Rules of the game

[Bjorn]

Up-to-date summary of the rules used in the game.

The base rule set, in descending order of precedence, is core SRD (as defined here), followed by core rule books (PHB, DMG, MM).

Rules from splatbooks included:

• the Dread Necromancer class from Heroes of Horror.
• the spells from Heroes of Horror that appear on the Dread Necromancer spell list.
• the Hexblade class from Complete Warrior.
• the spells from Complete Warrior that appear on the Hexblade spell list.
• the Dirgesinger PrC from Libris Mortis
• the spell Kelgore's Grave Mist from PHB II

House rules:

• Cross-class skills cost only 1 skill point per rank, though they still have a max rank cap.

• There are no alignment requirements or restrictions for any classes.  Paladins instead must choose a deity and a suitable clearly-formulated cause with a defined (though not necessarily achievable) end condition: "Reclaim Maggydd", "retrieve the lost hand of St. Vecna."  A paladin that completes his cause can either choose to stop progressing as a paladin without losing his current abilities, or choose a new cause.  Paladins that work in violation of their cause, or don't pursue their cause aggressively become ex-paladins.
• An unconfirmed crit does maximized damage.  A confirmed crit does the maximum of normal maximized damage and a critical damage roll.
• The Toughness feat grants +1 HP per level.  You may only take it twice.
• The spell Reincarnate is removed from the game.

[Dracos]

I humbly suggest using http://www.d20srd.org/ which is almost exactly the same, only its search works ^_~.  I tried looking to see if there were differences, but I didn't see any and well, search.

Are we using Auto Successes and failures (most folks here do).  I'm not a 'huge' fan of it, since it weighs things in favor of whatever group rolls more dice (Instead of having to figure out a way to solve  the problem, throw enough dice  and you'll get a 20 which will solve it for you.  I remember it originally as a variant, but it definitely listed as standard rules in 3.5.

I like your critical mod house rule.  Its pretty neat.  I might swipe part of it at some point.  Though...doesn't that massively weaken stuff that has low damage and high multipliers?  The max damage roll of a Scythe is 8.  The minimum damage they can do on a critical is 8 with the maximum being 32.  It seems like this would strengthen considerably broad threat weapons while rendering the already rare criticals of high multiplier weapons virtually worthless (what good is a x3 or x4 compared in such situations).  Actually...I'm going to take a guess you meant 'maximum' instead of minimum of the two.  Is that possibly it?  That means on a successful crit, you can't do worse than maximized damage for your weapon, thus obliterating the ever so painful "Crit!  Rolled a...1 for damage" set?

I'm a fan of the 'double ones' crit fail, though that  makes them vanishingly rare. :)  But I suggest it anyway~

[Merc]

Any chance of using the improved version of the Toughness feat as a house-rule (aka, instead of a flat +3HP, you get +1HP per level)?

And speaking of hit points, what are we doing with it besides max value for first level? Roll once? Roll twice take highest? Roll twice, take average? Take average of hit die? Max every level? Roll once, if value lower than average, roll second time and take second value (even if worse)?

[Bjorn]

I humbly suggest using http://www.d20srd.org/ which is almost exactly the same, only its search works ^_~.  I tried looking to see if there were differences, but I didn't see any and well, search.

It has less classes (it doesn't include warlock, light or arcane fighter, druid variants), but that's for the best.  Okay, that's the new base reference.

Are we using Auto Successes and failures (most folks here do).  I'm not a 'huge' fan of it, since it weighs things in favor of whatever group rolls more dice (Instead of having to figure out a way to solve  the problem, throw enough dice  and you'll get a 20 which will solve it for you.  I remember it originally as a variant, but it definitely listed as standard rules in 3.5.

Your reference says no auto successes/failures on skills, which is what I plan to abide by unless listed otherwise.

Actually...I'm going to take a guess you meant 'maximum' instead of minimum of the two.  Is that possibly it?

I'm a fan of the 'double ones' crit fail, though that  makes them vanishingly rare. :)  But I suggest it anyway~

Core rules, if I read correctly, don't have "critical failure" rules, and honestly, I like it that way.  If people roll an automatic failure then I might, at my discretion, have them roll for a possible and plausible side-effect (hitting an ally instead, sundering their weapon, etc.).  But I'm of the story-telling persuasion, and randomly dictated critical failures aren't a lot of fun.

Any chance of using the improved version of the Toughness feat as a house-rule (aka, instead of a flat +3HP, you get +1HP per level)?

I think this is reasonable, and seem to recall most others on the board agree.

And speaking of hit points, what are we doing with it besides max value for first level? Roll once? Roll twice take highest? Roll twice, take average? Take average of hit die? Max every level? Roll once, if value lower than average, roll second time and take second value (even if worse)?

Max for first, then roll once for each level after that.  Just like your stat rolls, though, if you get a bad result, I'll let you reroll.

[Dracos]

I remain surprised that there are two such closely similar sites with such minor differences between them.  They're almost mirrors of each other, complete to the award in the corner.  Very odd.

Yeah, was referring more to the Automatic Hits and Misses setup, which I find tends raise offensive builds up slightly in value (Defense success maxes at 95 percent, even with such things as doing nothing but defending, and while Offense success rates run the same range, they are actions that meaningfully change the current state of the field.  I'm half asleep. :P  It's not a big thing really.  It's only in my head since my last build takes quite a few hits from folks that can't even reach her ac on a 20. =P  Kind of strengthens whatever side gets to roll more dice whether or not they use it tactically (through flanking, disabling attacks, spreading players out, etc), since it increases the number which will land in the 5 percent 'sure thing' margin.


-----

Bjorn, on hit points, I'm going to suggest not doing that... though admittingly you haven't spoken up on ressurrection in game either and perhaps you'll be different there.  I find that when the worst rolls (1s,2s) are rerolled at least once, the hp tends to go up on average and most GMs, seeing that players have a lot of hp, try and raise the difficulty to match, where otherwise its a bit more honest.  Albeit, our frontliners probably (surely) feel differently since every hp matters to them.

[Bjorn]

Yeah, was referring more to the Automatic Hits and Misses setup, which I find tends raise offensive builds up slightly in value (Defense success maxes at 95 percent, even with such things as doing nothing but defending, and while Offense success rates run the same range, they are actions that meaningfully change the current state of the field.  I'm half asleep. :P  It's not a big thing really.  It's only in my head since my last build takes quite a few hits from folks that can't even reach her ac on a 20. =P  Kind of strengthens whatever side gets to roll more dice whether or not they use it tactically (through flanking, disabling attacks, spreading players out, etc), since it increases the number which will land in the 5 percent 'sure thing' margin.

Don't have a strong opinion about this at the moment.  At the moment we'll stick to the rules, which has automatic hits and misses.

Bjorn, on hit points, I'm going to suggest not doing that... though admittingly you haven't spoken up on ressurrection in game either and perhaps you'll be different there.  I find that when the worst rolls (1s,2s) are rerolled at least once, the hp tends to go up on average and most GMs, seeing that players have a lot of hp, try and raise the difficulty to match, where otherwise its a bit more honest.  Albeit, our frontliners probably (surely) feel differently since every hp matters to them.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.  If your total roll is abysmally bad (ie, the sum of 3 levels worth of HP), then you can reroll.  That is, a 1 alone isn't ground for a reroll, but if you roll all 1s then try again.

[Dracos]

ah, *nods*

[Bjorn]

Since Drac asked: Resurrection spells (though not reincarnation) exist within the game.  However, they can only bring back world-changing individuals who still have unfinished business in the world.  Practically speaking, this means a) they'll only work on PCs and b) they are going to be difficult, but not impossible to come by.  As a result, in the event your character should pass on:

a) You may introduce a new character at current party level, to be introduced ASAP.
b) Should your original character get resurrected at any point, they will re-enter the game at one level less than the maximum character level currently in the party.  This means that you can actually increase in power from a resurrection.  If the original character gets resurrected, the new one immediately becomes an NPC and will leave the campaign, again ASAP.  If your original character dies again, of course, you're welcome to bring the old-new one back again.

Mechanically, this system discourages resurrections, which I think I thematically prefer, while actually being a little fairer than the core rules.  But character death is one of those things that players feel more than the GM, so feel free to shout at me now.

[Dracos]

G: We'll see how it goes. On some level, I'm tempted to agree, but I actually would like some anti-resurrection mechanic at play.
Hopefully, it will be a moot point.
Philip: Generally the anti-resurrection mechanic is:
Resurrection is painfully high level and expensive to cast. Everything lower permanently weakens characters in practice. And plotwise, you already said it: "It's not something readily avaliable and unlikely to become such"
G: True.
Philip: but yeah, hopefully it is a moot point
G: Do me a favour and your thoughts in the thread.
I'd actually like some debate on this, because I'd like to suss out whether the group as a whole is more "heroes don't die" versus "I want combats to be real."

[Ebiris]

The IC anti resurrection mechanic comes from spells like Trap the Soul, and various artifact type things that will also swallow someone's soul. Plus if you ever sell your soul to a fiend, that means you can't be rezzed, either.

Anyway, I like playing with different character concepts, so unless I become very attached to Rudi, I'm quite down with no resurrections.

[Bjorn]

The IC anti resurrection mechanic comes from spells like Trap the Soul, and various artifact type things that will also swallow someone's soul. Plus if you ever sell your soul to a fiend, that means you can't be rezzed, either.

There are a few storyline reasons that I don't want to use these.  Importantly, though, these are methods that only make a lot of sense in the context of cheap, easy resurrection.  I actually want an OOC mechanic.

Anyway, I like playing with different character concepts, so unless I become very attached to Rudi, I'm quite down with no resurrections.

If you do get very attached to the character, then I'll make sure that he does get resurrected.

[Anastasia]

Will there be feat retraining in this game?

[Dracos]

My two cents:

Feat retraining is by far the most intelligent addition of PHB2 and fantastically increases the likelihood that players will experiment and try things out as well as provides flexibility for shifting builds with time.  It's time requirements basically needing a sign off from the GM to do it makes its flexibility almost a non-issue in terms of increasing power and meanwhile, it solves the "I guess this may be an intelligent use of my 4 abilities....oh, damn, it wasn't.  That sucks." side effect of feats generally being pretty limited in availability.

Obviously, I'm a huge fan of the concept.  :)

[Bjorn]

Provisionally, I have no issues at all with feat retraining.