|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the discussion thread for my rewrite of the 3.5 system for my home games. Documents can be viewed/downloaded here. Campaign setting discussion can be found here and is welcome in this thread as well. I believe houserules should be integrated with homebrew settings, and plan on following that idea. Currently, only bare race statistics are posted for review. Planned houserule implementations: Kirthfinder weapon proficiencies.
Any comments are welcome, especially name suggestions for catfolk and dragonborn races. After reading up on 3rd edition, Frank and K's Tomes, Conan d20, playing 3.5, Pathfinder, Kirthfinder, and many other houseruled games, I've come to realize something. The rules you use don't actually contribute a lot to the actual play. It's been pointed out that large-scale houseruling ends up mostly unused. And I've seen that with Kirthfinder. (I promise I'm starting to remember to count my battle fatigue penalties Kirth!) But even minor houseruling doesn't change the balance all that much. And I certainly don't see Pathfinder as any more balanced than 3.5. The pivot point just moved a little. I even see the skeleton of 3E when I do a deep look at 4E, past the flesh and makeup. (Maybe not in that order.) Really, the group you play with has the greatest impact. How high your point-buy is has a far greater effect on the game than swapping PF CMB/D in place of 3.5 maneuvers. Your group will find the balance that works for them with a little settling. What rules you use are really more like the pink handlebar tassels on your bike. Blueluck wrote:
DMPCs, like anything else, can be bad if handled wrong. They can also be good for the game. In my first campaign, I included a Miniatures Handbook Healer as the fourth character. She was pure support, an extra source of healing. The only time she ever stepped on the parties' toes was against undead, where her Heals were the strongest offense available. Another benefit was I had a constant character to speak through when the party wanted nudges in the right direction. She never made decisions, only gave advice. Can DMPCs take over the campaign? Certainly. Is this the fault of the NPC? No. It's the fault of the DM misusing them. kyrt-ryder wrote: That is a fascinating hole in the rules. So really a Monk is only not full BAB when he is approaching a target or on an AoO. He can even make a full BAB single strike and break off. Help me determine when a Monk uses his natural BAB. 1. AoOs.
Am I missing anything? I sometimes find myself wondering if my post was one of the ones deleted when Ross mentions it. Or worse, I come back a day later and feel like I made a post, but can no longer find it. Makes me wonder if it was deleted without notice. I'm not sure if anything can be done about this, or even that something should be done. I'm not asking to add to the moderation workload with notifications or the like, just putting the observation out there. Houserule documents can be viewed/downloaded at my Google Site. Previous discussions can be found here. Design work by Kirth Gersen.
Kirth, I'm sorry for the horrible title. Not sorry enough to change it however. ;) Your orcish party rounds a corner and comes face-to-face with a human (or elf, or whatever). Your GM says "Roll initiative." You win, and go first. My guess is that 99% of the roleplaying groups out there would act on a preconceived generalization about the human (or elf) race and attack. However, is attacking the human unprovoked an evil act? Is it racist? After all, they haven't done anything (yet) to provoke the attack, and you have no proof that they will do anything. If you think attacking a character because of their (fantasy) race is evil, how many Paladins (and GMs) just sweep that grey area under the rug and don't talk about it? I mention this because having an human or elf PC is a possible choice in Pathfinder. I also like to introduce new players in an organic way, rather than "poof", player X appears out of thin air. Also, as a player, I've almost killed a new half-elf character joining the group in this same way (we had recently been fighting elves), not realizing that the half-elf I saw was supposed to be the new PC. I'll admit that I think it is evil to attack anyone unprovoked, but my characters have done it (see the above example) and as a GM, I do nothing about it when my players make those choices. Alright people, you don't like a thread? Don't post in it. Don't like a posters attitude, or feel they're insulting others? Don't reply to it. Some troll trying to stir up the edition wars again? Don't answer. A thread can't continue without replies. A troll can't flame in no one responds to him. And posting to a thread you don't like won't kill it. Flag it however you think appropriate. And shut up about it. Telling someone you flagged them defeats the purpose of the flag system. You can't change people's habits through vigilante posting. The only people here that can inflict sanctions are the mods. Let them handle the policing. And have a nice day. Spoiler:
Yes, I am aware of the meta about to descend. Let's see which way it goes. People seem to think some characters can't wear armor, because they'll lose everything. I've found this to be untrue. Pay attention to what you get, and you might find out a one level dip for heavy armor proficiency might not be that bad. Barbarian: Fast Movement. Seriously, that's all you lose. Many archtypes trade it out, meaning you lose nothing. Rogue: Evasion. Another class that only loses one ability. The rogue can't swap it out as easily as the barbarian does Fast Movement, but that just means you have access to it while sleeping or in social encounters that prohibit armor. Ranger: Combat Style, Evasion. A bit more serious, since Combat Style is a very handy set of bonus feats. No archetypes replace this, although some trade out Evasion. Monk: Flurry of Blows, Fast Movement, AC Bonus, and Evasion. You might think an armored monk makes no sense. However, you can still use all your ki abilities, most of your defensive abilities, and your regular unarmed strike. Factor in the fact that many archetypes trade out one or more of the lost abilities (Sensei trades all but AC Bonus!) and you find you don't really lose anything. And like the rogue, if you don't trade them out, they all come back when you're forced to go unarmored. So what does this all mean? It means feel free to dip a level in fighter and then be a full-plated monk the rest of the game. Don't be afraid to armor up your rogue. It means you can be atypical, and break the stereotype of your class. Having adopted delvesdeep's alternate Cagewrights in my game, I'm constantly thinking of things to tweak for my current playthrough. One thing that jumped out at me was his description of Alurad in his foreshadowing, that he wears a necklace of human hearts. I thought to myself 'why not use that to make Alurad even more dangerous'? Meerthan mentions that Alurad had killed his mentor in their last battle before being slain himself. However, by the AP he is back to life ready to go. Before I figured that his allies just sprang for his rez. Then I thought 'what if his necklace was a contingency to bring him back to life'? So the purpose of this thread is to brainstorm the exact effects of a horrible item that uses human sacrifice as fuel for contingency magic. Tentative item title is 'the Chain of Hearts', but please feel free to suggest others. I figure possible effects could be things like Heal, Word of Recall on the body, Raise or Resurrection effects, Restoration to remove negative levels, and Mindblank or Nondetection to prevent following. Thoughts? So one thing that the Pathfinder skill system lost from 3.5 is allowing 1st level characters to dabble in many different skills. Each class is locked into X+Int skills at 1st level. Which means your 8 Int Half-orc Fighter has two whole skills to his name. In 3.5, he could have trained in four of them if he felt like it. Over in this post I came up with a handy little houserule to cover this issue. Like the draw-as-part-of-a-move-action and rogues-without-weapon-finesse, it only comes into play at 1st level. But for those who play really slowly, this idea could be of some use. Quote: At 1st level, a character may put one-half a rank into any skill. While this does not grant a bonus on skill checks, as a full rank does, it allows a character to make checks with a trained-only skill. If the skill is a class skill, the character gains one-half of the class skill bonus, for a total of +2 to skill checks. At 2nd level, the character must increase all half ranks to full ranks. The final sentence can be omitted for players who want complete freedom, but I doubt anyone will want to keep putting half ranks into things unless they are really short on points. Okay, I know this thread is coming. So I might as well start it. The Monk Vows in Ultimate Magic allow a monk to get extra ki points for holding themselves to certain vows. One of these is the Vow of Poverty. The monk gets to add 1/2 his level to his ki pool by owning nothing but a few common effects. This seems like a good thing for some campaigns, not so good for others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
