All fine with general stuff, item drops and downtime day, that’s what our system is about.
I am not sure about house rules. I would prefer if they are kept at a minimum. As little as possible.
Those points look like they are up to the DM to me. There are cases where some of those are possible to exploit, and there will always be players trying to do that, and the DM can (and should) say “NO”. But I am quite sure it’s not always the case.
New DMs may have a hard time judging when to say “NO” to something, but most of the problematic things come up T3+ anyway. And new DMs mostly stay in T1 and T2.
I, and probably most of us, know most of the common exploits from actually play or stories on the internet. So I don’t think players could sneakily do something game breaking. And sometimes, I think, you should be able to get away with something too powerful
All I wanted to say is: Only add house rules, which are really necessary for fair and fun play for everyone. Don’t make it more complicated than it already is. The DMs should be encouraged to veto (too) stupid things, but they can do that individually.
For me it’s about options im playing. If hunter’s mark requires concentration, the logical thing is to stand back and shoot arrows - not taking damage and not using any spells because I don’t want to waste those spell slots.
If it’s not a concentration thing, I am more likely to choose to be a melee ranger because I don’t lose it when I get attacked or when I cure wounds myself.
Obviously I am not really great at actually figuring out how stuff balances.
I do think Vishous has a point about minimizing house rules , though. It’s definitely true that anything I can read in the PHB is much easier for me as a new DM to figure out than other stuff.
Just one minor correction: Cure Wounds is not a concentration spell. But Healing Spirit, which is probably more common as a healing spell for rangers, is indeed. Just like almost all their other spells
That is true, I agree. I think we need to differentiate here between rules that affect character creation/builds - these should be standardized in VALUE - and rules that affect only affect gameplay, which individual DMs can decide on whether they use them at their table.
Examples for house rules that should be standardized in VALUE are our customized point buy system, banning races, classes or subclasses, the allowance of custom backgrounds and exotic languages in OneDnD or even the removal of concentration from Hunter’s Mark or Favored Foe (due to its implication on how/what you can build).
Examples for house rules that individual DMs should decide on whether they are going to use them at their table are these suggestions @Darthbinks listed:
or the rulings I listed as examples in my first post in this thread:
(I think it would be cool to also give reasons in the list of suggested rulings why we have listed rulings here, what the issues could be if these rulings are not used, so that especially new DMs know why we suggest these rulings. And such a list would also allow players to know that certain spells are risky because some DMs might not allow them).
If we weren’t standardizing house rules affecting character creation, we would end up with characters that are unplayable with certain DMs. Imagine you build a character using a custom background using OneDnD rules, and a DM does not allow custom backgrounds - you could not play that character at their table.
On the other hand, when you build, e.g., a wizard following our standized character creation rules, give them Silvery Barbs or Simulacrum, and end up playing at a table where the DM does not allow those spells (possibly because we listed those spells in our list of suggested rulings), you can still play the character perfectly fine - you just prepare different spells for that game.
Well written, that sounds very reasonable. A list of suggested rulings is also a good idea, so everyone knows what to expect. This shouldn’t be in the VALUE rules, but maybe like in one of those “info for new DMs” threads.
From my experience the issue of exploits will occur only rarely, like once every 3-5 games. And if both DM and players know what to expect (saying no + accepting a no) it won’t hinder the flow of the game in any way.
Not rule related, but something I would appreciate: a list of what is approved source content.
The current wording (something like… any officially released content…) is rather unhelpful to someone who has no idea what “official content” is. I think there are some links in the internet that we could just add to the character creation rules.
I would very much like to keep this option. I usually get very attached to my characters, so I prefer for them to have an option to be brought back by their party.
% agree with that, languages are a huge part of roleplay. For ex my very first character, which I played at the christmas oneshot last year, was originally a wood elf but got turned into a hexblood right after birth as part of a ritual and then grew up in fey society. So even though they were born as an elf originally, it made much more sense for them to have sylvan as their native language. So if possible, I would def want to have that option.
Regarding the custom backgrounds, it would def be sad to see them go. Of course as some ppl have stated already, the house rules shouldn’t be overcrowded also not to confuse new players at our tables.
Since we’re still in the initial, convoluted form of the conversation, I’m going to express my thoughts on general topics. I will give some examples of how that translates in my view, but I won’t speak to all the rulings.
#1) VALUE should be welcoming and enabling to new players.
One of the things I’ve appreciated most about RPG Vienna is how welcoming it is to new people. It’s something that I would like to continue.
For me, that means I would like to protect T1. I would like to keep the average T1 adventure at a power level that someone brand new to the game doesn’t feel overmatched and feels like they are contributing.
Example: Down-leveling. I think being able to move from T3 to T2 has some merit. But I don’t think you should be able to down-level to T1. Even if you give up the T2+ magic items, a down-leveled character would have the equipment and gold to outshine beginners.
#2) Character power levels in VALUE don’t need to go up.
As a player and occasional DM, I’ve never thought “VALUE characters are just so weak, we really need to find a way to make them more powerful.”
As a result, I’m hesitant to do things that “just make people better”. Whether it’s to unarmed strike for more damage, improve a specific spell, etc. I don’t think we did the same before for anything considered weak.
#3) Increasing outside-of-play flexibility for experienced players can be good (T2+)
Since VALUE is episodic, I can see a benefit to adding increased flexibility for established characters as it’s not disruptive to a campaign.
Example: Retraining a feat/ASI via downtime days. I think that’s a lot better than having to level a brand new, almost identical character.
In general, a lot of the new suggestions for Downtime Day use sound good! I don’t think I’ve ever seen a language or tool proficiency break a game, so maybe it’ll help add flavor to characters. If we make Downtime Activities more fun/relevant to the characters, people might not use them to level, regardless of what’s ruled in that regard.
#4) We should minimize the house rules for character creation/during play
As a follow up to “being welcome to new players”, like others have said, the more house rules we have, the harder it is for new players to join.
We’re not going to completely balance an entire D&D ruleset no matter what we do. So I think we should focus on stopping singular features/spells that are continuously gaming breaking, ensuring that character creation is standardized/even as possible, and ensuring smooth play for DMs and whole group.
#5) It’s important to enable VALUE DMs and give them backup.
DMs should feel like they have support from the VALUE rules, and the flexibility to rule as they need to during play. For that balance, I defer to the regular DMs.
I actually think allowing new T1 characters to be created at levels 2, 3 and 4 would help with this.
While experienced players like me typically aim for higher tiers, sometimes there are only T1 games available. When I play T1, I do not want to play level 1 as I strongly dislike level 1 gameplay - therefore, with our current rules, (unless I spend DM rewards to create a T1 character at level 3 or 4) I have to use one of my old T1 level 4 characters that have been played for many games and have much more gold and more powerful equipment than new characters.
If we were allowed to create T1 characters at level 4, I could make a new one at that level, who is bare-bones in terms of equipment and thus much more close in terms of power level to other new characters.
I don’t … why play level 1 then?
if you don’t want to play level 1 … join a T2-T3 table
thankfully there are enough of them there these days
I strongly believe that we should keep the houserules simple
(e.g. ban spell X)
When we start errata the Ranger, should we housrule the new Rogue next?
Aside from penalizing players, who play with an app.
This is not a problem in home campaigns … but in VALUE we should keep it simple.
This is in addition to my points that the new Ranger is fine.
(I miss the exploration-fluff abilities though)
Also I strongly advocate for all VALUE DMs playing with (kinda) the same ruleset.
It is def. confusing if every DM post their individual “BAN-LIST ™” underneath their post in every weekly VALUE thread
Here i think this is a principles thing - trying to mechanically restrict experienced players is playing whack-a-mole. No matter how we twiddle the rules, one of the old guard turning up with a min-maxed character and dominating a T1 table of newbies so their fun is ruined is always going to be doable if they want to.
Making ithe principle clear we expect anyone who sits to our tables to help make it fun for everyone at those tables, DMs included, would let us be more relaxed about the mechanical exploits.
This would let us minimise the house rules and minimise what extra newcomers need to take in before joining us.
Removing concentration from Hunter’s Mark or Favored Foe does not penalize players with an app, as the spell or ability otherwise stays the same and does exactly what is written within the app. And it is, from my experience, a very common and simple houserule (regarding Favored Foe at least) that makes the class so much more fun to play.
I don’t want to play level 1. But sometimes I want to or have to play Tier 1. Maybe because there is no T2+ table available, or the only T2 table is already booked out. Or someone I want to play with plays T1. Sometimes this happens.
With our current rules, the only two choices a player has for T1 is to either play an old character at level 3 or 4 that already has a lot of good equipment and is going to dominate or to create a new character at level 1.
For a player who doesn’t enjoy level 1 gameplay at all, like me, that means they have to use the same level 3 or 4 character over and over again. Which widens the power gap between them and new characters every time due to accumulating more gold and gear.
And it makes T1 gameplay boring eventually. It also takes away from creativity as you cannot bring a new character idea to life in T1 unless you have DM rewards and are willing to use them to level a new character with a potentially whacky/weird build up to level 3 or 4.
In the previous season, that issue did not exist, as we could create new characters at every level in T1. (Of course there were other issues back then like no limit to the number of magic items.) But regardless, we could bring new level 3 or 4 characters to any T1 game, fresh characters that had not yet got any gold or gear rewards, characters we were looking forward to try out.
Exactly, fully agree with you. But the issue with our current rules is that they force the experienced players to dominate T1 (with characters that have accumulated tons of rewards) more or less, because they are barred from creating new characters unless they want to play level 1 - which few experienced players want.
I kind of understand a lot of this, though I probably don’t understand enough to have clear opinions on these things. I do love dialog And I’m sure whatever will be decided in the end will work out nicely.
I guess I feel like having level 1 characters a requirement rather than an option will lead to more level 1 characters, which helps new players.
And while I see your point in characters who are level 4 forever and ever being OP in comparison to other, newer T1s, it seems to me that using them in a way that dominates the other characters is very much a choice anyone can make or not make.
We COULD also get rid of this by making leveling up after an adventure a requirement rather than a choice. Not necessarily for that, but just a thought.
“tons of rewards” ?
you know, that you can bring only oneuncommon item to a T1 game … so no issue
the limit in magic items is there for exactly that reason
Gold, for example. Wearing better armor than any new character and buying other mundane items. Also, using consumables, which we can have more than one of in a T1 adventure.
Also, I am not much of a fan of the idea of forcing level-ups. With how quickly characters level up in VALUE and the rarity of high tier games, I think it is perfectly valid to keep a character in T2 even after they got to level 10.
there is a max. of 5 consumeables
and the better armor is +1 AC at best
that’s nice … but does not change my argument
I do understand, that you do not want to play low level
(not the reasons though … but if you do not enjoy smth. you don’t enjoy it)
agree with that
that’s why I strongly believe that we let new T1 characters start with level 1
just as any new VALUE player dropped in from critical role/BG/stranger things/etc., who wants to get eased into the game
@Arthilas’s purposed rulechange would kill level 1-2 play
I like playing at level 3 or 4, but despise level 1 - and I am likely not the only one. But forcing new characters to be level 1 ruins T1 for experienced players like me.
DMs who want to run games for new players can do what already is done quite regularly for other tiers - announce their game as “low T1” and only allow level 1 and 2 characters - or as “high T1” for level 3 and 4.
Aside from that, even new players who play for their second (if using downtime) or 3rd time will have level 3+ characters in T1 and thus could join a high T1 table, while the first-timers play a level 1 game together.
% agree with that, languages are a huge part of roleplay. For ex my very first character, which I played at the christmas oneshot last year, was originally a wood elf but got turned into a hexblood right after birth as part of a ritual and then grew up in fey society. So even though they were born as an elf originally, it made much more sense for them to have sylvan as their native language. So if possible, I would def want to have that option.
agree with that