One of my problems with Pathfinder - House Rules


New Rules Suggestions

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Before Pathfinder was announced, my game group was already going through the process of implementing house rules to expedite and improve game play - crunch here.

When Pathfinder was announced, I was really excited about the possibility of seeing an "official" game edition that took care of a lot of issues that our house rules were meaning to address.

Now, I understand about backward compatibility . . . and I understand that each of us has ideas on how to improve the game, and I'm certainly not faulting Paizo for that.

But here's the crux of the issue. Where we've been instituting house rules to improve game play, Pathfinder hasn't really addressed any of the issues that seem core (or important) to us. So, whether I stay with 3.5 or move to Pathfinder (I'm NOT going 4e) - our list of House Rules follows. The problem is that I'm losing enthusiasm for the move.

For us - changing the way character advancement impacted armor class and damage rolls, making massive damage more regular, streamlining combat to cut down on the number of rounds - those were things we were tackling. (We also were tackling condensing skills . . . but in a much more aggressive fashion than Paizo.)

I'm a little let down. Again, I'm not finding fault with Paizo. But for me, and especially given the little change I noted between alpha 2 and 3 (beyond what wasn't in 2), I fear that Beta is simply going to build on alpha 3 without really addressing areas that I'm concerned with. And yes, I know - it's not just about me.

But I thought I'd share this with you. Inspirational rebuttals most welcome.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

If you provide details on your house rules, and some of them elegantly solve a problem that Jason is looking to fix (and/or gets significant community support here on the boards) you might find that they (or a version of them) makes it into the Pathfinder rules.

If instead you simply say "I have house rules that are wonderful, but Pathdinder doesn't address such great and genius changes to the rules" I wouldn't expect that they will wind up in the Pathfinder rules.

Liberty's Edge

Okay then.

Where do I start?

1. Occupation (+ Bonus Feat, + Skills/Skill Bonus, + to Profession) (as in d20 Modern.)

2. Armor Bonus = Reflex Save. (Why should BAB only improve as characters progress?)

3. Damage Bonus = +1/2 CL. (Why should BAB only improve as characters progress?)

4a. Darkvision. See in the dark, ignoring concealment and total concealment due to darkness. Darkvision is black and white only. No distance limitation.

4b. Low-Light Vision. See without penalty in shadowy illumination, ignoring concealment (but not total concealment) due to darkness. Distinguish colors and details under these conditions. No distance limitation.

5. Advanced Rogue Talent: Full Sneak Attack. Provided you have more than one available attack in a round and would be able to make a full attack when you make a sneak, you get one additional attack at sneak attack damage that round.

6. Item Familiar (Wizard). (I actually drew this right out of the annals of Dragon - Imbued Staff - and altered it for any item. It's more dynamic than an arcane bonded item.)

7. Acrobatics Check = Initiative Roll.

8. Heal Check = Revivify (DC25 + Healer's Kit) to bring a character back from the dead and stabilized at -9. (The check must be made no later than one round after the character dies and requires a full round.)

9. Feats: Skill Focus (+3), Improved [Feat] (+3), No +2/+2 Feats.

10. Feat: Weapon Finesse: Pre: Weapon Proficiency.

11. Feat: Arcane Foci: Material components of greater than 1 gp need not be expended for spellcasting, but rather serve as foci for the spells. Pre: Eschew Materials.

12. Metamagic Feats: Does not require additional spell slots. One use per day.

13. Massive Damage Threshold [MAS]: 10 + Fortitude Save + Sz Modifier. Any damage that exceeds the MAS reduces a character's Atk, Def, CMB, Saves, and Skill checks -1. Stacks. Full round recovery restores +1. Heal exceeds MAS = restores +1.

14. Spell Recharge. Concentration DC 20 + No. of Highest Spell Level Available = Prepare spells more than once in a day. One hour preparation is still required. (+5 for each additional attempt made in a 24 hour time period.)

15. Movement. Diagonal counts as 1 square.

16. Critical.
Natural 20 = Instant Critical; Natural 1 = Instant Fumble.
Threat Range >20 = Critical if hits.
Instant Kill = 2nd confirmation roll results in critical.
(Improved Critical stacks with Keen Weapon Quality).

17. Aim (2 swift actions): Ignore cover (less than full cover).

18. Spells: Detect Alignment, Protection from Alignment, etc. The alignment the caster is seeking to detect or be protected from is designated at the time of casting.

19. Carrying Capacity: Light (.5 x Str Score squared) / Encumbered (Light Load x2). Encumbered = -5 penalty to Dex-based checks.

20. Gear: Backpack (3 lb) (Holds 60 lb) 2 gp; +2 Str Score for Carrying Capacity.


Saurstalk wrote:
(Stuff)

I understand your frustration with this one. About a week or so before Pathfinder RPG was announced, my wife and I began working on our 3.X Mega Mix collection. The idea was to compile all of the essential 3rd edition resources for our game as the system was going out of print. We took 3P as a blessing and though 3P stopped our project, the game we love is staying around! Rejoice!

Like JoelF847 said, posting your thoughts is the best way to get involved and see the type of changes you want to see. Not everything I'm posting will make the cut, that's okay, because everyone's game is different and what works for us will not work for everyone. Only the stuff that 1) is fully back compatible and 2) works for the majority will make it into 3P. Take your ideas from below and re-post some of the key ones in the various sub-forums here to get the most coverage.

Whilst your fixes are not the sort of changes we're making to our game, I'll try to comment on some of them here. :o)

7. Acrobatics Check = Initiative Roll: I can see what you're going for but, like the current initiative system, it doesn't take into account perception also. You can't react to something you can't sense. I don't think either of us will be able to change the current system officially, although that's what house rules are for, right? :o)

12. Metamagic Feats: This wouldn't work for us. We like Sorcerers deciding which feats to use on the fly and we like Wizards memorizing their spells how they choose. This change really eliminates options for the players. For example, using your system would badly screw the caster players if they were going to face a foe with a magical silence ability, "You mean I can only cast one spell a day at this guy!?!" As the feats are something you've learned to do, it makes no sense to limit them per day either. Magic slots is a superior way of handling this. Your change would also have an effect on how 3rd edition modules would play out - not a concern for us, but it is for some groups.

14. Spell Recharge: Again this is the sort of total revision that has too big an impact on the way the game works, for it to be included. It's a great idea though, but it does need following through on. I.e. How does this work for Psionics and power points? What about spontaneous casters, why do they have to prepare? Is this possible for other class features also e.g. can smite evil be recharged? If not, then that's a massive boost over non-casters that the spell casting classes really don't need.

15. Movement: How does this work with weapon ranges? Also how does this work when flying? We didn't like this change when we saw it for 4th Ed either, basically because it makes no sense. How can a bow fire further if it is aimed diagonally? And how long will it be before evil DMs start putting diagonal-to-the-room alcoves for their evil monsters to take advantage of this? Also, diagonally is completely subjective the moment you stop using squares and not every group uses a battle mat.

Good luck in your quest! May you find the 3rd edition that is right for you!

And if you're not interested in 3P, at the very least, download the free Beta in August and steal what you do like for your game.

Peace,

tfad

Dark Archive

I too was building my own 3.X edition with the announcement of the advent of 3.5. After all, there was no longer a community-reason to adhere to the RAW.

With the advent of 3.P, there are a LOT of ideas I like, and have incorporated into my game immediately. Others, I am experimenting or playtesting with, tentatively, and others I have discarded as not good for my game.

I think the OP's house rules are fairly extreme. Some of your house rules are similar to what I use, some are radical by my view.

In the Alpha, there are some ideas I think are great, but have poor execution for effectiveness, attractiveness, and balance (specialist wizard schools, I'm looking at you). I am hoping that these areas are addressed in the Beta, but honestly, I'm not sure if my opinion has enough weight to merit a change. I posted an alternate set of rules for the specialist wizards that I think is more balanced, but not much of a peep from JB.

It's okay by me, While I hope for change, I can continue to use my house rules even after Pathfinder comes out in 2008 or 2009. No game rule police for me! And honestly, if I house rule something that small, I can still use Pathfinder adventures without a fuss, which is *my* compatability issue.


That's an interesting list of house rules, but the question I'd ask is "What problem is house rule #N trying to solve?" For some of them, like memorizing spells multiple times per day or tweaking the massive damage threshold, it seems clear what you're trying to do (whether I agree or not). For others, I'm not so sure. You mentioned streamlining combat as a goal, but I don't know which of your house rules is doing that.

Liberty's Edge

tallforadwarf wrote:
7. Acrobatics Check = Initiative Roll: I can see what you're going for but, like the current initiative system, it doesn't take into account perception also. You can't react to something you can't sense. I don't think either of us will be able to change the current system officially, although that's what house rules are for, right? :o)

As another option, there could be a skill for initiative that serves to represent one's one battle combat readiness. I really like how Star Wars Saga Edition did this, but the problem between SWSE and PRPG is that you're initiative will improve with SWSE regardless whether you're trained in the skill or not. Not the case with PRPG. Still, it might be something to consider. Dex would likely still be the baseline.

tallforadwarf wrote:
12. Metamagic Feats: This wouldn't work for us. We like Sorcerers deciding which feats to use on the fly and we like Wizards memorizing their spells how they choose. This change really eliminates options for the players. For example, using your system would badly screw the caster players if they were going to face a foe with a magical silence ability, "You mean I can only cast one spell a day at this guy!?!" As the feats are something you've learned to do, it makes no sense to limit them per day either. Magic slots is a superior way of handling this. Your change would also have an effect on how 3rd edition modules would play out - not a concern...

I see your point. Our group isn't into metamagic feats all that much as they see the gain of using higher spell slots not worth the cost of losing those higher spells.

Because we use action points in the game, I thought 1 free use and APs for additional uses would work.

Even with that, the group still tends to forget to use (or neglects to use) the feats.

So, the question then becomes how to allow multiple uses of metamagic feats without the toll of losing spell slots from higher levels . . . and all the while, keeping the game balanced.

Maybe, you can apply a metamagic feat a number of times equal to 1 + Int/Cha/Wis Mod per day?

Liberty's Edge

hogarth wrote:
That's an interesting list of house rules, but the question I'd ask is "What problem is house rule #N trying to solve?" For some of them, like memorizing spells multiple times per day or tweaking the massive damage threshold, it seems clear what you're trying to do (whether I agree or not). For others, I'm not so sure. You mentioned streamlining combat as a goal, but I don't know which of your house rules is doing that.

For Starters:

Damage = +1/2 CL - more damage to dish out per round
Natural 20 Critical = quicker possibilities of dropping foes
MAS = Condition Track
Improved [Feat] = +3. A little more oomph, consistent with other focus traits, and not imbalancing.
Metamagic Feats = Finding a way to encourage more use (while not being imbalancing) Note: Another thought I just had - how about having the cost of metamagic be in hit points? Number of hit points sacrificed equals the number of extra spell slots required? There should be a toll for using metamagic, but my group doesn't like losing spells in the process. (The trade-off isn't worth it, but hps might be.)

Admittedly, to balance things:

AC = Dex + Ref Base Save + Misc
Natural 1 = Natural Fumble

Gaming in general:

Darkvision = no limit. No more of having to describe dark distances to varying degrees for characters with different levels of darkvision . . . which gets to be a bear during combat.

I'm more than willing to share my thinking if you have others that you are specifically curious about.


My takes:

1. Occupation -> I actually don't care. It's not that I don't like the mechanic, but I don't see why D&D must have it.

2. Armor Bonus = Reflex Save -> No. This is not 4e. The 3e way works. Don't fix what isn't broken.

3. Damage Bonus = +1/2 CL -> No. This is not 4e. And a flat +1/2 level bonus is stupid in my opinion. That means that a weakling wizard 20 could hit as hard as a strong fighter 1. Doesn't make sense. And it's unecessary, too. I never heard anyone complain that they're not doing enough damage.

4a. Darkvision -> Wouldn't mind darkvision being limitless.

4b. Low-Light Vision -> Wouldn't mind that, but have no problem with the current ruling, either.

5. Advanced Rogue Talent -> Why would rogues get more attacks? They already get sneak attacks, that's enough.

6. Item Familiar (Wizard) -> ? How does it work? What's the different to bonded item?

7. Acrobatics Check = Initiative Roll -> No. Why? The ability to tiptoe down a tightrope or weasel past a guy without getting his axe in the back doesn't equal a fast reaction time.

8. Heal Check = Revivify -> Yeah, could work.

9. Feats: Improved [Feat] (+3) -> Improved Disarm and such? I don't see why they'd have to change it from the original +4.
No +2/+2 Feats -> There, I agree. Instead, have one feat call Skilled, which grants +2 for 2 skills. I'm sure Monte won't mind.

10. Feat: Weapon Finesse: Pre: Weapon Proficiency -> Actually, I'd get rid of the current Weapon Finesse feat, making it a general option (everyone can choose to use a rapier, dagger, short sword, or spiked chain with dex), but maybe introduce a feat (called Weapon Finesse) that allows you to use a heavier weapon with dex.

11. Feat: Arcane Foci -> Hm...No, I think. They should either rebalance spells so they're fine without material cost, or keep the cost. Just think of the Wish madness! The price for that +5 went down from 125000 to 25000. Way too cheap.

12. Metamagic Feats -> Nah. I like the way they can be used several times. People can always use Sudden Metamagic Feats if they want, but the old feats should stay the same.

13. Massive Damage Threshold -> Or just get rid of it. I doubt that anyone would cry.

14. Spell Recharge -> No. that would make casters go berzerk.

15. Movement. Diagonal counts as 1 square -> No. No way in all the hells. Not in a million years. Over your dead body.

That's one of the stupidest things to come out of 4e. It makes it clear that they regard D&D as a board game. It makes no sense at all. D&D is not a board game. I just uses a grid (optionally!) as a tool. The tool has to adapt to the game, not vice versa. It means that speed is heavily influenced by direction. If I walk northeast instead of due north, my spead increases by about 40%? Yeah right. It promotes faulty math.

16. Critical -> Instant kill should be an optional rule (as it is in 3e), nothing more. I could go either way with keen and improved crit stacking.

18. Spells: Detect Alignment, Protection from Alignment, etc. The alignment the caster is seeking to detect or be protected from is designated at the time of casting -> wouldn't mind that.

19. Carrying Capacity -> frankly: Never mattered enough to me to waste time on tweaking

20. Gear: Backpack (3 lb) (Holds 60 lb) 2 gp; +2 Str Score for Carrying Capacity -> Cool, I'll get 10! :P

Seriously: I'd rather see everything actually in the back pack being considered lighter. And again, I don't care enough to invent extra rules for this.

Some of the rules I like (there might be some extra houserules in there for me), some I don't (some I hate), but generally, most of them aren't really problems with 3e, they're just a matter of taste and opinion. I think it's right that they're house rules, because others will want to play differently. If they made your house rules the standard, other people who used to like the original would have to add houserules. No net gain, but things have been changed. That counts as unnecessary change in my eyes.

I'll probably play PF with a lot of house rules, too (although a lot of them have already disappeared since they became PF rules), and I don't mind. One of the things I like most about D&D are houserules.


Saurstalk wrote:
Maybe, you can apply a metamagic feat a number of times equal to 1 + Int/Cha/Wis Mod per day?

Now you're getting a good discussion - see! ;o)

This is a good idea, but I see a potential problem with a fixed number for all feats - some metamagic feats are plain better than others, hence the difference in magic slot level. As another example, you'd offer cantrips at will, but not 3rd level spells.

I'd suggest this:

3+ spell casting ability modifier, minus the spell slot level adjustment of the metamagic feat times per day.

E.g. If the Boogie spell metamagic feat uses up spell slots three levels higher and your wizard's In is 20 (+5), then the feat would be usable:

3+5=8, 8-3=5 >>> 5 times per day

That way the weaker feats could be used more often than the stronger ones. This is especially important because without the spell slot prerequisites, PCs will gain these feats earlier and be able to apply them to higher level spells than the rules would normally allow.

That'd be a little better balanced. I hope. ;o)

Great chattin' with you!

Peace,

tfad

Liberty's Edge

Just out of curiosity, where'd you come up with the 3+?


Saurstalk wrote:
Just out of curiosity, where'd you come up with the 3+?

Standard for abilities, like Channel Energy etc. Just seemed to fit, also it's one smaller than the most powerful (core) metamagic spell slot adjustment.

Just a thought. ;o) Like? No?

Peace,

tfad

Liberty's Edge

KaeYoss wrote:
1. Occupation -> I actually don't care. It's not that I don't like the mechanic, but I don't see why D&D must have it.

Point well taken. This is a flavor issue that's a carry over from my delight with d20 Modern. The only thing I see as to why it would be a nice add-on is that it not only adds a bit more flavor to someone's initiation as an adventurer, but also gives a little special bonus for that history.

KaeYoss wrote:

2. Armor Bonus = Reflex Save -> No. This is not 4e. The 3e way works. Don't fix what isn't broken.

3. Damage Bonus = +1/2 CL -> No. This is not 4e. And a flat +1/2 level bonus is stupid in my opinion. That means that a weakling wizard 20 could hit as hard as a strong fighter 1. Doesn't make sense. And it's unecessary, too. I never heard anyone complain that they're not doing enough damage.

Not 4e, but Pathfinder is also not 3.5e. It's an effort to improve on the 3.5 rules. (Your critique could very well apply to the base class changes as well.) From where I'm coming from, I simply have a problem with BAB and Saves (and skills and feats) being the only representation of a person's growth. As a person becomes more seasoned as an adventurer, their experience should also be reflected in the ability to protect themselves in combat . . . and likewise, how to dish out extra damage. (A 15th level wizard is certainly going to be a more experienced combatant than a first level fighter, and the +1/2 CL would reflect this.)

In our group, people accept the notion that a seasoned adventurer would know better how to cause damage than a first level adventurer. Same applies for avoiding damage.

KaeYoss wrote:
5. Advanced Rogue Talent -> Why would rogues get more attacks? They already get sneak attacks, that's enough.

Rogues only get one sneak attack. Period. This way, a rogue can focus on getting the most for his or her opportunity as he or she can. A dual dagger-wielding rogue would be able to get 2 sneak attacks with this feat, as opposed to just one.

KaeYoss wrote:
6. Item Familiar (Wizard) -> ? How does it work? What's the different to bonded item?

Item Familiar is more akin to the rules of a familiar than a bonded item. As the wizard progresses in levels, his or her ability to use the item (and imbue the item) grows. It's not a stagnant 1 spell rule. The rules for its foundation, Imbued Staff, can be found at Dragon 338, p.58.

KaeYoss wrote:
7. Acrobatics Check = Initiative Roll -> No. Why? The ability to tiptoe down a tightrope or weasel past a guy without getting his axe in the back doesn't equal a fast reaction time.

I also saw a recommend be that initiative is perception based. I'm not suggesting that initiative is broken. Much of this is a carry-over from Star Wars Saga Edition, which has an initiative skill. Frankly, I like the notion about someone being able to pump up his or her ability to get a jump on the action. (Of course, this would be at the cost of another skill.) Admittedly, Acrobatics may not be appropriate. That's folding a lot into one skill. But what about an Initiative skill?

KaeYoss wrote:

9. Feats: Improved [Feat] (+3) -> Improved Disarm and such? I don't see why they'd have to change it from the original +4.

No +2/+2 Feats -> There, I agree. Instead, have one feat call Skilled, which grants +2 for 2 skills. I'm sure Monte won't mind.

Hate to burst your bubble, but in the feats section, all the Improved feats, like Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, and Trip are +2, not +4.

However, I wouldn't be against +4. But if it was +4, I'd want Skill Focus to be the same . . . for purposes of uniformity.

But I disagree with the +2/+2 generic feat. I really want to do away with +2/+2 completely. Instead of spreading things out, I'd rather just simplify this to a Skill Focus feat. (Granted, this too is a carry-over from my interest in SWSE - which has an impressively condensed skill list . . . something I'd actually like to see with Pathfinder, but know I won't.) :(

KaeYoss wrote:
10. Feat: Weapon Finesse: Pre: Weapon Proficiency -> Actually, I'd get rid of the current Weapon Finesse feat, making it a general option (everyone can choose to use a rapier, dagger, short sword, or spiked chain with dex), but maybe introduce a feat (called Weapon Finesse) that allows you to use a heavier weapon with dex.

Hmmm. Interesting angle. I imagine others will object - particular in trying to envision how someone wielding a heavy two-handed weapon, like a greatsword can actually operate faster and with more accuracy than someone with the strength in wielding the blade.

This isn't to say I don't object to your idea. Rule: Light Weapons can use either a Str- or Dex- mod to their BAB. Rapiers and other weapons would likely need to be reclassified. Otherwise, we'd have to keep track of all the exceptions to the light weapon limitation rule.

KaeYoss wrote:
11. Feat: Arcane Foci -> Hm...No, I think. They should either rebalance spells so they're fine without material cost, or keep the cost. Just think of the Wish madness! The price for that +5 went down from 125000 to 25000. Way too cheap.

There may be balance issues. I admit that. But I really like the notion of a wizard (or other arcane caster) being able to develop tactics that allow using focus items instead of materials components. Afterall, if you can do it with Eschew Materials on cheap components, why not more expensive components. (Granted Eschew Materials may simply have been an artificial fix for people who gristled at having to constantly track components.)

KaeYoss wrote:
12. Metamagic Feats -> Nah. I like the way they can be used several times.

Admittedly, there are other ways to handle metamagic feats than I proposed. For me, the issue is addressing the disdain my players have in having to sacrifice spell slots for spells of lesser magnitude. I really like the premise of metamagic, but perceive that there could be an alternative sacrifice. I proposed hit points in another thread. And another person proposed Con damage. Or maybe, it would be a drain like negative level for the remainder of that encounter? (I.e., a penalty on Atks, CMB, Saves, and Skill checks.)

KaeYoss wrote:
13. Massive Damage Threshold -> Or just get rid of it. I doubt that anyone would cry.

Of course, I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. I like the premise of a Massive Damage Threshold, but would like to see it have a more on-hand use than save or die. That's why I propose penalties that emerge during combat.

KaeYoss wrote:
14. Spell Recharge -> No. that would make casters go berzerk.

My players haven't gone berserk yet. :P Of course, we don't have powergamers, but rather roleplayers. For us, the vancian method of spell availability just seemed artificial without a means by which someone couldn't work around the barrier. Heck, I'd be willing to include that to do this once, the character remains fatigued until resting for eight hours. To do it twice - exhausted until resting for eight hours. Thus, they'd have the benefit of studying up on their spells again, but at a detriment.

KaeYoss wrote:
15. Movement. Diagonal counts as 1 square -> No. No way in all the hells. Not in a million years. Over your dead body.

Well, given that the whole squares concept (as opposed to perhaps hexagons perhaps?) is simply artificial to begin with. Personally, I think it makes tracking easier if you're using a map. (Normally, we don't . . . or if we do, it's a backdrop, not a means to artificially limit the battlefield.

That's one of the stupidest things to come out of 4e. It makes it clear that they regard D&D as a board game. It makes no sense at all. D&D is not a board game. I just uses a grid (optionally!) as a tool. The tool has to adapt to the game, not vice versa. It means that speed is heavily influenced by direction. If I walk northeast instead of due north, my spead increases by about 40%? Yeah right. It promotes faulty math.

KaeYoss wrote:
19. Carrying Capacity -> frankly: Never mattered enough to me to waste time on tweaking

Point taken. I'm not sure about other groups out there, but we keep a tight eye on gear. Referring to a table just seems unnecessary. This method is a simple formula . . . that's it. Flavor.

KaeYoss wrote:

20. Gear: Backpack (3 lb) (Holds 60 lb) 2 gp; +2 Str Score for Carrying Capacity -> Cool, I'll get 10! :P

Seriously: I'd rather see everything actually in the back pack being considered lighter. And again, I don't care enough to invent extra rules for this.

Heh. This one came about only because I realized that the backpack in D&D has no weight limit and the backpack in d20 Modern does. So, I translated the d20 Modern backpack over. Of course, you can only carry one backpack properly to gain the bonus to your carrying capacity. :P

An interesting counter. 10% lighter perhaps?

In the end, house rules will continue to exist. I was just hoping to cut down on the number of house rules we play with. Of course, if I got my way, then other people may be dissatisfied because of the fact that they will have to incorporate house rules.

Liberty's Edge

tallforadwarf wrote:

Standard for abilities, like Channel Energy etc. Just seemed to fit, also it's one smaller than the most powerful (core) metamagic spell slot adjustment.

Just a thought. ;o) Like? No?

Peace,

tfad

Hmmm. I like the possibility. Another thought I had was to incorporate fatigue and exhaustion into the mix. Haven't really developed this one yet.


The trouble with some of your house rules Saurstalk is the issue of game balance. What works for a select group of gamers is often open to abuse by other gamers and gaming groups. For game balance reasons (and so Pathfinder doesn't become a weird 4e clone) Paizo can't make many of the changes you suggest.

My golden rule for house rules is that until you have playtested your house rules from 1st to 20th lvl, you really have no idea of their overall impact on your games or your campaign. Often a change that seems okay when you are running 3rd-lvl characters becomes a monumental headache at 12th-lvl. This is why Paizo cannot make sweeping changes. It would take too much time to see if they would unbalance the game. It's also why most of your house rules will be ignored in favor of more conservative changes. If Paizo make too many changes many people will start comparing them to WotC.

Liberty's Edge

Phil. L wrote:

The trouble with some of your house rules Saurstalk is the issue of game balance. What works for a select group of gamers is often open to abuse by other gamers and gaming groups. For game balance reasons (and so Pathfinder doesn't become a weird 4e clone) Paizo can't make many of the changes you suggest.

My golden rule for house rules is that until you have playtested your house rules from 1st to 20th lvl, you really have no idea of their overall impact on your games or your campaign. Often a change that seems okay when you are running 3rd-lvl characters becomes a monumental headache at 12th-lvl. This is why Paizo cannot make sweeping changes. It would take too much time to see if they would unbalance the game. It's also why most of your house rules will be ignored in favor of more conservative changes. If Paizo make too many changes many people will start comparing them to WotC.

I certainly don't dispute what you are saying here. There is a risk.

The 1/2 CL to Damage has been playtested across the 1-20 spectrum with little noted adverse consequence. The same applies for Item Familiar, Spell Recharge, MAS/Condition Track, and Darkvision.

Others, like the Ref Bonus to AC, Arcane Foci, Acrobatics = Initiative, Carrying Capacity, and Metamagic feats have not been tested. (Also, throwing out +2/+2 for Skill Focus, and the change to the Improved Feats.)

In part, that's why I value discussions like this.

Liberty's Edge

My gaming group had just finished playtesting what we jokingly dubbed "3.75" when Pathfinder was announced. I have liked quite a bit of what Pathfinder has offered, as the ideas have mirrored a lot of my changes from that 3.75 playtest. Below is a list of changes that will still find their way into my Pathfinder game.

1) More skill consolidations: By the time we were done, we had a listing of only around 25 skills.
2) 4 + INT Skill points for every class: Because of our aggressive skill consolidation, list skill ranks were needed.
3) No "+2/+2" feats: Replaced by Skill Focus due to skill consolidation.
4) Initiative and Endurance as skills: Borrowed from SWSE, these skills were added to all martial classes, with the cleric also benefiting from both; the bard and rogue both only received Initiative.
5) Running Attack: This simple feat change eliminated Shot on the Run and Spring Attack by consolidating them into one skill.

In addition, certain features of skills were only granted if a PC was considered "trained" (i.e. had 5 or more ranks in a skill). This allowed certain skills (such as Use Magic Device) to be replaced as skill features or tricks of skills (Knowledge Arcana/Spellcraft, in this case).

The ONLY thing I have strongly disliked about Pathfinder Alpha so far has been Rage Points. I wish that the existing mechanic could been used in conjunction with Rage Powers.

As it is, I still strongly believe in what Pathfinder has tried to accomplish. I have been spreading the word amongst the multiple game stores in our area, so I hope that support continues and grows. And I have plans to purchase both the Beta and the Final Release. Good luck, Paizo!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Saurstalk wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
5. Advanced Rogue Talent -> Why would rogues get more attacks? They already get sneak attacks, that's enough.
Rogues only get one sneak attack. Period. This way, a rogue can focus on getting the most for his or her opportunity as he or she can. A dual dagger-wielding rogue would be able to get 2 sneak attacks with this feat, as opposed to just one.

I thought that's what you were meaning.

Saurstalk - Rogues are not limited to one sneak attack. They can get it with every single attack they make. It's a mildly common misconception, I'm not exactly sure where from. Possibly a 2nd edition thing.

Liberty's Edge

Majuba wrote:

I thought that's what you were meaning.

Saurstalk - Rogues are not limited to one sneak attack. They can get it with every single attack they make. It's a mildly common misconception, I'm not exactly sure where from. Possibly a 2nd edition thing.

Then that is music to my ears. I honestly don't recall where I learned that, but I've been playing it that way for YEARS.

It's always been my understand that if a rogue moves in to attack a flat-footed foe and has the ability to make more than one attack, only the first will serve as a sneak attack. All other attacks are normal.

So. Just so I'm not delusional - aside from Majuba, please (no offense) - someone - am I wrong?


Saurstalk wrote:

It's always been my understand that if a rogue moves in to attack a flat-footed foe and has the ability to make more than one attack, only the first will serve as a sneak attack. All other attacks are normal.

So. Just so I'm not delusional - aside from Majuba, please (no offense) - someone - am I wrong?

yes and no

a rogue gets to apply sneak damage as long as they meet the requirments for sneak... so if the target is denied their dexterity for each of the rogues attacks then ALL the attacks would get sneak damage.

one cases that sometimes is played wrong (any might be why you thought you only get 1 attack) is that if you attack when hidden after the first attack you are no longer hidden and the target is no longer denied their dex so only one of your attacks would be a sneak attack.


Saurstalk wrote:


Not 4e, but Pathfinder is also not 3.5e.

It's close enough. The two systems are to be compatible.

If you link ref saves and AC, things are going to get problematic. Plus, I don't think that they're the same. I might agree to a class bonus to AC, akin to D20 Modern, which then can be tailored to the classes, but even that would throw things out of whack I think because ACs would skyrocket

Saurstalk wrote:


and likewise, how to dish out extra damage. (A 15th level wizard is certainly going to be a more experienced combatant than a first level fighter, and the +1/2 CL would reflect this.)

I think it already does that, via the various class abilities and other benefits you gain during your career (and I'm not just talking magic items here). Fighters gain weapon training, barbarians gain better rage (and rage powers).... and wizards gain bigger caster level and more damage with their spells.

And flat bonuses, regardless of abilities or class, should be avoided. The 15th-level fighter is twice as good at hitting things, but doesn't do more damage than the wizard? (taking into account the raw class/level benefits, without special abilities) Or, for that matter: A 7th-level fighter hits as reliably as that wizard, but the wizard hits harder?

Saurstalk wrote:


Rogues only get one sneak attack.

No, they don't. Whenever sneak attack applies, they apply it. If that happens to be 8 times in a round, they get it 8 times in a round.

Which is something I have absolutely no problem with. A fighter of similar power level will still deal more damage, more consistently.

Saurstalk wrote:


Item Familiar (...) It's not a stagnant 1 spell rule.

The extra spell is just icing to the cake. The real benefit comes from the easier and cheaper improvement of its ability.

Saurstalk wrote:


I'm not suggesting that initiative is broken.

Then it's easy: Since it's not broken, it doesn't need to be fixed.

Saurstalk wrote:


Hate to burst your bubble, but in the feats section, all the Improved feats, like Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, and Trip are +2, not +4.

Right. Forgot the feats were changed to +2. Since I don't think that combat and skill bonuses need to be the same, I have no problem with the +2 instead of +3.

No bubbles were hurt in this revelation.

Saurstalk wrote:


But I disagree with the +2/+2 generic feat. I really want to do away with +2/+2 completely. Instead of spreading things out, I'd rather just simplify this to a Skill Focus feat.

Why not have both? You either get Skill focus for +3, or you get skilled for +2/+2. Or both for +5 in a skill you really really like. If you don't like skilled, just ignore it.

Saurstalk wrote:
SWSE - which has an impressively condensed skill list . . . something I'd actually like to see with Pathfinder, but know I won't.) :(

I think its skill-list is consolidated enough (or nearly so: I'd personally add athletics, which would include jump, climb, swim, to go along with acrobatics for balance, tumble, escape artist). I think that there's something like going too far with this.

Saurstalk wrote:
Rule: Light Weapons can use either a Str- or Dex- mod to their BAB. Rapiers and other weapons would likely need to be reclassified. Otherwise, we'd have to keep track of all the exceptions to the light weapon limitation rule.

We don't need to reclassify anything: The exceptions are already there. We could also call that rule Weapon Finesse.

The "heavy weapon finesse" rule isn't something I'm too married to, anyway. It could be limited to certain weapons, too (maybe one-handed weapons or something), or just left away.

Saurstalk wrote:


There may be balance issues. I admit that. But I really like the notion of a wizard (or other arcane caster) being able to develop tactics that allow using focus items instead of materials components. Afterall, if you can do it with Eschew Materials on cheap components, why not more expensive components.

The reason is simply game balance. Removing the components that are mostly flavour, anyway (and would only really matter if someone stole your component pouch or all equipment - unless your GM happens to be one of those control freaks who make you track arrows, rations, every single item in your back pack, the length of a rope depening on how many knots you have tied into it, and nonsense like that), the other spells are balanced with those costs in mind.

Saurstalk wrote:


Admittedly, there are other ways to handle metamagic feats than I proposed. For me, the issue is addressing the disdain my players have in having to sacrifice spell slots for spells of lesser magnitude. I really like the premise of metamagic, but perceive that there could be an alternative sacrifice. I proposed hit points in another thread. And another person proposed Con damage. Or maybe, it would be a drain like negative level for the remainder of that encounter? (I.e., a penalty on Atks, CMB, Saves, and Skill checks.)

This is something I strongly feel should remain in the realm of house rules, for I think that generally, the current rules really work.

As for "lesser spells", I can't agree. Those lower-level metamajicked spells can often be as effective as "native" spells on their new slots, if not more so.

For example, I often use extend spell to make certain boosts or protections last all day. Empower can give you a lot of versatility: If you only have cone of cold on 5th level, and find out that you go against frost giants (or a white dragon, or something like that), you'll be able to fill those level 5 slots with empowered fireball spells instead of useless cones. And let's be honest: If I have to choose between ice storm and empowered scorching ray, I'll take the standard action (or even full-round action, in case of sorcerers) 12d6*1.5 over the full-round 5d6 any time (well, almost any time. Fire giants and the like will make me take something else beside ice storm).

Saurstalk wrote:


My players haven't gone berserk yet. :P Of course, we don't have powergamers, but rather roleplayers.

I'll just take your word for it. It illustrates an important point, though: In your party, this recharge might be okay. But that's not true for every party (and I'd say not even the vast majority). Since we're talking standard rules, we need to have something in place that will work well most of the time.

Saurstalk wrote:
Well, given that the whole squares concept (as opposed to perhaps hexagons perhaps?) is simply artificial to begin with. Personally, I think it makes tracking easier if you're using a map. (Normally, we don't . . . or if we do, it's a backdrop, not a means to artificially limit the battlefield.

I agree: it's a backdrop. A useful little helper. It should remain that. It should help the game rules, not dictate them. It should be as accurate as possible when it comes to implementing the actual rules.

It should be an alternative as viable as any other. If your movement rate can increase by as much as 40% if you switch from tape measure to squares, something's wrong.In the end, house rules will continue to exist. I was just hoping to cut down on the number of house rules we play with. Of course, if I got my way, then other people may be dissatisfied because of the fact that they will have to incorporate house rules.

Saurstalk wrote:


I was just hoping to cut down on the number of house rules we play with.

Well, that's what you get for being such a freak :P

Or, to phrase it with a bit (lot) less hostility: I think the game should stick fairly closely to 3e and its core philosophies, while fixing those things most people think are broken. The closer you stay to what the standard game is supposed to be all about, the less you'll have to adapt.

That means that some things will be detailed even though a minority would like them more simpler, and some things will be simple even though a minority would aim for more complexity there. There's nothing wrong about being a minority (we all already know what it means to be a minority, since roleplaying isn't exactly a game for the masses), but it means that you'll have to adapt more than those who are straight in the middle.

The good thing about RPGs is that it lets you adapt. Want to be a world-famous boxer, but dislike the sissy aspect of boxing gloves? I don't think you'll get that bareknuckle-houserule to be implemented at the championships. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

KaeYoss,

I most certainly appreciate your feedback and I am glad to see that no bubbles were seriously jeopardized in our dialogue.

I understand much of what you say. We certainly have some disagreements, but that's fine.

I continue to hope to cut down on house rules. To some extent, my proposed fixes are only there for issues I'd like to see addressed. I don't tout them as the end all of alls for rules fixes. Most certainly, if Paizo were to address at least some of these issues in its own right, I'd be happy. I certainly trust Paizo's competence.

But you are right that many house rules should stay house rules because of the group.

Oh, and by the way, I am one of those GMs who likes to track quantity and weight. :P


Saurstalk wrote:


It's always been my understand that if a rogue moves in to attack a flat-footed foe and has the ability to make more than one attack, only the first will serve as a sneak attack. All other attacks are normal.

Nope. Every attack that qualifies as a sneak attack is a sneak attack:

  • If you flank a foe, all your attacks will be sneak attacks (as long as you flank). That usually means that you'll have to start your turn in flanking position (or 5' from flanking position), of course, but once you're there, it's time to party
  • If someone's lost his dex bonus to AC due to being flat-footed, this usually persists until it's his turn. Mainly, this is the case at the beginning of combat, when everyone's flat-footed until they've acted. A rogue will often be able to get a surprise round on someone (by sneaking up on him and announcing his presence with a sword in the choicest parts, initiating combat the fun way) and if he then wins initiative against the poor bastard, he'll get a full round of sneak attacks in addition to the one surprise round attack. This one can even work with ranged attacks.
  • If you're invisible via greater invisibility (so you remain invisible after attacking), the guy will keep losing his dex to AC, enabling you to keep sneak attacking.

    The main instance where only one attack will be sneak attacks is when you attack from hiding: Either with the stealth skill or with regular invisibility (which fades after an offensive action).

    Arnim Thayer wrote:


    2) 4 + INT Skill points for every class: Because of our aggressive skill consolidation, list skill ranks were needed.

    No difference between classes? This really punishes rogues and the like.


  • Saurstalk wrote:
    Oh, and by the way, I am one of those GMs who likes to track quantity and weight. :P

    Which I find unnecessary, but it would not be a deal breaker for me.

    But if you now say that you do that for spell components.... ;-P

    Liberty's Edge

    KaeYoss wrote:
    Saurstalk wrote:
    Oh, and by the way, I am one of those GMs who likes to track quantity and weight. :P

    Which I find unnecessary, but it would not be a deal breaker for me.

    But if you now say that you do that for spell components.... ;-P

    Actually, I'm not so anal about spell components. In fact, it often becomes an aftertought, which frustrates me . . . particularly as spells material components rise.

    Question - how many people abide by material components in the first place?

    Frankly, if tracking components weren't so cumbersome, I'd be more attentive. In part, that's why I also have proposed a feat that takes up where eschew materials leaves off, i.e., >1 gp material components becoming foci instead of material components. (Of course, this has been criticized as horribly imbalancing.)


    Saurstalk wrote:


    Frankly, if tracking components weren't so cumbersome, I'd be more attentive. In part, that's why I also have proposed a feat that takes up where eschew materials leaves off, i.e., >1 gp material components becoming foci instead of material components. (Of course, this has been criticized as horribly imbalancing.)

    I think that was me. :D

    The more expensive materials are alright - there aren't that many spells around with those, so it's comparatively easy to track that stuff.

    If they'd take the time (and have the time to take) to lessen the number of spells that work need expensive materials, I wouldn't complain, either.

    I do think, though, that some simply can't be done without the cost. Wish is the prime example (although I would argue that the spell emulation could be done without any cost - like a cleric's miracle - and only the more permanent stuff should have a price)

    But take stoneskin, for example: I haven't seen it used that often (in fact, I can't remember ever using, or anyone in games I played in using it). Since psions get something like that for free (in fact, theirs is better in many aspects, since it's DR/-), it could definetly work as a normal spell without the diamond coating.


    Can I just say I'm really enjoying this discussion! :oD

    Saurstalk wrote:
    Question - how many people abide by material components in the first place?

    We've never really used them 'as is'. It's just too much of a headache, doesn't make much sense for Sorcerers ("How did you learn to do that?" "Well, I was angry once after a large number of bats all sh!t on me...."). It's great that Eschew Materials is now a bonus for Sorcerers.

    However, in the days of 2nd Ed., we used them a bit more frequently. This was because our Wizard player loved them. Or maybe he just loved cutting up everything after he killed it.... ;o) Although again we had to be quite liberal in places and let him use all sorts of different components and added 'on the fly' changes to his spell effects. We certainly didn't penalize him when he didn't have the things he wanted/needed.

    Peace,

    tfad

    Liberty's Edge

    Happy to entertain. :D

    I guess one question here is whether material components, as they are written - are either broken or useless.

    In the past, I simply tossed out a random number - 5 gp and you have enough components to last you until (select a time). Eschew materials is a fix to the ludicrous nature of this material component quandary.

    Yes, it is cool to describe how you draw out your material component and cast, but unless someone really enjoys tracking all this stuff, it gets to be a cumbersome headache.

    Still, without removing materials components altogether, it'd be nice to have a simplified substitute. I appreciate how Arcane Foci may not be the fix I had intended. (I have added subsequently Prerequisites of Silent Spell and Still Spell in addition to Eschew Materials.)

    Suggestions? (Other than "just ignore 'em.") :P


    tallforadwarf wrote:
    Or maybe he just loved cutting up everything after he killed it.... ;o)

    Had a sorcerer like that. Well, he did it once. But not quite. He wanted, but couldn't. So he almost did.

    Confused yet? The guy was a demonspawn (fey'ri) sorcerer and said he wanted to make shrunken heads out of all his victims. So after his first fight after he decided that, he was standing in some back allay in an Underdark city, over the cooling dead body of a duergar. He told me that he wants to remove that guy's head so he can prepare it at his leasure. When I asked him whether he had something to cut the head off, like a sword or at least dagger, he went through his inventory, and came up with... nothing!

    Well, almost nothing. He figured that with the application of copious amounts of brute force, he could get the head off with his morning star. And so he did. Was not a pretty sight, and I'd have loved to see the expression on the face of whoever found that headless corpse. :D


    Saurstalk wrote:

    I guess one question here is whether material components, as they are written - are either broken or useless.

    In the past, I simply tossed out a random number - 5 gp and you have enough components to last you until (select a time). Eschew materials is a fix to the ludicrous nature of this material component quandary.

    I'd say a little bit of both broken and useless. It is simply too much of a headache to keep track of, players should only be doing it if they want to be doing it. Other classes are certainly not as limited RAW.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    Suggestions?

    My suggestion would be something similar to what's mentioned in the 2nd Ed. DMG - upkeep costs. Define an amount and charge all classes an upkeep cost that has to be spent in between adventures. It'd be fair to let Rangers and those with wilderness lore skills to avoid such costs with a successful skill check in the wilds, and to let Thieves and the more larcenous minded to avoid these costs in urban environments etc.

    The money would cover things such as room and board, stabling, polish for weapons and armor, spell components etc.

    I won't offer an actual amount as it'd have to be something set up for the economies of your game. My suggestion could be too low or high for your game. Also it's not something I'd do for my game - I'd be firmly in the 'ignore it' camp, but hey, you asked for suggestions. You called down the thunder baby! ;oD

    KaeYoss wrote:
    (SOME GROSS STUFF)

    I can well believe this. We had a similar situation with a zombie of an known NPC, who was particularly disliked, trapped in a zone of animation. The b!tch just kept getting up and it was too freaky for the one player involved in that scene to let go. She was mulched.

    As for the 'carving rights' for magical ingredients, I've seen more brutal fights over this than I have for the actual treasure!

    Good times.....

    Peace,

    tfad

    Liberty's Edge

    Your upkeep costs aren't a far cry from my "5 gp for components" simplicity. In either case, we're sort of fudging something to give it a nod, but not full attention.


    Saurstalk wrote:
    Your upkeep costs aren't a far cry from my "5 gp for components" simplicity. In either case, we're sort of fudging something to give it a nod, but not full attention.

    I'd like to take credit, but like I said, 2nd Ed. DMG. I think I still get more use out of that than I ever have my 3.0/3.5 versions. ;o)

    Yeah, like you said, a nod. I gotta say though, it's probably more fair on the Wizard player that everyone is nodding and paying an upkeep, not just them. Otherwise the Wizard player is going to be making a good case for the Fighter's armor rusting etc.

    This is another reason why I say it should just be dropped for the non-cost components. Wizards are already paying a little too much for all that special spellbook ink and blank pages....

    Peace,

    tfad

    RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

    Saurstalk wrote:

    Then that is music to my ears. I honestly don't recall where I learned that, but I've been playing it that way for YEARS.

    It's always been my understand that if a rogue moves in to attack a flat-footed foe and has the ability to make more than one attack, only the first will serve as a sneak attack. All other attacks are normal.

    So. Just so I'm not delusional - aside from Majuba, please (no offense) - someone - am I wrong?

    3.0 confused this issue when using the example of a rogue attacking with shuriken, in 3.0 they were used 3 at a time, it was explained that the sneak damage only applied to the first throwing star and the remaining 2 were normal damage.

    However to keep things clear as mud, a rogue with multiple attacks due to high BAB might make 2 attacks and sneak would apply to the first and fourth throwing star.
    3.5 solved the confusion by changing the shuriken entry so you only throw 1 per attack.


    Saurstalk wrote:
    1. Occupation (+ Bonus Feat, + Skills/Skill Bonus, + to Profession) (as in d20 Modern.)

    That fits the milieu of d20 Modern where most people are expected to have a profession, but in the milieu of semi-medieval society, professional adventurer is perfectly acceptable. One can forgo learning a trade (which was the most common form of occupational training at the time) if one practices killing monsters and finding treasure instead.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    2. Armor Bonus = Reflex Save. (Why should BAB only improve as characters progress?)

    Because of armor bloat. Letting characters have a bonus to AC even if they are not wearing armor is not a bad idea though. For an unarmored character, as long as a weapon is in hand, I usually use the class defense bonus rules from UA.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    3. Damage Bonus = +1/2 CL. (Why should BAB only improve as characters progress?)

    I don't see a need for this unless you are getting rid of iterative attacks like SWSE. I thought you were trying to reduce the frequency of massive damage.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    4a. Darkvision. See in the dark, ignoring concealment and total concealment due to darkness. Darkvision is black and white only. No distance limitation.

    I see this as a potential balance issue, but not a balance issue per se.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    4b. Low-Light Vision. See without penalty in shadowy illumination, ignoring concealment (but not total concealment) due to darkness. Distinguish colors and details under these conditions. No distance limitation.

    I like this, if for no other reason than it keeps me, as a DM, from having to tell my players, "this is how far the humans see, and this is how far the elves see."

    Saurstalk wrote:
    5. Advanced Rogue Talent: Full Sneak Attack. Provided you have more than one available attack in a round and would be able to make a full attack when you make a sneak, you get one additional attack at sneak attack damage that round.

    Again, I thought one of your purposes was reducing frequency of massive damage.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    6. Item Familiar (Wizard). (I actually drew this right out of the annals of Dragon - Imbued Staff - and altered it for any item. It's more dynamic than an arcane bonded item.)

    I actually prefer the bonded item. I think it is much simpler of a mechanic to deal with. I had a much easier time understanding bonded item the first time I read it than I did with item familiar.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    7. Acrobatics Check = Initiative Roll.

    Eh. No. I don't like it. I see nothing about being agile that makes you necessarily faster.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    8. Heal Check = Revivify (DC25 + Healer's Kit) to bring a character back from the dead and stabilized at -9. (The check must be made no later than one round after the character dies and requires a full round.)

    I'm hesitant to embrace this unless you want death to be really uncommon. At least base it on the damage sustained, such as 10 + damage taken in excess of target's hp. E.g. a character down to -21 would require a DC 31 check to revive.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    9. Feats: Skill Focus (+3), Improved [Feat] (+3), No +2/+2 Feats.

    Given that they've mucked around with a lot of skills and combined most of the skills that used to benefit from two feats, this might be a good way to make things simpler.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    10. Feat: Weapon Finesse: Pre: Weapon Proficiency.

    Good idea, but I am indifferent as to its necessity.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    11. Feat: Arcane Foci: Material components of greater than 1 gp need not be expended for spellcasting, but rather serve as foci for the spells. Pre: Eschew Materials.

    Another example of making death really trivial, something I am not a fan of. I can envision a world where every virtually every PC cleric takes this feat.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    12. Metamagic Feats: Does not require additional spell slots. One use per day.

    I much prefer the UA version with 3/day but limiting it to the spell levels you could enhance under core rules. Prevents the kind of abuse such as a 9th-level wizard using two cone of cold spells in rapid succession. Sudden Maximize, for example, is far too powerful, and it has a prerequisite.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    13. Massive Damage Threshold [MAS]: 10 + Fortitude Save + Sz Modifier. Any damage that exceeds the MAS reduces a character's Atk, Def, CMB, Saves, and Skill checks -1. Stacks. Full round recovery restores +1. Heal exceeds MAS = restores +1.

    I dislike this rule. It adds too much math.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    14. Spell Recharge. Concentration DC 20 + No. of Highest Spell Level Available = Prepare spells more than once in a day. One hour preparation is still required. (+5 for each additional attempt made in a 24 hour time period.)

    My gut reaction tells me this is a bad idea. My own personal rule is to allow PCs to prepare a number of spell levels equal to their character level, but that is the maximum they can re-prepare without 8 hours of rest or 24 hours passing. Keeps them from running fully out of steam, but also keeps them from being at full power after casting a few spells.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    15. Movement. Diagonal counts as 1 square.

    I don't see any need for this rule. The 5/10/5 rule is both a reasonable estimate and simple to handle. 5 ft. diagonals grossly overestimate distance.

    Saurstalk wrote:

    16. Critical.

    Natural 20 = Instant Critical; Natural 1 = Instant Fumble.
    Threat Range >20 = Critical if hits.
    Instant Kill = 2nd confirmation roll results in critical.
    (Improved Critical stacks with Keen Weapon Quality).

    Further complicates the rules rather than simplifies them, so I don't support it.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    17. Aim (2 swift actions): Ignore cover (less than full cover).

    Taken from SWSE. Not a bad idea. Not sure it needs to be in the rules though.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    18. Spells: Detect Alignment, Protection from Alignment, etc. The alignment the caster is seeking to detect or be protected from is designated at the time of casting.

    This I like. It makes these spells a bit more useful.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    19. Carrying Capacity: Light (.5 x Str Score squared) / Encumbered (Light Load x2). Encumbered = -5 penalty to Dex-based checks.

    Given that you generally only reference the encumbrance tables ONCE in a given character's career (at character generation), I don't see any need to change this rule, unless you simply think the tables let PCs carry too much.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    20. Gear: Backpack (3 lb) (Holds 60 lb) 2 gp; +2 Str Score for Carrying Capacity.

    I rather like this, as it more clearly defines what benefit a backpack grants.


    For what it's worth, I'll chime in on a few of these too.

    Saurstalk wrote:

    Okay then.

    Where do I start?

    4a. Darkvision. See in the dark, ignoring concealment and total concealment due to darkness. Darkvision is black and white only. No distance limitation.

    4b. Low-Light Vision. See without penalty in shadowy illumination, ignoring concealment (but not total concealment) due to darkness. Distinguish colors and details under these conditions. No distance limitation.

    Not sure if you really mean "no" distance limitation. My eyesight is limited in daylight; no reason I should suddenly see 30 miles just because I'm using darkvision. Probably not what you meant. You probably meant no distance limitation different from normal vision.

    Saurstalk wrote:

    5. Advanced Rogue Talent: Full Sneak Attack. Provided you have more than one available attack in a round and would be able to make a full attack when you make a sneak, you get one additional attack at sneak attack damage that round.

    Kind of cool. Wickawickawicka with the knife in the neck. May be overpowered as it scales.

    Saurstalk wrote:

    6. Item Familiar (Wizard). (I actually drew this right out of the annals of Dragon - Imbued Staff - and altered it for any item. It's more dynamic than an arcane bonded item.)

    Liking this one.

    Saurstalk wrote:

    8. Heal Check = Revivify (DC25 + Healer's Kit) to bring a character back from the dead and stabilized at -9. (The check must be made no later than one round after the character dies and requires a full round.)

    I think this has potential. Some version of CPR makes sense.

    Saurstalk wrote:

    11. Feat: Arcane Foci: Material components of greater than 1 gp need not be expended for spellcasting, but rather serve as foci for the spells. Pre: Eschew Materials.

    The whole materials thing bothers me. Most people I know don't play with the meaterial requirements except for ressurection and other special magics; so, it seems sort of silly to make people take feats just to eventually get to the kind of play they wish they had from day one. Personally I'd advocate ditching material components from the game entirely -- except for very potent or special magics. Maybe keeping material components for entire (high) spell levels; say, 7+.

    Saurstalk wrote:

    13. Massive Damage Threshold [MAS]: 10 + Fortitude Save + Sz Modifier. Any damage that exceeds the MAS reduces a character's Atk, Def, CMB, Saves, and Skill checks -1. Stacks. Full round recovery...

    Too complicated, I think. Would slow the game down.

    Saurstalk wrote:


    Saurstalk wrote:
    15. Movement. Diagonal counts as 1 square.

    The problem I have with this, and also with 4E doing this, is that it makes the orientation of your grid something that matters, and therefore something that players are going to want to argue about. If moving diagonally costs the appropriate amount of distance (ie, near true distance), then there's no problem, because moving in any direction means the same travel time for the same distance. But if diagonal is faster, the players are going to want diagonal to be in a direction beneficial for them, and since the grid is an abstraction there's no reason why it should or shouldn't be rotated in any particular direction.

    Liberty's Edge

    For Metamagic Feats has anyone tried to have them be a Spellcraft check? and set the DC's where they would be difficult to perform. Have a Synergy bonus for Concentration above 5 (+2) and for Arcane Knowledge above 5 (+2)

    Base DC 20 for metamagics that have a +1 level adjustment. 25 for +2, 30 for +3 etc...

    If you succeed you can alter the spell. If you fail you cast the spell at decreased effectiveness. subtracting the level adjustment from your caster level and DC to save against the spell. Simple. Clean. and makes Metaagic useful to everyone without the level changes.

    Just an idea....

    Liberty's Edge

    Dread wrote:

    For Metamagic Feats has anyone tried to have them be a Spellcraft check? and set the DC's where they would be difficult to perform. Have a Synergy bonus for Concentration above 5 (+2) and for Arcane Knowledge above 5 (+2)

    Base DC 20 for metamagics that have a +1 level adjustment. 25 for +2, 30 for +3 etc...

    If you succeed you can alter the spell. If you fail you cast the spell at decreased effectiveness. subtracting the level adjustment from your caster level and DC to save against the spell. Simple. Clean. and makes Metaagic useful to everyone without the level changes.

    Just an idea....

    Your idea has merit. I'm uncomfortable with synergy bonuses, but still, there may be a way to build a formula that equals:

    Concentration (or Spellcraft) Check of

    DC (10?15?20?) + Original Spell Level + Metamagic Augmented Slots to cast.

    Still, I like the idea that under certain conditions, of "x" number of castings in a 24 hour period (or w/o 8 hrs rest) - a wizard using metamagic risks both fatigue, and then exhaustion.


    Saurstalk wrote:
    1. Occupation (+ Bonus Feat, + Skills/Skill Bonus, + to Profession) (as in d20 Modern.)

    Why??? 3.5 has profession and perform and they work great for what they are worth. (To lazy to see if pathfinder changed these into one skill so don't yell it me if I'm now wrong )

    You also have to remember that if you want more depth into this kind of thing go look at 3.5 books that are already published. WOTC (damn them!!) have made some pretty descent stuff that covers a lot of your "problems". An example is the business rules in the DMG2, you want too go in to professions and jobs looks at those rules and house rule them.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    2. Armor Bonus = Reflex Save. (Why should BAB only improve as characters progress?)

    Once again why???? AC's would skyrocket, game balance would be out of wack (just imagine how good the already overpowered monk gets). Besides its to D20 moderny, a lot of people who I know who play dnd hate d20modern, so leave the two separate they are more different than they seem.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    3. Damage Bonus = +1/2 CL. (Why should BAB only improve as characters progress?)

    Nooo!!!!!!!!!! Whole heartily object to this. Sound like its a house rule that works for you but to the average gamer, (that me (it really is)) this rule does things to combat we don't want to see. It is mean to casters, and speed up the game(just a note speeding up game and streamlining the game are different things, speeding up game play means cutting down on the number of rounds and how much game time combat takes up, streamlining is all about fixing cumbersome rules and mechanics)

    Personally combat seems to (in game time at least) be over to quickly, the average combat duration is like 6-10 rounds, double for large fights .

    Saurstalk wrote:
    4a. Darkvision. See in the dark, ignoring concealment and total concealment due to darkness. Darkvision is black and white only. No distance limitation.

    Sound like an interesting idea, but still no darkvision can surprisingly be used to balance the game. Neat idea though.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    4b. Low-Light Vision. See without penalty in shadowy illumination, ignoring concealment (but not total concealment) due to darkness. Distinguish colors and details under these conditions. No distance limitation.

    You don't get low-light vision do you? Low light vision when outside under the moon lets say, would let the elf see twice as far as the humans are. So if the humans can see 5000 ft (very! possible on clear nights)the elf in the party can see 100000ft, the way your rule handles this situation (elf can see infinite ft) is fine. When you take it indoors (dungeons) it changes it drastically. I believe a torch sheds 20 feet of good illumination 20 shadowy (could be forty?) the humans see that far. The elf sees 40 feet good and 40 feet shadow, your rule says his sight goes on forever!!! see the problem. Besides low-light vision is also a very useful tool for balancing things. You also have to remember that different races have better eyes. Dragons (or some anyway) have even better low-light vision than elves. Theres is triple I believe , your rule changes this and thus changes the balance.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    5. Advanced Rogue Talent: Full Sneak Attack. Provided you have more than one available attack in a round and would be able to make a full attack when you make a sneak, you get one additional attack at sneak attack damage that round.

    Others have already talked about this, and what they say is true rouge already can do multiple sneak attacks a turn. In fact if when attacking from surprise they can. As long as they do it in the flat-footed round (or if the rouge wins initiative the opponent counts as flat-footed until his turn)

    Saurstalk wrote:
    6. Item Familiar (Wizard). (I actually drew this right out of the annals of Dragon - Imbued Staff - and altered it for any item. It's more dynamic than an arcane bonded item.)

    Ok this right here defiantly a house rule, and because pathfinder includes all of 3.5 anyway is almost in the game already. Use the base rule as it is, and expanded however you have as a house rule.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    7. Acrobatics Check = Initiative Roll.

    Wrong! Acrobatics check does not make a lick of sense. Initiative skill I could barely stand but could. Heres the important question is initiative broken (most gamers would say no, and because your a minority you have to live with that) do not fix things that don't need fixing thats how people end up dying in random explosions.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    8. Heal Check = Revivify (DC25 + Healer's Kit) to bring a character back from the dead and stabilized at -9. (The check must be made no later than one round after the character dies and requires a full round.)

    I like it in some ways. If the guy was killed by magic or his head cut off, it would not make sense though. If the guy is dead from anything but bleeding to death I'd say probably not. I mean think of what happens when the vorpal sword comes down critical's cuts the guys head off, then presto hes alive do to a lucky check by the cleric. Or even more sensible gets coup de graced by some guy wielding a mace, and has his brain smashed in.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    9. Feats: Skill Focus (+3), Improved [Feat] (+3), No +2/+2 Feats.

    Bah, those kinds of feats where fine as they where although skill focus being knocked up a +1 could not hurt (mind you just skill focus)

    Saurstalk wrote:
    11. Feat: Arcane Foci: Material components of greater than 1 gp need not be expended for spellcasting, but rather serve as foci for the spells. Pre: Eschew Materials.

    Like everyone else I agree its overpowered and does not make sense, personally our group buys components then forgets all about them. No need to remove something that isn't a problem unless you make it one (and lets face it, anyone could make the fact you can chew into a power cable on a computer and shock yourself a problem)

    Saurstalk wrote:
    12. Metamagic Feats: Does not require additional spell slots. One use per day.

    Naw I like it as it is, but sound like an excellent house rule, sound like it works great in your group so keep doing it. (wont bother me in the slightest, would bother me if it were in the pathfinder book, cause then id have to house rule back to the old system)

    Saurstalk wrote:
    13. Massive Damage Threshold [MAS]: 10 + Fortitude Save + Sz Modifier. Any damage that exceeds the MAS reduces a character's Atk, Def, CMB, Saves, and Skill checks -1. Stacks. Full round recovery restores +1. Heal exceeds MAS = restores +1.

    First of all massive damage itself is an optional rule, so the rule you want is based of a "house rule" so this is best left as a house rule (strange how that works)

    Saurstalk wrote:
    14. Spell Recharge. Concentration DC 20 + No. of Highest Spell Level Available = Prepare spells more than once in a day. One hour preparation is still required. (+5 for each additional attempt made in a 24 hour time period.)

    Power gamers would have a ball. Personally I don't like it. This is why you buy, wands, staffs, rods, and scrolls!

    Saurstalk wrote:
    15. Movement. Diagonal counts as 1 square.

    I can't believe no one else does this but I find that a little A squared

    + B squared = C squared does the trick. count the squares down to the target square, then over to the target square and do the math on a calculator, round whatever way you want and your good. It sounds hard but really its easy, and heck think of it this way you finally get to use algebra in a real life situation.

    Saurstalk wrote:

    16. Critical.

    Natural 20 = Instant Critical; Natural 1 = Instant Fumble.
    Threat Range >20 = Critical if hits.
    Instant Kill = 2nd confirmation roll results in critical.
    (Improved Critical stacks with Keen Weapon Quality).

    Almost what it is already, just makes it easier for critical's to kill.

    Personally I'm against having to many instant death effects, 3 20's = kill is good enough for me. If you want better, throw around more vorpal weapons.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    17. Aim (2 swift actions): Ignore cover (less than full cover).

    Theres feats "like" this, just use them.

    Saurstalk wrote:
    19. Carrying Capacity: Light (.5 x Str Score squared) / Encumbered (Light Load x2). Encumbered = -5 penalty to Dex-based checks.

    Like the other guy said, you have to look at the chart once at first level, personally I don't care, Paizo probably has more crushing "problems" to deal with

    Saurstalk wrote:
    20. Gear: Backpack (3 lb) (Holds 60 lb) 2 gp; +2 Str Score for Carrying Capacity.

    Yah I find its best to leave the

    hold any item not matter odd shape, always on top, never described as wearing it backpack alone. Players tend to ignore backpacks as such so should game mechanics and DM's

    Anyway those are my thoughts, I personally really like what they have done with pathfinder and don't really have any problems. I find it really interesting that you want to increase the average amount of damage dealt. It sound like more of a 4e way of thinking. You sound like a person who would enjoy 4e but doesn't want to convert to it, he wants it to convert to him. Would enjoy reading any comments on my comments, and what you have to say about my opinions/ points

    P.S. I have been sharping my +5 bubble popping needle (so really hope that I rolled a 1 and missed your bubble)

    Liberty's Edge

    Hickaru wrote:

    P.S. I have been sharping my +5 bubble popping needle (so really hope that I rolled a 1 and missed your bubble)

    Don't worry. You missed my bubble.

    In all honesty, a lot of these have already been house ruled into my games and the games haven't suffered. If anything, they've become grittier and more streamlined. (Especially with the damage enhancement, the instant criticals, and the damage condition track.)

    And yes, we don't mind instant kills.

    Sh*t happens. . .

    . . . and then you die.


    Saurstalk wrote:
    Hickaru wrote:

    P.S. I have been sharping my +5 bubble popping needle (so really hope that I rolled a 1 and missed your bubble)

    Don't worry. You missed my bubble.

    In all honesty, a lot of these have already been house ruled into my games and the games haven't suffered. If anything, they've become grittier and more streamlined. (Especially with the damage enhancement, the instant criticals, and the damage condition track.)

    And yes, we don't mind instant kills.

    Sh*t happens. . .

    . . . and then you die.

    The problem is damage increases are not streamlining play, its just making the rounds go by even faster. Quite frankly I'm always amazed at how people keeping mentioning real life, and never mention the fact that a fight with a dragon should take longer than 6-10 rounds. Because in a more realistic time frame you could not kill a dragon in 1-1 1/2 minutes its just does not work that way. And the reason they are house ruled into your games is because they are house rules Honestly though I would like the average rounds that combat lasts to go up but to I talk about that no I don't. This goes for everyone you don't need to have all your house rules

    put into official print, house rules appeal to minorities so remember you are a minority! Don't ruin the Core Rules over little things that don't really matter that much. Saurstalk you have said multiple times that these are house rules. So as such they don't have a place in the main errata. House rules are great for forum discussions and telling other people about how you like to play! There are so many posts on these forums about house rules that people want in the final thing. Question do you mind the fact that your personal house rule is not written in the 3.5 Players Handbook, most people don't care they jot down a note, tell there players and live with it. Honestly this is like complaining that your name wasn't personally written down on the constitution. Or that your daily paper does not have articles written specifically about what you want to read about. This is like expecting the sun to revolve around the earth because of how narcissistic you are. We are not special! No matter how many times your mommy told you you were. Cause guess what she lied you are not SPECIAL!! and neither am I. I am a person, I am a gamer, and guess what the rules do not revolve around you or me!!! They revolve around the sun of gaming!! Whatever that may be. Some people say it is the soul of the game or the spirit of the games, I say that it is the majority of players. And thats who this book should please first and foremost, we can always fix our selfs what they "did wrong". Everyone likes something else, how would you like it if vending machines served only mars bars? That is what we are talking about. Getting rid of what most people want so that some guy can have his mars. Now imagine this is a magic vending machine where you can buy any kind of chocolate bar you want. So if you can always add you chocolate bar to the menu later, why change it for other people!!!! Now then this is what is wrong with your stuff, it is house content not actual errata worthy information, so if you have ideas about anything that is fair to include in the final book please tell!

    p.s. They sound like well thought out house rules, and I hope your group
    enjoys itself. By the way I think my needle hit so 2d6+25 damage

    Liberty's Edge

    Saurstalk wrote:
    8. Heal Check = Revivify (DC25 + Healer's Kit) to bring a character back from the dead and stabilized at -9. (The check must be made no later than one round after the character dies and requires a full round.)

    I instituted a similar buy more complex rule to keep a danger-prone character in play. From 1st to 5th level she died almost every session. Cleric really got to shine though.

    Resuscitation: When a character falls below their death threshold (read -9hp we moved the death number to be unique to each character based on Level and CON) they die but can be revived by attempting a resuscitation. The attempt must begin within 5 rounds of death and must be completed within 6+d4 rounds. If the character is not resuscitated within that time death is fixed and only magical intervention can revive them. Once the attempt begins the character attempting to revive the fallen PC must stay at her side the entire time. The Reviving PC can choose to take other actions some rounds but cannot make a resuscitation check that round. Within the 7-10 rounds available for resuscitation the Reviving PC must succeed 3 heal checks (DC 15 + 1/rd since death (the first round 15 second round 16 etc)) to revive the character. Any PC can aid (role their Heal instead) if they are adjacent but only one resuscitation attempt can be made each round. If 3 checks succeed the dead character upgrades their condition to stable and can be healed by all normal means.


    mindgamez wrote:


    I instituted a similar buy more complex rule to keep a danger-prone character in play. From 1st to 5th level she died almost every session. Cleric really got to shine though.

    Resuscitation: When a character falls below their death threshold (read -9hp we moved the death number to be unique to each character based on Level and CON) they die but can be revived by attempting a resuscitation. The attempt must begin within 5 rounds of death and must be completed within 6+d4 rounds. If the character is not resuscitated within that time death is fixed and only magical intervention can revive them. Once the attempt begins the character attempting to revive the fallen PC must stay at her side the entire time. The Reviving PC can choose to take other actions some rounds but cannot make a resuscitation check that round. Within the 7-10 rounds available for resuscitation the Reviving PC must succeed 3 heal checks (DC 15 + 1/rd since death (the first round 15 second round 16 etc)) to revive the character. Any PC can aid (role their Heal instead) if they are adjacent but only one resuscitation attempt can be made each round. If 3 checks succeed the dead character upgrades their condition to stable and can be healed by all normal means.

    Sounds neat, still has to have something added to it about damage to great to be revived from, maybe if they are at -30 hit points or more they can not be revived this way. As I said before it sounds pretty neat. I've heard of destiny point systems as a way of doing something similar. Where the character can spend a destiny point to stay alive (barely) Really bad deaths take multiple destiny points. I could imagine varying this so that you could spend one of your points to make a heal check on a dead person (basically give the point to him. How to handle death is a very touchy question, and probably best left up to DM discretion

    Liberty's Edge

    Hickaru wrote:
    Sounds neat, still has to have something added to it about damage to great to be revived from, maybe if they are at -30 hit points or more they can not be revived this way. As I said before it sounds pretty neat. I've heard of destiny point systems as a way of doing something similar. Where the character can spend a destiny point to stay alive (barely) Really bad deaths take multiple destiny points. I could imagine varying this so that you could spend one of your points to make a heal check on a dead person (basically give the point to him. How to handle death is a very touchy question, and probably best left up to DM discretion
    I sorta gave the short form. We do have other mechanics at play.
    • HP=death threshold=mostly dead.
    • HP=2xdeath threshold=DRT (Dead Right There)=no Resuscitation. You can go through his cloths and look for loose change.
    • HP=4xdeath threshold=Morally, Ethically, Spiritually, Physically, Positively, Absolutely Undeniably and Reliably Dead=no raise dead, not enough body left. Resurrection is in order.(Can you tell we have a Wizard of Oz fan in the group? She can recite that from memory on command, I still can't).
    • Decapitation (or dropping a house on PC<Special rule>)=same as 4xdeath threshold

    And we use Eberron Action points. Dead guy can burn points to influence the rolls for Resuscitation.

    It also lead to specialized magic items like a Potion of Resuscitation. It had a big needle and a plunger and was applied Pulp Fiction style(not kidding). There was also a white necromancy spell developed by a PC to do the same thing. I think the Verbal component was "CLEAR!"(kidding) ;-)

    The girl who's character was the impetus for these rules developed a self imposed fear of anything that killed her or other members of the party. Whenever she sees someone using that weapon or spell, (her brother in game was killed by a double ax for example) she either runs and hides behind the tank or hits it with the biggest spell or effect she has handy. Sometimes I drop an orc minion with a double ax in just to see her whip out the wand of ice storm and unload on him.

    Death is one of those subjects that has to be decided by each table. Ours has always liked to have fun with it. Its a game, and games are supposed to be fun. ;)


    airwalkrr wrote:
    Saurstalk wrote:
    2. Armor Bonus = Reflex Save. (Why should BAB only improve as characters progress?)
    Because of armor bloat. Letting characters have a bonus to AC even if they are not wearing armor is not a bad idea though. For an unarmored character, as long as a weapon is in hand, I usually use the class defense bonus rules from UA.

    I tried using the Defense Bonus from d20 Modern and UA a while, but it caused too many compatability problems with published adventures. Instead what I started doing was allowing a +1 Dexterity Modifier bonus to AC for every 5 ranks in the Jump and Tumble skills. Now why did I phrase it "Dexterity Modifier bonus to AC" instead of "Dodge bonus to AC"? Because all armors have a Maximum Dexterity Bonus already built in. In this way, I save on the head-ache and shattered-immersion factors.

    Liberty's Edge

    Laithoron wrote:
    airwalkrr wrote:
    Saurstalk wrote:
    2. Armor Bonus = Reflex Save. (Why should BAB only improve as characters progress?)
    Because of armor bloat. Letting characters have a bonus to AC even if they are not wearing armor is not a bad idea though. For an unarmored character, as long as a weapon is in hand, I usually use the class defense bonus rules from UA.
    I tried using the Defense Bonus from d20 Modern and UA a while, but it caused too many compatability problems with published adventures. Instead what I started doing was allowing a +1 Dexterity Modifier bonus to AC for every 5 ranks in the Jump and Tumble skills. Now why did I phrase it "Dexterity Modifier bonus to AC" instead of "Dodge bonus to AC"? Because all armors have a Maximum Dexterity Bonus already built in. In this way, I save on the head-ache and shattered-immersion factors.

    I'm leery of getting into synergies, which is what you are proposing. But to play ball, I think perhaps an easier way to do this would be to have an Acrobatics synergy to AC. I.e., for every 5 ranks in Acrobatics, you get +1 Synergy bonus to AC whenever you are not flat-footed. How's that?


    I might not agree with all of Saurstalk's houserules, but I certainly wouldn't label them "bad!" or "pointless!" or "NEVERRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" The thing with houserules is, you test them out, and see how well they work. The Alpha 1-2 would have enabled Saurstalk to get wider playtesting, and thus more feedback. He can still test them and use them, and I can't see that any of them will invalidate the rest of the PfRPG rules set, so they can STILL be houserules. Some of them might turn out to be very good; they just didn't make it in early enough to be tested for consideration as core rules. Others might be retired after they fail a few trial runs.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    I might not agree with all of Saurstalk's houserules, but I certainly wouldn't label them "bad!" or "pointless!" or "NEVERRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" The thing with houserules is, you test them out, and see how well they work. The Alpha 1-2 would have enabled Saurstalk to get wider playtesting, and thus more feedback. He can still test them and use them, and I can't see that any of them will invalidate the rest of the PfRPG rules set, so they can STILL be houserules. Some of them might turn out to be very good; they just didn't make it in early enough to be tested for consideration as core rules. Others might be retired after they fail a few trial runs.

    They are great house rules, for him. They sound neat and interesting, but there are definitely not source material. I would like to hear his ideas on other things, for his ideas seem well thought out and he seems to be a very smart person. What people need to understand is that the core rules don't and should not include these kinds of rules.

    It's like the hit die argument, to be random or not to be random, everyone has a different houserule concerning how to role them or how to take the average. The thing is it's one of those things that should be left as it is because everyone does it differently. There is a wrong way to play Dnd but everyones opinion of what is wrong is different. Whats wrong for someone is right for another person. The pathfinder rpg needs to find a middle ground. Thankfully the middle ground is pretty much laid out for them. As long as they keep to the spirit of 3.5 they should come up with a great system (heck the alpha already is a great system)


    mindgamez wrote:

    I sorta gave the short form. We do have other mechanics at play.

    • HP=death threshold=mostly dead.
    • HP=2xdeath threshold=DRT (Dead Right There)=no Resuscitation. You can go through his cloths and look for loose change.
    • HP=4xdeath threshold=Morally, Ethically, Spiritually, Physically, Positively, Absolutely Undeniably and Reliably Dead=no raise dead, not enough body left. Resurrection is in order.(Can you tell we have a Wizard of Oz fan in the group? She can recite that from memory on command, I still can't).
    • Decapitation (or dropping a house on PC<Special rule>)=same as 4xdeath threshold

    And we use Eberron Action points. Dead guy can burn points to influence the rolls for Resuscitation.

    It also lead to specialized magic items like a Potion of Resuscitation. It had a big needle and a plunger and was applied Pulp Fiction style(not kidding). There was also a white necromancy spell developed by a PC to do the same thing. I think the Verbal component was "CLEAR!"(kidding) ;-)

    The girl who's character was the impetus for these rules developed a self imposed fear of anything that killed her or other members of the party. Whenever she sees someone using that weapon or spell, (her brother in game was killed by a double ax for example) she either runs and hides behind the tank or hits it with the biggest spell or...

    Sounds well thought out and and interesting, still I don't see its place in everyones dnd game, but its a really neat and good idea. I know a couple people who would find this idea interesting and take a look at this for sure


    Laithoron wrote:


    I tried using the Defense Bonus from d20 Modern and UA a while, but it caused too many compatability problems with published adventures. Instead what I started doing was allowing a +1 Dexterity Modifier bonus to AC for every 5 ranks in the Jump and Tumble skills. Now why did I phrase it "Dexterity Modifier bonus to AC" instead of "Dodge bonus to AC"? Because all armors have a Maximum Dexterity Bonus already built in. In this way, I save on the head-ache and shattered-immersion factors.

    defense bonus' just don't work in most dnd games. There are some neat things in UA (of course UA is just a giant book of house rules) Personally I don't like the idea of raising AC's they work fine how they are. Of course you obviously disagree, so as such I wish you good luck building a good AC system that works for you. (neat idea of doing it through skills)

    1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 3 / New Rules Suggestions / One of my problems with Pathfinder - House Rules All Messageboards