Seeing as how devs are unlikely to bolt on something like Stamina, Healing Surges or Short Rests, maybe they might consider better mundane healing feats? Here are a couple suggestions:
Battle Medic (requires Trained in Medicine; changed as stated below)
Description:
You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even if you’re in the middle of combat. In order to do so in combat, you must attempt a DC 20 Medicine check. Regardless of your result, the target is bolstered to your use of Battle Medic. Out of combat, you may take 10 minutes to automatically succeed on this check.
If you’re a master of Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 25 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 2d10, and if you’re legendary, you can instead attempt a DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 4d10. These increased values also apply when taking 10 minutes to heal outside of combat.
Success The target regains Hit Points equal to 1d10 plus your Wisdom modifier.
Critical Success As success, but target regains 1d10 additional HP.
Failure The target gains 1/2 Healing
Critical Failure The target gains no Healing
Improved Battle Medic (requires Master in Medicine; NEW)
Description:
Functions as Battle Medic but every d10 is replaced by a d12. Also, when used outside of combat, you automatically critically succeed instead of succeed.
Natural Medicine (requires Expert in Nature; changed as shown below)
Description:
You can spend 10 minutes applying natural cures to heal a creature, after which you must attempt a DC 20 Nature check. On a success, the target regains Hit Points equal to 1d8 plus your Wisdom modifier. If you’re a master of Nature, the target regains an additional 1d8 Hit Points. You can use this feat to heal a particular creature twice per day.
If you’re in the wilderness, you might have easier access to fresh ingredients, allowing you to restore an additional 1d8 Hit Points on a success or critical success, subject to the GM’s determination.
Improved Natural Medicine (requires Legendary in Nature; NEW)
Description:
Functions as Natural Medicine but you no longer need to roll and you always add the additional die for "access to fresh materials"
This is just me spit-balling. Something like this would function as a sort of "ghetto Short Rest." Combat healing is still way better but this is at least kinda OK.
A bit about me. I am an almost 40 something husband and father living in California. I played DnD briefly in college and have gotten back into it in the past year. I have been playing 3.5E with a local group on weekdays and ran a short 5E campaign (along with a few One Shots) on Roll20. I want to try running a longer campaign using the PF system since, while I like 5E (great system!), I miss the tactical movement and mini focused combat of 3rd Edition.
I am really interested in running the Iron Gods adventure path. The game will use assorted Variant and House PF rules (see here).
I will be running this on Maptool. I am still familiarizing myself with the software and reading up on the adventure path, so it may be some time before we get started. Consider this a bit of an interest check.
Games would most likely be every other week on Sunday evenings (PST) and run for 3.5 to 5 hours or so. On rare occasions, we may be able to reschedule the game to a Saturday or Monday. I am really looking for consistency - especially since this will be played every other week.
If interested, please message me. Thanks for reading!
Removed some combative posts. Please familiarize yourself with our Community Guidelines.
Thanks Chris! I appreciate you stepping in there. I want you to know that I sure didn't expect or solicit all that when making this thread.
Anywho, so in light of some folks being so focused on certain 3E staples (multiclassing, etc), I will replace Standard Multiclassing with Variant Multiclassing from the Unchained book. Its from an official source, so maybe folks will find it less objectionable than Zero Multiclassing.
Also, rather than straight up white listing which classes I prefer, I will just offer players a choice of "Party Tier Average." So, they can choose from a Party Tier of 2, 3 or 4. Once the decision is made, then they must all choose classes/archetypes from within one step of that Tier. So, if they choose Tier 3, then they can only choose classes/archetypes that are Tier 2, 3 or 4.
Mashallah:
If you really think this turns all spell casters just as strong as Arcanists, I'll just go back to my original version where I whitelist Tier 2 through 4 classes. I kinda thought that being limited by their school/domain/etc a bit with regards to what spells they could prepare would bring them down a bit in power (in addition to the somewhat delayed aquisition in spells prepped). From my experience as a Spirit Shaman, it can be a fun way to cast without being overpowering. Most folks ranked Spirit Shaman as tier 2 in 3.5
Same total spells prepped as a Spirit Shaman though (slightly more actually) - just less casts. Just curious if they would be tier 2 with something like this.
The idea is to maintain some of the flexibility of the prepared caster over a Sorceror/Oracle but make that come at a more significant cost (significantly less spell choices in the moment; significantly less casts per day; etc) while addressing some of the issues with typical spell prep systems.
Would a Tier 1 caster using such a system drop a Tier or stay the same?
I am pretty surprised at a few folks getting all tiffy over no multiclassing or a restricted class list. To me this is no different than saying core only or not allowing guns or whatever. Even 5E gets this. They explicitly make Multiclassing and Feats optional rules. Everyone has different sensibilities about this stuff and maybe before posting in a topic folks should consider whether what they are typing is actually constructive.
I appreciate the folks who were able to give decent feedback. If anyone else has something of value to say, please post. Ive made numerous changes thanks to the valuable advice of numerous individuals and I feel much happier with my rules now.
Dazing spell is one of the top three most powerful feats in the game. Nothing is immune to the dazed condition as daze is not mind effecting. Daze rod or feat plus fireball is crazy good.
I thought about allowing Aasimar, Tieflings and Changlings but they seemed a bit too good for no ECL penalty. They also dont fit terribly well in the campaign Id like to run. I might consider that for a game where players all pick some "exceptional" race though.
Thanks for the heads up on Arithmancy. I would just ban that because I dont want to sit around checking player math every other round. Is Dazing Spell that bad?
1. I dont do evil in my games. It just doesnt work unless we are doing team evil and everyone goes for it.
2. I dont see the difference between Paizo making rules and the DM making rules. The DM runs the game after all. So long as the rules are made up front and shared before the start, then the game is fair. Part of rules are limitations. I would hope someone in a "House Rule" forum would be on board with that.
Alright, made the archetypes recommended on Brawler and Fighter and added in Vigilante. I see Kinitecist as T5, so its out. Additional traits is back in.
I didnt allow the favored class bonus since due to some races giving bonus spells known to Sorcerer and Oracle. Didnt seem balanced in the slightest. I may allow base bonus (+1 skill or hp) instead. That seems fine
Why are they recommended? Just curious.
Kineticist isn't T5. It's decent low-investment damage (with your houserules, they only need one feat for the entire game for physical blasts), with some fun utility added on.
Sure, just ban alternate racial favored class bonuses. Balances races better.
I wanted to make sure that whoever makes a Brawler or Fighter feels good with what they made at later levels. There are several trap archetypes for those classes and the vanilla versions of those classes don't seem to have enough oomph. So I recommended archetypes that would still feel competitive later on.
Alright, made the archetypes recommended on Brawler and Fighter and added in Vigilante. I see Kinitecist as T5, so its out. Additional traits is back in.
I didnt allow the favored class bonus since due to some races giving bonus spells known to Sorcerer and Oracle. Didnt seem balanced in the slightest. I may allow base bonus (+1 skill or hp) instead. That seems fine
You can exit a stinking cloud and the cloud requires saves every round. C. Call cannot be exited and once you fail the save, you are screwed for the duration. Totally different spells.
Ya, I just HATE systems like 3.5, where players build a character through dips and such. It promotes cheezy characters rather than picking a class and accepting its strengths AND weaknesses.
Similarly, I also think that many players would rather pick a class and play without feeling outshined by the powergamer who kows how to cherry pick this many class levels of x and that many of y.
1. Ya, dont like Permanancy. It opens up too much cheese. We can agree to disagree on that one.
2. Feeblemind is an extremely powerful save or suck for the level. I might reconsider but it seems yo me all of my npc casters would have some kind of protection against it. As would the pc id imagine. Seems like a tedious and boring spell that does nothing good for the game.
3. It IS a tier cut off (t2 to t4). Plus no summoners pretty much.
4. The quirky thing is a bit heavy handed I admit. I may rethink that. But I wont allow dual wielding shields at my table, so there you go. I may change it to "please refrain from overly quirky builds" or some such that means the same thing but sounds less dictatorial.
5. Antogonize seems op. I may rethink additional traits but considering the sheer amount of traits out there my instinct is to limit them.
6. I will ban sacred geometry after looking it up not because its op. Simply because its convoluted and stupid.
7. For the level, Cacophanous Call should have a save every round I think.
I am thinking of running a PF campaign and wanted some feedback on the house rules I am cooking up for it. I want to make character creation more straightforward, to get rid of some feat taxes and to avoid overly wide gaps in player character effectiveness.
Any specific feedback would be great. For example, is there enough choice in classes or will players be miffed by the lack of Wizards and Clerics? Are there any other spells or feats you might ban? I want to get all this in now since I dont like nerfing or banning something once play starts.
Thanks for the feedback! So, the game should play alright with these classes/feats/etc? The party won't be horribly destroyed by robots and the like? I recently ran the first half of Out of the Abyss and was amused at how we started and the player's destroyed everything and then as soon as I started to tamper with the encounters a smidge, they started dropping like flies.
I gave some thought to how I would run this world. I think I would scale the tech back just slightly. It seems like they get a little too much tech treasure but I may be wrong.
Also, The world as I run it will probably have zero native guns in it. I think that necessity is the mother of invention. If a privileged few have the laser guns they need, why would anyone bother to make a ball and powder pistol? That is my excuse for not having the Gunslinger.
Part of it is just damage though. I thought about the Gunslinger and ran some numbers. I think they do more damage than I am comfortable with, so I am shying away from their inclusion.
How does this look as far as a setting intro, etc?
Hey folks, Pathfinder newbie here (3.5 vet though).
I am excited by the premise of this AP and am gearing up run it. Would anyone who has run this be so kind as to give me some feedback on how well this AP would run with the house rules I have thought up?
My goal is to limit this to T3/4 classes and builds. I also wanted to eliminate some feat taxes to allow players to diversify a bit. I am not sure how this will play out though.
Any feedback is welcome.
Also, is anyone familiar with running games via MapTool? I am thinking using that. I have used Roll20 in the past but I have heard good things about MapTool.
