"My House, My Rules: Fifty Plug-and-Play House Rules for Pathfinder"


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

9. Automatic Skill Failure: On a result of a natural “1” on a skill check, the attempt automatically fails.

PRO: If I could only implement one of the fifty house rules in this collection, this would probably be the one. The reason I like the rule that skills checks fail on a natural 1 is that they can add an element of drama and excitement even when PCs are high-level or have over-specialized in a skill. Your PC has 15 ranks in Stealth, a Dexterity mod of +5, and Skill Focus: Stealth? There’s still a 5% of failure on your attempt to duck into the foliage to avoid the guards hunting you. Players can avoid even this chance of failure in situations where they can Take 10 on a skill check, but they can’t Take 10 when they’re threatened or distracted: and that’s exactly the sort of time where a risk of failure, even a small one, adds excitement to a roll. Of course, the rule applies to monsters and NPCs as well, so players can be beneficiaries of the natural 1.

CON: As with critical fumbles, some players can’t bear the thought that their precious PCs could fail something they’ve invested a lot of effort to get good at. They’ll probably say “if all trapeze artists failed their Acrobatics checks 5% of the time, they’d all be dead!” or something similar.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

10. Social Skills & PCs: Social skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive) are not usable on PCs by other PCs. Instead, effects that would normally rely upon these skills are resolved purely through role-playing.

PRO: This is a rule that, although not stated explicitly in the Core Rulebook, is one often adopted implicitly by players. The reason for this rule is that one of the most important things in a role-playing game is player agency: no one should decide how a character responds to a situation other than the character’s player. Thus, barring some unusual (a magical spell like Dominate Person) for example, the way PCs interact with each should be totally a role-playing decision. A character with a high Diplomacy modifier can’t suddenly became the group’s favourite by rolling the skill on everyone, and neither can a PC force a PC to be afraid simply by rolling a good Intimidate check. These sorts of things go to the core of a character’s personality, and thus should always be in the control of the players. As a caveat, it’s perfect legitimate (and an excellent idea) for a player to take into account his character’s modifiers in a relevant skill during role-playing, such as looking incredibly shifty while lying if the character has a bad Bluff skill, or believing everything another PC says if their own character has a low Sense Motive skill.

CON: I have to admit, I’ve never been in a game where this rule hasn’t been observed and I don’t know what it would look like. I suppose one benefit would be that it helps poor role-players remember that their characters might like another PC even if they don’t, or that their character might believe a lie even if the player knows it’s false.


9. It's not a bad idea. I've used it, and not used it before. It doesn't seem to greatly change the game. Another guy in my group likes to use '1s are treated as a -10, 20s as a 30' when he runs a PF game. Unfortunately he's not great at running them.

10. Mostly we use this, except when kidding around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If someone rolls a fumble, then their opponent gets an immediate AoO against them.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

For #9, are you going to allow automatic success for easy challenges? Or are you going to enforce a 5% failure rate, regardless of excellence?


Jhaeman wrote:

9. Automatic Skill Failure: On a result of a natural “1” on a skill check, the attempt automatically fails.

PRO: If I could only implement one of the fifty house rules in this collection, this would probably be the one. The reason I like the rule that skills checks fail on a natural 1 is that they can add an element of drama and excitement even when PCs are high-level or have over-specialized in a skill. Your PC has 15 ranks in Stealth, a Dexterity mod of +5, and Skill Focus: Stealth? There’s still a 5% of failure on your attempt to duck into the foliage to avoid the guards hunting you. Players can avoid even this chance of failure in situations where they can Take 10 on a skill check, but they can’t Take 10 when they’re threatened or distracted: and that’s exactly the sort of time where a risk of failure, even a small one, adds excitement to a roll. Of course, the rule applies to monsters and NPCs as well, so players can be beneficiaries of the natural 1.

CON: As with critical fumbles, some players can’t bear the thought that their precious PCs could fail something they’ve invested a lot of effort to get good at. They’ll probably say “if all trapeze artists failed their Acrobatics checks 5% of the time, they’d all be dead!” or something similar.

In all fairness if the player has allocated enough effort into a certain skill through levels, feats, class options, and so forth, they probably should ONLY fail in the case of something being far better at the countermeasure to that skill (Stealth vs Perception), or to something that just beats it (Stealth vs Blindsight). I don't really feel it's fair to tell a level 15 rogue that you have a perpetual chance to fail at something (even if it is 5%) when the Greater Invisibility spell just...exists.


9: If they want to take automatic failure on 1 and automatic success on 20, let them. It's a risk.

10: Definitely


Is number 10 even a house rule? I thought that was just how things were supposed to be done normally.


Another alternative to auto-fails and auto-successes on skill rolls is to treat 1s as -5 to the roll, and 20s as +5, rendering successes and failures more likely while still having skill ranks play a role.


10.

My group often uses this, as well as your suggestion of taking modifiers into consideration. For instance, as one of my character quirks, I intentionally have never put ranks in sense motive in a very high powered game. We break the fourh wall often, so when people lie to me I say, in character, "I know that's b&*!+$+* but I don't have sense motive so I believe you wholeheartedly."

Often to a chorus of "Damn it, not again."


I'm thinking of adding personal values to the game. This is a number of things that equal the will bonus that are protected from mental influence. Ever talk to bigot? No skill will dissuade them from their unsupported opinion.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

11. No Cell Phones: Anyone with a cell phone must turn it to vibrate and must not use it during a session except to look up game-related information.

PRO: The two-year campaign has reached its epic climax, the villain is in the middle of his dramatic monologue, and . . . RING RING RING! A player’s phone goes off, playing their custom “Who Let the Dogs Out?” ringtone. Or, Player A is really getting into the role-playing of their character’s heartfelt conversation with Player B, but both are embarrassed to realize Player C is ignoring them completely and chuckling as he texts with a friend. The justification for this house rule is one of the most obvious: cell phones break immersion in the game and make it nearly impossible to sustain certain moods (horror, tragedy, and more).

CON: Excuses. Players can come up with a myriad of them. They have to leave their phone on because work might call, or the baby-sitter, or the President. They have to text “just for a minute” because their spouse wants to know when they’re be home. It can go and on, and policing it can make a GM feel like a teacher assigned to afterschool detention.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

12. Go/No Go Number: If at least three players can make it to a session, it will go forward. Otherwise, it will be rescheduled.

PRO: This rule does two things. First, it makes it clear that the absence of one or two players will not cause a session to be cancelled and rescheduled. Nothing kills a good campaign faster than constant rescheduling to try to accommodate everyone (or, worse, constant rescheduling to try to accommodate that one player who just can’t commit to a set day and time to play). Second, it establishes there is a minimum number of players required for a session to go forward. Depending on what the GM has planned, many encounters can become quite deadly with the limited action economy of just two PCs, or there may be extremely important events that most members of the group shouldn’t pass by. Having a rule like this helps settle what can otherwise be endless anxiety and dithering about things like holidays, vacations, etc. Everyone knows in advance what the score is, and they can plan accordingly.

CON: In some groups, everyone is reasonable and has a flexible schedule, and it’s no big deal at all to occasionally reschedule a game from a Friday night to a Saturday night (or whatever) so that everyone can be there. In regards to the quorum rule, I’ve run some fantastic sessions on nights when only two players could make it, and “full steam ahead” gaming is often better than the alternative: doing nothing that night.


11. Those 'excuses'? Quite real. Work might call, or the significant other, or the babysitter. Not so much the President, true. It's just a game and you can't actually stop life to run it.

12. Establishing what your quorum is is a good idea. It doesn't have to be 'three players' exactly of course.


11: Tell everyone about the game time. Seriously. "I know you only want to hear from me in emergencies, but I'm going to be gaming, watching a movie, ect. I will be unreachable from 99:99 to 99:99. Afterwards, I will be calling back any critical voice messages or text." My mother was a reading teacher, and she would have agreed that there are many situations where you should not receive calls.

spoiler:
If you are at the gaming table, you may have ruined the game for everyone. A gigantic spider is about to pounce on the party from the ceiling because you were not paying attention.:p

12: Crafting or conversations(in game) may need less people. Usually, that's a good rule. If you are exploring an area with traps, no rogue, no game. Don't have combat without the fighter. ect.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

13. Using Downtime for XP is Risky: During Downtime, a character who chooses to retrain XP must roll a d100 for each day spent adventuring off-screen. On a result of “1”, the character has been killed. Their body is brought back to the nearest settlement.

PRO: Everyone knows the normal way to XP is through succeeding at encounters, and most encounters (apart from social or skill-based ones) involve combat. Combat entrails risk—-specifically, the risk of getting badly hurt or dying! Allowing characters to retrain XP during Downtime means they get all of the reward of combat with none of the risks, and makes being a coward (“you guys handle this boss fight; I’ll retrain XP once we get back to town”) a very rational thing to do. By adding an element of risk, no matter how small, players will think twice before spending too much Downtime retraining XP.

CON: Dying isn’t fun, and dying off-screen because of a single poor roll is even worse. Retraining XP still costs money, and can be a legitimate way for players who miss sessions to ensure that their PCs don’t fall too far behind the rest of the group.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

14. Pets Reduce XP: If a PC has effective control over an NPC, including an animal companion, a summoned creature, or an eidolon, that PC’s experience point award for an encounter are divided by the number of NPCs used in the encounter.

PRO: One of the most common complaints about Pathfinder, at all levels of gameplay, are how powerful character “pets” can be. Whether it’s a ranger’s animal companion that puts the group’s fighter to shame, or the specialist conjuring wizard summoning so many monsters that they may as well be a party of their own, “pets” have the tendency to overshadow the other members of the group. In addition, they tend to bog down gameplay, especially at higher levels when they get multiple attacks. Requiring pet masters to “pay” in XP earned for the privilege using such powerful options means that the choice isn’t banned outright, but that a reasonable disincentive exists to using them all of the time. In addition, this solves the occasional problem of “let’s hire 20 mercenaries to accompany us into the dungeon” problem-—the group can do it, but those mercenaries will eat up a *lot* of the group’s XP that would otherwise be earned.

CON: Some players are all about pets, and will bristle at any notion that they should be “punished” for bringing them to the table. Pets are a major class feature for some classes, and are allegedly balanced by the loss of other possible class features. Since the CR of a character with pets doesn’t change, one can argue that, officially, that character isn’t any more powerful than another character of the same level that doesn’t use pets.


13. I would only give XP for downtime to save the campaign. A paladin or cleric might tend to the poor who are sick and injured to "catch up" to the adventure path or rest of the party. The fighter might train npcs to fight and become members of the watch.Practicing rituals might get a person killed though.

14. Summoned monsters now come from some magical pattern buffer on the Thought Forms plane or something. Having to calculate experience separately for each character is it's own punishment. If a character has a bonded creature, they should be buffing them, equipping them, and otherwise contributing to a fellow member of the party.


13. No, not good at all. The point of downtime training XP is to give characters who have nothing to do while the wizard trades spells or makes magic items, something to do. Or to allow someone behind on XP to catch up.

Also a 1% chance each day is both a pain to manage and potentially nothing, or potentially a game-ending experience if it pisses the player off enough.

No one should use rule 13.

BTW was the number for this rule given for that reason?

14. So if you have one pet you divide the XP by one, i.e. no change, but if you summon 2 monsters you halve your XP? This rule sounds like it hasn't been thought through.


14. I started to write out the issues with this, and my opinion of it, but I realized the issues would be a wall of text. And properly describing my opinion would require me to violate the community policies of this forum.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Java Man wrote:
14. I started to write out the issues with this, and my opinion of it, but I realized the issues would be a wall of text. And properly describing my opinion would require me to violate the community policies of this forum.

Ha! That's fair. But if there is anything in the "Con" section missing besides vitriol, please let me know. The whole point of this exercise is to sharpen the "Pro" and "Con" sides to improve them before publication.


Jhaeman wrote:

10. Social Skills & PCs: Social skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive) are not usable on PCs by other PCs. Instead, effects that would normally rely upon these skills are resolved purely through role-playing.

There's a reason why there's a sense motive skill on the character sheet.

I don't think you have to completely remove social skills when interacting between PCs. It completely depends on how you handle the way they work.

When character A lies to B and A's bluff beats the B's sense motive, that doesn't mean B automatically believes them, it just means B cannot tell for sure they are being lied to. B could still mistrust and not believe them they're just in doubt.

Similarly A doesn't necessarily convince B with the higher diplomacy check. A just made their points better. B might still think their own ideas are more reasonable.

Basically I allow social skills to be used against PCs, including by PCs i just let the players decide how they want to react to the rolls.


Jhaeman wrote:
Java Man wrote:
14. I started to write out the issues with this, and my opinion of it, but I realized the issues would be a wall of text. And properly describing my opinion would require me to violate the community policies of this forum.
Ha! That's fair. But if there is anything in the "Con" section missing besides vitriol, please let me know. The whole point of this exercise is to sharpen the "Pro" and "Con" sides to improve them before publication.

Okay, since you used a great word (vitriol!) I'll try to expound on my point nicely.

XP imbalance between pcs is usually viewed as a bad thing.

Shaman, witch, hunter, summoner, most druids, many wizards, and multiple others are basicly being charged xp for being their class.

Will enemies with class feature minions be worth more xp? What cr do you use for an animal companion?


I reallllllly hope this doesn't count as thread necromancy. But as one of your players, I did want to offer my opinion on how a rule is going based on the listed pro's and con's:

Jhaeman wrote:

2. NEW PCS GET WEALTH EQUAL TO PARTY AVERAGE: After the campaign begins, if a player has to introduce a new PC because their former PC died or otherwise became unavailable, that new PC will have starting wealth equal to the “buy” value of the magic items of the other PCs in the party, averaged by the number of PCs.

PRO: The official “Wealth by Level” rules can be a real windfall for a new PC, and can sometimes serve as an incentive for a player to let a PC die! The reason is that many adventuring parties do not ruthlessly collect and sell every piece of available loot, and thus their wealth will eventually fall below Wealth by Level. In addition, much of the loot may come in the form of equipment that a PC can make some use of but that is not of an ideal type. It can be sold, but most PCs will still end up, after several sessions with a bit of a grab-bag of items that will be different than the ones they would have purchased for themselves.

The best way to think of this potential problem is through a real-life analogy. Imagine that, over the past twenty years, I’ve lived in the house. I’ve bought some furniture over the years—some of it I still like, some of it was good at the time but no longer really in the style of what I like. I’ve also inherited some furniture from a family member, and although it’s serviceable it’s not quite to my taste. The sum total value of my furniture is $ 20,000. In contrast, today my brother is given $ 20,000 in cash to buy furniture for his new house. Which of us is going to end up with the most appealing set?

In game terms, an example is my character Lady Sarabian. I’ve played her since she was Level 1 and now she’s Level 9. She has an assortment of minor magic items, but nothing above +1 because she just has never had enough disposable cash. She’s also spent a lot of money in the campaign for disposable items, paying NPCs for healing and services, and so forth. If I were to introduce a new PC and suddenly have a whopping 46,000 gp to play with, I could easily outfit a character much, much better than Sarabian!

By pegging new PC’s wealth to the average of the other party members, a GM ensures that the new PC is viable without unduly rewarding the player for getting a PC killed.

CON: For (good) players, losing a character sucks. Months or even years can be invested in building a character’s storyline. When a PC dies, so does all of the knowledge they’ve gained, all of the contacts they’ve made, all of the reputation they’ve earned, and more. As one player told me, the extra gold that comes by using Wealth by Level is at least some balm on the wound of having to make up a new PC.

So, there are two main problems comparing your hypothetical Pro's and Con's to the rule in practice; first of all, we(as players) have not really had a chance to sell loot we've found. As much of the loot provided by the adventure is stuff you have explicitly stated we'd have a hard time selling(magic arms and armor for large sized creatures) in a smallish settlement where selling it is both impractical and pointless.(Or at least that's how it seems)

secondly, and most importantly, this rule seems to have been having the opposite of your intended effect. You stated the intended effect was to have characters with realistic adventuring loot. i.e. lots of small stuff, because the adventurer hasn't had the time or loose change to get big stuff. The problem is, with so little money, the new characters have started with a few big items in order to maximize the combat utility from the money and improve their survivability.

If I were to suggest a replacement to this rule, something to try for the effect you want. It would be to keep WBL, but put a "most expensive item" cap at the value of the most expensive item in the party currently. this allows you to do less paperwork("everyone tell me your most expensive item and your unidentified magic items"), prevents players having ridiculously powerful magic items, and forces the spread of wealth among many items. Heck, your own example of Lady Sarabian points to this being a more logical option. "but nothing above +1 "

Just a thought of course.


Particularly strong monsters are the equivalent of +2.
How are they going to fight an Ettin with one +1 weapon?


With grit, determination, and a hella lot of good dice rolls.

Dark Archive

SmiloDan wrote:
Critical fumbles suck. They both slow things down and add insult to injury by even further punishing the character for having bad luck. Also, it also only punishes weapon users; spellcasters rarely make attack rolls, so they rarely suffer from critical fumbles.

Yeah, it makes sense in games like GURPS, where casting a spell requires a roll (possibly even two rolls, if it's a targeted spell like stone missile or frost jet), but in D&D/PF, not so much.

Granted, if you're playing under a ruleset that does require rolls to cast spells, such as one that requires a concentration or Spellcraft roll for each spell cast, then fumbles (and critical successes) become as relevant for both melees and magic-users.

Still, it's an extra bit of detail that is going to be more popular with fans of lots of intricate combat, and not so much storytelling-centric gamers, who don't really get into the math / under the hood as much.

Both critical hits and misses, IMO, work better in a system that has a curve, which d20 does not. You've got a 5% chance of rolling a 1, or a 20, or any number in between, and having every 1 turn into a critical fumble creates the joke-situation where, in an army of 600 trained dwarven warriors, thirty of them chop their own heads off every round of combat. :)

If, instead of 1d20, rolls to hit were made with 2d10, there'd at least be a curve, with crit failures only occurring on two 1's, and crit successes only occurring on two 10's, which would negate the need for confirmation rolls, and make both significantly less likely to happen.

But that's a ship that sailed long ago.


Set wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
Critical fumbles suck. They both slow things down and add insult to injury by even further punishing the character for having bad luck. Also, it also only punishes weapon users; spellcasters rarely make attack rolls, so they rarely suffer from critical fumbles.

Yeah, it makes sense in games like GURPS, where casting a spell requires a roll (possibly even two rolls, if it's a targeted spell like stone missile or frost jet), but in D&D/PF, not so much.

Granted, if you're playing under a ruleset that does require rolls to cast spells, such as one that requires a concentration or Spellcraft roll for each spell cast, then fumbles (and critical successes) become as relevant for both melees and magic-users.

Still, it's an extra bit of detail that is going to be more popular with fans of lots of intricate combat, and not so much storytelling-centric gamers, who don't really get into the math / under the hood as much.

Both critical hits and misses, IMO, work better in a system that has a curve, which d20 does not. You've got a 5% chance of rolling a 1, or a 20, or any number in between, and having every 1 turn into a critical fumble creates the joke-situation where, in an army of 600 trained dwarven warriors, thirty of them chop their own heads off every round of combat. :)

If, instead of 1d20, rolls to hit were made with 2d10, there'd at least be a curve, with crit failures only occurring on two 1's, and crit successes only occurring on two 10's, which would negate the need for confirmation rolls, and make both significantly less likely to happen.

But that's a ship that sailed long ago.

If only this were the homebrew section, where you could suggest that. Oh wait, it is.

Lets go farther. 4D6-3 so you crit on 21 and fumble on 1.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Too much time gaming has left too little time for writing about gaming! But I've got a handful written a while ago that haven't been posted yet, so I'll go ahead and do a couple more.

# 15: Traits Must be Role-played: A player must role-play the “fluff” description of traits and incorporate them into the character’s background.

PRO: Apparently every PC in the world was bullied as a child and adopted by another race. Or, that’s what you would think from the popularity of traits like Reactionary and Adopted. Players often select traits purely for the mechanical bonuses they provide to their character and completely forget about the story justification for them. The problem is that this undermines the entire reason for the existence of traits to begin with: helping players flesh out their character’s background and personality. By requiring players to role-play the traits they take, they’re more likely to pick ones that fit into a well-rounded image of their character, not just numbers on the character sheet.

CON: Forcing players to role-play traits could just make the problem worse, as players go to great lengths to “justify” the traits they’ve taken through cheesy and ridiculous backstories.

# 16: Bonus XP for Role-Playing Players may earn bonus XP for role-playing their characters each session, with the amount determined by GM discretion: Average RP: +5%; Good RP: +10%; Excellent RP: +15%

PRO: Some players get deep into their characters and role-play fantastically, demonstrating well-rounded characters with a wealth of emotional range. Other players sit there like a rock, and it’s like pulling teeth for a GM to get them to role-play at all. Since it *is* a role-playing game, there’s a reason to incentivise the first type of behaviour rather than the second. A percentage bonus to the XP a character earns each session is a nice reward and recognition that some players work hard to bring a lot to the game. It also serves as an incentive to everyone to stay in character, avoid distracting behaviour, and contribute to the on-going storyline of the campaign in ways beyond just rolling dice.

CON: Some people are naturally dramatic, and some people are naturally shy. Rewarding good role-playing could seem like a punishment to those in the latter category. In addition, scene-stealing spotlight-lovers are further incentivised to make role-playing encounters all about themselves. And finally, egos can be bruised and feelings can be hurt when the GM announces their subjective evaluation of the quality of each players role-playing during the session.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Rule #13: I'm not sure what you mean by "using downtime for XP". What can people do during downtime that earns experience?

The death seems pointless. In the midst of important, exciting goings-on, we roll percentage chance to see if your character just dies off-panel. (We're on a boat, heading towards a new continent. I decide to use the downtime to make a magic item. I die in the process, and my body teleports back to the nearest town back on the mainland?)

Rule #14: I was going to think this was reasonable ("experience point award for an encounter are divided by the number of NPCs used in the encounter", so using one animal companion doesn't reduce experience at all, since it divides by 1) but then I saw that it included summoned creatures. So, two arcane casters stand in the back of the party. One shoots magic missiles at enemies. The other summons 4 stirges to attack them. The first caster gets four times the experience of the second.

Summoner is a "top tier" class, so your summoners are already needing a lot more experience points to raise levels than the other PCs. With this rule, they'll always be three to four levels behind the rest of the party.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

So, a lot of your rules have to do with fiddling with experience points. I'm going to suggest that, overall, that's not the way Paizo intends Pathfinder to be played.

One of the biggest changes from D& 3rd Edition and 3.5 to Pathfinder is that XP are no longer a spendable resource. In 3rd Edition, for example, crafting magic items cost XP, so a player could keep adventuring with a wizard and choose not to go up in level by spending XP doing other things like crafting. There were advantages to being 4th level, but having all the gear that comes with 6 levels worth of encounters. In Pathfinder, nothing costs XP. The only thing XP does is provide mile markers to character advancement.

Adventure Paths routinely say "characters should be 5th level by the time they get to the temple, and 6th level by the time they encounter this guy." That is, they don't worry about XP at all.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Just FYI: These are "plug-and-play" house rules, so none of them assume any others are going to be used. I wouldn't expect anyone to use the whole set of them simultaneously (I certainly don't!).


Jhaeman wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

Roll for hit points, if below average for the die, get the average of the die.

Pros: PCs are durable, so the GM can take the kid gloves off.

Cons: PCs are durable, so they might not feel the peril.

Sorry, to clarify: I already have a list of fifty, so I'm not asking for new ones (there are lots of threads for that), but instead feedback on the ones I place here. Thanks!

If you are GM then you are GOD. Don't let it go to your head. Arrogance and humility walk hand in hand, maybe a lesser god. Yes, that's god without the bold type and caps. Just like GOD with the bold type and caps, we live off the praise and devotion of our worshipers, I mean players! This is going to sound harsh but you might think about how you can be a better GM. Be the kind of GM that players can't wait to adventure with. You can be the best technical (rules) GM ever and lose them with poor content presentation. You have lost them. So you should polish your presentation. Maybe even play some mini adventures for those who come early.


All I'm asking is you offer Alternatively. Your product will appeal to a larger audience.

4th edition and Nephilliam both took the tack of take it or leave it. Some people want a downtime XP rule that doesn't involve being run over by the GM Fiat. If you get shot at, it might miss or just not crit. Poisoning involves a saving throw. If crafting magic items can lead to certain death, the ninjas will be lurking trying to capture this gas or energy to use for assassinations.


Dot


Goth Guru wrote:

14. Summoned monsters now come from some magical pattern buffer on the Thought Forms plane or something. Having to calculate experience separately for each character is it's own punishment. If a character has a bonded creature, they should be buffing them, equipping them, and otherwise contributing to a fellow member of the party.

I believe this to be a bit harsh, especially with game design specifically for some character classes to come with a "pet". That does not mean it cannot be salvaged, exclude class sponsored "pets" from the equation, to include those brought about by short term spells, such as summon X. For the other additions, such as trained pets, mercenaries, or other NPCs along for the ride, I have used a simple count them as 1/2 a share of XP when the division time comes around. As NPCs (including pets), XP makes no nevermind to their advancement, they advance as the DM dictates to assist with the story development (or basic combat survival unless intended otherwise, such as in the case of protection missions). I would further restrict this division to non bystanders (for example, a fight breaks out in a bar and a bystander provides as assist, but otherwise has no vested interest in the group or their mission, whatever it may be). I would also exclude plot devices (such as a subject of a protection mission who fights on the side of the PCs in their own self interest). I would most definitely include option NPCs, such as those provided through the Leadership feat (even though it is a part of the character, their class design is not centered around the presence of such an NPC). The more NPCs following the group, the greater the drag on the experience share.

As a side note (and this may be left over from D&D games) when a PC loses a "pet" from their class feature, that often comes with some form of penalty of its own (varied by class). Now they are being double punished.
Just my thoughts on this particular subject, since you asked for it.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

You seem to have a lot of house rules that manipulate XP. There are other commodities in the game. Just sayin.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

# 17. The Magical Red Chip: Once a year, players receive a red poker chip. They can turn in this chip at any single point in the coming year to turn a normal hit into a critical hit (or vice versa), to turn a miss into a hit (or vice versa), or to automatically succeed or fail (or have an opponent or ally) succeed or fail on a saving throw or skill check.

PRO: Pathfinder can be a brutal game. You’ve invested a year in your PC, and suddenly that giant lands a x3 crit and that PC is a goner. Or maybe the group’s backs are against the wall, but a lucky strike might just get them out of it. These are the situations when just a tiny bit of extra control in the players’ hands can make all the difference. Instead of a full-fledged “Hero Points” system, a yearly “red chip” is easy to use and administer. When it’s gone, it’s gone, so make it count.

CON: Players are smart, and some groups will save these up for a big boss fight. Suddenly, every PC is landing crits, every spell-caster is landing “save or suck spells,” and that epic battle becomes a cakewalk.

# 18. No Penalties for Diagonal Movement: There is no added cost to moving diagonally.

PRO: There’s inevitably a level of abstraction for tactical combat—a gnome with a dagger and a bugbear with a greatsword each require exactly one 5’x’5 square in order to fight effectively, for example. Once the fact of abstraction is accepted, there’s no reason to impose a penalty for diagonal movement as long as both the PCs and monsters are covered by the same rule. Remembering diagonal movement cost is one of the things that new players inevitably stumble over, and it adds nothing to the game.

CON: Mathematically-inclined folks may have conniptions.

# 19. Luck Rating: When created, each PC has a Luck Rating determined by rolling 3d6 and multiplying the result by 5. The result is the percentage chance that something lucky or unlucky happens to the character when the GM asks for a Luck roll. In the case of multiple characters succeeding when only one can be Lucky, or multiple characters failing when only one can be Unlucky, the character who succeeded by the greatest amount or failed by the greatest amount is selected.

PRO: Sometimes, it really all boils down to luck. The mindless swarm could attack the PC to the left or the PC to the right; there could be a shovel in the shed but the scenario doesn’t say one way or the other; no one can remember if Johnny said he was having his dwarf pick up his throwing axe before leaving the site of the encounter. The idea of each character having a fixed luck rating comes from other RPGs like Call of Cthulhu, and I’ve found it really helps out every so often when a choice has to be made but there’s no particular reason why the result should be one way or the other. It also adds to the fun of a character’s narrative, because the single 3d6 roll at the beginning of their career shows whether they’re destined to be lucky or unlucky.

CON: Lady Luck can be a cruel mistress, and a player could be understandably annoyed if this house rule results in a repeated run of bad fortune.


You would do well to think little further on the CON parts of these. I understand that you likely think it is a decent houserule(at minium) or you would not suggest it as an option in the first place. But to give someone the full picture there should be a lot more in the CON department for a lot of these.(Granted with some it would go for PRO too but the lacking is heavily in the con section.)

17: The example in the PRO section doesn't take into consideration raise dead an it's ilk. Con section would benefit from the fact that it also allows characters to do things that are impossible for them in the first place. Just to take it to absurd levels, one could declare that they are jumping to other side of the world.

18: And how will this work with ranged attacks, what about reach, AOE and so forth. If these do not match the rules for movement I would say it is even more confusing for new players. Another thing is that it completely ignores the possibility of playing in a hex grid.(or with no grid at all for that matter.)

19: The basic idea of it is fine. But implementation is horrible. Unless every single other stat of characters is created at completely random fashion. There are countless RPGs which actually manage to make a decent mechanic out of it(and about twice as many that fail hard), copy some of them instead.


17. One roll may not be enough to save a character from death if it's all going wrong. My own variant is to give each player a one-time save your life card once they've completed their character background - something happens to take them out of combat with conditions which will kill them stopped.

18. Mathematically-inclined, and those who like their fireballs rather than firecubes etc. Mind you, I like doing without the grid.

19. Charisma makes a decent luck stat when one is required. I know a guy who revolted at the idea though and used wisdom instead (for a different implementation) on the basis that being observant and careful was more relevant.


For luck rolls as GM, I typically just ask for a d20. 1-10, bad luck. 11-20, good luck.

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / "My House, My Rules: Fifty Plug-and-Play House Rules for Pathfinder" All Messageboards

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