I've been playing an increasing amount of Warmachine and Hordes lately.
The setting has a lot of eerie similarities to my homebrew of 15 years or so. Since the game mechanics in Warmahordes are impressive to say the least, I thought I'd check out the Iron Kingdoms RPG.
I haven't played it yet, but it looks like it is heavily inspired by 3.5 era D&D, and streamlined in a way I could only expect from Privateer.
I'm very excited to try it. It looks like it will give a very similar gameplay experience to Pathfinder/3.5 at its best, but it seems like it has a lot less cruft that's built into it. That stands to reason, since they were able to rebuild from the ground up in a way that was not really possible with Pathfinder's transition from 3.5.
So, does anyone around here have experience with this game they'd like to share with me? How do you find it differs from Pathfinder or other RPGs? Any big strengths, weaknesses or pitfalls to watch out for?
Hello houserulers! Today I'd like to discuss a tool that works something like the Mob Template from 3.5's DMG2. I've been looking at a lot of takes on this rule; there are plenty of refinements on the internets that come in various levels of complexity. Here I'm going to brew my own to meet my specific needs.
Here's a little background. I am fed up with waiting. Most of my Pathfinder campaigns are at the mid-high levels now. Combat can become really grindy, and even though we're mostly veteran GMs and players, things still aren't as fast paced as I'd like.
I'd like to be able to use lots of little mooks in encounters without spending a whole evening on just one combat.
So, the first thing I attacked was initiative. I read from a number of houserulers on the webs that all said "individual initiative is slow, team initiative is where its at!" And so I tried it. And I think they were right. There's a certain collaborative smoothness to team initiative; and it works very well with the superheroic feel of a Pathfinder battle.
So great, I'm planning on sticking with team initiative. But when you're pushing all those miniatures or VTT tokens around, you quickly develop the temptation to resolve those creatures as a group instead of taking individual actions. If there's an appropriate CR gap to account for lots and lots of creatures, you'll typically find that it's not really even worth rolling to attack. You're just hoping to roll a 20 sometimes. That's lame, and it takes a LOT of time for very little payoff.
So I started looking at creature-grouping rules, and I feel like none of them are quite hitting the mark for me. I'll call this a rule for "Hordes" to avoid confusion with the Mob template.
The Perceived Problem
The Proposed Solution
Each time the horde loses enough hit points to kill a single creature within the horde, the attacker chooses a valid target of the attack within the horde to die. If the damage was enough to kill two creatures in the horde, the attacker chooses two valid targets to die, and so forth. If the attacker has no valid targets in reach after killing one or more creatures, no additional creature is killed, but the horde still sustains the damage. (This is intended to simplify HP tracking for large numbers of creatures.)
Any creatures which are not slain when the horde reaches zero hit points become individual creatures and gain the panicked condition.
Ranged attacks targeting the Horde may use the Horde AC. Melee attacks may target the horde AC as long as at least two creatures from the horde are in the threatened area.
If a horde loses enough creatures to fit into a smaller creature's space, it becomes the size of that space. A colossal horde of seventeen krugs becomes a gargantuan horde when krug #17 dies.
A horde equipped with ranged weapons can also make a ranged horde attack, which creates an area of effect with a size equal to the horde size. Flanking is not necessary. The damage is that of an individual ranged attack from a creature in the horde, but allows a reflex saving throw with a DC equal to 10 + the ranged attack bonus. A successful save halves the damage.
Individual creatures within a horde may make melee attacks against threatened targets if they are not otherwise able to make a horde attack. This includes making full attack actions if they would ordinarily be able to do so.
I know this is probably loaded with issues at this point, but that's why I bring it before you. What do you think? I'm especially welcoming of pessimistic feedback if it addresses the perceived problem!
I'm considering adopting the mythic rules for a campaign already in progress. Despite my avatar name, I actually don't know all that much about Mythic. I've skimmed the rules, and I feel I have a decent grasp of what's going on there, but experience has taught me that, well, only experience can teach you!
It's been a year now, and Wrath of the Righteous has come and gone. There are bound to be droves of people out there who have some direct experience with the Mythic rules who can tell me what the next result was on their campaign.
What's the consensus?
It doesn't take much to predict that even if it is functioning completely to spec, it's going to play complete havoc with a lot of normal campaign assumptions. That's fine. In a lot of ways, that's what I'm after; the campaign I'll be (maybe) adding this to is already the most over-the-top one I've ever run.
But once the dust settles, is there anything that's just too broken to touch? Anything I should exclude at the outset? Any popular house rules that keep things on track? I'm also interested in links to past threads that you feel explore this issue meaningfully.
All constructive feedback is appreciated!
This is getting brought up in another thread repeatedly, and I feel terrible linking people to ancient threads with hundreds of posts. So here's a new point of entry!
The Rule wrote:
There's a ton of theory behind it, and I'm happy to do a Q&A type thing here.
I also know there are many people still using the rule, and also some who used it and have moved on to something simpler. There are also people who have tweaked it to suit their needs. I'd love to hear from any of you!
This morning, my girlfriend got dressed up for Halloween. The outfit is demure, not that it should matter, but it seems relevant to mention.
On her way to work, some people called out their car window at her. She seems resigned to this kind of thing, but I've been seeing a lot of media about street harassment lately, and I got to wondering.
I guess I'm just too cynical.
I feel like the the only change would be effected by making a(*&^les somehow not be as*&$es.
It may be defeatist, but I really do believe that this kind of behavior has to be anticipated. I think it has a lot to do with my social status as a child... I take it as given that you need to avoid people for that kind of reason. It's the same impulse that has kids throwing rocks at other kids because of how they look and act, only the rocks are judgments.
The idea that you could ever wring contrition out of the kind of bully who accosts strangers strikes me as extremely naive.
I understand that this logic is regarded as contributing to the status quo, and I feel badly about this. But at what point do we leave the truth behind in pursuit of the ideal?
We've been playing a lot of it lately. There are still a number of Pathfinder campaigns running, but to be honest, sometimes you need a break from... I want to say the complexity, but it's more like the assumptions baked into the game.
If you're looking for the total opposite of the Pathfinder experience, Torchbearer is about as different as you can get. It's still complex, but the complexity derives more from the interactions of the various rules than from the sheer volume of abilities and exceptions.
Character creation is super light. The emphasis is on roleplaying and motivations to differentiate your character. You can't play "character sheet solitaire" with this game; once you've spent your 15 minutes making the character, there's nothing left to do but play (and play well) if you want to improve. Being a unique superhero is not the point -- your character will be defined by what they do in play, not what they can do after character creation.
It handles large groups incredibly well. All the players can remain engaged even when it isn't their turn, because they still need to describe their actions to provide helping dice. I have never run an 8 person party with such ease -- nor with such entertaining results.
Combat is not the default solution to all problems, in fact it is vastly suboptimal for character accomplishment -- and the rules exist to support non-combat encounters at the same level as combat! But the combat that IS there is dynamic, mapless, dramatic, and fast paced.
The pace of exploration is fast and role-playing focused. You CAN roll to accomplish things, but it consumes resources so it is wise to avoid rolling by describing your actions thoroughly and obviating rolls. This is much the opposite of Pathfinder, where you worked so hard to make your character good at things you are itching to roll dice to resolve obstacles.
GM prep is minimal and meaningful. I ran a session last Sunday where I only had: the leaving-town generated plot hook from the previous week, a lizardman statblock (and Torchbearer statblocks are lean), and a half-remembered encounter site from the Kingmaker adventure path. It was incredibly fun, and by all accounts the player experience felt very polished!
Don't mistake me: I love many things about Pathfinder, but it is not the RPG to end all RPGs for me. When I need a break from its peculiar mindset, Torchbearer's the game.
Now, I didn't start this thread to proselytize. I'm honestly curious if anyone else is playing this game, or interested in discussing the mechanics, or even just telling stories about your play experiences.
Is anyone else rocking this game?
Hey everybody, how's it going?
I've been playing the hell out of my Panzer Dragoon-inspired Summoner. Over time, I've noticed some strange things about the class, specifically the way Eidolons are incentivized toward certain play-styles.
My proposition is this: any evolutions that grant additional attacks cost +1 evolution point. Any evolutions that don't grant extra attacks are -1 evolution point, minimum 1.
What do you all think?
This is an idea I have for the Strain-Injury Variant hit point method.
I've been thinking about the so-called "15 minute adventuring day" as pertains to spell-casting balance. I've got a slightly different take than most: as a GM I haven't really had trouble with taxing my players or keeping the time pressure on. I'm pretty good at it (or maybe Kirth will say my players are just being gentlemen).
The thing is, I just don't care for daily balance mechanics all that much. Since adopting strain-injury, I've really started to think of encounter balance as either single-encounters or however many encounters I can reasonably expect to chain before R&R occurs, as per the Strain rules.
If potential R&R points represent a "break" in the action, then they also become the most tempting spots for casters to push for a full 8 hour rest.
The thing is, in the one game I've currently running, those 8-hour rests are just not thematic! What would be more thematic, to my mind, would be if casting your best spells took personal energy, tired you out, and made you more vulnerable; in a word, strain damage.
Casting from hit points is nothing new. I could link to TV Tropes on this one, but I value your time more than that.
I'm starting this thread to mine ideas and process the potential of a strain-based casting system replacing the spells-per-day system.
As a start: What would happen if instead of resting 8 hours to prepare spells, casters had whatever spells they chose during their last period of study/prayer (for prepared casters) or their spells known, and they could cast any one of those spells at any time. Each time they cast a spell, they suffer strain damage equal to twice the spell's level (or 1 hp for a cantrip/orison).
This would mean that you average first level wizard might cast two first level spells before becoming seriously worried about his hit points. However, after a quick R&R scene, he'd be back at max. That R&R scene is the same one that lets the martial characters regain HP.
A 9th level full caster would have around 40-60 hit points to play with. His highest level spells would cost 10hp stain to cast, making it likely that he would only wish to cast two or three at most, and even then it is a risk. How closely does this model a correctly functioning daily cycle?
For one thing, if that 9th level caster decides to slum it with first and second level spells, they can cast a TON of them. However, my assumption is that this was always true, and that the action economy will make sure this looks rather like the RAW in practice.
The ramifications are far-reaching, I understand. Please announce any that come to mind.
For seven years now, my friends and I have gathered together for one weekend in the middle of the summer to game until our eyes bleed.
Hitherto, that party was held at my house, out in the sticks, which made a nice pilgrimage for the city folk. They were trapped, far from the concerns of their mortal lives, and more fun was thus had.
But I have since moved back to civilization. Now I am seeking a place, accessible to the Boston area, but not too accessible, where we may congregate.
I'm thinking we could all go in on renting a cabin for the weekend. I tried looking up creepy horror movie cabin rentals, but that's evidently not a thing. (Most of the time it belongs to an uncle or something, I understand this.)
So, anywhere in New England might do.
The ideal site wouldn't necessarily have any external entertainment (lakes, beaches, trails, etc.) We aim to roll dice indoors. So it can be pretty cheap, I'm guessing, as long as it is comfortable and hopefully atmospheric.
Does anyone know of something suitable, or perhaps even ideal for this kind of thing? I mean, stone tiles, wooden beams and swords hanging from the wall are not necessary, but I would definitely give such a place priority consideration.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
I've been playing a lot of Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard games lately, and I got Torchbearer for xmas...
Finally a BW-derived game that "feels right" when used with a grindy, dungeon-map-based module like an Adventure Path!
I can't wait to play this game, and I'm not sure I can resist the temptation to take some or all of my current PF campaigns and include some elements.
Is there anyone out there who has this book also who might discuss with me the far-reaching implications of such an unholy union?
Ever had that week or month where all the games seem to fall through at the last minute, and you're in what seems like a constant state of gearing up for games that just never materialize?
I am. Right now. And to make matters worse, I could use an escape from reality. A little more than usual, this week.
Go on, vent.
I don't usually use XP in my Pathfinder campaigns; I just can't stand the paperwork. If you're running (most) APs, I advise you to just ditch it. But, I do see the value in it for hombrew campaigns that might not have clear benchmarks like Adventure paths do.
In fact, I see XP as an integral part of the Kingmaker Adventure Path, which I'm currently running.
The process of awarding XP has gotten considerably more "enlightened" over the course of editions. Story awards are the norm, victory does not necessarily mean murder, and so forth.
However, the actual process of awarding XP is still pretty vague. The issues of how to handle captives, or partial victories, or players who run away with the intent to deal with the situation later, are all wide open. I've tried to set out some general rules for fractional awards, but each time I quickly descend down a philosophical rabbit hole. It is dreadful.
In this thread, I'm interested in hearing from people who award experience points, and what their rules of thumb are for dealing with weird situations that are not clear-cut.
I'll start with an example: The party encounters a (randomly generated) giant whiptail centipede in its lair. The centipede ambushes them, poisons one of their horses. The players realize they are out-matched, and (wisely) flee.
In reality, we learn as much or more from our failures as we do from our triumphs. One school of thought is to say the "victory condition" of this encounter was "escape with your lives". Another school of thought is that the PCs did not defeat the creature, and so receive nothing.
In the end, I awarded 25% XP — the remaining 75% to be awarded when the creature was finally dealt with.
But if you actually award XP for any period of time in a real campaign with nuanced encounters, you are constantly running into these weird issues! So how do you keep from over/under-rewarding the players? Do you have any specific formulas that you use? What do you tell your players?
Please contribute to the general wisdom, and do not bicker. People who don't use XP: I feel your pain, but this is not the place to put that system on trial.
The way I see it, there are only two situations when the Wealth-by-level table must come into play:
1) A GM is trying to figure out how powerful the party is while building a suitable challenge. They quickly audit the (relevant) character gear, and if the party is over or under the WBL marker for their level, the GM will adjust the challenge up or down as needed.
2) A player or GM is creating a new PC (or party-balanced NPC) at a level greater than first, and needs a budget to fairly simulate the wealth that PC might have found in a campaign at that point.
Point #2 sort of extends to people who make builds for fun and post them online, since WBL provides a guideline to how much wealth exists. However, it should be noted that this balance logic doesn't extend to played characters who are rich because they earned it fair and square. If a skillful player is controlling the PC, then we can expect that they might be over WBL. That's ok.
The GM never, ever needs to account for WBL when placing treasure. They may choose to do so, in order to make their lives easier, or in order to get the party back to baseline for the sake of Challenge Rating. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving the party items that are wildly inappropriate for their WBL, as long as you are willing to live with the consequences of balancing encounters with that wild card in the mix.
WBL is not a rule that the GM has to play by. It is a table that assists with balancing encounters. Furthermore, CR isn't a rule that the GM must abide by either. ***None of this applies to organized play, which is a special, terrible thing.
Note that I am not citing any rules source for this assertion. I don't care if this is the "official" take on WBL. For me, this is the only truth that matters: the one that helps me GM the game.
The GM made this decision that annoyed me. With time to reflect, I believe they did the right thing and I was actually wrong.
At my table, we have players who don't care much to speak in character. They like to make new characters, experiment, and play them until death, at which time they draft up a new one. Not a lot of backstory. It's not a big deal to them, they like new powers and new rules.
At the same table, we have people who prefer to go deep on story, make a personality first, and sometimes choose sub-optimal options in service to their vision of the character.
We have one campaign that is super crunchy on the XP and GP. We have another campaign that uses GM fiat for leveling and has an abstracted wealth system.
We play other games besides Pathfinder, and I feel this has really honed our expectations of what kinds of campaigns Pathfinder is best suited to.
I feel that my style of play is the best style of play, because it is inclusive. I respect my friends and enjoy their company, even though they all have slightly (or drastically) different opinions of what constitutes a good session of role-play. Because we work to integrate those visions, instead of labeling and stigmatizing, I think the end result we get is genuinely better than what we would get by being forceful jerks about it.
So I want to hear your stories, good and bad, about integrating different styles of play at your table. Tell me what you've had to do to find compromises between players and players, players and GMs. Where did it go terribly wrong? Where did you hit the sweet spot? Did anyone grow to appreciate some style that they started out hating?
I don't mean to be facetious about the other thread title in the forum right now... it's just that I renewed my Modules sub after two years or so.
Partly, this is because I have money now.
Mostly, it is because the modules are longer, and I always felt they needed to be.
If you have always felt that way too, maybe you should subscribe.
Maybe if a ton of people subscribe, we'll get nice things!
The Threshold of Death: A Variant Rule for Dying
Dying Threshold = constitution score or ½ hp, whichever is less.
A creature that falls to 0 hp or below is disabled. The creature may take a single move or standard action per turn (plus any free action, such as "dying words"), but doing so causes them to lose additional hit points equal to the damage that put them at or below 0 hp.
A creature with negative hit points beyond its dying threshold is dying. Each round they have a chance to stabilize, but if they fail to do so they lose additional hit points equal to the damage that put them beyond the dying threshold.
If a creature's negative HP total is beyond their death threshold, the creature dies.
At least the Bestiary 1 monsters?
I say this as someone who has long had access to the bestiary PDF, and all the digital images therein.
The original SRD had the illustrations of all the monsters available as part of the OGL. Those images have become rather ubiquitous, and I see them turn up in all sorts of search results and the like. As a Pathfinder player, I'd rather see the Pathfinder images when I search for Pathfinder monsters, not 3.5's.
When I refer a totally new player to the PRD in order to get a feel for the rules, I think it would be great if there was some art there to entice them. After all, art is still one of Pathfinder's strongest selling points. The current method gives PRD newcomers the impression that the game is all about huge blocks of uninterrupted rules text, and frankly, that isn't so.
I understand why Paizo's been guarded about its art hitherto, but I feel like enough time has passed. Art on the PRD would actually sell more Bestiaries, not fewer.
I love Ultimate Campaign, it's in the running for my favorite rules-line hardback.
Just one thing I wish had been done differently:
Kingmaker AP Spoilers:
I wish they had sprung for an all-new hex map, because the example hex map is a great big spoiler for my group.
Kingmaker players may be disproportionately likely to be reading those rules in Ultimate Campaign. It's kind of a bummer that we're on book 1 and they now have a significant chunk of the map for book 2.
It's not as though the map they used works particularly well as a smaller map either.
Of course, this is a very minor blemish on an otherwise extraordinary book. I'm sympathetic to the fact that the AP has been out for years now, but in this case I think that the content in question was really directed at KM players.
This seems off to me. I know it costs gold and time, but are we really intending for PCs to retrain to max HP?
I think my first house rule in ultimate campaign is that you can only retrain to your average HD result + bonus HP from Con.
Am I reading the rule wrong? Am I wrong, and this is not such a big deal?
Just thought it was important to let you all know. When I design rules and stuff, I use my real life hardcore fighting experience that I learned on the mean streets of suburban massachusetts. I know all about swords and armor and guns and stuff too. I'm like a total expert.
So definitely think twice before you tell me about how realistic the rules are, cuz I've lived them, and I will beat you up.
...what would you change?
I would add stealth to the header next to perception.
I would put CMD in the Defense block, and CMB in the offense block.
I would remove the page break between ability scores and bab, saving an incredible amount of space in multitudinous books.
I would replace the "DC" in the spells section with "w", "r" or "f", so a DC 18 fireball would be a r18. Less space, more information.
I would underline spells that take one full round to cast.
How about you?
Okay folks, I have a 3rd level gnome bard who is heavily themed as a British colonial jungle explorer/anthropologist.
He is not optimized, unless you consider absurd skill-monkeying optimized (which you probably don't). He has totally dumped strength (he is a tiny old man) so melee capability enters into my decision not at all. I'm making a character who has the neat, silly powers that I always wanted (deep pockets!) and leaving the monster-whacking to the other party members (as enhanced by my bardness).
As for his party role, I am basically the skill-monkey and part-time battlefield controller. The other party members are a melee-capable gun-tank fighter, a dragon disciple, and a full-on cleric's cleric of Cayden. So a bit more of a controller role would be welcome.
Here's the catch. I want to prestige class into Pathfinder Chronicler. It's an irrational decision I would like to do in the most rational way possible. Good synergies are the fact that the 1st level Deep Pockets power overcomes my piddly strength problems with carrying capacity, and that as a gnome bard I have stacked the UMD and scroll-based bonuses as much as I possibly can.
I figure the best I can do here is a UMD build. In the distant future, I will have a PC who can pull any scroll up to 4th level out of his bag as a full-round action, and who has an efficient quiver full of wands, rods and staves (free action!).
I'm asking for advice trying to determine when to switch. I'm on track to pick up my first PFC level at 6th... but I am feeling the 2 level setback on bardic performance and the loss of 3rd level spells, and I'm wondering if it's worth waiting till bard 7th.
I'm finding it complicated because so much of PFC overlaps with bard. Is there some obvious factor I'm missing here?
I am awestruck by how inscrutable these rules are.
Even when I parse them out ever so carefully, I still don't understand how this is supposed to work. I've read some guides on the topic, and I'm still at a total loss.
When making a mounted charge, the mount takes the charge action, right? Does the mount get an attack in addition to the rider on a Ride-by-attack?
Ride-by-attack says "a standard charge"... what is a non-standard charge? Does this exclude Pounce? I'd be happy if it did, but there's nothing really to indiciate that this is what is meant. Or what a "standard charge" is at all!
Trample. There are at least three of them. Let's look at the feat though... Do they mean when the mount attempts to overrun? Is it his action or the rider's? Do I use my CMB or his or what?
Does the ride skill really include a series of three ride checks on a failure with DCs so low they only matter at level 1 or unskilled?
I've agree with my GM that we're going to do our best with the intent of the rules. I'm not angry, but I sure would appreciate it if this gets cleaned up some day.
This is an annoyingly divisive issue.
I have two perspectives. From a GM perspective, I accept the argument that "if the players battle a god, they lose, unless the story/macguffin demands otherwise."
From a product perspective, I think there is much to know about the gods that can be communicated through stats, that they can remain unkillable by PCs, but I might like to know how the perform relative to eachother.
It's not a thing we /need/, but I am tired of the argument that introducing this will instantly break the game.
I chose PFRPG forum and not campaign setting deliberately. This is an issue that ought to be decided on a setting-by-setting basis, so whatever rules for gods that would conceivably emerge should be used or passed on by Golarion as the creative staff sees fit.
People clearly have deeply held beliefs on this issues, so please keep it civilized.
The Postmonster General wrote:
When I talk to the various people who make virtual tabletops and other RPG tools, one of the things I mention is a sort of unified API for this sort of thing. Generally they pause for a bit, and then give me the "I think this guy may actually be really crazy" look....
Where do we start?
UML? ERD? Back of a napkin?
Dear Jason, Stephen, Sean, et alia,
I just sat down to generate some treasure out of my new hardcopy of Ultimate Equipment...
This is so much more colorful and rewarding than any of the various 3.5 or Pathfinder versions so far. I actually enjoy using this! I haven't put any holes in the wall from being directed to start over with an invalid result!
I was very vocal about the need to fix the treasure system, so now let me be very vocal in my declaration that you nailed it.
Many of you know that I am a VTT enthusiast. I've been using MapTool for a long time, and I continue to do so, but recently roll20.net has caught my eye. What they're doing over there is really solid work. It has — hands down — the best web-design sensibility of any of the smorgasbord of Kickstarted HTML5 VTTs that I have seen. They've managed to implement some good community tools (like campaign homepages), and they're not dependent on an external service like Google+ hangouts (although they are compatible with Google+ hangouts). And of paramount importance to me, the interface and overall design are incredibly slick and usable. I actually managed to set up a live campaign accidentally at work. If you've ever done the port-forwarding raindance with a locally hosted VTT client, you will understand just how incredible that is.
The only thing that's been holding me back is the lack of vision and light functionality that I get from MapTool. Well, they're developing that. And if you support them with a subscription, you can even test it out now! Awesome.
Consider this my official endorsement of the Roll20.net VTT. I am still running MapTool (b63) and playing in a d20pro campaign, and I await Paizo's GameSpace. But for now, if you have $5 or $10 a month, please consider supporting Roll20.net. The more support they receive, the better it will become. I plan to remain open-minded, playing and testing various VTTs in the future, but if I had to pick one to flourish, it would be this.
The idea of a group of talented people being able to create a VTT as a legitimate career brings a tear to my eye.
Some people don't like the idea of a mechanic to govern "aggro". The very word makes some pen-and-paper purist's skin crawl. If that's you, move along. There's nothing for you here. I totally relate to your position.
I don't feel a pressing need to include an aggro mechanic in Pathfinder, but someone did, and that's why we have Antagonize. We won't be discussing the issues around Antagonize here (there are like 1000 threads for that) — but it is important to carry some lessons away from that feat for our present task. Please do not defend or attack the Antagonize feat in this thread. I welcome criticism of the new rule presented here, though.
Lesson 1 - Player Agency.
Lesson 2 - Locked Away Behind a Feat.
Lesson 3 - The DC must scale.
Lesson 4 - Not everyone takes recourse to violence at insult.
Proposed Solution: wrote:
This is just a first crack at it, I'm at work and a little distracted. Does anyone see any serious issues with the DC?
There are quite a few tropes that fit nicely among the themes of Pathfinder, but are curiously missing; either because they don't exist within the framework of the rules, or because they don't feel "present" during gameplay.
These types of things are favorite topics for house rules, because they often make for very self-contained systems that are easy to play with.
As you can see, these are "adventure fantasy monster fighting" tropes, and so fit very nicely in the Pathfinder milieu. They're also discrete ideas, that could be ruled in without a total change of system (unlike, say, low- or no-magic setting rules or non-class advancement).
This isn't a polemic about Pathfinder being bad for lacking these things! On the contrary I rather enjoy sorting them out on my own. I've solved the first two problems above in my own way, and decided that the third isn't really worth the effort.
So, are there any tropes you believe should be in Pathfinder, or should have a higher profile within Pathfinder?
A little ruleswonking is expected, but if you birth a new houserule that takes up more than three posts, I suggest starting a thread for it. What I want here is a list of concepts that great houserules could cover... not the rules themselves.