Hello all,
I have recently got my grubby mitts on the PF RPG, and after I wrap up a game I was running with the PF Beta rules (with some small changes), I intend to run the next one with the regular pathfinder rules. It would be a low-to-mid game in FR, with mostly new players. Here are some of the house rules I intend to have, and some reasons for them - please let me know what you think:
- Races with a racial weapon proficiency should have an advantage with these weapons for all classes, not just the non-warrior ones. Wen you get proficiency with some weapon from both your race and your class levels, you get weapon focus for it.
- Half-orcs were better in beta imo, and I intend to use the PF Beta stat modifiers. I would rather not have a third race with a +2 to a stat of their choice; the half-orcs had a good shtick in the beta.
- Elven, dwarven etc subraces should be represented. Halflings and dwarves are fairly easy, but I'm kinda bushed on elves. The PF statline works ok for sun elves, but definitely not for woods/wilds. I'm not much of a fan of the elven penalty to constitution - art and literature shows them as wiry and lean, but no more susceptible to fatigue, illness or poison than humans. What do you think about a penalty to strength for moons and suns, and to intelligence (with bonus to wisdom, possibly) for woods and wilds?
- Fighter armor training has been reverted back to the beta version, which also gives a straight AC bonus Right now it is of little use to any fighter that does not have more than 14 dexterity (the necessary for a MW full plate). Maybe remove the reduction to armor check penalty to balance things out?
- Paladins and rangers have extended spell lists. Rangers should imo get some of the druid's spells, and high-level rangers should have some animal polymorph spells - i.e. beast shape I and II as a level 3/4 spell, with longer casting time and duration. High-level paladins should imo have summon monster (lesser) planar ally - calling allies in their service to the forces of good.
- Rangers: Instead of sharing your FE bonuses as a move action (imo fairly laughable) they have the option of having a sudden strike progression (7d6, +1d6 per 3 levels) as a hunter's bond or instead of the bonus feats. I never liked the skirmish mechanics much, but ambush seems to be the right up their alley.
- Most sorcerers/clerics/wizards that had an at-will ability that is now limited can spend a feat to make it at will. Seriously, what was the problem with a sorcerer growing claws or an elemental cleric having a short-range elemental ray? Sorcerers should also get the choice of more feats (from the complete books and others) for their bloodline - right now there are many that are poor choice)
- If you have high enough BAB, you can use power attack, combat expertise, or deadly aim for less than the maximum bonus/penalty.
- Jump, climb and swim are covered by an athletics skill that is based on strength.
- Monks, barbarians and bards can be of any alignment. Among the base classes, only that have features directly tied to external entities - paladins, clerics, warlocks if I have them - have fixed alignment restrictions.
Well, that's pretty much all I can think of right now. Any critiques? Suggestions? General advice?
Thank you in advance.
- Races with a racial weapon proficiency should have an advantage with these weapons for all classes, not just the non-warrior ones. Wen you get proficiency with some weapon from both your race and your class levels, you get weapon focus for it.
A powerful ability for all the orcs, dwarves, and elves. I would be worried about balance with humans.
- Half-orcs were better in beta imo, and I intend to use the PF Beta stat modifiers. I would rather not have a third race with a +2 to a stat of their choice; the half-orcs had a good shtick in the beta.
I love the beta half-orcs stats.
- Elven, dwarven etc subraces should be represented. Halflings and dwarves are fairly easy, but I'm kinda bushed on elves. The PF statline works ok for sun elves, but definitely not for woods/wilds. I'm not much of a fan of the elven penalty to constitution - art and literature shows them as wiry and lean, but no more susceptible to fatigue, illness or poison than humans. What do you think about a penalty to strength for moons and suns, and to intelligence (with bonus to wisdom, possibly) for woods and wilds?
The problem I have with all the FR alternatives for elves is that they became so cookie cutter Wood elf ranges and Sun elf wizards. On the other hand you have 3 stats to play with. Try just moving one of the stats. Maybe:
Wild elves +2 Dex +2 int -2 chrWood Elves +2 Dex +2 Str -2 con
Sun elves +2 Dex +2 Int -2 con
Dark elves +2 Dex +2 chr -2 con
That gives them all a uniqueness but they are all close to the elf base.
- Fighter armor training has been reverted back to the beta version, which also gives a straight AC bonus Right now it is of little use to any fighter that does not have more than 14 dexterity (the necessary for a MW full plate). Maybe remove the reduction to armor check penalty to balance things out?
I agree that fighter armor training is mostly useless unless the fighter has a decent dex but the old rule was over powered. I advise my fighters to grab a decent dex.
- Paladins and rangers have extended spell lists. Rangers should imo get some of the druid's spells, and high-level rangers should have some animal polymorph spells - i.e. beast shape I and II as a level 3/4 spell, with longer casting time and duration. High-level paladins should imo have summon monster (lesser) planar ally - calling allies in their service to the...
Rangers spell list is in need of some help but not sure if Paladins need anything considering the swiss army knife lay on hands. For rangers opening up more druid spells is nice. For Rangers look at condensing the favored enemy list. There are some good discussions on this forum about enemy groups.
(...) I'm kinda bushed on elves. The PF statline works ok for sun elves, but definitely not for woods/wilds. I'm not much of a fan of the elven penalty to constitution - art and literature shows them as wiry and lean, but no more susceptible to fatigue, illness or poison than humans. What do you think about a penalty to strength for moons and suns, and to intelligence (with bonus to wisdom, possibly) for woods and wilds?
Part of the problem is that regardless of where you put the penalty, its not going to be compatible with art/literature. So between the "you mean my elf is as weak as a halfling?" and the "my elf is as stupid as a 3.5 half-orc!" I still prefer the Constitution penalty.
If you what to remove the CON penalty, I suggest you give a single +2 bonus to DEX (wood and moon elf), INT (for sun elves) or STR (for wild elves).
'findel
It should be either a +1 to armor or -1 ACP and +1 dex bonus, not both. One reflects using armor as a bulwark against enemy attacks, the other moving with the armor to help deflect blows. And +1 armor is more powerful, thus the additional boost to dex fighters.
That would make sense. A dex based warrior would be more skill oriented and the other is just the arch-typical dwarf rock. Sure you hit him but he just ignores it.
- Rangers: Instead of sharing your FE bonuses as a move action (imo fairly laughable)
Dunno, that ability seems pretty damn good to me.
I agree that the ranger could use a little something, but I went a different direction with it, giving them a feat to broaden the application of Favored Enemy a little. Also went for more of a beta/final hybrid with half-orcs. My stuff is here.
I do think a few of yours are pretty strong. Free racial weapon focus is damn good... I actually considered it for halflings with slings (since they lost the old sling/thrown bonus and only one core class doesn't have sling proficiency), but even that seemed to be pushing it.
The problem with making bloodline/domain/school powers at-will is that many cantrips become outright useless. In some cases they can even outshine first-level spells. This may or may not matter in your campaign, though.
Armor specialization has been sufficiently discussed. :)
Thanks, all. As for armor training, what about just alternating between improving the AC and improving the maximum dexterity/armor check? You could get bonuses to AC at even steps and the rest at odd ones. Sure, you won't be able to have a max dexterity of +6 in a non-mithral full plate, but it should not be such a big problem. Either that or, as you suggested, being able to choose between AC and max dex/less armor check. However, imo the first just sounds much more appealing.
Racial WF... I realize that it is is useful, definitely, but otherwise the whole training is only good for clerics, rogues and wizards - the classes that, by and large, have less fluff reasons to use those weapons. In beta, humans just had a bonus weapon proficiency, which could translate in a bonus WF of their choice. Right now it is more of an edge, but I doubt it will be overpowering. Feats seem easier to come by now with the new progression, and I have the impression most people favor playing humans anyway.
As for elves, so far my idea was to do something like that:
- wild: +2 dex, +2 cha, -2 int with a feature giving them a penalty to charisma-based skills with non-elves - they are supposed to have a talent for sorcery, which doesn't work with a charisma penalty
- wood: +2 dex, +2 str, -2 int (or charisma
- moon: +2 dex, +2 cha, -2 str (or con, if I have to) - they are considered quite gregarious, as much as gnomes or halflings imo. Also, even with a strength penalty they are stronger than halflings/gnomes simply by virtue of their size - they carry more gear and larger weapons.
- sun: default
I am not sure what modifiers drow get in PFRPG, I don't have the bestiary yet - are they similar to the 3.5 ones?
Tejon, I checked yours and some look quite good, I was actually thinking about upping the DC for crafting magic items, 5+CL is absurdly low. I'm not really keen on having 5-foot steps provoke AoOs, though, even if that's pretty much the only way to sell Mobility :D .
I am not sure what modifiers drow get in PFRPG, I don't have the bestiary yet - are they similar to the 3.5 ones?
Apparently there are two castes of drow now, one of a PC-race-equivalent power level and one significantly stronger. No idea what their modifiers are, tho.
I was actually thinking about upping the DC for crafting magic items, 5+CL is absurdly low.
Yep... though on further consideration I'm wavering between two slightly different versions: I could allow taking 10 with the 15+CL DC, which gives almost the same "freebie" zone (important to have one, a 1st level wizard shouldn't fail at scribing 1st level scrolls) but once you move past it you've got a >50% failure chance instead of creeping in at 5%. This fits better with how the rest of crafting works. Alternately, I could keep the no-taking-10 and use a DC 10+CL, which gives a slight failure chance for "mediocre" mages.
I'm not really keen on having 5-foot steps provoke AoOs, though, even if that's pretty much the only way to sell Mobility :D .
And on that, I'm thinking about pulling the extra bump on Mobility because really, the +4 alone can sell it now. ;) It's a flavor thing, really; wizards shouldn't be able to avoid AoO as a free action (and Step Up doesn't solve the problem, it just becomes a feat tax). Archers having more reason to carry a melee backup weapon is a nice bonus too. There's a whole thread discussing the ins and outs of it here, and I got sold on the concept!
|
I have a house rule that allows anyone with Improved Unarmed Strike to search for invisible creatures in a different way.
Basically, the rules for locating an invisible creature involve someone waving their hands around in two adjacent squares, but they don't get to make an attack if they find the invisible creature. My house rule allows those with IUS to check all squares in their threatened area. If they find something they can make a single attack (though still against an invisible opponent and all the penalties that implies).
They make a 360-degree sweep and if they find an invisible creature they can either (a) make the single attack or (b) finish the 360 sweep without making an attack at all. This gives those with IUS either an attack or the ability to check more than two squares.
Why would unarmed strike find an invisible person better than swinging a reach weapon through the area?
If I suspected an invisible target the first thing I would look for is a long spear or a bag of flour to throw on the floor.
Hi, there is something else I'd like to get your opinions on. I am interested in making the barbarian rage progression a little more even. Right now it starts at level 1, then improves only at level 11. That's 10 levels, longer than most games last. I realize that rage powers are supposed to even things a little, but they come at a fixed rate, while the rage progression is still very much uneven. How do you think this can be improved? I noticed a suggestion to make it +2 str/con, -2 AC, +1 will save at level 1 and every 5 levels afterwards. That, or give the whirling frenzy benefit (can take extra attack in a full round attack, all are at -2) at level 6 or 7 or so.
Hi, there is something else I'd like to get your opinions on. I am interested in making the barbarian rage progression a little more even. Right now it starts at level 1, then improves only at level 11. That's 10 levels, longer than most games last. I realize that rage powers are supposed to even things a little, but they come at a fixed rate, while the rage progression is still very much uneven. How do you think this can be improved? I noticed a suggestion to make it +2 str/con, -2 AC, +1 will save at level 1 and every 5 levels afterwards. That, or give the whirling frenzy benefit (can take extra attack in a full round attack, all are at -2) at level 6 or 7 or so.
I've houseruled it as follows:
1st - rage - +2
5th - imroved rage - +4
10th - greater rage - +6
15th - mighty rage - +8
20th - primal rage - +10
Therefore, they start off weaker, but improve smoothly across the levels. Also, I've separated rage powers into "levels" based on the type of rage you can access, allowing more of a range of effects. The whirling frenzy thing I have as a greater or mighty rage power -- I misremember which now.
|
|
- Races with a racial weapon proficiency should have an advantage with these weapons for all classes, not just the non-warrior ones. When you get proficiency with some weapon from both your race and your class levels, you get weapon focus for it.
I had a similar rule in my Weapon Proficiency Points System. I'm okay with it, but consider allowing players to gain benefits from other "doubled feats".
- Half-orcs were better in beta imo, and I intend to use the PF Beta stat modifiers. I would rather not have a third race with a +2 to a stat of their choice; the half-orcs had a good shtick in the beta.
No undue balance issues here, if you like the idea of half-orc druids. Personally I prefer the new rule, but no actual problems.
- Elven, dwarven etc subraces should be represented. Halflings and dwarves are fairly easy, but I'm kinda bushed on elves. The PF statline works ok for sun elves, but definitely not for woods/wilds. I'm not much of a fan of the elven penalty to constitution - art and literature shows them as wiry and lean, but no more susceptible to fatigue, illness or poison than humans. What do you think about a penalty to strength for moons and suns, and to intelligence (with bonus to wisdom, possibly) for woods and wilds?
Now that the standard elf has 2 ability score bonuses, adding a third with a second penalty is not unreasonable. The exact ones chosen are up to you, but I think your justification is reasonable.
- Fighter armor training has been reverted back to the beta version, which also gives a straight AC bonus Right now it is of little use to any fighter that does not have more than 14 dexterity (the necessary for a MW full plate). Maybe remove the reduction to armor check penalty to balance things out?
This is the only one I have a problem with. In playtesting, I found an average fighter build reached the point where the majority of his opponents (ie. ECL-4 to ECL+0) had a hard time hitting him without a critical. Just be aware of this when reinstating the rule.
- Paladins and rangers have extended spell lists. Rangers should imo get some of the druid's spells, and high-level rangers should have some animal polymorph spells - i.e. beast shape I and II as a level 3/4 spell, with longer casting time and duration. High-level paladins should imo have summon monster (lesser) planar ally - calling allies in their service to the forces of good.
Shouldn't impact the mechanics, as they get so few spells per day anyway. Does change the flavour slightly - why not just allow them to use the full cleric/druid spell lists?
- Rangers: Instead of sharing your FE bonuses as a move action (imo fairly laughable) they have the option of having a sudden strike progression (7d6, +1d6 per 3 levels) as a hunter's bond or instead of the bonus feats. I never liked the skirmish mechanics much, but ambush seems to be the right up their alley.
I think this makes the ranger too similar to the rogue. Why not just have Hunter's Bond share with any ally who attacks the same creature as the Ranger within 1 round. Or improve Aid Another so that the Ranger can use the ability to also deal damage, and grant FE bonus to the aided ally.
- Most sorcerers/clerics/wizards that had an at-will ability that is now limited can spend a feat to make it at will. Seriously, what was the problem with a sorcerer growing claws or an elemental cleric having a short-range elemental ray? Sorcerers should also get the choice of more feats (from the complete books and others) for their bloodline - right now there are many that are poor choice)
This is a huge flavour change, but if you are okay with it go for it. Might I suggest the following? At 5th level they can use a feat to give up a 1st level spell-slot and make one cantrip/orison at-will.
- If you have high enough BAB, you can use power attack, combat expertise, or deadly aim for less than the maximum bonus/penalty.
More book-keeping, no real mechanical downside.
- Jump, climb and swim are covered by an athletics skill that is based on strength.
I wish Jason had done that too. Another thing I considered was folding it into the Dungeoneering skill.
- Monks, barbarians and bards can be of any alignment. Among the base classes, only that have features directly tied to external entities - paladins, clerics, warlocks if I have them - have fixed alignment restrictions.
You're opening the door to some odd class combinations, like monk/barbarians, but mechanically I don't think it's a problem.
I've houseruled it as follows:
1st - rage - +2
5th - imroved rage - +4
10th - greater rage - +6
15th - mighty rage - +8
20th - primal rage - +10
Therefore, they start off weaker, but improve smoothly across the levels. Also, I've separated rage powers into "levels" based on the type of rage you can access, allowing more of a range of effects. The whirling frenzy thing I have as a greater or mighty rage power -- I misremember which now.
Sounds about right, I might use that.
BTW, one more thing - right now the additional TWF feats offer less and less returns with higher prerequisites. I mean come on, do you really need 11+ BAB, 19+ dex and 2 feats to spend another feat to get an off-hand attack at -10?
Instead, I am considering having improved TWF give you off-hand attacks equal to your main hand attacks, giving the benefit of the current GTWF and another attack at -15 when your BAB becomes 16+. Instead, GTWF would give an extra attack at your highest BAB with either your main or your off-hand weapon. How does that sound?
BTW, one more thing - right now the additional TWF feats offer less and less returns with higher prerequisites. I mean come on, do you really need 11+ BAB, 19+ dex and 2 feats to spend another feat to get an off-hand attack at -10? Instead, I am considering having improved TWF give you off-hand attacks equal to your main hand attacks, giving the benefit of the current GTWF and another attack at -15 when your BAB becomes 16+. How does that sound?
Already beat you to it!
BTW, one more thing - right now the additional TWF feats offer less and less returns with higher prerequisites. I mean come on, do you really need 11+ BAB, 19+ dex and 2 feats to spend another feat to get an off-hand attack at -10? Instead, I am considering having improved TWF give you off-hand attacks equal to your main hand attacks, giving the benefit of the current GTWF and another attack at -15 when your BAB becomes 16+. How does that sound?Already beat you to it!
Drat, coises - foiled again! /accent . Good, how's it working in your games so far? I will probably use at least the rage progression, if not the powers/totems themselves. I have been told one of the players intends to make a barbarian.
BTW, I was thinking of possibly giving the fighter a feature that reduces non-proficiency penalties with weapons and possibly armor. They are supposed to be the best weapons expert class and have a lot of training with any killing implement, so imo they deserve a feature that allows them to be more effective with a weapon they have not trained with. Maybe reduce non-proficiency penalty to -2 at level 4, -1 at level 8 and eliminate it altogether at level 16?
One more thing - does anyone bother with the difference in the paladin code? Before they only fell for gross violations of it, now the "gross" is gone and technically a paladin can fall for any violation. Do you play with this? It can be a real b...h, now that a paladin can fall for using arsenic to poison rats.
One more thing - does anyone bother with the difference in the paladin code? Before they only fell for gross violations of it, now the "gross" is gone and technically a paladin can fall for any violation. Do you play with this? It can be a real b...h, now that a paladin can fall for using arsenic to poison rats.
I played with a guy who made it a player decision, not a DM one, when the paladin falls. On the one hand, if your players are untrustworthy losers, that's a bad idea. If they're really into the immersion, though, it makes the fall more of an interesting roleplaying experience and less of a "my DM hates me" call.
- Races with a racial weapon proficiency should have an advantage with these weapons for all classes, not just the non-warrior ones. Wen you get proficiency with some weapon from both your race and your class levels, you get weapon focus for it.
In my opinion that's mixing flavour with power. The idea is to give a tiny differentiation to races without an important mechanical benefit. A human could happily spend his free feat to be proficient with any of the racial exotics, for instance. It's almost entirely balanced. I wouldn't up the ante like this personally.
- Half-orcs were better in beta imo, and I intend to use the PF Beta stat modifiers. I would rather not have a third race with a +2 to a stat of their choice; the half-orcs had a good shtick in the beta.
When I found out half-orcs get a variable +2 I was thrilled. It opens up potential for unexpected race/class combinations that aren't underpowered. I've just statted out a nice diplomatic armor-less halfling rogue who's going to be my front-line fighter and she's going to be accompanied by a breastplate-wearing orc-double-axe-wielding sorcerer. Talk about breaking stereotypes! Fun!
- Elven, dwarven etc subraces should be represented. Halflings and dwarves are fairly easy, but I'm kinda bushed on elves. The PF statline works ok for sun elves, but definitely not for woods/wilds. I'm not much of a fan of the elven penalty to constitution - art and literature shows them as wiry and lean, but no more susceptible to fatigue, illness or poison than humans. What do you think about a penalty to strength for moons and suns, and to intelligence (with bonus to wisdom, possibly) for woods and wilds?
That's the domain of splat-books, I think. By all means do what you wish in your campaign setting.
- Fighter armor training has been reverted back to the beta version, which also gives a straight AC bonus Right now it is of little use to any fighter that does not have more than 14 dexterity (the necessary for a MW full plate). Maybe remove the reduction to armor check penalty to balance things out?
I actually think the gold rule is better. Not more powerful but better. It encourages but doesn't force a fighter to spread his ability scores beyond the basic two. If he does, he's rewarded. If he doesn't, no big deal. Also, don't forget that now he gets free movement penalty removal. That's hugely awesome! I don't think it was terribly balanced to have fighters' AC just keep rising like it did.
- Paladins and rangers have extended spell lists. Rangers should imo get some of the druid's spells, and high-level rangers should have some animal polymorph spells - i.e. beast shape I and II as a level 3/4 spell, with longer casting time and duration. High-level paladins should imo have summon monster (lesser) planar ally - calling allies in their service to the...
Shrug. Totally personal view but I don't like the idea of a summoning paladin. I see them as kind of lonely guys who carry the weight of the world on their shoulder. Calling in the cavalry doesn't feel right to me. As for rangers with beast shape spells, I could see that.
- Rangers: Instead of sharing your FE bonuses as a move action (imo fairly laughable) they have the option of having a sudden strike progression (7d6, +1d6 per 3 levels) as a hunter's bond or instead of the bonus feats. I never liked the skirmish mechanics much, but ambush seems to be the right up their alley.
Ouch. That seems to me like a pretty huge power bump. It also dilutes the flavor.
- Most sorcerers/clerics/wizards that had an at-will ability that is now limited can spend a feat to make it at will. Seriously, what was the problem with a sorcerer growing claws or an elemental cleric having a short-range elemental ray? Sorcerers should also get the choice of more feats (from the complete books and others) for their bloodline - right now there are many that are poor choice)
I am 100% behind you on the feat to make the abilities at-will. I've also long felt that there should be a feat or feat progression that advances those abilities. 1d6+10 is an average of 13.5 at 20th level. That's basically insignificant. Yeah, sure, it's better than the +2 crossbow you might be lugging around but since it's limited to 30ft it feels really useless. I'd like to see options to increase the range and to increase the damage output. Maybe 1d6 per three levels or something. 6d6 averages to 21. At 20th for an at-will that's worthwhile in exchange for a feat or two.
- If you have high enough BAB, you can use power attack, combat expertise, or deadly aim for less than the maximum bonus/penalty.
I'd advise trying it as is. It's really awesome to simplify your character sheet and speed up combat.
Melee +2 longsword +12/+7 (1d8+6/19-20x2)
. Power Attack +2 longsword +10/+5 (1d8+12/19-20x2)
That's so... CLEAN. And if you've got a condition or something that penalizes (or enhances) your attack, just add it to the written number. No more "okay, I'm under bless and flanking but I'm shaken and suffering two points of Strength damage so my to-hit is um... down um... no it's up one... so if I PA for two then my damage goes up by... oh wait, no, forgot the Strength reduction... crap!" It doesn't totally do away with calculations by any means but it gives you a PAIR of fixed numbers you can apply appropriate transforms to instead of having to derive a variable damage number then transform it.
- Jump, climb and swim are covered by an athletics skill that is based on strength.
I'm okay with what you're doing in theory. I just wouldn't bother with a written deviation from RAW to do it.
- Monks, barbarians and bards can be of any alignment. Among the base classes, only that have features directly tied to external entities - paladins, clerics, warlocks if I have them - have fixed alignment restrictions.
On one hand I'm big on choice. (See my comment about the half-orc stats for example.) On the other hand, this is probably about making sure you don't level dip in crazy combinations. Monk/barb for instance. Paladin/barb. Paladin/rogue. I'd be okay with the removal of alignment restrictions with the understanding that instead you institute multiclassing restrictions. But I might be over-reacting on how broken some combinations might get.
Anyway, those are my opinions. I'm kind of big on trying to not house-rule unless it's really worth it, so I'm conservative that way.
|
|
One more thing - does anyone bother with the difference in the paladin code? Before they only fell for gross violations of it, now the "gross" is gone and technically a paladin can fall for any violation. Do you play with this? It can be a real b...h, now that a paladin can fall for using arsenic to poison rats.I played with a guy who made it a player decision, not a DM one, when the paladin falls. On the one hand, if your players are untrustworthy losers, that's a bad idea. If they're really into the immersion, though, it makes the fall more of an interesting roleplaying experience and less of a "my DM hates me" call.
I generally treat alignment changes as a two-fold process:
1) The player has to express an interest in changing alignment (this expression could take the form of drastic in-game actions that may generate a player-DM discussion, though).
2) Alignment is treated like XP. You change alignments after adventures and based on the sum total of your experiences in that adventure.
Combined, these rules allow me to change alignments of particularly insensitive roleplayers, but still allow the considerate ones to feel they have control.
The "reward" of alignment changes makes it something they work for now. Oh, and I also make sure that change is reflected in how NPCs treat them and other mechanical benefits.
For example, in my Second Darkness campaign the hobgoblin rogue just changed from LE to LN. In doing so, his behaviour attracted the attention of the church of Abadar which now is willing to finance and monitor some of his mercantile operations.
Thanks for all the comments! Anyone else?
I am also interested in whether there are any rules that deal with combat maneuvers.The current CMB/CMD system seems to strongly favor the defender, particularly with how now CMD includes dexterity and strength bonuses, opposed by simply strength.