|
Okay, I've dm'd on and off for several years now and over that time I've come across several house rules that I've liked or that I've borrowed from other games. Here's a few I'd like the community to look over and tell me what they think of them and any suggestions for making them better or more streamlined.
1.Hit Points: Your characters will begin with maximum hit points at 1st level character creation. When rolling for HP upon gaining 2nd level, you may bump the die roll by 3 points up to the maximum possible result on that die. This procedure will continue at 3rd and 4th level lowering the adjustment by 1 point each time. Thus you would modify the die by 2 points at 3rd and 1 point at 4th.
I will also be using whats called a Hit Point Kicker, an option I've borrowed from Hackmaster. Each creature and player receives bonus hp at creation based on their size. This helps promote character survival at those early fragile stages.
Fine 0
Diminutive 0
Tiny 0
Small 5
Medium 10
Large 15
Huge 20
Gargantuan 25
Colossal 30
2.Dice Penetration: Basically how this works is whenever a die is used to roll damage to hitpoints or healing of the same then if the maximum possible result is rolled you get to roll another die of the same size with a cumulative -1 modifier to the total damage dealt or healed. The -1 modifier therefore continues to accrue each time another die is rolled effectively capping the maximum possible so as to not make it too ridiculous. For example, suppose your basic fighter attacks with a greatsword and rolls his 2d6 for damage, say he rolls a 2 and a 6. He then rolls another d6-1 because he penetrated on the 6. If he rolls a six on the penetration dice then he rolls another d6 but now with a -2.
3.Armor Damage/Damage Reduction: I use a slightly modified rule from Hackmaster which allows a character's armor to absorb some of the damage from a hit that the character otherwise would have suffered. The armor takes this damage instead, requiring it to be repaired at some point. Armor will slowly lose a level of AC protection as it continues to take more damage, until the point where it becomes unusable and no longer provides any AC bonus at all. The amount of damage that a suit of armor will protect against will vary depending on material and quality but will always provide a DR of at least 1 until it reaches 0 armor points. This DR is subtracted from each die roll of damage that the character is effected by.
This DR is also effective against spells as well (except for the force only spells that are able to hit incorporeal creatures with no miss chance).
AC_____|___1_|___2_|___3_|___4_|___5_|___6_|___7_|___8_|___9_|
HP_____|__10_|__10_|__10_|__20_|__20_|__20_|__30_|__30_|__30_|
DR_____|___1_|___1_|___1_|___1_|___1_|___1_|___2_|___2_|___3_|
THP____|__10_|__20_|__30_|__50_|__70_|__90_|_120_|_150_|_180_|
Modifiers for special materials
Adamantine: 1/3 more hp per AC level, additional DR= 1/light, 2/medium, and 3/heavy per AC level.
Darkwood: no change, just lighter than steel.
Dragonhide: no change in hp, but one extra DR at each AC level.
Cold Iron: no change.
Mithral: no change in hp, but one extra DR at each AC level.
Silver, Alchemical: no change.
I have'nt quite got the hard/fast rules for what it will cost to repair the armor as of yet. My players usually find a wizard with a repair spell to do it for them. This works for now but if they have a capable wizard in there own party then it lessens the cost impact it's supposed to have on the characters. So I probably need to come up with something to remedy that situation.
4.Languages: Speak Language shall be considered a class skill for everyone. At character creation, the player may choose to learn a number of languages equal to there intelligence bonus from the list of bonus languages for their chosen race at no cost of skill points. This does not have to include the common trade language, but it is recommended. Any languages learned after character creation must be purchased with ranks in the Speak Language skill.
The maximum number of languages a character can learn will be limited to twice their intelligence modifier, minimum of 1 unless they possess a very low intelligence score at which point they speak a very simple form of their native tongue. If they have an extremely low score then they most likely communicate through hand gestures and grunts.
This is something I use just because it seems unreal for someone with a low intelligence to know as many languages as they feel like spending points in. For instance they have a hard time adding 2+2=4 but they can speak fluently in 12 different languages. Seems a little silly to me.
5.Reading/Writing: Characters do not automatically know how to read and write. If you wish to be able to read/write a language, you must spend skill points in Read/Write in order to do so. Also barbarians are restricted from learning to read or write during character creation, although they can learn the skill later if they so choose.
Read/Write is a class skill for the following classes: Bard, Cleric, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, and Wizard.
With Pathfinder's slightly different skill point system I'm not sure how to implement this now.
6.Criticals: For now I will be using the regular critical threat range and then roll to confirm. I will also however be using a roll to confirm for critical misses. The critical miss roll will involve any roll of a natural 1 normally. If your character has a negative modifier from dexterity this range will be increased by that amount. If an attack roll falls within that range, the player rolls again to confirm just like a critical hit, however if you miss the defenders armor class on the confirm roll than it will be a critical miss, if you hit the defenders armor class on the confirm roll it will simply be a regular miss.
The actual roll to decide what critical effect of a miss will happen is made by me behind the screen. However I will list below what the die range and effects will be, subject to change as I strive to make it a better system.
1-5 = Hit your closest ally
6-10 = Damage your weapon in some way
11-15 = Drop or throw your weapon
16-20 = Open yourself up to an attack of oppurtunity by your opponent
7.Firing Into Melee: I seriously plan on revamping the rules for this as I really can't find a good explanation for what happens when people try this. I will also need to incorporate the effects of the couple feats that touch on this kind of thing so that it still works smoothly as the game progresses into higher levels.
Essentially I feel there should be the chance of hitting any combatant of a melee when firing into one, as they tend to move around ducking and dodging their opponents swings. Nearly every game, I still get the crazy low level archer that wants to fire into melee when their own party members might take the arrow instead of their opponent. And currently the rules don't seem to frown on this at all. They just give you a -4 to hit and if you miss then you don't hit anything.
Ok thats pretty much all of them. Tell me what you think, and hopefully you can give me some suggestions to help streamline them and make them better.
I have to ask, do you intend to use all of these ? That could be problematic. For example if you use both HP modifiers, you are going to have very high hp on low level characters which will in turn effect the CR's of encounters. Also using all the house combat rules together is going to lengthen the time it takes to run encounters, with the Armor degradation, new rules for missle combat,etc...it will be tough for even seasoned vets to keep it all straight. Dont get me wrong alot of your rules seem like cool additions to try out, but all of them at once in a single game could get messy. The only one I dont like as a stand alone is the Read/Write skill, this screams of unneeded skill point theft from your players. I know you are looking at historical accuracy here, but in a game with magic and dragons sometimes you just need to know where to draw the line. This isn't 3.5 that one skill point at first level means a good bit more than it used to.
|
|
I have to ask, do you intend to use all of these ? That could be problematic. For example if you use both HP modifiers, you are going to have very high hp on low level characters which will in turn effect the CR's of encounters. Also using all the house combat rules together is going to lengthen the time it takes to run encounters, with the Armor degradation, new rules for missle combat,etc...it will be tough for even seasoned vets to keep it all straight. Dont get me wrong alot of your rules seem like cool additions to try out, but all of them at once in a single game could get messy. The only one I dont like as a stand alone is the Read/Write skill, this screams of unneeded skill point theft from your players. I know you are looking at historical accuracy here, but in a game with magic and dragons sometimes you just need to know where to draw the line. This isn't 3.5 that one skill point at first level means a good bit more than it used to.
Other than the missile combat rule which I haven't decided on a good mechanic for, so far I use all of these yes. Perhaps encounters do last longer, I'm not terribly sure they do. Although my players still seem to enjoy most of them except for the read/write one. Which I understand with pathfinder means something a bit more expensive. Perhaps I could just dispense with it altogether but it still seems wrong that everyone can read and write when I know that's patently unrealistic. Not just because of a lack of education but also because it isn't really a necessity for any class that doesn't use spellbooks or holy scripture.
As for the extra hp's, those are the only additional hp's they get above the norm, the +3/+2/+1 die bump merely lets them get the maximum possible result on the die. The kicker I also give to the monsters although the die bump I do not. As both good and bad get the kicker I don't see it changing the CR appreciably. It just cuts down on the one shots to the players as most lower level monsters can't do quite enough damage to kill most players outright.
Thanks for the feedback, did you have any ideas on what might make them better? And I will consider just tossing the read/write requirement as it probably isn't worth the battle of annoying my players with.
They all stink.
Oh, wait, no, you wanted constructive criticism. Sorry. I'll look them over:
1.Hit Points: Your characters will begin with maximum hit points at 1st level character creation. When rolling for HP upon gaining 2nd level, you may bump the die roll by 3 points up to the maximum possible result on that die. This procedure will continue at 3rd and 4th level lowering the adjustment by 1 point each time. Thus you would modify the die by 2 points at 3rd and 1 point at 4th.
Sounds like a decent method to boost low-level characters. I personally prefer giving them a virtual HD (d8+Con), but no max HP for the 1st class HD (but then, I give average HP instead of rolling)
I will also be using whats called a Hit Point Kicker, an option I've borrowed from Hackmaster. Each creature and player receives bonus hp at creation based on their size. This helps promote character survival at those early fragile stages.
That works, too.
But I'd say that both together (your HD bump and your size bump, too) is a bit too much.
Plus, don't punish the halflings and gnomes any more.
2.Dice Penetration:
A.k.a. exploding dice. Can be fun, can be annoying. Find out whether your players like it.
3.Armor Damage/Damage Reduction: I use a slightly modified rule from Hackmaster which allows a character's armor to absorb some of the damage from a hit that the character otherwise would have suffered. The armor takes this damage instead, requiring it to be repaired at some point. Armor will slowly lose a level of AC protection as it continues to take more damage, until the point where it becomes unusable and no longer provides any AC bonus at all. The amount of damage that a suit of armor will protect against will vary depending on material and quality but will always provide a DR of at least 1 until it reaches 0 armor points. This DR is subtracted from each die roll of damage that the character is effected by.
For me, it's too much bookkeeping.
The maximum number of languages a character can learn will be limited to twice their intelligence modifier, minimum of 1 unless they possess a very low intelligence score at which point they speak a very simple form of their native tongue. If they have an extremely low score then they most likely communicate through hand gestures and grunts.This is something I use just because it seems unreal for someone with a low intelligence to know as many languages as they feel like spending points in. For instance they have a hard time adding 2+2=4 but they can speak fluently in 12 different languages. Seems a little silly to me.
Personally, I have no problem with this: If they want to spend their few skill points for languages, let them.
Plus, there's already a limit to langauges, in Pathfinder: your ranks in linguistics plus your intelligence bonus.
5.Reading/Writing:
Too much hassle for me. Let them all read and write if they want to.
6.Criticals:
May I suggest the critical fumble deck?
7.Firing Into Melee:Essentially I feel there should be the chance of hitting any combatant of a melee when firing into one, as they tend to move around ducking and dodging their opponents swings. Nearly every game, I still get the crazy low level archer that wants to fire into melee when their own party members might take the arrow instead of their opponent. And currently the rules don't seem to frown on this at all. They just give you a -4 to hit and if you miss then you don't hit anything.
3e had the option of ignoring the -4 and risking to hit the wrong guy.
Archers should remain a viable path for adventurers, and not just as a backup. But if you risk killing or hurting your allies with every attack, you'll be the least popular party member (and, depending on the party, not a party member at all, because you've been thrown out or killed)
|
Sounds like a decent method to boost low-level characters. I personally prefer giving them a virtual HD (d8+Con), but no max HP for the 1st class HD (but then, I give average HP instead of rolling)
I allow the characters to choose...roll and accept what you get, not matter the result...or take 1 point over half...d6=4/d8=5/d10=6/d12=7
I find all the d6's generally take the 1 over half...d8's flip a coin...and the ones with the most to gain (or lose) frequently gamble.
|
|
Tilquinith wrote:
7.Firing Into Melee:
Essentially I feel there should be the chance of hitting any combatant of a melee when firing into one, as they tend to move around ducking and dodging their opponents swings. Nearly every game, I still get the crazy low level archer that wants to fire into melee when their own party members might take the arrow instead of their opponent. And currently the rules don't seem to frown on this at all. They just give you a -4 to hit and if you miss then you don't hit anything.
I allow the character to fire into melee with no chance to hit an opponent, if there's a clear line of fire...but if theres a character in the LOF then hed better have precise shot.
Oh I do love house rules. Looking over what you’ve done here are some thoughts.
1. Nothing wrong with number one as such, but I like games where people can die very easy/realistically. Seeing as you want realistic language rules, why not realistic hit points (not that even standard hit point rules are realistic but you get my drift). Still for a GM who wants players to not be killed so fast the hit point rules are fine and to me not overly complicated. I think you balanced it fine.
2. Okay the mechanics of this is fine in concept but adds needless complication. Sorry it’s a needless addition to the rules. If I may ask why did you add Dice Penetration in the first place? With the extra hit points of first rules you really do not need to give healing an extra edge, and assuming you give those points to keep players alive, you also don’t need a deadlier edge in the game. Moreover Dice Penetration seems like it will only get worse and worse as time goes on. I can only image how long Fire Ball will take to calculate. Sorry but this should be droped.
3. I like the concept of armor as Damage Reduction, but maybe you should think about keeping it simple. In my game I’ve toyed with the idea of this, but kept it very simple. For me Armor DR would always be ½ AC, round down. So if you have AC 4, the armor gives DR 2. Armor is damaged when the total damaged of a hit is 4x the AC. So in the above example, any hit that would do 16pts of damage the armor is considered damaged and reduce the AC by one. Don’t get me wrong, not saying my way is better then yours, to be honest I have yet to see Armor as DR done well. As for repair I usually force players to maintain there Armor every morning (giving fighters something to do when Wizards are reading their spellbooks) using a craft skills. Repair cost can be simplified by taking the price of the Armor and divide it by AC. Thus every AC point would have a GP value.
4. & 5. Love your rules for number 4, I think I’m going to use them for my game. Its simple and effective. Read and Write should also cost a skill point but how skilled you are at it could be done simply with the Pathfinder skill. So 1 point to know a language, 1 point to read and Write, but how skilled you are remains the same as in Pathfinder. In any case I think this is a very well done house rule.
6. Two things, backing up Critical miss is fine, but really either A. get the critical hit/miss decks, or just wing it as a story teller. Your house rule is fine, simply unneeded.
7. I usually just go with the standard rules just to keep them simple. However I did have a DM who rolled a die that was = to the number of combatants. Thus if 2 people fighting roll a d2, three roll a d4 and so on. Rolling over the number of combatants is a simple miss.
Hope this gives some help.
TTFN Dre
|
7. ... However I did have a DM who rolled a die that was = to the number of combatants. Thus if 2 people fighting roll a d2, three roll a d4 and so on. Rolling over the number of combatants is a simple miss.
I do this for misses fired into a crowd and critical misses in melee. 3 guys in range, including 2 friends - roll d3 (d6/2) and see who you REALLY hit. Maybe you kill a friend, maybe you get another chance to hit the original target. Actually, once the new target is determined randomly, I have them roll attack again, so no auto hits, but still, it's fun and adds a little fear to the game. We had a gal with "Friendkiller" appended to her name for a while 'cause she took out two party members in the same adventure.
|
|
Thanks for all the replies so far, you've all given me some great ideas.
As for the extra hp stuff to help players survive, I want to assure everyone that there are still plenty of deaths either through misfortune or poor planning on the part of the players.
You're replies have given me some good ideas for firing into melee.
Here we go...
Firing into Melee:
If trying not to hit allies when firing missile weapons into melee apply a -4 penalty to the attack roll. If this results in a miss by 5 or more then roll randomly to determine the actual target and roll another attack roll to see if the shot hits and causes damage.
If you choose not to take the -4 penalty to the attack, then roll randomly to determine your target and roll the attack as normal.
Effects of the archery feats:
Precise Shot:(essentially unchanged) this removes the -4 penalty for firing into melee, however you will still end up hitting a random target if you miss by 5 or more.
Improved Precise Shot: (as normal with the additional benefit) reduces the chance of hitting a random target, now this will only occur if you miss by 10 or more.
I will try this updated rule for my next session and see how it runs. I may decide to reduce the missed by range so as to increase the chance for this happening depending on how my playtests go.
You guys are a great source for new ideas and good advice, keep it coming.
1. Starting hp by size
2. Dice penetration
3. Armor with DR
4. Languages
5. Literacy
6. Crits
1. "Hit points" model avoidance of massive injury as well as sheer physical toughness. By assigning a size modifier, you (a) ensure that no one in their right mind will ever play a gnome or a halfling, and (b) give monsters a "double boost": a size modifier, on top of more hp due to greater Con due to size increases. There are other, better methods to give low-level characters a boost; see Pathfinder options, for example.
2. If you apply this on top of crits, combat becomes vastly more random in nature: a lucky shot is better than consistent hits. This puts PCs at a disadvantage, because they have to survive multiple encounters (with chances for a massive "penetration" and/or large crit) in each, instead of being expected to die after one fight. On the other hand, if only PCs get this benefit, your game world feels artificial and arbitrary. If you and your players like dice penetration, I suggest they replace crits, rather than adding to them.
3. Sounds like too much bookkeeping for me personally, but if you and your players don't mind it, have fun.
4. - 5. No comments.
6. See 2., above. Adding to the effects of crits makes combat dicier, which puts PCs at a disadvantage when compared with monsters. That's an excellent thing to have if your campaign rewards avoidance of combat; Victory Games' 007 rules, for example, are rigged so that firefights almost always get you killed, therefore punishing players who skip stealth and just attack. For standard D&D modules and even Paizo adventure paths, it will result in TPKs even more frequent than the all-too-common ones we already see.
|
|
2. If you apply this on top of crits, combat becomes vastly more random in nature: a lucky shot is better than consistent hits. This puts PCs at a disadvantage, because they have to survive multiple encounters (with chances for a massive "penetration" and/or large crit) in each, instead of being expected to die after one fight. On the other hand, if only PCs get this benefit, your game world feels artificial and arbitrary. If you and your players like dice penetration, I suggest they replace crits, rather than adding to them.
This particular addition is actually something I added by popular demand of the players involved, they seem to like the extra thrill and chance of doing some massive damage if they get lucky. And so far they haven't complained when it's happened to themselves.
6. See 2., above. Adding to the effects of crits makes combat dicier, which puts PCs at a disadvantage when compared with monsters. That's an excellent thing to have if your campaign rewards avoidance of combat; Victory Games' 007 rules, for example, are rigged so that firefights almost always get you killed, therefore punishing players who skip stealth and just attack. For standard D&D modules and even Paizo adventure paths, it will result in TPKs even more frequent than the all-too-common ones we already see.
This is something else the players seem to enjoy, although it's something I added on my own although I got the idea from another friend of mine.
Oh, I'll tell the truth, I don't have much to say about your house rules and all.
But I have some advice for houserules on general: Less is more.
Whenever you create a houserule, let it be as simple as you can, seriously. I also tried my hands on DR and such, but while I like a more gritty and realist game, I left "how much damage an armor can soak" rule out. It really just adds bookkeeping. I jsut say "okay X, now you armor is a little damaged. -1 to her DR, and you should repair it, you know" or something like that. easier to keep, you know.
About the languages I would say for you to adopt the Linguistics skill. I did, and in my world I deported Common, now the chars must know the languges of different regions. Works fines.
And the Hp, if you want them having some more, how about the 75% rule? Let them roll, or have a fixed 75% of the DX as hp each level. A fixed 3 for d4, 4 for d6, 6 for d8, 7 for d10, and an impressive 9 for d12. Use this only for the pcs or major npcs. All the rest of the world goes with 50%. How about it? I use it some years already.
For hit points, I use a house rule that I call "the double 1". Basically, any time a player rolls a 1 on his HD, he marks his character sheet. The next time he rolls another 1 on his HD, he can reroll again until he takes a new result (no "double 1s") and erase the mark on his sheet.
The downside is when the character rolls a 2 on his HD - ESPECIALLY after a double 1 - ... but often in these cases I'm a bit lenient and do a "Oh? What was that nice juice spot on your wall? (...go, reroll...)" to allow him to survive.
|
|
After playtesting my house rules for quite a while(currently session 19) I've come to the realization like someone posted earlier that less really is more. And once my current campaign (Barrow of the forgotten king through Fortress of the Yaunti path) concludes I plan on doing away with all or most of them and starting one of paizo's AP's with the beta rules as I've already preordered the core rules due in august.
I've noticed seemingly small changes, or even changes made for flavor can have the effect of severely complicating other points in the game and can end up quite gamebreaking, mainly in reference to my armor with DR rule i've been using. Gah, makes spellcasters have a really difficult time hurting the party tanks. Ahh well, I'm looking forward to a fresh start once the party either succeeds or fails in the Fortress of the Yaunti.
By the way, has anyone else seen how much of a tpk possibility the last guy in that is? Man he's killer.
I have to agree with the above 'Less is More' comment. I try to do houserules as little as possible. Some examples of what I do:
1) Max HP for N levels (Where N varies based on how 'heroic' the campaign should feel). If it's going to be an larger than life game, or a game where the characters are going to be on their own with little access to civilization for long periods, N = 5. If it's the typical 'Adventures in the wilds just outside the kingdom' then N = 1 or 2.
2) Slight tweaks to certain classes. Adding class skills (everyone get's spot and listen as class skills in all classes for example), adding Knowledge (Religion) to the Favored Soul (how did they get Arcana instead?).
3) LUC Stat. I've added in a LUCK stat to my game. It's always determined by rolling 3d6, and you take what you get. For every +1 modifier on luck, you can do certain things each game session (Autoconfirm a crit, auto-hit, cancel an enemy crit, cancel an enemy hit, add 20 to a skill check or saving throw). If you have negative mods for the luck stat, the GM get's to do the opposite to you once per game session per -1. The players seem to really like this (even the ones who get a +0 or -1, those with a -2 aren't happy all the time of course).
4) Defensive Casting requires Combat Casting feat (this was a balancing thing that seems to have worked well).
Mmmmm, yummy crunchy houserules. Nom nom nom...
Side note: I am approaching this from a min/max, powergamer, munchkin mentality. All the arguments in the world that, for xample, "halflings are cute, I can roleplay them just fine" means nothing when discussing whether a mechancial rule works or doesn't work. Mechanics must be discussed mechanically, in terms of how balanced or game-breaking they are. This is the realm of the munchkin, but it is necessary to evaluate any rule.
Apology: this is extremely long. You listed 7 things in one post, each of which might be a valid topic for its own thread. I had no way to respond briefly and yet offer viable critique, so I put each response into a spoiler, leaving only the concluding suggestion out in the open.
1. HP.
But the small/medium thing is a problem.
It almost goes without saying that the small races, gnome and halfling, are pathetic compared to the medium races.
Anyone with a lick of sense who picks a race for mechanical benefit will already disregard gnomes and halflings as virtually unplayable. Too many huge (no pun intended) drawbacks, such as slow movement, small weapons, less damage, with not enough compensating benefits make these races mechanically undesirable.
Then you add insult to injury by giving them 5 fewer HP than you give the medium races.
Your logic is sound. Bigger (medium) creatures have more meat, more muscle, bigger bones, so they have more HP.
But don't forget that HP represents more than just flesh and bone. It represents ability to avoid taking that fatal killing blow. Luck. Dodginess. Whatever.
The small races should have less flesh and bone, but more "dodginess" than the medium races.
This provides at least a defensible argument for giving them the same HP bonus as medium races.
But the mechanics, the simple fact that you've taken the two worst races and made them even more unplayable, offers the most compelling argument that this is a bad idea.
I would seriously reconsider making small and medium races equal on your bonus HP - if not, the only people who will ever play them are those people who deliberately make crappy choices in order to roleplay, and such people are usually a lot of fun to game with, but their characters are invariably weak in combat and often are drains on party resources.
Don't punish the small races any more than they already are.
Suggestion: make both small and medium races get either +5 or +10, whichever suits your fancy, but make them equal.
2. Dice.
Even your own example of the guy with a greatsword shows how quickly this becomes so limiting that it's barely worth rolling the next die. If he rolls two sixes for damage, he gets to roll 1d6-1 (average 2.5 HP) and 1d6-2 (averaging 1.5 HP). If either of those roll another 6, he gets to roll 1d6-3 (avergaing 0.5 HP) and if he rolls yet another 6, he gets to roll 1d6-4, averaging negative 0.5 HP).
Further, the limit is unbalanced. Consider a human with a rapier (1d6 damage). He rolls a 6, now he gets to roll 1d6-1, averaging 2.5 HP. OK, not bad. Now consider a halfling with a rapier (1d4 damage). He rolls a 4, now he gets to roll 1d4-1, averaging 1.5 HP. Suddenly, it's gone from bad to worse. He's a small race and mechanically limited (see my discussion above) and he must use small weapons that do less damage. But now his bonus damage is less too. Unbalanced.
But wait, the halfing will roll more fours than the human will roll sixes. True, but he can't stack them. His second 4 means he rolls a d4-2, which averages nearly zero extra HP, while the human's second roll, while less frequent, still averages enough damage to make a small difference. So since the limit you propose increments with each additional die, the small dice (d3, d4) run out of bonus damage very quickly, with only 1 or 2 extra dice, while the bigger dice (d8, d10, d12) will never really run out of bonus damage (the odds of making it to d8-8 are astronomical, about one in 2.1 million damage rolls; you'll never see that many consecutive 8s get rolled in your lifetime).
I would drop the limit entirely.
Second, you get some wierd imbalance here. Consider the difference between a greatsword and a greataxe. The greatsword, rolling 2d6 damage, will roll far more extra dice than the greataxe, rolling 1d12, will be able to roll. In fact, for every time someone wielding a greataxe rolls a bonus damage d12, the guy next to him with a greatsword will have (on average) rolled four bonus damage d6.
So I ran some quick numbers. I only went one level deep (meaning I only added bonus damage on the original dice rolled, and did not add bonus damage for any extra maximum rolls on the initial bonus dice).
My findings show that a greataxe, normally by RAW, averages 6.5 damage. Rolling an extra 1d12 any time the initial damage rolls a natural 12 results in increasing the weapon's average damage to 7.041667, an increase of 0.541667.
Compare that to a greatsword that, normally by RAW, averages 7 damage. Rolling an extra 1d6 any time the initial damage rolls a natural 6 results in increasing the weapon's average damage to 8.166667, an increase of 1.166667.
So the greatsword gains more than 2x as much bonus damage from this houserule than a greataxe gains.
Maybe you're OK with this. After all, the difference is fairly slight.
On a side note, the Warhammer Fantasy RPG had exploding dice. But they had every weapon rolling 1d6 for damage. A dagger may have been 1d6-3, and a greatsword may have been 1d6+4 (don't have the books anymore, and I don't remember exact values, but this is how it generally worked).
So someone wielding a dagger for 1d6-3 has a 16.7% chance to roll another 1d6, and someone wielding a greatsword for 1d6+4 has a 16.7% chance to roll another 1d6. If the bonus d6 rolled another 6, another bonus 1d6 was rolled, infinitely, or until they stopped rolling sixes.
Every weapon got the same chance at getting the same number and same size of bonus dice. Totally balanced.
That may be a bit more revision than you might want to do with the d20/Pathfinder game, but if you don't, watch out for the munchkins among your players that figure out how to take advantage of the math.
Final side note: this math applies to spells, too. d6 fireballs compared to d4 magic missiles, etc. Muchkin mages may abound...
Suggestion #1: drop the unbalancing limit and let them roll until they don't roll the maximum value.
Suggestion #2: consider rebalancing the weapons so to eliminate the weird balance issues between one big die and two smaller dice. Consider the Warhammer FRPG solution, which is a big change, or at least, balance the two-dice weapons by turning them into one-die weapons (such as making the greatsword roll 1d12 like the greataxe) to level the playing field somewhat.
3. Armor.
This bonus HP might be situational, since some attacks may ignore the DR.
You may have noticed that just about everyone who can wear heavy armor also has large HD, and everyone who cannot wear any armor at all has the smalled HD available (except the monk, who has compensating AC modifiers).
So basically what you're doing is giving, in essence, bonus HP to fighters, paladins, and clerics, because they subtract 3 from most of the damage they take (they'll be in full plate very soon in their careers). You're giving a little bit of bonus HP to all the other lightly armored classes (barbarian, bard, druid, ranger, rogue) because they subtract 1 from most of the damage they take.
But you're punishing monks, sorcerers, and wizards who get no extra HP because they get no DR.
Monks already suck. From the munchkin POV, there is no reason to play a monk. Want to fight? Play a fighter, not a monk.
Want fast movement? Play a barbarian. Want skills? Play a rogue or ranger. Monk just might be the worst class in the game, mechanically, because there is no adventuring role for a monk that cannot be performed by other classes better.
And now you give bonus HP to the other melee classes in the form of DR, but give none to the monk.
Same for the mages. They have the lowest AC and fewest HP of all the classes, and you give all the other classes more HP in the form of DR. Maybe this balances them a bit, since at the highest levels, mages are arguably the most powerful classes in the game. But at the lowest levels, this might just be a death sentence for them, if you in any way increase the difficulty of encounters to compensate for the DR of the melee classes.
Adamantine full plate? 6 DR? Yikes! This might, mechanically, be the equivalent of doubling the fighter's total HP, at least in those encounters where he takes many small physical hits (maybe even tripling the fighter's total HP in the right circumstances).
Side note: I think you might be misunderstanding why force spells hit incorporeal creatures. A magic missile has the force descriptor, which means it can hit an incorporeal creature with no miss chance. But this isn't because it is extra sharp, or extra penetrating, or armor-piercing. It's simply because the incorporeal creature is mostly made of air, and normal stuff might pass right through without hitting the creature, but force effects like magic missile always find the creature's real molecules to hit. This doesn't seem to give force effects any special advantage in penetrating defenses that other spells are unable to penetrate. If your platemail can stop fire or lightning or sonic attacks, then it should stop force effects just as well.
Now for the armor damage. Why only armor? Why not damage shields too? Why not damage weapons? Why not damage those cloaks of resistance, boots of speed, robes of the Magi, etc.?
Once you start down this road, it gets slippery really fast.
Further, it applies an arbitrary penalty to anyone wearing armor. You won't see the mages out there repairing their robes, but your rule proposes some financial obligation on barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, rangers, and rogues to spend their hard earned coin to fix their armor.
Many of those classes invest a lot of cash buying good magical armor. If Magic Emporiums are not viable in your world, then those classes invest a lot of time and luck finding that special suit of magical armor in some dungeon somewhere.
Then they have to watch their precious armor get hacked to bits, and have to fork over their coin to repair it.
That's a lot of extra burden on the melee classes.
I guess that offsets the fact that they get more DR than the other guys. But wait, it doesn't. Because barbarians wear light armor and get the lower DR, but they still look for awesome magical gear, hard to replace and expensive to repair.
Same for rangers and rogues, though they may not try quite as hard to find the awesome armor since they may have other priorities first.
And the bookkeeping. Ouch! That's a lot of extra crap to track: deciding when to damage the armor, tracking the damage, making the repairs, deducting the repair costs. Does it really add enough coolness to the game to waste people's time tracking it all?
D&D made armor indestructible for a reason. Simplicity.
Before you throw this simplicity out the window, make sure your players are comfortable with all this extra effort for an armor system that is unfair, unbalanced, and tedious to track.
Suggestion: Really, I would drop this entirely. It's way too unbalanced, way too punishing of some classes, and way too much bookkeeping. If you must do it, I would simplify it to making the repairs very cheap (like free) and letting them repair while the camp for the night. I wouldn't track damage, and I wouldn't reduce AC when the armor is damaged. I would reduce the DR. If your full plate gets damaged, the DR goes from 3 to 2 until you spend an hour repairing it in a peaceful setting, like a camp. No need to track separate HP for the armor, or any other gear, they carry - just apply the damage to the defense value of the armor and be done with it, assuming you don't drop the rule entirely).
4. Languages.
Speak Language skill? Are you creating a new skill then? Maybe because you're also creating a Read/Write skill?
Why limit the number of languages? Here on earth there are many people who can speak dozens of languages. Wendy Vo spoke 11 languages fluently when she was eight years old. By your limit, this requires her to have an intelligence of 22 (unless she had a headband of intellect, that's two points higher than human maximum - unless we want to assume an 8-year-old child was an 8th level expert and put two points into INT while she leveled). Ziad Fazah speaks 59 languages.
This would require an INT score of 70, by your limit.
It seems to me that imposing an arbitrary mechanical limit is pointless, and unrealistic. If someone wants to dump that many skill points into languages, why not let them? Ziad Fazah clearly did just that.
Instead, if you insist on a limit, make it a RP limit. Still allow the RAW rule for starting languages, but then after the game begins, learning a language takes 2 months of close exposure or 4 months of simple study. And the character needs someone to teach him. Maybe it's just a fellow party member. No reason the elf cannot teach Elvish to the dwarf he adventures with, and that would count as 2 months of close exposure. At the end of the 2 months, the dwarf spends his skill point and can now speak the language.
Want to learn Terran? Ignan? Draconic? Better go find a willing teacher and invest the time...
That should limit it far more realistically than setting a mechanical limit.
Suggestion: Impose a roleplaying limit and forget the arbitrary mechanical one.
5. Literacy.
But that model applies to a reasonably advanced culture where literacy is fairly common.
In a campaign where almost nobody reads or writes, such as medieval Europe where only clergy and nobility were taught to read, then languages would be taught verbally only (unless the person learning the language has access to the written language, such as learning it in his monastery, or because he's a noble, in which case he would become literate as he learns to speak the language).
Your houserule seems to blur this line a bit. You say "Characters do not automatically know how to read and write" which implies the campaign fits the second of my examples, a society where literacy is rare. Then you say "Read/Write is a class skill for the following classes: Bard, Cleric, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, and Wizard" which gives literacy to more than half of the available classes. This second statement seems to imply that literacy is not all that uncommon after all, since so many people (at least so many adventurers) have access to literacy.
But what about a nobleman who takes up arms as a fighter or ranger? Remember Aragorn, noble born, raised by elves in the home of an elvish noble - I bet he was literate in multiple languages before he was full grown.
Have you considered making literacy relative to the character's background instead of his class? A nobleman who chooses the life of a rogue would be literate. A farmchild who, late in life, finds religion and becomes a paladin may be ordained with the power to smite the heathens but may not have learned to read and write.
It's all about campaign fluff, but you may want to consider ways for characters to gain literacy, preferably without having to waste a precious feat on it.
As a side note, what's the point of making it a class-skill anyway? If a fighter puts one point into Read/Write, isn't he just a literate as a wizard with 1 point in Read/Write? What beneift does the wizard gain from the +3 bonus for Read/Write being a class skill?
Suggestion: Un-blur the line. Is your campaign a generally literate one or not? Consider basing literacy on character background instead of character class. Also clarify the difference between class skill and cross-class skill (maybe 1 point is barely See Spot Run literate, 2 points is elementary literacy, 3 points is mature literacy, and 4 points is professional literacy, so a fighter might need 4 skill points to read/write like a professor, but a wizard can get there with one point - but this also seems a bit punishing to the illiterate classes/backgrounds)
6. Critical misses.
Hit closest ally? No, don't do this (more on that below regarding Firing into Melee).
Damage your weapon? I covered this in detail above with your armor damage houserule. Who wants to finally find that lovely +5 flaming sonic holy greatsword of demon bane, only to damage it over and over?
I really like the provoke AoO idea - now this is what fumbling is all about. Dropping weapons is fine too.
But why do you get to roll them? In secret no less. I say, let the player take his fate into his own hands. His dice decide whether he hits or misses, whether his skills succeed, whether his saves succeed, how much damage his weapons and spells do. I think his dice should decide his fate on a fumble, too. As a player, I would hate having the DM drop a die behind his screen then tell me I just hit my buddy next to me. I would think I'm being manipulated. Let me roll it where everyone can see the result.
Remember the key to all criticals, whether they are critical hits or critical fumbles. Each monster in the game only exists, in combat, for a few rounds of battle. Maybe it escapes and you have to fight it again, for a few more rounds of battle. But every player will be in thousands of rounds of battle.
Thousands.
So any rule that goes both ways, like all criticals, means that some monsters will die a round early because a PC crits them or because they fumble. Big deal.
But the players will suffer over and over and over and over and over from criticals. Monsters will score critical hits against your players. Your players will roll critical fumbles.
Mechanically, this all boils down to two game features:
A. Players will burn more resources because of criticals (hits against them and their own fumbles). Hitting your ally means the cleric has to use another heal spell to fix him. Dropping your weapon means you waste a round or two getting it back, so you ultimately get attacked more because the fight is longer, so you take more damage and burn more of the cleric's healing. When the orc rolls a critical, you take more damage, requiring more clerical healing. Maybe that healing comes from wands or potions, but no matter what, it all amounts to resource depletion.
B. Player deaths. All this extra damage (monters rolling critical hits, players hitting their allies, players fumbling so the monsters live longer and deal more damaging attacks), can quickly get out of hand and result in player deaths. Monsters are supposed to die. Players are supposed to survive (mostly).
Given both A & B, any rule such as critical fumbles makes it harder on players. Remember, they need to survive thousands of rounds of combat. They also need to complete scenarios, missions, adventures without having to pitch their tents in every third dungeon room because they have run out of healing.
Don't get me wrong, I use fumble rules too.
Just be aware of the damage that fumbles can do. Especially fumbles like hitting your ally, or provoking an AoO - this is either lethal (occasionally) or resource depleting (always).
Suggestions: Be careful with this. It hurts the players far far far more often (because of those thousands of combat rounds) than it hurts any moster. Don't include hitting an ally. Ever. Drop the negative DEX penalty that increases the likelihood of extra fumbles. Reconsider damaging the weapon - if you do damage weapons, see my suggestion about damaging armor above). And let the players roll their own fumbles.
7. Firing into melee.
I'll say this now, that while I have mostly disagreed with all of your house rules from 1 to 6, my disagreement has been only slight. Mostly showing how the rules can be imbalanced and hopefully opening your eyes to ways to balance your houserules better.
But this one is downright game-breaking.
Ranged combat already sucks. There is no way for a fighter who specializes in ranged combat to ever ever ever do nearly as much damage as a fighter who specializes in melee combat. The ranged weapons do less damage and have far fewer useful feats than melee weapons.
Worse, there is a mandatory requirement of two feats to even use ranged weapons effectively. Any old commoner can pick up a sword or axe and be able to use it with NO penalties if he has just one feat (and the weapon proficiency feat is given to most martial classes for free). But to be useful with ranged combat you must take Precise Shot or you are faced with a -4 penalty on most of your attack rolls, and you have to take Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite for Precise Shot, so you must take two feats just to eliminate the penalties.
So, trying to be a ranged specialist requires a mandatory two feats to deal roughly 3/4 the damage that a melee specialist can deal.
The good news is that there are some compensating benefits, like you don't get hit as often because you are out of melee, and like the fact that you can make full-round multiple attacks easier since you are always in position and don't have to run up or move to your targets. But there are other disadvantages, like provoking AoOs because you're using a ranged weapon, and you always have to make sure you have plenty of ammo.
Ranged combat is bad enough as it is.
But now you propose giving the ranged attackers a chance to hit their allies?
Absolutely no!
While you weren't specific about the details, I can state flatly and absolutely that no sane player will ever, ever consider using ranged attacks if there is a chance to hit an ally. And that includes Ranged Touch spells like Acid Arrow or even the at-will mage/sorcerer abilities from their schools and bloodlines.
Resources are too precious. If 1/4 of my attacks (I picked that value randomly) will hit my friends instead of my enemies, then that means our cleric will be healing damage I have caused. Worse, if my friend is near death, it might be my arrow that drops him. God forbid, what if I roll a critical hit for x3 damage on my friend?
Worser [sic], every arrow that hits a friend for 8 points is really a 16 HP swing, because that arrow could have hit the monster for 8 HP, bringing the monster closer to death, but instead, it hit the ally for 8 HP bringing the entire party closer to death.
What if it's not 1/4? What if it is only 1/10? Or 1/20? Or 1/100?
Frankly, if the chance is high enough that you will notice it in combat, then it's too high. And if it's low enough that you won't notice it in combat, then why introduce a rule that nobody will notice anyway?
No, if I am considering a ranged specialist of any class, and my DM tells me that I will occasionally hit my friends, then that decides it for me instantly, and I will consider some other character concept.
You're treading into TPK waters here. It only takes one close fight, and one stray arrow to drop the tank (instead of dropping a monster) before the cleric lands that all important heal, and suddenly the enemy horde is at the throats of the mage, the cleric, and the stupid archer that killed his buddy. Game over. TPK.
This rule completely breaks ranged combat, no matter how you decide to implement it.
And don't think you can save it with feats. Even if it is only one feat (you might call it "Never Hit Allies" or something), that brings the total up to three feats that a ranged specialist must take in order to be viable, putting him 3 whole feats behind a melee specialist, and he still only does 3/4 the damage of that melee specialist too.
Suggestion: I highly advise, most stringently so, that you reconsider this house rule. Eliminate it. Bury it deep where it will never resurface and see the light of day again.
A final thought:
The guys and gals over at WotC and here at Paizo already thought of all this stuff. Over and over. And it's been debated time and again on many forums on many games' websites. Pros and Cons of all this stuff.
d20, and subsequently Pathfinder, decided not to do any of this stuff.
Sure, some of it seems realistic. Armor should be damaged - it surely was in real life. Archers firing into melee should hit their allies some of the time. Perhaps even most of the time.
But ultimately, all of the stuff you proposed does some the following:
1. Complicates the rules (sometimes unnecessarily when the complication adds lots of extra baggage with little or virtually no impact to the game).
2. Creates imbalance, such as the +5 HP for small races and +10 HP for medium races, or the damage difference between greatswords and greataxes.
3. Breaks some mechanics, such as firing into melee which completely destroys the viability of focusing on ranged combat of any sort.
For these reasons, the game designers have time and again kept these rules out of the d20 system. Upgrade after upgrade, with multiple errata and splatbooks, some versions of all of these rules got debated and discarded, over and over. Sure, variant rules for some of this stuff have appeared in some variant rulebooks, but never in the core mechanic.
There is good reason for this.
Which doesn't mean you can't houserule this stuff.
Just be aware of the imbalances and broken mechanics these rules impose on your game, and ask yourself if you receive enough benefit, and if it's the right benefit, in light of the balance and mechanical issues, to justify adding the houserule.
I hope some of this helped in some way.
1) Max HP for N levels (Where N varies based on how 'heroic' the campaign should feel). If it's going to be an larger than life game, or a game where the characters are going to be on their own with little access to civilization for long periods, N = 5. If it's the typical 'Adventures in the wilds just outside the kingdom' then N = 1 or 2.
Excellent idea.
Why not make it simpler though, and just do all levels as average roll +x (say, average roll +2 for tough campaigns, average roll +0 for ordinary ones). That eliminates the dual mechanic of doing HP one way until level X then another way after level X.
2) Slight tweaks to certain classes. Adding class skills (everyone get's spot and listen as class skills in all classes for example), adding Knowledge (Religion) to the Favored Soul (how did they get Arcana instead?).
Because it was basically a copy/paste of sorcerer, then tweaked into a divine flavor, and they missed something that should have been tweaked.
I like making Perception a class skill for everyone. It should be.
What nearsighted, absent-minded, head-in-the-clouds moron who can't or won't take the time to look around and see what's going on around him would be crazy enough to become an adventurer - any such fool that did would surely meet an untimely end.
Ergo, all adventurers are trying to spot and hear and smell all threats before they become actual life-threatening dangers. All adventurers are perceptive. Or they're soon to be dead.
3) LUC Stat. I've added in a LUCK stat to my game. It's always determined by rolling 3d6, and you take what you get. For every +1 modifier on luck, you can do certain things each game session (Autoconfirm a crit, auto-hit, cancel an enemy crit, cancel an enemy hit, add 20 to a skill check or saving throw). If you have negative mods for the luck stat, the GM get's to do the opposite to you once per game session per -1. The players seem to really like this (even the ones who get a +0 or -1, those with a -2 aren't happy all the time of course).
Ouch.
Are you serious with this one? Have you really playtested it or did you just think of it now and write the bit about the players liking to boost the idea with an illusion of player support?
You're saying that one single roll, made during character creation, can alternately gift the player with potentially multiple daily benefits (huge benefits at that) or potentially multiple daily grief (entirely at the DM's whim no less).
And you have players that like this?
Well, sure they like it if they roll well.
A character who rolled well, say with a 14, could possibly twice per game session win a close fight "Yeah, I auto-hit that guy when the chips were down, so once again, I'm the hero, the cavalry that rides to the rescue. Again. Happens a lot actually."
But another character who rolled poorly, say with a 6, has twice per session when a monster rips him apart, or a trap gets just him, or whatever. "Yeah, just my dumb luck. I can't tell you how many times I duck right into an uppercut, or dodge right into my enemy's attack. And countless times I was sure I hit something right square in the teeth, only to have my blow deflected at the last second. I'm the unluckiest jerk in the group. Heck, I don't dare even think of walking close to a cliff or stairwell. Or water well. And the cleric is threatening to stop healing me because I'm always getting hurt. Probably best if I just retire."
Now put them both in the same group and watch one guy be envious of the other one. Especially when the lucky guy rides to the rescue of the unlucky guy, saving him from certain death by autohitting the bad guy at the last second. Again. For the thirtieth time since they began adventuring.
It's hard to imagine a houserule with a bigger potential for imbalance and character-envy than this one.
Heck, if I were a player and rolled anything less than a 12, I am sure I would be tempted to suicide at level one ("Whoops, I thought I could handle those eight orcs" or "Dang, I didn't expect that trap to be there" just so I could reroll a new toon and have another shot at that Luck stat.
Can players change their luck? Gain more? Kinda like players can change their STR or their DEX?
If so, what happens when the 14 guy adds 4 points while leveling and gets a Headband of Luck +6? Now he has a 24 LUC and can use it 7 times per game session. Pretty soon he won't even need dice...
And if not, then some characters may be better off with an early suicide.
4) Defensive Casting requires Combat Casting feat (this was a balancing thing that seems to have worked well).
Combat Casting was optional. Nice, but not necessary.
All you have done here is make it mandatory.
Now every caster must blow a feat to be able to cast defensively. Every caster. All of them.
Why not just leave it as a core mechanic and tell all bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and wizards that they all lose their level 5 feat. Gone without any replacement for it, sacrificed on the altar of game balance.
Because if you do the latter, people would say you're crazy. They would call you names and throw rotten vegetables at you. "Why do we have to lose a core feat when the melee classes don't have to?" they would cry.
But what you've done is pretty much the same thing, with a different spin on it.
Ever considered a career in politics? You'd be good at it... :)
Now every caster must blow a feat to be able to cast defensively. Every caster. All of them.
Why not just leave it as a core mechanic and tell all bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and wizards that they all lose their level 5 feat. Gone without any replacement for it, sacrificed on the altar of game balance.
Because if you do the latter, people would say you're crazy. They would call you names and throw rotten vegetables at you. "Why do we have to lose a core feat when the melee classes don't have to?" they would cry.
You mean... something directly analogous to the current situation, in which Iron Will is essentially mandatory for every fighter (if they want to actually get to play sometimes, that is)?
Sorry -- couldn't resist that one! ;)
Now every caster must blow a feat to be able to cast defensively. Every caster. All of them.
Why not just leave it as a core mechanic and tell all bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and wizards that they all lose their level 5 feat. Gone without any replacement for it, sacrificed on the altar of game balance.
Because if you do the latter, people would say you're crazy. They would call you names and throw rotten vegetables at you. "Why do we have to lose a core feat when the melee classes don't have to?" they would cry.
In my experience, some casters never casts on the defensive. They would always take that five-foot step away, or take a different action (e.g. using a wand). They would do that rather than sink ranks into Concentration, or even Spellcraft now. Certainly most Paladins and Rangers never bothered in my experience.
I think *that* is what dmt is trying to encourage with the cost that you call mandatory.
Now every caster must blow a feat to be able to cast defensively. Every caster. All of them.
Why not just leave it as a core mechanic and tell all bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and wizards that they all lose their level 5 feat. Gone without any replacement for it, sacrificed on the altar of game balance.
Because if you do the latter, people would say you're crazy. They would call you names and throw rotten vegetables at you. "Why do we have to lose a core feat when the melee classes don't have to?" they would cry.
You mean... something directly analogous to the current situation, in which Iron Will is essentially mandatory for every fighter (if they want to actually get to play sometimes, that is)?
Sorry -- couldn't resist that one! ;)
Wow.
You need some new material.
Haven't you sung this old song and danced this old dance on just about every thread on this forum?
We get it.
Fighters should be Superman, Batman, Wolverine, and The Tick all rolled into one.
You win.
Houserule it and move on.
Sheesh-a-bibbles!
Haven't you sung this old song and danced this old dance on just about every thread on this forum.
Yes... that's what the winky-face was for, I was pulling your leg. Sense of humor? Sheesh!
Disagreement =/= animosity.
Haven't you sung this old song and danced this old dance on just about every thread on this forum.Yes... that's what the winky-face was for, I was pulling your leg. Sense of humor? Sheesh!
Disagreement =/= animosity.
Hey hey now!
I wrote "Sheesh-a-bibbles" right there in my post.
Not to mention the hyperbole... "just about every thread on this forum" reeks of grievously overstated sarcasm.
At least to me.
PUt them together; if that's not a clear-flying banner run up the tongue-in-cheek flagpole then evidently I don't know what is...
Which I probably don't.
Sheesh-a-bibbles-o-diddly-doo!
mdt wrote:
1) Max HP for N levels (Where N varies based on how 'heroic' the campaign should feel). If it's going to be an larger than life game, or a game where the characters are going to be on their own with little access to civilization for long periods, N = 5. If it's the typical 'Adventures in the wilds just outside the kingdom' then N = 1 or 2.
Excellent idea.
Why not make it simpler though, and just do all levels as average roll +x (say, average roll +2 for tough campaigns, average roll +0 for ordinary ones). That eliminates the dual mechanic of doing HP one way until level X then another way after level X.
I tried doing average with an adjustment, but what I saw was, most of the player deaths happened in the first N levels, due to not having equipment, saves, class abilities, etc. It was a disproportionately high rate at lower levels. Not because the fights were dangerous, it's just that one bad roll either way can mean a death when you have 14 hps. By maxing it out for N levels, then returning to normal, the death rate evened out over most levels (not counting high-level dragon fights, which are a crap-shoot no matter what).
mdt wrote:2) Slight tweaks to certain classes. Adding class skills (everyone get's spot and listen as class skills in all classes for example), adding Knowledge (Religion) to the Favored Soul (how did they get Arcana instead?).
Because it was basically a copy/paste of sorcerer, then tweaked into a divine flavor, and they missed something that should have been tweaked.
I like making Perception a class skill for everyone. It should be.
What nearsighted, absent-minded, head-in-the-clouds moron who can't or won't take the time to look around and see what's going on around him would be crazy enough to become an adventurer - any such fool that did would surely meet an untimely end.
Ergo, all adventurers are trying to spot and hear and smell all threats before they become actual life-threatening dangers. All adventurers are perceptive. Or they're soon to be dead.
Exactly, that's the way we took it (both the Favored Soul mess up, and the perception checks). I still get people not putting much into their spot/listen (I think this will change in Pathfinder though, since it's combined skills), but at least it's their choice, not because they are penalized for doing so.
mdt wrote:3) LUC Stat. <snip>
Ouch.
Are you serious with this one? Have you really playtested it or did you just think of it now and write the bit about the players liking to boost the idea with an illusion of player support?
<Snip a lot of unhappiness>Can players change their luck? Gain more? Kinda like players can change their STR or their DEX?
If so, what happens when the 14 guy adds 4 points while leveling and gets a Headband of Luck +6? Now he has a 24 LUC and can use it 7 times per game session. Pretty soon he won't even need dice...
And if not, then some characters may be better off with an early suicide.
I have indeed playtested this in my current campaign, and yes, they can adjust their luck up (or down) normall, either 2 for 1 with other stats, or putting in their every four level's stat point into it. I've also added in various 'Of Luck' items to match the 'Gloves of Dexterity' type things. The players seem to like it so far, even the guy who has a -1. He even suggests when it should come up, 'You know, I just critted that guy, my luck he probably just got his shield in there in time'.
mdt wrote:4) Defensive Casting requires Combat Casting feat (this was a balancing thing that seems to have worked well).
Combat Casting was optional. Nice, but not necessary.
All you have done here is make it mandatory.
Now every caster must blow a feat to be able to cast defensively. Every caster. All of them.
Why not just leave it as a core mechanic and tell all bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and wizards that they all lose their level 5 feat. Gone without any replacement for it, sacrificed on the altar of game balance.
Because if you do the latter, people would say you're crazy. They would call you names and throw rotten vegetables at you. "Why do we have to lose a core feat when the melee classes don't have to?" they would cry.
But what you've done is pretty much the same thing, with a different spin on it.
Ever considered a career in politics? You'd be good at it... :)
Actually,
I didn't come up with this. One of my players did, campaigned for it, and talked everyone into it. I put it in because they wanted it. That was 3 campaigns ago. The logic was, why should everyone be assumed to have trained at casting defensively when someone is pointing a sword in their face. That's a huge distraction (not to mention the pointy thing sinking into your mushy guts).If the players all want to take limitation like that, I'm ok with it. And before you ask, yes, the player who thought this up does play spellcasters, usually multiclassed with rogues.
Now every caster must blow a feat to be able to cast defensively. Every caster. All of them.
Why not just leave it as a core mechanic and tell all bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and wizards that they all lose their level 5 feat. Gone without any replacement for it, sacrificed on the altar of game balance.
Because if you do the latter, people would say you're crazy. They would call you names and throw rotten vegetables at you. "Why do we have to lose a core feat when the melee classes don't have to?" they would cry.
In my experience, some casters never casts on the defensive. They would always take that five-foot step away, or take a different action (e.g. using a wand). They would do that rather than sink ranks into Concentration, or even Spellcraft now. Certainly most Paladins and Rangers never bothered in my experience.
I think *that* is what dmt is trying to encourage with the cost that you call mandatory.
That was one of the things the player used as an argument, honestly. That and the 'if you aren't trained for it, how are you going to keep concentration when someones sticking pointy things into you'.
Sheesh-a-bibbles-o-diddly-doo!
"I'm sure we can discuss things like calm, reasonable adults... isn't that right, Mr. Poopy-Pants?"
--Frank Drebin
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
1) Hit Points:
Sounds good to me. Do the monsters also gain these extra HP? What about NPCs with class levels?
2) Dice Penetration:
Works great if your players are into that. I would tend to agree that combined with crits, this can make combat rather swingy, but if that thrills your PCs, go for it!
3) Armor Damage/DR:
I'd agree that this seems like a bit too much bookkeeping for my games. You might look into the Armor as Damage Reduction rules from the d20 SRD for an alternate system (or maybe just as food for thought).
4) Languages:
My problem with languages was never how many languages PCs could learn, but rather how easy they were to acquire (especially if Speak Language is a class skill). I use the following system to address that:
For each rank in Speak Language, you gain some amount of fluency in a given language. It works approximately like this:
1 rank: Common phrases; "tourist-level" fluency (e.g. "How much?", "Where's the bathroom?", "Oh no, an orc!")
2 ranks: Not fluent, but can generally get the point across. Will usually mangle grammar, but can carry on a conversation about simple topics. Sufficient for most trade deals.
3 ranks: Pretty much fluent. The character still has an accent, and would probably mess up on highly technical or complex structures, but can carry on a conversation without any problem.
4 ranks: Completely fluent. Little to no accent. Can talk about anything except perhaps highly technical or obscure topics.
In my games, PCs start with 4 ranks each in their native (automatic) languages, and gain double their INT mod worth of ranks in Speak Language for other languages.
5) Reading/Writing:
Really, this comes down more to your campaign world than anything else. If in your setting, literacy is uncommon or only known to the upper class/nobility/whatever, then what you have done is totally appropriate. If it's more of a "beer and pretzels" game in a high-fantasy setting, I wouldn't worry about it.
One suggestion would be to create a new class feature (call it "Literacy") and make Wizards and possibly Clerics be automatically literate. Because Wizards need to be able to read their spellbooks, and Clerics would probably have studied their holy texts.
6) Critical fumbles:
Works, although the list of bad things is rather short. I personally just make up something on the spot that makes sense in the context of whatever is going on, but it's usually about as bad as the options you present. Someone mentioned a Critical Fumble deck; that could be a good way to add some other possibilities, if you want to do so.
7) Firing into melee:
In my groups, we play with a very simple rule: If you roll a 1 on a ranged attack into melee, you hit one of the other creatures involved. It's fast and easy to remember. Your way would probably work too, if you want to worry about the numbers that much. Given the danger of hitting your allies on a miss, I would probably remove the -4 to hit and have Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot work as you outlined; lowering the chances to accidentally hit someone else.
Hope this was helpful!
1. Hit Points:
I'm a fan of average HP (everything about character generation is non-random in my games), and not much a friend of random with minimal values.
I also like systems that make the order in which you took the levels irrelevant, which precludes max HP at 1st - and your idea of a +3 bonus that doesn't increase beyond the max. It means that some classes will get less out of this rule.
1. Hit Point Kicker:
You must consider that this makes gnomes and halflings less desirable to play. If that's what you want, go with it.
Personally, I use a different system for HP:
You don't get max HP at 1st level (you get average, just like with every other level - though you can use that with standard rolling, of course). I also grant a virtual humanoid HD at first level (which in the case of average HP means 5 + con bonus extra HP).
2. Dice Penetration
I like your idea of exploding dice, since this works well in a system that has different kinds of dice without arbitrarily saying that dice only explode once.
In fact, I have to mention this to two of my players who are designing their own RPG.
3. Armour:
I don't like rules for "maintenance" (armour and weapons that need to be repaired regularly) so I am too biased (and not experienced enough) to comment.
4: Languages:
Nice one! I like the upper limit for languages. Maybe expand it with a feat (extra languages).
5: Literacy:
Barbarians should be able to do this. After all, barbarians can be city dwellers (since the class barbarian and the lifestyle barbarian aren't hard-wired - there are barbarian city dwellers just as there are druid barbarians, if you know what I mean).
7: Firing into melee
3.0 had an optional rule: You can ignore the -4 for firing into melee, but if you miss, you might hit an enemy.
Frankly, I don't bother with that, because you might just as well hit an ally with a melee attack.