I usually say I play C&C by the book. I have a vague inkling that this is not the case; there are places where I have probably made the same ruling often enough that it is a house rule, but I don't recall it in my haste to keep the game rolling.
If you are a house-ruler, when you hear someone say they play by the book, I imagine some of you shake your heads, because you know there are some things that come up in every day play where the rules are specified incompletely, contradict themselves, or are simply missing.
Without leaving the domain of what the core rules must cover in order to get through an average game, what are some things you think require a codified house ruling? I don't mean things you wish were different, I really mean, what is so broken or missing you must supply a rule or ruling to move the game forward?
Here's crossing my fingers that this question makes sense and generates sensible discussion .
Surprise rules. I like how 2nd Edition did it with a separate mechanic. The rules say Wisdom check, and I don't necessarily agree with that. The solutions I hear are CK Fiat and house rules, all which are fine, but I'd rather have a non-SIEGE mechanic then to say it's a straight Wisdom SIEGE check.
Ranger's prime. I know they did it to keep a balance. I don't think it's necessary. This one's a minor one, and based on my perspective of rangers.
Here's the important thing to me - I think that the framework of C&C works great because of its limited rules set and really thrives when the individual CK adds his own framework (his or her house rules) to the existing structure. That's when the game really shines. The discussion of primes, healing spells for illusionists, natural healing, critical hits and fumbles - these are a few things that will most likely be brought up and will different depending on the table you're playing at. They may be by the book, but they may not...or may not be in the book at all. To me, making those tweaks to the system don't quantify them being added to the core of the rules. The only reason I put the surprise rules in a different category (the "it needs to be changed category") is that, by the book, certain classes (cleric, druid) will always be good at avoiding surprise/being perceptive.
Yes, these are examples of rules you would like to be different. I am hoping for discussion on missing rules or rules that simply don't work (as opposed to working, but not satisfactorily). Does that make sense?
I'm pretty close to BTB, just a few tweaks, mostly in the spirit of the RAW. I do think the PHB should have rules for special kinds of damage (burning oil, acid, etc.), but that's about it.
kreider204 wrote:I'm pretty close to BTB, just a few tweaks, mostly in the spirit of the RAW. I do think the PHB should have rules for special kinds of damage (burning oil, acid, etc.), but that's about it.
Those rules are actually in (and only in) the CK screen.
Well, in my opinion, the surprise rules "simply don't work." The reason why I feel that the surprise rules are inherently broken is because they cater to a specific set of classes or specific class decisions to work well. But, I'm guessing by your reply that's not exactly what you're looking for.
In an attempt to stick closer your request, and still be a valuable contributor to the thread, I'd say that I wished there were schools of magic and spell types in the PHB. I miss them. I liked the idea of specialist wizards.
Like should there be a limit to the number of permanent duration spells you can have cast? Continual Light is usually the first spell that brings this up, but Glyph of Warding, Fire Trap and many others can be a real game breakers.
A lot of my house rules actually are about filling in the holes in C&C. Such as armor/magic item AC bonus', clarifying Polymorph using lessons from 3E, fully explaining hit points, what they are, how to heal naturally, some clarification to grappling to answer questions that came up in game, etc...
Then the majority of what remains is explaining how I allow the SIEGE engine to be used to replace Feats, and even to earn "signature moves", eventually. Something I actually started doing when I ran 2E D&D, which is why I hated kits when they came out, I liked my system better, because such bonus modifiers and abilities were earned through play in my games. So I brought that back with my C&C.
I also wrote up my own version of the Runemark years ago, so I am anxious to see what Steve came up with.
Someone posted equipment packs on these boards a couple of years ago, so I took those and put them in my house rules document.
So I write up my house rules to keep me consistent, and to allow my players to know precisely how I run my C&C before they even start playing.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
.
