House Rules Elton (version by: Elton Robb)

[Elton Robb]

Discussion thread for User:Elton Robb/House Rules Elton (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/User:Elton Robb/House Rules Elton). If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.

Thanks, Andrew, for linking "Raesene" to the proper Wiki article.

[AndrewTall]

Discussion thread for User:Elton Robb/House Rules Elton (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/User:Elton Robb/House Rules Elton). If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.

Thanks, Andrew, for linking "Raesene" to the proper Wiki article.

You are welcome, although possibly I should have linked him to the Gorgon instead - the Raesene Andu article I wrote is a tad biased from recollection.

I'm not familiar with the combat system from Iron Crown Enterprises but wish you the best of luck with your campaign.

I have to say I like the idea of combat styles for weapons as well as for unarmed combat - the 3.5e monk is fairly silly in my view - if their training can increase their weapon damage by 3 sizes (d2 to d8) why can't a fighter increase their weapons deadliness likewise? Any one who has seen how easily a knife, club, etc can cause serious damage (and compared it to a punch-up brawl) is all to familiar with why every single military force in history has trained its people in the best weapons available to it.

The martial arts fetish in many RPG's to me is either based on vastly more skilled martial artists than warriors (you have to be very good at unarmed combat to be as dangerous as someone unskilled with a weapon) or a cinematic gamestyle that ignores reality (I hit him, he is unconscious, next...) I can see the need for the heightened combat ability from a balance perspective but prefer martial artisits to get other benefits (rogue sneaking abilities, psion abilities, etc) than raw combat munchkin-ness.

[Elton Robb]

The martial arts fetish in many RPG's to me is either based on vastly more skilled martial artists than warriors (you have to be very good at unarmed combat to be as dangerous as someone unskilled with a weapon) or a cinematic gamestyle that ignores reality (I hit him, he is unconscious, next...) I can see the need for the heightened combat ability from a balance perspective but prefer martial artisits to get other benefits (rogue sneaking abilities, psion abilities, etc) than raw combat munchkin-ness.

That's why Martial Arts doesn't work in AD&D or D&D 3.x. They are a mishmash of broken, hard to understand rules. Although Unarmed Martial Arts have been improved by 3rd party books; these are largely ignored because people prefer the standard D&D rules.

I happen to like Arms Law; that although it is very deadly to PCs for being realistic; the rules for Martial Arts is simple to understand with that system. Grappling isn't resolved through a complicated mathematical formula; but adding bonuses and penalties and rolling and refering to two charts: one for striking, and one for critical striking (which causes problems for some D&D enthusiasts).

I have many more Martial Arts planned, especially Pankration: the 5 Tribes' unarmed martial art.

[Elton Robb]

I see that my house rules are getting popular. :)

[Thelandrin]

Well, in actuality, there is nothing munchkinny about the Monk. The only thing the Monk does well is stay out of danger, which is not terribly good for actually doing anything in combat. He can do mobility, skill use and hit points acceptably, but notably the rogue can do the first two much better. He can only fight as well as a cleric or rogue and is stuffed versus creatures with non-lawful/adamantine/magic DR. Without using weapons, he is robbed of the many weapon special abilities and will probably never get to use the many armour abilities.

A monk with full BAB and the ability to imbue his fists would be definitely more powerful, but I stil l doubt it would be considered munchkinny. For the record though, the Fighter is definitely one of the weakest classes.

[cccpxepoj]

For the record though, the Fighter is definitely one of the weakest classes.

I can't agree whit that, fighter is maybe weak whit special abilities but he's variety of feat's make him a dangerous opponent at any level.

[AndrewTall]

Well, in actuality, there is nothing munchkinny about the Monk. The only thing the Monk does well is stay out of danger, which is not terribly good for actually doing anything in combat. He can do mobility, skill use and hit points acceptably, but notably the rogue can do the first two much better. He can only fight as well as a cleric or rogue and is stuffed versus creatures with non-lawful/adamantine/magic DR. Without using weapons, he is robbed of the many weapon special abilities and will probably never get to use the many armour abilities.

A monk with full BAB and the ability to imbue his fists would be definitely more powerful, but I stil l doubt it would be considered munchkinny. For the record though, the Fighter is definitely one of the weakest classes.

Perhaps I should look at monks again. In my view one of the balances for the class - their ability to fight effectively after the PC's are stripped of equipment - occurs sufficiently rarely to be of benefit.

The class is not so much munchkinny - I can see the damage comparability to the fighter, but the concept of doing damage unarmed as easily as armed causes me realism issues, so not unbalanced but unreal... I would happily use monk as a fighter prestige class for example with monks using staffs, etc and use feats to represent their skill. The issue of DR would clearly be an issue if using monks - unless they have historically been common and so glove/gauntlet weapons are likewise common.

As regards the fighter I find effectiveness depends heavily on feat selection, the availability of magic, and the prevalence of combat in the game. If you go 3-4 sessions between fights the fighter will be pushed to contribute, if you have a roustabout a game they should be ok although some more skills wouldn't go amiss.

[Elton Robb]

I find the martial arts rules in AD&D 2e severely lacking; really. Even in 3.x. Although in 3.x they are greatly improved with feats; it's just that the feats are overly bloated. :(

That's not necessarily a bad thing; it's just that some feats aught to have been skills.

[kgauck]

One fix I like is to have feats activate a new skill. I do this with Shadow World skills. Aside from halflings, no one starts out with Shadow World skills as class skills or cross class skills. But after SW encounters, you can buy SW feats and these allow the purchase of SW skills for dealing with that menacing realm.

[Elton Robb]

Added an entry for Sidhelien archery. I think you'd recognize the Archer that represents an Cerilian Elven Archer. ;)

[Gman]

Have to agree with Andrew there - monks are my vote for a too powerful class- great saves - great allround good at everything. Make a Thrikreen monk...its seriously broken. Rangers are my vote for weakest.

Unreality aside (this is a - for fun RPG)

Martial arts fighting was either done because you were not allowed weapons or a prepartion for useing a weapon once you were skillful enough... Talk to any serious martial artist - they are not at all keen on taking a Katana off even an blatantly unskilled user (who has it out and is trying to kill them).

Medieval Martial arts is the term used by various enthusiasts of metal weapons - as any warrior is a skilled "martial artist".
Interestingly rogues using sneak attack on warriors strikes me as just as silly. Anyone serious about weapons training is trained in making critical strikes - and making sure that noone can hit vital points of their body without getting hurt themselves.

Thats my ten cents worth.:D

[Thelandrin]

A Thi-kreen monk is only broken if you don't properly understand the TWF rules. The monk is actually underpowered, just like the fighter.

(N.B. This isn't intended as an insult.)

[kgauck]

I think "broken" means it doesn't work with my assumptions or my gaming style. D&D runs the gamut from people who build characters with 4d6 drop the lowest, to people who build characters with 6 10's and require a disadvantage. Likewise classes will be created with enormous power and with very little power. As such, players look at one group of classes and powers and so on and declare them underpowered, others look at the other group and declare them overpowered.

Far more important, I think, is that the power level is the same within a game, not within all available classes.

I've seen campaigns where half-dragon aisimaar wizards and celestial fae paladins are common character concepts. It looks like they're having fun. My D&D campaign, being BR, is all human, no ECL bonus races, no template characters, and characters are built on the "elite array" 8,10, 12, 13, 14, 15. Its really a different game, with the same rules.

[Elton Robb]

And that is what is awesome about all roleplaying games in general. I collected a lot of Roleplaying Games, and they all achieve the same end result: fun. It's like this: when I want to do medieval in D&D, I play Birthright. When I want to do pseudo-medieval: Eberron (ee-BEAR-on for me) is a great setting. When I want to do sword-and-sorcery ... well.

I have a lot of ideas on doing a great setting based on the Eastern Roman Empire. :)

But all of those that I have seek to achieve the same end result. So, really, the System Debate is pointless.

[Dcolby]

Interestingly rogues using sneak attack on warriors strikes me as just as silly.

The rogues ability to strike for sneak attacks in 3 and 3.5 occurs far to often and under far to many circumstances in my opinion.

The issue I have with 3.5 is the tendancy of players to stop roleplaying and start munchkining...is that a word... engineering the characters to get the perfect feat selection in order to acheive the desired mechanical but not roleplaying result.

Don't get me wrong I think for ease of use for 3 and 3.5 are much smoother than previous editions, and thus I prefer it, But somewhere about the middle levels the D.M. must be careful to maintain his campaigns balence...and flavor.

[Gman]

I tend to use D&D for high fantasy.

Heroes who when confronted with dozens of average opponents make some quip and cut them all down in an instant or blast them all with obvious magic.

For Lord of the Rings (low fantasy) a Heavily modified Rune Quest system.
- When confronted with dozens of average opponents they start to sweat in fear.

But that's what I find the system lends itself to. I'm not saying you can't run either style of game with either system.

Game balance and balance between character class is (as always) ultimately up to the Gm. - My House rules fix what I perceive to be a weakness in Rangers.

Most character classes are usually rated by players in their ability in combat - to give and receive damage. Saves and skills are also mostly considered in this respect. Obviously "roleplaying" characters should be more than this.

The Birthright world is excellent because it is so well developed for politics and intrigue - for deep and complex roleplaying as well as a bit of crazy combat. As such - characters developed merely for combat power tend to be a bit one dimensional - especially if they gm puts them in situations where they can't just thug people.:)

I usually use the terms Muchkin-ing/ Max min or power gaming interchangably but I agree that 3.5 and especially 3.0 can get more difficult to balance in the mid levels.

As an aside - Monks in a game where high stats are allowed is more what I'm referring to when I find them comparitively high powered. They can be all round good at everything with very few weaknesses.

[Thelandrin]

That's quite true, Gman, but then in a high-stats game everyone will be more powerful. Those with synergistic bonuses (say, Dex & Wis to AC) will be slightly more powerful in their synergy areas.

Then again, most of the class imbalances occur at high-levels where the fighter's stream of feats (or the monk's quaintly-named flurry of misses) simply cannot compete with disintegrate, destruction or fire storm.