus.
Anyone who sees a character with a COM score of 16 or more who's WIS score isn't a specific % of the COM score (the higher the COM, the lower the %) is automatically affected as if by the 2nd level illusionist spell Fascinate (sort of a weaker version of Charm Person) unless they make a successful save vs magic, adjusted for WIS. My old DM changed the saving throw to a save vs rods; staves; and wands as a phallic joke. We all thought it was so funny that we adopted that as the new saving throw (we were only teenagers at the time).
I continued using this rule right through 2nd edition, and it can be easily adapted for use in 3.X, and soon 4th edition (changing save vs magic to save vs willpower for example).

VOCAL COMPONENT: I have a rule that all players who are playing spellcasters (clerics, wizards, bards, etc) must speak the vocal component for any spell their character is casting. Thus, saying "I cast fireball at the oncoming orcs" and then rolling dice doesn't work. You have to say "I pull out a ball of bat guano, sprinkle some sulphur over it, and say 'LLAB ERIF!', and cast my fireball at the oncoming orcs". THEN you can start rolling dice for damage.

THE PAUL RULE: A member of my old gaming group, Paul, liked to play very intellectual type characters (wizards, rogues, bards, etc). The problem was he kept playing them in a hack & slash style. Rather than trying to think or role play his way out of situations, he'd always resort to violence. Also, whenever I'd try to add some real ROLE playing to the adventures, he'd whine and moan about talking to NPCs when they should be killing them, or even getting up from the table and going to watch TV while waiting for the "Real" part of the adventure to happen. I only put up with this crap because we were playing at his house, and he was the only one of us who had a place that could accomodate all of us. Still, he needed an attitude adjuster so I came up with this little rule. Every time he would start complaining about there being too much talk and not enough blood, or whenever he got up from the table saying "Call me when there's something to do", I'd deduct anywhere from 200 to 400 XP from his tally for the adventure. Eventually he learned to take part in the WHOLE adventure.

COMBAT XP: This rule may be obsolete with the creation of the Challenge Rating system, but I found that giving out the amount of XP listed with the monsters in The Monstrous Manual made players more hungry for hack & slash than for any real role playing opportunities. Things like my Paul Rule didn't have much effect at first because once they met a troll or giant they'd gain back any XP lost. Therefore I eliminated all monster XP (or as some of my players call them, "Kill Points") and only started handing out the class specific XP rewards (spell casting for wizards and priests, 10 XP/HD of monster killed for warriors, etc). Thus a fighter would only get 60 XP for killing a troll, not 5000 XP like the book says.

There are some of mine. Feel free to list some of yours. I look forward to reading them.

Valdar
05-05-2008, 04:45 PM
I had a bunch that I proposed to my players in response to the complaints I was getting (but never got to implementing them), and was surprised to see how many of them became official rules in 4e. To name a few:

--Ranged flanking, so that you could be an effective Rogue with a ranged weapon. In 4e, you can now use a ranged weapon to flank.
--Doing away with multiclassing (with eight players, half the party had Fighter dips, so I just said screw it, play your real class please). In 4e, there are feats you can take to mimic other class abilities, but you never divide your levels anymore.
--Toning down the complexity of the skill system (I went a lot farther than 4e tho- basically you have all of your class skills and no cross-class skills, to make things easy for character generation.) 4e has less skills with broader applications.
--Getting rid of a lot of the little subsystems like Grappling and Bull Rush (the party wanted AoOs gone, so I responded by taking away all the extra moves that provoked them as well). These are now covered by an overarching rule in 4e.

One thing I never came up with a solution for is how boring the non-combat rules are. Combat was richly detailed, but everything out of combat came down to a single die roll. I like the new rules in 4e for non-combat encounters a lot.

Your Paul rule looks like it's no longer necessary- if someone went away to watch TV, I'd be tempted to throw several noncombat encounters at them and call it a day.

Shadow Dweller
05-05-2008, 09:02 PM
VOCAL COMPONENT: I have a rule that all players who are playing spellcasters (clerics, wizards, bards, etc) must speak the vocal component for any spell their character is casting. Thus, saying "I cast fireball at the oncoming orcs" and then rolling dice doesn't work. You have to say "I pull out a ball of bat guano, sprinkle some sulphur over it, and say 'LLAB ERIF!', and cast my fireball at the oncoming orcs". THEN you can start rolling dice for damage.

I can't see this working in most groups. I personally would never play a caster under this system because while I do enjoy the roleplaying very much, this is sorta overboard.

tesral
05-06-2008, 08:52 AM
All kinds. I edited the whole set of books to my standard. Everything from a subtle change in a spell to adding the Psi stat.

Pis. the main problem with psionics in D&D is it is always an add on. That makes using it rather difficult. My solution was to move it into the core in a real and meaningful way. All PCs have Psi. Most don't have a functional amount, that is they can't do psionic things. However the Psi stat determines their Psionic Defense number, a Mental Armor Class against psionic effects. Psions are also not "just another spell caster" under my system.

Fire but don't forget. Major change to Magicians. They do not forget spells. They still have casting limits on the number per day, but can keep a wide variety of magic available. I get to see a variety of magic used, not just fireball. The main reason I never took up the Sorcerer class.

No cross class skills: Skills are skills. Everyone gets five per level x4 at First. Thief and Bard class abilities are moved back to being class abilities. I always considered that 3e make the skills important, then nerfed nearly everyone on the number of skills you get. I want the characters to have the wide variety of skills you see in life, not hoard their precious points for the handful that are a must in game,. spot, search and so forth.

Starting money is even across class.

I maintain the old XP tables. Why? XP riders. I found a system that allows me to balance the power of certain races and class adjustments, the XP rider. An adjustment based on a constant chart to your XP table. So I get to say "yes" more often. Yes you can play a rogue with a fighter BAB, but it will cost you. Yes you can play a powerful race, but it will cost you. Sure the player can pile on the goodies, but by the time they are done they might need 10,000 XP for second level. The XP rider also spreads out the pain where ECL dumps it on you all at once. (I have also found over the years that the idea of paying for kewl toys upsets munchkins more than being denied them. Sure you can have the character than does everything well, but they will fall behind on level to the point of uselessness.)

XP awards. Story based awards that are based on a percentage of an average level.

I don't have easy multiclassing. It is too much like "Oh I lost my Computer Programmer job so this level I'll be a Tool & Die Maker". I never figured that any one of the classes was that easy a study. The magic classes more than most. I don't have the glut of prestige classes or even a glut of core classes. I have two classes particular to my game, the Healer and the Craft. I also make adding class features you want easy, if costly.



You have to say "I pull out a ball of bat guano, sprinkle some sulphur over it, and say 'LLAB ERIF!', and cast my fireball at the oncoming orcs".

Agreed, way over the top. The D&D rules state that a magician simply states his action and the spell is cast. Do you make fighters describe the defensive and ofensive manuevers they take or just "I strike the Orc." Fair is fair. If one class has to detail actions why not all of them? Better get those lazy thieves giving you exact actions on how they plan to disable that device.

Inquisitor Tremayne
05-06-2008, 09:12 AM
If and when I do run the occasional D&D game I always adhoc whatever rule that comes up that I don't like or is troublesome. So I make up house rules on the fly. I don't have any of them because it has been years since I ran a D&D game. There is too much information in the 3 core books for me to be able to absorb it all and rework it to how I think it should work. I learn by doing, hence I have to play the game in order to be able to tweak it.

InfoStorm
05-06-2008, 10:00 AM
About the only 4 "house rules" I've run with for a long time:

1. We're here to have fun.

2. What's done is done. If we disciver we did something wrong and have already moved past it... Oopps we'll know better next time. Players haven't complained, because we've all made mistakes that have gone both for and against players. (forgetting to add +1d6 from the rogue backstab in a fight, thinking Hachling's Flame maneuver was 15' cone instead of 30')

3. HP's: 1st level = Max, 2nd level = 3 dice & take best, 3rd level = 2 dice & take best, 4th and up reroll 1's (I hate 1's)

4. If you want to use something from a source book, that's fine, but the DM get's to use it too. I normally stick to the core books for DM'ing, but readily pull in from any source the players use.

We've had other house rulings, mainly for balance of play, but I doubt I could remember them all. I've been told I make the same decisions when things are brought up again.

mrken
05-06-2008, 01:25 PM
Since I donít play DnD of any version or sub division I guess all of the rules I do use are ďhouse rulesĒ. I sort of donít know where to start.

This game uses d100. We do have skills but each skill has itís own level. Like your character might have a 58% in Combat (melee) while a 27% in Ride (mount). All new skills a player might want start out at 00 points.

Players get a tick mark in whatever skill they use, success or fail. At the end of the game I give ten points to each skill per tick, crits get more than ten points.

We donít have classes. Anyone can do anything they want to. Physical or mental abilities might favor a ďtypeí of character but does not exclude them from doing what they want to do.

Creating a character is fairly simple. They get 45 points (NPCís get 35 generally) to spread out over the seven abilities, I have added looks to the ďnormalĒ ones. Their Luck score starts at 5. This fluctuates going down on a successful roll and up on a failure. I give them 3500 xp to spend on skills, then when they are finished I give them another 1000 xp for hero points where an NPC gets 3500. They also can age their character by adding 200 xp for every year. At 35 years old the character must roll on their Constitution to see if they begin to loose physical stats.

Each encounter has a number of XP assigned to it. The players get those points if they succeed within the encounter (sometimes they can succeed by avoiding it), and I do place encounters in the way of the characters to enforce the idea that the world is dangerous. The points are divided between those who participate there. I will give a character a bonus if the solution was clever or entertaining. You would be surprised to see how clever and wise players are when they know their character can actually die. It has been years since I have had a problem with characters charging every encounter to kill something.

Most of the points players get are from role-playing, I give them ticks for it. These points can be spent wherever the player wants them to be applied. The ticks they get for using skills are spent in the skill with the tick.

Another bonus I hand out is to the best role-player. The players choose one in a secret ballot that I tally and apply and I choose one. One of my players tends to get picked more than the others, but I find it is a strong incentive to the others to strive to play better.

cplmac
05-06-2008, 01:38 PM
For Combat XP, I take the XP in the Monstrous Compendiun and divide by the number of characters that took part in fighting it, and that is the ammount of XP that each character recieves (any fraction of a whole point is not used). I also watch not to include too many monsters that have high XP values. Also, just because the treasure list says that a particular item would be with the "pile" of treasure, doesn't mean that it always is or it might be there but is rusted or somehow beyound repair.


For magic users and clerics, if they take damage in a round of combat before they cast a spell, they lose their concentration and can't cast a spell during that round.


In my games, each action that a character, npc, or monster takes during combat is considered a turn. A round is when each character, npc, or monster has taken their turn.

Tony Misfeldt
05-06-2008, 03:54 PM
All kinds. I edited the whole set of books to my standard. Everything from a subtle change in a spell to adding the Psi stat.

Pis. the main problem with psionics in D&D is it is always an add on. That makes using it rather difficult. My solution was to move it into the core in a real and meaningful way. All PCs have Psi. Most don't have a functional amount, that is they can't do psionic things. However the Psi stat determines their Psionic Defense number, a Mental Armor Class against psionic effects. Psions are also not "just another spell caster" under my system.

This sounds an awful lot like the 2e psionics rule, except there it's a "chance" at having a psionic score.


Fire but don't forget. Major change to Magicians. They do not forget spells. They still have casting limits on the number per day, but can keep a wide variety of magic available. I get to see a variety of magic used, not just fireball. The main reason I never took up the Sorcerer class.

This puts your earlier posts on other threads into better perspective. I'd always thought you used both wizards and sorcerers (I guess I should ask next time).


No cross class skills: Skills are skills. Everyone gets five per level x4 at First. Thief and Bard class abilities are moved back to being class abilities. I always considered that 3e make the skills important, then nerfed nearly everyone on the number of skills you get. I want the characters to have the wide variety of skills you see in life, not hoard their precious points for the handful that are a must in game,. spot, search and so forth.

Interesting rule. Makes a certain amount of sense. I might adopt this one if I ever get around to using the Skill Point system from 3e (I'm still using the Character Point system from 2e Skills & Powers which I find works just fine).


Starting money is even across class.

I do this when I allow my players to start at levels higher than first. I usually give them 400 gp (double the max amount for fighters). Otherwise for first level characters I give them the max amount for their class..


I maintain the old XP tables. Why? XP riders. I found a system that allows me to balance the power of certain races and class adjustments, the XP rider. An adjustment based on a constant chart to your XP table. So I get to say "yes" more often. Yes you can play a rogue with a fighter BAB, but it will cost you. Yes you can play a powerful race, but it will cost you. Sure the player can pile on the goodies, but by the time they are done they might need 10,000 XP for second level. The XP rider also spreads out the pain where ECL dumps it on you all at once. (I have also found over the years that the idea of paying for kewl toys upsets munchkins more than being denied them. Sure you can have the character than does everything well, but they will fall behind on level to the point of uselessness.)

This is an interesting rule. Maybe in the future you can post the actual tables for it so we can have a look.


XP awards. Story based awards that are based on a percentage of an average level.

This is similar to what I do. I don't actually have a "level percentage system" per se, but I hand out XP for adventure completion at the end of every adventure. The amount increases as the characters level up and the quests become more challenging, and I start at about 1000 XP and go up from there.


I don't have easy multiclassing. It is too much like "Oh I lost my Computer Programmer job so this level I'll be a Tool & Die Maker". I never figured that any one of the classes was that easy a study. The magic classes more than most. I don't have the glut of prestige classes or even a glut of core classes. I have two classes particular to my game, the Healer and the Craft. I also make adding class features you want easy, if costly.

I never really liked the "Everybody Can Multiclass" rule of 3e, which is one of the reasons I've never fully switched over. I agree that it takes alot more than waking up in the morning and saying "I'm tired of being a fighter, I think I'll be a barbarian today." Maybe I've read the rules on multiclassing wrong, but it just seemed too easy to me. Also, it takes more than donning a fur loincloth and a horned helmet to make you into a barbarian. It should take months, even years, of living in complete isolation from all human contact (like Drizzt Do'Urden in Exile), or months or even years of living with a barbarian tribe (like Kevin Costner in Dances With Wolves).


Agreed, way over the top. The D&D rules state that a magician simply states his action and the spell is cast. Do you make fighters describe the defensive and ofensive manuevers they take or just "I strike the Orc." Fair is fair. If one class has to detail actions why not all of them? Better get those lazy thieves giving you exact actions on how they plan to disable that device.
Well, I've used this rule before and have never had any complaints. Besides, this thread is for posting "House Rules". What the rules say in the Player's Handbook or other sources is irrelevant. Besides, I do ask my players who are playing rogues to describe how they're disabling the traps found on doors, in dungeons and such. I go into alot of detail when creating traps, and if they aren't disabled just right, you set them off. And I only ask fighters to describe their attacks if the player wants his character to do something fancy (characters get extra XP and ChP for doing this).

I try to adopt rules from all D&D systems. I take what works and throw away the rest. I have not fully converted to 3.X because I find many of the new rules undesirable. Not necessarily unplayable, but undesirable. Here are the rules that I play under, and their sources.

1st Edition

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Monks are now a standard playable PC class. The new monk class is a combination of the 1e and 3.Xe versions of the class.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Half-Orc is now a standard playable PC race. Stats on half-orc PCs are found in The Complete Book Of Humanoids.

SOURCE: Unearthed Arcana
RULE: Barbarians are a standard playable PC class. The new barbarian class is a combination of the typical barbarian fighter listed in The Complete Barbarian's Handbook and the barbarian kit listed in The Complete Fighter's Handbook.

SOURCE: Unearthed Arcana
RULE: The additional ability score of comeliness, which determines your character's level of physical beauty. This stat is used exactly as written in Unearthed Arcana.

2nd Edition

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Ability scores work exactly as written with the following exception, wizards get bonus spells for high INT scores. The chart for bonus spells for priests with high WIS scores is used to determine number and level of spells.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Racial limitations regarding class are closely observed to an extent (some "forbidden classes" are available to some races). Most notably, ONLY HUMANS CAN BECOME PALADINS. Racial limitations regarding levels are ignored.

SOURCE: Players Handbook
RULE: THAC0 is still being used.

SOURCE: Players Handbook
RULE: Still using old Saving throw system.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Cleric spells are categorized by Spheres Of Influence.

SOURCE: The Entire Character Handbook Series
RULE: Kits from virtually any available handbook are available with DM's approval.

SOURCE: The Complete Fighter's Handbook
RULE: Players can become proficient in weapon groups (Tight Group Bows, Broad Group Blades, Tight Group Crossbows, etc).

SOURCE: Skills & Powers
RULE: Character Points are used to develope weapon and nonweapon proficiencies. This works in a fashion very similar to Skill Points in 3.Xe.

SOURCE: Skills & Powers
RULE: You can gain extra Character Points by choosing minor Disadvantages or spend them on Character Traits.

SOURCE: Skills & Powers
RULE: Characters can spend extra character points to become proficient in a weapon normally forbidden to his class (Example: a wizard can spend 5 character points to become proficient in longsword).

SOURCE: Combat & Tactics
RULE: Critical hits are made on rolls of a natural 18-20, but only if you hit your opponent by at least 5 points (so if you need to roll an 18 just to hit, then a natural 20 isn't a critical).

SOURCE: Combat & Tactics
RULE: Characters hit with a critical must roll a Save vs Death. If they make it they only take double damage. If they fail they suffer a critical effect. This could be anything from a minor inconvenience (blood getting in your eyes from a scalp wound) to lethal (decapitation).

SOURCE: Combat & Tactics
RULE: Levels of proficiency for weapons. There's non-proficient (same as in Players Handbook); Familiar (weapon is similar to one character is proficient in, thus providing less of a penalty); Proficient (same as in Players Handbook); Expertise (available to classes not normally allowed to take weapon specialization, improved number of attacks/ROF as specialization, but with no hit or damage bonuses); Specialized (same as in Players Handbook, except that missile weapons get a +1 to hit bonus on all ranges not just Point Blank); Mastery (only available at 5th level or higher, bonus to hit & damage improves to +3 respectively, missile weapons get an additional +1 to hit bonus at short to long range for a total of +2); High Mastery (only available at 9th level or higher, critical hits are on rolls of natural 16 or better if hits by at least 5 points, missile weapons have a 5th range category "extreme range", which is 50% farther than long range and made at a -10 penalty); and Grand Mastery (only available at 13th level or higher, one additional attack per round, weapon does damage with the next largest dice, example a great sword will do 1d12;3d8 in the hands of a grand master).

SOURCE: Combat & Tactics
RULE: Classes other than fighters can take weapon specialization. They must first take weapon expertise, then upgrade after using the weapon at that level of proficiency for at least one level.

SOURCE: Spells & Magic
RULE: Magic Points. Spellcasting is very physically taxing on a character. Casting spells uses up spell points, and if too many spell points are used the spellcaster becomes fatigued or even exhausted from overexertion (kind of like Willow in seasons 5 through 7 of Buffy The Vampire Slayer).

3rd Edition

SOURCE: The Player's Handbook
RULE: Barbarians and monks are now available as PC classes (see 1st edition entry above for more details).

SOURCE: The Players Handbook
RULE: Sorcerers are now available as a PC class. They get the same THAC0 and saving throws as wizards, but they get the same number of character points to spend on weapon proficiencies at first level as rogues and priests. They also have a better selection of weapon proficiencies to choose from than wizards do. Their number of spells and spell progression is the same as in 3.X.

SOURCE: The Player's Handbook
RULE: All classes get extra attacks per round at higher levels. Priests and rogues get 3 attacks/2 rounds at 8th to 14th level, and 2 attacks/round from 15th level up. Wizards get 3 attacks/2 rounds from 12th level up. This of course changes if they get weapon expertise.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Half-orcs are now available as a PC race. See 1st edition entry for more details.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Wizards get bonus spells for high INT, and sorcerers get bonus spells for high CHA. Use the Bonus spell chart for clerics with high WIS scores to determine the number and level of spells.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Rangers can be of ANY NONEVIL ALIGNMENT (rather than any alignment like in 3e or only good alignments like in 2e). Druids can be of ANY NONEVIL PARTIALLY NEUTRAL ALIGNMENT (LN, N, CH, or NG ONLY).

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Saving throws vs spells are more difficult when the spells are cast by higher level wizards. Characters suffer a -1 penalty to their saving throws for every 3 levels the caster is above the minimum level he has to be in order to cast that spell (thus a Charm Person spell cast by an 18th level wizard would have a -6 penalty to it's save).

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Priest's Cure Wounds spells (Cure Light Wounds, Cure Moderate Wounds, etc) use the 3.Xe descriptions and levels rather than the 2e versions. These are the only priest spells being transferred from 3.X at this time.

SOURCE: The Slayer's Guide To Amazons by Mongoose Publishing
RULE: Amazons are now an available PC race. Their society is a mixture of that described in The Slayer's Guide To Amazons as well as those suggested in The Complete Fighter's Handbook.

SOURCE: My Imagination
RULE: All spellcasters casting spells with vocal components must actually speak those vocal components OR THE SPELL WON'T WORK.

When I get the 3.X DMG and Monsters Manual, I'll eventually switch from the THAC0 combat system to the d20 system. I'll also change saving throws to WILL, REFLEX, and FORT, adopt the Challenge Rating system for combat XP, and the Difficulty Check system for Non Weapon Proficienvies/Skills. But those will be all the additional changes I'm willing to make. I won't be using feats, prestigie classes, or the new system for clerics.

MAGIC POINTS: All spell casters have Magic Points equal to their number of Hit Points. For every spell cast, you spend one MP per spell level (1st = 1, 2nd = 2, 3rd = 3, etc, all the way up to 9th level spells = 9 MP). From 0 MP to -50% a spellcaster is fatigued and must successfully check vs WIS in order to maintain the mental consentration needed to cast the spell. He also suffers a -3 penalty to all skill checks, his movement rate, his AC, his saving throws, and his attack rolls. Once his MP has dropped below -50%, he's exhausted. He suffers a -6 penalty to attacks, AC, saving throws, and skill checks. Also his movement rate is dropped to half, he can't move faster than a slow walk, he must make constant CON checks or stop to rest, and all of his stats are at one half until he recovers sufficient MP. MP are recovered at a rate of 1 per hour of complete rest (can't do anything more strenuous than riding a slow moving horse). Without sufficient rest he recovers no MP. If the spellcasters MP ever reaches -100%, after every spell successfully cast spell he must roll a successful Save vs Death. If he fails, he falls unconcious and then must roll a successful System Shock Survival roll or die of exhaustion.

tesral
05-07-2008, 08:21 AM
SOURCE: My Imagination
RULE: All spellcasters casting spells with vocal components must actually speak those vocal components OR THE SPELL WON'T WORK.



Where are you getting the vocal component? It isn't in the books.

Do fighters now have to wear actual armor and thieves pick actual locks? It's going to get fun when the clerics have to make their actual sacrifices. Have you tried finding a virgin these days?

Why the special attention for Magicians? Did a Magician kick you cat?

Valdar
05-07-2008, 10:20 AM
VOCAL COMPONENT: I have a rule that all players who are playing spellcasters (clerics, wizards, bards, etc) must speak the vocal component for any spell their character is casting. Thus, saying "I cast fireball at the oncoming orcs" and then rolling dice doesn't work. You have to say "I pull out a ball of bat guano, sprinkle some sulphur over it, and say 'LLAB ERIF!', and cast my fireball at the oncoming orcs". THEN you can start rolling dice for damage.


Well, if you're going to rip off Zatanna's schtick for spellcasting, are you going to make the magic users wear tophats and fishnets too? ;)

Also, visual rep of the fix to the Paul rule in the webcomic I recently started:

http://www.worldsedge.org

Dimthar
05-07-2008, 12:50 PM
We had a house rule called the Hero Point: ďNot to do Heroic Deeds, but to do Deeds only Heroes can DoĒ (something tells me the grammar is not right, but who cares!)

For all purposes you get 1 single point per story / adventure. That point will allow you to do something really extraordinary (e.g. save someone from a Dragonís breath by removing him out of the way, jump a big chasm, cut a rope with an arrow, you know, very Hollywood stuff). It can only be used once for 1 single action and of course requires a dramatic description of the action taken. No roll needed, success is automatic.

.

Tony Misfeldt
05-07-2008, 04:12 PM
Well, if you're going to rip off Zatanna's schtick for spellcasting, are you going to make the magic users wear tophats and fishnets too? ;)

Also, visual rep of the fix to the Paul rule in the webcomic I recently started:

http://www.worldsedge.org

Players can choose whatever vocal components they want, as long as they say them. They can rip off Harry Potter "Occulus Reparem!", Sesame Street "Abra-Peanutbutter-Sandwitches!", make up ryming couplets, use the spell name to come up with an anagram, say the spell name in elvish, dwarven, drow, French, Polish, Russian or whatever foriegn/imaginary language they wish.

Valdar
05-07-2008, 04:38 PM
Players can choose whatever vocal components they want, as long as they say them. They can rip off Harry Potter "Occulus Reparem!", Sesame Street "Abra-Peanutbutter-Sandwitches!", make up ryming couplets, use the spell name to come up with an anagram, say the spell name in elvish, dwarven, drow, French, Polish, Russian or whatever foriegn/imaginary language they wish.

Aha- that makes more sense. That would make things a lot more fun.

Rhyming couplet spells were one of the coolest things about the old D&D cartoon...

Tony Misfeldt
05-07-2008, 05:36 PM
Aha- that makes more sense. That would make things a lot more fun.

Rhyming couplet spells were one of the coolest things about the old D&D cartoon...

I liked those too. I just used the old "Say The Spell Name Backwards" thing as an example because it's easy to come up with on the spur of the moment. Personally, whenever I play a mage I always use ryming couplets for the vocal components for my spells.

mrken
05-07-2008, 05:46 PM
Some of my groups have used audible spells as well. Though I do admit it works better with younger groups. Osaba nay obata will forever be ingrained in my memory.

mrken
05-07-2008, 05:47 PM
Oh, I forgot "Pansi man"' :lol:

Tony Misfeldt
05-07-2008, 05:52 PM
Where are you getting the vocal component? It isn't in the books.


Vocal component, verbal component... tomato, tomawto. Call it what you will, the V part of V, S, M, and F. As for why I require spellcasters (and not just wizards, clerics, bards, druids, anyone who casts spells) to use vocal components is because I got sick and tired of people wanting to just sit around rolling dice. People didn't want to try and do anything unless they could do it by rolling dice. I keep telling people that you spell roleplaying R-O-L-E not R-O-L-L. They say they know the difference, but when locked in the cargo hold of a slave ship they would rather be sold into slavery than come up with something inventive to get out of their predicament. Thus the Paul Rule and the Vocal Components Rule came into effect. If all you want to do is roll dice at a table, go to Vegas and shoot craps!


Well, if you're going to rip off Zatanna's schtick for spellcasting, are you going to make the magic users wear tophats and fishnets too? ;)

Also, visual rep of the fix to the Paul rule in the webcomic I recently started:

http://www.worldsedge.org

Nice comic on that website. I don't know how that 4th Ed rule works, so I'll save my comments until I can get my hands on a Player's/DMG (whichever book the rule is in). I may absorb it into my hybrid game. Until then The Paul Rule will stay in effect.

If the players want their mages to wear tophats and fishnets while adventuring, that's up to them. But They may get some strange looks from NPCs if their characters happen to be male.

tesral
05-08-2008, 12:15 AM
Players can choose whatever vocal components they want, as long as they say them. They can rip off Harry Potter "Occulus Reparem!", Sesame Street "Abra-Peanutbutter-Sandwitches!", make up ryming couplets, use the spell name to come up with an anagram, say the spell name in elvish, dwarven, drow, French, Polish, Russian or whatever foriegn/imaginary language they wish.

Anything but the spell name it seems. No, too much work for no reasonable return.

Valdar
05-08-2008, 10:59 AM
Nice comic on that website. I don't know how that 4th Ed rule works, so I'll save my comments until I can get my hands on a Player's/DMG (whichever book the rule is in). I may absorb it into my hybrid game. Until then The Paul Rule will stay in effect.
Thank you! Basically, the noncombat game mechanic is that the DM sets a DC for an encounter, and decides on a certain number of successes and failures that will determine success or failure for the encounter. The players have the option of an "easy" roll (five less than the DC), "average" (the DC), or "hard" (five more than the DC). Failing an easy roll counts as two failures, and succeeding at a hard roll grants +2 to the next roll. Players then take turns rolling against a skill, with a justification of why the skill applies to the given encounter.




If the players want their mages to wear tophats and fishnets while adventuring, that's up to them. But They may get some strange looks from NPCs if their characters happen to be male.

As an aside, when the male version of Zatanna (the original character's little brother) was introduced in "52", the layout artist drew him in fishnets and a leotard as a joke. Due to time constraints (it was a weekly book), that panel almost made it in as-is...

Valdar
05-08-2008, 11:01 AM
Anything but the spell name it seems. No, too much work for no reasonable return.

Having it be just the spell name would be a little too anime-ish... though it seems to have become the standard in at least one webcomic that I can think of...

Farcaster
05-08-2008, 01:42 PM
There are plenty of things that I adhoc all the time, but here are some of my standard house rules (snipped from a post to my current group):

On Prestige Classes...
I believe prestige classes should truly be a matter of prestige, and should make sense from a roleplaying perspective. So, to take levels in a prestige class, your character will almost always have to receive training of some sort. Generally, this would be from an organization that is in effect teaching the character certain "secret arts," fight styles, or what have you.

In other cases, it might also be environmental. Something may happen to your character that alters him in someway, thus facilitating these new abilities. For instance, I had a player in one of my games that wanted his character to become a Gate Crasher. So, during the course of the game, his character actually died in a most unusual way in the planes. When he was resurrected, he came back altered by the experience, and his character slowly began to realize that he had these new abilities.

So, if you are interested in a prestige class, definitely let me know ahead of time, and if it makes sense to work it in, we will. There will also be opportunities that come up during the course of the game to join organizations that will allow you to take levels in custom prestige classes.

On Skill Increases...
Once again, I like character improvements to make sense from a roleplaying perspective. When you are leveling your character, try to distribute your points in skills that your character either used or studied during the course of the previous game. I reserve the right to veto skill increases for skills that your character did not logically have the opportunity to improve.

On Hitpoint Tracking...
In my previous games, I have generally kept track of hit points for the group. In fact, the group doesn't even know what their exact hitpoints are. Instead of saying, the big, nasty ogre hits you for 16 points of damage, I describe the damage and your current status, i.e. "The smelly bohemeth swings his massive great club, splintering it against your shield with a solid blow that leaves your entire arm feeling numb." And, I will then tell you your current status, i.e., "You are injured." The possible statuses from best to worst are:

Uninjured
Scratched
Bruised
Injured
Seriously Injured
Wounded
Seriously Wounded
Critically Wounded
Unconscious
Dead

On Spells Memorization...
We use the alternate system for spell memorization and spell points presented in the Unearthed Arcana.

On Rules Disputes...
I hate it when a game breaks down because of a dispute over a ruling. I don't mind if you disagree with me about a judgment I make as a DM; I am far from perfect, especially when it comes to the minutia of the various rules. However, during the game, I generally limit rules disputes to one to two minutes maximum. After that, if my rule still stands, it still stands, and I don't want to continue arguing about it. Now, after the game, I'm more than willing to hash out the particulars of a rule and figure out how to do it right the next time. The only exception to this would be if my ruling is going to result in your character's death. Then understandably, we should make sure we get the ruling right before it has severe consequences.

Fate Points...
In many of my games, I have used "fate points," which are somewhat of a holdover from Warhammer: The RPG. In my version, characters have one fate point per session that can be used to force one reroll. It doesn't matter who rolled the dice (me, you, or a party member), you can use your fate point to have the dice rolled again. The only caveat is that you have to announce the reroll BEFORE any other dice are cast. Thus, if I roll a natural-20 and then after announcing it, roll a confirmation, you can only make me reroll the confirmation, not the original critical. Only one fate point can be spent on any single roll.

While each of you has a fate point to use at every session, I will also have one "anti-fate" point. I almost never use this, but if it is important for story reasons, or whatever, I may choose to spend my anti-fate point to negate a reroll. In which case, you still have spent your fate point and it is lost.

Dramatic Combat...
This is something I recently started doing with my group actually. To encourage players to be more descriptive about what their characters are doing in combat, I give players a +1 circumstance bonus to attack (and possibly damage as well) if they give good descriptions of what their characters are doing. So, instead of simply rolling a d20 and their damage, it encourages the players to visualize the scene, and certainly makes things more interesting.

On Grappling...
Grappling in 3rd edition seems to be a little over-powerful and was becoming a little overused in my game. Instead of making any drastic changes to the rules on grappling, I simply did away with the Improved Grapple feat as a player option. Since grapples can then be thwarted more easily, it makes it a less attractive option to use against an armed opponent.

tesral
05-08-2008, 09:41 PM
Having it be just the spell name would be a little too anime-ish... though it seems to have become the standard in at least one webcomic that I can think of...

Well the magic rules require no special formula be spoken by the player other than an intent to take a spell casing action. I.E. "I cast a fireball to go off ten feet behind the lead fighter."


There are plenty of things that I adhoc all the time, but here are some of my standard house rules (snipped from a post to my current group):


You need a book. ;)

Farcaster
05-08-2008, 11:19 PM
You need a book.

I have plenty of books, but I don't always remember every rule for every situation, and I am loathe to stop the action for too long to find a ruling. Not to mention the fact that the rules don't cover everything, nor do I agree with all the rules. :D

tesral
05-09-2008, 01:49 AM
I have plenty of books, but I don't always remember every rule for every situation, and I am loathe to stop the action for too long to find a ruling. Not to mention the fact that the rules don't cover everything, nor do I agree with all the rules. :D

That's why you need a book. A book of house rules. Everyone has them, some have more than others.

I eliminate good deal of the added complexity that 3e put into combat. My players don't really care about that, they want the combat quick and done. They would not enjoy spending all evening in complex combat encounter, but will gladly spend all evening dealing with RP issues. It all depends on who you are writing for.

upidstay
05-09-2008, 05:20 AM
I do criticals a little different. If a nat 20 is rolled to confirm, then the weapon does max damage times whatever weapon multipliers there are. If the original to hit roll was also a nat 20, then it does max damage times one extra multiple (a x2 weapon does x3). Back to back 20's are veddy nasty. Yet to happen.

Players automatically get max hp at generation and when leveling up.

If you reach -10 hp or lower, you're dead. UNLESS someone can heal you before the current combat round ends. And they have to get you to at least 0. I stole this from a DM at a con I recently attended.

Valdar
05-10-2008, 12:40 PM
Well the magic rules require no special formula be spoken by the player other than an intent to take a spell casing action.

True. This is a thread about house rules though.

dankster1221
05-10-2008, 04:54 PM
Multiclassing:
Players may take up to 2 additional classes (2 core classes, 1 core and 1 prestige, or 2 prestige).

Natural 1's are always a huge failure and natural 20's are almost always a success (within reason, no jumping a 60' chasm on a nat 20 Jump check)

Comeliness: Always a fixture in my campaigns though I make PC's roll a Will save whenever they encounter someone with a higher Comeliness than themselves.

nat 20+nat 20+nat 20= Instant Kill

boulet
05-10-2008, 06:00 PM
nat 20+nat 20+nat 20= Instant Kill
That's one chance out of 8000 if I succeeded on my probability skill. You could play a few years and never see this one happening...

Digital Arcanist
05-10-2008, 06:48 PM
In the past year I've rolled three nat 20's in a row twice during skill uses effectively never having to spellcraft during a fight and never having to make a dungeoneering knowledge check. The last time was while fighting some elementals. I effectively used my dragon's breath to destroy fire elementals. My dragon was a red.

My DM makes me roll my d20 in front of everyone is I use my "magic" d20 during play.

Malruhn
05-10-2008, 11:52 PM
That's why you need a book. A book of house rules. Everyone has them, some have more than others.

I used to have three 3", 3-ring binders of hand-written and hand-typed (pre-computer!) house rules. Thanks to 3.5, I got rid of them and have just a short list that wouldn't fill out a standard adventure module.

tesral
05-11-2008, 04:35 PM
I used to have three 3", 3-ring binders of hand-written and hand-typed (pre-computer!) house rules. Thanks to 3.5, I got rid of them and have just a short list that wouldn't fill out a standard adventure module.

I just write my own books.

Malruhn
05-12-2008, 06:16 PM
Yeah, well, Mr. ORGANIZED, some of us just... aren't! :P

I thought of it, I just couldn't get into the whole... organizational... thing.

tesral
05-12-2008, 11:55 PM
Yeah, well, Mr. ORGANIZED, some of us just... aren't! :P

I thought of it, I just couldn't get into the whole... organizational... thing.

I reached a point some 18 years ago were it was get organized or DIE! I had reached the point where it too me ages to find anything. I spent far too many minutes in far too many game sessions paper flipping when I should be DMing. So I organized and I've made som effort to stay that way. I have hard drives, file cabients and so forth. I know what shelves various books are on.

clint
05-13-2008, 04:16 PM
D&D 3.5 House Rules
Someone in the group has to own the book that the class, feat, skill, spell, etc., comes from. The person using it doesn't need to own it, just someone in the group does. I think it's fair to pay for what you use and two it sure as hell cuts down on bloat.

For rolling HP after 1st level:
d4 > 1d3 +1
d6 > 1d4 +2
d8 > 1d6 +2
d10 > 1d6 +4
d12 > 1d8 +4

Critical confirmations:
If a confirmation roll is a natural 20, an additional critical threat may be confirmed, every 20 is a chance to confirm an additional multiplier for that attack. Getting a natural 20 on the confirm roll happens once in a while, often enough to be relevant. Everyone in my group likes the idea of possibly getting a super huge hit once in a blue blue moon, even if it did result in a x2 critical hit from a greatclub from a hill giant suddenly becoming a x4 critical that killed a PC. OTOH, a brutal critical did save the entire party from an imminent TPK. There was much rejoicing after that hit.

Critical fumble:
Natural 1. Roll a d20 add BAB. If result is greater than 10 no fumble, though a natural 1 on a fumble check is always a fumble.

Shadow Dweller
05-13-2008, 06:45 PM
D&D 3.5 House Rules
Someone in the group has to own the book that the class, feat, skill, spell, etc., comes from. The person using it doesn't need to own it, just someone in the group does. I think it's fair to pay for what you use and two it sure as hell cuts down on bloat.

For rolling HP after 1st level:
d4 > 1d3 +1
d6 > 1d4 +2
d8 > 1d6 +2
d10 > 1d6 +4
d12 > 1d8 +4

Critical confirmations:
If a confirmation roll is a natural 20, an additional critical threat may be confirmed, every 20 is a chance to confirm an additional multiplier for that attack. Getting a natural 20 on the confirm roll happens once in a while, often enough to be relevant. Everyone in my group likes the idea of possibly getting a super huge hit once in a blue blue moon, even if it did result in a x2 critical hit from a greatclub from a hill giant suddenly becoming a x4 critical that killed a PC. OTOH, a brutal critical did save the entire party from an imminent TPK. There was much rejoicing after that hit.

Critical fumble:
Natural 1. Roll a d20 add BAB. If result is greater than 10 no fumble, though a natural 1 on a fumble check is always a fumble.
My old DM had the same rule. The entire group had all the books via PDF, but were missing a few paper copies(BoED, BoVD, Complete Champion).

I love that crit roll rule though. Awesome!

Tony Misfeldt
05-14-2008, 04:14 PM
True. This is a thread about house rules though.

Thank you. It's about time someone pointed that out to Tesral. I've noticed he and I agree about a great many things, but complaining that a house rule on a "House Rules" thread contradict an existing rule is sorta missing the point.



For rolling HP after 1st level:
d4 > 1d3 +1
d6 > 1d4 +2
d8 > 1d6 +2
d10 > 1d6 +4
d12 > 1d8 +4


This is interesting. I may adopt this one for my hybrid game. It cetrainly will help decrease character mortality.


Anything but the spell name it seems. No, too much work for no reasonable return.

You can say the spell name if you wish, just not in English. On Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Willow and Amy always spoke the verbal components of their spells in Latin. As for the "reasonable return", it comes in the form of extra XP and extra Character Points for good roleplaying. Not to mention the fact that the fun in RPGs comes from actually ROLE playing, not throwing dice around.


Thank you! Basically, the noncombat game mechanic is that the DM sets a DC for an encounter, and decides on a certain number of successes and failures that will determine success or failure for the encounter. The players have the option of an "easy" roll (five less than the DC), "average" (the DC), or "hard" (five more than the DC). Failing an easy roll counts as two failures, and succeeding at a hard roll grants +2 to the next roll. Players then take turns rolling against a skill, with a justification of why the skill applies to the given encounter.

I haven't started using DCs yet, thus this rule isn't actually usable with my hybrid game yet. However I will keep this in mind.



As an aside, when the male version of Zatanna (the original character's little brother) was introduced in "52", the layout artist drew him in fishnets and a leotard as a joke. Due to time constraints (it was a weekly book), that panel almost made it in as-is...
That is hilarious!

I have another House Rule, somewhat adapted from the Paladium XP award system. Successful use of Nonweapon Proficiencies/Skills to overcome problems or obsticles on an adventure is worth XP. I think Paladium games used to give 500 XP per proficiency used. This is a bit much for a D&D game, even one using the 2nd Ed level/XP system. I've changed it to 50-100 XP per proficiency used. Of course, it has to be used within the context of the adventure, and to benefit the group. Thus, using the Climbing proficiency to climb every wall or tree you see just for the sake of climbing them grants you no XP. Using the Climbing proficiency to climb into an evil warlord's bedroom window on the top floor to kill him in his sleep, on the other hand, will. Using the Seduction Proficiency to bed every pretty girl in town just for the sake of going wenching won't grant your male swashbuckler any XP. The female rogue who uses that same proficiency to get the evil warlord to take off his heavily enchanted full plate mail armor and great helm so she could assassinate him, on the other hand, does.



Comeliness: Always a fixture in my campaigns though I make PC's roll a Will save whenever they encounter someone with a higher Comeliness than themselves.


You should change that to those with a higher Comeliness than their Wisdom scores. That makes more sense than having to roll a WILL Save because someone else is prettier than they are. I would make the DC for the saving throw = the other person's Comeliness score.

Farcaster
05-14-2008, 04:14 PM
You can say the spell name if you wish, just not in English. On Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Willow and Amy always spoke the verbal components of their spells in Latin. As for the "reasonable return", it comes in the form of extra XP and extra Character Points for good roleplaying. Not to mention the fact that the fun in RPGs comes from actually ROLE playing, not throwing dice around.

First, I am certain that if I were forced to cry out some gibberish every time my character's spell went off, it would not enhance my enjoyment of the roleplaying experience. Far from it, it would be an annoyance. But, if your players like that sort of thing, more power to them. I'd be wary about forcing anyone who joins your game to do likewise though, as it might have the opposite affect of enriching the game for them.

You also said something that I think is very telling. The "fun in RPGs comes from actually ROLE playing..." That is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion. Different people enjoy different things about roleplaying games. Some like the strategic/tactical side of it, and others the roleplaying. This much is evident by a casual perusal of the player registry. Some people like to gloss over the "roleplaying" because what they really like is the combat. Others, like to gloss over the combat, because it gets in the way of what they really enjoy -- roleplaying. Personally, I like a mixture of both. But, none of these positions is more valid than any other. So, one should be wary of looking down their nose at anyone that plays the game differently than they do.

Tony Misfeldt
05-14-2008, 04:36 PM
You also said something that I think is very telling. The "fun in RPGs comes from actually ROLE playing..." That is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion. Different people enjoy different things about roleplaying games. Some like the strategic/tactical side of it, and others the roleplaying. This much is evident by a casual perusal of the player registry. Some people like to gloss over the "roleplaying" because what they really like is the combat. Others, like to gloss over the combat, because it gets in the way of what they really enjoy -- roleplaying. Personally, I like a mixture of both. But, none of these positions is more valid than any other. So, one should be wary of looking down their nose at anyone that plays the game differently than they do.

Fair enough. However, it's my opinion that people who prefer the strategic/tactical side of RPGs should stick to playing characters that cater to such players, namely the warrior type classes. The other classes, which are easier to kill at lower levels and therefor less desirable to be played by "Hack & Slashers" or "ROLL players", are designed more to be ROLE played. They get all the cool stuff at higher levels (spells that go "BOOM") as a reward for having to ROLE play through all the lower levels and then hide behind the party's tanks when the combat ensues.

Just for the record, I used to be a roll player. I used to think that the adventure didn't really get started until my character got to start killing stuff. You know what? That got BORING! So I started giving my characters more interesting personalities, taking a more active role in the ROLE playing parts of the game. Now some of my fondest memories of playing D&D are of playing in adventures where my characters didn't have to kill a damn thing. When I play now, I still favor the warrior classes but my warriors all have unique and destinct personalities, backgrounds, and goals, and I play those personalities to the hilt. Now I try to play with people who are cut from a similar cloth, thus the house rules. They are as much to prevent the inclusion of roll players into the group as they are to ensure the players who are accepted into the group are there to role play and not roll play.

tesral
05-14-2008, 09:04 PM
Fair enough. However, it's my opinion that people who prefer the strategic/tactical side of RPGs should stick to playing characters that cater to such players, namely the warrior type classes. The other classes, which are easier to kill at lower levels and therefor less desirable to be played by "Hack & Slashers" or "ROLL players", are designed more to be ROLE played. They get all the cool stuff at higher levels (spells that go "BOOM") as a reward for having to ROLE play through all the lower levels and then hide behind the party's tanks when the combat ensues.

However I have to totally agree with Farcaster here. And I have seen more than a few damage monsters made out of wizards and psionists. Any class can be twinked to be a tactical buzz saw, any class.

I left a group that preferred combat over role-playing. I prefer role-playing to combat and I run a game that way. It doesn't make their style of play wrong, just wrong for me.

Malruhn
05-14-2008, 10:41 PM
Just for the record, I used to be a roll player. I used to think that the adventure didn't really get started until my character got to start killing stuff. You know what? That got BORING! So I started giving my characters more interesting personalities, taking a more active role in the ROLE playing parts of the game. Now some of my fondest memories of playing D&D are of playing in adventures where my characters didn't have to kill a damn thing. When I play now, I still favor the warrior classes but my warriors all have unique and destinct personalities, backgrounds, and goals, and I play those personalities to the hilt. Now I try to play with people who are cut from a similar cloth, thus the house rules. They are as much to prevent the inclusion of roll players into the group as they are to ensure the players who are accepted into the group are there to role play and not roll play.It is my firmly held opinion that nearly all ROLE players started out as ROLL players - and that very few of us (that have made the switch) started out ROLE-centered. After playing for almost 30 years, I've only seen a couple of them.

Some (the elitists) think that once you go ROLE, you have matured and that ROLLING is either immature or a "lesser" form of gaming.

Personally, I think it's like beef... some like it rare, some like it well done. Neither is truly better, it is just a matter of taste for that person.

I started out for about three years without ever naming a character, and rolling (1st Ed) until I got six stats that qualified me as a monk (hey, it was hardest to qualify for, ergo it MUST be the best!!). Alignment was always LG, as monks had to be good - but we all played more CN/CE - as we didn't really understand the concept. We all used great-swords (best damage against s/m and large targets!) and long-bows. NPC's in town were just places to either meet up (the bar) or sell our stuff (the general store), and they had no names either.

Then one day I got bored... and a new DM who ran things a bit differently. We had to remember names of NPC's, and they sure remembered us... like when we caught hell for being rude the LAST time we were in town... the HORRORS!!! My last pC (paper-character - as opposed to a PC (player character)) was a fighter that made it to 7th level before he died a glorious death at the hands of a single orc.

After that, all my characters have been unique and DAMNED fun to play. I would like to meet ALL of them, even the slimy evil ones.

But every once in a while, I still like to grab my magic d20 and hack and slash things for an evening - with no repercussions. I consider it a great diversion... about every five years or so. More than that, and I get bored again.

Yeah, I likes my steak rare. Your mileage may vary.

tesral
05-15-2008, 06:27 AM
Dude, I'm so old scholl my first books are on paypraus. The first dungeons were little more than collections of monsters and treasure. Plot was non existent. The outside existed only to support you going inside.

I can honestly say that all my characters have had names. I still have some of those ancient character sheets. I am a true pack rat that throws nothing away.

Some days you play complicated plots. Some days I'll have a player plop down in their seat with "lets get started, I want to kill something". Catharsis is a good thing. That is part of what the game is for.

I simply refuse to be elitist about it. Kids are going to play a different game that do adults. That is good. That is how it should be. Different people will have different tastes, again there is nothing wrong with that. If the guy working Customer Services all day wants to play Rambo cutting down endless lines of idiots who am I to tell him he can't?

Tony Misfeldt
05-15-2008, 01:54 PM
Dude, I'm so old scholl my first books are on paypraus. The first dungeons were little more than collections of monsters and treasure. Plot was non existent. The outside existed only to support you going inside.

I can honestly say that all my characters have had names. I still have some of those ancient character sheets. I am a true pack rat that throws nothing away.

Some days you play complicated plots. Some days I'll have a player plop down in their seat with "lets get started, I want to kill something". Catharsis is a good thing. That is part of what the game is for.

I simply refuse to be elitist about it. Kids are going to play a different game that do adults. That is good. That is how it should be. Different people will have different tastes, again there is nothing wrong with that. If the guy working Customer Services all day wants to play Rambo cutting down endless lines of idiots who am I to tell him he can't?

But where's the fun in playing Michael Myers sitting around waiting for Halloween to roll around so he can go kill his baby sister and her friends? Rambo might be the quiet type until it's time to lop off a few heads, but that doesn't mean that when he's not talking he's also not thinking. Playing a bloodthirsty barbarian as a bloodthirsty barbarian is good roleplaying. I've never said it wasn't. Playing a bloodthirsty barbarian as a mindless automiton, however, is not.

Likewise, playing a high level mage as a walking fireball factory with no mind or personality to speak of is poor roleplaying. My rules governing XP awarded for good roleplaying, deducted for refusal to/complaining about roleplay(ing), and how spells function are to help prevent the characters from being mindless automitons who go around killing just for the sake of going around killing. Sometimes as a DM I throw the characters into a Helmsdeep/Alamo type situation which is mostly combat & strategy and very little roleplaying. As one who enjoys playing warrior types, I enjoy both running and playing these types of adventures as well. But I don't make the entire campaign like that. It's just an occassional treat for those who enjoy a little, or cut their teeth on, Hack & Slash. If they want the entire campaign to be that bloody, they're looking in the wrong place. Besides, the wizards would all likely get killed off in such an adventure.

amardolem
05-15-2008, 04:29 PM
Sorry to kibitz, but I have been monitoring this thread, and it is indeed both very interesting and very telling, (I'm a bit of a lurker by nature) But these last posts remind me of a game I'm in: It took a huge swing from a very intense role-play to almost completely roll play, and as the parties wizard, at 2-3 level I grew very annoyed and bored that the "combat specialists" were constantly slowing up the flow of the game with endless "waiting at the door", trying to draw the monster/npc into a bottleneck or tactically superior situation, I literally sat for almost an hour while guys ran back and forth trying to set up the proper tactic. I have to agree with Tony on this point.
Ultimately the DM is responsible for the tempo and balance of the session-in my case I believe the DM should have taken steps to involve everyone, whether by a wandering monster or fortuitous find, or what have you. I couldn't for the life of me think of any way to involve my character, without ruining the persona I have developed, in other words if I involved myself (without a catalyst) I would be "out" of the character I had already established.
But I also believe that everyone at the table has a responsibility to step up and be aware of the group...if you want to be tacti-centric (TM) you must also allow the other people at the table to be verbose and witty (not me tho), hell I love casting enlarge and watching someone do something hulklike with their new +6 to hit. if this seems to go in circles, that's because it does..the point being we all play this game for different reasons, we have to be aware of that, and plan accordingly as players and DM's to get the "juice" out of every session. I leave sessions like that, trying to figure out how I could have altered it so we all have fun...and as for that one, the answer still eludes me, but I'm still going back in a week to give it another go:)

Edit: sorry for the continued threadjack

tesral
05-16-2008, 02:58 AM
But where's the fun in playing Michael Myers sitting around waiting for Halloween to roll around so he can go kill his baby sister and her friends?

You know, I don't see it either, but some people get a kick out of that kind of gaming. I simply do not feel right in telling them; "But you're having the wrong kind of fun!" It's not for me, I don't enjoy it. However, they do, and I will not gainstay their right to enjoy it.

Frankly I know some mature people that enjoy the mindless kill, kill, kill as a relief from a boring or frustrating job. If they are having fun at it? I know people that play in god-like games with power that makes my high fantasy setting look like Mundanesville. To rich for my blood, but if they are having fun?

If they are having fun at it, I don't have anything to say. Gamers are too thin on the ground to break up into little warring camps.

There are days I want to play out the drama and the glory of a good RPG session. there are days I want the nitty gritty of a good tactical war game. Heck, I even pull out the PS2 once in a while for a good "if it moves shoot it" hour or two.

There is no wrong way to game except to not have fun.

Valdar
05-16-2008, 10:40 AM
The DM has to have fun too. If I had a player that named his character Minmax and wanted to just kill stuff, I'd show him the door, however much he argued that it was his brand of fun.

If everyone at the table was ok with playing "Medieval killing game, no computer required" as 3e was occasionally called, then sure, go nuts. But in my experience, it's never everyone (sometimes it's even everyone but the DM).

Every year computer games get better, and RPGs get to be a worse choice for this sort of gaming.

boulet
05-16-2008, 01:52 PM
We get more and more off topic here. But I agree with Valdar : everybody is entitled to play hack'n'slash but what is the real value of doing it with pen and paper ? You're better off playing diablo or a MMORPG. I'm looking at Lizards of the Coast strategy like they seem to want to compete with those games. I think their choice will lead them to let down role play as we know it, and be more and more combat focused.

tesral
05-16-2008, 02:18 PM
We get more and more off topic here. But I agree with Valdar : everybody is entitled to play hack'n'slash but what is the real value of doing it with pen and paper ? You're better off playing diablo or a MMORPG. I'm looking at Lizards of the Coast strategy like they seem to want to compete with those games. I think their choice will lead them to let down role play as we know it, and be more and more combat focused.

In spite of what Lizards might prefer, the words don't fall off the older books when they produce a new edition. We are as capable of creating as the Lizard's hacks are. My ideas are a good as anyone else's and so are yours.

We don't need the game producers. They are nice to have, but we don't need them. Offical rules are not the be all and end all.

Valdar
05-16-2008, 02:19 PM
We get more and more off topic here. But I agree with Valdar : everybody is entitled to play hack'n'slash but what is the real value of doing it with pen and paper ? You're better off playing diablo or a MMORPG. I'm looking at Lizards of the Coast strategy like they seem to want to compete with those games. I think their choice will lead them to let down role play as we know it, and be more and more combat focused.

Check out the new non-combat challenge system. It's as brilliant as it is controversial. There's nothing like it anywhere. It's what I've been waiting for- something besides "sling a single D20 and then get back to the killin' ".

And the "Is D&D 4e WoW" debate is long and historied. D&D is getting to be more streamlined- some things will look a lot like things in MMOGs, just because MMOGs need to be streamlined. And if D&D wanted to be like WoW, they would have made Tieflings be from space =)

Tony Misfeldt
05-16-2008, 06:51 PM
Okay, getting back on topic...

This isn't so much a house rule as it is a home brew skill/proficiency. I'm writing it out in the 2e Skills & Powers format, for that's easily adapted into the 3.Xe d20 format (for all the "3.X Or Nothing" gamers out there).

ROGUE PROFICIENCY: SEDUCTION

CHARACTER POINT COST: 3

BASE CHANCE OF SUCCESS: 7

PRIMARY ABILITYSCORES: CHARISMA & COMELINESS

DISCRIPTION: Using their strong personality and good looks, a rogue uses the seduction proficiency to talk members of the opposite sex out of something, whether it be information, their property, or their clothes. This proficiency bestows upon the rogue the knowledge of body language and subtle inuendo which suggests to the person targetted that she likes this rogue and wants to be with him. If he makes his proficiency check, the targetted girl makes a Wisdom Check. If she fails, she responds favorably towards him. But if she succeeds, she sees the game for what it is. Seducers/seductresses who also have the Allure trait can adjust the targetted person's Wisdom Check by as much as a -3 penalty.

cplmac
05-16-2008, 09:02 PM
Okay, getting back on topic...

This isn't so much a house rule as it is a home brew skill/proficiency. I'm writing it out in the 2e Skills & Powers format, for that's easily adapted into the 3.Xe d20 format (for all the "3.X Or Nothing" gamers out there).

ROGUE PROFICIENCY: SEDUCTION

CHARACTER POINT COST: 3

BASE CHANCE OF SUCCESS: 7

PRIMARY ABILITYSCORES: CHARISMA & COMELINESS

DISCRIPTION: Using their strong personality and good looks, a rogue uses the seduction proficiency to talk members of the opposite sex out of something, whether it be information, their property, or their clothes. This proficiency bestows upon the rogue the knowledge of body language and subtle inuendo which suggests to the person targetted that she likes this rogue and wants to be with him. If he makes his proficiency check, the targetted girl makes a Wisdom Check. If she fails, she responds favorably towards him. But if she succeeds, she sees the game for what it is. Seducers/seductresses who also have the Allure trait can adjust the targetted person's Wisdom Check by as much as a -3 penalty.


So in 2E, this would use a proficiency slot?

Valdar
05-17-2008, 12:13 PM
We don't need the game producers. They are nice to have, but we don't need them. Offical rules are not the be all and end all.

True, you don't need them, but I think using their rules as much as you can has some value. I know that their rules have been playtested over a variety of game styles, and having the players have some idea of how the game is going to work gives them agency in the game. If they have no idea how likely their character is going to succeed at anything, you wind up with a game where nobody leaves the bar.

Small house rules are nice to smooth out the corners of a game, but I would only use them if things are seriously broken (which happened a lot in 3e, as the developers of 4e realized). If I wanted to get rid of the horribly unrealistic "hit point" game mechanic, I would hope my players would talk some sense into me, because it's such a fundamental part of the game.

tesral
05-17-2008, 04:43 PM
Small house rules are nice to smooth out the corners of a game, but I would only use them if things are seriously broken (which happened a lot in 3e, as the developers of 4e realized). If I wanted to get rid of the horribly unrealistic "hit point" game mechanic, I would hope my players would talk some sense into me, because it's such a fundamental part of the game.

Well, expect it to happen a lot in 4e. Had Lizards concentrated on fixing the glitchs and not on changing things to the sake of changing them 4e would be smoother. However this they didn't do. They changed things all over and things that frankly did not need to be changed.

Considering how thoughtly playtested 3.x was suppose to be and how many glitchs in the rules turned up, I think you can expect a similar rate of rule failure for 4. Simply going on past performance.

Tony Misfeldt
05-18-2008, 12:04 AM
So in 2E, this would use a proficiency slot?

Perhaps two proficiency slots. Typically, when converting a proficiency from the proficiency slot system to the character point system, one proficiency slot = two character points. If you read through Skills & Powers, you'll find that some proficiencies cost three character points. I wasn't sure how many slots it should have so I decided to split the diff.

Valdar
05-18-2008, 11:45 AM
They changed things all over and things that frankly did not need to be changed.

Considering how thoughtly playtested 3.x was suppose to be and how many glitchs in the rules turned up, I think you can expect a similar rate of rule failure for 4. Simply going on past performance.

What things were changed that didn't need to be changed? I've been following the design discussions, and a lot of their choices make sense. They're fixing fundamental things like "fighters are boring because you spend most of the combat doing your basic attack" and "rogues' main shtick is the sneak attack, which is hard to set up, and lots of monsters are immune to it".

And no, 3.x wasn't playtested at all at the higher levels, which is why so many games fall apart when character levels go into the double digits.

tesral
05-18-2008, 11:54 PM
What things were changed that didn't need to be changed?[/qupte]

Where do I start? Saving throws worked fine, it didn't need fixing. Gnomes removed as a core race, tiflings put in as a core race. No doubt there is much much more.


[quote=Valdar;31366] And no, 3.x wasn't playtested at all at the higher levels, which is why so many games fall apart when character levels go into the double digits.

The d20 mechanic doesn't scale. It will break at higher levels and you cannot do much about it. 3e mainly starts to break when you get away from the core books and include some 300 odd feats a hundred classes and prestige classes and so forth.

cplmac
05-19-2008, 10:11 AM
I have always thought that I would let magic users at 10th level be able to know their maximum # of 1st level spells without having to rememorize after using it. Reason being that I feel that a 1st level spell is rather easy for that high of a level mage. This would go up as the mage would continue to rise in levels (gain 2nd level spells as a level 11 mage, 3rd level spells at 12th level and so on). Unfortunately, I have never had a mage make it to level 10 to see if this works.

I also do not have clerics have to rememorize their spells, since I feel that they are granted by the god that they follow. If they do something that goes against their god, they can lose the use of any particular spell or possibly all their spells until they redeem themself with their god.

tesral
05-19-2008, 10:14 AM
I have always thought that I would let magic users at 10th level be able to know their maximum # of 1st level spells without having to rememorize after using it. Reason being that I feel that a 1st level spell is rather easy for that high of a level mage. This would go up as the mage would continue to rise in levels (gain 2nd level spells as a level 11 mage, 3rd level spells at 12th level and so on). Unfortunately, I have never had a mage make it to level 10 to see if this works.

I also do not have clerics have to rememorize their spells, since I feel that they are granted by the god that they follow. If they do something that goes against their god, they can lose the use of any particular spell or possibly all their spells until they redeem themself with their god.

I've used fire and don't forget for decades. Clerics don't have to memorize. It works.

cplmac
05-19-2008, 10:18 AM
I've used fire and don't forget for decades. Clerics don't have to memorize. It works.


Yes, I have found the same result for the clerics.

c0r1nth14n
05-20-2008, 01:15 PM
A lot of these wouldn't work for most people, but my group has been essentially the same people for 9 years, so it works for us really well.

1) Fun, fun, fun. If it's not fun, it's broken. Some stuff is less fun, and some fun things require some not-so-fun effort, but the overall tone needs to be fun.

2) No XP. Everyone levels when the DM says they level, as a group. I'll probably get chewed out for that one, but there's a few things. We all hate having characters of different levels, and we don't like to focus on leveling like it was an MMO. Things that cost XP just get substituted and cost something else - like, for a scroll, one of your daily spellcasts is gone for the next week (or whatever). Things that give bonus XP to an individual, like good roleplaying, get +boosts. Sort of like the various Luck feats/spells - if you RP something and blow me away, you get a +2 bonus you can add to anything at all, at any time during the campaign. I know this would probably be very bad for most groups, but if you've got a group that can handle it, I highly recommend it. It's so much more fun when a group cares more about exploring and creativity than when they just want to grind XP.

3) +boosts. I find, both as a DM and a player, that rewarding creativity and RP with these +1 or +2 bonuses (to be used whenever the player wants) really encourages more of the same. If someone knows they have a +2 they can add to any roll, they're more likely to take a long-shot, difficult, really creative tactic. I just keep track of which players have how many.

4) No attacks of opportunity unless the DM says so. Big, obvious ones, like the monster you're in melee with turns and runs? Sure. Overly complicated ones because someone crossed within 10 feet of you while you were equipped with a Glaive on a Tuesday morning after you had a cup of coffee but did NOT have oatmeal? No. On a related note:

5) No nitpicking. No rules lawyering. This one is more flexible, but generally we say that, if you can't explain the rules in question within 5 minutes, they're bad rules :P

Valdar
05-20-2008, 03:17 PM
Okay, getting back on topic...

This isn't so much a house rule as it is a home brew skill/proficiency. I'm writing it out in the 2e Skills & Powers format, for that's easily adapted into the 3.Xe d20 format (for all the "3.X Or Nothing" gamers out there).

ROGUE PROFICIENCY: SEDUCTION

CHARACTER POINT COST: 3

BASE CHANCE OF SUCCESS: 7

PRIMARY ABILITYSCORES: CHARISMA & COMELINESS

DISCRIPTION: Using their strong personality and good looks, a rogue uses the seduction proficiency to talk members of the opposite sex out of something, whether it be information, their property, or their clothes. This proficiency bestows upon the rogue the knowledge of body language and subtle inuendo which suggests to the person targetted that she likes this rogue and wants to be with him. If he makes his proficiency check, the targetted girl makes a Wisdom Check. If she fails, she responds favorably towards him. But if she succeeds, she sees the game for what it is. Seducers/seductresses who also have the Allure trait can adjust the targetted person's Wisdom Check by as much as a -3 penalty.

I'm not sure how proficiencies work anymore, but I'd rather see this as a skill. It would be a class skill for rogues and bards, but other classes should be able to take this. Or use a straight CHA check. Basically don't shut out the rest of the party from this sort of play.

Fighter: "Hey beautiful, come here often?"
Barfly: "Sorry, I only date rogues. Just like everyone else."

tesral
05-20-2008, 04:38 PM
4) No attacks of opportunity unless the DM says so. Big, obvious ones, like the monster you're in melee with turns and runs? Sure. Overly complicated ones because someone crossed within 10 feet of you while you were equipped with a Glaive on a Tuesday morning after you had a cup of coffee but did NOT have oatmeal? No.

The Peopole that care about rules in my game have voted no AoO. It complicates combat and requires you have figures on the table. I'll go with the vote as I have seen how AoO can make a combat last for freaking ever. Likewise combat feats.

Kilrex
05-20-2008, 04:40 PM
I'm not sure how proficiencies work anymore, but I'd rather see this as a skill. It would be a class skill for rogues and bards, but other classes should be able to take this. Or use a straight CHA check. Basically don't shut out the rest of the party from this sort of play.

Fighter: "Hey beautiful, come here often?"
Barfly: "Sorry, I only date rogues. Just like everyone else."

Its all about the Charisma based skills.

Sorcerer: (Bluff)Enlarge is my best spell.
Barbarian: (Intimidate)Kurg want lovin'!
Rogue: (Diplomacy)Aww, you look like you have had a rough day. You like like you could use some relaxation with a massage. (Bluff)I have magic fingers!

Wizard: Hey wanna go back to my place and see my Magic Missle?
Cleric: Come here my son! Let me lay on hands and you'll be all better!

Valdar
05-21-2008, 10:26 AM
Its all about the Charisma based skills.

Sorcerer: (Bluff)Enlarge is my best spell.
Barbarian: (Intimidate)Kurg want lovin'!
Rogue: (Diplomacy)Aww, you look like you have had a rough day. You like like you could use some relaxation with a massage. (Bluff)I have magic fingers!

Wizard: Hey wanna go back to my place and see my Magic Missle?
Cleric: Come here my son! Let me lay on hands and you'll be all better!

This could be a thread of its own, but I have no ideas. I can't get past a druid talking about his wood.

Tony Misfeldt
05-21-2008, 06:42 PM
I'm not sure how proficiencies work anymore, but I'd rather see this as a skill. It would be a class skill for rogues and bards, but other classes should be able to take this. Or use a straight CHA check. Basically don't shut out the rest of the party from this sort of play.

Fighter: "Hey beautiful, come here often?"
Barfly: "Sorry, I only date rogues. Just like everyone else."

Well, I still use many 2nd ed terms. In 2nd ed proficiencies were skills, they just weren't called skills. So in 3rd ed, 4th ed, or any future edition that uses skills & feats, it would be a skill. I just call it a proficiency because I'm still using the Character Point system from the 2nd ed book Skills & Powers. While it is a rogue proficiency/skill, other classes can learn it. It just costs them extra skill points/character points/proficiency slots (or whatever system you're using).


Thank you! Basically, the noncombat game mechanic is that the DM sets a DC for an encounter, and decides on a certain number of successes and failures that will determine success or failure for the encounter. The players have the option of an "easy" roll (five less than the DC), "average" (the DC), or "hard" (five more than the DC). Failing an easy roll counts as two failures, and succeeding at a hard roll grants +2 to the next roll. Players then take turns rolling against a skill, with a justification of why the skill applies to the given encounter.


This rule could have a built in flaw. While it would certainly keep the roll players interested in the game, it could be abbused and used to turn role playing opportunities into roll playing scenarios. Granted, players who themselves are less than glib and want to play characters who are silver tongued should be able to give their characters skills and proficiencies that allow the character to do in game what the player can't do in real life. However this rule should not be used as a crutch by players too lazy to actually role play or to allow the more introverted players to stay in their protective shells. If handled carefully, it could be used as a tool to coax introverted players out of their shells. If not, it could turn the entire role playing experience into a bunch of people sitting around rolling dice.

Valdar
05-22-2008, 10:14 AM
Well, I still use many 2nd ed terms. In 2nd ed proficiencies were skills, they just weren't called skills. So in 3rd ed, 4th ed, or any future edition that uses skills & feats, it would be a skill. I just call it a proficiency because I'm still using the Character Point system from the 2nd ed book Skills & Powers. While it is a rogue proficiency/skill, other classes can learn it. It just costs them extra skill points/character points/proficiency slots (or whatever system you're using).

Aha- that works then. I just never played with proficiencies much in 2e.

Valdar
05-22-2008, 10:18 AM
This rule could have a built in flaw. While it would certainly keep the roll players interested in the game, it could be abbused and used to turn role playing opportunities into roll playing scenarios. Granted, players who themselves are less than glib and want to play characters who are silver tongued should be able to give their characters skills and proficiencies that allow the character to do in game what the player can't do in real life. However this rule should not be used as a crutch by players too lazy to actually role play or to allow the more introverted players to stay in their protective shells. If handled carefully, it could be used as a tool to coax introverted players out of their shells. If not, it could turn the entire role playing experience into a bunch of people sitting around rolling dice.

That is a problem. I suppose I'll have to come up with a way to reinforce the RP if it comes down to that, like rejecting a given skill if there's no good explanation, and having that player miss his turn.

GM: "The noble seems obstinate- his prized horses will not be yours for the taking unless you give him some reassurance you won't just leave them outside a dungeon to get eaten."
Player: "I uh, roll... climbing..."
GM: "You most certainly do not. Next please?"

Tony Misfeldt
05-26-2008, 03:51 PM
That is a problem. I suppose I'll have to come up with a way to reinforce the RP if it comes down to that, like rejecting a given skill if there's no good explanation, and having that player miss his turn.

GM: "The noble seems obstinate- his prized horses will not be yours for the taking unless you give him some reassurance you won't just leave them outside a dungeon to get eaten."
Player: "I uh, roll... climbing..."
GM: "You most certainly do not. Next please?"

That's not quite the problem I was referring to. I was referring to a scenario where the DM goes through alot of time, trouble, and effort to create an important NPC with a distinct personality who has important information or other forms of aide to offer and the player simply says "I roll Bluff, Diplomacy, Fast Talking, Intuit Motive, Danger Sense, Observation, and Information Gathering. What do I get?" Instead of several minutes of ROLE playing vital to the overall plot, the player decides to ROLL play for about 60 seconds of rolling dice and calculating successes and failures.

Valdar
05-27-2008, 09:11 AM
That's not quite the problem I was referring to. I was referring to a scenario where the DM goes through alot of time, trouble, and effort to create an important NPC with a distinct personality who has important information or other forms of aide to offer and the player simply says "I roll Bluff, Diplomacy, Fast Talking, Intuit Motive, Danger Sense, Observation, and Information Gathering. What do I get?" Instead of several minutes of ROLE playing vital to the overall plot, the player decides to ROLL play for about 60 seconds of rolling dice and calculating successes and failures.

I think the DM would have the authority to put a situational modifier on this to the extent that just rolling dice and not describing what you're doing would be an auto-fail. Though if a player didn't "get" roleplaying (or decided to stick to the "I can just roll dice" interpretation of the rule), then yeah, that would be a pretty tough problem to get around.

agoraderek
05-27-2008, 07:45 PM
That's not quite the problem I was referring to. I was referring to a scenario where the DM goes through alot of time, trouble, and effort to create an important NPC with a distinct personality who has important information or other forms of aide to offer and the player simply says "I roll Bluff, Diplomacy, Fast Talking, Intuit Motive, Danger Sense, Observation, and Information Gathering. What do I get?" Instead of several minutes of ROLE playing vital to the overall plot, the player decides to ROLL play for about 60 seconds of rolling dice and calculating successes and failures.

i would theorize that if you were the type of dm that wanted to role play that situation, you'd probably have a group where that was understood. if one of my players reached for a die in that situation, i'd likely as not turn on the playstation, sit them in front of it and say "here, this is more your speed. now, let the grown ups play d&d..."

but then, im kinda weird like that...

tesral
05-27-2008, 11:40 PM
I'll let a guy I know is a lousy talker fall back on the dice, if he at least gives lip service to describing what he is trying to do. You don't have to posses a silver tongue yourself, but at least tell me what you want to happen.

"Ah, I like, tell the guy that we ah, want to help free the ... princess ... but like we ... ah need some stuff."

agoraderek
05-28-2008, 01:19 AM
I'll let a guy I know is a lousy talker fall back on the dice, if he at least gives lip service to describing what he is trying to do. You don't have to posses a silver tongue yourself, but at least tell me what you want to happen.

"Ah, I like, tell the guy that we ah, want to help free the ... princess ... but like we ... ah need some stuff."

dont get me wrong, i dont expect my players to be master thespians or anything, i was more referencing the "munchkin/power gamer everything has to be a heavily modded ("or why would i pour so many skill points into diplomacy and bluff???")" type players.

i have a knack for getting the wallflowers involved, and if they can only express themselves in modern vernacular, i, to use the street idiom, aint trippin'. :D

i think a lot of us who have been playing for a while (and probably many who havent been playing long at all, for that matter) can really enjoy a session where the only die rolled is to see who springs for the pizza that night...

Tony Misfeldt
05-28-2008, 05:18 AM
I'll let a guy I know is a lousy talker fall back on the dice, if he at least gives lip service to describing what he is trying to do. You don't have to posses a silver tongue yourself, but at least tell me what you want to happen.

"Ah, I like, tell the guy that we ah, want to help free the ... princess ... but like we ... ah need some stuff."

Exactly. If you don't know how to bluff, or fast talk, or the diplomacy skill, or what have you, then certainly you should be able to determine the outcome by rolling dice. But you should at least try to ROLE play the situation and give me the gist of what you're trying to do. If you want to maintain the interpretation that you can just sit around rolling dice for every possible situation, including ROLEplaying, then I like that auto-fail rule idea.

Shadow Dweller
05-28-2008, 03:48 PM
dont get me wrong, i dont expect my players to be master thespians or anything, i was more referencing the "munchkin/power gamer everything has to be a heavily modded ("or why would i pour so many skill points into diplomacy and bluff???")" type players.

i have a knack for getting the wallflowers involved, and if they can only express themselves in modern vernacular, i, to use the street idiom, aint trippin'. :D

i think a lot of us who have been playing for a while (and probably many who havent been playing long at all, for that matter) can really enjoy a session where the only die rolled is to see who springs for the pizza that night...No. I'm one of the hasn't been playing long crowd, and while I can certinly enjoy a good session where the Roleplaying is as important as the rollplaying...I'd rather not sit through an entire session of "Ok, talk your way out of this one!" With my old group our DM ran the last campaign I was there for this way, the entire campaign, not just a session. We had, in 5 sessions of gaming for about 6 hours each session, 3 fights, yet our characters ended up being like 14th lvl. I had a fairly interesting build set up, but I got no use out of it as it wasn't RP conducive at all.

tesral
05-28-2008, 04:59 PM
dont get me wrong, i dont expect my players to be master thespians or anything, i was more referencing the "munchkin/power gamer everything has to be a heavily modded ("or why would i pour so many skill points into diplomacy and bluff???")" type players.

i have a knack for getting the wallflowers involved, and if they can only express themselves in modern vernacular, i, to use the street idiom, aint trippin'. :D

i think a lot of us who have been playing for a while (and probably many who havent been playing long at all, for that matter) can really enjoy a session where the only die rolled is to see who springs for the pizza that night...

The diceless sessions can indeed be some of the most fun.

As to players I have everything from a guy that is my equal in experience and willingness to ham it up, to a real wallflower that has been playing with me longer than the Ham.

I do not typically push people out of their comfort zones. We are having fun, not doing therapy.

The munchkins never play long with me. A few sessions at most. I'm just too hard on the whole mentality. I know something very simple. The easiest thing for a GM to do is kill the characters. There is really nothing to it, and I don't care how big a gun boat Munchkin boy comes up with, I can squash him like a bug, and make it look like his fault. I always have an NPC that is more of what ever you have, always.

"There is always a bigger fish." --Qui-Gon Jinn.

c0r1nth14n
05-29-2008, 02:24 AM
In my group - we rotate DMs, but have most of the same house rules, since we've all been playing so long - there's usually parts of each adventure that cater to each player. One of our guys loves to do roleplaying and interactions, one loves puzzle-solving and creative thinking, one mostly likes to smash things :P So we usually get a little of each in our games.

One thing we do, which I really enjoy, is give roll modifiers based on RP for applicable situations. Need to make a persuasive speech? Well, if you can roleplay that, maybe you get a +2. It doesn't have to be some work of art, just hit on the key points. Saying "We need, ah, stuff, to save, uh, the princess" wouldn't get you a bonus, but saying "Because of the terrible nature of the dragons in question, um, we could use some help with items, since they're so tough, and it really benefits you to have us succeed so everyone is happier this way" might get you +1 or +2.

tesral
05-29-2008, 09:28 AM
One thing we do, which I really enjoy, is give roll modifiers based on RP for applicable situations. Need to make a persuasive speech? Well, if you can roleplay that, maybe you get a +2. It doesn't have to be some work of art, just hit on the key points. Saying "We need, ah, stuff, to save, uh, the princess" wouldn't get you a bonus, but saying "Because of the terrible nature of the dragons in question, um, we could use some help with items, since they're so tough, and it really benefits you to have us succeed so everyone is happier this way" might get you +1 or +2.


The Rule of Yes.
-- Unless there is a compelling reason to say no, say yes.
-- A roll is not required for everything, even if a roll is required.

This is the thing I keep in mind. While the player is role-playing his character, I am, not judging the reaction of the NPCs solely on the dice. It really sucks to have a reasonable and cooperative NPC dump on the character because the dice say to. We are getting back into the "but the module said...." I am not a fan of that. I'm the Gamemaster, I should act like it and take mastery of the game and do what is required to make the game fun.

It works the other way too. Many a moon ago I was DMing a bit of D&D, the PC was faced with a Green Dragon. He sauntered up and stated calling the dragon evey name in the book. And was shocked when it suddenly breathed on him and I didn't roll to see if the dragon breathed!! I looked him right in the eye and said. "It's called role-playing. When you read off a dragon, I don't need dice to judge the reaction." Early rules lawyer. I was giving them grief even then.

c0r1nth14n
05-29-2008, 10:55 AM
Meh, the dice give a structure that we like. No, you don't need to roll for absolutely everything, but the rolls are an organized way to recognize things like ability scores, skills, and other modifiers.

Webhead
05-29-2008, 12:54 PM
It works the other way too. Many a moon ago I was DMing a bit of D&D, the PC was faced with a Green Dragon. He sauntered up and stated calling the dragon evey name in the book. And was shocked when it suddenly breathed on him and I didn't roll to see if the dragon breathed!! I looked him right in the eye and said. "It's called role-playing. When you read off a dragon, I don't need dice to judge the reaction." Early rules lawyer. I was giving them grief even then.

Amen! An NPC is greater than the sum of its dice. It's called common sense and it prevails over dice-rolling every time.

The dice serve a very important purpose in an RPG: to arbitrarily and fairly determine the outcome of an action or event which is made more interesting or suspensful when the result is unknown, and to represent the element of luck.

The dice are not a substitute for common sense, logical deduction, natural law, character development or good storytelling.

tesral
05-29-2008, 09:55 PM
Meh, the dice give a structure that we like. No, you don't need to roll for absolutely everything, but the rolls are an organized way to recognize things like ability scores, skills, and other modifiers.

Dice have a place. However they are not the sum of the game they are an aide within the game. When the truly random needs deciding, dice are good. If the Warlock finds a green brocade shirt or not will not unhinge the game one way or another. Give it to them.

A real Gamemaster knows when to use dice and when to not use dice. The Rule of Yes is a good rule, use it.

Tony Misfeldt
05-30-2008, 10:17 PM
This isn't so much a house rule as it is an alternate way of distributing XP. I read about it once and thought it was interesting. The DM makes an XP Distribution Card for each player. On it, he breaks down how much XP the player gets and for what (Combat, Role Playing, Problem Solving, Story Completion, etc), and adds up the total. Then he hands the cards out to the players at the end of each adventure. The players can choose if they wish to be secretive about how much XP they got, or share the information with their fellow players. They also get to see where they're getting the most XP from, and where they need to improve upon. I've decided to try this with the new group I've started. In my case, I also have spots for The Paul Rule, The Peter Rule, and The Alfredo Rule. Then they'll be able to see where their attitudes need adjusting (assuming I actually have to enforce any of those rules).

tesral
05-31-2008, 12:06 AM
I also have spots for The Paul Rule, The Peter Rule, and The Alfredo Rule. Then they'll be able to see where their attitudes need adjusting (assuming I actually have to enforce any of those rules).

OK, 'splain.

upidstay
05-31-2008, 06:01 AM
My group only meets once a month, so I decided to not do XP. If they complete an adventure, or the majority of the goals I set out for them if it's a module that will take more than one session, they level up. If you aren't there for a game, you don;t level up.

Valdar
06-01-2008, 12:41 PM
I'm now deciding how I want to do XP for my upcoming game- on one hand, xp can be used to reward the players that play well and often, but on the other, if someone can't make it to the game as often, they shouldn't be penalized by having a completely ineffective character. Then there's the matter of starting a new character. My current thoughts on this are:

1. XP is handed out normally for each session, with bonus xp for clever RP, tactics, involving other players, etc.

2. If a character lags too far behind the party, I'll award "pity xp" to catch them up to the lowest XP total they can be and still be at most two levels behind the top party member. Players should have to pay for their pity XP somehow (I'm thinking taking minutes for the session, to help out other absent members).

3. If a character dies and cannot be raised, the new character either starts at the "pity xp" level (died stupid) or the average xp of the party (died well), with gear to match.

4. If a player wants to retire a character and start again, they start at either min or avg xp as above, depending on... what? Not sure here- I think I'd give average xp if I got a good exit story for the old character and a good backstory for the new chara (including reason for joining the party at this point).

5. New players start with charas with the average xp of the party, with gear to match.

I'm sure more stuff will come up, like a character who's at average xp or so wanting to take minutes to earn some catchup xp. I think I'd let them do that to catch up on xp missed for not making a session, but not to catch up to a player who has lots of bonus xp...

Basically, if a player misses a few sessions, I don't want him saddled with a gimp character, since that will just motivate him to drop out entirely. Similarly, I don't want to tell new players that they start out gimpy.

mrken
06-01-2008, 12:49 PM
Guess Iím not one for pity parties. A character dies I let the player make a new one and they can buy the new character up at the cost of aging them. Most just start back at 16 to 18 and deal with it. When death is an option having a new character is not so much of a liability. I have characters of different levels all the time. As for penalizing a player for not showing up, ah, yeah. If you donít you are penalizing players for showing up instead.

agoraderek
06-01-2008, 05:58 PM
Dice have a place. However they are not the sum of the game they are an aide within the game. When the truly random needs deciding, dice are good. If the Warlock finds a green brocade shirt or not will not unhinge the game one way or another. Give it to them.

A real Gamemaster knows when to use dice and when to not use dice. The Rule of Yes is a good rule, use it.

exactly. the dice are a tool, not the game. the game is the sum of everything, the dm, the players, the setting, the rules (including house rules) and the dice.

notice i put rules and dice last...

tesral
06-02-2008, 12:03 AM
Basically, if a player misses a few sessions, I don't want him saddled with a gimp character, since that will just motivate him to drop out entirely. Similarly, I don't want to tell new players that they start out gimpy.


I use experience. As I am running a more 2e experience system I tend to balance the character on that XP rider. So average level is an important concept. Starting over 1st level is done on an XP total not a level.

If someone misses a session but their character is used they get half XP. I'm not too strict on it. I haven't had a stupid death in quite a while.



exactly. the dice are a tool, not the game. the game is the sum of everything, the dm, the players, the setting, the rules (including house rules) and the dice.

notice i put rules and dice last...

I think of the rules as the skeleton of the game, the bones that the GM must flesh out and make into a game. The sheer variety of D&D games out there, low fantasy high fantasy, gritty, toonish, and more should tell you how different the game can be in different hands. Same rule set, very different interpretations.

Valdar
06-02-2008, 09:54 AM
Guess Iím not one for pity parties. A character dies I let the player make a new one and they can buy the new character up at the cost of aging them. Most just start back at 16 to 18 and deal with it. When death is an option having a new character is not so much of a liability. I have characters of different levels all the time. As for penalizing a player for not showing up, ah, yeah. If you donít you are penalizing players for showing up instead.

This sounds like it isn't D&D, and would work better with a different system. In D&D, if you're level 1 running around with a 9th level party, anything that challenges the party will be something you can't hope to affect, and any monster will kill you effortlessly if it wants to. Not sure who would want to play in a game like that.

And yes, the players who don't show up are penalized- two levels is still a substantial difference. Anything more than that and you're in "why bother" territory.

mrken
06-02-2008, 01:03 PM
:) Your right, I don't run a DnD game, I run a role playing game. Sort of like what DnD would be like if you only used one book, and tore out all but a few pages. Guess it is all house rules, but not many. I encourage players to use their own ideas more and rely less on rules. We tend to be a pretty realistic minded group. No one is going to jump a 50' river with armor on, they just know how stupid it sounds without me having to tell them it is stupid.

Tony Misfeldt
06-02-2008, 07:47 PM
OK, 'splain.

THE PAUL RULE: Whining, moaning, *female dog*ing, and complaining about having to ROLE play situations rather than ROLL play them ("Aw, we have to talk to another NPC? When does the adventure start? I wanna kill something!"); Refusing to do any ROLE playing (sitting in the corner doodling on your character sheet waiting for something to pop up for you to kill); or getting up and leaving the gaming table every time there's a ROLE playing scenario ("I'm going to go play World Of Warcraft, call me when the adventure begins") costs the player XP from their tally. This doesn't effect the XP already handed out from previous adventures (it's not like th character is attacked by a white or a vampire or something), but he could go into an XP Defecit. The player loses 200 to 400 XP per incident.

THE PETER RULE: This rule is to discourage habitual tardiness. If we agree to game at a certain time (say 7:30 pm for example), then everyone should make an effort to get there by the appointed time. Of course allowances are made for things such as traffic, weather, acts of God, etc, so the game might not ACTUALLY start until maybe a half hou later, but these are within acceptable limits. This rule is for people who agree to show up at the appointed hour and then show up two or three hours later with some half *donkey*ed excuse and no prior warning of any kind. These players are penalized 1000 XP per incident. To avoid the penalty, all the person has to do is be honest with me when arranging the day & time ("Sorry, man. I've gotta go to my parents for Sunday dinner that night. But I'll head over to your place as soon as I'm done."), or phone and let us know what's going on ("Sorry, dude. I have to work late tonight and I'm not going to be able to make it until later. Just start without me and I'll make it there as soon as I can."). I normally try and not start the game until everyone who said they're going to show arrives, so by not letting me know in advance that you're going to be late, you end up holding up the game for everyone else who showed up on time. I call it The Two Cs, Curteousy and Communication. If you know in advance that you're going to be late, let me know in advance so you don't waste everyone else's time waiting for you. Simple.

THE ALFREDO RULE: Similar to the Peter Rule, except this is to discourage habitual absenteeism. If you say you're going to be there on Game Night, then be there on Game Night. If you know in advance that you won't be able to make it, let me know. This isn't for players who can't show up because they have the flu or because work called them in for a shift at the last minute. It's for people who know when they agree to the appointed time and place that they won't be able to make it but agree anyway, or who thought they could make it when they agreed to show but found out later (but still in advance) that they actually won't and don't bother informing their DM. As I said before, I prefer to start the game when all players who agreed to show up have arrived. In the case of players who I know are going to be absent, I use their characters as NPC henchmen to help the other players out and gain at least some XP. I also try my best to keep the PC/NPC henchman alive (I can't promise he'll survive, but I can promise that he won't be used as a namelsee human shield). But for players who think that they can skip several games in a row for no good reason and come back to find their character several levels higher, they've got a big surprise awaiting them. Any player who's AWOL from the game gets a penalty of 5000 XP. Again, all you gotta do to avoid this is to be honest with me ("Sorry, man. I can't make it to the game this weekend. I'm going to Vegas with my girlfriend."). I'll do this for the first few gaming sessions. If it's apparent that he isn't going to be showing up for another game any time soon, I'll just stop calling and wonder why he said he wanted to game with me in the first place if his free time was so scarce. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I'll wait for his defecit to be around -25000 XP before I give up on him.

Shadow Dweller
06-02-2008, 09:18 PM
In the 4 months I've been with my current group, and one of the "Players" in the group, one of the founders mind you, has shown up once...yeah, the other 2 "founders" kicked him out game before last. But it was constant "Yeah, I'll be there." then no showing, constantly.

tesral
06-03-2008, 10:15 AM
Peter, Paul and Alfredo.

Thank you. I do understand. I don't have rules in place but I consider being in the game a social contract. Occasionally I understand conflicting obligations, but yes, inform me.

Talmek
06-09-2008, 04:03 AM
When I was DM'ing a campaign, I had a simple rule concerning interruptions during gameplay to argue over rules. If you bring up an issue (i.e. You think I made a mistake in regard to spell/skill/ability usage) either in-combat or at any point during an encounter that requires the group to stop playing to open books and begin searching:

If you are right you are awarded a bonus of 5% of your current level's XP total. However, if you are wrong then you are penalized 10% of your current level's XP total.

If you bring a mistake to my attention after the encounter and you are right, then you will receive a %10 bonus, and if incorrect then no penalty.

I used this mainly to dissuade arguments at the gaming table. It also helped keep the game moving, and it helped ensure that if a player was going to interrupt gameplay to argue rules, he'd better know what he's talking about. Granted, these guys were people I knew for years prior to our starting a campaign so it really wasn't as Nazi-esque as it seems.

Shadow Dweller
06-09-2008, 06:54 AM
That's not a half bad idea, though in some group it could almost be worse. Think you jacked up on your last level you took? Simple, just argue a point, loose some XP and re-take the level again the right way! :-P

Kidding of corse. :)

Xanatheus
01-23-2010, 08:02 PM
I allow all players to roll their hit points at first level. If they like their roll they can keep it and save the "maximum at first level" for a later level. If they don't like their roll they get maximum. I know it's not much but it is something.

arevg
02-11-2010, 01:24 PM
when the players roll a natural 20 i let them roll onec agen and so on , for fun. i also give out lvls insted of xp , it works when i dont have experienced players. i alsp let people reroll if they get a 1 on the hd. am i to nice to my players? :lol:

Geode
02-22-2010, 09:59 PM
This one is a little silly, but I like to reward my players for role playing.

Good role playing negates the effect of otherwise failed intimidate or diplomacy checks. If the role playing is particularly amazing, I negate critical fails.
The problem with this is that I have to be able to role play back to them, something I'm not the most amazing at. On a scale from 3 to 18 on the CHA scale, I'd put myself at an 8. *shrugs* Well, I try at least.

Dark Cloaked Figure
03-02-2010, 02:15 PM
Death at -Constitution, rather than -10, and I don't let players look at each other's character sheets. This prevents metagaming and, honestly, is more fair-- the characters who actually take the most damage should be able to last longer before dying.

The Magic King
03-03-2010, 05:51 AM
1. Everybody gets one. This rule allows every player to survive one encounter that would have otherwise slain them. (unless they are purposefully abusing the rule, kicking a dragon or some such)

2. Macgyver's law. If you can conceive of a way to Macgyver something up that would seemingly work in reality it works in fantasy as well. e.g. Filling a jar with lamp oil bottles and placing an alchemist's fire in the center, for extra fun add with caltrops, then drop it from a wall or something.

3. Roll those bones. If for some reason the player wishes to alter some factor of their character I'll allow it. So long as they can roll the percentiles on the appropriately slim chances of victory, with terrible consequences for failure. (I had a player who wished to change from being female to male, he had a 30% chance of staying female 20% chance of turning male and a 49% chance of becoming a hermaphrodite, as well as the crazy low chance of 1% being without sex, he rolled that 1% somehow)

4. 20's and 1's ride. If the player rolls consecutive 20's they can continue to increase the effect same with 1's, e.g. if you were to roll a strength check to throw a rock and you rolled 4 consecutive 20's you are going to be setting some records, or at the very least impressing witnesses. (this applies positively and negatively)

5. You just said that aloud. If the players are getting side tracked with out of game talking. What they say their character says e.g. "He is probably a wuss." to the king.

Tony Misfeldt
03-03-2010, 01:13 PM
This one is a little silly, but I like to reward my players for role playing.

Good role playing negates the effect of otherwise failed intimidate or diplomacy checks. If the role playing is particularly amazing, I negate critical fails.
The problem with this is that I have to be able to role play back to them, something I'm not the most amazing at. On a scale from 3 to 18 on the CHA scale, I'd put myself at an 8. *shrugs* Well, I try at least.

This is actually very similar to how I DM. For example, in 2e, I would often ignore "Encounter Reaction" results if the players role played the situation very well.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

5. You just said that aloud. If the players are getting side tracked with out of game talking. What they say their character says e.g. "He is probably a wuss." to the king.

My old group had a very similar rule. It was the "You Said It, You Did It" Rule. This was during the time that the "NOT!" jokes were the "in" thing. Players kept saying things like "I pull out my dagger and stab the king . . . NOT!" So we decided, "You Said It, You Did It".

TheYeti1775
03-05-2010, 09:39 AM
Yup have them use them.

-10 rule
It's adjusting by your Con Modifier. 18 Con would get ya -14 death for example

COM scores
I've used it on occassion, allowing characters to chose it themselves as it is more as a descriptive method for roleplaying than an actual interaction thing. Sure a good looking character will get flirted with more but when their Charisma shows through is how it plays out. ;)

Cantrips & Orisons
0 level spells are spontaneous by casters. Ones that only have a roleplaying signfigance are nearly at will.

Good Role-Playing will outweigh many things. So will bad.
This falls into the "Say you play" rule as well. Was in a 12 player game once and it was a needed rule. Though if you stepped away from table or held your hand up it was an OOC moment.

Triple 20 - Death
Critical Critical - increase weapon modifier X2 now a X3, additional critical roll on top of that to increase again to X4. I've never had anyone get more than a X2 to X5 increase. So its never been a true game breaker, thought it makes for a hint of hope for when characters get into overwhelming circumstances. I.E. They challenge an Adult dragon at 3rd level. :rolleyes:

Others come and go depending on the group.

Dytrrnikl
03-09-2010, 05:04 AM
Encounter spell use rather than daily spell use - Inspired by the freedom with which Psions can spend PPs to manifest any power known in any combination they see fit, Sorcerors being able to cast spells without need for daily rememorization, and the exhausting effect of magic as described in the Dresden Files.

Caster classes have a number of spell slots each encounter with which to cast spells/manifest powers in whatever combination they wish. A single spell, unaugmented by metamagic feats, uses one spell slot.

The number of spell slots available each encounter is equal to 1 + Appropriate Ability Modifer + character level.
The appropriate ability modifiers are as follows and why...
Wizard/Bard - Constitution, due to the channeling of arcane energy through there bodies to power their spells.
Cleric/Druid - Charisma, faith for me isn't about Wisdom, it's about your personal sense of self and conviction in a higher power and being able to use that to sway the masses to your line of thinking. The gods don't so much give you the power to cast spells, so much as allow you to channel your faith in them into manifest miracles great and small.
Psion - Wisdom, Psionics have always been about tapping into ones subconscious, using the mental energies of the self to provide the energy for their powers.

Note, the classes still require a minimum of 10 + level of spell in - Intelligence for Wizards and Psions, Wisdom for Clerics and Druids, and Charisma for Bards in order to cast spells.

Thus a 5th level Wizard with a 19 Constitution has 10 spell slots [1 + 5(level) + 4(Constitution)] with which to cast spells in any combination he sees fit; A 20th level Psion with a 25 Wisdom has 28 slots with which to manifest his powers; and so on and so forth.

This change forced me to alter Metamagic/Metamagic feats in the following manner. Metamagic feats are utilized as spell is being cast and require the caster to utilize additional spell slots to cast spells, rather than a higher level spell slot. As an example, an Empowered Magic Missile would require a total of 3 spell slots in order to be cast...1 slot for Magic Missile and 2 slots for being Empowered; if it was Maximized instead it would've required 4 spell slots 1 for MM and 3 for being Maximized; if it was both Empowered and Maximized it would require 6 spell slots, 1 slot for MM, 2 for Empower, and 3 for Maximize. Thus a caster can augment their spells, but at the cost of more rapidly exhausting the metaphysical endurance.

A further addition, to allow for casters to be truly dramatic, and add something to the game, I ported over the Condition track from Star Wars saga. This allows casters to cast spells beyond their limit without me forcing them to become automatically exhausted. Casters that have reached their limit and still wish to cast spells or those casters that are going to exceed their encounter limit with their spell make a concentration check equal to DC20+level of spell+other applicable modifiers(if any). Succeed and cast the spell, however it still taxes you, giving a persistent condition for that encounter moving you 1 step down the condition track. The persistent condition may only be removed by gaining a full nights rest. Fail and you are unable to cast anymore spells for that encounter and move 2 steps down the Condition track, again a persistent condition. Removable as described previously.

Eldrich Thurge
03-11-2010, 07:19 PM
PC's must have at least four racial hit dice to qualify for war hulk or hulking hurler.
Party must be either mostly good/evil to make use of BOVD/BOED.
PC's must practically have a halo over their heads to take exalted feats.
A party vote must approve anyone going into either Frenzied berserker or Apostle of peace. Due to the effects they have on the party.
No psionics/TOB/and 4th ed playtest stuff.
The Rule 0 Club is to sit in the corner and gather as much dust as possible.

Ishcumbeebeeda
03-12-2010, 04:16 PM
One that we usually have in groups that I'm in that I particularly like is that you only need what is considered a normal night's "sleep" for your race (min. 1 hour of rest for races/classes that don't need any kind of "sleep," such as Watchers) in order to regain your spells/day. After all, it only makes sense that after having rested for the normal amount of time for your race you feel rested and rejuvenated.

cigamnogard
03-12-2010, 05:49 PM
1. Keen and improved critical stack
2. Dodge is flat +1 no declaration needed
3. Current campaign has some extras:
A/12 hp at first level
B/An extra feat at 1st level

Crom on his Mountain
03-13-2010, 09:21 AM
My most important house rule is one of perception. Hit points do not represent your ability to absorb damage, it represents your ability to AVOID damage. Unless you suffer a critical hit, max damage, or run out of hit points you are not actually physically wounded. You are not running around with half a dozen arrows sticking out of you.

Sascha
03-13-2010, 10:41 AM
My most important house rule is one of perception. Hit points do not represent your ability to absorb damage, it represents your ability to AVOID damage. Unless you suffer a critical hit, max damage, or run out of hit points you are not actually physically wounded. You are not running around with half a dozen arrows sticking out of you.
So, rules as written, then? ;)

upidstay
03-14-2010, 07:55 AM
Had a bunch over the years. Too many to list, really. Here's a few.

Crits: Roll a 2nd d20. Did this even before 3rd ed. Showed the severity of the crit. Roll a natural 20, does max damage, no rolling required. Roll another d20. Confirm the original crit? Does an extra die of damage. Rolled ANOTHER 20 (happened twice, 3 nat 20's in a row) and you've killed it. Lopped off the head, bullet between the eyes, etc.

Hit points: Take max at every level. You'll need them.

Brownie Points: Bring snacks or food to every game, buy a new battle mat for the party, maintain a website for the campaign and keep it updated? You get Brownie Points. These can be traded in for gold if you're a little short, or trade a bunch in to re-reoll a flubbed roll. Let one kid who did ALOT for the party take an extra feat.

cigamnogard
03-15-2010, 07:21 PM
So, rules as written, then? ;)
HA! Love it!

TaliesinNYC
03-30-2010, 04:41 PM
I have a number of house rules I use in my campaigns but the biggest one that essentially trumps everything else is "the rules are only guidelines". Essentially it means that if something isn't working for whatever reason, I'm more than willing to adapt.

Flexibility and consistency is key in my book.

Tony Misfeldt
07-27-2011, 10:06 PM
Kris Bladed Weapons:

Kris bladed weapons are weapons, specifically knives, daggers, and swords, that have a "squiggly" blade rather than a straight blade. Only straight bladed weapons (short swords, long swords, bastard swords, etc) can have kris bladed alternatives. This is a Filipino style of blade making. The idea is that the "Squiggly" design of the blade gives the weapon a longer cutting edge without making the blade itself longer and thus more cumbersome.

Game Mechanics:

In any Sword & Sorcery game, such as Dungeons & Dragons or Pathfinder, a kris bladed weapon will do the next highest die of damage for that weapon. For example, a d4 becomes a d6, a d6 becomes a d8, etc, etc.

Dagger: (Standard Blade = 1d4)/(Kris Blade = 1d6)

Short Sword: (Standard Blade = 1d6)/(Kris Blade = 1d8)

Long Sword: (Standard Blade = 1d8)/(Kris Blade = 1d10)

Bastard Sword: (Standard Blade = 1d10)/(Kris Blade = 1d12)

Great Sword: (Standard Blade = 2d6)/(Kris Blade = 2d8)



http://www.swordsandarmor.com/images/SD901098_Flamberge_Sword.jpg

http://warriorwomen.50megs.com/images/swords_fantasy_kris_blades.jpghttp://www.knifecenter.com/knifecenter/cas/images/004ppj.jpg

tesral
07-27-2011, 10:50 PM
The European equivalent was flambage. In reality they were harder to make with no commiserate advantage for the expense.

Tony Misfeldt
07-28-2011, 03:57 AM
True, they are harder to make, as well as more difficult to maintain. However, I must disagree with you on them having no advantage. I used to own one, which I had the opportunity to test on a pig carcass and compare to a typical straight edged sword. I can tell you from personal experience, that the kris bladed sword, or flamberge if you prefer, does in fact cut more deeply than the typical straight blade. And in D&D terms, that equals more damage.

Tony Misfeldt
08-03-2011, 03:16 AM
By the way. My rule about Kris/Flamberge bladed weapons isn't just my rule. I had read it in a Dragon Magazine some years ago. It was way back in 2nd Edition, but the rule translates to the d20 system pretty well I think.

Malruhn
08-03-2011, 09:50 PM
Tony, I can't argue from personal experience, as I haven't lopped any pigs apart with ANY swords, but I do have a question...

Were they of similar weights, lengths and sharpness?

I also question (not that it can be answered) whether or not the associated bludgeoning damage would be the same - thereby nullifying the cutting ability - the long/bastard-sword may well do more cut/bludgeoning damage than the lesser bludgeoning damage plus lots of cutting damage of the wavy bladey (it's a technical term - look it up!!).

Again, I have nothing upon which to base an argument, but those are the questions I have.

Tony Misfeldt
08-04-2011, 09:39 PM
As to your question about the two swords being of similar length, weight, and sharpness. The answer is "Yes they were." They even had similarly designed hilts, both allowing me to grip them two handed for extra power. It's possible that the flamberge bladed sword was a little heavier than the straight bladed one, but they'd have to be weighed on a scale to tell for sure. Just by holding them, there was no noticable difference.

As for your question regarding bludgeoning damage. I'm afraid I don't know. This ain't the Deadliest Warrior Testing Lab. I don't have access to all the nifty high tech gadgets they have on that show. I was lucky to find a butcher shop which sells whole pigs to test it on.

All I can tell you is, in the experiment that I conducted, the flamberge/kris/wavy bladed sword cut much deeper than the straight bladed sword of similar design. The straight bladed sword cut about half way to the pig's spine. The flamberge one cut all the way to the pig's spine. In the hands of a more skilled swordsman than I am, it may very well cut the pig in half.

Malruhn
08-05-2011, 03:28 PM
I fully accept your estimation of weights... it's as scientific as I would have done (giggle!!).

Thinking purely scientific, and having a deep love of anything bladed, I'm going to have to say that I would agree that the cutting ability would be better with a wavy sword - because of the amount of cutting surface on the target. The smaller the blade edge, the deeper the cut - as long as the weights and power were the same (again - I accept your guesstimate). It's just a matter of spreading out or concentrating the initial blow - and explains why guru (gurus? gyros? gooroos?) can lay on a bed of nails with no damage, but if you lay on ONE nail, you get a pokey hole in your back. The initial contact would be with a smaller amount of poke-itude, which would enable that part to break the surface tension of the target much easier... when the "recessed" part of the blade would just continue the cut.

Okay, I'll accept your idea that the kris/flamberge does more damage. Now, I just wish they still used weapon speeds in determining initiative/reaction like in 2nd Edition... There has to be SOME downside to the curvy blades!!

Oh, and what kind of crazy butcher would allow someone to hack apart perfectly good bacon??? He's CRAZY, I tell's ya, CRAZY!!

nijineko
08-05-2011, 05:31 PM
hmmmm, i do use a few at that....

there are certain books that i decline to use or play in any game that uses them.

i like the alternate rule of rolling a d20 wherever there is a static dc in 3.x d&d.

i will sometimes use the ac = dr for armor, and shields = deflection type of ac, considering usage.

i see the multi-classing rules of 3.x as a way of building your own class or prestige, much in the way that tesral uses the xp rider idea, and others do away with classes entirely or use point buy systems instead. the d&d as written almost never has the exact idea that i am wanting to rp, so i find myself having to use a bunch of cobbled together classes and prestiges to accomplish the particular mix of abilities i was after. and then i wind up ignoring or pretending i don't have the excess baggage of the other abilities that came with having to pick all those oddball levels in order to preserve the character concept and rp.

some good combos have come out of it, such as managing to qualify for druid-only prestige classes without ever taking a single level of druid, or playing an ancient spirit character who was possessing a weapon, and so forth.

Sascha
08-05-2011, 05:56 PM
If you're going by traditional Indonesian/Malaysian usage, a keris (kris/kalis) is fairly breakable, partly due to construction materials, partly due to ritualized cleaning and care. ... Course, not every keris even has a wavy-blade, so that might not be the best model of wave-v-straight blade tradeoff.

(Also, the waves or dents have spiritual significance, so the 'why' of making a keris with a wavy/dented blade goes beyond physics and biology... It's a very ritualized weapon, rather than strictly practical.)

tesral
08-06-2011, 12:54 AM
I

Okay, I'll accept your idea that the kris/flamberge does more damage. Now, I just wish they still used weapon speeds in determining initiative/reaction like in 2nd Edition... There has to be SOME downside to the curvy blades!!

They are much more difficult to make. A decently trained and talented beginner can turn out a usable straight blade without too much effort. Something good enough to hand to a peasant conscript. Flambage blades require a master craftsman to even try and take much longer to make. Ergo are highly expensive. That is why I say they are not worth the trouble. Very expenive compared to a compatable quality straight blade and you do not get a compatible increase in damage. Is one die type worth the three to five times the cost?

Malruhn
08-06-2011, 02:31 PM
I'm just thinking standard D&D group and munchkins or power-players. If a kris does double damage to start, then most munchies and PP'ers would grab them as soon as they were able. I've seen too many that ignored any sort of D&D cultural thing (like playing an Asian or Middle Eastern culture) and immediately purchase two-handed swords because they did more damage.

I would suggest a house-rule that says you need Exotic Weapon Proficiency feats or similar to use them - or to be part of an elite military unit (and have to have papers to support your claims!!). If a wavy longsword only costs 50 gp (or 200 gp for that matter), they'll be snatched up by any goober that min-maxes before you can say, "You still owe me a character background!"

Sascha
08-06-2011, 04:02 PM
I'm just thinking standard D&D group and munchkins or power-players. If a kris does double damage to start, then most munchies and PP'ers would grab them as soon as they were able. I've seen too many that ignored any sort of D&D cultural thing (like playing an Asian or Middle Eastern culture) and immediately purchase two-handed swords because they did more damage.
The ōdachi/nodachi or zhǎn mǎ dāo (among others) could qualify as an Asian "two-handed sword." What with them being swords, using two hands, and all. You have a point with the Western Asia/Near East weapons, though.

As for the keris/kris, I'm not sure the wavy forms have any greater quality than their straight-bladed brothers and sisters. The waves are really too deeply ingrained into the spiritual beliefs of the ethnic Malay people to translate easily into "stabs dudes better" game mechanics. (Comparisons to European flame-bladed swords are rather flimsy, as they ignore the cultural aspect of why those weapons were made. Check out this article (http://www.thingsasian.com/stories-photos/1955), for a tourist's guide to keris definition.)

Tony Misfeldt
08-08-2011, 08:02 PM
First, let me clarify, kris/flamberge bladed swords do NOT do double damage. They do THE NEXT SIZE UP in dice. A shortsword that does double damage is 2d6. A kris/flamberge shortsword does 1D8 DAMAGE.

Second, I understand the concern over people abusing the rule. When the 2nd Edition Complete Fighter's Handbook came out, everyone and their cousin wanted their character to have a katana. The size and weight of the katana were about the same as a bastard sword, and the damage was the same as a great sword. DMs had to carefully dictate if and how characters came across a katana.

Now with Kris/flamberge blades, they should have to find a weaponsmith or be from a culture that produces such weapons. If they're not from such a culture, they should at least be worldly enough to be aware of such weapons. Buying them should be more expensive, similar to masterwork weapons. They should require special maintenance, somewhat like the Drusus. This is mostly a roleplaying penalty. If the player neglects to mention that he's maintaining his flamberge weapon, it will eventually do normal damage.

These are just my suggestions. Feel free to come up with your own penalties.

tesral
08-08-2011, 09:16 PM
I think the very high cost sould be enough. They are much more difficult to make. how they are made is also an issue. A true Kris is a serpentine blade. The Flambage was more a wavy edge but the blade itself was straight. My wife's personal knife is a kris blade.

If you don't require fighters to mention maintaining weapons and armor then you should not make an exception for one kind of weapon. All blades and armor require work. I go though my collection about twice a year to clean and polish and mine do not do real work. It is simply something that is assumed to happen in the down time at camp and the like. The cleric prays, the magician studies, the fighter oils and cleans.

hopesfirexx
09-09-2011, 07:23 PM
If you are caught cheating, the DM will ride down from the skies on a dragon and do permanent damage to your character. O_O Happened once to the poor sap sitting next to me, and I don't think it'll ever happen again!

I like the spell incantations too, I think they make the game a little more fun!

Aramil Swingblade
11-04-2011, 03:01 AM
VOCAL COMPONENT:[/B] I have a rule that all players who are playing spellcasters (clerics, wizards, bards, etc) must speak the vocal component for any spell their character is casting. Thus, saying "I cast fireball at the oncoming orcs" and then rolling dice doesn't work. You have to say "I pull out a ball of bat guano, sprinkle some sulphur over it, and say 'LLAB ERIF!', and cast my fireball at the oncoming orcs". THEN you can start rolling dice for damage.

I like to have the rule that when my party does Diplomacy or Intimidate checks, I make it real. If they say it in an intimidating nature i'll give them a bonus to their intimidate roll, and if they sound sympathetic to a poor person they're trying to diplomacise i'll give them a bonus to that. And if they try to intimidate someone by just saying it weakly or non threatning. i'll give them a penalty. This is kinda hard to explain but i hope whoever reads this gets the gist of it. :)

Tony Misfeldt
01-07-2012, 09:55 PM
I've noticed that in the d20 style games I've seen and/or played in (D&D 3.X/4E, Pathfinder, etc), there are very few if any rules for awarding XP for anything other than combat. I correct this by using the Personal Bonus XP Charts, as well as the Class Bonus XP Charts from the 2nd Edition DMG. I've also recently acquired a copy of Paladium's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness RPG. They have a fairly extensive XP Award Chart, most of which aren't combat related. Thus I will also add these XP awards to my game. Here is the chart, for those of you who don't already have the book and would like to use these XP awards as well:

XP Arward ...... Action

25 XP ............... Performing a skill (successfully or not)

25 XP ............... Clever, but futile idea

100 XP ............. Clever, useful idea or action

100 XP ............. Quick thinking idea or action

200 XP ............. A critical plan or action that saves the character's life and/or a few comrades

400-1000 XP ...... A critical plan or action that saves the entire group or many people

100-300 XP ......... Endagering the character's own life to help others

500-700 XP ......... Self-sacrifice (or potential self-sacrifice) in a life & death situation (like leaping in front of a fireball meant for someone else to save that person, or offering one's own life to save the group or another)

100 XP ............... Avoiding unnecessary violence

100-200 XP ......... Deductive reasoning and/or insight

50 XP .................. Good judgement

50 XP .................. Playing a character bonus

50-100 XP ........... Daring (whether it's clever or not)

nijineko
01-08-2012, 10:38 PM
which is odd, considering that there are rules (and always have been) for awarding non-combat xp. however, i agree that they are pretty vague and non-specific.

i won't repost it, so i'll just put the link here instead: my personal guide to xp awards (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php/18940-nijineko-s-personal-guide-to-story-awards-of-xp-in-d-amp-d.?highlight=xp+award). =D

Tony Misfeldt
01-09-2012, 04:11 AM
^^ I've never been able to find anything specific towards awarding XP in noncombat situations in D&D 3.X or Pathfinder. Only thing I could find regarding XP for either game was XP values for Challenge Ratings.
2nd Edition AD&D has very specific rules regarding awarding XP in noncombat situations. Some are very general, others are class specific. Off the top of my head:

100-200 XP for good role playing

1 XP/Gold Piece stolen by rogues

50 XP/Spell level cast by a wizard to overcome an obsticle

100 XP/Spell level cast by a cleric to overcome an obsticle (technically it has to be tied to the mythos of the cleric's deity, but that often gets ignored by the DM)

And I'm sure there are others, but I can't access my 2nd Edition DMG right now and these are all I can remember. But I'm fairly certain that there are no such charts in the 3rd Edition DMG, or in the Pathfinder GM Guide and Core Rulebook.

I just find it to work better if you have a comprehensive and easy to follow chart. Like the list above, or the charts in the 2nd Edition DMG. DMing is tough enough without confusing, convoluted rules for XP that you can't even find, and when you do find them make little if any sense.

Malruhn
01-09-2012, 05:11 PM
The XP awarded for stolen stuff for rogues always bothered me... it was like "Wandering XP" in the wilderness, especially for picking pockets.

You pick a pocket - roll randomly to see what you get... and, "ZOMG!! You got his platinum pendant!!" And the chances of getting it was exactly the same as getting that plugged copper piece.

tesral
01-09-2012, 05:36 PM
Reference, from the AD&D 2ed DMG (rtf copy on the Core Rules 2 CD

.
Individual Experience Awards (Optional Rule)


Individual experience point awards are given for things a player does or things he has his character do. Intelligent play is worth experience; good role-playing is worth experience; actions that fit the group's style are worth experience.
Although some of these awards are tied to abilities, giving out these experience points is purely a discretionary act. It is up to the DM to decide if a player character has earned the award and, within a given range, to determine the amount of the award. These awards are normally given at the end of each session, but this isn't a hard-and-fast rule--the DM can award individual experience points any time he feels it appropriate.
Individual experience point awards are divided into two categories. First are awards all player characters can earn, regardless of class. After these are the awards characters can earn according to their character group and class. This information is given on Tables 33 and 34.


Table 33:
Common Individual Awards


Player has a clever idea 50-100
Player has an idea that saves the party 100-500
Player role-plays his character well* 100-200
Player encourages others to participate 100-200
Defeating a creature in a single combat XP value/creature


*This award can be greater if the player character sacrifices some game advantage to role-play his character. A noble fighter who refuses a substantial reward because it would not be in character qualifies.




Table 34:
Individual Class Awards


Award
Warrior
Per Hit Die of creature defeated 10 XP/level

Priest
Per successful use of a granted power 100 XP
Spells cast to further ethos 100 XP/spell level*
Making potion or scroll XP value
Making permanent magical item XP value

Wizard
Spells cast to overcome foes or problems 50 XP/spell level
Spells successfully researched 500 XP/spell level
Making potion or scroll XP value
Making permanent magical item XP value

Rogue
Per successful use of a special ability 200 XP
Per gold piece value of treasure obtained 2 XP
Per Hit Die of creatures defeated (bard only) 5 XP


* The priest character gains experience for those spells which, when cast, support the beliefs and attitudes of his mythos. Thus, a priest of a woodland deity would not gain experience for using an entangle spell to trap a group of orcs who were attacking his party, since this has little to do with the woodlands. If the priest were to use the same spell to trap the same orcs just as they were attempting to set fire to the forest, the character would gain the bonus.

Rodimal
01-12-2012, 07:59 PM
We play a combo of Pathfinder and D&D 3.5.
No evil PCs. Ever.
No alignment restrictions on monsters.
A natural 20 is always are critical. confirmation is rolled to confirm max damage.
Ambidexterity gives a +4/+4 to primary and offhand attacks and removes the penalty for using two weapons when paired with Two Weapon Fighting. It can only be taken at first level. Rangers get it as a bonus feat.
Improved and Greater Two Weapon fighting give one extra offhand attack with no penalty.
Scimitars are considered light weapons for the purpose of Two Weapon Fighting.
Drow are modified to remove Level adjustment. Remove poison, remove spell resistance -2wis.
Tome of Battle is awesome and available to all.
Vow of Poverty is for Monks only.
Persistant spell is not allowed.
When rules conflict Pathfinder wins.

nijineko
01-17-2012, 01:04 AM
^^ I've never been able to find anything specific towards awarding XP in noncombat situations in D&D 3.X or Pathfinder. Only thing I could find regarding XP for either game was XP values for Challenge Ratings.

(snip)

And I'm sure there are others, but I can't access my 2nd Edition DMG right now and these are all I can remember. But I'm fairly certain that there are no such charts in the 3rd Edition DMG, or in the Pathfinder GM Guide and Core Rulebook.

I just find it to work better if you have a comprehensive and easy to follow chart. Like the list above, or the charts in the 2nd Edition DMG. DMing is tough enough without confusing, convoluted rules for XP that you can't even find, and when you do find them make little if any sense.

starting from page 39 in the 3.5 dmg: assigning challenge ratings for traps (and thus xp, found by using the single monster award table); page 40: awarding story xp via assigning cr to non-combat encounters and mission goals (again using the cr assigned on the single monster award table to generate the xp); and on page 40-41: assigning rp awards, which references the ad-hoc guidelines on p38.

i would venture to say that the table itself is misnamed. it should have been named just 'xp table', rather than 'single monster...'.

however, the rules have always been there. i do believe that they have not changed much from the 3.0 dmg either.

*pulls out his 3.0 dmg and checks*

yup, there they are on pages 165-169. mostly the same text with little alteration.


so yes, you are right, it is all CR driven, but i guess you missed that they intended all dms to assign CR to everything from the beginning: traps, combat, non-combat encounters, story awards, missions, ect..

i tend to assign cr based on how much of the party resources were expended in the encounter. if they burn some spells of charisma boosting, and detect lies, and true seeing and so forth in prep of a diplomatic negotiation, make some skill checks, and think to ask certain questions, they should get xp accordingly. i assign the encounter a set of goals behind the curtain: winning certain concessions, getting certain information out of a stubborn individual, detecting certain falsehoods... and so forth. then i assign each goal a cr, and voila, xp is easy to find on the table.

some things can be won via skill check, some via spell use, some via rp only. i like to award all the play styles, or at least have something in place for the likely routes the pc will take - which also serves as my ad-hoc framework for assigning cr (and hence xp) when they go ballistic on my plans. =D

Tony Misfeldt
01-17-2012, 06:47 AM
Quite frankly, I feel they should have put all that information together, and labled it something other than "Individual Monster XP". A lock you have to pick might have a CR, but it's not a monster. And neither are players who are role playing their characters well. And how do you determine the CR of clever role playing?

I kinda like the idea behind CR, as it helps ensure that people don't see NPCs and monsters as little more than bags of XP waiting to be killed. However, the system has its flaws. And when it comes to things as subjective as non-combat situations, like role playing, then it should be a set, easy to find, numerical value.

What is the CR of speaking in a Russian accent whenever your dwarf talks? What is the CR of getting an orc war party to chase after your character so that your companions can escape? What is the CR of your female PC seducing the guard so she can escape the prison?

tesral
01-18-2012, 02:46 PM
One reason I dropped the whole XP by the encounter thing. I award session XP based on the degree of plot covered plus any bonuses I feel are deserved.

nijineko
01-19-2012, 01:12 AM
What is the CR of speaking in a Russian accent whenever your dwarf talks? What is the CR of getting an orc war party to chase after your character so that your companions can escape? What is the CR of your female PC seducing the guard so she can escape the prison?

the first would fall under an ad-hoc award, the second would be an encounter award, the third would be an rp award. all of which are the dm's decision. i can explain further if it is desirable.

Tony Misfeldt
01-21-2012, 07:29 AM
I know I've already posted this rule several pages back, but I've made some changes to it so I thought I'd post it again. I was inspired some time ago to create the Seduction Skill, due to reading Frank Dux's autobiography where he describes how he studied the art of seduction as part of his CIA training, then goes on to describe how it actually saved his life in the field. Now, I've been playing Pathfinder for nearly a year now, so I have tweaked the rules for use in the Pathfinder Game.

Skill: Seduction
Ability Score Adjustment: Charisma
Class Skill: Bards & Rogues get Seduction as a Class Skill
Racial Adjustment: Elves get a +4 bonus to the Seduction Skill. Half-Elves get a +2 bonus.
Feats: The Persuasive feat grants a +2 bonus to the Seduction Skill (increases to +4 when there are 10 or more ranks on the skill). The Skill Focus feat grants a +3 bonus to the skill (+6 if there's 10 or more ranks on the skill).
Skill Synergy: Having 5 or more ranks in the Diplomacy skill grants a +2 synergy bonus to Seduction.
Traits: The Charming trait grants a +1 bonus to the Seduction Skill.
Untrained Use?: Yes
NPC Races: Alu-Fiends, Dryads, Erinyes, Incubi, Succubi, and Wood Nymphs all get a +4 racial bonus to the Seduction skill (all except the Alu-Fiend, who only gets +2 due to being half human). Furthermore, they also get the Seduction skill as a Class Skill, regardless of their actual character class (thus a Wood Nymph Druid would get a +3 bonus to Seduction as a Class Skill, in addition to her +4 racial bonus).
NPC Classes: Bar Wench, Belly Dancer, Courtesan, Harem Girl, and Prostitute all get Seduction as a Class Skill.
Mechanics: The seductress must make a Skill Check on a d20, adjusted for CHA, Ranks, Class, Feats, Race, and Traits, etc. The intended target then makes a Will Save, adjusted for WIS and Misc Modifiers, using the seductress' Skill Check as the DC. If his Will save is equal to or greater than the seductress' Skill Check total, he had successfully avoided being seduced. If not, then he has fallen victim to her charms.

Modifiers: Because the Seduction skill can gain modifiers far more quickly than the Willpower Save, there are several Misc Situational Modifiers to balance things out. Most provide a bonus to the Saving Throw, some give a penalty. The following are the modifiers I came up with. Feel free to add some of your own to the list, or adjust the numbers to your taste.

Has taken a Vow Of Chastity: +10
Heterosexual member of the same sex: +10
Homosexual member of the opposite sex: +10
Is a heterophobe/homophobe: +5*
Happily committed to a long term monogomous relationship: +10
Committed to a long term monogomous relationship: +5
Morally against premarital/extramarital sex: +5
Strong work ethic: +5
Member of a different race than the seductress': +1 to +5**
Member of a race hostile towards the seductress' race: +10
From a different culture than the seductress': +5***
Has ranks in Seduction: +1/rank****

Under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol: -1/drink and/or dose of narcotics#
Is from a culture which practices polygamy: -5##
Is part of a hedonistic religion/society: -10
Has not had intimate contact for several weeks and is very . . . lonely: -5
Has not had intimate contact for several months and is very, VERY . . . lonely: -10

*This can only be chosen as a modifier if the DM chooses homosexual of opposite sex or heterosexual of same sex as a modifier.

**This is up to the DM's discretion. A hobbit seducing a human might not require an adjustment, but a female dwarf trying to seduce a male human might (most heterosexual men don't want to make it with someone with thicker facial hair than they have).

***DM's discretion. What's considered seductive and alluring in one culture might be considered rude and vulgar in another.

****This is due to them being able to recognize their seduction techniques, as they use them themselves.

#This number can go up at the DM's discretion, especially if the specific narcotics being consumed are known to increase one's libido.

##Alternatively, this could be changed to "No Modifier" at the DM's discretion. It was added to try and maintain a balance between positive and negative conditional modifiers.

Sascha
01-23-2012, 05:55 PM
I know I've already posted this rule several pages back, but I've made some changes to it so I thought I'd post it again. I was inspired some time ago to create the Seduction Skill, due to reading Frank Dux's autobiography where he describes how he studied the art of seduction as part of his CIA training, then goes on to describe how it actually saved his life in the field. Now, I've been playing Pathfinder for nearly a year now, so I have tweaked the rules for use in the Pathfinder Game.
Honest curiosity: why make it a new skill, rather than applications of already existing skills? It seems like it'd be easier to mechanically model using skill synergies, but that might just be me.

Also, the written examples all use feminine pronouns, but your inspiration isn't, I would wager. Just for clarification, male characters can take this skill, too, right?


Heterosexual member of the same sex: +10
Homosexual member of the opposite sex: +10This seems far too low, 'specially with everything else equal. Identity is a far, far harder nut to crack than this would indicate. (It's also a far messier subject than these game mechanics try to model, but I'd still wager a 'realistic' modifier closer to +20 than +10.)


Strong work ethic: +5Seems like a non-sequitur.


Member of a different race: +5*This might need to be variable. And/or tied to the culture-based one.


Is from a culture which practices polygamy: -5I'm not sure that applies to this context. Polyamory might be closer to your intent. (Or, y'know, serial monogamy.)

Tony Misfeldt
01-24-2012, 03:38 AM
I suppose you could try modifying the Diplomacy skill, but it's a little too limited IMO (at least in regards to the applications of this skill). It works better if it's used more like Bluff. However there's no equivelant to Sense Motive for the counter roll, thus the new skill.


As for the pronouns, I just think "seductress" sounds nicer than "seducer". Also, you have to choose one pronoun or the other (in Pathfinder's description of the Paladin class, all pronouns are feminine as well) so I chose the feminine. But you are correct in that both men AND women can take the skill (just as both men AND women can become paladins).


As for the question of sexual identity, I personally think a +10 adjustment is more than enough. For one thing, I know plenty of people (both gay and straight) who have "dabbled" on the other side of the fence. In this case, the Seduction skill indicates one's ability to persuade someone to "experiment".
For another, you'd be amazed how much of a difference a 10 point adjustment makes. In a recent game, a band of goblins sneaked up on our party while we were sleeping. The DC to wake up was only 10, but we had a -10 penalty to our Perception checks. Most of us couldn't wake up until we were physically attacked. And keep in mind that that's a SKILL, not a SAVING THROW, which can be improved far more rapidly than a saving throw by applying Skill Points and taking feats like Awareness & Skill Focus: Perception.
Also, if the person in question is not just an NPC warrior or a peasant, he would likely have a strong Will modifier from class, WIS, and level adjustments anyway. For example, our old GM created a knightly order for his homebrew campaign called The Knights Of The Last Stand. As a special bonus, their deity grants them a +10 to Will saves vs Fear or Intimidation from anything of Servitor status or lower. One of our players created a 5th level cleric of this order (the order is open to all classes) to replace his barbarian that just got eaten the previous session. At level 5, with an 18 WIS, and the Protection Domain's domain powers, he gets a +10 total Willpower adjustment to his saving throws. If anything less than a demigod tries to use Intimidate or Fear magic, he gets an extra +10 for a total of +20. That makes for one HELL of a saving throw.


The "Strong Work Ethic" modifier is for when trying to seduce a guard/soldier while on duty. As a distraction so that your companions can sneak in, or perhaps as a means to get the guard to open your cell door in order to escape a dungeon. A guard who doesn't take his job seriously would be easier to seduce than one with a strong work ethic.


As for the polygamy question, I think it depends on the society in question. A polygamous society based on the Mormon communes which practice polygamy? Then it might not apply, as the moral code of Mormon-type characters would cancel it out. However, what about a barbarian from a male dominated society? The men fight wars and hunt dangerous beasts, and would likely be outnumbered by the women. In order to keep their numbers from dwindling it might be encouraged that the men take multiple wives. Also, unless they get their plural wives (or husbands for that matter) strictly through arranged marriages, they would have to be open to courting other people. And if you are open to courting/being courted, then you're likely more open to being seduced. And not everyone who gets seduced goes into it knowing it's a one night stand. Sometimes the seducer leads the seduced to believe that they're going to become a couple. That would require a separate Bluff check.


I did mention that the "Different Race" modifier was discretionary on the DM's part, but you may be right about giving it a sliding scale. Perhaps +1 for races closely related/similar in appearance (hobbits & gnomes, humans & elves, etc). For races where the differences are more pronounced would be +3 (hobbits & elves, gnomes & humans, etc). Then the races that are extremely different in appearance (humans & dwarves, half-orcs and . . . well just about anyone who's not a half-orc) would be +5.


Of course, this being a House Rule and all, if a DM chooses to introduce this skill into his campaign he is free to create his own list of Willpower modifiers for it. I think my list pretty much covers all possibilities though.

nijineko
01-26-2012, 02:23 AM
so, is that polygyny as is practiced by the splinter groups of ex-communicated individuals who used to be mormons, or is that polygamy as is doctrinally taught by the mormons and the old testament?

just wondering, as your reference seemed potentially confusing to me.

Tony Misfeldt
01-27-2012, 03:05 AM
When I listed polygomy, I was going by the core meaning of the word rather than any actual religious reference. "Poly" meaning "many", and "gamy" meaning "spouces". In many medeival socities, it was not unusual for the gender that was fewer in number to take on multiple mates in order to keep their society from dying out. When society slipped away from the matriarchal structure we once lived by and adopted a patriarchal structure, it was usually the men who were outnumbered by the women (as mentioned above, due to their being the ones who would march off to war or hunt dangerous beasts for food, clothing, and shelter), and thus the men would take multiple wives. In certain cultures, such as many Middle Eastern cultures, this remained a tradition (at least among the wealthy elite), while other cultures, like the European cultures, began to frown upon this practice as religions which teach that monogamy is good and polygamy is immoral began to take hold.

My use of the Mormons who practice polygamy as an example was just because that's the only modern society I can think of which still practices this way of life. I will admit to knowing very little of The Book Of Mormon, but I do know that the religion forbids drinking, dancing, drugs, going to the movies, etc. It is a very strict branch of the Christian faith, ranking right up there with Penticostals, Catholics, and that really obscure branch that forbids sex even for procriation purposes. Thus, while one could be a Polygamous Mormon, their other beliefs would not make them easily seduced. But unless you're creating your own theology for your D&D/Pathfinder world, and you're basing one of its religions on The Book Of Mormon, then a Mormon's resiliance to the art of seduction is pretty much a non-issue.

So I guess the simplest answer to your question might be "both".

Malruhn
01-28-2012, 12:45 AM
Actually, "Polygamy" means "Often Married". It is usually used instead of the term, "Polygyny" - "Many wives".

There quite a gulf between polygamy and polyandry. The first required many jiggly bits, the latter many dangly bits. The social differences in societies that would embrace these totally opposite poles of ideology would be more different than... dogs and... harmonicas.

Which medieval societies used polygamy? I'm a bit of a historian, particularly regarding medieval Europe - and I know of a grand total of ZERO. It was common in various Arabic societies, but not European. Unless you start getting to Pre-Roman Europe, it was Romanic and then Christian (Catholic) - and the ideologies of both ruling groups were quite different. After circa 1000 or so, Catholicism held sway throughout (for the most part), gaining strength and influence as the years passed. Any polygamy was stamped out except in rare circumstances.

Granted, this did not impact the ability of wealthy (read: royal) individuals who sidestepped this ban of multi-marriages by building the western version of harems - the concubines.

For present day (I won't use the term "modern" societies), you can still look at Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many other Arabic countries. And, yes, you can look at sub-societies like Warren Jeffs' clan of excommunicated Mormons.

nijineko
01-28-2012, 01:07 PM
When I listed polygomy, I was going by the core meaning of the word rather than any actual religious reference.

ah, i see. fair enough.



"Poly" meaning "many", and "gamy" meaning "spouces". In many medeival socities, it was not unusual for the gender that was fewer in number to take on multiple mates in order to keep their society from dying out.given that the medieval time period is fairly limited in scope, there are quite a few examples before, during, and after said time period. it is fair to note that it is seldom such a pragmatic reasons as preservation of a society that multiple spouses has ever been justified by said cultures. the historical records that survive simply do not support that line of reasoning. having said that, i think that that line of reasoning is a potentially defensible position to adopt if one is trying to justify multiple spouses. in my experience, it is more often a conclusion reached by outsiders to the society in question, and frequently so concluded much after the fact.



When society slipped away from the matriarchal structure we once lived by and adopted a patriarchal structure, it was usually the men who were outnumbered by the women (as mentioned above, due to their being the ones who would march off to war or hunt dangerous beasts for food, clothing, and shelter), and thus the men would take multiple wives. again, the historical record does not support the idea that humanity as a whole went from matriarchal to patriarchal. most of the records indicate that patriarchal has been the dominating philosophy for most (recorded) periods of time. thailand and a few subcultures around the world are the major exceptions. some tribes in africa have an interesting mix of the two. the amazonian tradition is another.

one particular example comes to mind where the males occupied the seats in the ruling body, but the females owned all the land and buildings, and could kick a guy out at any time she felt he wasn't providing, protecting, or otherwise living up to her expectations.




In certain cultures, such as many Middle Eastern cultures, this remained a tradition (at least among the wealthy elite), while other cultures, like the European cultures, began to frown upon this practice as religions which teach that monogamy is good and polygamy is immoral began to take hold.an examination of the origins of and history of monogamy vs polygamy would be in order to straighten this out. unfortunately, there are not many records which clarify this subject. both practices seem to have simultaneously existed for a long time.



My use of the Mormons who practice polygamy as an example was just because that's the only modern society I can think of which still practices this way of life. ah, yes, well mormons don't actually practice, anymore. just the ex-communicated splinter branches, sects, or small groups and individuals. there are still some who practice this in south america, africa, the middle east, and across asia. in asia, unless the second woman bears a son, and sometimes not even then, will she be acknowledged as a wife rather than a mistress.



I will admit to knowing very little of The Book Of Mormon, but I do know that the religion forbids drinking, dancing, drugs, going to the movies, etc. It is a very strict branch of the Christian faith, ranking right up there with Penticostals, Catholics, and that really obscure branch that forbids sex even for procriation purposes. the book or mormon is well worth the read. it is very revealing of the thought processes and history of the native americans who wrote it.

as far as mormon do's and don't go, permit me some corrections:



drinking = correct. more specifically, no alcohol, tea (leaves), coffee, and tobacco (smoking). excessively caffeinated drinks are also on record as having been nixed. the whole health code-belief is called the "word of wisdom" and has a list of do's, a list of dont's, and a list of benefits for following the suggestions given.
.
dancing = incorrect. perhaps you are confusing with another sect of christianity. mormons dance. a lot. in fact, church sponsored dances on a monthly or bi-monthly basis are one of the major approved forms of entertainment across the teenage, young single adult, and older single adult demographics. modesty in attire and dancing is required, but dancing is a big yes.
.
drugs = correct, though it should be noted that it does not apply to properly used medicine. (ie: tobacco)
.
movies = incorrect. movies are allowed. though rated-r (and worse) movies are forbidden, as are any movies with similar or otherwise inappropriate content.





Thus, while one could be a Polygamous Mormon, their other beliefs would not make them easily seduced. But unless you're creating your own theology for your D&D/Pathfinder world, and you're basing one of its religions on The Book Of Mormon, then a Mormon's resiliance to the art of seduction is pretty much a non-issue.i think all humans more or less depend upon the strength of their commitment to their convictions on this one. whatever they may be.



So I guess the simplest answer to your question might be "both".fair enough.



There quite a gulf between polygamy and polyandry. The first required many jiggly bits, the latter many dangly bits. The social differences in societies that would embrace these totally opposite poles of ideology would be more different than... dogs and... harmonicas.

interestingly enough, in my studies of the mormon version of "polygamy", i have yet to find anything limiting it to a given gender. technically, according to the doctrine, it could go either way. in practice so far, only polygyny has been recorded as having happened. this includes the old testament examples. i am not familiar enough yet with the koran, the mahabharata, the ramayana, or the several other texts on my list to study to comment on any examples, or the lack thereof, regarding multiple spouses.

as a side note, it is not easy to practice multiple spouses, the mormon way. according to the doctrinal teachings, most of the actually practicing ex-communicated types are not following the teachings correctly.



and as a nod to the topic of this thread, religions are something that garners the most house-rules in most campaigns i'm involved in. after all, i typically play only with people of strong beliefs, whatever they may be, who also can mutually respect each other. (that does not mean no debate, however. ^^) especially when people of strong faith, who want to play and do not want their character worshiping any god but the god that is true in their view. after all, whoever is the dm is going to have to take on the role of that god, or their representatives, and if the dm does it wrong, it can be potentially offensive. on the other hand, a dm playing their own god might get challenged on doctrinal points in play, especially if they do not follow a doctrine the way the other players understand it is supposed to work... among other strangeness.

it takes a mature, or at least open minded and able to control their emotional outbursts, sort of group to tackle these sort of issues in play. and the standard d&d sources do not give a whole lot of useful help or guidance on the matter.

Tony Misfeldt
01-29-2012, 06:44 AM
Thank you both on the clarification of the word "polygamy". As I had ever encountered it in reference to households with multiple spouces, thus that is the definition I was going by.

Also, I would like to correct myself. When I wrote "medeival" I meant "pre-medeival". It was late & my brain wasn't working on all cylindars when I wrote that.

And the reason there's no written historical documents saying that we were once a matriarchal society, is because those days predate the written word. Archaologists and historians have deduced these things from artworks and spiritual carvings they have found. By the time Man had learned to write, we had become a patriarchy.

I would also like to say that people are taking this whole thing way too seriously. Sword & Sorcery RPGs like D&D and Pathfinder are GAMES. They are FANTASY. While elements of these games may be based on historical facts, they are only loosely so. In a D&D world, you can have a society of cave dwelling primitives using stone tools & weapons in one area, then a thousand miles away there's another society living in an equivilant of the Bronze Age. A thousand miles from there can be a land that's equal to medeival England, with armored knights on horseback weilding steel swords, while a thousand miles from there you have yet another society the equivilant of France during the age of The Musketeers, with men wearing feathered wide brimmed hats and puffy sleeved shirts, and armed with rapiers and flintlock pistols. There's no need to expect 100% historical accuracy.

There are several reasons why a society might become polygamous in a fantasy setting. A desert people based on certain Arabic cultures may consider polygamy the norm because they view their wives as property and the more wives you have, the wealthier you're considered to be. This may be doubly so if the potential brides have to hand over a dowery. A farming community who worship an agricultural deity of birth & fertility may live a polygamous lifestyle because it is demanded by their deity. Then up in the northern mountains, the barbarian tribes may practice polygamy strictly out of necessity. For it is the men who risk their lives fishing in the icy cold river. Who hunt dangerous animals like bears, boars, and moose, for meat and furs. Who defend their clans against goblins, orcs, ogres, giants, and trolls, and sometimes even other barbarian tribes. It is very impractical for such a society to practice monogamy, for if the women outnumber the men 3 to 1, two thirds of their women will go their whole lives without bearing children. Its not about ownership of faith, its about survival. Three different imaginary societies in a fantasy setting with three very different reasons for practicing polygamy.

And if one is open to the possibility of taking on another mate, then they are open to the possibility of being seduced. After all, whether you're single and looking for a monogomous mate, or polygamous and looking for your next plural wife, you can't get either without courting her. And if you're open to courting someone else, you're also open to being courted. And, at least in the context of the rules for this particular skill, if you're open to being courted, then you're more open to being seduced.

nijineko
02-01-2012, 11:23 PM
first point: indeed, it is the most common modern reference.

second point: noted.

third point: well, i'm still not sure about that. after all the mahabharata is supposed to be many thousands of years old, and if i recall what discussions i've had with those more knowledgable than i on that work, it references writings considered ancient when it was written. then again, as i said, i don't know which type of society it supports. this is more on the 'before written word' comment. obviously from my other posts here and there, i believe that adam and eve (whenever they actually lived) were the first of our race living here on the planet. i can only think of four sources off the top of my head that support that belief, however. at least two of those sources clearly indicate that they not only had written word, but were a patriarchal society. i don't imagine that constitutes proof positive of that belief though.

point four: but there is so much potential for learning when challenged on a comment or three.... ^^ i am probably reading more serious than i intend, or feel about the matter. sorry about that. not to mention the technological revolution that would come from the readily accessible magic assumed in fantasy settings. in that regard, i think eberron has a better grasp of how magic would really affect a society, if it was easily available to any who cared to study for it.

point five: and with all the delvers going around killing off 'monsters', those societies are likely to be short on males (if patriarchal), or females (if matriarchal). multiple spouses due to adventuring parties... there's an interesting reason! =D

point six: i can see that. i think that the strictness of some methods of practicing multiple spouses would actually make one less open to seduction (i'm think mormons here, but then again, only if they were following the actual doctrine). generally speaking however, i think your point is sound. after all, the arabian nights collection abound with just such examples, fiction though it may be; it was based off of something.

Tony Misfeldt
02-02-2012, 04:16 AM
Perhaps it would be more accurate for a person from a polygomous society to forfiet the Will bonuses of being married (whether it be happily or not). But with all of the modifiers that give the person being seduced an advantage, I felt it was only fair to give them as many (or at least almost as many) modifiers that put them in a disadvantage. And again, all house rules are optional on the part of the DM. If he decides to allow this skill to be used in his campaign, he can feel free to alter it to his liking.

It was mentioned earlier that slightly altering another similar skill, such as Diplomacy, could garner the same results. I did a little number crunching, and if used in very simplistic situations, that could work.

For example, let's say a Charming 1st level half-elven bard with an 18 CHA and no ranks in Seduction decides to try to seduce the governor's stunningly beautiful, much younger, wife. She and the governor are very happily married, thus the DM awards the task a DC of 40. The player rolls the d20 and gets a 19. Plus 4 from his CHA modifier makes it 23. Not even close. At 2nd level, the player dumps 2 skill points into the Seduction skill. Now he gets his Class Skill bonus (+3), his Half-Elf bonus (+2), and his Charming bonus (+1). He tries again, this time rolling a 14. His total bonus is now +12, making his total roll a 26. Better, but not good enough. Now at 3rd level he takes Persuasive as his 3rd level feat, and puts another skill point towards Seduction. He now has a total bonus of +15, so he tries again. He rolls a 15, for a total of 30. Again, better but not good enough. So he goes out and adventures some more, reaching 5th level. He takes Skill Focus: Seduction and devotes 2 more skill points towards the skill, making his total bonus +20. He tries again and rolls a 13, for a total of 33. Frustrated, the bard goes out and adventures until he reaches 10th level. He now has 10 ranks in Seduction, and his bonuses from his feats have doubled from being +2 and +3 to being +4 and +6. So now he's a Charming (+1) half-elven (+2) 10th level bard (+3) with a 20 CHA (+5), 10 ranks in Seduction (+10), and the feats Persuasive (+4) and Skill Focus: Seduction (+6) for a total bonus of +31. He rolls a d20 and gets an 11. 11+31=42. He finally succeeds!

Technically there's nothing wrong with this method. I made the DC a little high in the above example, but that was to prove a point. If the DC is static, then it could conceivably take forever to successfully use this skill. But there is a flaw with this method. What if the charming, charismatic, half-elven bard in question were a female? What if the governor and his wife have strong moral objections to extramarital affairs? What if the governor and his wife are homophobes? How much higher should the DC be for these scenarios? What about all of them combined? Don't know? Neither do I.
Now let's take the same scenario, only use my original method. So we have a Charming (+1) female half-elven (+2) bard (+3) with an 18 CHA (+4) who wants to try and seduce the governor's stunningly beautiful, much younger, wife. As far as the player knows, the NPC has a +15 to +20 modifier to her Will check against her Seduction attempt. Still, if the player rolls high enough and the DM rolls low enough, he could still succeed even with no ranks in the skill. What the player doesn't know is that the governor and his wife are very happily married (+10), with strong moral objections to extramarital affairs (+5), and in addition to the wife being a heterosexual (+10) she is also a homophobe (as I didn't include this among the modifiers, let's call it +5). Thus she will be making her Will checks at +30. The bard makes her untrained attempt and rolls a 19. With a +4 bonus the end result is 23. The DM doesn't even have to add his die roll to know that failed. So the bard goes out adventuring and levels up. At level 2 she puts 2 ranks in Seduction, which also grants her her bonuses from her Charming trait (+1), her racial bonus (+2), and her Class Skill adjustment (+3), for a total bonus of +12. She comes back and tries again, this time rolling a 15 on a d20. 15 + 12 = 27. Again, the DM doesn't even have to look at the die to know the governor's wife beats it. So the bard goes out and adventures some more, leveling up and putting another rank into Seduction. She also takes Persuasive as her level 3 feat. Now she goes back and tries again with her new +15 bonus. The player rolls a d20 and gets a 17. 17 + 15 = 32. Now she has a chance. The DM rolls a 10, for a total of 40. Missed again. The bard goes out and adventures some more, leveling up two more times. She puts 2 ranks into Seduction and takes Skill Focus: Seduction. She goes back and tries again. This time she gets the governor's wife drunk first. After 10 glasses of wine, she makes her move. The player rolls a 12 on a d20. With 5 ranks in Seduction (+5), a 19 CHA (+4), the Charming trait (+1), her racial bonus (+2), her class bonus (+3), the Persuasive (+2) and the Skill Focus (+3) feats, her total bonus is +20. 20+12=32. The DM rolls a d20 and gets a 10. 10+30=40 and would normally beat a 32. But she had 10 glasses of wine, that's a -10 penalty (-1/glass x 10 glasses = -10). 40-10=30. 32 beats 30, thus the governor's wife has been successfully seduced. Later that night the governor retires to his bedroom to find his wife in bed with another woman.

Not only does this method take various possibilities into account, with the opposing roles it also takes considerable less time than the static DC method. One night the famale half-elven bard might be completely off her game. Another night she might luck out and ask the governor's wife at just the right moment. Perhaps she's upset because she caught her husband messing around with the chamber maid, explaining the lack of Willpower due to her emotional termoil (ie: the player rolled high, the DM rolled low, and this is how she "justifies" dabbling on the other side of the fence).

Malruhn
02-02-2012, 09:41 PM
I bow to your patience and number-crunching skills.

And agree with your numbers - to a point. DC's for social situations are rarely static - hey, things change. From the time the Level 1 Bard made the try and the 10th Level Bard returns, the couple may well have gotten divorced or whatever... so it may have changed. Your second example shows this, whereas you conveniently "forgot" to do that with the first example to help support your bias in not wanting to use Diplomacy.

With a LOT less involvement, I could have used the existing skill set to support the status quo and show that the people in question were just waiting to be seduced.

I think you are overthinking this and doing anything you can to not use the RAW. No sweat on that - I'm just curious as to why you aren't being honest with yourself on this.

Tony Misfeldt
02-03-2012, 05:50 AM
I bow to your patience and number-crunching skills.

And agree with your numbers - to a point. DC's for social situations are rarely static - hey, things change. From the time the Level 1 Bard made the try and the 10th Level Bard returns, the couple may well have gotten divorced or whatever... so it may have changed. Your second example shows this, whereas you conveniently "forgot" to do that with the first example to help support your bias in not wanting to use Diplomacy.

With a LOT less involvement, I could have used the existing skill set to support the status quo and show that the people in question were just waiting to be seduced.

I think you are overthinking this and doing anything you can to not use the RAW. No sweat on that - I'm just curious as to why you aren't being honest with yourself on this.

Who says I'm not being honest with myself? I honestly think that social situations require a more flexible style of skill that takes all variables into account. By making it a Will save rather than a static DC, this reflects these possible variants. Of course the couple in question could have gotten divorced at any time during the bard's adventuring career, and that would certainly change the DC as he would now be trying to seduce a woman who is now single but doesn't believe in having sex outside of wedlock. So now instead of a 40 DC for a happily married woman, you have maybe a 25 DC for a divorced prude. But again, what about other variables? The list of variables under Diplomacy are fine for that skill. But the number of complications that can arrize in social situations are far more numerous than that skill is set to handle. Plus, it is also possible, as my example shows, that these complications can stack. It's one thing to try and seduce a happily married woman. Trying to seduce a happily married homophobe with moral objections to extramarital affairs is an entirely different can of worms.

Do you honestly want to come up with the DC for each individual complication? And then every possible combination of complications? It seems to me, my way just makes more sense. Not every situation will be as extreme as the one I described above. Some will be so easy they hardly require a die roll. But there should always be at least a chance at either success or failure.

Here's an example of how the skill could be useful in a campaign. In one of the last gaming sessions I played, my character (a human female 1st level Rogue/4th level Sorveress) was assigned the duty of finding spies that had infiltrated the kingdom. She found one person who she thought might be a foreign spy. I was planning on having her try to seduce him, however the DM had him try to seduce her instead. She allowed him to succeed, getting him stone cold drunk in the process (using her Bluff skill to make him believe she was just as sloshed). Then she let him take her to his room where she totally rocked his world (with a fairly high roll on the Perform skill). When he had passed out (from being thuroughly drunk and screwed into exhaustion), she went through his room and found some suspicious documents. She then searched his body for identifying marks, noting a tattoo on his thigh. Once she had learned all she could, she got dressed and left. Of course, this particular case didn't require the need to use the Seduction Skill. But if he had not been so eager to get her into bed in the first place, she would've turned on the charm and it would have been a perfect chance to use the skill in game (before this adventure the adventures were very combat oriented and she had very few chances to attempt to seduce anybody). But with what she managed to achieve without using it, imagine what she can do with using it.

Skunkape
02-03-2012, 08:49 AM
We're using a rule that if you use a potion outside of combat, the potion heals for the full amount. Meaning that you have the time to carefully open the bottle and consume the entire contents, so you get the full effect.

Also I'm not awarding experience points in the game, instead after every third session, the players can level their characters. We discussed this and since all classes level at the same number of experience points, it saves me the trouble of keeping track of experience point awards and the players are satisfied with the speed of character advancement.

nijineko
02-05-2012, 10:19 AM
i like the every third session level idea. i think it keeps the spirit of both experiencing your character and abilities at each level, but also keeps the advancement going, which is a major point of interest for most players.

tesral
02-06-2012, 02:53 AM
I use a percentage of level per session. What ever works for the game.

Tony Misfeldt
02-07-2012, 09:13 PM
I know I've already posted this rule several pages back, but I've made some changes to it so I thought I'd post it again. I was inspired some time ago to create the Seduction Skill, due to reading Frank Dux's autobiography where he describes how he studied the art of seduction as part of his CIA training, then goes on to describe how it actually saved his life in the field. Now, I've been playing Pathfinder for nearly a year now, so I have tweaked the rules for use in the Pathfinder Game.

Skill: Seduction
Ability Score Adjustment: Charisma
Class Skill: Bards & Rogues get Seduction as a Class Skill
Racial Adjustment: Elves get a +4 bonus to the Seduction Skill. Half-Elves get a +2 bonus.
Feats: The Persuasive feat grants a +2 bonus to the Seduction Skill (increases to +4 when there are 10 or more ranks on the skill). The Skill Focus feat grants a +3 bonus to the skill (+6 if there's 10 or more ranks on the skill).
Skill Synergy: Having 5 or more ranks in the Diplomacy skill grants a +2 synergy bonus to Seduction.
Traits: The Charming trait grants a +1 bonus to the Seduction Skill.
Untrained Use?: Yes
NPC Races: Alu-Fiends, Dryads, Erinyes, Incubi, Succubi, and Wood Nymphs all get a +4 racial bonus to the Seduction skill (all except the Alu-Fiend, who only gets +2 due to being half human). Furthermore, they also get the Seduction skill as a Class Skill, regardless of their actual character class (thus a Wood Nymph Druid would get a +3 bonus to Seduction as a Class Skill, in addition to her +4 racial bonus).
NPC Classes: Bar Wench, Belly Dancer, Courtesan, Harem Girl, and Prostitute all get Seduction as a Class Skill.
Mechanics: The seductress must make a Skill Check on a d20, adjusted for CHA, Ranks, Class, Feats, Race, and Traits, etc. The intended target then makes a Will Save, adjusted for WIS and Misc Modifiers, using the seductress' Skill Check as the DC. If his Will save is equal to or greater than the seductress' Skill Check total, he had successfully avoided being seduced. If not, then he has fallen victim to her charms.

Modifiers: Because the Seduction skill can gain modifiers far more quickly than the Willpower Save, there are several Misc Situational Modifiers to balance things out. Most provide a bonus to the Saving Throw, some give a penalty. The following are the modifiers I came up with. Feel free to add some of your own to the list, or adjust the numbers to your taste.

Has taken a Vow Of Chastity: +10
Heterosexual member of the same sex: +10
Homosexual member of the opposite sex: +10
Is a heterophobe/homophobe: +5*
Happily committed to a long term monogomous relationship: +10
Committed to a long term monogomous relationship: +5
Morally against premarital/extramarital sex: +5
Strong work ethic: +5
Member of a different race than the seductress': +1 to +5**
Member of a race hostile towards the seductress' race: +10
From a different culture than the seductress': +5***
Has ranks in Seduction: +1/rank****

Under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol: -1/drink and/or dose of narcotics#
Is from a culture which practices polygamy: -5##
Is part of a hedonistic religion/society: -10
Has not had intimate contact for several weeks and is very . . . lonely: -5
Has not had intimate contact for several months and is very, VERY . . . lonely: -10

*This can only be chosen as a modifier if the DM chooses homosexual of opposite sex or heterosexual of same sex as a modifier.

**This is up to the DM's discretion. A hobbit seducing a human might not require an adjustment, but a female dwarf trying to seduce a male human might (most heterosexual men don't want to make it with someone with thicker facial hair than they have).

***DM's discretion. What's considered seductive and alluring in one culture might be considered rude and vulgar in another.

****This is due to them being able to recognize their seduction techniques, as they use them themselves.

#This number can go up at the DM's discretion, especially if the specific narcotics being consumed are known to increase one's libido.

##Alternatively, this could be changed to "No Modifier" at the DM's discretion. It was added to try and maintain a balance between positive and negative conditional modifiers.

Using some of the suggestions posted, I have adjusted the skill yet again. I hope it makes more sense now.

Tony Misfeldt
02-12-2012, 11:07 PM
Here's a house rule I've been thinking about for a while now. I've always had a problem with the logic behind the "Point Blank Shot" feat. Shooting someone at point blank range is what people with lousy aim do to make up for their lack of skill/hand-eye coordination. Now you need special training to be able to benefit from waiting until someone's only 10' away to shoot them. WTF? That makes no sense to me. So here's my solution:

Rule: All characters who are proficient in a ranged weapon (which is pretty much ALL of them, unless somehow they're too stupid to know how to point a crossbow and pull the trigger or throw a damn rock) gets "Point Blank Shot" as a free feat. This way, "Point Blank Shot" is still the first prerequisite for all of the other feats ("Precise Shot", "Rapid Shot", "Far Shot", etc), you just don't have to waste a perfectly good feat taking it.

This is pretty easy to retcon into a game. Anyone who doesn't have it can just write it in. Anyone who has wasted a feat taking it so that they can take "Precise Shot" later can just take an additional feat.

I suggested this rule to my GM. I'm waiting to hear back to find out what his thoughts are.

tesral
02-12-2012, 11:49 PM
Here's a house rule I've been thinking about for a while now. I've always had a problem with the logic behind the "Point Blank Shot" feat. Shooting someone at point blank range is what people with lousy aim do to make up for their lack of skill/hand-eye coordination. Now you need special training to be able to benefit from waiting until someone's only 10' away to shoot them. WTF? That makes no sense to me. So here's my solution:


Being a real archer I can tell yopu that shooting at "point blank range" is not easy. For guns, I agree, it doesn';t make much sense. But the average guy with a bow that has not shot at 5 yards will tend to miss. The reason is the archer's paradox. Whe nthe arrow first comes off the bow it wobbles around like hell, and lifts a great deal higher than you might think. The trick I was taught was aim like it was 30 yards and that works. But before you know that....

Tony Misfeldt
02-13-2012, 06:51 AM
I never knew that about firing a bow. Interesting. I have shot a crossbow a few times at the carnival. Never won the teddy bear, but I always come really damn close (I tend to hit the star right on the edge). Those targets were only about 10 feet away from the counter too, which puts them well within the Point Blank Range.

So my aim with the crossbow might not have been good enough to win a teddy bear, but if I were shooting at a person he'd be dead. And it wouldn't matter if I shot him through his heart's left ventrical or right ventrical, he'd be just as dead either way.

So what do you think would be a better way to handle point blank range shots? I maintain that requiring a feat to perform such an action is completely unnecessary.

tesral
02-13-2012, 09:48 AM
I'm no fan of feats period. Too many are things you should simply know, others are better as skills, and a whole bunch are either broken good or a complete waste of space.

I would just give it to anyone with a proficiency in bow and a +3 to hit in same. The result of that learning curve.

rabkala
02-14-2012, 07:41 PM
Firstly, I have used the Book of Erotic Fantasy in a few games. It generally went bad. I would rather leave it to a wink and a nod with the DM's understanding than go into details or real skill stats and such.

I like that feats are a way to break the rules, without really breaking them. Many feats are unbalanced one way or the other... which is a big problem. I do like the idea of rewarding certain builds with talents that are the result of the learning curve. Maybe you could fit such things into the dreaded 'dead' levels that really offer no decent adjustments for game play.

tesral
02-14-2012, 08:54 PM
I have that book, mainly becauise it got Lizards' panties in a bunch. I don't use it.

RakshaGC
02-14-2012, 10:59 PM
A rule or two I always use in my games.

Using Bluff to feint in combat: The Bluffing character may also add his/her BAB to the opposed check. The logic is if the target can use his combat prowess to better recognize a feint when it's seen (add BAB to check), shouldn't the character be able to use his combat prowess to better pull off a feint?

Swim is a "trained only" skill. Just because I can dead-lift your mom doesn't mean I've ever even seen a body of water, much less that I can decently perform in one I randomly encounter. Which brings me to...

There are no "trained only" skills. Any such skill takes a -10 to the roll if attempted untrained. Just because you're a big dumb oaf in full-plate that's never seen a body of water, a wild animal, or the inside of a padlock doesn't mean you can't try to tumble/spout off about some obscure arcane lore/swim/tame a lion. You will probably end up failing horribly (after all, these are things you sort of need a knack for to really do regularly), but to flat out say you cannot try is ludicrous.

Malruhn
02-14-2012, 11:36 PM
I LIKE those!

Tony Misfeldt
02-15-2012, 06:28 AM
@Tesral: I don't like feats either. As you say, they're either broken or they would work better as skills. But since no one seems to want to play in a game that doesn't use them, I'm pretty much stuck with the damn things. I will say I do prefer Paizo's streamlined approach to Lizards' 3.5 "make a feat for everything" approach.

I've never heard of The Book Of Erotic Fantasy before. Is there a website where I can download the PDF? Can you send me the link?

tesral
02-15-2012, 10:02 AM
Not a clue it is a print book, dead tree on the shelf here. It was published by Valar Project Inc. I don't know if a PDF was made. The Book is neither great gaming material nor great erotic contents (The book of thirteen boobs)

The book has "Compliant with the OGL" splashed on the cover it three places, doesn't even mention D&D on the cover. Lizards tossed a snit fit over the thing. Being the iconoclast I am I had to have one.

Amazon Marketplace (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Erotic-Fantasy-Gwendolyn-Kestrel/dp/097420451X) has three new, $350 to $1800. (Someone has an inflated idea what the thing is worth.) Even used low price is $55. It's not really worth more than the cover price if that.

Skunkape
02-15-2012, 01:37 PM
Amazon Marketplace has three new, $350 to $1800. (Someone has an inflated idea what the thing is worth.) Even used low price is $55. It's not really worth more than the cover price if that.

Yikes that's high!

Tony Misfeldt
02-16-2012, 06:26 AM
I think whoever posted those prices on Amazon was high. I understand the cover price is only $40 or so. The rule of thumb on selling previously owned anything is half the standard market price if it's in mint condition, less if it's got wear & tear. Sometimes if it's mint condition, maybe never opened/used (still in shrink wrap), you can sell it for the listed price, but NEVER more.

I looked the book up on line. I found some mixed reviews about its content (I read 4 of them, two thought it was great, two thought it was crap). And I have found a couple of sites offering it on PDF. I'll look into downloading it once I get my laptop fixed (again).

I have no problems with DMs adding a little erotica to a gaming session. It's been that way since the game's inception. Like the poster says, "Dungeons: Home to porny slave girls since 1974". You think all those warrior babes wear chainmail bikinis because they offer great protection in battle? Why do you think the dryad, succubus, incubus, erinyes, alu-fiend, satyr, and wood nymph are in every Monster Mannual since 1st Edition? The 1st Edition Unearthed Arcana had Comeliness as a 7th Ability Score (called "Appearance" in this new book). In the 2nd Edition book Roman Campaign Source Guide they have a Love Spell listed in their magic section. In the 2nd Ed Forgotten Realms book Powers & Pantheons there are several religion specific spells which are very sexual in nature. Shialia's Fertility spell for example, or it's reversed form Infertility, either which can be cast on plants, animals, or people. Then there's Sharess' spells Compulsive Indulgance (which causes its recipient to comulsively indulge in whatever pleasurable thing he's doing for the duration of the spell while being oblivious to everything else) and Heighten Sensation (which makes the recipient twice as sensitive to both pleasure and pain). The latter spell is reversable, Deaden Sensation, and can be used to reduce pain, or prevent premature ejaculation. And let's not forget magic items like Philters Of Love and Rings Of Human Influence.

From what I've read about the contents, some of it is interesting, some of it is useful, and some of it is just . . . there. Like different cultural takes on love and marriage for example can add some interesting flavor to some campaigns. The charts on inter-ratial cross breeding between humans, demihumans, and humanoids could also be useful. Some of the new skills, spells & feats might come in handy in some adventures. And some of the new Prestige Classes do have some merrit, as well as historical precident. The cleric who casts healing spells by having sex with the spell recipient (I think that was the Holy Prostitute or something). I could totally see that as a prestige class for clerics of Sharess, Liira, and Sune in The Forgotten Realms, as well as for clerics of the demon lords Nocticula and her brother Socothbenoth in the Pathfinder game. I happen to know that some modern witches use "sex rituals" to enhance their spell casting, although this is usually done between witches who are already romantically involved with one another. Back in the day, before the Spanish Inquesition, it was not uncommon for entire covens to practice such rituals. So "spicing up" a campaign with such things isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But like all house rules and supplimentary materials, the new rules found in books like The Book Of Erotic Fantasy or on threads like this one are all optional and are to be used at the DMs discression. Take what you like and throw the rest away. There are plenty of rules listed on this thread that I'll probably never use should I ever decide to DM again. Then there's several that I might slip into my campaign. The same with the various published supplimentary materials. If I don't want to use The Quintessential Fighter then I won't. If I don't want to use Swords & Fists then I won't. And if I decide I want to use The Book Of Erotic Fantasy in my games, then I will.

tesral
02-16-2012, 11:18 AM
No one is stopping you, except the guy that thinks someone will pay 1800 bucks for a 30 dollar book. It's not going to rock your world. As supplements go I would rate it as slightly below average. I've read a lot of supplements over the years. Worthless? No. Worth 55 bucks? Not really. Worth 1800 bucks? Oh HELL no.

The overly high prices are based on presumed rarity and presumed demand. Not the actual value of the item. Frankly, if anyone pays that price I want to know who they are. I have a lot of things I can over price and I need someone to sell them to.

Etarnon
04-18-2012, 05:23 AM
My 2e group wizard does that, bat guano, mimicking picking it up and all.

Tony Misfeldt
05-06-2012, 06:51 AM
My roommate downloaded the PDF of The Book Of Erotic Fantasy onto my computer. It's available on isohunt.com for those of you who are interested.

As I thought, there are a few gems to be found in that book. There were some parts a skimmed through but didn't care enough to read fully. And there were some things that are strictly a matter of taste.

The feats that boost your stats through sustained sex are interesting (and useful). In using those feats, the rules on sustaining sex are very important. The rules for seduction are different from mine (they use the Diplomacy skill). And some of the spells and classes are kinda cool. Like the Tantrist Mage, who recharges his spent spells by having sex for one hour. Or the Sacred Prostitute, who can heal people by having sex with them, and even recharge another spellcaster's spells with sex.

The "Cursed Orgasm" spell can have some clever uses (cast it on someone covertly then seduce them). The "Disrobe" spell can trip someone up during battle (kinda hard to fight when your armour is falling off). "Touch Me Not" grants a +2 to your AC, and inflicts 1d8+1/level (to a max of 1d8+5) damage/round to anyone you're grappled with.

The STD, "Whore's Delight" can actually be a very useful tool. Get infected, sleep with the enemy, if he fails his Fort check he's paralyzed for 1d4 hours. Need help convincing him to go to bed with you? Black Out has a Fort DC of 20, is relatively affordable (only 25 gp), and makes them suseptable to sexual suggestions (like from a "Suggestion" spell).

Of course, there are several things in there not worth adding. But that's the kinda stuff you just ignore and choose not to use.

Tony Misfeldt
05-07-2012, 01:26 PM
My DM has a few "campaign specific" house rules which he cooked up. As we're playing in a homebrew setting of his own creation, he came up with some changes to make his world different from all the others out there. Here are some of the ones I know about.

1) The horse has not evolved on this world (our characters do an aweful lot of walking). Some of the wealthy elite are known to ride domesticated deer, but mostly people travel by ox drawn carts. Of course, this also means no one has any cavalry units in their armies, or devised any tactics to combat cavalry, such as pike men.

2) The elves have left the continent about 600 years ago. Imagine playing D&D in Middle Earth set 600 years after the events of The Lord Of The Rings. Although he has hinted that they may one day return.

3) The halfling race is extinct. There's a huge backstory to this, but essentially they were hunted into extinction by worshippers of the world's God Of War. The DM's reason for doing this was that halflings & gnomes filled the same niche in a campaign. So why bother having both?

4) There are no half-orcs. Orcs and humans aren't just two different races, they're two different species. Breeding a human and an orc would be like trying to breed a cat and a dog. They can have sex with each other, but not procreate. He fills this niche by making hobgoblins a playable character race.

5) Ogres are a subspecies of goblinoid. He chose to do this because in every edition before 3rd, ogres were drawn to look like giant neanderthals. In the 3rd Edition MM, they look like giant, muscular goblins. This raises the question of crossbreeding goblinoids. Would an ogre mating with a hobgoblin result in a new subspecies of goblin? After all, it's not like trying to breed cats with dogs. It would be more like breeding Great Danes with Bulldogs, or canines with lupines, or lions with tigers (all of which are not only plausible, they HAVE happened).

6) Resurrection spells require a human sacrifice. In the world's backstory, this is due to a world shattering cataclysm (not unlike the one in the Dragonlance setting), which occurred 6000 years ago. All high level magics (7th level and higher) have been altered in some way. Resurrection is the only one I know about so far. Specifically, in order to resurrect a character, you have to balance things with a life of equal value. As we haven't tried this yet, we're all a little vague on what "equal value" means (and the DM isn't very forthcoming). It could mean socially (in order to resurrect the slain king, you must sacrifice a king or queen). Or it could mean of equal experience level (to resurrect a 5th level fighter, you must sacrifice a 5th level fighter). Although I'm unsure, if it's the latter, if an NPC class can be substituted for a PC class (resurrecting a 5th level PC fighter by sacrificing a 5th level NPC warrior). I guess we'll find out once our cleric is powerful enough to cast Resurrection.

wizarddog
05-11-2012, 04:47 PM
I am currently experimenting with a mechani I call Destiny poinst and a few other house rules for my 4e Red Hand of Doom Campaign.
Red Hand of Doom (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/group.php?groupid=467).

1. I was impressed by Old School Hack's awesome points and in creating collaborative gaming experiences with my last group before it disbanded. I like the idea of having the players help tell the story so I have been using them to fill out certain aspects in the game as we progress. I created the Destiny point system as a hybrid of the awesome points and the Saga System Destiny Point systems to allow the players to make changes to the game. Each player gains a destiny point per session and may use it to give advantages to their character as long as the group agree's it a proper sue of the Destiny point that fist the characters chosen destiny.

2. I allow players to use any skill to complete a task as long as they can justify its use; For example using insight instead of perception "If I was trying to hide something, I would most likely would hide it..."

3. Instead of placing treasure, I have the PC's choose one player to make a treasure roll. They choose the skill and if they hit the target DC they find an item of value and they get to describe it. Occasionally, I will place a "Plot Item' that would be a treasure that is important to the plot (A Magic sword, a pan flute, etc.) but this free's up me trying to make treasure to fit the party.


So far, the group seems to enjoy the game.
http://www.meetup.com/pasadena-dnd (http://www.meetup.com/pasadena-dnd/boards/thread/22394552/0/)

Tony Misfeldt
05-16-2012, 10:47 PM
Here's something I came up with for when PCs have to lead large groups of NPCs into battle, especially against exceptionally large armies and when the players and/or DM don't have enough minis to play out the battle. I borrowed the idea from the board game Axis & Allies. In order to make a single mini represent a large group of soldiers, place it on top of some sort of token. Personally, I purchased a bunch of poker chips from the dollar store for this purpose.

Each colour of token represents a different number of NPCs. When you place a mini on the token, it multiplies the number of NPCs by that many. For example, I painted a number 10 on all the white poker chips, 20 on the blue ones, 50 on the red ones, and 100 on the green ones. Take a soldier/orc/goblin/whatever and put it on a green token and you now have 100 of whatever is standing on top of it.

During combat, you treat the individual minis as individual NPCs, but multiply their hitpoints by the number of their assigned token. For damage, use half the number of their assaigned token as the multiplier.

For example, an orc with a scimitar on a green token would have 800 hit points and do 1d8 x 50 damage per hit. If that unit is brought down to half hitpoints during a battle, the green token is switched for red and they do 1d8 x 25 damage. And so on and so forth.

Tony Misfeldt
02-19-2014, 06:11 AM
I've recently found a great website for downloading gaming material. It's www.scribd.com. It works kinda like Netflix, in that it costs about $7/month to join and you get your first 30 days as a free trial. Once signed up, you can download novels for real cheap (about $4 or $5 each) and some books and gaming material is totally free. I've managed to download a whole bunch of gaming books for free during my 30 day trial. Some of the more interesting books I've found?

The Book Of Erotic Fantasy

The Quintessential Temptress

The Book Of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge

Encyclopedia Arcane: Book Of Nymphology

Check the site out. There's plenty on there you'll find very useful.