|
With the release of the PfRPG just days away, many of us are thinking of the days, months, years(?) of gaming with the 567+ page tome (of, and with Paizo, of course ;-)
Everybody, though, has their own style, their own view, of what'll make their campaign "perfect", and there's no way the PfRPG will accommodate everyone's taste. Thus, what houserules are you planning to bring to your PfRPG game and why?
For me, I like high-action, pulpy games with lots of PC/NPC interaction. I'll be using the "10 minute rest period" from Bad Axe Games Trailblazer supp, and the action point system. Also, I'm seriously looking at the Class Defense Bonus option from Unearthed Arcana to replace armor. This option fits better, flavor-wise, to the cop/spy theme for my upcoming Eberron campaign.
I plan to start off with no house rules, just playing the rules from the Core Rulebook with no modifications. However, I do have some ideas for house rules once I am ready to house rule.
One of the most extensive house rules I am considering is extensive modifications to various classes. For one thing I don't like having "one fighter class to rule them all." The rogue, cleric and wizard classes have the same "problem", but not quite as bad. So for instance I'm going to have a thief class, rather than the more generic rogue. The wizard will be mostly unchanged, except I will replace the school powers with some other abilities, and reduce the spell list by a lot. No necromancy spells, for instance and limited access to enchantment and illusion, is what I'm thinking so far. The cleric gets split into different classes with different abilities that would be appropriate for different kinds of deities. The first two will be the crusader which is a healing and protecting holy knight and the zealot a destructive unholy knight. I'm stumped on the fighter though. I'm trying to come up with a class that will represent the archetypal fighter but not generic. What is the archetypal D&D fighter though? I can think of a few ideas, like "he wears heavy armor and uses either a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon and a shield" or "he delves into dungeons", but how do I make as class out of that? Some other modifications to various classes I am considering making include changing the sorcerer into a psionic class and making some of the monk's abilities more general, like increased speed, or more accessible like high jump and slow fall. I want it to be possible for any character to do crazy wuxia stunts. I am also considering limiting certain races to certain classes, primarily limiting dwarves from taking arcane classes. As a result dwarves will be more prone to taking psionic classes, primarily earth element bloodline sorcerers.
Races in general will probably undergo some changes to match my vision of what they should be like, including subraces. I will also make playable versions of the goblinoid and similar races. I will limit available favored races for some races, or eliminate the mechanic altogether.
I am also likely going to include Weapon Groups from Unearthed Arcana. I am also going to make characters role for hp at all level, but may include a flat bonus to hp at 1st level to help survivability at low levels.
My two-weapon fighting one for sure.
HP = 1/2+1. I also plan to grant max HP from the class that has the highest starting HP if a character multi-classes or takes a PrC. This way I can always back calculate and it doesn't penalize a character for taking the "wrong" class first.
A couple others mentioned in the house rule thread like giving up armor prof. for more skill points and another one that I can't recall ATM.
We'll probably go by the book for most other things until we see something that we feel needs changed.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Would you be willing to post it, Locke1520?
- Action Points. I have my own variant system I'm working on, just now
Once I put it all together I may it depends on a few things. Drop me an email amarlowe1520 [at] gmail because at the very least I'll be looking for a couple of groups to playtest.
|
Any class with 2+int for skills will have 4+int skills. (no skills break balance, but the lack of skills can break encounters...)
My point-buy system which includes flaw/trait/advantage/feats/skills/add class skills.
I will probably use the Racial HP from Beta as well.
That's the only ones I can think of for now. Although...Firearms are in using the Campaign Setting, and Action Points/Harrow points will probably be in as well.
I have a variant combat system I'm working on that I will PDFublish once I have time to finish it after release, I will probably need playtesters. Check my profile for the link to my Blog.
|
|
For sure:
- armor as DR, custom system adapted from the variant rules in UA and the one from Artesia RPG (Fuzion-based).
- parry and dodge active defense maneuvres, derived from the class-based bonus in Advanced Gamemaster's Manual and various bits from a bunch of other sources. A number of feats related to them.
Basically, they're swift/immediate action opposed checks to attack rolls instead of a static value. - a hybrid between the wounds/vitality (from UA) and grace/health (from BoXM) instead of the default hit points system. Changes in the critical hits subsystem.
- freeform combat maneuvers from the Book of Iron Might.
- weapon groups from UA.
- Terror and fear mechanics from Darkness and Dread, mostly for outsiders and undead creatures.
Highly probable:
- turn undead, and various debilitating/healing disciplines for clerics and paladins from BoXM instead of energy channelling.
- the whole magical healing subsystem from BoXM
- a slightly more flexible vancian magic system, with the spell weaving concept from Arcana Unearthed.
- spellsongs instead of spells for bards, from Complete Book of Eldritch Might.
Less probable, WIPs:
- armor as DR, not based on the UA variant. Still clunky.
- a new initiative system, which features weapon speed factors and a differentiation between turn hierarchy and number/type of actions available in a given turn. Still clunky.
- skill groups and skill specialization, hybrid between the Iron Heroes and the Artesia RPG systems. Shaping up nicely.
The only one I know for sure. Min of 4 skills per level.
|
paladins will not be doing extra damage vs. certain creature types in my game, I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate that they do extra damage vs. certain types of evil, that's the worst thing that ever developed in the paladin in my opinion
The only one I know for sure. Min of 4 skills per level.
And, we like additional skill points for all classes (at least at first level).
I'll be using the critical hit and fumble decks.
Beyond that; I figure I'll need to play with the system a bit to find out what will need house ruling, if anything.
Us too. We also do critical sucesses and failures with skill checks; a nat 20 on a skill check gives a player a +5 on that check, a nat 1 a -5 on the check.
While I value the simplification of the skills system as it relates to max ranks and class skills etc, I think combining some of them just makes some things more complicated than necessary, in the interests of making things easier. Specifically, I just think its easier having separate Listen and Spot skills as well as Hide and Move skills. I have no idea if in the Final rules this will be significantly improved from Beta but it was just a pain having one skill and then trying to always tell the player "no, its sound based, so do you have a different perception for sound?" when before I would just roll a Listen check and move on. I mean its still the same thing except for more words are involved everytime it comes up. Well other than there are less skill points involved. I have no idea if/how I will house rule it, as it would probably be a pretty major change, but its bothersome either way.
|
|
Monks will have full BAB in any game I run. I see no reason to have this wonky full BAB for everything that's important but we have to keep 3/4 BAB for PrC computability. I can police my player's abuse of prestige classes just fine, and don't need such a strange and complicated rule to do it for me.
Other than that, I'll try and keep PRPG RAW as much as possible to start with.
Oh yeah, some others...
Hit Points
In order to try to reduce some of the endemic HP creep I will not be doing max hp at 1st level. You roll and take what you get.
Classes retain their 3.5 HD, ie, Wizards and Sorcerers stay with d4, rogues with d6 etc.
I will be stripping out virtually all house rules I had in place for Beta and then will re-apply as needed if I see something remains unaddressed upon play.
Turn Undead
This will probably be house-ruled. I have to see the final mechanics first though.
Ability Scores
Not really a house rule but I'm done with point buy. I'm so tired of it.
Action Points
No such thing. Again, not really a house rule since they aren't "core" anyway (so far as I know).
Flanked Condition
One a creature has two enemies flanking it, it gains the flanked condition, granting all enemies attacking it the normal flanking bonuses. I always hated how if a creature was flanked by two people they get bonuses but if a third attacker jumps in (and he is not opposite one of the other two) he gets nothing. Hence, now, if someone gets flanked, all attackers in melee get the normal flanking bonuses. I don't think this will be in the final rules so it will be a HR.
DR
I preferred in 3.0 where the Plus of a weapon made a bigger difference in overcoming DR. I despise DR X/magic as its too simplistic for my tastes. I'll have something to cover this. I have something now but it will probably have to be tweaked after I see the final rules.
Magic
Casting Spells from a Spellbook - I have always, since 1E, allowed arcane casters to cast a spell from their spellbook. This erases the spell from their book and has a risk of destroying the entire book but its a last ditch option for an arcane caster out of spells.
Imprecise Spell Targeting - Whenever a spell says to choose an intersection for determining the center point, the player instead chooses a square and then the corner / center point is determined randomly. I prefer a small bit of uncertainty in casting spells in the heat of combat. I dislike spellcasters perfectly centering an aoe spell so that it perfectly affects enemies or allies but not vice versa etc. In the heat of battle things are moving quickly and ranges are not precise, so this allows a small bit of "oops" factor.
Crafting Magic Items Skill - I had created a complete skill system for crafting magic items and so that a skill check was involved which might accidentally result in a cursed item. It looks like some form of this will be in final anyway so I probably will let this one go in favor of the "official" method.
Spell Keywords - I created a "keywords" mechanic for dealing with problematic spells in 3.5, or for returning a bit of previous edition feel to certain spells. I will *probably* retain some of this, though considering the changes Paizo has made to many spells the exact number of spells impacted by my keywords will probably be drastically reduced.
Backgrounds
I have had a custom "backgrounds" system in place for quite some time. This is basically a list of professions or things the PC had been doing before becoming an adventurer (temple attendant, beggar, scout, barkeep, soldier/mercenary etc). These backgrounds gave the pc a minor skill bonus with skills appropriate to that background. I'll probably be retaining some form of this.
Spell Keywords - I created a "keywords" mechanic for dealing with problematic spells in 3.5, or for returning a bit of previous edition feel to certain spells. I will *probably* retain some of this, though considering the changes Paizo has made to many spells the exact number of spells impacted by my keywords will probably be drastically reduced.
I created a Google Doc for this as its too extensive to really post here. You can see it here.
Note that hopefully, much of this will no longer be necessary after reading the final rules, but I doubt all of my issues will have been addressed so it is likely at least some of my keywords concept will remain in place.
|
|
I am curious, for those of who who already have a quite a few house rules in place before the book is officially released - what is Pathfinder actually offering to you? Why don't you just house rule 3.5 to suit you and save yourself some money?
I am genuinely curious (as someone who likes to always play RAW with the odd optional rule such as Action Points added on, rather than replacing).
|
|
paladins will not be doing extra damage vs. certain creature types in my game, I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate that they do extra damage vs. certain types of evil, that's the worst thing that ever developed in the paladin in my opinionOut of curiosity are you dropping the extra damage? or giving them the extra damage vs ALL evil.
What I'm doing is making it the standard smite evil bonus against all types of evil. it'll be the same boost against an evil cleric as an evil dragon as an evil beholder. None of this rangerish against undead etc. I get the damage bonus doubled.
|
|
I am curious, for those of who who already have a quite a few house rules in place before the book is officially released - what is Pathfinder actually offering to you? Why don't you just house rule 3.5 to suit you and save yourself some money?
I am genuinely curious (as someone who likes to always play RAW with the odd optional rule such as Action Points added on, rather than replacing).
I like 99% of the changes and have been playing it for over a year, at this point I feel obligated to support the company but even if not as I said I like 99% of the changes and it's one or two little things nagging my craw.
I am curious, for those of who who already have a quite a few house rules in place before the book is officially released - what is Pathfinder actually offering to you? Why don't you just house rule 3.5 to suit you and save yourself some money?
I am genuinely curious (as someone who likes to always play RAW with the odd optional rule such as Action Points added on, rather than replacing).
Well, first of all getting copies of the 3.5 rule books is becoming quite challenging - it is not like they are still being printed. :)
|
While I value the simplification of the skills system as it relates to max ranks and class skills etc, I think combining some of them just makes some things more complicated than necessary, in the interests of making things easier. Specifically, I just think its easier having separate Listen and Spot skills as well as Hide and Move skills. I have no idea if in the Final rules this will be significantly improved from Beta but it was just a pain having one skill and then trying to always tell the player "no, its sound based, so do you have a different perception for sound?" when before I would just roll a Listen check and move on. I mean its still the same thing except for more words are involved everytime it comes up. Well other than there are less skill points involved. I have no idea if/how I will house rule it, as it would probably be a pretty major change, but its bothersome either way.
Fortunately, my character's Perception (Spot) and Perception (Listen) are the same score, but I track them separately just in case. I also track Perception (Search) separately as that's a totally different score, due to a 3.5 feat I'm taking. I'm going to assume that if I have to do a Perception (Smell), Perception (Taste), or Perception (Touch) that those are the same as my Perception (Spot) and Perception (Listen) as I don't want to have to track all 6 different versions of Perception.
My character's Disable Device (Disable Device) and Disable Device (Open Locks) are tracked separately since PF changed the -2 penalty on Open Locks to a DC increase of +10 (for not using thieves' picks).
Finally, my character's Stealth (Hide) and Stealth (Move Silently) are tracked separately as his Stealth (Hide) is beefed up due to his fine size and greater invisibility.
I don't mind though. I like that skills are consolidated so that my character can take more skills than he could under 3.5.
I am curious, for those of who who already have a quite a few house rules in place before the book is officially released - what is Pathfinder actually offering to you? Why don't you just house rule 3.5 to suit you and save yourself some money?
I am genuinely curious (as someone who likes to always play RAW with the odd optional rule such as Action Points added on, rather than replacing).
Hmm. A good question. Not in the way of "I never thought of that, come to think of it I don't know" good question so much as "That's an excellent question, let me tell you why I am excited about Pathfinder."
The biggest thing I hope to get from Pathfinder is to be able to drop as many of my house rules as possible in exchange for a system that already incorporates many of my house rules. Maybe the implementation isn't exactly what I did or would have done, but as long as it addresses what I was trying to address with my house rule in an acceptable fashion, then I'll happily drop my house rules. Players seem to prefer less house rules so this makes my players happy and makes me happy.
Many of my house rules did not address some things that PF does. That's not to say that I had decided there was no need for a house rule so much as in many cases I decided it was to difficult to houserule a solution and so I just didn't bother.
The idea to slightly increase the toughness of core races in order to make the on par with LA+1 races with the intention of then allowing LA+1 races be playable with no real LA, is appealing to me. Players are often asking if they can play "monster X" or something, but the LA just frightens them away. They don't want to deal with it. If I can now reasonably believe that a human and a former LA+1 race are pretty close in power, then I can feel free to let them play a LA+1 race with no modifications or special rules necessary.
The idea to make core classes more appealing throughout the entire 20 levels appeals to me because, while I get that multiclassing is usually a good thing that allows players to build a character that more closely represents their idea for their character, more often than not it just seems like players pick from the menu of prestige classes and classes in order to get the perfect array of powers and abilities, regardless of character concept. Making playing a core class more appealing helps address that. It doesn't completely eliminate PrC cherry picking, but it might make it less common.
Jason's fixes to CODzilla appeal to me because I have personally seen how ridiculous high level clerics and druids can be. They are insanely powerful. A bit of the nerf-bat here is appreciated.
Jason's fixes to fighters are appreciated, though I fear not sufficiently interesting or powerful enough to really make much difference in the "balance of power" equation. I am liking what I am reading in another thread about a simpler fighter, last I read called the Champion. I have a player in my current group (and have always had at least one) that would greatly appreciate a simple class. A class with very few choices to make yet can still bring the pain. I wish there was a core class like this that required less mental overhead when playing/advancing. Some players don't like making a lot of choices for fear that they will make poor choices and then the more tactical players will just show them up in every fight.
Jason's fixes to spells are probably much more thorough than mine, though I maintain that I will probably still fill in any cracks I perceive that he left unfilled with my lame house rules.
In general I like (as others have said) 99% of the changes previewed so far, but as any DM is both free (and invited) to do, I enjoy house ruling. That's why I prefer RPG's over boardgames. House rules are frowned upon in boardgames but they are often what sets one campaign (other than world flavor of course) apart from another. If in one campaign sorcerers do not exist, whereas in another sorcerers rule the world, thats an interesting house rule that makes one world different from another and inherently adds story potential.
I'm going to use the rules out of the box, at least initially.
|
|
I created a Google Doc for this as its too extensive to really post here. You can see it here.
Note that hopefully, much of this will no longer be necessary after reading the final rules, but I doubt all of my issues will have been addressed so it is likely at least some of my keywords concept will remain in place.
This is an incredibly awesome and novel way to do spellcasting. I love it!
(and will probably be pilfering it for my future 3.5 games :D )
|
|
Level Adjustments.
One of the things I hated MOST about 4th edition besides the combat system was the lack of an ability to play strange creatures. Pathfinder did away with this apparently and I'm rather upset about this concept. Sure the bestiary will have SOME ways to play advanced creatures ... but this won't be out for over a month and even then it might not help.
Very disappointing.
I created a Google Doc for this as its too extensive to really post here. You can see it here.
Note that hopefully, much of this will no longer be necessary after reading the final rules, but I doubt all of my issues will have been addressed so it is likely at least some of my keywords concept will remain in place.
This is an incredibly awesome and novel way to do spellcasting. I love it!
(and will probably be pilfering it for my future 3.5 games :D )
Thanks Gene. I like it and it addresses several issues in, I think, a fairy simple way. I hope I can drop some of them but I doubt all of it.
|
|
Level Adjustments.
One of the things I hated MOST about 4th edition besides the combat system was the lack of an ability to play strange creatures. Pathfinder did away with this apparently and I'm rather upset about this concept. Sure the bestiary will have SOME ways to play advanced creatures ... but this won't be out for over a month and even then it might not help.
Very disappointing.
I'm on board with the negative XP thing!
|
DR
I preferred in 3.0 where the Plus of a weapon made a bigger difference in overcoming DR. I despise DR X/magic as its too simplistic for my tastes. I'll have something to cover this. I have something now but it will probably have to be tweaked after I see the final rules.
That I agree with. I never liked what 3.5 did with DR/Magic.
I have tried a two systems but not happy with either.
System 1
DR/Magic turning into
DR/Magic 5 (Needs +1 to bypass)
DR/Magic 10 (Needs +2 to Bypass)
DR/Magic 15 (Needs +3 to bypass)
DR/Magic 20 (Needs +4 to bypass)
DR/Magic 25 (needs +5 to bypass)
System 2
DR/Magic 50/40/30/20/10
You Magic weapon was abale to bypass 10 DR for each +1 bonus it had.
Example: Megacreature "X" has DR/Magic 50 and you got a Long Sword +3.
You skip 30 points of his DR but he still "absorbs" the first 20 points of dmg.
System 1 was either.
System 2 was ....scaarry at higher levels.
Either system made players get more than a +1 enhancement bonus on weapons more.
I never agreed with the idea that a Great Wyrm dragon damage reduction could be bypassed by a level 1 cleric spell (magic weapon).
|
|
I'm on board with the negative XP thing!Level Adjustments.
One of the things I hated MOST about 4th edition besides the combat system was the lack of an ability to play strange creatures. Pathfinder did away with this apparently and I'm rather upset about this concept. Sure the bestiary will have SOME ways to play advanced creatures ... but this won't be out for over a month and even then it might not help.
Very disappointing.
Negative XP thing? Please enlighten :D
|
|
I created a Google Doc for this as its too extensive to really post here. You can see it here.
Note that hopefully, much of this will no longer be necessary after reading the final rules, but I doubt all of my issues will have been addressed so it is likely at least some of my keywords concept will remain in place.
Very nice.
Guess I'll borrow them for my games, the illusion/aging stuff is particularly appealing.
|
|
Well, first of all getting copies of the 3.5 rule books is becoming quite challenging - it is not like they are still being printed. :)
I can see that being an issue if you have lots of players you don't alreadyown the 3.5 PHB, but is that the case? I know when our weekly group moves to PF RPG for two games the number of books around the table will go down from 4 to 2.
Hah! I have Starblazer Adventures, Pathfinder is puny compared to that :)
I guess the if the number of house rules you need to apply to PF is less than those you would need to apply to 3.5 then I can see the reason to upgrade.
Half-orcs get a +2 to STR as well as a floating +2 bonus to another ability score.
It just feels right.
Mmm I am thinking similar, but until I have seen the entire class I'll see. But I am aiming for +2 STR, -2 CHA, +2 floating.. more balanced than just the extra STR