3.5e house rules

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'm going to be running a few adventures for some total D&D newbs. I plan to make it a Tome-series game with some major modifications.

1) Ranged attacks are now wisdom based.
2) Melee attacks are now dexterity based.
3) Casters now all use one attribute for bonus & max spells, another for DC.
4) Skill ranks are 'pip' based, with a bit of condensing (see Crissa's thread).
5) Will saves are charisma based.

Will this completely destroy the game?

[Harlune]

I'm going to be running a few adventures for some total D&D newbs. I plan to make it a Tome-series game with some major modifications.

1) Ranged attacks are now wisdom based.
2) Melee attacks are now dexterity based.
3) Casters now all use one attribute for bonus & max spells, another for DC.
4) Skill ranks are 'pip' based, with a bit of condensing (see Crissa's thread).
5) Will saves are charisma based.

Will this completely destroy the game?

Well... gishes who don't superbuff themselves into usefulness are going to take it up the ass from needing nearly every damn stat. And any archer fighters and rogues are going to hate you for the ranged stat change since wisdom does NOTHING else for them.

What two casting stats will each class need? int/cha for wiz, cha/int for sorc, wis/cha for cleric/druid?

[Aktariel]

1) Ranged attacks are now wisdom based.
2) Melee attacks are now dexterity based.
3) Casters now all use one attribute for bonus & max spells, another for DC.

What?! Why?! You like MAD? You like people getting MAD/mad? People get raped up the ass by attributes as it is.

Also, why the first two? I mean, it just doesn't make much sense to me logically.

No, it won't break it. But people might break you for trying to push this.

4) Skill ranks are 'pip' based, with a bit of condensing (see Crissa's thread).

No idea. Haven't read the thread you're referring to (no idea where it is).

5) Will saves are charisma based.

Ok. I don't think it will matter much, but it's still MAD for clerics and whatnot. Sorcerers actually get better Will saves because of this.

Also doesn't make much sense. I mean, you could, but you could also leave things the way they are. There's no compelling argument either way that you've presented.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Well... gishes who don't superbuff themselves into usefulness are going to take it up the ass from needing nearly every damn stat.

Wisdom would work pretty well for a cleric archer, don't you think? But yeah, that would be a bit of a problem. Allowing physical attributes for spellcasters would remove most of the problem for melee-focused gish.

And any archer fighters and rogues are going to hate you for the ranged stat change since wisdom does NOTHING else for them.

It improves a fuckton of skills, and with a level of monk it applies to AC and reflex saves as well.

What two casting stats will each class need? int/cha for wiz, cha/int for sorc, wis/cha for cleric/druid?

Whatever you like. Con & Wisdom is probably the power play.

[Koumei]

Whatever you like. Con & Wisdom is probably the power play.

I understand Con, for Fort and HP, but... oh right, Wis for ranged touch attacks. But on the other hand, you could use Dex (melee touch attacks - see: Clerics) and AC and Ref saves or even Cha for Will saves if you think you need to.

Overall, I see the changes as sort of pointless, and imagine one or more players might attempt to drive you through the gaming table. Post pics if this happens.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Overall, I see the changes as sort of pointless

I think I see what you mean, but why do you say that?

...and imagine one or more players might attempt to drive you through the gaming table. Post pics if this happens.

I'd never attempt this if any of them had ever played D&D before, in that case the hassle of learning a different system would not be worth it.

[RandomCasualty2]

1) Ranged attacks are now wisdom based.
2) Melee attacks are now dexterity based.


Will this completely destroy the game?

Why nerf fighter types?

[Voss]

It isn't really clear what benefit this produces.
The whatever you like spellcasting stats comes across as 'if you don't min/max, you = moron'

And str seems to be a dump stat for, well, everybody who isn't a fighter or barbarian.

[Talisman]

1) Ranged attacks are now wisdom based.
2) Melee attacks are now dexterity based.

These changes make absolutely no sense to me. At all. I'll post a detailed explanation if you care.

3) Casters now all use one attribute for bonus & max spells, another for DC.

I actually like this. It makes casters a little more MAD, thus nerfing them to a minor degree.

I recommend Cha be the DC-determining stat for all casters...your force of personality determines how powerful your spells are. Just my opinion.

4) Skill ranks are 'pip' based, with a bit of condensing (see Crissa's thread).

Haven't seen this.

5) Will saves are charisma based.

Umm...okay? I don't really see the point of this. It might make a nice xtra ability for Cha-based characters - sorcerers, warlocks and paladins, say - but as a general rule...I dunno.

I'd never attempt this if any of them had ever played D&D before, in that case the hassle of learning a different system would not be worth it.

So...you're deliberately teaching them a skewed version of D&D for their first time in?

I have the opposite reaction...I'd rather throw this at a group of experienced fgamers who understand the ramifications (and can help me find the flaws) instead of newbies.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Muahahahaha! Those poor innocent fools--they'll never know the damage I'm doing to their gaming until it's too late!

Set attributes for casting are bad in D&D, which has a niche for the quiet stuttering all-powerful archmage.

But I'll probably hold off on the other attribute-based changes. Unless anyone has some advice on how to make it work. Doing to old attribute recombination (Str + Con) might work. I'm not worried about making it D&D, just making it workable.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Catharz, what goals are these changes trying to meet?

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Changes suck. Pointless. The make the game worse. Game is not destroyed, but does not make sense and changes detract from gameplay.

You wanted an opinion, you now have mine.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Catharz, what goals are these changes trying to meet?

The goal is to entertain myself by seeing what the ramifications of fucking with the game are, and to see if I can get a workable system in the process.


One thing I don't like about D&D is how base attributes are defined. The applications of a single attribute does not seem to make sense in terms of character archtypes or 'realism'. I could go on a rant about it, but that's not really the point. The hope is that I can change a few things, and keep propagating those changes through the system when new issues come up...

...and run a decent set of adventures as well (an orthogonal goal).

[SphereOfFeetMan]

The goal is to entertain myself by seeing what the ramifications of fucking with the game are, and to see if I can get a workable system in the process.

That is backwards. You first need to define what a workable system is, and what you are trying to accomplish. Then you fuck with the system. Otherwise you just generate random effects.

One thing I don't like about D&D is how base attributes are defined. The applications of a single attribute does not seem to make sense in terms of character archtypes or 'realism'.
...
Set attributes for casting are bad in D&D, which has a niche for the quiet stuttering all-powerful archmage.

From this I gather you don't like how ability scores define a character's personality. Is this correct? You do realize that when skills are taken into account, ability scores are next to meaningless, right? The ability bonus modifier between an 8 and an 18 is 5. A first level character can have a max of 4 ranks in a social skill. As you increase in level, your ability bonus becomes less and less relevant.

The larger problem is how you generally define a character with low mental ability scores. Especially with low point buy games, or particularly MAD characters, you can end up with a 6, or even a 3 in a mental stat. That can be pretty destructive to the idea you have for your character. I have found 2 possible solutions that are very easy to implement.

The first thing to realize is that a 5 in a mental stat isn't that bad. A 5 Int works out to be ~75 IQ according to probability and bell curves. A 75 IQ is stupid, but it isn't unplayable. You could play him as being slow-witted, yet able to keep up and contribute with the party's planning given some time.

The other option is to just rule your character's mental stats don't affect his personality, they just affect his rolls. For example, say you had a character with a 3 Int. You would take the -4 penalty to all Intelligence checks and Int based skills. But you could could roleplay him as intelligently as you want to, and are capable of. The main point here is that nobody should tell you "You have a 3 in X mental stat, you couldn't think of/remember that." The numbers just impact die rolls.

This is also applicable in the reverse. If you wanted to roleplay an average intelligence character, but you put an 18 in Int for skill points, you could play him under his Int as well.

As far as physical ability scores go, it is much less of a problem.

Hopefully some of that helps.
_______________

I agree with Talisman, don't mess with new mechanics with new players. Especially if you don't know how it will work out.

[Bigode]

You won't destroy the game - you'll destroy the Str ability, so you might as well ditch it, which I'm almost for (it's the single ability I don't know how to make generally useful; in fact, I might request ideas on it later).

As for Wis for ranged and Dex for melee, makes a lot of sense: melee's a lot about movement (though it'd work better in a system where Str matters for piercing armor; you might wanna polish this, for example), and, AFAIK, the iconic archer trait's sight, not acrobatics (which, BTW, makes even more sense once Will goes over to Cha; Wisdom becomes "perception").

My critique on the whole is: would work damn well if you ditched Str - giving what little it does to Con (maybe some to Dex) should work as well.

[CatharzGodfoot]

You're right, merging Constitution and Strength seems like the only way to even partially salvage it.

So the attribute array would look like:

• Constitution (Con + Str - melee attacks)
• Dexterity (Dex + melee attacks)
• Perception (Wisdom + ranged attacks - Will)
• Willpower (Charisma + Will)
• Intelligence

At that point I'd be tempted to remove intelligence entirely.


I'd also probably have armor impose a maximum perception bonus instead of a max Dex bonus. The rationale would be bad visibility from helmets, but that leaves 'why can't I just not use my helmet?' a valid argument.

[JonSetanta]

Could merge Intelligence with Willpower and call it Mind, much like the 4-stat array in the Flyff MMO.

They have:
Strength (melee damage)
Stamina (HP, physical attack 'mana', resist physical damage)
Dexterity (attack speed, dodge, block)
Intelligence (mana, spell damage, resist spell damage)

To Catharz: Try to go for anti-MAD, not more MAD, if reducing the number of ability scores doesn't work for you. Don't force players to require more than 2-3 stats.
Ironically, a discussion similar to this thread is going on in /tg/ right now.

[Bigode]

Int still gives skills, I suppose (if you're going close to D&D's).

[CatharzGodfoot]

Could merge Intelligence with Willpower and call it Mind, much like the 4-stat array in the Flyff MMO.

They have:
Strength (melee damage)
Stamina (HP, physical attack 'mana', resist physical damage)
Dexterity (attack speed, dodge, block)
Intelligence (mana, spell damage, resist spell damage)

I might end up with a four-stat system (unintentionally, I assure you), but it won't look like that. In fact, with something like that I'd be on a 5-stat system.

I don't see much connection between what intelligence and 'force of will' are supposed to represent. At least good leaders and diplomats (charismatic characters) are usually portrayed as having strong wills as well. The only part where the connection breaks down is froofy bards/confidence persons.

To Catharz: Try to go for anti-MAD, not more MAD, if reducing the number of ability scores doesn't work for you. Don't force players to require more than 2-3 stats.
Ironically, a discussion similar to this thread is going on in /tg/ right now.

I agree. If I condense attributes enough, MAD of more than two (effectively 3) attributes would be excessive. The clear breakdown for nonmagical types is something like swordsperson (Dex & Con), backstabber (Dex & Per), archer (Con & Per), swashbuckler (Dex & Will), paladin (Con & Will), wily trickster (Per & Will). Some types will focus more on one attribute than the other. And there should be a niche for the 'Jill of all trades'.
How do spellcasters fit in? Magic might be used to augment any of the above.

And thanks for the heads up, I'll try to find the /tg/ thread.

Int still gives skills, I suppose (if you're going close to D&D's).

In this case I'd stop giving bonus skills, but make sure that everyone starts out skilled enough. Because I'm messing with the skill system already, it isn't a huge stretch.

Int based skills would have to change, of course.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Right now I'm looking at SAME-esque physique, grace, perception, and willpower attributes. The biggest problem I ran into was how to determine bonus skill points: perception is not intelligence.

The solution is to take the mean of all four. This should work fine for PCs, because there isn't as much attribute creep as with monsters, and that's what I really care about. So long as the stat array [18 10 10 8] is considered approximately equivalent to [14 14 14 14], characters with spread out abilities will have slightly more skills.

Some class skill number may have to be adjusted (primarily skilled characters), but I'm using a slightly condensed skill list.