In no particular order: My houserules

[Origen]

Origen's Black 3-Ring Binder

Classes and Prestige Classes:

Bards do not exist because they suck. There are traveling minstrels and performers. They are generally Experts, or Rogues.

Clerics, by default, are Cloistered Clerics from the SRD (originally in Unearthed Arcana):

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric

Dwarven Defenders are not called Dwarven Defenders. They are called The Pillars of Moradin (or whatever dwarven deity you please). They are divided into different orders: stone (temple defense and high priest's bodyguard), iron (military) and gold (also known as the Pillars of the Sun, or the High King's bodyguard).

The Assassin prestige class does not exist. Death Attack is a rogue special ability which can be taken at 10th level, and uses the rogue's level and Int bonus. Characters who take Death Attack also receive Poison Use, and do not risk poisoning themselves when they use a poisoned weapon. Only characters with a neutral or evil alignment may become assassins, and they do not have to kill in order to enter a guild or take the ability. This special ability can be taken again. Each time it is taken, it cuts one round off the observation time that an assassin must use before administering the Death Strike up to 4 times. The time of observation goes from 3 rounds to 2 rounds the second time this ability is taken, 2 rounds to 1 round the third time it is taken, and becomes a free action after being taken 4 times, though it can still be performed only once per round.

The Shadowdancer prestige class does not exist because it is stupid. Hide in Plain Sight is a rogue special ability which may be taken at 13th level. Otherwise, it works as the special ability described under the Shadowdancer.

Feats:

Every 5 levels, a fighter, rogue, monk, paladin, ranger or barbarian receives a martial or exotic weapon proficiency of their choice. At level 5, any one-handed weapon that a monk is proficient with is considered a monk weapon. At level 10, any weapon that a monk is proficient with is considered a monk weapon, including two-handed weapons. If the weapon they are wielding is a two-handed weapon, their strength bonus to damage is 1 + 1/2 Str bonus, as normal.

Skills:

Bluff and Sense Motive are added to the Ranger skill list because it is @#$@#ing pointless to get a minor bonus in skills you cannot otherwise improve.

Paladins do not have the Detect Evil ability. They receive a +5 divine bonus to Sense Motive checks which increases by an additional +5 at 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th and 17th levels to a maximum non-epic bonus of +30.

Balance no longer exists. Use Tumble instead.
Open Locks no longer exists. Use Disable Device instead.

At 10th level, paladins, clerics and monks may take 10 on Sense Motive checks even when circumstances would normally prevent them from taking 10.

At 10th level, rogues may take 10 on Bluff checks even when circumstances would normally prevent them from doing so.

At 10th level, all spellcasting classes may take 10 on Concentration checks even when circumstances would normally prevent them from doing so.

At 10th level, a ranger may take 10 on Survival checks while tracking, even when circumstances would normally prevent him from doing so.

At 10th level, a rogue automatically receives Skill mastery with 1 skill + 1 for every point of Intelligence bonus.

Profession:

City Guard - 5 ranks allows you to add two of the following skills as permanent class skills: Forgery, Gather Information, Intimidate, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot.

Hunter - 5 ranks allows you to add two of the following skills as permanent class skills: Hide, Knowledge: Nature, Move Silently, Survival, Use Rope.

At 1st level, a barbarian can choose either the normal Rage ability, or the Whirling Frency ability described in the SRD. At 10th level, the other form becomes available to him, as well. He can only use one form of rage per combat encounter.

Arcane Archer - Gets +1 caster level at every even level. Penetrate SR? Maybe something like adding Arcane Archer levels at +1 per level when using an arrow to deliver a spell.

Equipment:

The spiked chain does not exist.

Oversized TWF is not a feat. You can wield two one-handed weapons without penalty.

[Kalzazz]

Interesting. I may well steal some of these definitely, they seem cool

Though some Im not sure about, definitely the Profession one. Ive actually seriously considered removing Profession from my games period

[Magnus Bergqvist]

Interesting houserules.

/Magnus

[Kalzazz]

Why do Rogues and Monks get bonus weapon proficiencies but not clerics and bards?

Seems odd some of the mediocre BAB classes would get it but not others

[Origen]

Why do Rogues and Monks get bonus weapon proficiencies but not clerics and bards?

Seems odd some of the mediocre BAB classes would get it but not others

Clerics are already powerful enough, and bards suck, so nothing can save them.

[Origen]

The following classes and prestige classes do not exist in this campaign:

Blackguards (rather, the Paladins of Tyranny and Slaughter exist)
Shadowdancers (Hide in Plain Sight is a Rogue special ability available at 13th level or higher.)
The Red Wizard of Thay or any Forgotten Realms specific prestige class or base class

General House Rules:

- Permanent bonuses to Intelligence which result in bonus skill points are retroactive.
- Open Locks is now folded into Disable Device. Balance is folded into Tumble.
- When you multiclass, the class skill from that class are now considered class skills forever and always, amen.

Class Specific House Rules:

1. Mithril weapons penetrate DR /silver.

2. Paladins do not get Detect Evil as an ability. They receive Penetrating Insight, which is a +5 divine bonus to Sense Motive checks, which increases by +5 at 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th and 17th levels to a maximum bonus of +30. (This is to create more of a sense of mystery, and also to prevent what I call "The Beatdown Radar" where a paladin's Detect Evil sense is used as a license to kill.

The Paladins of Slaughter, Tyranny and Freedom all exist as per Unearthed Arcana. So does the Paladin of Order, which is Lawful Neutral.

The Paladins of Slaughter and Tyranny get a bonus to Bluff or Diplomacy checks as Paladins of Order, lawful good Paladins and Paladins of Freedom. This is chosen at 1st level and afterward cannot be changed. The ability is called Silver Tongue, or somesuch better name as I can devise later. They receive this ability instead of Penetrating Insight.

3. Detect alignment spells of any kind do not exist. This includes spells which detect good or evil, and law or chaos. This includes any spell or supernatural ability which detects alignment in any way, or emulates these spells. This does not change spells which do damage to creatures of a specific alignment.

4. Monks may be any alignment. They may multiclass freely.

5. The totems in Unearthed Arcana are available for default to Barbarians, as are the different schools for monks.

6. Rangers may choose the following feats for their feat trees: (1) Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Improved Critical, or (2) Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack. If you have another feat path you think is appropriate for your ranger, talk to me.

7. The beings represented in the Deities and Demigods books are avatars of those gods, rather than the deities themselves. Gods do not have hitpoints.

- Arcane Archers receive a caster level progression on every even numbered level (2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and into epic at 12, 14, 16, etc.).

Historical Facts:

- The Dwarven Defender is renamed the Pillar of Moradin. There are several orders of the Pillars, including iron (military), stone (templars, guardians of temples, libraries and forges), and gold (personal guardians of the dwarven kings). The Golden Pillars are also known as the Pillars of the Sun. There are rumors of an order within the Pillars known as Ram Darfan, or the Shadow of the Pillar.

[Whimsical]

I like the idea of mithral weapons. Have you come up with price modifiers for them?

For an Alchemical Silver Item, it adds to costs:
Ammunition +2 gp
Light weapon +20 gp
One-handed weapon, or one head of a double weapon +90 gp
Two-handed weapon, or both heads of a double weapon +180 gp

Mithral weapons:
5 points harder than steel
half the weight of steel
penetrates silver DR
doesn't lose a point of damage as silvered weapons do.

What would be some good price modifiers?

[Origen]

Player quiz, beforehand:

So what sort of mortality rating do we want on this game?

1 - Light and fluffy! We want d20 My Little Pony!

2 - Okay, MAYBE someone dies if they do something really, REALLY stupid, but that is the only acceptable circumstances where you have our permission to kill someone. And you have to ask nicely.

3- Death happens, and sometimes an orc with a great axe rolls a crit in combat. Meh, we'll live. Or rather, if that happens, we won't.

4 - Okay, we're adventuring party #2. We heard something unfortunate happened with the last group of characters.

5 - Oh my God! Oh my God! *sound of chainsaw lopping off limbs* ARGH!!! Better bring 3 backup characters. One of them might make it through. Maybe.

[Origen]

I like the idea of mithral weapons. Have you come up with price modifiers for them?

For an Alchemical Silver Item, it adds to costs:
Ammunition +2 gp
Light weapon +20 gp
One-handed weapon, or one head of a double weapon +90 gp
Two-handed weapon, or both heads of a double weapon +180 gp

Mithral weapons:
5 points harder than steel
half the weight of steel
penetrates silver DR
doesn't lose a point of damage as silvered weapons do.

What would be some good price modifiers?

The SRD prices it as 500 gp per pound:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialMaterials.htm#mithral

Even adding the whole thing about penetrating DR /silver, I'm not sure I'm inclined to change that too much.

[Origen]

Monte Cook's DR rules:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_damage_reduction

[Origen]

Richard Burlew's Diplomacy Rules:

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html

[Origen]

The Godchain:

Ares-Hextor-Mars
Hercules-Thor
Zeus-Odin

[David Argall]

Bards do not exist because they suck.
Wimpy classes are no problem. They do not threaten to ruin the game. And you don't have to ban them if they do suck. Few will play them anyway.

Clerics, by default, are Cloistered Clerics from the SRD
The saying "We need a cleric" is common. Making clerics less attractive is a dubious idea from the start.

Dwarven Defenders are not called Dwarven Defenders. They are called The Pillars of Moradin (or whatever dwarven deity you please). They are divided into different orders: stone (temple defense and high priest's bodyguard), iron (military) and gold (also known as the Pillars of the Sun, or the High King's bodyguard).
Unless you are just flooded with players who want to play DDs, why bother? There do not seem to be enough player interest to justify 3 orders.

is a rogue special ability ... is a rogue special ability
You seem to be eager to strengthen the rogue class. Why?

Every 5 levels, a fighter, rogue, monk, paladin, ranger or barbarian receives a martial or exotic weapon proficiency of their choice.
Now Fighter is our base class, the one that should be the most common. Just why should it be weakened? and these others strengthened?

weapon that a monk is proficient with is considered a monk weapon.
Our picture of a monk is fighting without weapons. Why this violation of our ethos?

Bluff and Sense Motive are added to the Ranger skill list because it is @#$@#ing pointless to get a minor bonus in skills you cannot otherwise improve.
Given you are adding abilities elsewhere, it would seem better to eliminate the bonus.

Paladins do not have the Detect Evil ability. They receive a +5 divine bonus to Sense Motive checks which increases
Unless you want to just eliminate alignments entirely, which is not stated here, this is not wise. Our picture of a paladin is someone who knows right and wrong, not what somebody is plotting. In fact we assume he is downright naive and easily tricked.

may take 10 on Sense Motive checks even when circumstances would normally prevent them from taking 10.
may take 10 on Bluff checks even when circumstances would normally prevent them from doing so.
may take 10 on Concentration checks even when circumstances would normally prevent them from doing so.
may take 10 on Survival checks while tracking, even when circumstances would normally prevent him from doing so.
Why? The more exceptions we make to rules, the more chance of bad results.

At 10th level, a rogue automatically receives Skill mastery with 1 skill + 1 for every point of Intelligence bonus.
More of this bonus to rogue stuff.

City Guard - 5 ranks allows you to add two of the following skills as permanent class skills: Forgery, Gather Information, Intimidate, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot.

Hunter - 5 ranks allows you to add two of the following skills as permanent class skills: Hide, Knowledge: Nature, Move Silently, Survival, Use Rope.
Now the basic idea here, 5 ranks of a profession, or a craft, gives you +2 to a skill, sounds good. But here we have a gain of 12 ranks for an investment of 5. It is just too much cheese.
Moreover, we have it only for 2 professions. This sort of bonus should apply to all professions.

So better is ...
5 ranks of a profession or craft gives a +2 Bonus to 1 related skill [or 2 selected by the DM].

At 1st level, a barbarian can choose either the normal Rage ability, or the Whirling Frency ability described in the SRD.
Can't find that ability. Got a link?

[TinSoldier]

Why not, David?

I don't think any of your objections make sense. It seems as if you posted them less to have others consider your opinion and more to just have something to say.

[Detritus]

Can't find that ability. Got a link?
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#rageVariantWhirlingFrenzy

[Origen]

Wimpy classes are no problem. They do not threaten to ruin the game. And you don't have to ban them if they do suck. Few will play them anyway.

I hate them. Therefore, they are not in my games. I may consider adding Monte Cook's Bard from the Complete Book of Eldritch Might, but then again, I might not. The Bard adds nothing to my game. Therefore, it's gone.

The saying "We need a cleric" is common. Making clerics less attractive is a dubious idea from the start.

The saying, "We need a cleric" is from 1st and 2nd Edition. In 3rd Edition, on the boards, the phrase is now, "Clericzilla" or "Druidzilla." The latter mostly concerns problems with Polymorph. The former is simply too strong. I may use other methods for balancing the cleric, later, but this is my easel, and that is the option I am considering right now.

Unless you are just flooded with players who want to play DDs, why bother? There do not seem to be enough player interest to justify 3 orders.

House rules and backstory combine in this thread. Since they are interdependent and affect each other, and grow together organically, that shouldn't surprise you.

You seem to be eager to strengthen the rogue class. Why?

No, I feel the need to prune unnecessary prestige classes. The assassin sucks. The shadowdancer is silly and exists only to give people access to Hide in Plain Sight.

Now Fighter is our base class, the one that should be the most common. Just why should it be weakened? and these others strengthened?

Exotic Weapon Proficiencies are fairly worthless, for the most part, and I'd like to see more of them in my game. The Fighter is weak, but for other reasons, and I will allow access to PHB2 solutions later when my future campaigns go that high.

Our picture of a monk is fighting without weapons. Why this violation of our ethos?

Your picture is of a monk fighting without weapons. Nuff said.

Given you are adding abilities elsewhere, it would seem better to eliminate the bonus.

In your opinion. When you post your house rules, you can do just that.

Unless you want to just eliminate alignments entirely, which is not stated here, this is not wise. Our picture of a paladin is someone who knows right and wrong, not what somebody is plotting. In fact we assume he is downright naive and easily tricked.

Again, in your opinion. I don't like the Beatdown Radar, and I like a sense of mystery in my games. The idea of a ritual where you kiss a holy sword appeals to me more than people walking around saying, "He's evil! And oh, he's evil! And him! And him!"

Why? The more exceptions we make to rules, the more chance of bad results.

There comes a point where Concentration checks should just be a given, and SR is the more potent threat. There comes a point where I, as the DM, don't care if my players are always having to say, "Oh yeah, and I cast on the defensive." A high level wizard casts on the defensive, and is successful. It adds no sense of drama to my game that a tired, hungry gamer forgot to state the obvious. A ranger rolling a 1 on his track check also adds nothing to my game. The tension between Paladins who see into the soul, and Anti-Paladins who know how to deceive, is more interesting to me than Detect Alignment. Don't like it? Cool. Don't adopt my houserules in your game.

More of this bonus to rogue stuff.

You do not benefit from an ability you choose not to take. The rogue is more flexible and adaptable, and maybe people will stick with it instead of going Class 2/Class 2/Class 1/Class 1/Prestige Class 1/Prestige Class 2.

Now the basic idea here, 5 ranks of a profession, or a craft, gives you +2 to a skill, sounds good. But here we have a gain of 12 ranks for an investment of 5. It is just too much cheese.

No, you have an in-game reason for town guards who actually know how to see something. I notice you actually didn't say anything in the thread where I asked about modifications to Profession.

I also notice you never have anything useful to offer in the way of rules creation other than to say, "I don't like it." Maybe you should play the game instead of sitting around reading books and message boards.

Moreover, we have it only for 2 professions. This sort of bonus should apply to all professions.

And I have only written 2, so far. They are a work in progress. Since you never appear to create anything, perhaps you don't understand that it's a process.

So better is ... 5 ranks of a profession or craft gives a +2 Bonus to 1 related skill [or 2 selected by the DM].

That's possible, but I'd rather have Town Guards who can actually spot a thief or listen. I might change the mechanic, but since Fighters only get 2 skill points per level, anyway, I'm not real worried about it.

The idea of professions, by the way, is a mechanic from d20 Modern, and it works quite well in that game.

Can't find that ability. Got a link?

Det already got it.

[David Argall]

The saying, "We need a cleric" is from 1st and 2nd Edition. In 3rd Edition, on the boards, the phrase is now, "Clericzilla" ... simply too strong.
The phrase "We need a cleric" is alive and well. Even tho the cleric has a good claim to being the strongest class, there still is a reluctance to playing one and your LG table at least often features a hunt for a cleric for the party, far more often than for any other class.

The shadowdancer is silly and exists only to give people access to Hide in Plain Sight.
So why have Hide in Plain Sight at all?

The Fighter is weak, but for other reasons,
And what are those reasons? This is our base class, and the one that should be most common, which means a good case for being strongest. So why should it be weak?

Your picture is of a monk fighting without weapons.
Near as I can tell, the monk is the only class able to inflict lethal unarmed damage. It is the one with a list of unarmed damage, which increases with levels. I am not going to dispute whether the rules make monk unarmed combat sufficiently efficient or not, but I am hardly alone in thinking of the monk as unarmed combat.

In your opinion.
Our default position is that all classes are balanced [defined as about equally attractive to the random player]. That is a rebutable position of course, indeed a position we are sure is false in some cases. But we still start with that assumption.
So when we add abilities to a class, we have a potential imbalance, a danger of the party ending up purely of one class or some players complaining about not being able to play the class they wanted, or.. So to maintain balance, we need to deduct abilities as well. [We have the alternate possibility of deciding that the class we improved was weak in the first place, and needed the extra ability, but this is saying the same thing a different way.]

Again, in your opinion.
You are familiar with "Lawful Stupid"? So again, this is far from just my opinion. It is the standard opinion of the players and writers.[/QUOTE]
And if we keep alignments at all, the idea they are detectable just naturally follows.

I don't like the Beatdown Radar,
So maybe shove in a fair number of ways alignment can be masked or mistakened.

and I like a sense of mystery in my games.
I do not see the contradiction. There can be plenty of mystery with or without alignment.

The idea of a ritual where you kiss a holy sword appeals to me more than people walking around saying, "He's evil! And oh, he's evil! And him! And him!"
Where is the need to choose? It would seem both can be in the game.

There comes a point where Concentration checks should just be a given, and SR is the more potent threat. There comes a point where I, as the DM, don't care if my players are always having to say, "Oh yeah, and I cast on the defensive." A high level wizard casts on the defensive, and is successful. It adds no sense of drama to my game that a tired, hungry gamer forgot to state the obvious.
Of course, you should probably be prompting him to do so when he forgets, but that is not the problem here. Taking 10 is about the same as 5 free ranks in a skill. That is a full Feat. And as already mentioned, you just have more rules to remember. Which class gets which skills?
And our sense of drama in the game does come from the rolling of dice.

The tension between Paladins who see into the soul, and Anti-Paladins who know how to deceive, is more interesting to me than Detect Alignment.
Now a major problem here is that there will be a lot more cases where the party lacks a paladin, or the foes do not include anti-paladins than there will be paladin vs anti-paladin. So we have to consider the cases where one is lacking the normal case.
And the high sense motive of the paladin seems to cut into any mystery [or presumably make it impossible to realize for the anti-paladin] much more than detect evil does. There are just so many neutral liars.

No, you have an in-game reason for town guards who actually know how to see something.
But why would we want such?
Efficient town guards means there is nothing for the party to do. The guards have already done it. Incompetent guards are game useful.

I notice you actually didn't say anything in the thread where I asked about modifications to Profession.
Silence does not give consent.

I also notice you never have anything useful to offer in the way of rules creation other than to say, "I don't like it." Maybe you should play the game instead of sitting around reading books and message boards.
I notice that you seem to prefer to make personal digs rather than actually consider arguments. If you had, you would realized my objection was based on a misreading of your idea.
I talked about gaining 12 ranks. But if you look at your idea, there is no obvious way for that number to come up. While you might not be sure what my mistake was, it was clear enough there was an error. [Somehow I had gotten the idea that 5 ranks of profession produced a synergy bonus of +2 in each of the 6 skills mentioned instead of making some of these class skills.]



I don't think any of your objections make sense.
How are they flawed?

It seems as if you posted them less to have others consider your opinion and more to just have something to say.

This is argument ad hominem again. [unless we deem it simply noise]

[TinSoldier]

The phrase "We need a cleric" is alive and well. Even tho the cleric has a good claim to being the strongest class, there still is a reluctance to playing one and your LG table at least often features a hunt for a cleric for the party, far more often than for any other class.Yes, but the cleric was formulated before the paladin in the original game. They overlap too much. I think it makes much more sense for a character to specialize between being a priest or being a warrior. Not necessarily both.

So why have Hide in Plain Sight at all?Because it is a useful ability that shouldn't necessarily be restricted to an obscure or otherwise useless PrC?

Our default position is that all classes are balanced [defined as about equally attractive to the random player]. That is a rebutable position of course, indeed a position we are sure is false in some cases. But we still start with that assumption.Do you think that because Origen has rebuttals to that position is the reason that he has introduced his house rules?

So when we add abilities to a class, we have a potential imbalance, a danger of the party ending up purely of one class or some players complaining about not being able to play the class they wanted, or.. So to maintain balance, we need to deduct abilities as well. [We have the alternate possibility of deciding that the class we improved was weak in the first place, and needed the extra ability, but this is saying the same thing a different way.]There is already imbalance. Yes, introducing new abilities has the potential to shift the imbalances. Is that such a bad thing?

There shouldn't be a problem with a DM restricting or rejecting certain classes or class combinations in his game. If the players complain then they can find another game. Or suck it up and play within the DM's vision of what kinds of abilities that his world will support.

You are familiar with "Lawful Stupid"? So again, this is far from just my opinion. It is the standard opinion of the players and writers.

And if we keep alignments at all, the idea they are detectable just naturally follows.

So maybe shove in a fair number of ways alignment can be masked or mistakened.Which is what he is doing by eliminating alignment detection spells. Alignment should be a role-playing and story-telling tool, not an intrinsic quality of any specific individual.

I do not see the contradiction. There can be plenty of mystery with or without alignment.Yeah. But how much? Can't there be more mystery if the protagonists cannot tell whether the antagonists are evil or not?

And our sense of drama in the game does come from the rolling of dice.What kinds of games do you play? While the randomness may add to the drama it certainly is not the source of the drama.

Efficient town guards means there is nothing for the party to do. The guards have already done it. Incompetent guards are game useful.What? So all NPCs should be incompetent? Have you ever watched Firefly? Especially The Train Job (which is one of my least favorite episodes, BTW)? The Sheriff there is plenty competent, and the story would have been much less interesting if he wasn't.

Silence does not give consent.Since when do you have the power to consent which rules Origen uses in his games? Wow. I didn't know that you wielded such power (Respect for David Argall++)

I notice that you seem to prefer to make personal digs rather than actually consider arguments. If you had, you would realized my objection was based on a misreading of your idea.
I talked about gaining 12 ranks. But if you look at your idea, there is no obvious way for that number to come up. While you might not be sure what my mistake was, it was clear enough there was an error. [Somehow I had gotten the idea that 5 ranks of profession produced a synergy bonus of +2 in each of the 6 skills mentioned instead of making some of these class skills.]Wait, what? So you ding Origen on personal attacks when you yourself admit that you made a mistake? WTF? Your objections had weak or non-existent arguments. How can someone not attack you on that point?

The fact is that you never have offered anything useful other than "I don't like it". Pony up. Start a new thread discussing where the rules are strong and where they are weak.

How are they flawed?If you haven't figured it out between Origen's reply and this post then I feel sorry for your cognitive abilities.

This is argument ad hominem again. [unless we deem it simply noise]You are such a martyr, David. I hope you get your 72 virgins in Heaven.

I don't think my statement was ad hominem. There may have been some ad hominem in this post, but not in my questioning of the reasoning in your previous post. Or, I guess, if you don't offer any arguments with any substance then suggesting that the only reason you replied was for personal attention would be the only statement that I could reliably make.

[And yes, I deem your original response to be simply "noise"]

[ed]

sometimes, the laissez-faire policy of modding has it downsides. :>

ed

[Chimaera]

sometimes, the laissez-faire policy of modding has it downsides. :>

ed

It is better to tolerate 10 David Argall's than to ban a single Origen...

[Origen]

The phrase "We need a cleric" is alive and well. Even tho the cleric has a good claim to being the strongest class, there still is a reluctance to playing one and your LG table at least often features a hunt for a cleric for the party, far more often than for any other class.

Apparently, your only experience with the game is Living Greyhawk. I've never had anyone with any reluctance whatsoever to play a cleric. That's why this is a house rule in my game. Anyone who understands the game knows how powerful clerics are. I play mostly with people who understand the game. Therefore, I have no problem filling it. The cleric is easily, hands down and unquestionably the strongest base class.

That is why this is a house rule in my game. House rules do not require universal applicability.

Or didn't you know that?

So why have Hide in Plain Sight at all?

The ability Hide in Plain Sight doesn't bother me. In fact, it's a cool ability and very powerful. It also does not require creating a bad prestige class simply to contain it.

And what are those reasons? This is our base class, and the one that should be most common, which means a good case for being strongest. So why should it be weak?

The fighter is weak in longterm gameplay because there is a point where you just don't NEED any other feats as a melee type. It can't do anything that other melee combatants can't do. People generally dip into it for a few levels, and get out so that they can find other classes that give more interesting and unique abilities.

Near as I can tell, the monk is the only class able to inflict lethal unarmed damage. It is the one with a list of unarmed damage, which increases with levels. I am not going to dispute whether the rules make monk unarmed combat sufficiently efficient or not, but I am hardly alone in thinking of the monk as unarmed combat.

Then don't use my houserule, David. It's just that simple. I've played a high level monk, and one of the most common complaints I've seen, both in my game and on message forums where tens of thousands of D&D players post (Enworld, Monte Cook, Sean K. Reynolds) is that the monk's selection of light weapons only is boring. I agree. Therefore, my houserule.

Our default position is that all classes are balanced [defined as about equally attractive to the random player]. That is a rebutable position of course, indeed a position we are sure is false in some cases. But we still start with that assumption.

In your opinion.

So when we add abilities to a class, we have a potential imbalance, a danger of the party ending up purely of one class or some players complaining about not being able to play the class they wanted, or.. So to maintain balance, we need to deduct abilities as well. [We have the alternate possibility of deciding that the class we improved was weak in the first place, and needed the extra ability, but this is saying the same thing a different way.]

In your opinion.

You are familiar with "Lawful Stupid"? So again, this is far from just my opinion. It is the standard opinion of the players and writers.

In your opinion.

And if we keep alignments at all, the idea they are detectable just naturally follows.

In your opinion.

So maybe shove in a fair number of ways alignment can be masked or mistakened.

In your opinion.

I do not see the contradiction. There can be plenty of mystery with or without alignment.

In your opinion.

Where is the need to choose? It would seem both can be in the game.

In your opinion.

Of course, you should probably be prompting him to do so when he forgets, but that is not the problem here. Taking 10 is about the same as 5 free ranks in a skill. That is a full Feat. And as already mentioned, you just have more rules to remember. Which class gets which skills?

Don't like it? Don't use it.

And our sense of drama in the game does come from the rolling of dice.

In your opinion.

Now a major problem here is that there will be a lot more cases where the party lacks a paladin, or the foes do not include anti-paladins than there will be paladin vs anti-paladin. So we have to consider the cases where one is lacking the normal case.

Consider away. It's my house rule, and I like it.

And the high sense motive of the paladin seems to cut into any mystery [or presumably make it impossible to realize for the anti-paladin] much more than detect evil does. There are just so many neutral liars.

The point, however, is that a Sense Motive check can only tell you so much. It can tell you, "Something is amiss" or "Something just ain't right." And it can be wrong. It can be mistaken.

But why would we want such?

Evidently, you don't. My recommendation? Don't use the house rule.

Efficient town guards means there is nothing for the party to do. The guards have already done it. Incompetent guards are game useful.

In your opinion. I don't need them.

Silence does not give consent.

We're not talking about whether or not I'm raping you, either. In that case, I'd just flip a twenty on the pillow afterward. Then it becomes a legal transaction.

I notice that you seem to prefer to make personal digs rather than actually consider arguments. If you had, you would realized my objection was based on a misreading of your idea.

I make personal digs because it's fun, and you deserve it. Your misreading what anyone says is my default assumption.

I talked about gaining 12 ranks. But if you look at your idea, there is no obvious way for that number to come up. While you might not be sure what my mistake was, it was clear enough there was an error. [Somehow I had gotten the idea that 5 ranks of profession produced a synergy bonus of +2 in each of the 6 skills mentioned instead of making some of these class skills.]

Then read more carefully, David.

This is argument ad hominem again. [unless we deem it simply noise]

No, it's not.

[carmachu]

I like alot of those. I might have to use a few when or if I run a RL one.

And teh player quiz.


But where is the: Paladin of Order, which is Lawful Neutral, come from?

[carmachu]

The Godchain:

Ares-Hextor-Mars
Hercules-Thor
Zeus-Odin


Ok, I might be a newbie asking this, but what exactly is a god chain for?

[Detritus]

Balance no longer exists. Use Tumble instead.
Open Locks no longer exists. Use Disable Device instead.
Was it you that also had the Spot/Listen combined into a single "Notice" skill or was that someone else? I seem to remember someone on this board posting a house rule to that effect.

EDIT -- OK, it was **** who combined Spot and Listen (http://forum.criticalfumble.net/showpost.php?p=5413&postcount=22), or at least suggested it.

[TinSoldier]

Ok, I might be a newbie asking this, but what exactly is a god chain for?This has been bugging me, too. Can you explain a little better, Origen?

Was it you that also had the Spot/Listen combined into a single "Notice" skill or was that someone else? I seem to remember someone on this board posting a house rule to that effect.

EDIT -- OK, it was **** who combined Spot and Listen (http://forum.criticalfumble.net/showpost.php?p=5413&postcount=22), or at least suggested it.Yeah, I think it makes sense (no pun intended).

[Wook]

And I suggested the same for move silently. Requiring 4 skills to be a competent scout as well as desiring a good bonus in 2 different stats seems quite a bit for a niche role in a party IMHO.

[Origen]

This has been bugging me, too. Can you explain a little better, Origen?

Part of what I intend to do in my next campaign is exploring the nature of divinity. The godchains are strings of deities who are simply faces of the same being. Ares = Hextor = Mars. Each pantheon has certain gods in common. As it will turn on, those deities throughout the pantheons are actually the same. There might be certain unique minor deities, and some races who have unique facets. But most races have the same gods in common.

[Dr. Mercury]

The phrase "We need a cleric" is alive and well. Even tho the cleric has a good claim to being the strongest class, there still is a reluctance to playing one and your LG table at least often features a hunt for a cleric for the party, far more often than for any other class.
Spanky, you wouldn't know ad hominem from hominy grits. Plus, you're a boring pedantic fuckwit whose randomly-misfiring neurons result in a bout of barely-coherent verbal diarrhea.

Now, as for a reluctance to play a cleric.... I don't know what you've been smoking, but I'd throw it out. Just don't flush it down the drain, or you'd contaminate the water supply. That might hurt your chances in the next election for the Upper San Gabriel Valley Water District.

No one in any group I've ever played, in 28 years of gaming, has ever been reluctant to play a cleric. NO ONE.

Under 3.0 / 3.5, I've seen players practically pop a chubber when they get to play this class. Why is that? Well, let's see....

Two good saving throws. Sorcerers and wizards only have one.
Third-best hit die in the game--second if you wish to demote the barbarian for its various and sundry restrictions. Sorcerers, wizards and bards do not fare as well.
Clerics do not get animal companions, unlike the druids, but they do get the ability to turn/rebuke undead. This opens up feat trees driven by such ability.
Ability to wear heavy armor and cast spells without the percentage of spell failure an arcane caster might suffer, a plus that has transcended multiple versions of D&D.
Ability to cast healing spells, which would preclude a cleric from becoming a front-line melee fighter but which otherwise enables the cleric to keep other characters alive.
Better base attack progression than most other spell-casting classes, except the druid. Bards have the same BAB progression, but their spell-casting progression pales in comparison to the cleric and druid.
Even when AD&D restricted the cleric to blunt weapons, they had a better weapon selection than druids. They still do, especially when one takes into account deities' favored weapons.All that's required of the player, is some role-playing. In a polytheistic world, one is not expected to be an evangelist or an inquisitor. Just follow the alignment and the teachings of the diety. It's far easier to do that than to toe the line required of the paladin.

[David Argall]

the cleric was formulated before the paladin in the original game. They overlap too much.
There is little question which one the typical party wants. The paladin just can't do much healing, and the game involves too many wounds.

I think it makes much more sense for a character to specialize between being a priest or being a warrior. Not necessarily both.
I may not be following your argument since this seems a criticism of the paladin, not of the cleric.

Because it is a useful ability that shouldn't necessarily be restricted to an obscure or otherwise useless PrC?
A "useful ability" is not particularly a reason to add an ability. In fact, it is often a reason not to. The game requires the player struggle for success. We do not want them to have to struggle too hard, but they must struggle or they will get bored and play a different game. So an ability can easily be too useful.
Now if we say it has been restricted to an obscure or otherwise useles PrC, we have a presumption it is too useful. Why is it good to give this ability to the generic Rogue?

Do you think that because Origen has rebuttals to that position is the reason that he has introduced his house rules?
Always possible, but so far he seems reluctant to share any such rebuttals with us. So far his position is more or less "I am the DM and I will do what I please, no matter how seriously it flaws the game." Which is actually a pretty strong position since the game doesn't exist at all without a DM and we generally are willing to tolerate a pretty bad one for the sake of a game.

There is already imbalance. Yes, introducing new abilities has the potential to shift the imbalances. Is that such a bad thing?
Shifting imbalances is, on average, of no great concern. But it is quite easy to increase imbalances instead.

There shouldn't be a problem with a DM restricting or rejecting certain classes or class combinations in his game.
There is not a legal problem. There, however, can be a game problem. If we see the neighbor advocating or doing a highland fling atop an unsecured ladder, it is his right, but it is ours to tell him he is doing something stupid [which it may not be if it turns out there are some safety straps and a fat contract with some tv program.]

If the players complain then they can find another game.
That of course is an agrument for Origen explaining his rules changes more and getting more player input. Origen does not want to sit at an empty table and telling him what might cause that is a benefit for him, however little he appreciates being told his idea stinks.

Which is what he is doing by eliminating alignment detection spells.
But it is better to "eliminate" at a lower level. When one says "No detect spells", there is only one possible result. No spells. But if we allow the spells and throw in various countermeasures, we have a situation the DM can fine-tune. The spell is too powerful? Every villain in the next adventure has countermeasures in place. It is only sorta too strong? Just a couple will. It is causing no problem? none do. The DM can provide a better game by allowing the spells and tuning to taste.

Alignment should be a role-playing and story-telling tool, not an intrinsic quality of any specific individual.
Now what does this really mean? As near as I can tell, it means rendering the concept meaningless by allowing it to mean whatever one wants. Explain how it can be used as this "role-playing" and "story-telling" tool. The world is full of nice-sounding concepts that have no actual meaning when you look close. Why are these not some of them?

Can't there be more mystery if the protagonists cannot tell whether the antagonists are evil or not?
Possible, sure. In practice, the DM has a dozen alternative methods to increase the mystery as needed,

So all NPCs should be incompetent?
Just those that are doing the party's job.

Have you ever watched Firefly? Especially The Train Job (which is one of my least favorite episodes, BTW)? The Sheriff there is plenty competent,
The Sheriff is competent, and it is one of your least favorite episodes... This is supposed to be an argument against my position?

and the story would have been much less interesting if he wasn't.
Now there are several possible explanations, such as the Sheriff is in fact a PC in the story. However, the basic explanation is likely the difference between game and story. The game puts the party at the center of the story. Stories that feature others as heros happen off stage, if at all. We simply do not identify with any character in a story to the degree we identify with our PC. We do not go to the table to hear the DM tell us about the competent sheriff. We go there to hear the sheriff tell us he is incompetent and desperately needs our help.

Since when do you have the power to consent which rules Origen uses in his games?
I have the same power as anyone else, that being to tell him he is trying to saw the branch he is sitting on and is sawing on the wrong side of himself. Origen was trying to say I didn't warn him earlier [and thus I must have approved of his folly] and I pointed out he can draw no such conclusion from my silence.

Wait, what? So you ding Origen on personal attacks when you yourself admit that you made a mistake?
Of course. That I was wrong on a point does not mean he was right on a different one.

Your objections had weak or non-existent arguments. How can someone not attack you on that point?
You will have to ask Origen that since he is the one who didn't attack me on it. [His claim here was that I didn't offer any rules creation ideas, not that I didn't support my objections.]

The fact is that you never have offered anything useful other than "I don't like it". Pony up. Start a new thread discussing where the rules are strong and where they are weak.
Now why do I have such a duty?
Origen's ideas are bad, or good, without reference to how often I post or in what way I post.

If you haven't figured it out between Origen's reply and this post then I feel sorry for your cognitive abilities.
As I have noted before, this is a non-answer. You make a claim, without evidence, and now decline to provide any.

You are such a martyr.
What makes you think I was complaining?
As I have noted here many a time, I deem myself the teacher, the pointer-out-of mistakes. When I point out your errors, such as ad hominem, I am pointing out your mistake, not protesting the statement is false [tho it frequently is that too.]

if you don't offer any arguments with any substance then suggesting that the only reason you replied was for personal attention would be the only statement that I could reliably make.
Several other possibilities exist. One can simply be too lazy to post discussion. Or in a rush. Or deem the point obvious. Or...

But the point that makes this ad hominem is that why I did it is simply not important. You should be using that space to show I did it, showing that I did offer few arguments, and that they were without substance. Simply stating they are without substance is itself without substance. Speculation as to motive amounts to saying "Argall did it for this reason, and therefore we can ignore him."

[David Argall]

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
So why have Hide in Plain Sight at all?

The ability Hide in Plain Sight doesn't bother me. In fact, it's a cool ability and very powerful.
But that is a reason not to have it. The game can not survive the players winning constantly and easily. They get bored and leave. Nor can it survive an arms race of constantly better players and monsters. Very powerful abilities are very dangerous for the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
And what are those reasons? This is our base class, and the one that should be most common, which means a good case for being strongest. So why should it be weak?

The fighter is weak in longterm gameplay because there is a point where you just don't NEED any other feats as a melee type. It can't do anything that other melee combatants can't do. People generally dip into it for a few levels, and get out so that they can find other classes that give more interesting and unique abilities.
But again, this seems to argue against your approach. You seem to be weakening the fighter, or at least strengthening other classes, which means people will be even more encouraged to dip, or not take fighter at all.

one of the most common complaints I've seen, both in my game and on message forums where tens of thousands of D&D players post (Enworld, Monte Cook, Sean K. Reynolds) is that the monk's selection of light weapons only is boring. I agree. Therefore, my houserule.
Boring is not grounds for making a class stronger. Possibly it means some changes should be made, but that means imposing new weaknesses as well as adding new strengths.

In your opinion.
In your opinion.
In your opinion.
In your opinion.
In your opinion.
In your opinion.
In your opinion.
Now see how meaningless this statement is. You are pretty much mindlessly saying it no matter what subject is under discussion and in what detail. This makes it impossible for you to discover or correct your mistakes.

Don't like it? Don't use it.
The question is why should you use it? There are good reasons offered why not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
And the high sense motive of the paladin seems to cut into any mystery [or presumably make it impossible to realize for the anti-paladin] much more than detect evil does. There are just so many neutral liars.

The point, however, is that a Sense Motive check can only tell you so much. It can tell you, "Something is amiss" or "Something just ain't right." And it can be wrong. It can be mistaken.
More precisely, it tells us he is lying to us, which is more important than his alignment in most cases. I recall 2 modules off hand where a good sense motive would have been very useful. I recall none where detect alignment was of much help.
That the sense motive can be wrong? Sure, but you have put in that big old bonus. The paladin will win more often than not. At the high levels, he can sometimes win before the roll. This in turn means you can not use a sense motive roll as a crucial element. Somebody wants to lure the party into a trap? You know the paladin will ruin the trap all too often unless you go to the trouble of giving the NPCs insane bluff scores or such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
Silence does not give consent.

We're not talking about whether or not I'm raping you, either.
In the sense of "rape", yes we are. You wish to argue my failure to comment on the other threat meant something. That makes it a misrepresentation of my position, and thus a form of "rape". Rather minor in the scheme of things, true, but still the case. [Note here by the way that silence also does not give consent to taking my house, car, wallet, etc, etc. All become forms of "rape".]

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
This is argument ad hominem again. [unless we deem it simply noise]

No, it's not.

Why not?

[Dr. Mercury]

Why not?
But why, Spanky?

[Origen]

But that is a reason not to have it. The game can not survive the players winning constantly and easily. They get bored and leave. Nor can it survive an arms race of constantly better players and monsters. Very powerful abilities are very dangerous for the game.

But why, David? You haven't explained that.

But again, this seems to argue against your approach. You seem to be weakening the fighter, or at least strengthening other classes, which means people will be even more encouraged to dip, or not take fighter at all.

Why is that, David?

Boring is not grounds for making a class stronger. Possibly it means some changes should be made, but that means imposing new weaknesses as well as adding new strengths.

Why?

Now see how meaningless this statement is. You are pretty much mindlessly saying it no matter what subject is under discussion and in what detail. This makes it impossible for you to discover or correct your mistakes.

But why? Please explain more fully.

The question is why should you use it? There are good reasons offered why not.

But why? You haven't explained that.

More precisely, it tells us he is lying to us, which is more important than his alignment in most cases. I recall 2 modules off hand where a good sense motive would have been very useful. I recall none where detect alignment was of much help. That the sense motive can be wrong? Sure, but you have put in that big old bonus. The paladin will win more often than not. At the high levels, he can sometimes win before the roll. This in turn means you can not use a sense motive roll as a crucial element. Somebody wants to lure the party into a trap? You know the paladin will ruin the trap all too often unless you go to the trouble of giving the NPCs insane bluff scores or such.

But why?

In the sense of "rape", yes we are. You wish to argue my failure to comment on the other threat meant something. That makes it a misrepresentation of my position, and thus a form of "rape". Rather minor in the scheme of things, true, but still the case. [Note here by the way that silence also does not give consent to taking my house, car, wallet, etc, etc. All become forms of "rape".]

Why?

Why not?

Because.

[TinSoldier]

Part of what I intend to do in my next campaign is exploring the nature of divinity. The godchains are strings of deities who are simply faces of the same being. Ares = Hextor = Mars. Each pantheon has certain gods in common. As it will turn on, those deities throughout the pantheons are actually the same. There might be certain unique minor deities, and some races who have unique facets. But most races have the same gods in common.That's actually pretty cool, and makes a lot of sense from a theological standpoint.

I also like your bit about the Deities and Demigods beings just being avatars of the gods.

[TinSoldier]

I don't think any of your objections make sense.How are they flawed?I think they are flawed because you don't seem to provide much credible evidence, in my opinion, to invalidate Origen's choices of house rules. Re-reading, though, I see that most of your original post consists of questions to Origen about why he would want to make these houserules. I believe that he answered them sufficiently in his original posts and his responses to you and others.

It seems as if you posted them less to have others consider your opinion and more to just have something to say.This is argument ad hominem again. [unless we deem it simply noise]It's just an observation. I did not to imply that just having something to say invalidates any of your questions. Yes, you can consider it to be noise.

I think it makes much more sense for a character to specialize between being a priest or being a warrior. Not necessarily both.I may not be following your argument since this seems a criticism of the paladin, not of the cleric.I think the standard cleric is too strong in melee to represent a priest type character. I think originally that the cleric was supposed to be a representative of the middle ages knightly orders. Then the paladin was created which fit into the archetype of the knightly orders better.

For a character who is supposed to be a healer and a spiritual adviser, I would expect him to be less strong in melee combat. I believe Origen is correct in using an existing variant, the cloistered cleric, to represent this.

Because it is a useful ability that shouldn't necessarily be restricted to an obscure or otherwise useless PrC?A "useful ability" is not particularly a reason to add an ability. In fact, it is often a reason not to. The game requires the player struggle for success. We do not want them to have to struggle too hard, but they must struggle or they will get bored and play a different game. So an ability can easily be too useful.
Now if we say it has been restricted to an obscure or otherwise useles PrC, we have a presumption it is too useful. Why is it good to give this ability to the generic Rogue?Under what criteria would you allow a useful ability to be added?

Yes, the players should have to struggle some. But players also like having cool abilities and a good DM should be able to balance both.

Why is it good to give this ability to the generic rogue? Because rogues are supposed to be sneaky.

Alignment should be a role-playing and story-telling tool, not an intrinsic quality of any specific individual.Now what does this really mean? As near as I can tell, it means rendering the concept meaningless by allowing it to mean whatever one wants. Explain how it can be used as this "role-playing" and "story-telling" tool. The world is full of nice-sounding concepts that have no actual meaning when you look close. Why are these not some of them?What does this really mean? It means that alignments are guidelines to how and what a character believes and acts. It is a simplistic method of explaining his worldview.

In many ways, the concept is meaningless and yet can mean whatever one wants. Have you ever taken part in one of the myriad alignment debates on the Internet? I certainly have, and everyone has a different idea of exactly what each alignment means. They are broad brush strokes; most people can agree on the most basic meaning but disagree vehemently on the edges.

Have you ever watched Firefly? Especially The Train Job (which is one of my least favorite episodes, BTW)? The Sheriff there is plenty competent,The Sheriff is competent, and it is one of your least favorite episodes... This is supposed to be an argument against my position?Allow me to clarify. I love the series and I like this episode. There are not very many episodes. Even if I like this particular episode better than my favorite episode from any other series, I like it less than all of the other episodes in the Firefly series. The competence of the Sheriff really had no bearing on my liking or disliking the episode, he was just an example.

Chalk it up to "noise" I guess. Or a digression.

[Origen]

One concept I'm considering is only allowing generalist clerics and druids in my next campaign. I'm thinking about running a modified Midnight campaign in the aftermath of a fallen god who has cut off this multiverse from all other gods, and intends to consume it for his own greed, lust and power. Low magic, because magic items are being consumed and sucked up by the fallen god like candy through special mirrors designed to filter that power back to him, but perhaps a limited form of Gestalt rules for the heroes themselves to make up for the lack of magic.

[David Argall]

I see that most of your original post consists of questions to Origen about why he would want to make these houserules.
I count 6 question marks in my original statement. 4 of them are a matter of style. They could be rephrased as "This idea is stupid because.."

It's just an observation. I did not to imply that just having something to say invalidates any of your questions.
I presume the intended statement here was "did not mean/intend to imply". Which does not mean you did not do so by accident.

I think originally that the cleric was supposed to be a representative of the middle ages knightly orders. Then the paladin was created which fit into the archetype of the knightly orders better.
Not at all. The priest was created because of game need. D&D PCs get beat up a lot. And you need some way for them to rapidly recover or the game rapidly becomes General Hospital. So the cleric came as a healing battery, which as noted, was widely felt to be an absolute necessity, but a dull job they wanted somebody else in the party to do. So to lure players to that job, the cleric was given more and more ability, to the point where it is arguably the strongest class. There is dispute over whether they have over done it or not, but the cleric's role has nothing to do with the paladin.

For a character who is supposed to be a healer and a spiritual adviser, I would expect him to be less strong in melee combat. I believe Origen is correct in using an existing variant, the cloistered cleric, to represent this.
That depends on how many players are willing to play it. As already noted, a party Needs a cleric. Historical accuracy simply has no standing here. We just got to have a cleric or we don't have a game. Origen and others wish to claim that we will get that cleric if we use these rather anemic rules for a cleric, which I question. But we are all agreeing that the cleric is a vital position. It is a matter of how much we need to bribe the player.

Under what criteria would you allow a useful ability to be added?
The class/race is distinctly weak. The class/race is supposed to be common, but for some reason, the players just don't want to play it. The game is biased for/against the monsters.

Yes, the players should have to struggle some. But players also like having cool abilities and a good DM should be able to balance both.
Of course, but balance here means they pay for that cool ability by losing other abilities. When they get a bonus without a penalty, we need to know why.
As already noted. A game does not survive if it is too tough or too easy. The terms vary in their actual meaning, but the fact remains. Any time we alter the existing balance, we are threatening the survival of the game. In particular, continual addition of goodies will cause the game to self destruct, often quite rapidly.

Why is it good to give this ability to the generic rogue? Because rogues are supposed to be sneaky.
That does not answer the point. What grounds do we have for thinking the rogue is not strong enough without any new ability. If it is already a sufficiently powerful class, it should lose a power when it gains one.

What does this really mean? It means that alignments are guidelines to how and what a character believes and acts. It is a simplistic method of explaining his worldview.
But a simplistic method of explaining his world view requires the method mean something. "I am good. That means I don't eat babies." Talking about guidelines amends that to "Unless I feel like it." We just have no idea what a PC would actually do. Our guideline does not guide us.

[Mouser]

One concept I'm considering is only allowing generalist clerics and druids in my next campaign. I'm thinking about running a modified Midnight campaign in the aftermath of a fallen god who has cut off this multiverse from all other gods, and intends to consume it for his own greed, lust and power. Low magic, because magic items are being consumed and sucked up by the fallen god like candy through special mirrors designed to filter that power back to him, but perhaps a limited form of Gestalt rules for the heroes themselves to make up for the lack of magic.

*whimper*

I think I'm in love...

You're my hero!!

:not_worthy:

When we're all done with d20 Modern can we play Origen's Improved Advanced and Awesome D&D 7.0?


Pretty please?

[Origen]

Items striken from the list of available magic items:

Animated shields, the Ring of Shield or anything that makes wielding a shield irrelevant.

[Wook]

Isn't the ring shield significantly different from wielding a shiled now though?

[Origen]

It's an shield made of force that counts against incorporeal:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#forceShield

[Wook]

At only a +2 bonus though. It can't be used for shield feats, enhacned, or have armor abilities added. It's just a +2 AC... Also isn't it 360 degrees unlike a shield or did they change that too? (Can you tell how often I use a shield here? :sawink2: )

[Origen]

At only a +2 bonus though. It can't be used for shield feats, enhacned, or have armor abilities added. It's just a +2 AC... Also isn't it 360 degrees unlike a shield or did they change that too? (Can you tell how often I use a shield here? :sawink2: )

It's a +2 bonus to AC on top of using a two-handed weapon, or doing whatever with your hands - [insert crude joke here] - and I don't want it.

There is no facing, and shield doesn't block half the battlefield anymore, to the best of my knowledge.

Although I've been kicked in the shins with 3.5 changes before, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

[Wook]

WEll I get that you don't want it. I'm just wondering because I'm not sure that I'd rate it as an animated shield tower shield that gives me a hands free +8 AC and cover to boot as well as deflecting an arrow for me once per round, or providing energy reistisances or some such.

[Origen]

WEll I get that you don't want it. I'm just wondering because I'm not sure that I'd rate it as an animated shield tower shield that gives me a hands free +8 AC and cover to boot as well as deflecting an arrow for me once per round, or providing energy reistisances or some such.

I'm not saying it's that bad. But I don't like floaty shields that let you have a shield AND wield a weapon with two hands.

Girallion's Blessing ain't never going to see the light of day in my games.

[Chimaera]

I'm not saying it's that bad. But I don't like floaty shields that let you have a shield AND wield a weapon with two hands.

Girallion's Blessing ain't never going to see the light of day in my games.

Oh sure... use it to take a walk up the strada chocolatta of every DM within ten miles, but NOOOOOOOO, not in your game...

:D :D :D

[TinSoldier]

Oh sure... use it to take a walk up the strada chocolatta of every DM within ten miles, but NOOOOOOOO, not in your game...

:D :D :DDammit! I can't give you rep for this, but I'm LMAO right now!

Or maybe I'm laughing my strada chocolatta off!

[Origen]

Oh sure... use it to take a walk up the strada chocolatta of every DM within ten miles, but NOOOOOOOO, not in your game...

:D :D :D

I used it to do a Tasmanian Devil impersonation in Dr. Merc's WLD campaign. After the combat was over, I said, "Gone?"

And Dr. Merc said, "Gone!"

[Chimaera]

I used it to do a Tasmanian Devil impersonation in Dr. Merc's WLD campaign. After the combat was over, I said, "Gone?"

And Dr. Merc said, "Gone!"

Well no shit... I still remember the somewhat more modest builds we used in D's game (still delightfully cheesy, but not quite full-on fondue) -- beware of tiny, whispy-bearded asian men with eight friggin' arms...

[Wook]

I'm not saying it's that bad. But I don't like floaty shields that let you have a shield AND wield a weapon with two hands.

Girallion's Blessing ain't never going to see the light of day in my games.

For the original I understand as that was just wrong but the nerfed version too? Going to axe the insectile template as well?

[Origen]

To do list:

Make Chain Devil. Construct qualities, chains as weapons to do bludgeoning damage or hooks for piercing and grappling. Reach

[Origen]

Arcane Archers:

Get 1/2 caster progression on even levels (2, 4, 6, 8, 10).

Full blooded elven females get 2/3 caster progression (2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9).

[Detritus]

I'm thinking about giving hobgoblins a +2 to STR in addition to the bonuses they get for DEX and CON. They kind of get the shaft for a +1 LA race.

[Kalzazz]

Whats Girallon's Blessing? It seems very cool!

[Detritus]

Whats Girallon's Blessing? It seems very cool!
It's cheese on a stick, especially the 3.0 version of the spell, which was relased in Savage Species. It gives the recipient extra pairs of arms, how many determined by caster level, with an upper limit based on the recipient's size. There is a nerfed version in the Spell Compendium that limits the effect to one extra pair of arms, regardless of caster level or recipient size.

The cheese comes in from another Savage Species rule involving STR bonus to damage. You get an extra 0.5 x STR bonus to damage for every hand above two that you can put on your weapon, up to a max of 4.5 x STR bonus for 8 hands, and you just need to be Large size or larger to be able to have 8 arms. Damage bonuses from this tactic can get pretty ridiculous at high levels.

[Origen]

I'm thinking about giving hobgoblins a +2 to STR in addition to the bonuses they get for DEX and CON. They kind of get the shaft for a +1 LA race.

Stolen.

:D

[Detritus]

Stolen.

:D
Heh, the real question now is whether some souped-up hobbos appear in the Texas Greataxe Massacre. :D

[Kalzazz]

Awesome

This spell so needs to be in my games, which are normally around level 10 (I really like midlevels best)

As a DM I am perfectly cool with the PCs meting out 4.5x Str damage (and at level 10 its generally only say +7 Str to begin with), and I certainly wouldnt mind a monster returning the favor

[Lugard]

actually I remember the cheese of my druid build... garillons blessing, 5 quarterstaff's, supreme multi weapon fighting... 47 attacks a round! with 100+ str :p

[Wook]

Arcane Archers:

...

Full blooded elven females get 2/3 caster progression (2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9).

Any full blooded elven female? Just arcane archer ones? Is there a particular reasoning beyond just cool factor?

[Starhawk]

Drow, too, I hope.

:sasmokin:

[Origen]

Drow, too, I hope.

:sasmokin:

I'm not going to use standard drow. I'm going to follow in Dok's footsteps on that one, and the drow elves in my world will simply have the insectile template. (This answers an earlier question by **** that I forgot to address.

Any full blooded elven female? Just arcane archer ones? Is there a particular reasoning beyond just cool factor?

Just Arcane Archers who are full-blooded elven females. Basically, the way I would count it, they would get even levels like normal, and then 3, 6 and 9.

[Origen]

Trolls get a climb speed.

[Kalzazz]

If I ever make an arcane archer for a Origen game it will be a full blooded elven female

And almost surely named Cynthia

[Origen]

Intimidation as a skill is gone. I can find no way to salvage this stupid skill.

[silverwhisper]

i recommend renaming diplomacy w/ influence and combining the general idea of intimidate therein.

[Origen]

i recommend renaming diplomacy w/ influence and combining the general idea of intimidate therein.

Hmmm.

I like that.

And, I think intimidation is a function of diplomacy.

I don't want to rename the skill, but bundling intimidation into it makes sense.

[TinSoldier]

Intimidation as a skill is gone. I can find no way to salvage this stupid skill.

Hmmm.

I like that.

And, I think intimidation is a function of diplomacy.

I don't want to rename the skill, but bundling intimidation into it makes sense.Intimidation as a function of charisma kind of sucks. Not completely, but mostly.

However, there is a feat that substitutes strength for charisma for intimidatde:
http://www.snotling.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=7795#forumpost7795
Ok, some of us talked about using this as a common ability among Orcs. Here Mongoose Publishing posted it in Feat format. This is from the Skraag book, printed under the OGL. This is their work, not mine.

Brutal (General)
You are exeptionally tough and violent.

Benefits: You may use your Strength modifier in place of your Charisma modifier for Bluff, Gather Information and Intimidate checks.I think it should be an option--that is, a character should be able to use either his charisma bonus or his strength bonus for these skills. It should not necessarily require a feat.

[Origen]

Something I read over at Enworld today.

Here's a good "villain spell": Pohlkhat's Pompous Pontification. Also known as "Rhetorical Time Stop", this spell stops time like a regular Time Stop. However, the only action the caster may perform is to deliver a grandiose or megalomaniacal monologue. The caster may not move, but may gesticulate as appropriate to emphasize his point.

The only thing I would add is the specific prohibition that the spellcaster cannot cast spells during this time, either. I would make it a 0 level spell with a casting time of one immediate action so that they could do it even if surprised or farther down in the initiative count.

[BattleNymph]

Something I read over at Enworld today.



The only thing I would add is the specific prohibition that the spellcaster cannot cast spells during this time, either. I would make it a 0 level spell with a casting time of one immediate action so that they could do it even if surprised or farther down in the initiative count.

Holy cow I love that!

"Let me tell you about my evil plan!"

[Origen]

http://www.goodman-games.com/DCCpreview.php

[Justice]

Player quiz, beforehand:

So what sort of mortality rating do we want on this game?

1 - Light and fluffy! We want d20 My Little Pony!

2 - Okay, MAYBE someone dies if they do something really, REALLY stupid, but that is the only acceptable circumstances where you have our permission to kill someone. And you have to ask nicely.

3- Death happens, and sometimes an orc with a great axe rolls a crit in combat. Meh, we'll live. Or rather, if that happens, we won't.

4 - Okay, we're adventuring party #2. We heard something unfortunate happened with the last group of characters.

5 - Oh my God! Oh my God! *sound of chainsaw lopping off limbs* ARGH!!! Better bring 3 backup characters. One of them might make it through. Maybe.


BWAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH AHA!

:th_salute:

[Archer]

http://www.goodman-games.com/DCCpreview.php

Remember the good old days, when adventures were underground, NPCs were there to be killed, and the finale of every dungeon was the dragon on the 20th level? Those days are back. Dungeon Crawl Classics don't waste your time with long-winded speeches, weird campaign settings, or NPCs who aren't meant to be killed.

Reminds me of the old story...


You look around the tavern. A stranger with a hooded face rises from a table in the corner and walks toward your table. As he arrives, he pulls back his hood and says, "Hello adventurers! My name is Argrew and I seek..."

One of the players interrupts, "I'll attack him!"

DM, "What?"

Another player, "I have Improved Initiative. I get to attack first!"

Shortly later, the DM continues, "Your group is standing over a bloody corpse. Everyone in the tavern is staring at you and a few of them are edging toward the door...."

A player interrupts, "Does he have any treasure?"

The DM frowns and rolls a handful of dice, "You search the body and find only a note. The note says, Hello adventurers! My name is Argrew and I seek...."

[Mouser]

What of Scry and Teleport?

[Origen]

I don't know what my solution to that is going to be. Teleport and free movement, like Plane Shift, opens up possibilities in the game that I like. Scryport, though, is a legitimate problem in the game. I might simply say that you cannot use Scry to gain an accurate enough idea to teleport. Or somesuch. I don't know. I'll deal with it when I get there.

[carmachu]

I love the goodman games adventures!

[Origen]

I've been reading a lot of good things about the Dungeon Crawl Classics, lately. I'd like to run some of them.

I think this is the one where I'd start:

http://www.goodman-games.com/5028preview.php

[carmachu]

I have this one:

http://www.goodman-games.com/5030preview.php

Their as good as advertised.