glosz's page

Anyone else. Comments on the house rules are appreciated as well.

I like your house rules. Keep it simple. We did a similar healing spell fix too. Our house rules

The fighter "fix" I am wary of. When you make big changes to a class you then need to adjust EVERY SINGLE NPC / MONSTER WITH FIGHTER LEVELS in your campaign. It is just a huge amount of work. Maybe when I was 14 and had nothing better to do with my time I would tackle such a task but now I value my time.

In my campaign we added fighter techniques which grouped like feats together. Easy to add into an existing campaign.

Each poison is assigned a complexity rating based on it's properties. The deadlier they are the more complex it becomes.

System is similar to regular craft.

The DC to craft a poison is equal to it's complexity rating

1 Roll a craft check vs the poison's DC for 1 days work
2 If the check is higher than or equal to the DC multiply the craft check result by the complexity and divide the result by 7 - this is the result in gp value towards the construction of the poison

The cost of poison is now the square of it's complexity.
The complexity of poison is equal to it's Fort DC-10 plus the individual square of each of it's components.

Poisons Spreadsheet

Example 1:

Talice is 9th level with +2 INT modifier, max 9 ranks craft for a +12 bonus and a masterwork poison lab granting another +2 bonus for a total of +16. Assume take 10 for a result of 26.

Medium Spider Venom
Type Injury Fort DC 14 Onset - Frequency 1/rd. for 4 rds. Effect 1d2 Str Cure 1 Save

Rated as follows:
Type = 2
Onset = 2
Frequency = 2
Effect = 1
Cure = 1

Complexity Formula = (14-10)+(2^2)+(2^2)+(2^2)+(1^2)+(1^2) = 4+4+4+4+1+1 = 18

Cost = 18^2 = 18*18 = 324gp

Check

26 is greater than 18 so success.

Calculate progress = (26*18)/7=66.86 so 66gp 8sp 6cp worth. At this rate Talice will finish the poison dose in 4.8 days (rounded up to 5).

Example 2:

Purple Worm Poison
Type Injury Fort DC 24 Onset - Frequency 1/rd. for 6 rds. Effect 1d3 Str Cure 2 Saves

Rated as follows:
Type = 2
Onset = 2
Frequency = 2
Effect = 1
Cure = 2

Complexity Formula = (24-10)+(2^2)+(2^2)+(2^2)+(1^2)+(2^2) = 14+4+4+4+1+4 = 31

Cost = 31^2 = 31*31 = 961gp

Check

26 is less than 31 so failure.

Talice will have to take extra feats or gain more levels to increase her ranks in craft to be able to craft this poison. She can attempt to craft it by chance but a result of 5 less than the DC ruins half her components.

Optional rule

Weak and Strong Poisons
A weak version can be created. It's Fort DC is 5 less than a standard dose.
A Strong version can be created. It's Fort DC is 5 more than a standard dose.

Back to Purple Worm Poison

Example 3:

Weak Purple Worm Poison
Type Injury Fort DC 19 Onset - Frequency 1/rd. for 6 rds. Effect 1d3 Str Cure 2 Saves

Rated as follows:
Type = 2
Onset = 2
Frequency = 2
Effect = 1
Cure = 2

Complexity Formula = (19-10)+(2^2)+(2^2)+(2^2)+(1^2)+(2^2) = 9+4+4+4+1+4 = 26

Cost = 26^2 = 26*26 = 676gp

Check

26 is equal to 26 so success.

Calculate progress = (26*26)/7=96.57 so 96gp 5sp 7cp worth. At this rate Talice will finish the poison dose in 7 days even.

Master Alchemist feat
Master Alchemist feat changed to exclude the sp to gp value for crafting. It now only grants +2 to checks plus 1 dose created per INT modifier (still a damn good feat but not required).

You could either spend a lot of time and effort reworking Pathfinder, or find another game and add the stuff you like from Pathfinder to it.

+1

A great "realistic" system I have played is Cyberpunk 2020. All the characters have the same number of hit points and receive progressively greater penalties the more damage they take. A character with a high CON (called BODY in CP2020) reduces the damage they take from each hit (effectively DR).

It uses hit locations and receiving 8+ damage in one location in one hit disables it plus causes saves vs death unless it's a head shot which is insta-kill.

It works really well although it makes for a very violent game with characters that are short lived if they aren't careful.

It's not really in the spirit of high adventure though where warriors are slaying dragons in single combat. A big bucket of hit points works really well in that way.

In my campaign we have done a few things to reduce the power of spells.

* Stat boosting items are banned (to reduce save DCs)

* All saving throws are now at ¾ HD progression (max +15). If one of your classes has a 'good' save then that save is granted a +2 bonus (a much needed saving throw boost)

* Wands may only be used 2 times per day (to limit spellcaster's daily resource)

* Touch attack spells and spell like abilities use a REF save instead. If not stated the save DC = 10+½ character level + relevant ability modifier.

* only core rulebook spells allowed. Other spells may be researched from other sources with DM approval and only if they add something new to the game (ie: can't be duplicated with a core rulebook spell.)

Now for individual spells we have changed the following:

Hi,

What wildshape forms do you allow in your campaign?

Under the druid class it says you can transform into any animal and that includes many strange creatures that are considered "animals"

What would you say to these options?

1 - Rules as Written (simplest)
You can take the shape of any bestiary animal of the size allowed by your druid level and his knowledge of such creature. The bestiary dictates what is a natural creature in the world (so someone seeing a giant gecko wouldn't freak out. It would be the same as seeing a dog or wild pig).

2 - "real world" (most restrictive)
All animals must be as close to real world as possible. This would include extinct animals like the sabre tooth, mastodon and the dire variants (basically megafauna) and (maybe) dinosaurs (depends on the campaign world). Anything with "giant" in it's name like the giant gecko is considered a magical beast.

3 - "real world" plus some flexibility (complex)
As 2 but with certain concessions. Any animal can have "dire" tacked onto it therefore considering it megafauna. Tiny and smaller animals become small and everything else goes up one size category. You can't tack "dire" onto dire animals as they are already considered megafauna and any creature that is basically already megafauna like the mastodon can't become dire. You can also reduce the size category by 1 to have a young version. So a young elephant would be considered large. This way you could have a dire grizzly bear as a huge animal option.

5 - any size goes (open to abuse)
You can just pick an animal and decide what size it is. Tiny Mastodons and Huge Wolves are ok.

Instead of swapping around we give fighters automatic feat chains. It gives the same result of providing fighters with more options but without the book keeping.

I also find it helps it be believable. Your fighter just doesn't forget how to sunder just because he needs to bull rush in the next encounter.

Combat Techniques Link

It seems they only need 4 members to be able to complete the adventure as written due to the boss fights.

I wanted to avoid having to run an NPC in the party for 2 reasons. I feel it takes away from the PCs actions and the extra work of running an NPC in the party (especially at high levels).

Would it be easier to just downgrade some of the big fights? For example Malfeshnekor doesn't activate blink or Nualia doesn't cast bulls strength. Even just using a simple tactic like going toe-to-toe with the fighter could change a battle dramatically.

Are there any particular fights that you definitely think that it is essential to have 4 party members?

We just had a player drop out and are now down to 3 PCs.

They are 4th level and are about to start chapter 2.

We have a half-orc two-handed fighter, a dwarven cleric who specialises in crafting and a dwarven domain druid who specialises in summoning.

The player who plays the half-orc fighter is planning on taking the leadership feat at 7th level and is going to take a fighter as his cohort but until then do you think with only 3 characters they will be able to complete this part of the AP or should I give them some extra resources or maybe reduce the difficulty of some of the encounters?

All saving throws are now at ¾ HD progression (max +15). If one of your classes has a 'good' save then that save is granted a +2 bonus.

Arakhor wrote:

Well, even after eliminating resistance bonuses from items, save-or-X powers are much weaker for the PCs under that change, assuming (of course) that monsters also benefit from much higher saves across the board.

Just compare the numbers to what happens if you don't fix the saving throw problem.

I have only a few house rules. Mainly to keep it manageable but their are a couple which I find are the most important:

Stat Boosting Items
Are no longer available. Any item that grants a “+” to a stat needs to be reviewed accordingly.

Saving Throws
All saving throws are now at ¾ HD progression (max +15). If one of your classes has a 'good' save then that save is granted a +2 bonus.

Touch attack spells
Touch attack spells and spell like abilities use a REF save instead. If not stated the save DC = 10+½ character level + relevant ability modifier.

Divine Casters
Spells are contained in a prayer book which acts like a wizards spell books but contains spells from the cleric/druid/ranger/paladin spell list (as appropriate)
Gains 4 spells known + wisdom modifier at 1st level plus his domain spells (if any) in his prayer book and 2 bonus spells known every level thereafter plus his domain spells (if any) when they become available. May ‘scribe’ spells as a wizard does.

Because magic is powerful and needs to be kept in check.

The versatility of the divine casters is a major one to crush. After playing a 9th level cleric and being able to get the perfect spell for any situation it was clear how game ruining it was.

Keeping super high save DCs under control, boosting base saving throws and turning touch attack spells into saves was also essential.

Zardnaar wrote: wrote:

I more or less only allow the core rule book these days and maybe some limited stuff from Ultimate Combat/Magic. Doesn't bother me if a player throws a hissy fit because I will not allow stuff from the races or classes book.

Core is the most broken book.

Core may be broken in places but it is easier to house rule 1 broken book than a whole library.

Paizo did a pretty good job fixing a lot of the problems with 3.5 but failed to fix them all. Like WotC they unfortunately introduced more problems when releasing new material.

This is why I only use core with a few options from APG (being feats) and UM (being the Magus class).

I'm the Op and I have been playing more OSR D&D than Pathfinder because of the balance levels. OSR D&D doesn't even try and be balanced and its still easier to run than PF.

I started with ad&d and currently play pathfinder. I would find it very difficult going back to the old ways.

glosz wrote:

In my campaign we did a few things to fix the fighter and other martial classes.
As noted the fighter is good at dealing damage but lacks versatility and defence against magic.
For the second we gave everyone (including monsters) 3/4 hd to all saves (max +15) with a +2 bonus for a good save. So a 20th level fighter would have base saves fort +17 ref +15 will +15.

Undone wrote:

I was always under the impression the most problematic magic had no save.

Simulacrum, Maze, Reverse Gravity, animate dead, Permanency, Contingency, Black tentacles, Summons...

Quite often people try to make a fix without looking at the system as a whole. Increasing saves and altering how touch spells work is only 1 step in addressing the problem.

Pathfinder did a great job in fixing lots of the problematic spells from 3.5 but unfortunately fell short on fixing all of them. This is where a DM needs to look at a spell on a case by case basis and adjust where necessary. For example in my campaign to eliminate scry and fry we changed how teleport works:

In my campaign we did a few things to fix the fighter and other martial classes.

As noted the fighter is good at dealing damage but lacks versatility and defence against magic.

For the second we gave everyone (including monsters) 3/4 hd to all saves (max +15) with a +2 bonus for a good save. So a 20th level fighter would have base saves fort +17 ref +15 will +15.

We also changed all touch attack spells to a reflex save. This meant we had to change evasion to only work against area attacks.

These 2 changes dramatically increase the defence against magic for everyone.

For the first we introduced combat techniquesfor the martial classes.

It basically groups the feat chains which allows the martial classes to spend some of their feats on non-combat ones.

Our house rules only includes the Core Rulebook and APG but there is no reason the other source books couldn't be added.

This was a simple way to improve the fighter. He doesn't need bigger numbers. He needs options. Yes he'll never be able to match the versatility of the casters but at least for combat he won't be a one trick pony.

'medium' is my floor.

same. We also make all saves medium progression. It's ridiculous that a 20th level character has only +6 base save whilst the base DC for a 9th level spell is 23. It's just too easy for a caster to take out an enemy with a poor save.

good saves get an additional +2 'class save bonus' based on class selection.

We also grant a one off +2 bonus if your class has a 'good' save. This means that a multiclass Barbarian / Ranger / Fighter doesn't get +6 to Fort!

Martials have severely less versatility than spellcasters. Martial classes give much fewer options to martials for solving problems, resigning weapon damage as their primary contribution. As a result, a martial needs high stats to stay useful to the party because their contribution to the party is limited to putting out numbers. In addition, the game scales monsters with the assumption the PCs receive gear with respect to the Wealth By Level table.

All of this is commonly known information by anyone with experience in D&D and Pathfinder.

Yes it's true that fighters are less versatile than spellcasters. I've been playing d&d for a long time and am well aware of this fact but the paltry +1 modifier from a belt of giant strength is not equal to +1 to DCs for all your spells. The majority of a fighters bonus to damage is not from his belt of strength. It's from his feats like power attack and weapon specialisation which a fighter gets quite a few of.

For the same price a fighter could have +2 to all his saves vs a +2 to a single stat. I know what I'd be spending my gold on.

Are you suggesting that stat-boosting items should be banned so enemy spellcasters will have lower spell DCs? That's ridiculous!

Actually quite the opposite. The last campaign I played in had an Arcane Gnome Beguiler who overclocked his INT. The poor monsters we encountered barely stood a chance against his glitterdust and deep slumber spells. Our DM had to crank up the defences to overcome his high DCs.

Removing stat boosting items is one step in reducing the crazy high DC's that spellcasters can obtain.

It's about giving both sides a fair chance to avoid the encounter ending spells we all know exist.

The biggest problem that GMs face is unbalanced characters and overpowered characters, in turn forcing the GM to bolster encounters.

A Cloak of Resistance is not a stat boosting item, it's a saving throw boosting item.
Most players have become accustomed to using stat-boosting items, and any suggestion to play without them is followed by "the sky is falling." A 3rd level two-handed fighter with 20 str wielding a great axe with power attack does 1d12 +13 (14-25) damage...far from being a cripple.

Exactly this.

Instead of DC being 10 + Stat + Spell Level, you can make the DC 10 + 4 + 1/4th caster level + Spell Level.

You could also make the DC's purely level based, 10+Spell level + 1/2 character level, round up. So, +1 to 10. Max DC for any spell would be 29 at level 19 (barring spell focus feats).

Both good ideas. You either have to reduce (or cap) the DC or boost the save. I guess whichever is the easiest to implement would be the best approach.

Not really., the cost of item is exponential: for the price of a "+4 item", the fighter can get +2 to 3 stats, gaining much more than a +2 to to the saving throw.

Even with + to stat items around the good/poor progression saving throw table is a problem. This is why we use save = 3/4 HD (+0 to +15).

That's completely untrue. Martials heavily rely on stat-boosting items to stay relevant, so much that one of Pathfinder's designers is kickstarting a new RPG that specifically addresses that issue.

How so?

Bonus spells and higher DC is way better than a +1 here or there.

Also with 3 different stats to augment vs saving throws vs 1 stat for the casters the martial is always playing catch up.

So by banning stat boosting items the martial needs to worry less about those pesky spell DC's.

I do however really like this rule to limit the ridiculous one-stat-to-rule-them-all stat stacking that happens

Why not just ban stat boosting items altogether? Casters benefit the most from them and they are already powerful enough.

In my house rules I also use a different saving throw table to reign in casters. It is based off the medium attack progression (+0 to +15) with a one off +2 bonus for a "good" save. This combined with no stat boosting items really helps against the high DC's from spells.

Forcing a wizard to use CHA for save DCs just means they are going to be not only smart but also good looking.

Most of a wizards arsenal is not full round spells.

I agree though that the rogue is short-changed as the only non-caster not getting a boost.

I guess they could use their Combat Trick (rogue talent) to select a Combat Technique rather than just a single Combat Feat. They must still meet the pre-requisites of the feats.

1 Combat Technique is reasonable and doesn't step on the martial characters toes. It also falls in-line with how a fighter can spend his bonus combat feats.

I'll write that into my house rules. I am sure my players will be happy!

so, if i'm a level 2 fighter with two techniques, do i get 2 feats or 4? ie is it 1/level or 1/level/technique?

You would get 4.

Keep in mind that a lot of the techniques overlap.

regarding the 5-foot step: is 'because it makes casting safer" the only reason you 'removed' them?

One of the main reasons. Also, archers could 5' step backwards and full attack. I wanted there to be a penalty for letting a melee guy get that close to you. You still have a choice. Take the AoO or cast defensively. For an archer you could either take the AoO or make a melee attack.

also, if you don't want to create an entire new list of techniques, you could just let the aforementioned rogue talents each 'dip' a single technique from any list.

I really wanted to limit the martial aspect of the rogue as sneak attack and high skill points really keeps the character relevant. The fighter, barbarian, paladin and ranger are the fighting classes.

It is also a slippery slope as then do I allow the bard and magus access to Combat Techniques or even the cleric and druid? So maybe just force the rogue to multi-class or encourage the player to play an urban ranger instead.

My house rules are in this thread:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rk3o?house-rules

I tried to keep my game simple. The last campaign I played in was 3.5 with all the books allowed. It was a nightmare for our DM. He had to constantly alter the encounters in the adventure he was running (Red Hand of Doom). I don't blame players for optimising their characters with the material available. This is why I kept the books available to a minimum.

I also let players know that if there was a concept that couldn't be created with the core rule book then we could look at alternatives.

you should let rogues get in on the fun tho, for reals (Combat Trick, Weapon Training, etc)

I should probably make up a rogue list like I did for Monks. I just don't see them as a martial class so was reluctant to hand out the techniques to them.

question: if i choose a technique in place of a combat feat, do i automatically get all the feats in the technique path when i qualify for them?

You gain the feats at a rate of 1 per class level. Most techniques have up to 5 feats so at 5th level (and beyond) you would gain all the feats in the technique as long as you meet the prerequisites as soon as you choose the technique.

For example if you are a 6th level fighter (with STR 13) and choose Bull Rush Technique you would gain all the feats except Bull Rush Strike as you need BAB +9. Once you reach 9th level you automatically gain it.

I probably should put in something about multi-classing martial classes stack levels when determining the number of feats you gain. So if you were a 1st level barbarian with Bull Rush Technique (Power Attack), then took a level of ranger you would gain a second feat (say Improved Bull Rush).

The idea behind the feats is to let fighters use their non-combat feats to flesh out their character although you could still choose a Combat Technique if you like!

Why do wizards need 4 skill ranks + Int per level?

I wanted to make it minimum 4 across the board.

Interesting trade off between a 5' step provoking and full BAB on iterative attacks.

My rationale behind the 5'step is that it was too easy for a caster or archer to avoid AoO. As soon as they were threatened they could just 5' step away and be in safety. I have been playing with this and it has made combat heaps easier and casters actually sweat when they are being engaged in melee.

Note that the 5' step only provokes an AoO when you leave a threatened square.

Just thought I'd share my house rules with the community.

Some of it is in shorthand so if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them.

House Rules

google document

Combat and Monk Techniques

google pdf