1001 cool ways to break the rules


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Jaelithe wrote:


#39 Make casters find, steal, create, barter, be rewarded, receive as gifts and/or pray for their spells, rather than a player simply opening a rulebook, pointing, and saying, "Me likee dis one!"

that's what the game implies with the "every time you gain a level add 2 spells to your book"


#40 No more penalty to spellcasting with armor. I've never understood it. None of the spells I recall ever mention the caster doing anything more complicated than hand gestures.

#41 Arcane casters can use healing spells. They can tap the negative energy plane they should be able to tap the positive one too.

#42 Divine casters are always better at casting healing spells than arcane ones are. They get some bonus to the HP they can heal.


kikidmonkey wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:


#39 Make casters find, steal, create, barter, be rewarded, receive as gifts and/or pray for their spells, rather than a player simply opening a rulebook, pointing, and saying, "Me likee dis one!"
that's what the game implies with the "every time you gain a level add 2 spells to your book"

I don't want it hand-waved. I want it role-played.


Meeting with other wizards in a secret club, named after your school, where you copy spells from each other's books.
#43 First edition style things are called primordial. If a primordial Troll gets chopped up, the pieces all start to regenerate. After the 5th generation of this it becomes a normal, less magical, Troll. A Primordial Potion of Poison is save or die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
kikidmonkey wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:


#39 Make casters find, steal, create, barter, be rewarded, receive as gifts and/or pray for their spells, rather than a player simply opening a rulebook, pointing, and saying, "Me likee dis one!"
that's what the game implies with the "every time you gain a level add 2 spells to your book"
I don't want it hand-waved. I want it role-played.

So roleplay it. You don't need a house rule for that.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
kikidmonkey wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:


#39 Make casters find, steal, create, barter, be rewarded, receive as gifts and/or pray for their spells, rather than a player simply opening a rulebook, pointing, and saying, "Me likee dis one!"
that's what the game implies with the "every time you gain a level add 2 spells to your book"
I don't want it hand-waved. I want it role-played.
So roleplay it. You don't need a house rule for that.

Ninja'd by 30 minutes. Stupid dinner...

Liberty's Edge

Indagare wrote:

#40 No more penalty to spellcasting with armor. I've never understood it. None of the spells I recall ever mention the caster doing anything more complicated than hand gestures.

#41 Arcane casters can use healing spells. They can tap the negative energy plane they should be able to tap the positive one too.

#42 Divine casters are always better at casting healing spells than arcane ones are. They get some bonus to the HP they can heal.

RE:#40: Dear sweet non-demoninational savior, yes! If armored casters scare you, it's the "caster" part that's the problem, not the "armor" part.

#44: Successful combat maneuvers do not provoke, and neither does movement. Dropping a trip weapon prevents the AoO from failure. Using other weapons with combat maneuver bonuses likewise prevents an AoO from failure.

#45: Power Attack and Deadly Aim are just at thing you can do, no feat necessary. (All aboard the "Stop the Feat Tax!" train!)

#46: Feats that require Weapon Focus as a pre-requisite apply to ALL weapons for which you have Weapon Focus. Weapon Training also fulfills any Weapon Focus pre-requisites and allows those feats to work with all weapons in that group. (Choo! Choo!)

#47: Improved Weapon Finesse - Dex to damage, but only if you leave a hand free; only requires Weapon Focus and Weapon Finesse and applies to all weapons with which you have weapon focus or weapon training.


It should go without saying that most new things obtained at level-up should be role played, at least to some extent...
One doesn't start speaking new languages or become more deadly against a never-before-met kind of creature from dusk to dawn.


kikidmonkey wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
kikidmonkey wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:


#39 Make casters find, steal, create, barter, be rewarded, receive as gifts and/or pray for their spells, rather than a player simply opening a rulebook, pointing, and saying, "Me likee dis one!"
that's what the game implies with the "every time you gain a level add 2 spells to your book"
I don't want it hand-waved. I want it role-played.
So roleplay it. You don't need a house rule for that.
Ninja'd by 30 minutes. Stupid dinner...

Part of the point is that spells, in my opinion, should not simply be given out automatically upon achieving a level, nor should you be able to simply select the ones you want off a list without regard to the campaign's makeup or despite the fact that the DM doesn't want to allow those particular spells in his or her game. And since selecting whatever spells you want is mandated in the rules, the rules have to be ignored or broken.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
Part of the point is that spells, in my opinion, should not simply be given out automatically upon achieving a level, nor should you be able to simply select the ones you want off a list without regard to the campaign's makeup or despite the fact that the DM doesn't want to allow those particular spells in his or her game. And since selecting whatever spells you want is mandated in the rules, the rules have to be ignored or broken.

This is definitely the domain of house rules, but I agree that it is emminently logical and could add in a touch of realism <gasp> in the game. New spells on level-up are supposed to represent a PC's downtime research efforts, so I don't think you'd want to be too severe...

- you could require that players choose only core rulebook spells, unless they can posit access to other spells through another source.

- you could require wizard PCs to have access to a master, a colleague, a wizard college or at least a good library.

- you could allow players to buy scrolls at a local shop, learn spells from captured enemy spellbooks and the like, but... those methods are usually the ones used to increase your spellbook *beyond* the standard two spells per level.

Bottom line, a wizard's power is in the breadth and versatility of his spellbook. You don't want to limit wizard PCs' access to new spells *too* much, because that would be very un-fun. But if you establish RP-intensive house rules early in the campaign and get players to agree that they are a fun addition to the game, why not? Restricting automatic spell access to the CRB seems like the most sensible way to keep wacky spells out of your game, but it really all comes down to your relationships with your players. Always best to go for consensual solutions rather than dictatorial ones.


Aside from trying to gimp spellcasters a tiny bit so they're less dominant over martials, there's no reason to not follow this logic and make the fighter train for six hours a day in addition to leveling up before gaining a feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Part of the point is that spells, in my opinion, should not simply be given out automatically upon achieving a level, nor should you be able to simply select the ones you want off a list without regard to the campaign's makeup or despite the fact that the DM doesn't want to allow those particular spells in his or her game. And since selecting whatever spells you want is mandated in the rules, the rules have to be ignored or broken.

If you have players who will choose spells entirely heedless of whether it makes sense within the campaign or against the wishes of the GM, then the problem there seems more like one of a poor player-GM dynamic, not just "there's technically no hard rule restricting a wizard from picking literally any spell that has ever been published."


FinalParagon wrote:
If you have players who will choose spells entirely heedless of whether it makes sense within the campaign or against the wishes of the GM, then the problem there seems more like one of a poor player-GM dynamic, not just "there's technically no hard rule restricting a wizard from picking literally any spell that has ever been published."

Could be either or both, actually.

It's far more interesting, in my opinion, to have arcane spell-casters struggle and scrounge for much of their magic. Since they're eventually going to shake reality with it, the endeavor to achieve that mastery should reflect that.

On the other hand, if a player would find that frustrating and despise such a struggle, hand-waving it becomes more viable.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Aside from trying to gimp spell-casters a tiny bit so they're less dominant over martials...

I interpret it as reining in spell-casters, who never should have been allowed the "eenie meeny miney moe" option when choosing their spells.

Quote:
...there's no reason to not follow this logic and make the fighter train for six hours a day in addition to leveling up before gaining a feat.

Despite the above comment, I think you're well aware of the difference here, as are the other posters.


Wheldrake wrote:
This is definitely the domain of house rules, but I agree that it is emminently logical and could add in a touch of realism <gasp> in the game.

Thank you.

Quote:
Bottom line, a wizard's power is in the breadth and versatility of his spellbook. You don't want to limit wizard PCs' access to new spells *too* much, because that would be very un-fun. But if you establish RP-intensive house rules early in the campaign and get players to agree that they are a fun addition to the game, why not? Restricting automatic spell access to the CRB seems like the most sensible way to keep wacky spells out of your game, but it really all comes down to your relationships with your players. Always best to go for consensual solutions rather than dictatorial ones.

I consistently take it farther, in that I don't allow access to spells (or, for that matter, items) I don't want proliferated in my campaign. (That does mean the NPCs don't have them either, of course; otherwise, that would be complete BS.)

The point I'm trying to make is that this should never even come up. Play the game, don't decide that a particular spell that may or may not exist in this campaign is necessary to a character's, or a player's, happiness.

By the same token, though, a DM should be making a caster's quest for ever more powerful magic damned interesting, allowing for unique spells that are campaign appropriate, access to certain lower-level spells at higher level, and other interesting variants, or he or she is not doing their job of entertaining.

The necessity of acquiring spells through various means allows for numerous adventures in and of itself. Doing so by glancing through a splat-book, or even the CRB, is meta-gaming. A DM can say, and rightly so, to a player who says (for example), "I want Such-and-Such," "Your character's never heard of that spell." Even better, he or she can say, "You've heard rumors that the Umbral Conclave devised such magic, but that may merely be conjecture. Do you choose to pursue an investigation into acquiring it, assuming it exists?" That's a lot more intriguing than, "Yeah, here you go," or, "No, because I said so."

In addition, it's cool to have a player character say, "I'd like to create a spell that does this," allow him to conduct the research, and on occasion be the first person to create a spell—to have NPCs approach him or her and say, "I've heard that you have mastered blah blah blah, Schmendrick. I would be willing to ..."

To me, that's just more interesting than, "Here you go."

Your board, your wave, of course.


PC: I would like this spell
GM: No that spell doesnt exist and you've never heard of such a spell
PC: Ok i research how to create it
GM: Ok you have the spell

...how is this different?

also, if the wizard is allowed to research his spells, what's to stop him from having ALL the spells? What's stopping him from exceeding the two spells per level?

At least with the meta knowledge and picking spells on level up you KNOW that you get two, and pay for the rest. the other way, there is no logical reason he would ONLY learn two spells during any arbitrary amount of time.


More like...
PC: I would like a version of fireball, but with sound.
GM: No source for such a spell exists
PC: Ok, I made my roll to research it.
GM: You found out you have to consult with a monster or outsider that uses sound as a weapon. There are rumors of a purple dragon living in the faraway mountains.
This isn't realism, it's fantasy cannon. The wizard has to call up or contact monsters to research magic.


PC says screw it, talks to a bard instead.


kikidmonkey wrote:

PC: I would like this spell

GM: No that spell doesnt exist and you've never heard of such a spell
PC: Ok i research how to create it
GM: Ok you have the spell

...how is this different?

Yes, because that's exactly how it's done when people actually know how to role-play. [Rolls eyes.]

Just ... let it go and let's move on.


Jaelithe wrote:
kikidmonkey wrote:

PC: I would like this spell

GM: No that spell doesnt exist and you've never heard of such a spell
PC: Ok i research how to create it
GM: Ok you have the spell

...how is this different?

Yes, because that's exactly how it's done when people actually know how to role-play. [Rolls eyes.]

Just ... let it go and let's move on.

Your dislike of my admittedly oversimplified summary still doesn't answer the other question I had.

Do you only affect book casters this way? Divine casters have full access to their entire spell list, no need to even research it, it's just there.

Do you require Magus or Alchemists do jump through these hoops as well? If so, why?

What about spontaneous casters? Do they need to research their innate spells?


When I read this suggestion I really liked it, because it deepens the role-play and realism of the situation. As it's a pursue of knowledge, it's far more interesting if a wizard, or other spellcaster, have to really work hard to earn they power, and also more likely than them getting it from the random splatters of troll blood that end up writing an obscure rune.

As when there are no magical items, finding one is very rewarding, and far more so crafting one, upon reuniting the components, which may be an adventure by itself. Dragon blood, beholder's eye, contract devil's tongue, and others. Adventures in general should be the result of players' and characters' motivations, and the more adventure triggers there are the better.

I would suggest that, if this topic still has interest (which I bet XP it does)has its own thread, so as to continue at least with the original.

#48 Again, to stop the feat tax, some things make them without a feat. Power attack for instance. Moreso, choose which stat to use in attacks and damage, strength of dextierity (and so, when used to it, it is harder to temporarily switch it because of poison or so). Make the feats really outstanding, really feats, not just perks.
#49 Attacks of opportunity supposedly is the moment when the opponent lets its guard down. In reality, it's a free attack when you do something odd. There should be options, like positioning in such a way that if you hit you deal more damage, but if you fail you are more vulnerable to the enemy's attack (giving him a bonus to hit and/or damage) for instance. Instead of a free attack, it should be its normal attack, but you are weaker against it.
#50 There should be a system to energy and exhaustion, so certain combats can lead to it, and specially useful to hit and run tactics. If the combat is taking too long, and you keep missing with a greatsword, you begin to get tired, and so the sneaky rogue backstabs you. It's better if the rogue it's the enemy, not the party rogue. Like, attacks equal your strength, or strength plus level, something like that, perhaps desinged in a similar fashion to the rules of holding breath and suffocation.


Honestly, if my GM made me jump through hoops to get what amounts to as a given class feature as a wizard, I'd just play a sorcerer and tell him to suck it.

Sorcerers don't research diddly. They just know magic, period. They want stuff to blow up, they SOMEHOW know how to make it happen.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

Honestly, if my GM made me jump through hoops to get what amounts to as a given class feature as a wizard, I'd just play a sorcerer and tell him to suck it.

Sorcerers don't research diddly. They just know magic, period. They want stuff to blow up, they SOMEHOW know how to make it happen.

Don't want to rain on the Caster Supremacists' parade, but it can be done with other casters too.

@ Lich Bard. I agree with #48, also, scaling feats.

icoming tongue twister...

#51: Game Breaking options should also be Game Broken by their own Game Breakings.


@ thegrenteagamer, what I like is to role-play. The rules are guides. There are no rules in life, and the physics rues jump through the window right when he party wizard gets around 10th level. We all saw that coming since the wizard was level 5 though.

Anyway, what you like to do is playing a game with a setting, and what I like to do is create a fun, interesting and, if possible, epic, story, with common guides. No one is better, or beter said, each style is better to each player's style.

Also, if, as written, powerful spells are written in more pages (although no exception is made with scrolls) it could be interesting if a good spell, and needed (be it teleport, planar binding, even wish) is divided, so you get parts of the spell each time, and collecting them so you can finally cast it. Much like a ritual with needed componets.


I got caught in the flow of conversation. Instead of a non specific roll, how about Research Points!
An hour of general research gets you one point, whether reading texts, talking to an expert, dissecting a monster, talking to a monster, conducting an experiment, ect. You have to make a knowledge check to identify a thing before you can gain research points from it. Modifiers include, but are not limited to...
Wizard reading texts +2
Tome about a spell they can cast +2
In their wheelhouse means it's something within their school, bloodline, relating to their deity, ect. +5
Interrogating or dissecting a favored enemy gets the favored enemy bonus in points.
The list goes on.

Spending research points is similar.
Learning how to prepare and or cast a standard spell. 10
Rare spell(non-core rulebook or alien to game world) +10
Finding how to make a standard item. 10
Rare item (non-core rulebook or alien to game world). +10
Spell or item is in their wheelhouse. -5
Racial item or spell. -6 if their exact race, -3 if half
Favored enemy bonus is subtracted from the cost for bane spells and items against the foe.
Spell or item is of same exact alignment -2
Spell or item is of same facet alignment -1
(If the researcher is lawful and making a holy avenger for a friend)
Spell or item is of opposite exact alignment +2
Spell or item is of opposite facet alignment +1


Goth Guru wrote:
I got caught in the flow of conversation. Instead of a non specific roll, how about Research Points!

I think that could work if the DM wishes to allow a specific mechanic for essentially infallible research.

Research points, however, arguably give a player definitive means to circumvent a DM not wanting certain spells in his game ... and the player would only get pissed, and rightly so, if he or she did all the work by the numbers and the DM subsequently said, "Sorry. Doesn't work anyway." Such would be complete BS, and I might well walk out of a game like that (unless the lead-up had been so much fun that the journey had been cooler than the destination). I would thus probably not go that way.

I'd rather imply, near the beginning of the effort, and through role-play, one of three possibilities: "You should be able to accomplish that with relative ease" (in which case a roll or two/brief sidetrack adventure might accomplish their goal); "With difficulty of varying degrees, you'll achieve that" (setting up an encounter or two, involved adventure or even a short campaign to get what he/she wants); "You're getting a sense that this line of research is beyond you—either currently, or entirely". The whole "Rambo to the sheriff" thing: "Let it go. Let ... it ... go."


#53 Ways to train and become better (aka level up) without killing and gaining XP. Like the first level they gained. The fighter trains movements with the sword, with a straw dummy, excercising. The wizard studies in a library, practices magic, meditates, etc.

And @ Goth Guru, the rule you though of is an in-rules way to gain and invent spells, but what I would prefer, and not speaking for Jaelithe, is a purely narrative way of advancement, and so it wouldn´t need any rules. Again, different styles for different tastes.


Lich Bard wrote:
#53 Ways to train and become better (aka level up) without killing and gaining XP. Like the first level they gained. The fighter trains movements with the sword, with a straw dummy, exercising. The wizard studies in a library, practices magic, meditates, etc.

This would have to never be exactingly defined with rolls and a mechanic, though, or players would immediately set about exploiting it to its utmost, and thereby ruin it.

Quote:
And @ Goth Guru, the rule you though of is an in-rules way to gain and invent spells, but what I would prefer, and not speaking for Jaelithe, is a purely narrative way of advancement, and so it wouldn´t need any rules. Again, different styles for different tastes.

Yep. I'm the kind of DM who overrides the written rules on a will or whim, if I think it'll serve the narrative (but never to screw the players). I don't do the "primus inter pares" kind of DMing, and never will. I'm pontifex maximus, and when I make a final ruling it's ex cathedra.

(And I'm certainly not speaking for Lich Bard, here.)


Jaelithe wrote:
Lich Bard wrote:
#53 Ways to train and become better (aka level up) without killing and gaining XP. Like the first level they gained. The fighter trains movements with the sword, with a straw dummy, exercising. The wizard studies in a library, practices magic, meditates, etc.
This would have to never be exactingly defined with rolls and a mechanic, though, or players would immediately set about exploiting it to its utmost, and thereby ruin it.

Of course, purely narrative. And also, it erquires time, and resources. Iimagine it mostly for a tough situation, like a really big battle, or entering the lair of the ultimate BBEG.


It was a philosophical suck it. The act of choosing a sorcerer in the face of such restrictions is a counter play to a purposeful adding of hoops. Kind of like how choosing to play a wildshaping hunter in the face of a no-reason-I-just-dont-like-them druid hating GM would be a figurative suck it. No literal comment required, as the action does so for you. See also Ray Croc opening a McDonalds a block from the original McDonalds later renamed the Big M just to shut them down cause the brothers McD wouldn't give him the original. Strongly implied suck it via action, not words.


Incidentally, you can call it RP reasons all you want, but the lack of consistency across classes makes it strongly appear otherwise. I don't see you saying barbarians need anger management to take moment of clarity, or fighters need to be whacking practice dummies side by side to take cleave, or rogues need to fiddle with locks in their freetime to add half their level to disabling traps, or any other class will be denied an otherwise guaranteed class feature if they don't earn it through roleplay. In the face of that evidence, its a blatant mechanical nerf.


Jaelithe, on average how many spells would a Wizard have in their spellbook by level 3 or 4. I've had GMs before for which realism meant crippling wizards when they are already crippled at early levels. Making wizards go adventuring for their spells is also annoying to the rest of the party and takes away from other things they could do when you are forcing them to work for class features?

I am not say what you do is never appropriate; but as a policy just sounds like you're nerfing casters; do you make fighters go on journey's for weapon training?

Do you ban different spells from different campaigns? Is it the same spells over and over again?

I hear what you're saying is your motivations; but I've had GM's who claim narrative interest before when really their goal is just to nerf.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Jaelithe, on average how many spells would a Wizard have in their spellbook by level 3 or 4. I've had GMs before for which realism meant crippling wizards when they are already crippled at early levels. Making wizards go adventuring for their spells is also annoying to the rest of the party and takes away from other things they could do when you are forcing them to work for class features?

I am not say what you do is never appropriate; but as a policy just sounds like you're nerfing casters; do you make fighters go on journey's for weapon training?

Do you ban different spells from different campaigns? Is it the same spells over and over again?

I hear what you're saying is your motivations; but I've had GM's who claim narrative interest before when really their goal is just to nerf.

Some rather good criticisms and questions, that's a breather...

I am not Jaelithe, but for feats, I would probably treat the adventuring as training/guidelines.


The more adventure hooks there are, the better, because I wouldn't like to play or run a campaign conisting on the classical "Aaaahh! Kill da monstah!"

If the GM is ok with it, if the player with a wizard is ok with it, if the rest of the party is ok with it, I think it can be a good thing to do. If you prefer letting them choose freely from any book, and in the campaign the wizard can go to the library, or buy scrolls, then do that. In Ars Magica there is no limit to the wizards, and if you want to create a spell that does certain thing, sure, you can. You have to spend the time and resources, but I wouldn't like to play the part when he is in a library studying. Maybe the "looking for ingredients" part.

All the styles are about how much of the characters they include as active adventure, descriptive background, or not even mentioned. How much do you describe your breakfasts, or donning an armour, or even going to the bathoom. If you want to let the spells be a passive self-improving element, and it works for you then be happy with it. I'll practice with this, to see how I tune the adventures. It's not nerfing (for me), it's an attitude that tells the player "ok, you want a wizard that can channel magic and eventually change the reality with a word. I'm fine with that. But you'll have to work, maybe work hard, to get there".

I want the characters to be a product of the players, not just data slots in a videogame. To me, it's far more interesting if power is sought rather than be given overnight by the XP fairy.

I suggest making a separate thread of this, also for getting other people to know there is this topic going on, because we are currently undercover by this title.


Let's take an example. You are running a game set in that world where casting spells require killing something. Human or animal sacrifice, or you turn some plants into desert. Someone does research to find a way around that. At a cost of 30 research, they rediscover the riches method. For 100GP of precious metal and or gems per spell level, they can cast spells. It costs them a feat, but they can teach others. The valuables are destroyed at a subatomic level.
Similarly, you could tell them, that spell is unavailable but these other spells are. If they don't take one of what is offered, they retain the points. They can spend them on designing a catapult, a gun, or getting the party rogue the feat for critical striking undead. (You pry the neck bones apart at the joints in most cases)
This is a version of the carrot and stick approach.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Jaelithe, on average how many spells would a Wizard have in their spell-book by level 3 or 4[?]

I haven't a clue. Each player character is an individual. Historically, some have had quite a few, while others only a handful.

If a player, however, told me, "Man, I'm not diggin' this," I'd certainly adjust what I was doing to allow him or her to more fully enjoy portraying their character. I'm not averse to a player saying, "You know, I like this spell. It's very useful." They might well then have it in their starting arsenal of spells. They might well run across it. It might well be easily accessible.

Quote:
I've had GMs before for which realism meant crippling wizards when they are already crippled at early levels.

Why are you assuming that a starting arcane caster might not have a spell-book chock full of useful stuff? I'd certainly have no issue with a character who does, if it's what his or her player wants and it's reasonable according to the background he or she created for them. There's a significant difference between making such a character acquire his new spells in various fashions, and sending him out naked into the world—again, unless he or she is cool with that, and enjoys the challenge/struggle. Some players do.

Quote:
Making wizards go adventuring for their spells is also annoying to the rest of the party and takes away from other things they could do when you are forcing them to work for class features?

I wasn't aware that you had the pulse of every person who plays this game, and can assert that everyone finds such annoying.

Since I run short solo adventures for individual characters before they ever get together as a party and throughout my campaign, this has never been an issue.

The whole "class features" point doesn't move me remotely. In my opinion, it shouldn't be a class feature. But, again, if a player says to me, "Man, I really love that I know there are two spells comin' to me at that point," I might simply manipulate the narrative so as to make it occur in story. It wouldn't be that difficult. But I've found it's not necessary, since arcane casters are always seeking out more magic, and I'm not one to leave them without recourse. Much more interesting to watch them grow in power, from where I sit.

Quote:
I am not say what you do is never appropriate; but as a policy just sounds like you're nerfing casters; do you make fighters go on journey's for weapon training?

I've done it on occasion, if they're looking to receive training in some esoteric technique known only to a distant master. I do the same with monks, who pretty much cannot self-teach except under unusual circumstances. They need access to someone who can train them.

Quote:
Do you ban different spells from different campaigns? Is it the same spells over and over again?

I've been running the same two campaigns for quite a long time. One is a quasi-historical game, and the other a long-running entirely home-brew. As a general rule, more spells are inappropriate to the former. The home-brew has fewer limitations of that sort.

Quote:
I hear what you're saying [are] your motivations; but I've had GM's who claim narrative interest before when really their goal is just to nerf.

Fortunately, I have nothing to prove here, and am wholly unconcerned as to whether my motivations meet with anyone's approval—other than my players of course. Disliking my method and stance is entirely your prerogative.

Interesting to note that, from what I see written here, Lich Bard gets it, and thegreenteagamer doesn't ... or, more accurately, doesn't want to, because he likes things just the way they are, and finds the status quo to his/her liking. I didn't. That's one of the reason we're discussing alternate rules.

Frankly, I think we've hijacked this thread long enough. I'm not going to pursue this any further, here. I'll check in tomorrow to see if anyone's started another thread pertaining to this. Otherwise, I'm done, with apologies to the OP.


That's cute, that you think by my not agreeing with you that I somehow don't understand.

I do agree we've derailed this far enough, however, and apologize for such.

Original subject...forgetting which number we're on:

Vital strike and its chain should be gained automatically upon reaching the prerequisite BAB, so mobility actually exists for martials after level 5.


I didn't understand 51.
Green Tea Gamer you must have 52 because everybody was discussing how previous entries should be worded.


#53 Dex affects speed
#54 Faster healing rate (personally, my house-rule is level x Con modifier)


This is silly, but something that always bothered me...

#55 Dex is called agility, to reflect more accurately what it actually does. (Dexterity usually reflects skill with one's hands, which aside from disable device, most of the things affected by dexterity should be affected by agility)


#56 A glossary would be nice, but a Pathfinder dictionary would be even better. I'm pretty sure the Webster's dictionary doesn't define level as "The strength and power of a character, monster, spell, or area of an adventure."

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Dire Care Bear Manager

Removed a post. Please help keep our messageboards a friendly and welcoming place and do not try to circumvent our profanity filter.


Sara Marie wrote:
Removed a post. Please help keep our messageboards a friendly and welcoming place and do not try to circumvent our profanity filter.

Here is the offending post, sans profanity. As to never doing it again ... this is the first time in years I've ever been called on it, and I've run this particular end around literally dozens of times. I thought the filter more a feature of the software and not board policy. Noted for future reference.

kikidmonkey wrote:
Do you only affect book casters this way?

No. That would be grossly unfair.

Quote:
Divine casters have full access to their entire spell list, no need to even research it, it's just there.

Divine casters pray for their spells. Who is to say that the gods, who are notoriously fickle and/or inscrutable in mythology, provide exactly what is requested? Clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, et al., should pray for their spells, i.e. jot and submit a list of those spells known and desired. (I certainly don't want to listen to a player beseeching his deity/pantheon each time he or she acquires spells, though. That'd get old kind of fast, and be a little weird, as well. Some appropriate role-play on occasion if it's germane to the plot or they're really into immersive role-play is just fine.) The DM, in his or her role as the gods, will look over the spell list and grant all, most or some of them, replacing some with selections of his or her own. If you're going to serve the gods, well ... then sometimes the answers to prayers will be, "no," "not that" or "not yet."

Clerics and other divine casters, like arcane casters, should be handled on an individual basis, not just given whatever they wish. I don't run the gods as a divine caster's convenient power source. I treat them instead as the beings your character worships, and to whom you owe allegiance, obedience, life and immortal soul if they require it.

Quote:
Do you require Magus(es) or Alchemists [t]o jump through these hoops as well? If so, why?

I don't consider them "hoops." In my opinion, it's the way it always should have been done. It's been overturned in contemporary gaming, that's all.

That said ... I can't speak properly to this question. I don't allow alchemists or summoners, since I find the classes either asinine, preposterously overpowered, objectionable on philosophical grounds, inappropriate to my campaign cosmology or some combination of all four. As to magi (which I assume is the plural), I've never had anyone want to play one, despite the fact that they seem pretty cool to me. I'm sure I could give it some thought and come up with a system.

Quote:
What about spontaneous casters? Do they need to research their innate spells?

That would depend on the spontaneous caster. For bards, I'd imagine their spells would be a result of better grasping the underlying structure of the cosmos through music, and thus over time gradually being able to better manipulate it. I'd simply discuss the character's desires with the player as time passed and go from there. [That's actually what I do with every player and their character(s).] Bards conduct research. I just don't handle it with, "I conduct research" ... "Roll." That's just too tiresome and facile for words.

As to sorcerers, I assume that the bloodline that enables their legacy of power grants them an implanted template (which is largely thematic)—that their powers are gradually awakened as they acquire levels, rather than them actually learning anything, per se. (It's all inside them from the beginning, as first potential and eventually actualized potential.) It still leaves them unable to cast, say, 4th level spells at 4th level, because that part of their power is at that point wholly inaccessible. Thus, player and DM work together over time to decide what's actually there to be unearthed. This allows for cool revelations and other neat surprises, as well as the player having a great deal of control over the sorcerer's development. It also allows the DM to control which spells he or she allows into his or her game. Win-win.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
Honestly, if my GM made me jump through hoops to get what amounts to as a given class feature as a wizard, I'd just play a sorcerer and tell him to suck it.

Even more honestly, if you told me to "suck it" (and it wasn't in a joking fashion), you wouldn't be playing a sorcerer or anything else for that matter; because approximately thirty seconds after you'd done so, you'd be standing outside the front door, having just heard that timeless Warner Brothers salutation, "Aaaaannd stay out!"

If that was your response to something you didn't like, I wouldn't miss you and neither would the rest of the group.

Quote:
Sorcerers don't research diddly. They just know magic, period. They want stuff to blow up, they SOMEHOW know how to make it happen.

They do, indeed. Whether they do it with Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or Bigby's Big Bang is a matter for said sorcerer's player to work out with his or her DM.

Look ... I could run a game according to the straight Pathfinder rules, if I so desired ... but I find that some of those rules dole things to the player characters that should be sought, experienced, enjoyed and savored once achieved as opposed to simply being handed out while getting to the "good stuff." (In addition, that's not what this thread is about.)

If done right, all this is part of the "good stuff."

That's the way I do it. Never said you had to like it ... but plenty of players do.

In short ... I don't give a flying you-know-what at a rolling doughnut if something is a "class feature" or not. If I don't like it, it doesn't make sense to me or in my opinion detracts from some of the subtler and more enjoyable aspects of the game, it's out. If my players successfully argue and explain why it should be there, then it's back in. Simple. I'm not inflexible, just opinionated.

#52: Have attacks of opportunity consigned to the Abyss, and instead allow for a more fluid and ad hoc combat round in which player description and visualization prompt AOO, rather than a needlessly convoluted and difficult-to-follow system that seems to satisfy no one.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
That's cute, that you think by my not agreeing with you that I somehow don't understand.

No, I thought you understood. I just thought you were being intentionally obtuse to make a point. Frankly, I find that adorable.

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / 1001 cool ways to break the rules All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules