* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : The "Player's Option" rules... Started at 02-02-07 03:46 AM by Llwch Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=783781 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Llwch Date : 02-02-07 03:46 AM Thread Title : The "Player's Option" rules... Heya folks... Just a quick headcount to see if anyone here uses (or has used in the past) the Player's Option ("Combat & Tactics", "Skills & Powers" and "Spells & Magic") books. Without falling into the "those rules are nothing but fodder for munchkins", please note that this topic is for those who use the rules as a means of adding to game excitement, variety, etc. If you hate the rules, please use discretion, and try to provide some useful feedback, where warranted. If you use these rules, how do you use them? What parts have you laid aside (as not everyone will like all elements of these optional rules), and what parts have you embraced? What sections have you re-written and adapted into your setting? Do you have any sites with optional files, character sheets (and so on) for the PO series? If you do, please share them here! Personally, I do use the PO series, and find they aren't any more (or less) unbalancing to play than any other rule addition - if the DM has good judgement, and doesn't play favourites amongst his players (or the characters), then usage of these rules shouldn't break the game. IMHO, just like the PHBR series prior to the release of the Player's Option had the same potential for abuse - since I had to approve IN ENTIRETY anything listed on the character sheet. The only ones in my gaming group who complained about me performing said review were those who were rampantly trying to min/max their characters... Please share your thoughts, and any links you have for other material - I'm trying to gather what I can for my own campaign (and will appreciate any help the gang here can provide). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : oralpain Date : 02-02-07 08:35 AM Thread Title : Re: The "Player's Option" rules... The "Player's Option" books are best used by the DM as tools to customise things to his or her campaign. I do not allow player's to use the customization rules. I use them myself, as DM. When I'm making a new type of specialty priest, I use the section on customising priests in the "Spells and Magic" to quickly achive a relative balance with other priest classes. The same idea applies most any time I feel a derivative class would be useful. That said, I do use a large portion of the other rules from the "Spells and Magic" and the "Combat and Tactics". I do not normally use the new critical hit charts (though I do use the basic system introduced in the C&T), character points, initiative system, nor the revision of psionics introduced in the S&P (which is fundamentaly broken, even after errat, in my opinion). In generall, if it's value is not worth the time to impliment/use, I don't bother with it. A few examples of what I have done: I have made changes to weapon groups and reorganized weapon tables/descriptions to be more plausible (fewer distinct weapon types, realistic [lower] weights for weapons, elimintated variable damage based on opponent size, ect). I now use the spell point system, but I do not allow the selection of free magics (I still require all spells to be designated during memorization/preparation) and I impose no limit on the spells memorizeable per level. If a 15th level PC mage wants to memorize one-hundred magic missile spells, so be it. It is, afterall, his loss. I use a simplified, and what I feel is a more plausible, version of the fatigue system from the C&T. I subtract 2 fatigue points per round of melee combat and 1 per round of missile combat (attempting fire from within a melee is melee combat), irrespective of number of attacks, or normal movement. My rationale is that, an increased rate of attack indicates greater skill and efficency, not more swings, nor an expenditure of more energy. Certain special manuvers (charging, sprinting, use of the tumbling proficency, unarmed combat vs. an armed opponent, ect) will be more fatiguing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : RobertFisher Date : 02-02-07 01:22 PM Thread Title : Re: The "Player's Option" rules... I bought Skills & Powers because a friend had recommended it as the best AD&D book to date. I never used it, though. At that point I was just beginning to rekindle an interest in (A)D&D because of its simplicity compared to most of the systems I was playing. So, adding complexity was the opposite of what I was looking for in AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : khyron1144 Date : 02-08-07 11:32 AM Thread Title : Re: The "Player's Option" rules... I've used some of the Player's Option rules sometimes. I generally ignore the subability system from Skills & Powers but allow the race and class customization when I'm dealing with experienced players. I prefer the PHB ability-score-based system for non-weapon-proficiences (NWPs) rather than the Skills & Powers, lower chance of success version. I also prefer the PHB slots system over Character Points for NWPs and Weapon Proficiencies because the Character Points version seems to hose PCs a bit in terms of number of NWPs. I also once ran a game that used the Combat & Tactics critical hit system based off the preview in Dragon. I didn't read it carefully, regarding the weapon size vs. critted creature rule, and just used a straight 1d20 roll for severity. It was kind of funny, but a few too many instant deaths. Now that I understand it better, I might try it again. I have played two of the specialty wizards first introduced in Skills & Powers and elaborated on in Spells & Magic: a geometer, named Euclid Euler Pythagoras e pi i, and an alchemist named, There's Antimony, Arsenic, Aluminum, Selenium, and Hydrogen, and Oxygen and Nitrogen and Rhenium (sung quickly to the tune of "I Am The Very Model of A Modern Major General"). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Agathokles Date : 02-09-07 05:11 PM Thread Title : Re: The "Player's Option" rules... The "Player's Option" books are best used by the DM as tools to customise things to his or her campaign. I do not allow player's to use the customization rules. I use them myself, as DM. When I'm making a new type of specialty priest, I use the section on customising priests in the "Spells and Magic" to quickly achive a relative balance with other priest classes. The same idea applies most any time I feel a derivative class would be useful. That said, I do use a large portion of the other rules from the "Spells and Magic" and the "Combat and Tactics". I agree 100% with the above. Myself, I use really little from Combat & Tactics -- only weapon proficiency/specialization rules. The rest IMO tends to make the game more complex, without adding much. I do use the customization rules from Skills & Powers as in the quoted post as well as the revised skill descriptions (though not CPs or the S&P NWP system itself). I don't use PO kits -- too bland, I prefer setting-specific kits. I (generally) don't use the variant rules from Spells & Magic, though I do not specifically dislike them -- it's just that they don't fit with the type of settings I usually play in. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:21 AM.