|
Post by MjolnirH on Dec 7, 2007 6:25:24 GMT -5
but what if the multi-class makes sense?
I'm currently involved in a Pathfinder, rise of the runelords campaign. The Barbarians in this world are described as a Native American type of peoples rather than the Nordic type. OK so far I have my barbarian levels, but I don't think it would be that much of a stretch for me to take a couple of levels in ranger
|
|
|
Post by grond on Dec 7, 2007 21:09:31 GMT -5
Well, the way I would approach that is to set logical requirements for becoming a ranger, a barbarian, a rogue, a wizard or whatever. These would be the basic backgrounds a 1st level character of one of these classes would have. Since rangers and barbarians live in similar circumstances, they would likely have similar backgrounds. In order to multiclass into any base class, the character would need to undergo some experience along the lines of the basic background. Since ranger and barbarian would be similar (and wizard and cleric, or monk and cleric or ranger and druid) most of the background requirements would be met. That way, characters are discouraged from taking a lot of different classes solely for the early abilities since they would have to actually develop "experience" (not xp) for the class.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Dec 9, 2008 14:07:34 GMT -5
Not sure this is house rules, but I was looking at this online the other day and thought it looked kinda cool. I tend to agree with much of what is said, though perhaps level 8 as a break might work too. Either way, worth looking at. Something that I would consider doing, though obviously not with LGG5. forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=352719
|
|
agamoto
Youth
Minister of the First Church of Cheesecake/Urak
Posts: 42
|
Post by agamoto on Dec 29, 2008 0:30:09 GMT -5
In one of the gaming groups I used to play with, there was way to much out of game chatter, so the DM imposed a house rule that stated "If you say it, your character said it.". It cut down on the extra chatter real quick!
|
|
Steve
Braggart
THAT'S A STATISTICAL ANOMALY!
Posts: 148
|
Post by Steve on Apr 6, 2009 21:38:35 GMT -5
I added a custom feat, Throw. It works very similarly to bull rush.
Throw [General] You can lift opponents into the air and throw them. Prerequisites: Str 15, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple Benefit: After successfully grappling an opponent, you may use a full-round action to lift them into the air above you by making an opposed strength check. You must have both hands free to perform this action. This provokes attacks of opportunity from anyone other than the victim. You then make a second strength check vs. DC 15 (+4 for every size category larger the victim is, -4 for every category smaller) to throw the opponent. If you fail, the victim falls on you, both of you falling prone in your space. If you succeed, the victim automatically moves 5 feet backward and is knocked prone.For every 5 points by which your roll exceeds the DC, you can throw them another 5 ft. If they hit a wall and still have a distance to move, they take 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 5 feet beyond the wall they would have moved.
Special: You may attempt to throw with one hand, but you take a -10 to your Strength check.
I'm not sure if this is balanced or not. Comments/criticism?
|
|
|
Post by Dragonsrule on Apr 6, 2009 22:17:42 GMT -5
Honestly, if the grapple is with someone a size category more than you, you would never be able to lift them with a STR of 13. If you even managed a grapple, then the opposed must have been a 1. For that feat, I think a STR of 18 would be needed.
I am a fan of Pro Wrestling. Look at is Rey Mysterio have a STR of 13, only because of the steriod use and weight training. I can not remember the last time, I ever saw him even attempt to lift up another wrestler, for a body slam. He would never be able to lift up Big Show who would be a full size higher than him, and I would put that DC as +10 as being more realistic than a +4 to DC for that attempt. Plus he would have to take damage, for both falling, just for the difference in weight.
I like the feat but it really needs more required to take it. Look at it like Giants who throw stones. Most adventurers are not going to be able to pick up the stones thrown at them, and throw them back.
|
|
Steve
Braggart
THAT'S A STATISTICAL ANOMALY!
Posts: 148
|
Post by Steve on Apr 7, 2009 6:17:04 GMT -5
That's kind of the idea. Str 13 is only the minimum prereq. With that, you can still have a chance to lift an equal-sized creature. If they're larger, you'd better be a freakin' greek god.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Apr 7, 2009 12:06:43 GMT -5
Maybe a prereq of Imp Unarmed Strike, Imp Grapple, and STR 15?
Also, my understanding of grappling is attempting to establish a hold. If the hold gets established, then you can attempt a pin, as I recall. Maybe the thrower should be required to establish a pin first?
Don't know... don't play grapply characters much. More of a rogue or caster kinda fella myself.
PS - and why not throw em directly into a wall? that's just cool points right there...
|
|
Steve
Braggart
THAT'S A STATISTICAL ANOMALY!
Posts: 148
|
Post by Steve on Apr 7, 2009 14:07:03 GMT -5
Edited the requirements a bit and modified the action, adding a special ability for the retardedly strong.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Apr 7, 2009 14:41:57 GMT -5
I avoid playing grappling type characters because I feel the grapple rules are a pain in the butt. Way too many rolls to do anything. Also, most people are vague on the rules and much time gets wasted trying to figure them out.
Tomas
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Apr 10, 2009 20:52:12 GMT -5
I like the feat now, BTW - I'd let it in one of my games, and I am usually pretty strict. I would be interested to see how the check works, though - estimating DCs like that is not my strong suit. I can just see Roc or Hank tossing the dwarf now...
|
|
|
Post by grond on Jun 11, 2009 7:51:33 GMT -5
I think that making the throw specifically a full round action as stated up there definitely leaves it as reasonable, without requiring the victim to be pinned first. Speaking of grappling and the consequences therein, we have often house ruled a 25% chance of hitting the wrong person with a melee attack into a grapple. I had long thought it was a stated rule that when attacking one creature in a square occupied by another creature, there is a 25% chance to get the wrong guy (stated with that specific cause in the bull rush description in the combat chapter of PHB). I'd like to point out that table 8-6 actually has a footnote stating "Roll randomly to determine which grappling combant you strike" in reference to both ranged and melee attacks into a grapple. That is on page 151. A thought I had about multiclassing that smooths the way between related classes, yet challenges players coming from a relatively different class is to require that the player have 2 ranks in 2 class skills of the new class before joining it, possibly even specific skills for specific classes. Thus a fighter seeking to become a wizard would need to take ranks in spellcraft and knowledge arcana, while a ranger seeking to become a rogue might already have the requisite ranks in hide and move silently, connecting the fact that both are stealth characters and should not have as difficult a time multiclassing. Oh yeah, as a person who is surrounded by experience taught people, paying to level up, or aquire a feat is a little ridiculous. I think buying xp at 1 xp for 10 gp or 100 gp would reflect paying for training, but actually hitting goblins with every ounce of force and technique is an excellent way to learn cleave. So is chopping wood for 200 hrs (learn cleave trying to split 2 logs at once). Just because someone can pay to learn how to do something, doesn't mean they can't learn by trying. Paying would just be safer. My 2 cents, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Feb 23, 2011 20:19:47 GMT -5
I am trying a new house rule with my current group of players to help keep a little bit of the in character mood around. It is an uphill battle, but I'm trying to have everyone do things like spot and listen checks every time they enter a new space. This allows me to sort out what they see and hear, and what they miss (which may be nothing) without cluing them into the idea that there is something they might have missed. I always hated being told to roll a spot check, getting a low result and knowing that I was going to be ambushed (not because of the low result, but because the DM mostly only calls for checks when there is a trap to find, or a monster that is hiding). The worst is secret doors. You roll behind a screen and players think something is up, but if you have them roll, they know something is up. If they always roll just out of habit, then maybe there is nothing, or maybe they just didn't find it, and the DM didn't give anything away. The alternative; if they forget to make the rolls, than the character wasn't paying attention and deserves to miss out, or get sucker punched. The other way I've seen this done (by Dmitri in particular) is to have each player roll 10 or 15 d20s. DM records the results, and then uses the results each time a player would have a chance to notice the secret door or realize that the mayor is lying or that there is a man behind the curtain. I like this approach for keeping the story running smoothly, but I prefer my first approach for keeping players on edge. Return dead threads return and claim your vengeance!!!!!
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Feb 23, 2011 20:48:57 GMT -5
Yea, I like doing it my way for this game, but I have actually been considering using your approach in future games, just to see how it works. I don't like the fact that it COULD take up lots of time, but I do like that it keeps players on edge as you say, and more engaged than my "seamless" method, which can take away from player actions in game.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Feb 24, 2011 7:22:26 GMT -5
I actually prefer the third approach from a story telling point of view. As a DM I will have the players key skills behind the screen and I handle the initial spot and listens. Searches are active, time consuming events, so the players must declare them anyhow. (Elf excluded for secret doors)
I also don't feel that Spot and Listen have yes/no results. A lot of tension can be generated with vague comments from the DM.
The "problem" with Nick's method is remembering to do it. It is so different and we don't play often enough for it to sink in.
Tom
|
|