Homebrew Rules. Everyone has a few. What are some of yours?

[Dytrrnikl]

It is NOT an easy thing to do to someone, and being disarmed is a harsher and harsher penalty the more time wears on and the higher leveled the player is. Sure, a player might miss his +1 to attacks at low levels, or maybe his +2... but when weapons start getting up around +5 and +6, being disarmed is a terribly harsh penalty. Combine that with the fact that someone else (likely an enemy if they aren't retarded) is going to pick up your weapon (doesn't provoke an opportunity attack anymore) and you are now worthless until the enemy with your sword dies by someone else's hand, essentially, if you don't have a backup weapon (and who would?)

Personally, I've never seen disarm as being an increasingly harsh penalty. Most of the games I've played in, disarm or attempts to disarm are pretty much something that takes place in a lot of encounters...either by the villains or the players as a way to find an edge in combat. Usually, when the disarm would occur, then the weapon would get kicked as far away from its former wielder as possible. I can only speak for the games I've run or played, even mages carry at least two weapons - stereotypical quarterstaff and a dagger...and that was before disarms became a common tactic.

...In 4E all magic items are Returning...<snip>Heck, you don't even drop your sword when you're stunned, helpless, unconscious, or any other condition anymore...

These are two tidbits of 4E that don't sit well with me, the latter more than the former. I can almost forgive the magic items all having returning, it's magic afterall. However, not dropping your weapon for any condition, for me, that's cheesy. However, it does fit with the style of gameplay that is being encouraged by 4E - super-powered WoW style play. However, it's a style of play that is not conducive to gritty games.

[korhal23]

Personally, I've never seen disarm as being an increasingly harsh penalty. Most of the games I've played in, disarm or attempts to disarm are pretty much something that takes place in a lot of encounters...either by the villains or the players as a way to find an edge in combat. Usually, when the disarm would occur, then the weapon would get kicked as far away from its former wielder as possible. I can only speak for the games I've run or played, even mages carry at least two weapons - stereotypical quarterstaff and a dagger...and that was before disarms became a common tactic.




These are two tidbits of 4E that don't sit well with me, the latter more than the former. I can almost forgive the magic items all having returning, it's magic afterall. However, not dropping your weapon for any condition, for me, that's cheesy. However, it does fit with the style of gameplay that is being encouraged by 4E - a high magic action adventure. However, it's a style of play that is not conducive to gritty games.

Fixed.

All I'm saying is that for 4E, there isn't much point to carrying a second weapon and that a Disarm mechanic as a standard tactic isn't in the spirit of 4E's default feel.

You're absolutely right, it's not conducive to gritty games. That's like saying Call of Cthulhu isn't conducive to high-magic action adventure... of course not. But that doesn't mean you CAN'T.

You want grit? Cut healing surges in half. Limit the number of encounter powers they can use each combat. Give monsters better recharges on their powers. Have the players in combats 3-4 levels above them. It can be done, I promise.

Like I've said before, my friends and I used to play older editions of D&D with a lot of the grit removed... 4E was a leap in the direction our games already were going. But if we could do that, I'm pretty sure you can inject all the grit you want back in to 4E.

http://www.dungeonmastering.com/gami...s-too-much-ass

[Tony Misfeldt]

I always create a unique personality and role-play, but I consider the idea of "verbal components" silly and cumbersome. Do you make fighters speak the name of their fighting maneuvers before using them Dragonball Z style?

It's one more burden on a class that has enough bookkeeping. as it is.

I don't watch Dragonball-Z. As for fighters, if it's a simple case of "I hit the orc with my ax" then that's all they really have to say. If they want to do something spectacular, like disarming an opponent, carving a Z in the seat of their pants, slicing their corotted artery (spelling?) So precisely that the blood makes a whistling sound when it pumps out the wound, stapling their sleave to the wall with a perfectly placed arrow, etc. That stuff requires some description.

[tesral]

I don't watch Dragonball-Z. As for fighters, if it's a simple case of "I hit the orc with my ax" then that's all they really have to say. If they want to do something spectacular, like disarming an opponent, carving a Z in the seat of their pants, slicing their corotted artery (spelling?) So precisely that the blood makes a whistling sound when it pumps out the wound, stapling their sleeve to the wall with a perfectly placed arrow, etc. That stuff requires some description.

So what is wrong with "I cast fireball at the Orcs 50 feet away."?

What is the added play value here? I think that if you have to "make" the Players use these things then they are not adding play value at all, simple increasing the bookkeeping on the spell casting classes that already have more bookkeeping that most classes.

Truthfully, the more house rules that are for the players, not the characters, that a game has the less attractive that game looks to me. It smacks of a Gamemaster with more than a streak of tyrany in his soul.

[Tony Misfeldt]

COMELINESS: Comeliness is a 7th stat determining a characters physical beauty. It is related to, but seperate from, Charisma. It got its start in 1st edition from the book Unearthed Arcana. I just never stopped using it. Characters with a COM of 14 or more are so beautiful, characters with a low WIS have to roll a saving throw or become fascinated (as per the 1st level spell). The numbers might have to change to adapt this rule to d20 terms, but here it is in it's original version (more or less, I don't have my books with me so I'm going from memory).

Racial Adjustments:

Gold Elf, Moon Elf, or Drow Elf = +2

Half Elf, Sea Elf, or Wood Elf = +1

Human or Halfling = 0

Dwarf or Gnome = -1

Half Orc = -3

Charisma Adjustments:

19+ = +5

18 = +3

16-17 = +2

14-15 = +1

9-13 = 0

7-8 = -1

5-6 = -2

4 = -3

3 or less = -5

Ther's more, a bunch of stuff about the effects of high Comeliness on those with low Wisdom, but unfortunately I can't remember enough to write it all out now. Generally, the higher the COM the higher your WIS has to be to keep from being fascinated (highest I think is a WIS that's 75% of the COM). I'll make adjustments later.

[Tony Misfeldt]

So what is wrong with "I cast fireball at the Orcs 50 feet away."?

What is the added play value here? I think that if you have to "make" the Players use these things then they are not adding play value at all, simple increasing the bookkeeping on the spell casting classes that already have more bookkeeping that most classes.

Truthfully, the more house rules that are for the players, not the characters, that a game has the less attractive that game looks to me. It smacks of a Gamemaster with more than a streak of tyrany in his soul.

What is the added play value for saying "I role a diplomacy check and a fast talking check. What do I learn?" Isn't it better to have the players actually ask the necessary questions of the NPCs rather than just roll dice?

[tesral]

Racial Adjustments:

That part I never understood. One is assuming that the Human standard of beauty is the universal one, and that some species are more attractive to Humans than Humans. And that races like Dwarfs find other species more attractive to them than there own.

I don't disagree with the general idea of racial adjustments, but they should not be applied to the character, but on an encounter by encounter basis. Use a matrix showing each races' adjustment for other races, apply as required.

Each race should see its own kind as the most attractive as the general rule. At best another race might seem no less attractive. This is not to say that a given player cannot declare that Joe Human thinks that Elves rock and will consider all Elves as +2 Com when encountered. or that John Dwarf is a bigot, and will mark down any other race an additional 2 points for that reason.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. One reason I never adopted Comeliness is the difficulty in assuming a universal standard of beauty.

What is the added play value for saying "I role a diplomacy check and a fast talking check. What do I learn?" Isn't it better to have the players actually ask the necessary questions of the NPCs rather than just roll dice?

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven" --Ecclesiastes 3 :1

One thing is not the other. Diplomacy is a role playing situation by its nature. It is always preferred that one play it out.

Casting spells is a different situation. I'm not trying to actually cast spells. Do you make the fighters beat on something for however many real rounds? Do you make them actually wear armor to the game? Do you have locks for the thieves to pick?

Added play value for the additional bookkeeping has not been demonstrated.

[korhal23]

I agree tes... I made the same point earlier when Comeliness was mentioned by someone else... if there's more than one race in the game, it's a BS stat.

I'm also in agreement concerning the verbal components. No one but the basest, newest roleplayers would slog through a conversation with "I'm going to intimidate, then diplomacy, then Julie how about you seduce?" No. A thousand times no. You merely roleplay through a situation, and when it sounds like a player's tone lines up with the appropriate skill check you have them roll it, usually with a bonus or penalty based on the strength or weakness of their threat/offer/bargain/hotness.

If you don't make your fighter scream some exclamation, or perform a kata with a fake weapon to illustrate his attack, then making the wizard speak a verbal component is silly and unfair. Besides, what's to say it's even something pronounceable? It could be an ancient, dead (also: TOTALLY FAKE) language, it could be a tongue/possessor spirit, or something else... but even if it's only "By Fire Be Purged!" does the game really benefit from REQUIRING them to say that? No. If a player in my game feels the desire to add such a flourish to their spell, great! If it's all the time, or they have a few incantations, great! But requiring it every time is of no value. I agree, pointless extra bookkeeping designed to interfere with the player, not the character.

[tesral]

I agree tes... I made the same point earlier when Comeliness was mentioned by someone else... if there's more than one race in the game, it's a BS stat.

Worse, it's a useless stat. What does it matter how "pretty" your character is? Unless you have a "Pageant Queen" class what would it be the primary stat for?

Too subjective, even within the game. Serves little purpose, has no game function. I'll let the players declare their PC to be as "pretty" as suits them. Looks might give you an initial bonus for an encounter, at least till you open your mouth and the 8 Charisma comes pouring out. Then again the evil Queen might decide to cut your heart out for being the fairest in the land.

Comeliness is just too difficult to attach a game reaction to. Too many situational variables. I'm not saying you couldn't find a use for it, but I'm unwilling to half do the job and more unwilling to do a whole job.

[CEBedford]

I don't use comeliness I just define my characters based on their Charimsa (presence, magnetism, and ability to draw attention) along with other traits.

High Con/Str and Cha? You might be good looking, well built and able to keep people's attention socially. High Int or Wis and Cha? You can wow people with your intellect and/or common sense. High Str and Cha? You're a beefcake and good at keeping the focus on your physical body.

Take any one of these traits with a low CHA and you might be good looking, smart, sensible, and healthy but just unable to attract the right attention or socially utilize your strengths.

High Int low Cha? You're smart, too bad you buckle when dealing with people, and frequently bore those dumber than yourself. High Wis low Cha? Your common sense is keen, but you tend to rub people the wrong way when you share your opinion. Best keep your mouth shut or they might think you're smug. High Con or Str and low Cha? You're all appearance, but socially you're just not capable. All looks works for some people.

See what I mean?

[Tony Misfeldt]

That part I never understood. One is assuming that the Human standard of beauty is the universal one, and that some species are more attractive to Humans than Humans. And that races like Dwarfs find other species more attractive to them than there own.

I don't disagree with the general idea of racial adjustments, but they should not be applied to the character, but on an encounter by encounter basis. Use a matrix showing each races' adjustment for other races, apply as required.

Each race should see its own kind as the most attractive as the general rule. At best another race might seem no less attractive. This is not to say that a given player cannot declare that Joe Human thinks that Elves rock and will consider all Elves as +2 Com when encountered. or that John Dwarf is a bigot, and will mark down any other race an additional 2 points for that reason.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. One reason I never adopted Comeliness is the difficulty in assuming a universal standard of beauty.

I believe in the book it says that negative COM adjustments due to race are ignored by members of the same race. I don't think they bothered coming up with a chart for adjustments for each races point of view. I'm pretty sure the list of racial adjustments are from a human perspective.

As for COM being a useless stat, I disagree. You simply have to look through the list of skills and see which ones could benefit from a high COM score. Diplomacy, dancing, seduction, can all have COM as one of their primary stats. For myself, I use the skill list from the 2nd ed book Skills & Powers as a guide. In that book the CHA score is divided into 2 sub categories, Leadership and Appearance. Any skills with a basis in APP are skills with a basis in COM. Simple, unless you're foolish enough to get rid of all your 2nd ed stuff just because the shiny new 3rd ed has come out.

[SneakSneakStabStab]

One of the few that i have is that the Paladin's Smite evil ability often has very little use because you can only use it a few times a day even at 20th lvl (5 times).

So i changed it so that it works whatever it is a day at your lvl plus your charisma mod, so at lvl 1 it is 1/day + CHR mod so no more then 5 times a day.

It is relatively new so i have not got the chance to use it above 5th lvl at this point but i fear it will be to powerful later on in the game at say lvl 10.

If anyone has some good advice with this rule it would be appreciated but please only constructive criticism and helpful advice.

The other one i have is that a crit is a crit you don't have to reroll to see if the crit is a crit it makes things a bit more exciting and always comes rewarded with a good explanation of what happened.

[AnotherShadow]

When we used comliness you did not get a racial bonus ( except elves due to the stunning beauty that affects all ), and the way that it worked was that above a certain number no matter what you found the creature very beautiful even if they are not your flavor. It made for some interesting games, but we ended up dropping it due to most of the immature players we brought in started talking about how it stood for the penis size.

[Tony Misfeldt]

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 in 3rd Ed, but in 2nd Ed 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.

Skill XP:
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.

ROGUE PROFICIENCY: SEDUCTION (2nd Ed: Skills & Powers)

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.


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.


--- Merged from Double Post ---
http://www.penandpapergames.com/foru...?t=6165&page=7

[tesral]

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.

Again you are making a certain standard of beauty the universal absolute. If life teaches anything it is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If any adjustment is to be made it should be done at the racial reaction level, not as part of the character's raw stats.

Why are Dwarves automatically uglier than Elves, even to other Dwarves? Considering the amount of racial dislike usually portrayed between these two races I would think that Dwarves would first find Dwarves attractive, and view the Elves with a minus. To say that Elves get a plus to comeliness even to Dwarves and Dwarves take a minus, even to Dwarves It seems rather silly on the face of it.

One of the reasons I have not adopted the stat is the complexity that properly fitting it into a mult-racial world involves.

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'll say it again, a pointless restriction on those that play casters.

Are fighters required to describe drawing their weapon in technical terms and the action they are taking I.E. "I pull my Longsword from the scabbard and attack the left troll with a martingale feint followed with riposte thrust." No you do not, "I attack the left troll" is enough.

Likewise the Rogue is not required to name his tools and describe how he is using them to overcome the wards and tumblers within the lock.

I fail to understand this urge to make the lives of those that play casters harder. The game is supose to be fun, not a chore.