My house rules, campaign, etc.

irda ranger · Post by **irda ranger** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:50 am

I put it in my signature a few days ago, but didn't say anything pending getting a few more documents in shape, but here it is:
http://groups.google.com/group/the-tombs-of-akrasia

Feel free to check out the House Rules, character creation rules, etc. Posting to this group is restricted to my players, but comments (here on Trollord) are welcome!

There are still a few things I need to post up, like the "Weapon Damage Advancement Table" and the rebalanced 0th level spells, but this is 85% complete.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

Gnostic Gnoll · Post by **Gnostic Gnoll** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:32 am

A really nice set of house rules you have here! Here's my two cents.

Hurrah for getting rid of alignment!

I like how, even if you have made armor provide DR, you still give half-orcs a +1 AC no matter what armor they wear. I'd do that even with armor as AC. And I also like armor as DR, which I've considered doing myself. I enjoyed Iron Heroes, even if my friends and I felt it was more like a set of proposed design notes than a complete system.

I also think you did a good job standardizing checks by making things have a CL of 18+ and providing a bonus to the die roll for primes. That also makes opposed checks sensible. I take it that any roll occurring outside of combat is a Stat Challenge? It's not explicitly stated, so I surmise it from the fact you make an exception for "in-combat Stat Challenges." Also, this seems to imply that picking a lock or swinging on a chandelier would be easier in combat than out. Would it be easier, maybe, to just distinguish between Stat Challenges and Combat Challenges, without worrying about in-combat ones? The contrasting examples you provide seem to cover this case nicely enough.

Overall, though, excellent work. The note about the costs of poisons is great, I like what you've done with the wizard for versatility and the AU spell-stitching, and the rework of the illusionist into the magician is an intriguing little change.

I could go on, but I'd just be running down your list of rules and saying different things for "I think that's kind of cool." So, there you have it! Hope some of this helps/boosts the ego.

Moorcrys · Post by **Moorcrys** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:32 am

I really like the 0-level 'dabbling' rules. Great idea!
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:03 am

Spell stitching and unraveling is an interesting idea.

I also like the fighter style descriptions.

Over all it looks good to me. Nothing made me go "Oops! Thats going to be a problem."

irda ranger · Post by **irda ranger** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:30 pm

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
I enjoyed Iron Heroes, even if my friends and I felt it was more like a set of proposed design notes than a complete system.

Gods, ain't that the truth. My buddy Chris is one of the Iron League admins, and my IH DM is very active on Monte's boards too. We (meaning the community) essentially had to finish the game for Monte. You should see my IH-DM's house rule stack. It's ridiculous.

Quote:
I also think you did a good job standardizing checks by making things have a CL of 18+ and providing a bonus to the die roll for primes. That also makes opposed checks sensible.

Mainly it was to make the math easier for me as the CK. I just want to say "What's your mod?" It shortens the thinking process to one step instead of two.

Quote:
I take it that any roll occurring outside of combat is a Stat Challenge?

Yes. Basic SIEGE Engine rule, unless I'm missing something. To respect the Trolls copyright (and well deserved royalties!) I tried to not restate anything from the book that I didn't have to.

Quote:
Also, this seems to imply that picking a lock or swinging on a chandelier would be easier in combat than out.

Hmm. That wasn't my intent. I will re-write to be more clear. What I was tring to say is that things you would not have to roll for out of combat, you might have to roll for in combat because of the added difficulties.

Put another way, if I judged a certain activity to be a CL of 15 I would not require a roll out of combat (the character just does it), but I would require a roll in combat (it's above CL 12). Either way the CL is 15.

To use a D&D 3-ism, I assume that out of combat everyone "takes 10", so anything that would be an automatic success "just happens." You can't "take 10" in combat because 1/2 your attenion must always be on not getting killed.

Quote:
Overall, though, excellent work. The note about the costs of poisons is great, I like what you've done with the wizard for versatility and the AU spell-stitching, and the rework of the illusionist into the magician is an intriguing little change.

I could go on, but I'd just be running down your list of rules and saying different things for "I think that's kind of cool." So, there you have it!

Thanks! A lot of the ideas I got here or at the DF forums, or from Malhavoc products, but I did try to make a tight-knit, sensible system. We've only had a few gaming sessions so far, but it seems like they work in practice too. The idea on poison costs was mine; side-effect of a degree in economics and the practice of law.

Quote:
Hope some of this helps/boosts the ego.

My friends wouldn't thank you for that, but I'll try to keep it under control.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

irda ranger · Post by **irda ranger** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:41 pm

Treebore wrote:
Spell stitching and unraveling is an interesting idea.

Lifted directly from Malhavoc's Arcana Unearthed/ Arcana Evolved (though "stiching" is my word for it, to create a "spell weaving" theme). Hands down the best D&D-like magic system, without going to a complete buffet style, "make your own spell" system. It preserves the 9 levels of spells and spells/day, while allowing for super-flexibility. Also has a lot of cool feats which modify magic in cool ways. Much more imaginative and flavorful than the Metamagic feats from D&D. Worth checking out.

Treebore wrote:
I also like the fighter style descriptions.

Thanks. Adapted from suggestions I've culled from here and DF. I didn't want to just recreate the "four fighting styles" seen in D&D 3.x however, and wanted to remain true to the minimalist, rules-lite nature of C&C. I hope I have accomplished that.

Treebore wrote:
Over all it looks good to me. Nothing made me go "Oops! Thats going to be a problem."

The best we can hope for, sometimes. Just trying to give back to the community that has given me so much.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

irda ranger · Post by **irda ranger** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:15 pm

QUICK NOTE: I noticed that the Campaign Setting info is not appearing on the "Home" page of the group. Click on the Pages section's "View all" to see that info.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

Gnostic Gnoll · Post by **Gnostic Gnoll** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:56 pm

irda ranger wrote:
Gods, ain't that the truth. My buddy Chris is one of the Iron League admins, and my IH DM is very active on Monte's boards too. We (meaning the community) essentially had to finish the game for Monte. You should see my IH-DM's house rule stack. It's ridiculous.

Well to Monte's credit he didn't write the system, but by giving it his name and the Malhavoc label, well, my disappointment did extend beyond Mike Mearls. Between IH and AE, which went perhaps a little too far beyond the marvelous AU by actually revealing the dragons who were such a big "up to you" plot element before that, my bummed vibes were enough that I didn't get Ptolus. Lately, though, I've considered saving up for it if there are still copies by the time I get enough, or buy the PDFs.

Probably my own fault. I'd been riding so high on Malhavoc's releases from the very beginning, that AE and IH left me doubting. And doubting an idol is a big kind of doubt.

Quote:
Put another way, if I judged a certain activity to be a CL of 15 I would not require a roll out of combat (the character just does it), but I would require a roll in combat (it's above CL 12). Either way the CL is 15.

To use a D&D 3-ism, I assume that out of combat everyone "takes 10", so anything that would be an automatic success "just happens." You can't "take 10" in combat because 1/2 your attenion must always be on not getting killed.

That makes complete sense to me now. Thanks for the clarification.

Quote:
The idea on poison costs was mine; side-effect of a degree in economics and the practice of law.

Don't I know it! Well, not the economics and law, but I have a background in German and Japanese, as well as linguistics and a (very) small pet fascination with constructed languages. That being said, most "languages" in fantasy RPGs (even if they're just skill slots) drive me up a wall. I lay my book on the table, leap onto a chair, point my finger accusingly at it and yell, "Bend to my insatiable urge for verisimilitude, cretinous setting information!"

So, I understand.

Quote:
My friends wouldn't thank you for that, but I'll try to keep it under control.

Kill zem. Kill zem all.

irda ranger · Post by **irda ranger** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:28 am

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
I lay my book on the table, leap onto a chair, point my finger accusingly at it and yell, "Bend to my insatiable urge for verisimilitude, cretinous setting information!"

That's probably the funniest thing I've read all day; not least of all because it's absolutely true. There are certain things, which certain people, simply cannot suspend their disbelief about. Things which most people don't even notice are glaring, impossible to ignore, "cats & dogs living together" Things-That-Just-Can't-Happen(TM) for the trained observer. For me it's always prices, money and "flow of goods" stuff.

Gameplay Example wrote:
PC: "I want to sell all these enemy weapons we captured. How much does the local armorer give me for them?"

Me: "Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of 'liquidity'."

PC: "I hate you."

Me: "I'm docking you 20 XP for out of character comments."

The language rules never bothered me too much though; but I don't speak many languages. Just my three starting language, actually: Common, Goblinoid and Lawful.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:12 am

Man! How did you manage to learn Lawful in Joisy?

irda ranger · Post by **irda ranger** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:30 pm

Whereas Goblinoid is spoken by half the residents? Dude, that's harsh.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia