D&D3.5 variants

[ed]

this is a relatively straightforward thread: a listing of houserules or variants to the D&D 3.5, by the RAW (rules as written).

sor: change their spell progression to match wizard spell progression. what, the guys who are innately magical are slower on the uptake w/ arcane magic? i fail to see any game balance downside on this, either: it's enough i think that they get many fewer spell options. also, something silver dragon once posited on RPGhost: gratis eschew materials feat at level 1.

something i've been considering: ditch all the class skill lists, period. who cares if a fighter can take spellcraft as a class skill? will this lead to some cherry-picking for prestige class qualifications? probably. that to me isn't a terribly compelling downside, though.

what else have you got?

ed

[Kalzazz]

Druids can use anything curvey and not obviously European. Khopesh's, Katanas, Kukris, Kryss's etc, and gain all needed proficiencies for such

Druids can use bows, and gain all needed proficiencies for such

Clerics can wear heavy armor and gain all needed proficiencies for such

Anyone can use firearms and gain all needed proficiencies for such, and all firearms do one size bigger die for damage (so 1d12 for pistols and 1d20 for muskets)

[Magnus Bergqvist]

One houserule we do is this:

You can buy all skills to the rank of lvl+3. Though those that aren't on your class-list costs 2 pts per rank. Means no stupid half-ranks.



Then you of course have all the various versions that abound regarding the generating of stats.

The one we usually use in the first group I played with (if there is a 3d6-system):
Roll 3d6. Keep at least 1, reroll the remaining. If you keep just one the first time around, then you have to keep one on the reroll, and then you can reroll the last one one more time, or if you keep 2 on the first time around rereoll thr remaining 2 times. Do this for the while set of stats. Then roll one more with the same system, and then take the best series. No, you can't mix between the two series. Sometimes the GM allows you to switch 2 stats in the series, but that is only if he is very generous.. If you are still not satisfied, you can roll more seriers, but each series after the first 2 incur a cumulative -2 modifier that must be placed on any stat, and you can not lower any stat below racial limits. Yes, I have seen a character end up with a Str of 4 using this method... =^_^=

/Magnus

[Kalzazz]

Ah

My favorite stat generation method (so far)
Roll 4d6 drop lowest 7 times, rerolling all 1s that show up, and then dropping the lowest roll total
Do this three times. If this does not produce proper harmony within the soul try 2 more times. If proper harmony and joy is still not achieved ask your friends to roll for you using the same method. If it still doesnt work obviously karma is not with you, so wait a few hours for karma to recharge and try again

[Detritus]

Clerics can wear heavy armor and gain all needed proficiencies for such.
This isn't a house rule. Clerics get to do this already, at least in 3.5, and I assume in 3.0 also.

I let arcane spellcasters take a different magic-related feat for Find Familiar.

[Origen]

32 point buy, for my games.

Core is the only given, with the following exceptions:

In my next game, I am going to remove Teleport, Scry, Polymorph, Shapechange and all spells which detect or discern alignment. I will also remove all spells which resemble these spells, like Scry, Greater. I might put teleport in as an 8th or 9th level arcane spell, but plane traveling spells like Ethereal Jaunt and Plane Shift will still be in the game.

The Monk's Belt is the less powerful intepretation.

Monks and paladins may freely multiclass.

Monks may choose intelligence as their primary stat, instead of wisdom.

Balance is no longer a skill. Just Tumble.

Open Locks is no longer a skill. Just Disable Device.

If you are in a class for five levels, all skills for that class are permanent class skills.

Bards do not exist as zany, whacky spellcasters. They are musicians, poets and performers. Period.

Druids do not exist. There are clerics of nature gods, or generalists who worship nature as a divine entity.

Rogues can flank out to 30 feet with a thrown or missile weapon.

Permanent boosts to intelligence through Inherent bonuses or level bumps retroactively increase your skill points.

Paladins no longer detect evil. They get a +5 divine bonus to Sense Motive checks at 1st level, which increase by +5 at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th and 19th levels to a maximum of +30.

[TinSoldier]

I like some of those... is alignment going to be less important in that game or just less of a trait to judge others by?

What's with the monk re: INT vs. WIS?

[Origen]

I like some of those... is alignment going to be less important in that game or just less of a trait to judge others by?

What's with the monk re: INT vs. WIS?

People will still have alignments. If someone winces in pain when you cast a Holy Smite, that will probably tell you something. But I want there to be some question about it, some sense of mystery, instead of the paladin focusing his attention on someone for ten or fifteen seconds, and the party saying, "He's evil! Let the beatdown begin!"

I had a monk in my last campaign who was more scholarly. I let him have intelligence as his primary stat. He had a lot of knowledge skills, and in some ways was more monkish than the current Wisdom-based monks.

[Kalzazz]

Clerics only get medium armor in 3.0

Er, I just realized I was describing 3.0 house rules. For 3.5 my first house rule would be 'Everything reverts to 3.0 unless where otherwise noted'

[Origen]

Clerics only get medium armor in 3.0

That's incorrect.

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html

Or were you saying that's all you'd give them, in your house rules?

I'll never understand your addiction to 3.0, Kal. Especially the 3.0 ranger.

[Kalzazz]

Nerfing of many spells I hold wondrous and dear, and making it so heavy shields no longer count as light weapons for use with dual weapon fighting

And the 3.5 ranger is a step in the wrong direction, worse than the 3.0 ranger. At least the 3.0 ranger has 1d10 hitpoints

And I can feel much more sympathy for the 3.0 ranger because hey, they were winging it more and so screwing it up totally was at least somewhat justifiable. 3.5 has no excuse

I outlaw the 3.5 ranger in my games, I dont outlaw the 3.0 ranger, but try instead to prod people toward homebrews instead

[Kalzazz]

And I must be wrong on the 3.0 cleric part, which is very irritating, as Ive spent many of my hapless clerics money on buying mithril plate that apparently didnt help them to much

[ed]

my houserules on clerics strip out heavy armor.

ed

[Origen]

And the 3.5 ranger is a step in the wrong direction, worse than the 3.0 ranger. At least the 3.0 ranger has 1d10 hitpoints

And I can feel much more sympathy for the 3.0 ranger because hey, they were winging it more and so screwing it up totally was at least somewhat justifiable. 3.5 has no excuse

I outlaw the 3.5 ranger in my games, I dont outlaw the 3.0 ranger, but try instead to prod people toward homebrews instead

There was no reason whatsoever to take more than 1 level of the 3.0 ranger. It is the only base class designed WORSE than the 3.0 bard. The 3.5 ranger had several more abilities, and a better skill point progression, plus two good saves. It was a TON better than the 3.0 ranger, and having 1 average hit point per level less didn't change that.

[Kalzazz]

Its a fighter type, since 2e this means it needs 1d10 hitpoints

in 1e it had 1d8 hitpoints yes, but it had 2d8 at level 1 to somewhat balance it

And in 1e it also had two seperate spell progressions, and in 2e it had dual weapon fighting. 3.5 has neither of these concepts hard coded in

[Origen]

Its a fighter type, since 2e this means it needs 1d10 hitpoints in 1e it had 1d8 hitpoints yes, but it had 2d8 at level 1 to somewhat balance it And in 1e it also had two seperate spell progressions, and in 2e it had dual weapon fighting. 3.5 has neither of these concepts hard coded in

The 3.5 ranger has TWF or archery as a feat path. That's built into the character. Instead of a wizard AND a druidic-type spell list, it has one spell list with arcane, divine, druidic and unique spells built in. Superior, by far.

Your biggest beef seems to be 1 hit point per level less, and that's not enough to break the class in my opinion.

[Kalzazz]

Haste, Harm, Heal, Animal's Attribute, GMW, MV, Poly Self, Poly Other all as in 3.0. Possibly other spells as well

Bonus level 0 spells as per 3.5

Keen and Improved Critical stack

Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting combined into 1 feat as per 3.5

Large shields = Count as Light Weapon for purposes of dual wielding

Wizards get 2 extra skill points

Add half spears and rapiers (though name them straight swords) to Monk weapon list

Barbarians are no longer illiterate (Illiterate PCs annoy me, so I try to take game related excuses to be illiterate. In GURPS I make literate the 'default' state for any game, and dont allow the Illiteracy disadvantage for points)

If people are forced to undergo an extended bout of foreign language they learn said language automatically, no skill point expenditure needed

Permanency no longer requires XP to cast

Magic Item creation feats no longer exist. If you know the spells you can create the item

[Kalzazz]

Alright. I guess it flat out does not sit well with me for potentially plain personal feelings on the subject. And if Im going to DM something I am not going to allow a character whose very existence makes me want to kill them horribly, particularly when I would gladly permit more powerful substitutes

Youve seen my generic replacement Ranger class I use Org, I certainly wouldnt want to use the 3.5 compared to that

[Origen]

You use the 3.0 version of Haste, Harm and Heal? Bleh. I let Keen and Improved Critical stack. I also allow Impact, which is the bludgeoning equivalent of Keen, and it stacks, too.

[Cranky Dog]

The Bull's Strength family of buffing spells will have 10 minutes/level duration. Not that 1 minute/level crap nor the 1 hour/level crunchie goodness of 3e. That way, it's good enough for exploring and a few encounters without being an automatic first spell in the morning buff.

A druid's Wildshape ability, when used to turn into any animal will grant him all the extraordinary (Ex) powers. Squids can jet and ink, skunks can stink and most mammals have Scent. Why do you normally need an epic feat to be able to smell better?

Sorcerer's get 4 skill points per level since they're not spending all their time with their noses in spellbooks like wizards, they get some spare time to learn other cool stuff.


Cranky Dog
"I have a sampling of houserule opinions, international!"

[Kalzazz]

I also use the interpretation of telekinesis where you can hurl several thousand heavy crossbow bolts at someone in one cast of the spell, with several thousand attack rolls made

[Wook]

Freedom of movement - Does not prevent grappling. Provieds CLx2 bonus to grapple checks.
Mindblank - Does not exist
Death ward - +CL to saves, SR, and AC vs any negative energy/death affect.
True seeing - Does not exist
Fortification - Does not exist
Soulfire armor - Does not exist
Monk, Druid's and Paladin's immunity to fear, disease, poison, etc... - +class level bonus to relevant saves
Heroe's feast - provides no immunities. +CL bonus to saves vs poison and fear.

Alignment detection does not happen.
Scry and Teleport does not happen.
Listen & spot = Notice
Move silently & Hide = Stealth

I'd also use many of Org's suggestions.

I would also use Armor as DR, weaon group feats, and the general classes (expanded class ability choices) from Unearthed Arcana.

[ed]

funny: i would just do away w/ "save or die" effects, as well as blow away energy drain.

ed

[Wook]

funny: i would just do away w/ "save or die" effects, as well as blow away energy drain.

ed

Actually I like those effoects. I would modify then but I like the varieties of way to just kill via spell. What I don't like is flat immunities across the board that reduce the game to a mather exercise in who can do more HP damage first.

[ed]

the entire concept of energy drain is wrongheaded, though. that's my basic problem w/ it. and death effects are annoying, ****. how many other RPG rulesets do you know that have an analogous mechanic?

ed

[Origen]

Freedom of movement - Does not prevent grappling. Provieds CLx2 bonus to grapple checks.

I understand the whole motivation behind trying to add effectiveness instead of immunity, and I agree with it.

I just think this take the spell from being "too damned good NOT to use" to "completely worthless versus grappling and I'd never cast it."

Size bonuses and BAB at mid- and higher-level mean that even with a bonus, a wizard or non-fighter WILL fail a grapple check, even with Freedom of Movement.

Mindblank - Does not exist
Death ward - +CL to saves, SR, and AC vs any negative energy/death affect.
True seeing - Does not exist
Fortification - Does not exist
Soulfire armor - Does not exist
Monk, Druid's and Paladin's immunity to fear, disease, poison, etc... - +class level bonus to relevant saves
Heroe's feast - provides no immunities. +CL bonus to saves vs poison and fear.

I understand and agree with many of these changes, though I think I'd leave True Seeing in the game.

Alignment detection does not happen.
Scry and Teleport does not happen.

Agree. Agree.

Listen & spot = Notice
Move silently & Hide = Stealth

Respectfully disagree.

I'd also use many of Org's suggestions.

Well thank you, sir. I like many of yours, as well.

[Kalzazz]

GURPS has some insta death moves that dont even allow saving throws, like called shots to the eyes

I believe Rolemaster has both Level Drain and Save or Die spells, but could be wrong

[Wook]

At mid and high levels spellcasters and rougish types have other options available in grappling. All of which are reactive to the grapple. (IE I can use them to get out but not to keep from getting grabbed in the first place.) i'm ok with that. It's one of the decisions those characters make in terms of their priorities.

[Wook]

With the skill set as it currently is being an effective scout is a 4 skill set. That's half the skill points of a rogue and 2/3 of the skill points of a bard (who deoesn't get spot?) and all of the skill points for a monk or ranger. It coudl also be argued that a truly effective scout would also have climb, KN: dungeoneering, and/or KN: wilderness.

[Origen]

At mid and high levels spellcasters and rougish types have other options available in grappling. All of which are reactive to the grapple. (IE I can use them to get out but not to keep from getting grabbed in the first place.) i'm ok with that. It's one of the decisions those characters make in terms of their priorities.

Spellcasters can use Dimension Door and similar spells, but ****, I've played a spellcaster in a grapple. If you LIVE to your turn, you'll be lucky. The grapple rules right now favor the DM by a LONG shot. That's part of the reason for the blanket immunity from Freedom of Movement.

Rogues? Escape artist is a joke. If you added your BAB to your escape artist check, it wouldn't even help. A skill plus dex will never, EVER get you out of a grapple with a creature at least one size category larger, because it's going to be your skill + dex (level + 3 + modified dex bonus) against their BAB + strength bonus + size + 4 if they have Improved Grapple.

[Origen]

An alternate mechanic for Escape Artist is to allow 10 + Escape Artist check (skill + dex + modifiers) to be your touch AC to avoid the grapple.

I don't know if that would work. I just know the present mechanic for EA sucks.

[Wook]

Spellcasters can use Dimension Door and similar spells, but ****, I've played a spellcaster in a grapple. If you LIVE to your turn, you'll be lucky. The grapple rules right now favor the DM by a LONG shot. That's part of the reason for the blanket immunity from Freedom of Movement.

Rogues? Escape artist is a joke. If you added your BAB to your escape artist check, it wouldn't even help. A skill plus dex will never, EVER get you out of a grapple with a creature at least one size category larger, because it's going to be your skill + dex (level + 3 + modified dex bonus) against their BAB + strength bonus + size + 4 if they have Improved Grapple.

Contingency is a beautiful thing for the arcane casters who also have the option, and "moment of presceince" is useful as well to get out of that grapple. Ethereal jaunt also does the trick.

The modified freedom of movement would apply to grapple checks so escape artist becomes Level+3+dex+freedom of movement+improved grapple if they have it+close quarters fighting if they have it.

Grappling is not going to be an issue in every campaign. There are some times when the primary thing the DM uses are advanced humanoids and times when the game is focused on RP stuff. A character in a combat intensive game has plenty of options available for dealing with the possibility that they will eventually find themselves grappled and quite frankly if that's their priority then they'll take the necessary steps to cover themselves. Granting a flat immunity, or so large of a bonus as to amount ot a flat immunity is vastly more problematic than having the odds, theoretically, stacked against the players.

First it removes tension from any encounter where grappling may come up. Second it removes a whole range of beasties from play because one of, if not the one, thing that made them scary is completely, 100%, rendered ineffectual. Basically if a Paragon T-Rex, the Tarrasque, or a Krakken of Lengend goes to "grab" you then in all likelyhood a rogue or spellcaster *should* be grabbed. Some combination of luck, preparedness, and skill might combine to save them but it *should* be a scary possibility.

[Origen]

Contingency is a beautiful thing for the arcane casters who also have the option, and "moment of presceince" is useful as well to get out of that grapple. Ethereal jaunt also does the trick.

What is the difference between every caster having to cast Freedom of Movement, and every caster having to cast Contingency?

The modified freedom of movement would apply to grapple checks so escape artist becomes Level+3+dex+freedom of movement+improved grapple if they have it+close quarters fighting if they have it.

So you have to keep a skill maxed out, burning two feats, hit on the AoO, have Combat Reflexes (which is technically three feats) or pray to God you haven't used your AoO this round (and that the monster doesn't have iteratives) AND have a spellcaster cast a spell on you just to have a chance of escaping?

That kind of arithmetic alone should make my point, here, ****.

Grappling is not going to be an issue in every campaign. There are some times when the primary thing the DM uses are advanced humanoids and times when the game is focused on RP stuff. A character in a combat intensive game has plenty of options available for dealing with the possibility that they will eventually find themselves grappled and quite frankly if that's their priority then they'll take the necessary steps to cover themselves.

It really doesn't matter if it's an "issue" in every campaign. Mord's Disjunction is not an issue in every campaign. Heal, Harm and Haste were not an issue in every 3.0 campaign. The Hulking Hurler is not an issue in every campaign. So that's a lame dodge, because that's not the point because, hey! It could be a bard-oriented RP-ing heavy campaign, ergo, I'm right in a discussion about grappling!

Zuh?

Granting a flat immunity, or so large of a bonus as to amount ot a flat immunity is vastly more problematic than having the odds, theoretically, stacked against the players. First it removes tension from any encounter where grappling may come up. Second it removes a whole range of beasties from play because one of, if not the one, thing that made them scary is completely, 100%, rendered ineffectual. Basically if a Paragon T-Rex, the Tarrasque, or a Krakken of Lengend goes to "grab" you then in all likelyhood a rogue or spellcaster *should* be grabbed. Some combination of luck, preparedness, and skill might combine to save them but it *should* be a scary possibility.

The odds are not "theoretically" stack against the player, ****. I know what I'm talking about on this subject.

"Oh, God, here we go again" is not scary. In fact, it gets boring, after a while. You're replacing one trump with another, and you finally admitted, well, sucks to be you if those creatures grapple you.

I think you should just admit that you WANT players to be grappled - oh wait, you did: "Basically if a Paragon T-Rex, the Tarrasque, or a Krakken of Lengend goes to "grab" you then in all likelyhood a rogue or spellcaster *should* be grabbed" - instead of inventing bogus mechanics that don't level the playing field but simply deny the direction the field is tipped.

[Parzival]

I'll add to the mix.
But a word of warning: these houserules were for 3.0e. They haven't been re-normed.
Setting specific stuff: Every PC started off with a "free" level of commoner in addition to their chosen class.

1) Commoners use the fighters BAB, but retain their documented hp. It is assumed that anybody who uses their single proficient weapon every day of their life, will be skilled enough with it to use it offensively. Defense requires more than a simple knowledge of the weapon, therefore, hp are unchanged. The permissible weapons list for commoners is expanded to include the scythe, trident, light hammer, and handax. If a character possesses levels other than commoner, the commoner BAB only stacks with regard to the commoner’s single weapon proficiency.

2) Ambidexterity is a feat that can *only* be purchased during character creation. The "Ranger", "Paladin" and "Sorcerer" classes are special. If your character does not start with them, they can be very hard to attain.

3) Massed fire. When employed by a coordinated group against a single target, ranged weapons are devastating. Especially against lightly armored foes that depend on agility for protection. For every ranged weapon wielder after the first, two points of AC derived from dexterity bonuses are eliminated from the target. Obviously, this component only affects those characters with dex bonuses to their AC. Further, each two ranged weapon wielders focusing on the same target will increase the critical "threat range" by one for all wielders focusing on the same target. This is cumulative. If the critical range exceeds the wielder's actual "to hit" target number range, the target number range is adjusted a like amount. This rule is restricted to foes within 1 size category of the wielders, and wielders of the same or similar weapons. Using this tactic requires all wielders to act on the same initiative phase. (This is a virtual feat automatically granted to most PC races and/or classes.)

4) Melee. The "cannot be flanked" advantage is trumped by two plus ½ dexterity modifier attackers. (Fractions round to the defender’s advantage.) Each two melee weapon wielders focusing on the same target will increase the critical "threat range" by one for all melee weapon wielders focusing on the same target. This is cumulative. If the critical range exceeds the wielder's actual "to hit" target number range, the target number range is adjusted a like amount. These rules are limited to creatures within one size category of the target, and wielders of the same, or similar weapons. Flails, two handed slashing/bludgeoning weapons (with the exception of polearms designed for the purpose) and double weapons may not be used in these “massed” attack tactics. (This is a virtual feat automatically granted to most PC races and/or classes.) In melee combat, height differentials are very important. The “uphill” combatant receives cover ranging from 25% to 100%, depending on the severity of the grade, and the relative size and reach of the combatant’s weapons. (100% scenario: You are armed with a shortsword, and are at the bottom of an open pit. Hostile spearmen are looking down at you from all sides. It’s a good idea to try and avoid this type of situation.)

5) In combat, changing positions (standing to prone, prone to kneeling, kneeling to standing, mounted to standing, standing to mounted, mounted to prone) is a move-equivalent action that provokes attacks of opportunity. This occurs even if the change in position was forced or unintentional. (This does not give a tripping character an extra attack. That character is busy with his action during the time of the vulnerability.) Going from prone to standing is an automatic “double-move” action, but can be reduced to a single “move equivalent” action with a successful “Tumble” check (DC 10) failure results in remaining prone, but still provoking attacks of opportunity.

6) Any successful attack against a sleeping, paralyzed, held, bound, or prone target is automatically considered a "threat" for a critical strike. Even if such an attack does not normally require a “to hit” roll, one must be rolled to determine if a critical strike was achieved.

7) Raise dead is a ninth level spell, costing xp as a "miracle" spell. Resurrection and True Resurrection do not exist. To attempt to revive a corpse that does not fall within the "raise dead" guidelines is to invite calamity. (As per an overreaching “Wish”.)

8) Healing spells convert "normal" damage into "subdual" damage, which heals at the normal rate of 1hp/level/hour.

9) Falls of over 40 feet are AUTOMATICALLY incapacitating. Falls of over 100 feet are AUTOMATICALLY fatal. Mitigating circumstances (such as water, and special/magical abilities) may affect this rule.

10) The blunt end of polearms, spears and tridents may be used as a double weapons with the purchase of an exotic weapon feat "non-conforming style". Use of this feat is a move equivalent action to alter grip. While using this feat, reach normally granted by these weapons is negated. Discontinuing use of this feat is a move equivalent action. Weapons used in this manner are not made for the purpose, and are more vulnerable to sunder attacks. Weapons used in this matter cannot be used for “massed” attacks as described above. The blunt end of these weapons does damage as a quarterstaff.

11) Eastern weapons, whether arabic, turkish, indian or oriental are prohibited. "Silly" weapons are also prohibited. If there is any question in your mind about what constitutes "silly", consider how likely a wielder of the weapon is to hit himself with it, or consult the GM.

12) The monk class does not exist. The feat "deflect arrows" also does not exist.

13) Damage dealt by club, staff, as well as the blunt end of polearms, tridents, and spears, has a 50% chance of being subdual damage. Critical hits and magically enhanced weapons always cause "normal" type damage.

14) Elf is a restricted race, not normally open to PC status. If you wish to play an elf (or a kobold, goblin, orc, or any "non-standard" race or template), consult the GM. Druid is a restricted class, not normally open to PC status. If you wish to play a druid, consult the GM.

15) Character creation is accomplished by the standard point buy method. With a 25 point pool, as described in the DMG. (If there are any questions, as always, consult the GM.)

16) The optional combat rules (instant-kill crit option, and death by massive damage) are the default system for this game. Instant-kill critical strikes require two rolls of a natural 20, regardless of modifiers to the critical range. Additionally, the variant critical success/failure rules for skill checks are the default system for this game.

17) Any class, spell, equipment, or clerical domain not published in the Player's handbook will be reviewed by the GM on a case-by-case basis before admission to the game.

18) Barring extraordinary mitigating circumstances, killing other PCs is strictly forbidden. Don't do it.

19) XP is gained by overcoming challenges and advancing the story. Additional XP can be earned by excellent role-playing, entertaining the GM, and meeting character goals. These will be distributed after a major conflict is resolved, or at the end of every third session, whichever comes first. At the end of every session, the players will cast a secret ballot for the “best” role-player of that session. The GM will count the ballots, and award 100XP to the winner. This “bonus” XP is applied immediately.

20) 1” hex grid will be the standard layout of the battlemat. With 1” representing 5’ unless otherwise described.

21) The placement of a “burst” spell centering on a creature or object is automatic, unless stated otherwise in the spell description. The placement of such a spell centered in an unoccupied space is not. To simulate this, a d12 will be dropped from a height of at least three inches by the casting player onto the spot (on the battlemat) he intends to “target” with the spell. Where the die ends up, is where the spell is actually centered. (Standard deviation is generally about 1 ½” on the battleboard. Or about 8’ scale. Pretty amazingly accurate considering the difficulty most people have in judging distance.)

22) Only Clerics and Wizards get literacy for free. Other classes must use skill points to buy it.

23) Prone or kneeling humanoids can be flanked with only 90 degrees of separation between attackers, rather than the standard 180 degrees.

24) Critical misses (a roll of 1 on a d20) in combat invoke attacks of opportunity.

25) There is a soft cap on levels after total character level 10. At this point, advancement becomes geometric. To reach TCL 11, you have to earn as much total experience as it took you to reach TCL 10. To reach TCL 12 will require you to earn as much total experience as it took you to reach TCL 11. The sequence continues in a like fashion. NPCs of such high levels are almost unheard of, and magical items (rings, staffs, etc.) that must be created by such a high level wizard or sorcerer are extremely rare and valuable.

26) Mithril bypasses silver DR. Admantium bypasses cold iron DR.

27) The Bane weapon enhancement remains a +2 enhancement, and automatically bypasses all DR when attacking it’s specified foe.

28) A whisper is a perfectly adequate vocal component for spells of the illusion and enchantment schools. Both schools are geared towards casting spells inconspicuously in social settings, and the official rules do not reflect this.

[Stephane]

32 point buy, for my games.

Core is the only given, with the following exceptions:

In my next game, I am going to remove Teleport, Scry, Polymorph, Shapechange and all spells which detect or discern alignment. I will also remove all spells which resemble these spells, like Scry, Greater. I might put teleport in as an 8th or 9th level arcane spell, but plane traveling spells like Ethereal Jaunt and Plane Shift will still be in the game.

The Monk's Belt is the less powerful intepretation.

Monks and paladins may freely multiclass.

Monks may choose intelligence as their primary stat, instead of wisdom.

Balance is no longer a skill. Just Tumble.

Open Locks is no longer a skill. Just Disable Device.

If you are in a class for five levels, all skills for that class are permanent class skills.

Bards do not exist as zany, whacky spellcasters. They are musicians, poets and performers. Period.

Druids do not exist. There are clerics of nature gods, or generalists who worship nature as a divine entity.

Rogues can flank out to 30 feet with a thrown or missile weapon.

Permanent boosts to intelligence through Inherent bonuses or level bumps retroactively increase your skill points.

Paladins no longer detect evil. They get a +5 divine bonus to Sense Motive checks at 1st level, which increase by +5 at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th and 19th levels to a maximum of +30.
I like these a lot. The alignment thing is probably related to some of your personal experience. I didn't have that issue overly much. Then again I've rarely played in a game with a paladin who detected evil at every corner..

Bards: What do you have in mind? remove the spellcasting altogether? What would you replace it with.

Druids: Follows your shapeshifting removal.

[Origen]

Bards: What do you have in mind? remove the spellcasting altogether? What would you replace it with.

Singing and songwriting are skills. Poetry is a skill. Why shouldn't a barbarian be a mighty warrior who writes odes, a warrior poet? Why wrap up a storyteller in some dumb, suboptimal base class? Anyone can be an artist or a poet or a singer or play the lute.

[Cranky Dog]

Singing and songwriting are skills. Poetry is a skill. Why shouldn't a barbarian be a mighty warrior who writes odes, a warrior poet? Why wrap up a storyteller in some dumb, suboptimal base class? Anyone can be an artist or a poet or a singer or play the lute.
So are there any particular reasons why druids got the boot then?

Don't like the class or the concept doesn't fit in your campaign?


Cranky Dog
"I have a tree-hugging class opinion, international!"

[TinSoldier]

I haven't played 3.0, and I'm still learning the rules, but some of these stood out to me:

22) Only Clerics and Wizards get literacy for free. Other classes must use skill points to buy it.

24) Critical misses (a roll of 1 on a d20) in combat invoke attacks of opportunity.I'm not sure about the one about 50% chance of subdual damage for bludgeoning weapons though. It's interesting...

I do like some of your setting specific rules, however. They make some sense to me.

[Stephane]

Singing and songwriting are skills. Poetry is a skill. Why shouldn't a barbarian be a mighty warrior who writes odes, a warrior poet? Why wrap up a storyteller in some dumb, suboptimal base class? Anyone can be an artist or a poet or a singer or play the lute.

Ah. I misunderstood. You actually killed the class. If someone wants to be a bard: get a perform skill. Gotcha

[Origen]

So are there any particular reasons why druids got the boot then?

Don't like the class or the concept doesn't fit in your campaign?

No, it has to do with the multiplicity of problems with polymorph which therefore infect the druid through their shapechange ability. The horrible things I've seen druids change into and do is part of why I dislike polymorph. If they could fix that, I'd pop the druid back in, no problem.

As it is, in my opinion, they are more trouble than they are worth, and add nothing to the campaign flavorwise.

[Detritus]

Oh, yeah, Polymorph/wild shape definitely have balance issues. I should have a house rule about them but I presently don't.

[Parzival]

I'm not sure about the one about 50% chance of subdual damage for bludgeoning weapons though. It's interesting...

<shrug> I wanted to provide a somewhat reasonable way to take someone alive. (Or alternately, mug somebody without having to commit murder.) Of course, it's still possible to kill somebody, but it's much less likely.
The easy way to do it is to combine the mechanic so it doesn't slow things down. If the damage rolled is even, it's normal damage, if it's odd, it's subdual.

[Wook]

You're missing my point. It's about the player's priorities. If the player is worried about being grappled then they should take appropriate measures and committ something beyond 1-2 spells slots or a secondary enchantment to one of their ring slots in order to address that concern. Setting the threshold at ON/OFF is not a good solution. If a character get's grappled they'll have at least one, if not more, actions to escape before anything bad happens. At the high end, which is what we both seem to be talking about, unless there's some sort of death effect attached with the initial grapple check a character should have enough resilance to last that one round.

Some round numbers:
40hd - Good BAB
Colosal Size
+15 Str mod
-------------------
+71 grapple modifier

20 levels of Good BAB
+12 Str mod
+40 from freedom of movement
------------------
+72 grapple modifier

Max ranks in escape artist
+12 Dex mod
+40 from freedom of movement
-----------------------
+75 grapple modifier

Quite frankly I don't see those numbers as unbalanced. 40HD, Good BAB, and a Str of 40 is about as good as it gets in the Monster Manual. There are some things that push the limit a little. IIRC think a Max HD T-Rex hits 45HD, has the good BAB, but doesn't have the Str. If you'd like I can plow through the MM sometime and actually look and see exactly what the numbers are. At or below CR 20 I think you're going to be hard pressed to do better than a 70 something grapple check though. So instead of turning OFF an entire aspect of the game and removing the challenge completely fighter and rogue types are at some sort of risk. What feats they take to bend that situation in their favor is going to be up to them.

Spellcasters are trickier. They have ways to escape a grapple outright by way of ethereal jaunt and dimension door. They have ways to skew the grapple check in their favor via moment of prescience and limited wish/lesser miracle and they have the ability to prepare these things in advance via contingency. They don't have to do any of them but there are a lot of options there for them to explore. There are in fact enough options that I am not worried about the situation becoming unbalanced against them. If it is something they are worried about the resource expenditure on their part to avoid it is truly minimal.

Incidentially I'm staying at/below CR 20 because as far as I know we both agree that the epic rules are not useful. (aka horribly flawed and broken.) If you'd like I can crunch the numbers for the fully advanced versions of things in the MM regardless of CR and see where things fall out as well.

Decided to flip through the MM anyway while writing this:
Frost worm gets up to 42hd with good BAB but only get's size huge and doesn't have the str. CR 20 Kraken goes above what I posited above. Looks to hit about a +82. A CR 20 purple worm clocks in at about +73, a max HD Roc clocks in at about a +74, the Tarrasque has a +81, and the collosal scorpion has a +71 or so at max HD. So if you're fighting an advanced Krakken or the Tarrasque odds are that you're going to get grappled if you haven't taken precautions to otherwise be ready. (I'm sure there's a "something similar" out there somewhere.)

There were dragons that had grapple checks into the +70-+80 range but they all had CR's well above 20. In most cases in the MM you'll see that grapple checks are going to top out in the 50's and 60's. (And be below CR 20 to so I'm unsure how relevant or not. Plotting a level by level analysis makes my head hurt but if that would satisfy you I'll crank it out in Excel.) A couple of the things I listed above have a CR below 20. The Roc clocks in at about an 18 I think and the Scorpion clocks in at a paltry 16 after you advance it. Doing an Excel progression may be useful. <shrug> Not going to happen tonight. I'll add it to the list of eventual projects. ;)

Basically I don't see anything all that bad with the change. Unless you're fighting some iconic end of campaign type BBEG monster/menace getting a check that's beyond what you can be prepared for on the DM's side of the screen isn't going to happen very often if it does at all. What it does mean is that you have to think, plan ahead, and make choices in character development that will be relevant later.

For the PC side of the equation the two sets of numbers I listed above are basically "Str fighter" vs "Dex fighter". PC's or Monsters can take the improved grapple feat so I see that as a zero sum maneuver. It's totally equal opportunity. Close quarters fighting seems like a no brainer for the combatant that is worried about grappling. AOO, damage the beasties, and get the damage total as a bonus to the grapple check. A melee specialist with this is going to basically not be grappled unless something goes horribly against them. (Critical failure on the attack say.) Something like the Kraken that can make a ridiculous number of grapple checks in a round will probabbly get a grapple in eventually. But frankly if there are only 2 monsters in the MM that break the curve and make it so that the PC's are likely to actually be grappled then I'm spiffy do fine with that and I don't think it's slanted one way or the other.

[Wook]

Note: IF the spell benefit is provided by a caster rather than an item there is also the possibility that the benefit from freedom of movement could extend all the way to +50 due to spell power class abilities from the Archmage or Heirophant.

[Cranky Dog]

Oh, yeah, Polymorph/wild shape definitely have balance issues. I should have a house rule about them but I presently don't.
Do people really still have that many balance issues with the polymorph/wildshape powers even after all the erratas, rewrites and updates to them?

Is it just my group who aren't abusers? Not that they don't abuse in other ways, but just not with those spells. Heck even when I played a wizard I limited myself to avoid being game-breaking.


Cranky Dog
"I have a power abuse opinion, international!"

[ed]

this thread is making me realize that i hate D&D. i hate the pervasiveness of magic, i hate the class/level concept and most of all i hate the commoditization of magic as well as the fundamental conceit that it's impossible to be a mighty hero w/out a gorrammed golf bag worth of magical goodies.

i need to get back to my variant d20 fantasy ruleset.

ed

[Stephane]

What do you mean, ed?

<turns to the caddie>
"Pass me the 3 iron, please"

[ed]

i can feel the bile rising, stephane. :> of course, maybe my basic problem is that i just don't like rules-heavy systems.

ed

[Stephane]

i can feel the bile rising, stephane. :> of course, maybe my basic problem is that i just don't like rules-heavy systems.

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I like V&V. I think that's exactly why **** and Origen hate it so much.

<shrug>

[ed]

i'm familiar w/ ****'s experience w/ V&V but i'm unfamiliar w/ origen's. that surprises me.

ed

[Stephane]

i'm familiar w/ ****'s experience w/ V&V but i'm unfamiliar w/ origen's. that surprises me.

ed

They have similar experiences. I believe they were exposed to the game at the same time (re: GuardianCon). Last rant I read from them, it was a tandem shakedown. Their main beef is that the powers are arbitrary and the amount of them are roll based: not very fair and GM fiat.

[ed]

i recall **** being involved in that discussion but not origen. how it's possible not to recall origen and his diatribte-fu is really quite surprising to me.

ed

[TinSoldier]

this thread is making me realize that i hate D&D. i hate the pervasiveness of magic, i hate the class/level concept and most of all i hate the commoditization of magic as well as the fundamental conceit that it's impossible to be a mighty hero w/out a gorrammed golf bag worth of magical goodies.

i need to get back to my variant d20 fantasy ruleset.

edYes! I really hate the commoditization of magic as well. I don't really mind the other parts of the rules so much, but...

The thing that gets me about d20 is it seems so much like a video game. Maybe because I first really encountered the current ruleset by playing KOTOR but when I read optimization threads and stuff it reminds me so much of reading cheats for video games.

I'll say again that I prefer magic to be magical and mysterious. But I see that as more flavor than rules. The DM can always disallow or change stuff as this thread demonstrates.

<shrug> I wanted to provide a somewhat reasonable way to take someone alive. (Or alternately, mug somebody without having to commit murder.) Of course, it's still possible to kill somebody, but it's much less likely.
The easy way to do it is to combine the mechanic so it doesn't slow things down. If the damage rolled is even, it's normal damage, if it's odd, it's subdual.Yeah, I liked the idea behind it I just thought that 50% was kind of high. Hmm. Or maybe decrease the penalty for subdual damage with those weapons. Just some interesting thoughts.

[TinSoldier]

I think that one problem is that there are too many base classes. Especially the Cleric and the Druid, the Cleric and the Paladin, and the Druid and the Ranger overlap far too much.

I am interested in having a campaign using the Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) from the SRD and allow the player to add the flavor necessary to the campaign. Does anyone have any experience with that?

[LagomorphPrime]

Interesting concept, those Generic Classes.

I enjoy different classes, though it gets understandably crowded and nothing is worse than an unballanced class added to the list. Still, I think there have been some pretty good options for classes in some of the splat books. I'm currently hoping I get to play a warmage at some point...

[SilverDragon]

funny: i would just do away w/ "save or die" effects, as well as blow away energy drain.

ed

I'm going to beat you with Iron Heroes until you give it a try ed.

In Iron Heroes because you couldn't cure energy drain and you can't be raised after death these two abilities have been modified. Energy drain/Level drain dissipates at the rate of 1 per day but I believe can be sped up by the Healing Lore feat Mastery tree. Save or Die becomes Save or go to -10, at -10 you have to start making Fort saves (equal to your current negative HP total) or die. You can't recover on your own once at -10 but a healer can still bring you back.

Actually I think a 20th level Arcanist(necromancer) can bring people back within a few rounds of their death but I'd recommend dropping the Arcanist if you tried Iron Heroes, it is actually listed in the book as (optional class).

[ed]

i'm not opposed: i just don't have the budget just now.

that reminds me however of yet another issue i have w/ D&D: skills are always trumped by magic. that really annoys me. let's begin w/ the host of bumps to skill ranks, then move on to the fact that the healing skill is worthless after a few levels. sure, for rogues some of them are useful, but why bother w/ search when you can always pick up a detect traps & snares wand?

ed

[Wook]

this thread is making me realize that i hate D&D. i hate the pervasiveness of magic, i hate the class/level concept and most of all i hate the commoditization of magic as well as the fundamental conceit that it's impossible to be a mighty hero w/out a gorrammed golf bag worth of magical goodies.

i need to get back to my variant d20 fantasy ruleset.

ed

That's just my style of game ed. D&D doesn't have to be like that. I've played in some very fun games that weren't like that and have on occasion run such games. In fact I prefer games that focus upon a characters innate talents and class abilities rather than their impressive batmanesque utility belt of goodies.

[carmachu]

I hear you on that ed.....But you can ALWAYS just DM fiat the amount of magic items you allow on the game. I'm not particularly happy with the monty haul type feel D&D has nowadays....

[ed]

****: man, it's part of the gorrammed system. suggested wealth levels, hello? i mean, i understand that they can't hit the reboot button on magic goodies--that genie ain't fitting back in that bottle--but it does now mean that the golf bag is a necessity, at least vis a vis published adventures.

ed

[Wook]

****: man, it's part of the gorrammed system. suggested wealth levels, hello? i mean, i understand that they can't hit the reboot button on magic goodies--that genie ain't fitting back in that bottle--but it does now mean that the golf bag is a necessity, at least vis a vis published adventures.

Exactly. Suggested wealth levels. The stuff that PC's get is just a guideline and it exists as a suggestion for a very good reason. There are plenty of GM's out there that would run games that was one great big mud slogging disaster where the PC's got noting and anything they did get had good chances of being taken away by some means. It's always a good idea to remember the former state when bemoaning the current one. ;)

That said what I would love, and have been developing in my miniscule amounts of spare time, is a OGL variant that lets you fight the tarrasque at 20th level with a standard 4 PC's and have the same chances of winning in a game where the wealth level(s) are much more reminiscient of Tolien than, say, the 900k'ish GP wealth that is currently suggested. (saddly you'd hate my die mechanic but it addresses a variety problems that needed addressing IMHO. ;) )

[Origen]

You're missing my point. It's about the player's priorities.

You're missing the point. You object to making Freedom of Movement a trump card, and simply shifting the trump card into the DMs hand. Your "solutions" are not solutions. They don't work. I've played them.

If the player is worried about being grappled then they should take appropriate measures and committ something beyond 1-2 spells slots or a secondary enchantment to one of their ring slots in order to address that concern. Setting the threshold at ON/OFF is not a good solution. If a character get's grappled they'll have at least one, if not more, actions to escape before anything bad happens. At the high end, which is what we both seem to be talking about, unless there's some sort of death effect attached with the initial grapple check a character should have enough resilance to last that one round.

Two feats, a maxed out skill and a spell in order to get a CHANCE of success strikes you as an "appropriate measure?" A creature with multiple attacks who grapples a wizard and has three or more iterative attacks because, woo! He might be able to cast a spell NEXT round - if he or she is alive - but grappling is one attack, ****. If a creature has multiple attacks, it can grapple with the first and then keep on truckin'. Players will probably NOT have one or more actions because joining a grapple is free, and one they are pinned, they're sunk. Period. A creature with TWO iterative attacks can pin you, and something else can then deliver a coup de grace.

Oh, but if the wizard survives that, he can cast a spell!

Some round numbers:
40hd - Good BAB
Colosal Size
+15 Str mod
-------------------
+71 grapple modifier

20 levels of Good BAB
+12 Str mod
+40 from freedom of movement
------------------
+72 grapple modifier

Max ranks in escape artist
+12 Dex mod
+40 from freedom of movement
-----------------------
+75 grapple modifier

Quite frankly I don't see those numbers as unbalanced. 40HD, Good BAB, and a Str of 40 is about as good as it gets in the Monster Manual. There are some things that push the limit a little. IIRC think a Max HD T-Rex hits 45HD, has the good BAB, but doesn't have the Str. If you'd like I can plow through the MM sometime and actually look and see exactly what the numbers are. At or below CR 20 I think you're going to be hard pressed to do better than a 70 something grapple check though. So instead of turning OFF an entire aspect of the game and removing the challenge completely fighter and rogue types are at some sort of risk. What feats they take to bend that situation in their favor is going to be up to them.

Your numbers suck, and completely ignore advancement, which is where grappling goes through the stratosphere. Push the limit a LITTLE?!?!?!

Even without cooking up the numbers, a 70-something is IMPOSSIBLE to beat with your so-called "fix" on Freedom of Movement. Oh, lookee! I'm a wizard. A +40 bonus on my grapple check at 20th level! Woohoo! Let's see, as a wizard, my BAB is 10. My strength, if we're generous, is 20, so that's another +5.

Which means I .... shouldn't even bother rolling!!!!!

But oh, hey! If I cast Moment of Prescience, I *might* be able to beat ONE grapple check depending on who rolls low, and who rolls high. So that's a 4th level spell and an 8th level spell, and it will protect me from ONE grapple check. If I roll well.

It's worse for rogues, trust me. Escape Artist is a joke. I haven't seen it work ONCE. Neither have you, I'll bet. And if you did, then the only reason you remember it is because it was such a freak incident. Asking rogues to pony up two feats when they are already starved is ridiculous.

Spellcasters are trickier. They have ways to escape a grapple outright by way of ethereal jaunt and dimension door. They have ways to skew the grapple check in their favor via moment of prescience and limited wish/lesser miracle and they have the ability to prepare these things in advance via contingency. They don't have to do any of them but there are a lot of options there for them to explore. There are in fact enough options that I am not worried about the situation becoming unbalanced against them. If it is something they are worried about the resource expenditure on their part to avoid it is truly minimal.

Moment of Prescience MAY protect you from a SINGLE grapple attempt if you also have your variant of Freedom of Movement cast. So that's two spell slots, one 4th and one 8th, to protect you. Once. After that, you're kibble. Or do you forget what happened to your high level druid the first time you got grappled in Dok's game?

Incidentially I'm staying at/below CR 20 because as far as I know we both agree that the epic rules are not useful. (aka horribly flawed and broken.) If you'd like I can crunch the numbers for the fully advanced versions of things in the MM regardless of CR and see where things fall out as well.

You don't have to. It only gets worse at Epic levels.

Decided to flip through the MM anyway while writing this:
Frost worm gets up to 42hd with good BAB but only get's size huge and doesn't have the str. CR 20 Kraken goes above what I posited above. Looks to hit about a +82. A CR 20 purple worm clocks in at about +73, a max HD Roc clocks in at about a +74, the Tarrasque has a +81, and the collosal scorpion has a +71 or so at max HD. So if you're fighting an advanced Krakken or the Tarrasque odds are that you're going to get grappled if you haven't taken precautions to otherwise be ready. (I'm sure there's a "something similar" out there somewhere.)

Even if you're ready, you're going to get grappled, especially if you're fighting more than one creature, which does to happen, once in a while. [/IntentionalUnderstatementOfTheYearNominee].

Basically I don't see anything all that bad with the change. Unless you're fighting some iconic end of campaign type BBEG monster/menace getting a check that's beyond what you can be prepared for on the DM's side of the screen isn't going to happen very often if it does at all. What it does mean is that you have to think, plan ahead, and make choices in character development that will be relevant later.

You don't see anything that bad, but then again, you even wanted to take Close Quarters Fighting out of the mix, the last time we talked. Face it, ****. You want this to be a DM trump card, and you're juggling the numbers to make it look like it's no big deal.

For the PC side of the equation the two sets of numbers I listed above are basically "Str fighter" vs "Dex fighter". PC's or Monsters can take the improved grapple feat so I see that as a zero sum maneuver. It's totally equal opportunity. Close quarters fighting seems like a no brainer for the combatant that is worried about grappling. AOO, damage the beasties, and get the damage total as a bonus to the grapple check. A melee specialist with this is going to basically not be grappled unless something goes horribly against them. (Critical failure on the attack say.) Something like the Kraken that can make a ridiculous number of grapple checks in a round will probabbly get a grapple in eventually. But frankly if there are only 2 monsters in the MM that break the curve and make it so that the PC's are likely to actually be grappled then I'm spiffy do fine with that and I don't think it's slanted one way or the other.

Improved Grapple is NOT a zero sum manuever. There is no point for a PC to take it, and most do not, and most WILL not. Close Quarters Fighting is a feat in an optional book. I think it should be core, but it's not. I've still been grappled REGARDLESS of having both Close Quarters Fighting AND Combat Reflexes, so your optimism is unmerited in that regard.

Just admit you want it to be a DM trump card, ****. It's a lot easier than all of this clumsy Sleight of Hand stuff.

[Chimaera]

I think that one problem is that there are too many base classes. Especially the Cleric and the Druid, the Cleric and the Paladin, and the Druid and the Ranger overlap far too much.

I am interested in having a campaign using the Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) from the SRD and allow the player to add the flavor necessary to the campaign. Does anyone have any experience with that?

You might want to look at True 20 from Green Ronin... I believe that there's a sampler PDF that gives a reasonable taste.

[TinSoldier]

Thanks, Chimaera. I might do that.

I'm also interested in Iron Heroes, but I haven't gone and looked it up yet.

[Origen]

i recall **** being involved in that discussion but not origen. how it's possible not to recall origen and his diatribte-fu is really quite surprising to me.

Out of respect for hidufel, Dai Oni and Dr. Mercury, I have refrained from saying much about it. But my first experience with V&V was less than optimal.

We were led to believe this was a life and death fight, and we would be the big badees coming in to deal out some well-deserved whoopass on the PCs.

Instead, we were cream puffs who served simultaneously as NPC palookas, and bouncy balls going bopitta, bopitta, bopitta off the ceiling and floor and in general did absolutely nothing important or meaningful in the combat except stand there waiting to get creamed. Player characters would hold action in the intiative sequence until I or **** announced that we were going to do something, and which point they would act in such a way to completely thwart our manuevers with full knowledge of what we intended to do, and how.

If that's how initiative actually works in V&V, then it sucks.

I learned very quickly that there were facing rules, so when I surprised someone, another PC would say, "I warn XYZ that someone is behind him" and then reach out and turn the PC around to face me so that I lost all advantage.

It was ridiculous.

The powers? Impossible to do anything again with what we were given. Dai Oni's flawless and impenetrable invisibility, hidufel's gravity power - the NPCs we were given crumpled, and went down fast and hard.

I've enjoyed hearing all the stories about the H3G's V&V adventures, but my first experience as an NPC - and that's all it was, a first and sole experience - was sub-par.

[Chimaera]

While I've played V&V for years, it was a heavily house-ruled V&V -- I never liked the out-of-the-box combat system. That being said, it sounds like you were dealing more with culture shock than a bad game. You were at a disadvantage in terms of game familiarity and play-style; it sounds like there was perhaps a bit of metagaming going on. That tends to creep in with a group, but usually doesn't disrupt things too much until someone new comes in who isn't familiar with the group and their dynamic.

[Origen]

While I've played V&V for years, it was a heavily house-ruled V&V -- I never liked the out-of-the-box combat system. That being said, it sounds like you were dealing more with culture shock than a bad game. You were at a disadvantage in terms of game familiarity and play-style; it sounds like there was perhaps a bit of metagaming going on. That tends to creep in with a group, but usually doesn't disrupt things too much until someone new comes in who isn't familiar with the group and their dynamic.

I think it was less culture shock than misled expectations. I can adapt very quickly to new gaming styles, and new gaming systems. I just ask a lot of questions, and I come in with a blank slate.

If someone had simply said, "By the way, you're a cream puff. Your job is to get shot, fall down and scream oh! You got me!" then I can do that.

But if someone tells me I'm supposed to be a challenge, and the PCs are an irresistable tsunami breaking like a sledgehammer across my little pee-pee, then that's not very fun for me.

[Chimaera]

Fair enough. I wasn't there. Sorry to hear about your pee-pee...

[Origen]

It was traumatic!

Fortunately, I had a spare.

[Wook]

You're missing the point. You object to making Freedom of Movement a trump card, and simply shifting the trump card into the DMs hand. Your "solutions" are not solutions. They don't work. I've played them.


When did you play in a game that had freedom of movement grant a bonus to grapple checks? I haven't played in every game you've been in but you've never mentioned anything like this before.

Two feats, a maxed out skill and a spell in order to get a CHANCE of success strikes you as an "appropriate measure?" A creature with multiple attacks who grapples a wizard and has three or more iterative attacks because, woo! He might be able to cast a spell NEXT round - if he or she is alive - but grappling is one attack, ****. If a creature has multiple attacks, it can grapple with the first and then keep on truckin'. Players will probably NOT have one or more actions because joining a grapple is free, and one they are pinned, they're sunk. Period. A creature with TWO iterative attacks can pin you, and something else can then deliver a coup de grace.

Oh, but if the wizard survives that, he can cast a spell!

Creatures getting iterative attacks to grapple with is a house rule from dok. Most creatures that have improved grapple eiterh have something like constrict that automatically does damage to the grappled creature, or swallow whole that happens in the following round with another successful grapple check. (Or the held creature takes bite damage each round with no attack roll needed.) A creature has the attacks listed in it's writeup normally. So the krakken could try to grapple you something like 13 times in one round, a Grell could try 8 times, etc... You can also NOT coup de grace a pinned creature. You may only do that as a full round action, IE one round later, to a HELPLESS oppoent. (Asleep, paralyzed, or unconscious.)

Your numbers suck, and completely ignore advancement, which is where grappling goes through the stratosphere. Push the limit a LITTLE?!?!?!

Even without cooking up the numbers, a 70-something is IMPOSSIBLE to beat with your so-called "fix" on Freedom of Movement. Oh, lookee! I'm a wizard. A +40 bonus on my grapple check at 20th level! Woohoo! Let's see, as a wizard, my BAB is 10. My strength, if we're generous, is 20, so that's another +5.

A wizard isn't going to "out grapple" a monster designed to grapple. A wizard has other spells that not only get him out of the grapple but get him completely clear of any danger. (Unlike he melee counterparts.) he could use moment of prescience to escape a grapple and he could use contingency to trigger a dimension door to safety when/if he is grappled. Those are two very simplistic solutions. Or he could use limited wish to say "I win my next grapple check." and get out of jail free, etc..., etc..., etc... Spellcasting offers a large enough variety of options for the wizard to escape that his grapple check isn't going to really be relevant. He has a derth of other means at his disposal.

As for advancement - Yes there may be problematic things/creatures in there. I'll work out the numbers and then post them for you.

It's worse for rogues, trust me. Escape Artist is a joke. I haven't seen it work ONCE. Neither have you, I'll bet. And if you did, then the only reason you remember it is because it was such a freak incident. Asking rogues to pony up two feats when they are already starved is ridiculous.


I've never seen a rogue have to make a grapple check that mattered. In 3.0 you guys always had cloaks of ethereal jaunt which were too good not to have because it negated grappling as a threat 100% every time and in 3.5 freedom of movement is too good not ot have for the exact same reason. Why even bother with having a grapple check that matters when after 7th level i'll be able to be immune either at my discretion from buffs or 24/7 from a ring? It's the textbook definition of something that's broken.

...Or do you forget what happened to your high level druid the first time you got grappled in Dok's game?


My druid in the monty haul game where all the PC's except me had about 125%-130% of normal wealth for their level, were vastly better power gamers than me, where the GM was powergaming to the hilt, where I came in not jsut a level behind everyone else but also with standard wealth for that reduced level. What happened is about what one should expect to happen under those circumstances. Not only that but do you realize that once Dok realized that he *could* grapple me that in every encoutner where there was grappling that *I* was the one that got targeted? Other people may have been targeted but I fell under the corsshairs *every* time. This was not a coincidence.

You don't see anything that bad, but then again, you even wanted to take Close Quarters Fighting out of the mix, the last time we talked. Face it, ****. You want this to be a DM trump card, and you're juggling the numbers to make it look like it's no big deal.

Not at all. Flat immunity to grappling, or flat immunity to anything else for that matter, is a bad, bad, bad, broken, abusive idea. Last time I checked you at least agreed with the general sentiment. Taking away all options for resisting grappling is an equally bad idea because the reality is that creatures that grapple can and will have checks in the mid 70 range and higher. My intention is not to create a situation where the result of grapple checks is either a PC that is immune and therefore ungrappleable, or a PC that is not immune and therefore will be grappled every time. What i want to create is a situation where a character that puts the effort into being an effective grappler has at least even odds or better going in against the grappling beastie throughout the etnire range of CR's. Whether or not a character cover's this area is a matter of what the character's priorities are. Given the prevelance of beasties that grapple what any given character has to do in order to protect themselves should be at a reasonably low threshold. On the face of it I'm pretty sure that adjsuting freedom of movement as I've stated is an appropriate solution. I threw out some round numbers for you and you're not satisifed. I'll work up the exact numbers and we'll see what they say. Since this is the version of the spell I want to use in my variant when I'm done writing it this is just relevant and useful research for me.

[Wook]

Here's how I'm going to work out the numbers:

I'm going to go through the MM and pick out all the beasties that have Improved grab and/or some grapple based ability or are otherwise well suited to grappling. I'm going to take their base CR, and the CR-HD-Grapple check at each size bump and max HD. That should provide a pretty clear picture of what grapple checks fall where and then I'll work out what the relevant grapple checks are at each level along the way starting at 2 below whatever the lowest CR on the list is.

[Chimaera]

It was traumatic!

Fortunately, I had a spare.

Gotta love the old redundant back-up cock... I ponied up for the regenerative model, personally. You pay a little more up front, but you end up with a lower cost of ownership in the end.

[ed]

origen: that sounds to me a whole lot like rules unfamiliarity conspiring w/ metagaming. i've played the game since what, 1986. i've never encountered such a disparity and i can't help but wonder if that particular scenario wasn't a guaranteed cakewalk if two newcomers were assigned NPC roles to play, esp considering i know that the other guys know the rules forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down, right down to the house rules in use.

ed

[Chris]

Gotta love the old redundant back-up cock... I ponied up for the regenerative model, personally. You pay a little more up front, but you end up with a lower cost of ownership in the end.
I, personally, went for the nigh invulnerable model, m'self. Serves me well.

[Origen]

When did you play in a game that had freedom of movement grant a bonus to grapple checks? I haven't played in every game you've been in but you've never mentioned anything like this before.

That doesn't matter. In the games where I've played, the insignificant bonus you're talking about wouldn't have made a difference those times that I lost.

Creatures getting iterative attacks to grapple with is a house rule from dok. Most creatures that have improved grapple eiterh have something like constrict that automatically does damage to the grappled creature, or swallow whole that happens in the following round with another successful grapple check. (Or the held creature takes bite damage each round with no attack roll needed.) A creature has the attacks listed in it's writeup normally. So the krakken could try to grapple you something like 13 times in one round, a Grell could try 8 times, etc... You can also NOT coup de grace a pinned creature. You may only do that as a full round action, IE one round later, to a HELPLESS oppoent. (Asleep, paralyzed, or unconscious.)

House rule? Bull-SHIT!

That's core, you numbnut:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple

"A grapple check is like a melee attack roll."

"Starting a Grapple
To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target. Starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll. If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses)."

Know the rules before you talk about them.

Here's another dandy you evidently missed:

"Pin Your Opponent
You can hold your opponent immobile for 1 round by winning an opposed grapple check (made in place of an attack). Once you have an opponent pinned, you have a few options available to you (see below)."

"If You’re Pinned by an Opponent
When an opponent has pinned you, you are held immobile (but not helpless) for 1 round. While you’re pinned, you take a -4 penalty to your AC against opponents other than the one pinning you. At your opponent’s option, you may also be unable to speak. On your turn, you can try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action. If you win, you escape the pin, but you’re still grappling."

When you are pinned, you are FUCKED! I was wrong about the Coup de Grace part, but if you look carefully at pinning, at the pinner's option, you cannot SPEAK. That means that if you're a wizard with non-silent Teleport/Dimension Door/whatever, you are FUCKED in the ear. You are always two iterative attacks away from being completely screwed.

A wizard isn't going to "out grapple" a monster designed to grapple. A wizard has other spells that not only get him out of the grapple but get him completely clear of any danger. (Unlike he melee counterparts.) he could use moment of prescience to escape a grapple and he could use contingency to trigger a dimension door to safety when/if he is grappled. Those are two very simplistic solutions. Or he could use limited wish to say "I win my next grapple check." and get out of jail free, etc..., etc..., etc... Spellcasting offers a large enough variety of options for the wizard to escape that his grapple check isn't going to really be relevant. He has a derth of other means at his disposal.

He can use a Moment of Prescience to get a +25 chance to escape ONE grapple check. I'm notably underwhelmed, ****.

Or he can burn 300 XP to escape ONE grapple check.

You're bogging here, man.

I've never seen a rogue have to make a grapple check that mattered.

So are you admitting you have no practical knowledge on the subject?

In 3.0 you guys always had cloaks of ethereal jaunt which were too good not to have because it negated grappling as a threat 100% every time and in 3.5 freedom of movement is too good not ot have for the exact same reason. Why even bother with having a grapple check that matters when after 7th level i'll be able to be immune either at my discretion from buffs or 24/7 from a ring? It's the textbook definition of something that's broken.

No, it's not. It's a challenge that eventually becomes a non-issue, and you simply want to replace one trump card with another. Poison eventually becomes a non-issue. Disease eventually becomes a non-issue.

Those cloaks were fucking EXPENSIVE, and we had something like 1 to 3 charges apiece. You only popped into the campaign at 17th level, ****. I played 1st through 21st, and believe me, we got screwed in the ear so often by grappling, it wasn't even FUNNY. So your statements about our Too Good Not to Have cloaks negating grappling 100 percent of the time are completely false, thankyouverymuch.

Grappling is broken. On Enworld polls, DMs rated grappling and Improved Grab as their favorite DM tasty treat.

My druid in the monty haul game where all the PC's except me had about 125%-130% of normal wealth for their level, were vastly better power gamers than me, where the GM was powergaming to the hilt, where I came in not jsut a level behind everyone else but also with standard wealth for that reduced level. What happened is about what one should expect to happen under those circumstances. Not only that but do you realize that once Dok realized that he *could* grapple me that in every encoutner where there was grappling that *I* was the one that got targeted? Other people may have been targeted but I fell under the corsshairs *every* time. This was not a coincidence.

MONTY HAUL?!?!?!?!

Are you INSANE?!?!?

That is one of the best laughs I've had all day, ****. Thank you.

I'm beginning to wonder if you were even awake during that game, sometimes.

In any case, yes, I see that you can remember how many times you got dry-humped in that game using grappling even though you were often MUCH larger than medium-sized.

You'd think that would influence your thinking on this subject, but I guess you enjoyed it.

To each their own.

Not at all. Flat immunity to grappling, or flat immunity to anything else for that matter, is a bad, bad, bad, broken, abusive idea. Last time I checked you at least agreed with the general sentiment. Taking away all options for resisting grappling is an equally bad idea because the reality is that creatures that grapple can and will have checks in the mid 70 range and higher. My intention is not to create a situation where the result of grapple checks is either a PC that is immune and therefore ungrappleable, or a PC that is not immune and therefore will be grappled every time. What i want to create is a situation where a character that puts the effort into being an effective grappler has at least even odds or better going in against the grappling beastie throughout the etnire range of CR's. Whether or not a character cover's this area is a matter of what the character's priorities are. Given the prevelance of beasties that grapple what any given character has to do in order to protect themselves should be at a reasonably low threshold. On the face of it I'm pretty sure that adjsuting freedom of movement as I've stated is an appropriate solution. I threw out some round numbers for you and you're not satisifed. I'll work up the exact numbers and we'll see what they say. Since this is the version of the spell I want to use in my variant when I'm done writing it this is just relevant and useful research for me.

On principle, I agree with making the game more challenging, and giving the DM more options. Grappling is another animal, though. It's already too good. And making it better? Do what you want in your game, but by the rules, it's ALREADY broken.

And your suggestions for "balancing" it suck. I'm criticizing your mechanics, ****. Your optimism is a sham. You just want a big club you can hide under the table and pull out when you need it. That's fine, but call it what it is.

And blaming it on the PCs for not having their priorities in order is silly. I guess they just shouldn't have been wearing that tight miniskirt when they walked down that dark road at night, eh?

If I were a PC, and I saw your Freedom of Movement adjustment, I would laugh to myself, and subsequently never cast it, because it would be a joke.

Here's how I'm going to work out the numbers:

I'm going to go through the MM and pick out all the beasties that have Improved grab and/or some grapple based ability or are otherwise well suited to grappling. I'm going to take their base CR, and the CR-HD-Grapple check at each size bump and max HD. That should provide a pretty clear picture of what grapple checks fall where and then I'll work out what the relevant grapple checks are at each level along the way starting at 2 below whatever the lowest CR on the list is.

That's nice, but it still doesn't mean anything, ****. Any creature doing grappling can and should have Improved Grab. You'd do it as a DM. I'd do it. We've already noted, and it's well known, that far too many creatures in the MM have Alertness, and Toughness. If you're going to run the numbers, then do it like you would in a REAL game, and stop cooking the books with your qualifiers, 'k?

[Wook]

I, personally, went for the nigh invulnerable model, m'self. Serves me well.

The irresistable gravity power that would have an active cost in excess of 350 if done under hero 5th edition was what got me. No defense, no escape, no hope. Everyone in the PC party having Foci that gave them a limited form of Desolidification was 2nd on the annoyance list. When it comes to super's I literally think in terms of establishing balance as a comparison of how powers would stack against each other if build in Hero as a comparison of their respective Active/Real point costs.

Basically the gravity power that G-Force has is a an AOE selective TK-60 strength with fine manipulation that affects real world, that's continuous and I suspect that strength is about half what he can actually do. IIRC it also has a reduced end component.

[Chris]

The irresistable gravity power that would have an active cost in excess of 350 if done under hero 5th edition was what got me. No defense, no escape, no hope. Everyone in the PC party having Foci that gave them a limited form of Desolidification was 2nd on the annoyance list. When it comes to super's I literally think in terms of establishing balance as a comparison of how powers would stack against each other if build in Hero as a comparison of their respective Active/Real point costs.

Basically the gravity power that G-Force has is a an AOE selective TK-60 strength with fine manipulation that affects real world, that's continuous and I suspect that strength is about half what he can actually do. IIRC it also has a reduced end component.

:signs053:

Dood. I was talking about my peepee...

[Chimaera]

:signs053:

Dood. I was talking about my peepee...

:rofl:

I too was wondering what the heck he was going on about...

I had considered the invulnerable model, but the wife wasn't partial to the attendant bruising ;)

[Chris]

I had considered the invulnerable model, but the wife wasn't partial to the attendant bruising ;)
True. But with great power cums great responsibility...

I must take great care when wielding it lest I hurt the one(s) I love.

:D

[Wook]

That doesn't matter. In the games where I've played, the insignificant bonus you're talking about wouldn't have made a difference those times that I lost.

House rule? Bull-SHIT!

That's core, you numbnut:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple

"A grapple check is like a melee attack roll."

"Starting a Grapple
To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target. Starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll. If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses)."

Know the rules before you talk about them.

Here's another dandy you evidently missed:

"Pin Your Opponent
You can hold your opponent immobile for 1 round by winning an opposed grapple check (made in place of an attack). Once you have an opponent pinned, you have a few options available to you (see below)."

"If You’re Pinned by an Opponent
When an opponent has pinned you, you are held immobile (but not helpless) for 1 round. While you’re pinned, you take a -4 penalty to your AC against opponents other than the one pinning you. At your opponent’s option, you may also be unable to speak. On your turn, you can try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action. If you win, you escape the pin, but you’re still grappling."

When you are pinned, you are FUCKED! I was wrong about the Coup de Grace part, but if you look carefully at pinning, at the pinner's option, you cannot SPEAK. That means that if you're a wizard with non-silent Teleport/Dimension Door/whatever, you are FUCKED in the ear. You are always two iterative attacks away from being completely screwed.

First of all you're talking about the wrong rules. If you look here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm) you'll see that...

Full Attack
This line shows all the physical attacks the creature makes when it uses a full-round action to make a full attack. It gives the number of attacks along with the weapon, attack bonus, and form of attack (melee or ranged). The first entry is for the creature’s primary weapon, with an attack bonus including modifications for size and Strength (for melee attacks) or Dexterity (for ranged attacks). A creature with the Weapon Finesse feat can use its Dexterity modifier on melee attacks. The remaining weapons are secondary, and attacks with them are made with a -5 penalty to the attack roll, no matter how many there are. Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks. The damage that each attack deals is noted parenthetically. Damage from an attack is always at least 1 point, even if a subtraction from a die roll reduces the result to 0 or lower.


Which is what I was talking about. So if Mr. Tyranosaur with his improved grab and swallow whoel maneuver has bite and bite only listed for his full attack that means that no matter how high his BAB is he only gets one singular bite attack a round. Dok houseruled that the beasties got iterative attacks and that houserule inherently favors the DM.

Second - Org. You're being an ass. You're being an ass without cause. Please cease and decist. I'm quite aware of how the rules work and have access to the same SRD that you do and in fact by your own admission you were wrong on one point and now have been shown wrong, by me, on a second. Do not lecture upon my rules knowledge. I've done nothing but make good faith offers to demonstrate my point. Put your dick back in your pants and play nice or you'll find yourself without anyone to play with.

[TinSoldier]

True. But with great power cums great responsibility...

I must take great care when wielding it lest I hurt the one(s) I love.

:DWait, is this D&D 3.5 Variants or Variations?

[Wook]

And to be certain, I might add, the change I'm attempting to make is indeed a reduction of power for the PC. It takes grappling from being NO THREAT EVER. To MAYBE being a threat when it comes up if the GM has built a beastie SPECFICICALLY to grapple which is how I'm going to crunch the numbers. I am not at any point, or in any way, attempting to create a situation where the PC's are by default screwed.

[Chimaera]

Put your dick back in your pants and play nice or you'll find yourself without anyone to play with.

Another problem with using the back-up model... it's never as pretty as the first one... ;) :D

[Chimaera]

True. But with great power cums great responsibility...

I must take great care when wielding it lest I hurt the one(s) I love.

:D

Pain in ribs...

Laughing... so hard...

Fainting...

[Chimaera]

I really hope everyone here has heard the song "Detachable Penis"...

[Wook]

Thanks to three of you it's been stuck in my glans all afternoon. ;)

[Chris]

Thanks to three of you it's been stuck in my glans all afternoon. ;)

Oh, sorry. That wasn't a ...song... stuck in your "glands". My bad. Here. Here's a band-aid. Hope that helps.

See? I told you this thing is dangerous.

[Origen]

First of all you're talking about the wrong rules. If you look here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm) you'll see that...

****, I defy you to show me anywhere in the rules where it says

I secondly defy you to go on ANY rules forum, Enworld, or Monte Cook's forums, and argue that you can only make one grapple attempt per round with iterative attacks.

Which is what I was talking about. So if Mr. Tyranosaur with his improved grab and swallow whoel maneuver has bite and bite only listed for his full attack that means that no matter how high his BAB is he only gets one singular bite attack a round. Dok houseruled that the beasties got iterative attacks and that houserule inherently favors the DM.

Dok did not houserule iterative attacks.

You are wrong. It is a melee attack, and not a standard action.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't expect you to admit it, though.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

Swallow Whole

If a creature with this special attack begins its turn with an opponent held in its mouth (see Improved Grab), it can attempt a new grapple check (as though attempting to pin the opponent). If it succeeds, it swallows its prey, and the opponent takes bite damage. Unless otherwise noted, the opponent can be up to one size category smaller than the swallowing creature. Being swallowed has various consequences, depending on the creature doing the swallowing. A swallowed creature is considered to be grappled, while the creature that did the swallowing is not. A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is noted in the creature description), or it can just try to escape the grapple. The Armor Class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is normally 10 + ½ its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size or Dexterity. If the swallowed creature escapes the grapple, success puts it back in the attacker’s mouth, where it may be bitten or swallowed again.

Swallow Whole SPECIFICALLY states that it can only be done at the beginning of its next turn.

Why does it have to do that? Because if it didn't, then you'd be able to to do it normally, that is, with another iterative attack.

If you have four iterative attacks, you can grapple on your first iterative, you can pin on your second, and do whatever you like on your third and fourth.

That's core rules.

Second - Org. You're being an ass. You're being an ass without cause. Please cease and decist.

Unlike you, I haven't personally insulted you. I haven't talked about your dick. I haven't called you an ass. I simply said that I wonder if you were awake during some of those games you describe, and question your ability to read the rules. Since you're lecturing me on them, yourself, and are incapable of admitting error, I think you can blow me. Right now. Softly.

I'm quite aware of how the rules work and have access to the same SRD that you do and in fact by your own admission you were wrong on one point and now have been shown wrong, by me, on a second.

Unlike you, ****, I can actually admit where I'm wrong. I don't consider that a character deficiency.

You have not proven me wrong on the second point. And in fact, it is YOU who is being an ass. So stop hiding behind your alleged politeness.

If you prove me wrong on the second, I'll admit it. I doubt you'll say the same, because hey, it's always more fun to whine about big bad Origen being mean, and taking your toys, and going home.

Do not lecture upon my rules knowledge. I've done nothing but make good faith offers to demonstrate my point. Put your dick back in your pants and play nice or you'll find yourself without anyone to play with.

Or you'll what? Take away one of my brownie points? Give me a bad reputation score? Go right ahead. You're here of your own free will. Argue with me, or don't, as you choose.

[Parzival]

Sorry, I'm still trying to get over **** being attracted to Chris's penis. <grin> All the follow-up is just gravy.

[Origen]

Sorry, I'm still trying to get over **** being attracted to Chris's penis. <grin> All the follow-up is just gravy.

Thanks. I missed that, intentionally.

This time I didn't.

*kicks Parz in the shin*

[Chris]

Sorry, I'm still trying to get over **** being attracted to Chris's penis. <grin> All the follow-up is just gravy.

Well, to be fair, I can't say it is he who is to blame. My considerable man-meat does has a gravitational field of its own. His being attracted to it is simply physics.

[Origen]

My considerable man-meat does has a gravitational field of its own. His being attracted to it is simply physics.

That is so damn siggable.

[ed]

that's actually a thread being discussed elsewhere (http://forum.literotica.com:81/showthread.php?t=400493).

(link NSFW)

ed

[Wook]

Mosnters DONT' GET ITERATIVE ATTACKS. They can't grapple with them because they DON'T HAVE THEM. Humanoids, some giants, and some outsiders get iterative attacks because they use melee weapons. In all other cases they get exactly the attacks listed in their full attack line. In any case where there's natural weapons they get exactly what's listed and not one bit more. Even when advanced to ridiculous amounts of HD, with scads of class levels, etc... If I've only got one bit attack to grapple with then I've only got one bite attack to grapple with in a round and it doesn't matter if my BAB is +1, +6, or +80.

The reason this is important is because things like swallow whole require a second grapple check for the "swallow" part of the maneuver which means, lo and behold, that the PC has at least a full round in order to escape. Which is what I've been saying all along on that point.

[Parzival]

Thanks. I missed that, intentionally.

This time I didn't.

*kicks Parz in the shin*
<hops, while continuing to cackle maniacly>
Upset that **** is forsaking you?

[Wook]

House rule? Bull-SHIT!

That's core, you numbnut:

And since it's relevant I'd just like to point out that this was the first stone cast vis a vis personal attacks. There was another bit earlier that implied deliberate dishonesty on my part as well from you Org. I reiterate. You are being an ass without cause. Please stop.

[Wook]

...All the follow-up is just gravy.

White gravy. ;)

[Origen]

<hops, while continuing to cackle maniacly>
Upset that **** is forsaking you?

*kicks Parz in the other shin, while holding hands over ears and saying "Lalalalalalalalalala!!"

And since it's relevant I'd just like to point out that this was the first stone cast vis a vis personal attacks. There was another bit earlier that implied deliberate dishonesty on my part as well from you Org. I reiterate. You are being an ass without cause. Please stop.

Numbnut?!?!?! You're getting your panties in a twist because I called you a numbnut? Would you like to come over and wrap an afghan around you, and heat up some milk in a pan for your hot chocolate, too?

Mosnters DONT' GET ITERATIVE ATTACKS. They can't grapple with them because they DON'T HAVE THEM. Humanoids, some giants, and some outsiders get iterative attacks because they use melee weapons.

This argument covers creatures with iteratives, and it covers creatures using natural attacks. You can easily make builds with iteratives, and they exist.

You picked the T-Rex because it only has one attack, and it's primary mode of attack is Round 1: Grapple, and Round 2: Swallow Whole.

Then you dismiss the monsters that "break the curve" because hey, they aren't relevant.

In all other cases they get exactly the attacks listed in their full attack line. In any case where there's natural weapons they get exactly what's listed and not one bit more. Even when advanced to ridiculous amounts of HD, with scads of class levels, etc... If I've only got one bit attack to grapple with then I've only got one bite attack to grapple with in a round and it doesn't matter if my BAB is +1, +6, or +80.

Which is why you picked the T-Rex, I know. It's extremely weak.

The reason this is important is because things like swallow whole require a second grapple check for the "swallow" part of the maneuver which means, lo and behold, that the PC has at least a full round in order to escape. Which is what I've been saying all along on that point.

Swallow Whole isn't even part of this discussion, except in regards to your relationship with Chris.

We're talking about grappling. You want it to be a DM trump. I don't. I'm open to mechanics to make Escape Artist or Freedom of Movement meaningful without being a trump card, but your suggestions blow, frankly.

You'll recall that I suggested a possible fix for Escape Artist, which passed unnoticed by you, doubtless because it made the skill NOT suck.

[Chimaera]

You'll recall that I suggested a possible fix for Escape Artist, which passed unnoticed by you, doubtless because it made the skill NOT suck.

Dude, nobody is interested in stuff that doesn't suck... Dating someone who doesn't give head is like owning a new movie on video-cassette -- you're amazed that anything's even made that way anymore.

[Wook]

You're getting your panties in a twist because I called you a numbnut? Would you like to come over and wrap an afghan around you, and heat up some milk in a pan for your hot chocolate, too?

I'm pissed because you're being an ass without cause. And make no mistake. You are being an ass. I'm more annoyed that implied I lied, or was otherwise arguing in bad faith, than anything else if you wanted to know the particulars. I'm endeavouring to play nice and actually examine whether or not what I'm suggesting is balanced. You're complaining that something you admit, and know, to be broken would go away as a result.

This argument covers creatures with iteratives, and it covers creatures using natural attacks. You can easily make builds with iteratives, and they exist.

You picked the T-Rex because it only has one attack, and it's primary mode of attack is Round 1: Grapple, and Round 2: Swallow Whole.

Then you dismiss the monsters that "break the curve" because hey, they aren't relevant.

No. I said that 2 creatures out of the whole monster manual that didn't fit the model I'd proposed was an ok margin of error with me. We'll see what things look like tonight when I crunch the complete scope of the numbers for all the levels where they're relevant.

Which is why you picked the T-Rex, I know. It's extremely weak.

I picked the T-Rex because it's a grapple monster that I'm personally fond of. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You didn't call me a liar. It's just the obvious implication of your statement.

Swallow Whole isn't even part of this discussion, except in regards to your relationship with Chris.

We're talking about grappling. You want it to be a DM trump. I don't. I'm open to mechanics to make Escape Artist or Freedom of Movement meaningful without being a trump card, but your suggestions blow, frankly.

Uh... Swallow whole and constrict both reqruire grapple checks. They're part of what defines a creature as a grappling monster. Simply being grappled and pinned by one cearture who then has to sit there and keep pinning you every round, removing both of you from combat effectively, is a zero sum maneuver. ANY creature could attempt to do that. I'll look at snatch and Fling but I'm pretty sure those are specific to flying creatures.

You'll recall that I suggested a possible fix for Escape Artist, which passed unnoticed by you, doubtless because it made the skill NOT suck.

It did not go unnoticed. I'm just not sure of whether or not it's necessary. Dex already applies to touch AC so I wouldn't add that. Adding the rest of the escape artist check to touch AC vs a grapple isn't a bad idea necessarily but it does create the potential for someone like puck to be ungrappleable which just takes us back to where we started. Which would even be worse IMHO because if it's *just* dex fighters that are immune to grapple that's kinda silly and for characters that don't have escape artist as a class skill and/or a massive dex mod it's kinda pointless since it's not going to provide anything other than an illusory bonus to AC given what the BAB's of large grappling creatures can accomplish. It could protect a character from mook level grapplers and that's about it.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat what I'm trying to accomplish but if you think I'm not being honest in that regard just walk away. There's not point in us discussing this if you don't believe me capable of honesty in the matter.

[Origen]

I'm pissed because you're being an ass without cause. And make no mistake. You are being an ass. I'm more annoyed that implied I lied, or was otherwise arguing in bad faith, than anything else if you wanted to know the particulars. I'm endeavouring to play nice and actually examine whether or not what I'm suggesting is balanced.

I think you want Grappling to be a trump when it's used. I think you are covering that up with numbers.

I think you saying that you're offering a balanced solution, but I also think you're sharp enough to know that you're tilting it in the DMs favor. I also know that you flat out admitted that you want the grappling capabilities of certain creatures will ALWAYS trump any defense. You said so, yourself.

Pretending that you have achieved game balance when you want something to be a trump isn't going to land you in jail, but I think it's BS. Did I call you a liar? No. Did I say you argued in bad faith? No. But I think you're playing a shell game with the numbers, and loading your examples. I pointed out where, too.

You're complaining that something you admit, and know, to be broken would go away as a result.

Oh did I?

Where did I say that admit and know Freedom of Movement is broken?

I said Grappling is broken, and you've offered no important, significant or gameworthy solutions that balance the model. I never said Freedom of Movement was broken.

No. I said that 2 creatures out of the whole monster manual that didn't fit the model I'd proposed was an ok margin of error with me. We'll see what things look like tonight when I crunch the complete scope of the numbers for all the levels where they're relevant.

That's a lot of qualifiers. That's all I have to say.

I picked the T-Rex because it's a grapple monster that I'm personally fond of. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You didn't call me a liar. It's just the obvious implication of your statement.

I feel you picked a very weak example, ****. I justified my statement, too. I've given counterexamples that make my point. If you insist on being insulted, I certainly can't stop you.

Or should I praise your examples for being the best possible examples you could possibly make? Is that the only acceptable means of arguing with you?

Uh... Swallow whole and constrict both reqruire grapple checks. They're part of what defines a creature as a grappling monster. Simply being grappled and pinned by one cearture who then has to sit there and keep pinning you every round, removing both of you from combat effectively, is a zero sum maneuver. ANY creature could attempt to do that. I'll look at snatch and Fling but I'm pretty sure those are specific to flying creatures.

Oh really?

So having a spellcaster grappled, unable to cast non-silent, non-stilled spells and open to sneak attack from every angle isn't important? Without recourse?

Keeping a fighter in a position where you can continue to attack him normally while he has to make an opposed grapple check to draw a LIGHT weapon isn't important?

Taking a rogue out of play and leaving him no option whatsoever isn't important?

When something is pinned, you can attack it with great advantage. So can anything else.

I know this is going to offend you to say you're overlooking a lot of things, and pooh-poohing the problems, ****, but I believe you are.

It did not go unnoticed. I'm just not sure of whether or not it's necessary. Dex already applies to touch AC so I wouldn't add that. Adding the rest of the escape artist check to touch AC vs a grapple isn't a bad idea necessarily but it does create the potential for someone like puck to be ungrappleable which just takes us back to where we started. Which would even be worse IMHO because if it's *just* dex fighters that are immune to grapple that's kinda silly and for characters that don't have escape artist as a class skill and/or a massive dex mod it's kinda pointless since it's not going to provide anything other than an illusory bonus to AC given what the BAB's of large grappling creatures can accomplish. It could protect a character from mook level grapplers and that's about it.

So a fighter with Close Quarters Fighting can add BAB + Str + size + Weapon Damage (which includes weapon die + Str + 1/2 str with a two-handed weapon + any die modifiers like sneak attack or flame or shock or whatever) to his grapple check, and that's okay, but a rogue adding a skill + Dex on top of Dex to avoid the grapple attempt is game-breaking? Monks, bards and rogues get Escape Artist. They are also the ones least likely to have the other defenses you've mentioned.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat what I'm trying to accomplish but if you think I'm not being honest in that regard just walk away. There's not point in us discussing this if you don't believe me capable of honesty in the matter.

I think you are pooh-poohing legitimate comments about your methods and conclusions, ****.

I'm sorry you find the fact that I don't completely and without inhibition agree with you so offensive.

[Wook]

I think you want Grappling to be a trump when it's used. I think you are covering that up with numbers.

I think you saying that you're offering a balanced solution, but I also think you're sharp enough to know that you're tilting it in the DMs favor. I also know that you flat out admitted that you want the grappling capabilities of certain creatures will ALWAYS trump any defense. You said so, yourself.

Pretending that you have achieved game balance when you want something to be a trump isn't going to land you in jail, but I think it's BS. Did I call you a liar? No. Did I say you argued in bad faith? No. But I think you're playing a shell game with the numbers, and loading your examples. I pointed out where, too.

So no I'm not lying, or arguing in bad faith. I'm just engaging in some sort of deception? Dude I take being honest pretty friggin seriously. It's a character trait I cultivate unto the point of being not quite incompetent at lying and the little skill I have is from sitting in the broom closet for 8 years. I don't even have a good poker face and you know that part at least. I've meant every last word of what I've said. You may be right. I'll see when I run the numbers through Excel and compile the master list.

Oh did I?

Where did I say that admit and know Freedom of Movement is broken?

I said Grappling is broken, and you've offered no important, significant or gameworthy solutions that balance the model. I never said Freedom of Movement was broken.
From...
I understand the whole motivation behind trying to add effectiveness instead of immunity, and I agree with it.

I just think this take the spell from being "too damned good NOT to use" to "completely worthless versus grappling and I'd never cast it."

Perhaps I inferred to much but last I checked you were of the general opinion that the immunities were broken.

I feel you picked a very weak example, ****. I justified my statement, too. I've given counterexamples that make my point. If you insist on being insulted, I certainly can't stop you.

Or should I praise your examples for being the best possible examples you could possibly make? Is that the only acceptable means of arguing with you?


You've latched onto one single example out of about a half dozen. You picked the weakest one because that's a good rhetorical tactic. Don't worry though. Once I have a chance to finish it I'll have a rather extensive list of examples. Then we'll be able to say for sure one way or the other.

So having a spellcaster grappled, unable to cast non-silent, non-stilled spells and open to sneak attack from every angle isn't important? Without recourse?

Keeping a fighter in a position where you can continue to attack him normally while he has to make an opposed grapple check to draw a LIGHT weapon isn't important?

Taking a rogue out of play and leaving him no option whatsoever isn't important?

When something is pinned, you can attack it with great advantage. So can anything else.

I know this is going to offend you to say you're overlooking a lot of things, and pooh-poohing the problems, ****, but I believe you are.


It's a function of time. I agree that the can't speak at pinners discretion is a nut shot for any hope a spellcaster woudl have of getting out of a grapple and I'd have to remove that and am ok with doing so. You are speaking otherwise from the assumption that the characters in question would, by default, be grappled. Out of the whole of the MM there about a half dozen creatures that would have a chance below epic CR's. Not all of them would have a good chance under the suggestion I've made here. You are concerned that advanced creatures would break this or expose weaknesses? Ok. I'm going to take the time to advance all of the grappling orientated beasties from the MM and see what they look like at their assorted stages. I'm even going to venture into the low end of epic CR's since I can envision those coming up at 20th level due to large party size and/or a desire for exceptionally challenging encounters. I can't think of anything more transparent than that. You'll have the whole of the numbers and be able to examine them at your liesure and question the parts you think need questioning. There's no more good faith I can offer than that. If you want to go on thinking I'm trying to somehow offer a half assed justification despite that then g'damn dude you ain't allowed to accuse of me cartesian doubt thresholds anymore.

As to monster tactics - When building an encounter if I'm building an encounter around grappling, something that can't really be done under the current ruleset, then I'm not going have some generic beastie just sit there and bear hug you while the other PC's go gangbusters. I'm going to use a beastie designed to grapple, that does something nifty/scary when it does grapple so that there's some sort of actual fear involved in being grappled. Otherwise a grappled <whatever> just takes a paltry amount of damage for it's level while it's buds finish off the rest of the encounter. I can't find it at the moment but I thought that attacking into a grapple gave a even odds of hitting anyone in the grapple. You have to join the grapple to do the "easy" attacks you're describing. Baiscally if I'm designing an encounter with a grappling beastie that beastie is going to be something that's scary to be grappled by. I haven't played in a game you've run but Dohvak an Dok seemed consistent witht hat philosophy as well. YMMV.

So a fighter with Close Quarters Fighting can add BAB + Str + size + Weapon Damage (which includes weapon die + Str + 1/2 str with a two-handed weapon + any die modifiers like sneak attack or flame or shock or whatever) to his grapple check, and that's okay, but a rogue adding a skill + Dex on top of Dex to avoid the grapple attempt is game-breaking? Monks, bards and rogues get Escape Artist. They are also the ones least likely to have the other defenses you've mentioned.

Game breaking? No idea. Am I uncomfortable with adding the same attribute twice to the same thing as the same bonus? Yeah. That's one of the core bits of the rules. An extra 21+misceleaneous bonuses is nice against the touch attack. I'm just not sure that it'd matter against most beasties.

I think you are pooh-poohing legitimate comments about your methods and conclusions, ****.

I'm sorry you find the fact that I don't completely and without inhibition agree with you so offensive.

Pooh-poohing? You mean by putting for the good faith effort to crunch the numbers, do the page flipping, and look up the relevant source material despite a reception not unlike that reserved for used car salesman, sleazy politicians, and defense attorneys?

You are being an ass and you are being an ass without justification.

[Origen]

So no I'm not lying, or arguing in bad faith. I'm just engaging in some sort of deception? Dude I take being honest pretty friggin seriously. It's a character trait I cultivate unto the point of being not quite incompetent at lying and the little skill I have is from sitting in the broom closet for 8 years. I don't even have a good poker face and you know that part at least. I've meant every last word of what I've said. You may be right. I'll see when I run the numbers through Excel and compile the master list.

****, if you insist on taking offense at my words, I cannot stop you. I am not, however, the one talking about your genitals swinging in the breeze, nor repeatedly referring to you as an ass and demanding either an apology or a big, wet smooch on my posterior.

I think you are downplaying risks and overlooking things. If that statement is enough to make you flip the fuck out, then so be it, because this is the second argument where you've done this to me. I am NOT arguing out of character, and in fact, out of friendship, I've intentionally dialing it back, and taking shots on the chin anyway, which is something I don't do for ANYONE.

Yet, I'm still an ass.

Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on. Stop being such a prima donna, and argue about rules, sissyboy.

Perhaps I inferred to much but last I checked you were of the general opinion that the immunities were broken.

I understand the motivation toward limiting immunities. I agree with it as a game principle. I don't use it in my games, though. I've never called everything EXCEPT your way broken, however. That is a complete distortion of what I said. Standard D&D is not broken. Freedom of Movement is not broken. Hero's Feast is not broken. Mind Blank is not broken. None of these are "broken" in the same way the Hulking Hurler is broken, or the Iajitsu Master, or Epic Spellcasting. Those are broken. We are talking about a different flavor of game, and just like Low Magic campaigns, or evil campaigns, I understand the motivation, and I agree with the game principles even when I don't run those games myself.

You've latched onto one single example out of about a half dozen. You picked the weakest one because that's a good rhetorical tactic. Don't worry though. Once I have a chance to finish it I'll have a rather extensive list of examples. Then we'll be able to say for sure one way or the other.

That depends entirely on what you mean by "running the numbers" ****. Method counts just as much as a bunch of columns that you did a pull-down, and frankly, my own experience as a player counts more to me than a half hour on Excel.

It's a function of time. I agree that the can't speak at pinners discretion is a nut shot for any hope a spellcaster woudl have of getting out of a grapple and I'd have to remove that and am ok with doing so.

Okay, so rogues are completely fucked, and you have to implement a special houserule to prevent spellcasters from being COMPLETELY fucked, and fighters have to have two feats and a spell on them to resist it, but ohhhhhhh, no, this ability isn't too good, no sir. Players just have to be PREPARED!

You are speaking otherwise from the assumption that the characters in question would, by default, be grappled. Out of the whole of the MM there about a half dozen creatures that would have a chance below epic CR's. Not all of them would have a good chance under the suggestion I've made here. You are concerned that advanced creatures would break this or expose weaknesses? Ok. I'm going to take the time to advance all of the grappling orientated beasties from the MM and see what they look like at their assorted stages. I'm even going to venture into the low end of epic CR's since I can envision those coming up at 20th level due to large party size and/or a desire for exceptionally challenging encounters. I can't think of anything more transparent than that. You'll have the whole of the numbers and be able to examine them at your liesure and question the parts you think need questioning. There's no more good faith I can offer than that. If you want to go on thinking I'm trying to somehow offer a half assed justification despite that then g'damn dude you ain't allowed to accuse of me cartesian doubt thresholds anymore.

There's an old saying, ****. There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Just because you "run the numbers" doesn't mean anything to me. Because all of your work operates on several assumptions:

1. Players spending two feats, a maxed-out skill and having a spell cast on them seems like a reasonable level of preparedness.

2. Players are going to have high stats, standard or high wealth, and use a not insignificant chunk of that wealth toward protecting themselves from a single combat maneuver.

3. DMs are going to play nicey-nice with grappling.

You have completely left rogues out of the equation. You are going to have to write a specific houserule that I pointed out for spellcasters to prevent them from being completely screwed.

And I'm here to tell you, as someone playing a 22nd level rogue character right now, I looked at taking the Close Quarters Fighting / Combat Reflexes feats, and it was pointless, because even at 22nd level, unless I'm flanking, I do 1d6+9 with my primary attack. Sorry, but that's never going to prevent a grapple with the sort of hits being slung around in my game. It will barely even tickle, and most monsters that try to grapple me are rarely polite enough to set themselves up for a flank while they're doing it.

As to monster tactics - When building an encounter if I'm building an encounter around grappling, something that can't really be done under the current ruleset, then I'm not going have some generic beastie just sit there and bear hug you while the other PC's go gangbusters. I'm going to use a beastie designed to grapple, that does something nifty/scary when it does grapple so that there's some sort of actual fear involved in being grappled. Otherwise a grappled <whatever> just takes a paltry amount of damage for it's level while it's buds finish off the rest of the encounter. I can't find it at the moment but I thought that attacking into a grapple gave a even odds of hitting anyone in the grapple. You have to join the grapple to do the "easy" attacks you're describing. Baiscally if I'm designing an encounter with a grappling beastie that beastie is going to be something that's scary to be grappled by. I haven't played in a game you've run but Dohvak an Dok seemed consistent witht hat philosophy as well. YMMV.

You are wrong on several points, and making other assumptions:

1. No, attacking into a grapple does NOT give you an equal chance of hitting either participant. In fact, neither has their dexterity toward you, so if you're a rogue, guess what? Woohoo! Free sneak attack!

2. It's nice that you have such benign motives, but I'm looking at overall mechanics

3. Having someone do full attack action on you when you cannot move or escape, and your only option is an opposed grapple check - which you will probably lose - to draw a LIGHT weapon is not "paltry" damage. You've evidently never been on the receiving end of an optimized mook grapple gangbang where you have to make FOUR impossible grapple checks just to get out.

I'm glad you want to do something nifty/scary, but YOU are not the rules. You are one person changing the rules to fit your own imaginative mechinations while disregarding what else can be done with them.

4. You do NOT have to join the grapple to do the easy attacks I'm talking about.

But let me guess, you didn't think of that either, but SURELY a DM would never do that, right?

Game breaking? No idea. Am I uncomfortable with adding the same attribute twice to the same thing as the same bonus? Yeah. That's one of the core bits of the rules. An extra 21+misceleaneous bonuses is nice against the touch attack. I'm just not sure that it'd matter against most beasties.

Adding an attribute twice is EXACTLY what Close Quarters Fighting does, ****. If you're wielding a two-handed weapon, you add Str + Str + 1/2 Str to your grapple check, plus TWICE your BAB and add any additional damage you do on TOP of that.

Why does that strike you as okay, but actually giving a rogue a CHANCE to avoid a grapple and making Escape Artist a useful skill is just too much?

Pooh-poohing? You mean by putting for the good faith effort to crunch the numbers, do the page flipping, and look up the relevant source material despite a reception not unlike that reserved for used car salesman, sleazy politicians, and defense attorneys?

Yeah. You consider it a major victory when I say, oh, okay, I was wrong on this point, and you tout your open-mindedness while simultaneously dismissing EVERYTHING I've had to say.

Who's the open-minded one, here?

You are being an ass and you are being an ass without justification.

And I already tried dialing it back, but evidently, unless I send a gift basket with lotions and scented soaps over to your place, it doesn't matter.

Look, sissyboy: unless you're going to cut it with this crap, too, you can't ask me to dial it back while simultaneously flicking matches in my face. Make sense? So stop bundling your posts with the same crap I've already dialed back, and THEN ask me to be polite, otherwise, have a nice warm mug of STFU, and while you're at it, take a nice well-lubed sit-and-spin on your moral indignation.

[SD Anderson]

GURPS has some insta death moves that dont even allow saving throws, like called shots to the eyes



Only if the brain is behind the eyes. You blind one eye of a snail like critter whose eyes are on tentacles or something.
]
Of course, you can target the brain... ;)but then you're not so much using a no save damage as hitting a smaller sack of hit points to make the kill.

Closest thing I can think of was in third editon. The blocking spells "Blink Other" did not have a resisted note on it, being designed to let you use a defense action to rescue a buddy, but it's usable offensively and under 3rd rules God could it be used offensively.

(Subject teleports a few hexes in a direction the caster selects. Until 4th, caster determined what position and facing the subject took after the 'port. Foe, back to you. On head. Slightly non perpendicular to ensure he fell prone. :)

Technically that does not render him dead, but considering his position it's a pretthy likely outcome, isn't it?

[Landis]

Where to begin....

1) Monks and Paladins may freely multiclass.

2) Falling damage increases by d6 per 10 feet squared, so a 60' fall does 10d6 damage.

3) Turning undead works as per Unearthed Arcana

4) Bards, Barbarians, & Monks do not have alignment restrictions.

5) Paladins may be of any of the four alignment extremes.

6) I use homebrewed Paladin, Bard, Monk, & Ranger modifications.

7) The entire magic system has been removed and replaced with a system akin to the one in Mage.

8) Knowledge skill modifiers can be increased through actual study, within a reasonable limit, instead of simply being tied to class levels and attributes.

9) Keen stacks with Improved Critical.

10) Any feats that give bonuses to the same skills stack.

11) Spell Focus goes by the 3.0 version.

12) Toughness gives 1 hp per HD, Improved Toughness gives double con mod bonus HP, and greater toughness gives triple con mod bonus HP. None of these stack.

13) Dodge is effective against all foes.

14) Magic weapons don't get plusses. They instead deal damage as though two size categories larger. Other enchantments can still be applied as normal.

15) Magic armor gives DR equal to (3+ armor bonus)/-

16) There are no 'mighty' bows - only normal and composite. A composite bow is automatically 'mighty' to the wielder's strength when purchased and can be re-tooled (craft DC 20) if their strength increases.

17) Bows are two-handed weapons for the purpose of determining bonus strength damage.

18) Stat damage from poisons and diseases overflows into Con damage on a 1:1 basis.

19) Alchemical items can have increased save DCs or deal greater damage if made exceptionally well. For every five points by which the craft check beats the necessary creation DC, either the save DC goes up by 2 points or the damage increases by 1 die.

And that's about it.

Oh, and I'm back.

[Cranky Dog]

Oh, and I'm back.
Welcome back.

Input from familiar faces is always fun and you have interesting houserules.

The magical weapons bonus = weapon size enhancement is an interesting one I've never seen before.


Cranky Dog
"I have a welcoming variant opinion, international!"

[Archaelos]

My current rules:

1) Teleport and all variants banned. Portals (and methods to create them) exist, but no blipping about by spell.

2) Likewise, planar movement spells banned. Planar portals exist, and can be created with extreme difficulty. Travel form of Gate does not exist.

3) If it lets you fly without turning you into a flying creature, its not allowed.

4) 3.0 Haste. Harm and Heal as 3.0, but Will Save for half (takes you to half current HP+1)

5) Natural 1 confirmed by a failed to-hit is a crit fumble, lose next iterative attack (if you have one).

6) Roll of 20 isn't an auto hit, it counts as 30.

7) Alignment spells exist, but reworked. An average individual doesn't detect as ANY alignment at all, while performance of significant deeds will slide the alignment meter around. Inherent (racial: always) alignment detections remain (even in the 1 in a million exceptions, that is, a redeemed vampire still detects as evil). Basically, I want alignment detection to exist, but I don't want it to be the end all of motivation.

8) Ranger is a 3.0 / 3.5 hybrid with bow feat - dual wield feat chain choices, but with d10 HD.

9) Stat roll by 4d6, reroll 1s (once), drop lowest. Roll seven times, pick your six and assign as you will. Hit dice rolls of 1 are rerolled.

10) Wealth tends higher than the suggested guidelines. Combined with 9, this makes for a high powered campaign. My players need it.

11) Magic items are never, ever, ever available for purchase. They must be commissioned or located by adventure. Item creation feats may require difficult to find ingredients. Players can have most any magic item they can imagine, but the attainment of such WILL be integral to their adventures and actions, not a matter of a shopping spree.

12) Heavily altered polymorph that boils down to "DM approves available forms".

These are my main list. My groups probably play with a few others, but we've forgotten they're houserules by this point then.

[Blastum]

First I must admit to not reading any of your posts after page 10 (they were getting boring). So please don't :shoot::shrug:

But I personally like to keep all of the regular (base books) rules and when people use them to do something screwy that I hate as the DM I fix there little red wagons.
:lecture:

Like how about giving your T-Rex a collar of anti-magic shell, freedom of movement what freedom of movement, hell what magic. Or be slightly nicer, Otto's suppressing field set against Abjuration. Hell give the monster a helping hand from your local re-occurring badguy plot thickener he can dispel or suppress the FoM then disappear again.
I just think that there are many ways to nerf FoM if you need to or think the party is being abusive with it (or any other spell, magic item, even rules) without actually changing the spell or the rules and this way you do a better job of keeping the PC's on their toes. They can use the spell but will it actually work how the want it to? Maybe this time maybe next time, but then again maybe not.

Now new rules, those I sometimes add but I try not to add them to specificlly scew-up some other rule. Yes, I will let players use alt stat methods but only when I think they will need them to live (sometimes I like to make my games really nasty and mean).

Oh, how much time, gold, and exp did you spend to make that ship? Sorry, but the Kraken sank it.:moon: