Please comment on my house rules :)

[legopaidi]

First of all, I'm sorry if this is the wrong subforum! My house rules mostly have to do with M&M so I thought I should post them here

So, in my next campaign I'm thinking of making some changes to the rules. I'm not terribly experienced in OD&D but I've read a ton of awesome (and inspiring) discussions here in OD&D74 over the years and I was hoping for some feedback & comments

I'll be mostly using the 3LBB so the 3 class setup / 1d6 damage for all weapons is a given.
The main reason behind these hacks is to get a more "Monster Hunter" feel for the Cleric and a more "Gandalf" feel for the Magic-User while keeping the Fighting-Men clearly better at combat :


1) Magic-users can use Magic Swords
2) Clerics can use any weapon (including their magical versions) except Bows/Crossbows and Magic Swords.They are limited to Chainmail Armor and cannot use shields
3)I will be using the alignment rules in Holmes basic
4)When fighting with a two handed weapon the player rolls 2 damage dice and keeps the best result
5)Fighting Men with Dex 13+ can opt to fight with 2 weapons and when doing so gain +1 to hit
6)Magic swords normally give bonuses to hit while all other weapons give bonuses to damage


What do you think? I would really like to read your thoughts/suggestions/corrections/warnings etc!

[scottenkainen]

2) Clerics, I feel, need to have good AC's; it's important for the party's survival to ensure that the cleric is one of the last men standing in a big fight. Taking this away from them is going to make your game more challenging.

4) I assume you mean "rolls 2 dice" for damage?

Other than 2, I think they seem like reasonable tweaks.

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[legopaidi]

Yes, I meant 2 damage dice!
And yes you are probably right about the Cleric. How about I allow Clerics to use shields but still limit them to chainmail. I'm just worried that by not giving them any armor restriction at all they would probably be much more attractive than the Fighting-Men

[makofan]

Hmm, you give a big plus to MU's, but fighters stay the same. They need something

[cleverkobold]

If you're going for a monster hunter cleric, I would allow them to use crossbows. It just seems to fit, for me.

If you wanted to give fighters something special, they could do double damage on a roll of 20.

[legopaidi]

Sept 9, 2013 15:06:40 GMT -6 makofan said:

Hmm, you give a big plus to MU's, but fighters stay the same. They need something

Yes that's probably a good point. I thought of allowing them the Strength modifiers from Greyhawk but I'm not really sure...It can get messy and it's not like the average Fighting-Man will have a big Str score with 3d6 in order...
Any suggestions?

[legopaidi]

Sept 9, 2013 15:11:51 GMT -6 cleverkobold said:

If you're going for a monster hunter cleric, I would allow them to use crossbows. It just seems to fit, for me.

If you wanted to give fighters something special, they could do double damage on a roll of 20.

Good ones too! Thanks!!
Maybe instead of double damage I just let them inflict maximum?

[Deleted]

What are you trying to accomplish? I like #4 but am highly dubious about the rest.

That said, it's your game, do as you like. But between Gary and Dave's group I'd bet we tried almost all those.

[Stormcrow]

Sept 9, 2013 14:33:40 GMT -6 legopaidi said:

1) Magic-users can use Magic Swords

Gandalf using a sword is not essential to his being Gandalf, and you take away one of the biggest advantages of the fighting-man: being the only class that can use magic swords.

2) Clerics can use any weapon (including their magical versions) except Bows/Crossbows and Magic Swords.They are limited to Chainmail Armor and cannot use shields

This makes clerics more offensive and less defensive. Being a "monster-hunter" doesn't mean being a "monster-fighter"; it means being steeped in the lore of how to find and defeat undead and demonic monsters.

5)Fighting Men with Dex 13+ can opt to fight with 2 weapons and when doing so gain +1 to hit

Only helps if a fighting-man has high dexterity, which is not their prime requisite. Wanting to fight with two weapons should be a huge warning sign to a referee that he has a munchkin on his hands. Besides, once that character gets two +1 magic weapons he's going to have a +3 to hit, compared to a single-weapon fighting-man with only a +1. Everyone's gonna do it.

6)Magic swords normally give bonuses to hit while all other weapons give bonuses to damage

Why?

[Lord Cias]

Sept 9, 2013 14:33:40 GMT -6 legopaidi said:

. . . What do you think? I would really like to read your thoughts/suggestions/corrections/warnings etc!

You asked for it!

1) Magic-users can use Magic Swords

I do NOT like this, at least not without severe restrictions. If you insist on letting magic-users be able to use swords I'd limit it to non-intelligent magic swords (intelligent ones would not dare allow themselves to be disgraced by being wielded by anyone other than a fighting man) and NONE of the sword's special abilities function for anyone other than a fighting man.

2) Clerics can use any weapon (including their magical versions) except Bows/Crossbows and Magic Swords.They are limited to Chainmail Armor and cannot use shields

I'm not sure what the point is of removing a small portion of the cleric's weapon restriction while imposing a hefty restriction on their armor. I can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish here and I'd advise against using this.

3)I will be using the alignment rules in Holmes basic

No comment.

4)When fighting with a two handed weapon the player rolls 2 damage dice and keeps the best result
5)Fighting Men with Dex 13+ can opt to fight with 2 weapons and when doing so gain +1 to hit

I'd switch these two around so that a two-handed weapon gives a +1 (or even a +2) to the attack roll while fighting with two weapons gives higher damage (and possibly a -1 or -2 penalty on the attack roll as well).

6)Magic swords normally give bonuses to hit while all other weapons give bonuses to damage

If I understand this correctly the only change you're making here is removing the bonus to the attack roll for misc. magic weapons. I'm not sure what the point of this is.

[legopaidi]

Stormcrow

I really like the imagery of Gandalf using Glamdring and I want to apply it to my campaign. I know that's Glamdring isn't what makes Gandalf "Gandalf" but I just like it! I also know it's a thin line I'm walking as far as the Fighting-Men not being the only class able to use magic swords though... My main concern is to keep Fighters a viable option so I'm trying to think what other advantages I should give them (and keep the spirit of the game mostly intact).

About fighting with two weapons I thought that it would be a fair trade off with a potential bonus to defence if using using a shield.
Fighter players would have to choose between offense and defence. I thought of using the same rule as two handed weapons (roll 2 damage dice and keep the best result) but I wanted to keep both fighting styles different. Maybe giving 2 weapon fighting +1 to damage makes more sense?

About clerics being less defensive and more offensive ,I agree, but that gives the Fighting-Men the chance to truly be the best in overall combat ability when compared to the 2 other classes. I've decided though that not allowing Clerics to use shields may be too harsh.

As for magic swords "normally" (ie not talking about +x/+y swords) giving only to hit bonuses while miscellaneous magic weapons damage bonuses I got that from Delving Deeper and WaysoftheEarth. Just to keep the "feel" between Swords and other weapons different and not having a Spear+1 being more powerful than a Sword+1.

[legopaidi]

@lord Cias

I like your suggestion on Magic-Users being able to use only "simple" magic swords as far as balance goes. I just don't know if this actually helps me construct this "Wizards with Magic Swords" I'm looking for. I'll have to think about this though it's good advice

As for your other questions I guess I've answered them in the post above

[inkmeister]

I don't mind magic users being able to use all weapons, but it seems like if you do that you gotta allow the cleric to as well. I'd borrow from LotFP and change the to hit progression of magic users and clerics so that they never improve at combat (or you could nerf clerics to have half the to hit ability of fighters). I'd further tweak the fighter so that he improves by +1 to hit at every single level (basically using AD&D progression). Thus fighters are the only ones that improve at fighting, but everyone can use all types of weapons. I think this is an improvement over the arbitrary second rule you've proposed, and the arbitrary restrictions the game comes with. I still have no good answer for armor (it seems magic users should be able to wear it, but it will affect game balance).

In my opinion, magic swords should function as other magic weapons in giving a bonus to damage and to hit. Why not?

I might give the 2 handed sword +1 to hit in certain circumstances, and I'd give 2 weapon fighters +1 to hit in some circumstances. Other than that, I'm largely swayed by the non-variable weapon damage approach for the moment (consult me next week to see if I've changed my mind). I favor the advice to keep it abstract and don't try to model too many specific details.

[Zulgyan]

In a game I ran, I changed the "Staff of Wizardry" for a "Sword of Wizardy" usable by magic-users, as an exception to the BTB restriction to daggers I mantained. The sword worked exactly the same as a staff of wizardy and was only re-skinned to look like a sword, which I found way cooler.

So you don't need to change the general rules to have a character look like a "Glamdring-wielding Gandalf", you can just have some magic swords specially made for wizards.

[llenlleawg]

Sept 9, 2013 14:33:40 GMT -6 legopaidi said:

1) Magic-users can use Magic Swords

As with most others here, I'd say this is a bad idea, or better said, it's not the best way to get what you want. After all, one of the distinguishing features of Magic Users is that they can use almost all magic items *except* magic swords, whereas, apart from magic arms and armor, there are many (most even?) magic items unavailable to Fighters (and to a lesser extent, Clerics).

However, as you seem determined to add this, may I suggest the following, namely that an MU can use a magic sword, but in his hands all magic swords operate only as +1 swords, no higher bonuses for special types, no special abilities, etc. (Think of the way that only paladins can "unlock" the full power of a Holy Sword, so here only Fighters can unlock the full power of magic swords.)

2) Clerics can use any weapon (including their magical versions) except Bows/Crossbows and Magic Swords.They are limited to Chainmail Armor and cannot use shields

I would echo others here and say that you are making the Cleric too much a monster fighter than a monster hunter, and then taking away his staying power by reducing his armor class. Also, it seems odd to allow MUs the use of magic swords (certainly greatly desired in monster hunting/fighting!) but disallow them for Clerics.

5)Fighting Men with Dex 13+ can opt to fight with 2 weapons and when doing so gain +1 to hit

As a rule, I don't like linking class abilities so much to ability scores. Experience bonus should be enough for the most part. By the way, are you thinking that the Fighting Man gets two attacks with two-weapon fighting (and thus two rolls for damage on two hits)? That would be too much by far. If you merely mean that one can opt to forgo a shield for the sake of a +1 to hit, then that's fine, but just allow any Fighting Man to do it.

6)Magic swords normally give bonuses to hit while all other weapons give bonuses to damage

How is this a house rule? Isn't this the normal rule (cf. Monsters and Treasure, p. 30, "The swords all receive bonuses as far as the probability of hitting an opponent is concerned, but some also gain a damage bonus when they do hit. These swords are those with a +2 or +3 against specific creatures, but not those with a general bonus of +2 or +3" and p. 31, "MISCELLANEOUS WEAPONS: Those with bonuses of +1, +2 or +3 gain a bonus of equal merit on damage scored, except as noted below.")? Or, do you mean that magic swords normally only give bonus to hit (the standard rule) and other magical weapons only give a bonus to damage?

[crusssdaddy]

For clerics, if you dislike plate and shield for aesthetic reasons but want to preserve the mechanical AC benefits, you may consider substituting some sort of "aura of invincibility" effect when facing appropriate monsters, adversaries of chaotic/evil alignment, etc. Sort of like the AD&D ranger's bonus to-hit against certain opponents, but applied to the cleric's AC instead. Or perhaps a limited "Protection from Evil"-type effect against hunted monsters.

[Lord Cias]

Sept 10, 2013 5:20:08 GMT -6 legopaidi said:

I really like the imagery of Gandalf using Glamdring and I want to apply it to my campaign. I know that's Glamdring isn't what makes Gandalf "Gandalf" but I just like it! I also know it's a thin line I'm walking as far as the Fighting-Men not being the only class able to use magic swords though... My main concern is to keep Fighters a viable option so I'm trying to think what other advantages I should give them (and keep the spirit of the game mostly intact).

If you insist on allowing magic-users to emulate Gandalf, I suggest you re-read The Hobbit and the LotR and pay very close attention to the "magic" Gandalf actually uses. Gandalf-like wizards that can use magic swords should be limited to spells like light, produce flame, speak with animals and hold portal. I think the most powerful spell Gandalf ever casts is basically a lightning bolt that takes out like 6 goblins. So sure, magic-users can use swords, but they are limited to only 1st & 2nd level spells and but a single 3rd level spell.  Ever.

[aldarron]

Clerics as you have them seem awfully fiddly and arbitrary. Why would a cleric be able to use a normal sword but not a magical one, and why chainmail but not plate? Perhaps chainmail vestments are part of the clerics required trappings, so they can only wear chain and must always wear it?

more on swords below.

Sept 10, 2013 7:30:59 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

In a game I ran, I changed the "Staff of Wizardry" for a "Sword of Wizardy" usable by magic-users, as an exception to the BTB restriction to daggers I mantained. The sword worked exactly the same as a staff of wizardy and was only re-skinned to look like a sword, which I found way cooler.

So you don't need to change the general rules to have a character look like a "Glamdring-wielding Gandalf", you can just have some magic swords specially made for wizards.

Not a bad idea. In the FFC (80:45) Arneson's write up included the idea that swords not only had an alignment but also a class origin, and someone from one class could not use a different class's sword. The FFC also appears to suggest that a damage penalty for touching another class's sword would be comparable to touching a sword of another alignment. (1 or 2 d6)

If you don't want clerics to use magic swords, you could simply rule that there are simply none made for them for some reason.

In any case, you need reasonable explanations for your restrictions or your players might call foul.

[talysman]

I use the +1 when attacking with two weapons, but with no Dex restriction. I think it works fine as long as you are only using a single attack roll. I've also used the 2 dice, keep best for heavy/two-handed weapon damage; the hard part there was remembering to roll 2 dice. So those house rules look fine.

I do allow non-Fighters to use mundane weapons that are "out of class", but at "zero-level" ability. You might consider doing that with M-Us and magic swords, and also treat the sword as if it were a different alignment, possibly withholding powers from the M-U. This lets M-Us look like Gandalf without taking away anything from Fighters. If that's not enough for a player, they can start as a Fighter and switch classes almost immediately.

My clerics are treated as zero level when using missiles or polearms, and the Lawful ones have a prohibition against edged weapons (but no attack penalty,) but otherwise, I treat them as halfway between Fighters and M-Us. I second the objections to limiting their armor. If they are really monster hunters or monster fighters, why would they be unable to use the best defense?

[legopaidi]

Sept 10, 2013 10:08:51 GMT -6 Lord Cias said:

Sept 10, 2013 5:20:08 GMT -6 legopaidi said:

I really like the imagery of Gandalf using Glamdring and I want to apply it to my campaign. I know that's Glamdring isn't what makes Gandalf "Gandalf" but I just like it! I also know it's a thin line I'm walking as far as the Fighting-Men not being the only class able to use magic swords though... My main concern is to keep Fighters a viable option so I'm trying to think what other advantages I should give them (and keep the spirit of the game mostly intact).

If you insist on allowing magic-users to emulate Gandalf, I suggest you re-read The Hobbit and the LotR and pay very close attention to the "magic" Gandalf actually uses. Gandalf-like wizards that can use magic swords should be limited to spells like light, produce flame, speak with animals and hold portal. I think the most powerful spell Gandalf ever casts is basically a lightning bolt that takes out like 6 goblins. So sure, magic-users can use swords, but they are limited to only 1st & 2nd level spells and but a single 3rd level spell.  Ever.

I'm very aware of that but at the same time I'm not trying to emulate wizards as Gandalf or the way magic works in Middle Earth. I just like the image of wizards wielding magical swords and that's what I'm trying to incorporate with the fewest possible "errors"

[Deleted]

Did you notice you've started on a treadmill?

"I've added this to magic users and I've added this to clerics. Oh, I'd better add some stuff to fighters so they have cool stuff too..."

At that point, the gods are telling you to cut, not add. The path you have embarked upon leads to what some call 'Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard' where there is no reason to be anything other than a magic user.

I also like the idea Zul gave for a "Sword of Wizardry".

Also, D&D is about the worst game in the world for emulating Tolkien. Despite the inclusion of Tolkien critters Gary HATED LotR. I believe his exact words were "BAH! Stupid hobbits!"

Fantasy Trip would be a much better old-style game for Middle Earth.

[Stormcrow]

Sept 10, 2013 10:08:51 GMT -6 Lord Cias said:

If you insist on allowing magic-users to emulate Gandalf, I suggest you re-read The Hobbit and the LotR and pay very close attention to the "magic" Gandalf actually uses. Gandalf-like wizards that can use magic swords should be limited to spells like light, produce flame, speak with animals and hold portal. I think the most powerful spell Gandalf ever casts is basically a lightning bolt that takes out like 6 goblins. So sure, magic-users can use swords, but they are limited to only 1st & 2nd level spells and but a single 3rd level spell.  Ever.

Well, not really. The trouble is that Middle-earth's Wizards are quite different from D&D's Wizards. In Tolkien, wizardry is far more personal a power.

Some of the powers of Gandalf that most people overlook include:

• After the Balrog gathers flame around itself at the Bridge of Khazad-dum, Gandalf speaks and the flames are extinguished.
• And he magically destroys the Bridge.
• Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff—and authority—with a word.
• Gandalf helps "kindle" the hearts of those he meets with help from his Ring of Power.
• He cloaks himself to hide his power; essentially he has a Somebody Else's Problem field around him. Pippin notices this when he's striving in will against Denethor, and Bilbo sees it when Gandalf gets angry with him in Bag End.
• Speaking of which, he pits his will directly against Denethor in Minas Tirith, and he uses his will to deflect the Eye of Sauron while Frodo is wearing the Ring on Amon Hem.
• He single-handedly fights off a bunch of Nazgul. We're not privy to the details, but it involves a lot of fire or lightning.
• He adds the white horses to the flood called by Elrond.

Gandalf is a 5th level magic-user, my foot!

[legopaidi]

So first of all thank you - every single one of you - who answered to my call!
As I said I'm still more of a newbie when it comes to running OD&D and every suggestion is highly appreciated! In fact I've reconsidered much thanks to your answers here. I'll have to think about this some more...I really like what Zulgyan among others. I guess the only way to know for sure about any of my intended house rules is throught trial and error

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2013 11:38:34 GMT -6 legopaidi said:

I guess the only way to know for sure about any of my intended house rules is throught trial and error

Which is the most "old school" way of all. D&D did not drop out of heaven in a Glad bag, there was a LOT of adding and subtracting and "Well, crap, that didn't work."

[Lord Cias]

Sept 10, 2013 11:36:59 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Well, not really. The trouble is that Middle-earth's Wizards are quite different from D&D's Wizards. In Tolkien, wizardry is far more personal a power.

Some of the powers of Gandalf that most people overlook include:

• After the Balrog gathers flame around itself at the Bridge of Khazad-dum, Gandalf speaks and the flames are extinguished.
• And he magically destroys the Bridge.
• Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff—and authority—with a word.
• Gandalf helps "kindle" the hearts of those he meets with help from his Ring of Power.
• He cloaks himself to hide his power; essentially he has a Somebody Else's Problem field around him. Pippin notices this when he's striving in will against Denethor, and Bilbo sees it when Gandalf gets angry with him in Bag End.
• Speaking of which, he pits his will directly against Denethor in Minas Tirith, and he uses his will to deflect the Eye of Sauron while Frodo is wearing the Ring on Amon Hem.
• He single-handedly fights off a bunch of Nazgul. We're not privy to the details, but it involves a lot of fire or lightning.
• He adds the white horses to the flood called by Elrond.

Gandalf is a 5th level magic-user, my foot!

True, but I would attribute much of that power to his nature as an Istari and the possessor of a Ring of Power rather than to "wizard spells."

I agree that one cannot draw an exact parallel between magic in Middle Earth and magic in D&D. Magic in Middle Earth is much more subtle as compared to the flash-bang magic of D&D.

[Deleted]

#4-- I use the two dice method, but on a tie BOTH dice count. While it extends the damage range above 6 points, that only happens 1/12th of the damaging hits.

2 dice high, ties add--Mean damage is 5.055

on 2 dice use high--Mean damage is 4.472

Not a HUGE change.

[coffee]

Sept 10, 2013 11:40:51 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

D&D did not drop out of heaven in a Glad bag, there was a LOT of adding and subtracting and "Well, crap, that didn't work."

This may be the greatest summation of the old school philosophy I've ever heard!

Certainly ranks up there with "We made up some shirt we thought would be fun."


But back to the original post: My notion on your house rules is just to try them out. Some people love to create house rules and discuss both them and the original rules. I do it, too. But the point of the game is to play it.

So do that. Play the game, whether with your house rules as stated or without. And then report back to us and let us know how it went.

[bestialwarlust]

Sept 10, 2013 11:40:51 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Sept 10, 2013 11:38:34 GMT -6 legopaidi said:

I guess the only way to know for sure about any of my intended house rules is throught trial and error

Which is the most "old school" way of all. D&D did not drop out of heaven in a Glad bag, there was a LOT of adding and subtracting and "Well, crap, that didn't work."

It didn't!?? well d**n here I was picturing burning bushes, golden books from on high majestic music and mysterious beings from beyond.

You make is sound like a bunch of friends sitting around having beers and a good time.

[scottenkainen]

Hi all,

Gronan wrote:
>Also, D&D is about the worst game in the world for emulating Tolkien. Despite the inclusion of Tolkien critters Gary HATED LotR. I believe his exact words were "BAH! Stupid hobbits!"<

That just reads like a challenge to me!

Stormcrow wrote:
>Gandalf is a 5th level magic-user, my foot!<

Well, of course not! Gandalf was a druid…

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[Porphyre]

Gandalf was an Elf: both Wizard AND sword-wielder