Davis' houserule discussion

[CharlieRock]

The more I think about it the more I want a personalised PHB.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[MacLeod]

Lord Dynel wrote:
I think, ultimately, it would be easier to do a new book than to put TLG through the chore of a different PHB for every person (if I'm reading that right ).

That could be a pretty bloated thing after a while.

Also, if I were to pay extra for something... I'd expect something in return, ya know? Basic principles I think.
_________________
In this world of LIES... the TRUTH, it means RESISTANCE!

[Lord Dynel]

MacLeod wrote:
That could be a pretty bloated thing after a while.

Also, if I were to pay extra for something... I'd expect something in return, ya know? Basic principles I think.

No, actually it wouldn't. Not everyone that plays has house rules. Not everyone who does whave them would submit them to TLG for consideration. Not everyone who plays C&C is on the boards, so many might not even know they'd be taking submissions of house rules for inclusion in a house rule tome. And I'm willing to bet that similar house rules are used by different people. And finally, submitting them is not a guarantee that they would be printed, as I'm sure they'd go through a selection process. So I don't think it would become a bloated thing at all.

And as far as getting something for your money...it's optional. If you don't want it, or don't feel it'd be worth the money, then don't buy it. You would be getting something for your money, though...you'd be getting more options for your C&C game. And if you don't want that, you're certainly not obligated to spend your money.

More basic principles, if you will.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[cleaverthepit]

I'll be over at steve's today and update things. but it looks like a go.

i'll include a discussion. but i really want to get back to my previous discussion. it will be in the open thread.

the d20 as init with 21+ indicting a second action.

i think adding BTH is a good idea as it heavily favors the fighter, rogue types swinging again (especially fighter).

i was also thinking of making it a skill,

here are the downsides.

what happens with two handed fighting - 4 attks.

what about a 10th lvl fighter using two handed fighting.

[Lord Dynel]

cleaverthepit wrote:
I'll be over at steve's today and update things. but it looks like a go.

i'll include a discussion. but i really want to get back to my previous discussion. it will be in the open thread.

the d20 as init with 21+ indicting a second action.

i think adding BTH is a good idea as it heavily favors the fighter, rogue types swinging again (especially fighter).

i was also thinking of making it a skill,

here are the downsides.

what happens with two handed fighting - 4 attks.

what about a 10th lvl fighter using two handed fighting.

Davis, I'd say anything over a 21 would only allow one extra attack. you could allow two extra with two-weapon fighters, but I wouldn't advise it. One extra attack is probably good enough, IMHO.

Have you decided what to add to monsters's init? And will the 21 and up rule also apply to them? I'd allow it for monsters as well, to be honest, to keep things a little fair. In later levels, most characters will be getting extra attacks and that might make things a little nasty.

So, in my humble opinion, I think a d20 for initative, plus level would work alright. Results over 20 indicate one extra attack, at a -20 in the "initative count." I would also specify that this does not apply to spells. I would also look over the abilities of the classes and determine which abilities (if you all decide such) do not work with an extra attack. And i would consider, if you haven't already, if creatures are afforded the same luxury or not (d20 for init. plus HD, with results of 20+ indicating an extra attack).
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[serleran]

What happens with any extra attack, save that not granted directly by the monk ability or the fighter ability? Very severe penalty to hit, is what. Also, one could simply rule that only one-offhand attack, regardless of number of attacks granted, is ever permissible, and that is dealt with using the normal "dual wielding" rules. So, a 12th level fighter scores a bonus action.. he normally has one attack, +1 attack from extra attack, and he decides to go dual-wield with flatchet and hand axe... he does not get 4 attacks - he gets three.

I would, unlike LD, allow multiple castings in a round... because I am mean, and think that should be a award possible only for the most powerful of spellcasters (after all, its not like their BtH is going to help them much), but would restrict it to a certain spell level... say 0-2. That would mean no double fireballing, but it would mean the wizard could cast one and still activate his wand of the same.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[AslanC]

My adjusted house rule for this is as follows;

If the character normally only has 1 attack/action per round then they will get a second on any initiaitive of over 20 - 20.

So 25 takes his first action, 5 his second.

If the character normally has a second action or a third or even a fourth it works like this.

On an initiative under 20, first action when normal, second at -5 initiative, third at -10. If you run out of initiative numbers before the -10 or they rolled over 20 all remaining attacks/actions happen on 1.

So fighter has 2 attacks normally and rolls a 15 for initiative.

First action on 15

Second on 10

Third on 1

If he rolled a 23

First action on 23

Second on 18

Third on 8

Last on 1

Seems to make sense to me, what do you think?
_________________
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Earth Alpha: Yet another RPG blog!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Visit the new BASH Forums!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[Treebore]

I use SIEGE checks to give players the opportunity for an extra attack per round, above and beyond 2 weapon fighting and being a 10th level fighter.

CL is HD/LVL of opponents.

I also base this SIEGE check on BtH rather than level because it does help the fighter to shine. In fact I allow the fighters specialization to add as well. So the fighter succeeds most often, shines the most, and spellcasters hardly ever succeed, because they have the worst BtH.

So if I were to adapt your initiative idea ?I would definitely use BtH as the modifier, not level.

Except in the case of spellcasters who have declared they are casting spells for the round. Those I would allow to add level, to reflect that they are as kick butt with spells as a fighter is with weapons.

Which is how I do it in my house rules when spellcasters make SIEGE checks to modify their spell casting.

So if they want their fireball to do maximum damage it is CL 3 (base)+ level of spell, 3, for a total CL of 6, so TN 18. They roll and add their level, if they beat an 18 their fireball is maximized. If they fail they lose their spell entirely.

So when it comes to spellcasting, they get to add their level, but when it comes to combat, they add their BtH.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Malperion]

I would keep it simpler and retain the D10 roll; adding the dex bonus as a modifier. For monsters, I would add +1 if they had physical primes and +2 if they had both mental and physical primes. Another +1 could be added if the monster was known to be especially fast or some sort of elite creature (or leader of other monsters). I would then go ahead and allow the bonus action at -10. Spell casting may just stay at one spell a round, but the caster could then move, make a physical attack or use an item, etc. at their -10 bonus.