|
I recently experimented with the pathfinder rules. The goal was to play a game without house rules. I made it one whole encounter before I scrapped the idea. I did manage to discover that all my house rules were disposable, except for two... open ended damage and my min/max rule.
The first is simple, roll maximum on the die and you can roll again. Multiple dice all have to be maxed to reroll. This one is important to make all weapons potentially lethal. Without it, low dice weapons, like daggers, are near worthless.
The second, min/max, is simply a rule to reward good to hit rolls. The rule is the difference between the to hit roll and the targets AC is the minimum damage dealt. The max being the die used. So a hit total of 17 against an AC12 with a dagger would be 4, a short sword or larger would be 5. so if you roll a 1-4 on your die you automatically score a 5. This remedies those horrible moments where you roll a hot to hit and a very chilly one for damage.
I have used these rules for years and truly can not run a game without them.
Anyone else have house rules they can not live without?
The first is simple, roll maximum on the die and you can roll again.
The second, min/max
They seem like pretty sweet rules to make the combat more deadly (the first one isn't that uncommon, at least for criticals), and I like deadly. However, they might be a bit slow calculationwise.
EDIT: I wonder however how it would affect the average damage of 2dX versus 1d2X (2d6 vs 1d12, 2d4 vs 1d8). Not a math kid exactly, someone here who could calculate that?
The first is simple, roll maximum on the die and you can roll again. Multiple dice all have to be maxed to reroll. This one is important to make all weapons potentially lethal. Without it, low dice weapons, like daggers, are near worthless.
The damage dice becomes increasingly less important as you progress in levels.
Exploding dice aren't a good idea like that (because we already have critical hits), and note that this makes a weapon with 2d4 that much worse than a weapon with 1d8, since the chance of rolling an 8 with 1d8 is 1 in 8, while for the 2d4 it's 1 in 16.
The second, min/max, is simply a rule to reward good to hit rolls. The rule is the difference between the to hit roll and the targets AC is the minimum damage dealt. The max being the die used. So a hit total of 17 against an AC12 with a dagger would be 4, a short sword or larger would be 5. so if you roll a 1-4 on your die you automatically score a 5. This remedies those horrible moments where you roll a hot to hit and a very chilly one for damage.
This is another rule that I think is unnecessary because the dice rolls themselves become increasingly irrelevant.
So the fighter only rolled a 2 for his 2d4 falchion. That means he only deals 35 damage instead of 41. Boohoo.
I personally don't like that weapon finesse is something you have to train. So everyone gets it for free. It makes sense that if you use, say, a dagger, you can use it with your dex if you wish.
|
|
I personally don't like that weapon finesse is something you have to train. So everyone gets it for free. It makes sense that if you use, say, a dagger, you can use it with your dex if you wish.
I've never gone as far as making Weapon Finesse universal, but I happen to agree with the logic so much that I might pitch it to my groups' other rules geek and try to make it an official group rule. Since my group's two biggest rules geeks are the only two that ever get behind the GM's screen, I feel good about this house rule's chances.
I have refused to use the AC rules as written since I saw the class defense rules in the Unearthed Arcana. Most of the campaigns I run tend to have a lot of Finesse/Swashbuckling combat, so I want to make unarmored characters very, very viable. I use the class defense rules, and to make touch attacks not be awful, I rule that only half of class defense can be applied to defense against touch attacks. Class defense is otherwise a dodge bonus in my game, so it can be Feinted away, and it stacks with everything else...except armor, which adds nothing to AC but instead gives DR equal to half it's AC bonus, rounded down.
This works for my group's vision of game logic/physics and satisfies my desire to see lightly armored characters never get hit, but when they do they fall hard, while armored characters always get hit but it rarely means anything.
The only issue I have had so far is that it takes a lot of twinking for any melee/ranged build other than a two-handed weapon or improved feint/sneak attack build to do any appreciable damage, and forget rapid shot, flurry of blows, or two-weapon fighting. The swashbuckler class's "Int mod to damage" ability and copious use of the Tome of Battle has alleviated this issue somewhat, as well as a houserule on a houserule that states that the DR of armor drops by 1 for each hit it has already absorbed this round.
The damage dice becomes increasingly less important as you progress in levels.
Exploding dice aren't a good idea like that (because we already have critical hits), and note that this makes a weapon with 2d4 that much worse than a weapon with 1d8, since the chance of rolling an 8 with 1d8 is 1 in 8, while for the 2d4 it's 1 in 16.
Actually, in my opinion, since the 2d4 weapon is a weapon meant to deal more "average" damage, and the 1d8 weapon is more random, I think the idea that the random damage weapon would have a better chance at a random increase in damage is rather sound. Though I definitely don't like the fact that a 1d4 weapon is more likely to get a re-roll then a 1d8 or 1d12.
I do agree that it's not so good of an idea due to the existence of critical hits though, but even then, especially with the low damage weapons almost seeming non-lethal, I at least see where the OP is coming from. People don't seem to give someone with a dagger enough respect, it may only do 1d4 damage, but it should still strike fear in you when you have nothing and the other guy has a knife. Ask a skilled and knowlegable martial artist, and they will tell you, even a guy who doesn't really know what he's doing is still a VERY real threat with a knife, and no matter how good you are, it's just not worth the risk, one simple stab to the gut (not even critical hit status, just a knife to the gut), can and will end you.
This is another rule that I think is unnecessary because the dice rolls themselves become increasingly irrelevant.
So the fighter only rolled a 2 for his 2d4 falchion. That means he only deals 35 damage instead of 41. Boohoo.
This rule, especially from his explanation of it, isn't so much about actually increasing the damage dealt, but increasing fun. It's not so much about making sure the fighter does damage, but more about the player not getting dissapointed at a low damage roll after surpassing the armor class of the opponent by 10 points. It also helps model the idea that the more skilled you are, the better you are at making your strikes count.
I personally don't like that weapon finesse is something you have to train. So everyone gets it for free. It makes sense that if you use, say, a dagger, you can use it with your dex if you wish.
While I agree that it at least SEEMS to make sense, it doesn't, at least not the way I see it. I've seen plenty of dexterous people who because of lack of training had no clue how to relax their body in a combat type situation. He may be able to flip and twist with the best of them, but once the steel flashes, he's as tense as anyone else, and his muscles are going to work AGAINST his dexterity.
To honestly take advantage of your agility in stressful situations such as that, you need training, period.
Actually, in my opinion, since the 2d4 weapon is a weapon meant to deal more "average" damage, and the 1d8 weapon is more random, I think the idea that the random damage weapon would have a better chance at a random increase in damage is rather sound. Though I definitely don't like the fact that a 1d4 weapon is more likely to get a re-roll then a 1d8 or 1d12.
The problem with the 2d4/1d8 is weapon balance. If 1d8 weapons deal higher average damage than 2d4 weapons, while generally being lighter or better in other respects (as the game is currently balanced under the assumption that 2d4 is higher damage than 1d8), why would you pick a 2d4 weapon (aside from fluff)?
There shouldn't be a problem with 1d4 vs 1d8 (or even 1d6) though. Look at the chances of different damage rolls:
Dmg 1d4 1d8
1---100% 100%
2--- 75% 82%
3--- 50% 75%
4--- 25% 67%
5--- 25% 50%
6--- 19% 37%
7--- 12% 25%
8--- 6% 12%
9--- 6% 12%
10-- 4% 10%
So damage for 1d8 is still far higher than 1d4 across the board.
2d4 though, would be:
Dmg 2d4 1d8
1---100% 100%
2---100% 82%
3--- 93% 75%
4--- 81% 67%
5--- 56% 50%
6--- 37% 37%
7--- 18% 25%
8--- 6% 12%
9--- 6% 12%
10-- 6% 10%
11-- 5% 9%
12-- 5% 7%
13-- 3% 6%
14-- 2% 4%
15-- 1% 3%
16-- 0%* 1%
*About 0.3%
so it's much harder to see which one is better. I'm not too keen on maths and can't calculate average damage of these, but someone should be able to.
I have different stealth rules in my game.
For ONE thing, people cannot see in every direction all the time. So a lot of stealth stuff is about roleplaying.
I can walk behind someone a decent distance and they won't see me. If I want to try and match his footsteps I have to walk more slowly (The -10 penalty without moving half works for this). In combat, the target is assumed to be looking around, unless you haven't entered combat yet.
When you break cover, everyone gets a Perception check with a +5 bonus to see you. They may automatically see you if there was someone they were attacking in that direction. Since tracking facing isn't hard (Not as hard as some people make it out to be anyway) this adds credit to flanking and whatnot.
The penalty to hide after attacking is -20 with a melee attack, and -10 with a ranged attack, but only -5 with a bowstring silencer (Cost 10 gp).
The penalties to perception checks is -1 per ten feet after thirty feet, just so rouges don't get TOO much of a boost from that last rule. Plus it also makes for less penalties at a range, since often times spotting a person far away is about seeing just a little bit of movement. I may instigate a lessening penalty over long distances, but I don't want to chart the rules up since that is a pain.
My house rule for wizards is making them play by the rules. See all that stuff under "Spellbooks"? Yeah, I actually make the wizard players do that to acquire more than 2 spells per level up. Not only does it help to avoid nasty spell combos, it introduces them to a new way of thinking about their character's abilities, and makes those two choice spells per level and scroll loot a godsend.
I roll groups of monsters as a single initiative or maybe two if they're big enough parties.
I render creatures bigger than large size immune to death from massive damage, just because they are going to make the fortitude save except on a one, and just having it keel over round one from a lucky fighter crit isn't much fun.
I made ray/touch of stupidity reduce ability scores to one (Like ray of weakness) to prevent animal/ooze killing casters.
Soon I will be giving crossbows an overhaul, probably making them able to take on the Mighty ability and increasing their price, since one of the rules is making repeating crossbows simple.
Actually, in my opinion, since the 2d4 weapon is a weapon meant to deal more "average" damage, and the 1d8 weapon is more random, I think the idea that the random damage weapon would have a better chance at a random increase in damage is rather sound. Though I definitely don't like the fact that a 1d4 weapon is more likely to get a re-roll then a 1d8 or 1d12.
The problem with the 2d4/1d8 is weapon balance. If 1d8 weapons deal higher average damage than 2d4 weapons, while generally being lighter or better in other respects (as the game is currently balanced under the assumption that 2d4 is higher damage than 1d8), why would you pick a 2d4 weapon (aside from fluff)?
There shouldn't be a problem with 1d4 vs 1d8 (or even 1d6) though. Look at the chances of different damage rolls:
Dmg 1d4 1d8
1---100% 100%
2--- 75% 82%
3--- 50% 75%
4--- 25% 67%
5--- 25% 50%
6--- 19% 37%
7--- 12% 25%
8--- 6% 12%
9--- 6% 12%
10-- 4% 10%So damage for 1d8 is still far higher than 1d4 across the board.
2d4 though, would be:
Dmg 2d4 1d8
1---100% 100%
2---100% 82%
3--- 93% 75%
4--- 81% 67%
5--- 56% 50%
6--- 37% 37%
7--- 18% 25%
8--- 6% 12%
9--- 6% 12%
10-- 6% 10%
11-- 5% 9%
12-- 5% 7%
13-- 3% 6%
14-- 2% 4%
15-- 1% 3%
16-- 0%* 1%*About 0.3%
so it's much harder to see which one is better. I'm not too keen on maths and can't calculate average damage of these, but someone should be able to.
Actually, as I understand it, 2d4 isn't balanced against 1d8 because it's more damage, the max is still the same. The balance comes from the reliability of the damage. 2d4 is a bell curve, meaning you can rely on doing at least 4 points of damage on the roll a lot more often, while a 1d8 weapon has a better chance of getting a high roll, but the rolls are all over the place.
Kinda the same reason we use 3d6 for stats, but 1d20 for checks.
[EDIT: Sorry, 2nd edition mentality there, but the point still stands]
So you choose the 2d4 weapon for reliability, while you choose the 1d8 weapon for that better chance of high damage (which you trade off with the fact that you also have a better chance of low damage).
So with the re-roll house rule, you may have a better chance of getting a re-roll with the 1d8, but you're also increasing the risk that that re-roll is only gonna be 1 or 2, while though you may not get re-rolls with the 2d4 as often, you're more likely to do at least 4 more points of damage with that re-roll.
Again, it's about reliability and averages vs. randomness.
Oh, and I may be misunderstanding your charts, but how could a 1d4 (or 1d8) weapon roll a 10? How could a 2d4 or 1d8 weapon roll a 16?
|
|
I personally don't like that weapon finesse is something you have to train. So everyone gets it for free. It makes sense that if you use, say, a dagger, you can use it with your dex if you wish.While I agree that it at least SEEMS to make sense, it doesn't, at least not the way I see it. I've seen plenty of dexterous people who because of lack of training had no clue how to relax their body in a combat type situation. He may be able to flip and twist with the best of them, but once the steel flashes, he's as tense as anyone else, and his muscles are going to work AGAINST his dexterity.
To honestly take advantage of your agility in stressful situations such as that, you need training, period.
I was always under the impression that such training was covered by base attack bonus and weapon proficiency, leaving stats to dictate how natural talent interacts with that training. My personal theory would be that your dextrous friends have a +0 base attack and no martial weapon proficiencies, making them 5 points on a d20 roll, or 25% less likely, to hit, as compared to someone who has a +1 base attack, proficiency, and a 10 Dex. Giving those friends a fighter level would give them the training needed to harness their talent, making them much better fighters than someone with the same amount of training but no naturally superior coordination and agility.
Does this ring true in your personal experience, or is it the case that training to use a weapon and training to make proper use of agility are two different kinds of prowess?
|
|
It is nice to see someone else sticking those rules to the wizards =). I agree about the stealth issue. I have had a few weasels try to stretch the bounds of reality with the skill. I'm rather lazy though and opt for the reroll for various infringements.
A thanks to the above Chris who nailed the motivation behind the pair of rules. For me, DMing is nothing but a subclass of entertainer (which I describe being somewhere below prostitution and above mimes =). As long as the player are entertained I am doing my job. My enemy is boredom and I counter it with a combination of house rules, creativity and a better then average bluff skill =).
|
|
My house rule for wizards is making them play by the rules. See all that stuff under "Spellbooks"? Yeah, I actually make the wizard players do that to acquire more than 2 spells per level up. Not only does it help to avoid nasty spell combos, it introduces them to a new way of thinking about their character's abilities, and makes those two choice spells per level and scroll loot a godsend.
I'm *playing* a Wizard and I like this rule. One of the best roleplaying opportunities for my Wizard PC was finding a new mentor and Wizards' school, something he *had* to do to have anything resembling good spell selection at a decent scroll/learning price. Making Wizards actually keep and track their spellbooks reminds Wizards that their power and versatility does come at a price (financial and the price of their reality-bending powers relying on a giant heavy book), and reinforces the rarity of Wizards - they're not as common as non-magical classes because even the materials to train a Wizard up to the first level are expensive and therefore apprenticeship is only available to the rich and talented. When we come back from adventures, the rest of the party sinks their gold straight into plus-over-nine-thousand gear, and the Wizard spends all of his gold and downtime buying expensive books/scrolls and then reading and copying them.
I personally don't like that weapon finesse is something you have to train. So everyone gets it for free. It makes sense that if you use, say, a dagger, you can use it with your dex if you wish.While I agree that it at least SEEMS to make sense, it doesn't, at least not the way I see it. I've seen plenty of dexterous people who because of lack of training had no clue how to relax their body in a combat type situation. He may be able to flip and twist with the best of them, but once the steel flashes, he's as tense as anyone else, and his muscles are going to work AGAINST his dexterity.
To honestly take advantage of your agility in stressful situations such as that, you need training, period.
I was always under the impression that such training was covered by base attack bonus and weapon proficiency, leaving stats to dictate how natural talent interacts with that training. My personal theory would be that your dextrous friends have a +0 base attack and no martial weapon proficiencies, making them 5 points on a d20 roll, or 25% less likely, to hit, as compared to someone who has a +1 base attack, proficiency, and a 10 Dex. Giving those friends a fighter level would give them the training needed to harness their talent, making them much better fighters than someone with the same amount of training but no naturally superior coordination and agility.
Does this ring true in your personal experience, or is it the case that training to use a weapon and training to make proper use of agility are two different kinds of prowess?
I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. Let me put it this way: Two experienced martial artists, one in karate, the other in kung fu. Both are using light weapons (unarmed), and both are just as flexible, quick to react, and coordinated. The karate guy still isn't gonna be using weapon finesse because his style is based on strength. Karate, for all its martial artness, is still essentially the art of bashing someone with your fists and feet. The kung fu guy's style (at least the stereotypical form of kung fu), is much more based on using your agility to work around your opponent. The karate guy isn't gonna worry so much about his agility in his ability to hit, he's just throwing straight punches.
You're right that the combat training in even getting a +1 attack bonus would at least help you learn to relax, but finesse isn't JUST the ability to relax, it's learning how to use your agility get around someone's defenses rather then just bashing through, it's a style thing.
[EDIT: Yeah, I know I ended up using two different arguements, but you were also originally saying giving weapon finesse to EVERYONE, and didn't specify everyone with a +1 BAB until later.]
***EDIT: I started this immediately after Madcap Storm King listed his and doesn't take any of the threads in between into account!***
The first is simple, roll maximum on the die and you can roll again. Multiple dice all have to be maxed to reroll. This one is important to make all weapons potentially lethal. Without it, low dice weapons, like daggers, are near worthless.
I like this a lot actually and have used it myself, EXCEPT that the dice are all automatically rerolled on a max #. The second roll is at -1, and cumulatively increases until the max number is reached. I really don't like that a dagger does 1-3 (on a 4, 5-8, and so on). Maxing the damage out is unlikely, but puts a reasonable cap some where. The roll maxes out on a d4 after 4 rolls at 10 points. In the case of a d8 vs 2d4, d8 maxes 8 rolls at 36 and 2d4 maxes 2x4 rolls at 20, however, the odds of rolling a 4 on a d4 is 25%, and the odds of rolling an 8 on a d8 is 12.5%. My group feels this balances out, and makes it impossible to do more damage with a dagger than a greatsword. I'm not completely sure on the numbers, but it works for us.
This is supported by the fact that we play with a house rule where:
Each player has a timer before them ($1.50 30 second sand timer), and during the first loop in combat, players and foes explain their intentions of their turns, move and make all rolls. The second loop the players reveal the results and resolutions are made. During the first loop the sand timer is flipped in the beginning of the turn and if they can't choose a course of acion they are "stalling" (they get one last chance to voice a choice at the end of the first loop and their initiative drops to last, OR they still don't make a choice and they are skipped). This may seem unfair to some, but we agree that it simulates the ability to get flustered in real life combat.
If someone kills a monster the turn before yours, you lose the action (the same goes however for foes attempting to attack a player that has dimension doored away). We also feel this simulates the combatants as not being psychic of what will happen next, as going turn by turn seems to have too much time for planing out 6 seconds.
When they are rolling while others are planning between the loops, if they roll a max number, they set it aside on a notebook paper that has a few lines and boxes labeled 0 through -11 for damage calculation, to keep it moving. This works EXTREMELY well for us and leads to intense, fast paced, frantic combats. We all feel this isn't perfect, but it is much more exciting and forces players to have their crap together and pay attention. Works for us, YMMV with slower players.
The second, min/max, is simply a rule to reward good to hit rolls. The rule is the difference between the to hit roll and the targets AC is the minimum damage dealt. The max being the die used. So a hit total of 17 against an AC12 with a dagger would be 4, a short sword or larger would be 5. so if you roll a 1-4 on your die you automatically score a 5. This remedies those horrible moments where you roll a hot to hit and a very chilly one for damage.
I'm not as into the second one. I always imagined the great attack/crappy damage roll to be an attack where the initial placement of the hit is amazing, but the location of the damage is less useful. For example, if indiana jones shoots through an itty bity vent window in an old school tank, the spot he shot into from a good ways of may be an amazingly great aim. However, if it only kills the clock radio and dents a lever inside, it really didn't do much damage. This is a bit of a crazy metaphor, but I think it serves the purpose. A wand of true strike is overpowered at first level then.
KaeYoss & ChrisRevocateur - I gotta side with Chris on this (Weapon Finesse). If you've ever played guitar or been in martial arts, you'd probably agree muscle memory is very important. In the case of making attacks of grace and finesse such as fencing or sparring, there is little time to think and the muscles mainly do the work on maneuvering as best they can. I see the acquring of this feat as training to get your reactions to take advantage of your speed. A martial artist with the natural talent will actually lose to one with fantastic reactions as they move quicker. This may also be a matter of experience, but my perspective remains the same. Anyone can do whatever they wanna do with their house rules, but for my games, this breaks suspended disbelief as a martial artist myself.
*Polite Snipping*
I have different stealth rules in my game...
This is great... I think I may have to borrow it for my own game!
My house rule for wizards is making them play by the rules...
I roll groups of monsters as a single initiative or maybe two if they're big enough parties.
I render creatures bigger than large size immune to death from massive damage...
I use these as well.
I made ray/touch of stupidity reduce ability scores to one (Like ray of weakness) to prevent animal/ooze killing casters.
The only think I don't really use, but haven't thought about either.
Thanks all for enduring this long post! :D
this breaks suspended disbelief as a martial artist myself.
Which is exactly where I'm coming from myself. What art(s) do you practice? Danzan Ryu Jujutsu here.
One thing I've toyed with is allowing characters to pick either dex or str for their 'to hit' attribute at 1st level, and to pick up the other requires a feat.
So, the dextrous rogue selects 'Dex to-Hit' at 1st level, and uses dex for melee (all weapons) and for ranged attacks. However, he doesn't do additional damage from str at all if he does this. A strong barbarian picks str at first level, and uses str for all melee atacks per normal, and pays a feat to be able to use dex too if he wants to.
Any thoughts on this? I think the 'use dex for all weapon attacks' counterbalances the 'Gain no Str'. If you want to add str to those weapon attacks, pay the feat. Same feat cost as if you had taken weapon finesse to get the benefit, but if you only need one or the other, no feat tax.
Actually, as I understand it, 2d4 isn't balanced against 1d8 because it's more damage, the max is still the same. The balance comes from the reliability of the damage. 2d4 is a bell curve, meaning you can rely on doing at least 4 points of damage on the roll a lot more often, while a 1d8 weapon has a better chance of getting a high roll, but the rolls are all over the place.Kinda the same reason we use 3d6 for stats, but 1d20 for checks.
[EDIT: Sorry, 2nd edition mentality there, but...
They're not balanced as 2d4 is more than 1d8. 4d2 is even more, even though the maximum is the same. 1d4 has an average damage of 2.5, 1d8 of 4.5. 2d4 thus has .5 higher average damage than 1d8.
It's not the same case as 3d6 vs 1d20, since the average damage of 1d6 is 3.5 and the average of 1d20 is 10.5, these are equivalent. It's rather the same situation as how 5d4 is more than 1d20 - while the max damage is the same, the average damage of 5d4 is 12.5.That said, higher chance of the extremes might be better in some situations; against DR 10/-, 1d20 damage is far better than 3d6.
Right now though, the game is balanced under the assumption that a 2d4 weapon deals .5 higher average damage than a 1d8 weapon. Now, at higher levels the difference is neglible, but 2d4 is more than 1d8 even though the average is higher.
(To make an extreme example, 50d2 is obviously more than 1d100).
Exploding dice aren't a good idea like that (because we already have critical hits), and note that this makes a weapon with 2d4 that much worse than a weapon with 1d8, since the chance of rolling an 8 with 1d8 is 1 in 8, while for the 2d4 it's 1 in 16.
Hell, I am fairly sure that makes a 1d3 weapon statistically the best weapon in the game. Hell, everyone roll small Barbarians and see if you can get a 1d2 weapon.
One thing I've toyed with is allowing characters to pick either dex or str for their 'to hit' attribute at 1st level, and to pick up the other requires a feat.
So, the dextrous rogue selects 'Dex to-Hit' at 1st level, and uses dex for melee (all weapons) and for ranged attacks. However, he doesn't do additional damage from str at all if he does this. A strong barbarian picks str at first level, and uses str for all melee atacks per normal, and pays a feat to be able to use dex too if he wants to.
Any thoughts on this? I think the 'use dex for all weapon attacks' counterbalances the 'Gain no Str'. If you want to add str to those weapon attacks, pay the feat. Same feat cost as if you had taken weapon finesse to get the benefit, but if you only need one or the other, no feat tax.
I want to make sure I understand this correctly: If I were to choose Dex at first level, I wouldn't be able to apply my Str to Damage? And if I chose Str, I wouldn't be able to use Dex? Could I still use ranged weapons?
I actually had something similar to this as a house rule for a while, but its been watered down since then. As it stands, I allow people to choose Dex or Str, like you suggest, but they can only use their Dex on finessable weapons and never to damage. But, you would always use your Dex in those instances, and you couldn't switch back to Str without a feat. Likewise, a person who chose Str would have to take a feat to use Dex later on.
I didn't like the idea of having Dexterity-based characters whipping around greatswords all willy-nilly. It also made Dex that much better than it already is.
Your suggestion might temper that, though, by disallowing damage if you chose Dex. I'm not sure if I'd ever want to play a Dex character who doesn't just pick Str and take the extra feat instead, but thats just me.
Actually, as I understand it, 2d4 isn't balanced against 1d8 because it's more damage, the max is still the same. The balance comes from the reliability of the damage. 2d4 is a bell curve, meaning you can rely on doing at least 4 points of damage on the roll a lot more often, while a 1d8 weapon has a better chance of getting a high roll, but the rolls are all over the place.Kinda the same reason we use 3d6 for stats, but 1d20 for checks.
[EDIT: Sorry, 2nd edition mentality there, but...They're not balanced as 2d4 is more than 1d8. 4d2 is even more, even though the maximum is the same. 1d4 has an average damage of 2.5, 1d8 of 4.5. 2d4 thus has .5 higher average damage than 1d8.
It's not the same case as 3d6 vs 1d20, since the average damage of 1d6 is 3.5 and the average of 1d20 is 10.5, these are equivalent. It's rather the same situation as how 5d4 is more than 1d20 - while the max damage is the same, the average damage of 5d4 is 12.5.That said, higher chance of the extremes might be better in some situations; against DR 10/-, 1d20 damage is far better than 3d6.
Right now though, the game is balanced under the assumption that a 2d4 weapon deals .5 higher average damage than a 1d8 weapon. Now, at higher levels the difference is neglible, but 2d4 is more than 1d8 even though the average is higher.
(To make an extreme example, 50d2 is obviously more than 1d100).
You seem to be misunderstanding me.
2d4
~~~
1+1 = 2 = 1 in 16 = 0.0625 = 6.25%
1+2 = 3
2+1 = 3 = 1 in 8 = 0.125 = 12.5%
1+3 = 4
3+1 = 4
2+2 = 4 = 3 in 16 = 0.1875 = 18.75%
1+4 = 5
4+1 = 5
2+3 = 5
3+2 = 5 = 1 in 4 = 0.25 = 25%
3+3 = 6
2+4 = 6
4+2 = 6 = 3 in 16 = 0.1875 = 18.75%
3+4 = 7
4+3 = 7 = 2 in 16 = 0.125 = 12.5%
4+4 = 8 = 1 in 16 = 0.0625 = 6.25%
1d8
~~~
1 = 1 = 1 in 8 = 0.125 = 12.5%
2 = 2 = 1 in 8 = 0.125 = 12.5%
3 = 3 = 1 in 8 = 0.125 = 12.5%
4 = 4 = 1 in 8 = 0.125 = 12.5%
5 = 5 = 1 in 8 = 0.125 = 12.5%
6 = 6 = 1 in 8 = 0.125 = 12.5%
7 = 7 = 1 in 8 = 0.125 = 12.5%
8 = 8 = 1 in 8 = 0.125 = 12.5%
You see how as you get to the middle, it becomes more and more likely that the 2d4 weapon hits those numbers, getting to twice what a d8's probability would be while as you go to the extremes, it becomes as little as half as likely as any number on just a d8?
While on the d8 the chance of hitting any number stays flat.
2d4 may not have the same minimum as 1d8, but the average is only a 1/2 a point of damage more. That 1/2 point of damage doesn't really matter. It's the fact that the 2d4 has a much higher chance of getting a 4, 5, or 6, but much less of a chance to get a 2 or an 8, and can't get as low as 1. It's a more reliable weapon, but not as spectacular.
So under that max damage re-roll rule, the "spectacular" d8 weapon will get a re-roll twice as often as the 2d4, but when the 2d4 does get a re-roll, probability says that they will get MORE damage on that re-roll.
You asked why with the max damage re-roll house rule anyone would want to use a 2d4 weapon, and I've tried to answer you, because you can rely on the weapon to do a certain amount of damage, while the 1d8 you can't rely on at all, you're just as likely to roll 1 damage as you are to roll 3, 7, or even 8.
So your longsword is smaller then my falchion, and you can use a shield, but I KNOW I'm gonna kill a goblin with almost every swing that hits, while you have no clue.
I like the exploding dice idea. It is a fun idea.
A classic example is greatsword vs greataxe. The greatsword is more reliable. You can count on getting 7 or 8 pretty often, and you have a 19-20/x2 critical for more crits, but the crits themselves are weaker. The great axe is very random with a x3 crit. With this rule, the greataxe is more likely to explode, but there is nothing like to look on our barbarians face when he rolls a 1 for his damage roll on his axe.
One question, how would you handle a feat like vital strike?
The hit to damage conversion has issues.
As someone said, true strike means you do max damage.
Another problem is that is makes things like power attack and deadly aim weaker. I am taking a minus to hit to do more damage, but the minus to hit can end up costing me damage.
You seem to be misunderstanding me.
Oh, yes, now I see what you mean!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I hate tracking wand charges, so one house rule I always use is to the way wands operate. A wand has a charge die instead of a fixed number of charges. The charge die starts at d20 for a fully charged wand and goes down to d8. Every time you use a wand you roll the charge die. If you roll a 1, the charge die is permanently downgraded (d20 - d12 - d10 - d8). If you roll a 1 on the d8, that is the last charge for the wand.
I find the rule dramatically decreases bookkeeping, causes the players to be more liberal with their wand use, and does not slow play appreciably.
this breaks suspended disbelief as a martial artist myself.Which is exactly where I'm coming from myself. What art(s) do you practice? Danzan Ryu Jujutsu here.
I practice San Chi Ryu Karate which is a combined Martial Art with emphasis on Judo and Jujitsu. I think Dex to hit makes more sense than Strength, since I'm not a terribly strong guy, and trying to get past the blocks of some styles with brute force is a horrible idea (Especially Muay Thai, the "Karate Killer", which has blocks designed to do more damage to the opponent the harder they kick or punch). As far as an abstract game design idea goes I see why they did it, especially in AD&D where a bow was a good idea for a rogue, since his high dex score would help him out.
Jujitsu is the classic "overpowered" martial art. If it was effectively simulated in D&D... Let's just say Fighters would cry. I'm thinking of the hip throw I was shown from old Jujitsu that starts in an armbar and has your throw the opponent onto his head, snapping his neck.
I want to make sure I understand this correctly: If I were to choose Dex at first level, I wouldn't be able to apply my Str to Damage? And if I chose Str, I wouldn't be able to use Dex? Could I still use ranged weapons?
You got it. Really, it has no effect on ranged weapons. Just on melee, ranged would always use dex.
I actually had something similar to this as a house rule for a while, but its been watered down since then. As it stands, I allow people to choose Dex or Str, like you suggest, but they can only use their Dex on finessable weapons and never to damage. But, you would always use your Dex in those instances, and you couldn't switch back to Str without a feat. Likewise, a person who chose Str would have to take a feat to use Dex later on.I didn't like the idea of having Dexterity-based characters whipping around greatswords all willy-nilly. It also made Dex that much better than it already is.
Your suggestion might temper that, though, by disallowing damage if you chose Dex. I'm not sure if I'd ever want to play a Dex character who doesn't just pick Str and take the extra feat instead, but thats just me.
Yeah, that's why I removed the str from the damage if you choose Dex. As to the greatswords, I could still see it working with Dex. You basically instead of trying to generate the maximum swing damage (as normal) are instead using dex to control where the blade hits so you hit less armored locations. Honestly though, I don't see that coming into play very often. If you are going for wielding a two-handed weapon you're going to be pumping your Str for the damage and have no reason to choose Dex, except as a feat for when you are using a dagger in close combat or something.
I want to make sure I understand this correctly: If I were to choose Dex at first level, I wouldn't be able to apply my Str to Damage? And if I chose Str, I wouldn't be able to use Dex? Could I still use ranged weapons?
You got it. Really, it has no effect on ranged weapons. Just on melee, ranged would always use dex.
Yeah, that's why I removed the str from the damage if you choose Dex. As to the greatswords, I could still see it working with Dex. You basically instead of trying to generate the maximum swing damage (as normal) are instead using dex to control where the blade hits so you hit less armored locations. Honestly though, I don't see that coming into play very often. If you are going for wielding a two-handed weapon you're going to be pumping your Str for the damage and have no reason to choose Dex, except as a feat for when you are using a dagger in close combat or something.
I actually had something similar to this as a house rule for a while, but its been watered down since then. As it stands, I allow people to choose Dex or Str, like you suggest, but they can only use their Dex on finessable weapons and never to damage. But, you would always use your Dex in those instances, and you couldn't switch back to Str without a feat. Likewise, a person who chose Str would have to take a feat to use Dex later on.I didn't like the idea of having Dexterity-based characters whipping around greatswords all willy-nilly. It also made Dex that much better than it already is.
Your suggestion might temper that, though, by disallowing damage if you chose Dex. I'm not sure if I'd ever want to play a Dex character who doesn't just pick Str and take the extra feat instead, but thats just me.
That's a valid point. To be honest, I never really saw much "Dex-Greatswording" either, so can't say that I backed my notion with proper experience. I could see this being a solid houserule... nothing stands out as particularly bothersome. The only reason I implemented such a thing was because my players complain about how they have to take a feat to start as a finesse-based character, and I don't blame them.
Of course, at the same time, they've been pushing for me to allow them to start with characters who are trained in two-weapon fighting and instead penalized for single-weapon fighting... I guess if you give a mouse a cookie...
I've seen this in one other campaign and switched to it for a campaign I'm running - rolling hit points. The player rolls a die, the DM rolls a die. The PC gets the higher of the two. Rolling low on hit points becomes a lot less likely and the expected value ends up being about 70-75% of max depending on the size of the die.
It makes the PCs likely to be a little more durable and insulated from a run of bad luck on hp rolls.
I hate tracking wand charges, so one house rule I always use is to the way wands operate. A wand has a charge die instead of a fixed number of charges. The charge die starts at d20 for a fully charged wand and goes down to d8. Every time you use a wand you roll the charge die. If you roll a 1, the charge die is permanently downgraded (d20 - d12 - d10 - d8). If you roll a 1 on the d8, that is the last charge for the wand.
I find the rule dramatically decreases bookkeeping, causes the players to be more liberal with their wand use, and does not slow play appreciably.
Neat idea! Ticking off charges like ammunition makes the wand seem less magical. To make it even more unpredictable, you could roll a final d6 to see what happens:
1. Fizzles
2. Works normally
3. Breaks and misfires (random target)
4. Fizzles and recharges to d8
5. Fizzles and recharges to d10
6. Surges (adds Maximize Spell and Widen Spell metamagic)
I've seen this in one other campaign and switched to it for a campaign I'm running - rolling hit points. The player rolls a die, the DM rolls a die. The PC gets the higher of the two. Rolling low on hit points becomes a lot less likely and the expected value ends up being about 70-75% of max depending on the size of the die.
It makes the PCs likely to be a little more durable and insulated from a run of bad luck on hp rolls.
I usually just do max HP for X levels, instead of first only. That X level varies depending on how dangerous the campaign is supposed to be. For example, my monster campaign (where all the players are playing non-core races) X was 5. In my other campaign, which is relatively normal, X was 2, so Max HP for first 2 levels. That seems to really help at lower levels and doesn't unbalance anything at higher levels.
Honestly, I think you could just give max HP at each level and not really have it be unbalancing. Mainly because as a GM I boost the bad guy's HP anyway, I have to. Mainly I run with 5 players, not 4, all the time. That means CR's don't work out just right. The easiest way for me to handle that is boost the HP of the creature by 50%, or, alternately, put enough creatures out to be CR+1 and call it CR. Easier for on the fly to put out CR and boost HP by 50%, and for scripted combats that are part of the plot I boost the CR (Of course my games don't tend to do the x4 per day combats, I rarely do dungeon crawls) so usually they go a week or two in game between major combats and then they hit a CR+30% combat that drains all their resources, occasionally a CR+50% (IE: Level 10's hitting a CR 13 or CR 15).
That's a valid point. To be honest, I never really saw much "Dex-Greatswording" either, so can't say that I backed my notion with proper experience. I could see this being a solid houserule... nothing stands out as particularly bothersome. The only reason I implemented such a thing was because my players complain about how they have to take a feat to start as a finesse-based character, and I don't blame them.Of course, at the same time, they've been pushing for me to allow them to start with characters who are trained in two-weapon fighting and instead penalized for single-weapon fighting... I guess if you give a mouse a cookie...
Honestly you could probably allow two-weapon as a starting ability as well. But, it would be a world cultural thing. That means you'd treat shields as exotic, since the world culture is that everyone fights with two weapons, same with two-handed weapons, they'd be exotic as well. You'd balance it as Exotic Defense (Shield) and Exotic Combat Style (Two-Handed). :)
My players really rarely make special requests, primarily because they are aware of my golden rule :
That which is good for the PC is even better for the GM.
As the GM I have unlimited resources and can see the future. As a friend of mine who also GM's likes to say, if you give the players a bright shiny distraction they don't care that you are bringing a 50 gallon drum of industrial lubricant to assist in #*@&#@'ing them over.
To honestly take advantage of your agility in stressful situations such as that, you need training, period.
Yeah, but if you're the type who gets all worked up over a sword drawn, you won't exactly get super-strength, either, because of weak knees (and arms, and everything), and your average PF hero is not the type who fears combat.
And if your dexterity would desert you in a fight, it would do so universally, not just for attacks. Your reflexes would suffer equally.
but even then, especially with the low damage weapons almost seeming non-lethal, I at least see where the OP is coming from.
If they were supposed to be more lethal, they'd have a better damage die. The weapons with lower damage dice have other things to make up for it: They're lighter (so you can use them in your off-hand and with dexterity), or have a better crit range (so your damage will increase a lot - with the huge damage bonuses a warrior can accumulate, a chance to multiply the whole thing is much more worthwhile than a mere +1 damage for a higher die), they're easier to use (so even non-warrior classes can use them without extra training).
People don't seem to give someone with a dagger enough respect, it may only do 1d4 damage, but it should still strike fear in you when you have nothing and the other guy has a knife.
That's not the knife's fault, but those people's. Let them have no respect - they'll either get it when they have the knife stuck in their privates by a rogue, or rammed past the hilt into your belly by a fighter. Well, either they learn the respect then, or they'll never make another error in their life.
Ask a skilled and knowlegable martial artist, and they will tell you, even a guy who doesn't really know what he's doing is still a VERY real threat with a knife, and no matter how good you are, it's just not worth the risk, one simple stab to the gut (not even critical hit status, just a knife to the gut), can and will end you.
Ask a knowledgeable martial artist about a 50-foot-dragon's claw across the face, and he'll either laugh at your for believing in dragons, or he'll tell you that you're just dead. Same with a direct hit from a two-handed sword. But in D&D, you could always survive that stuff eventually.
And it's way easier to survive the little bread knife than a huge chuck of metal swung with two arms,and both are easier to survive than a claw that is bigger than your whole body with enough strength behind the blow to reduce a castle wall to rubble.
This rule, especially from his explanation of it, isn't so much about actually increasing the damage dealt, but increasing fun. It's not so much about making sure the fighter does damage, but more about the player not getting dissapointed at a low damage roll after surpassing the armor class of the opponent by 10
Well, nobody complains when you just exceed the guy's AC (which should be a glancing blow) and then do maximum damage.
There's more to fun than always getting what you want. Saving people from disappointment seems something you do in a game for five-year-olds.
For ONE thing, people cannot see in every direction all the time. So a lot of stealth stuff is about roleplaying.
I consider this part of the perception skill. People with low perception will hardly look around, so you can hide very easily from them.
People with high perception will know about field of vision, remembering to look around (or use reflective surfaces), remember to look up, and so on, and it's harder to hide from them.
People don't look in all directions at once, and they don't look around all the time, but sometimes they do - by pure chance or because they heard something or thought they heard something.
And that's why you need to roll stealth against someone you're hiding from, even if you're behind him.
(Plus, there's the sound issue).
When you break cover, everyone gets a Perception check with a +5 bonus to see you. They may automatically see you if there was someone they were attacking in that direction. Since tracking facing isn't hard (Not as hard as some people make it out to be anyway) this adds credit to flanking and whatnot.
I generally go with "if you manage to hide form someone successfully (with a stealth check against their perception check), you have one move action to walk up to the person and attack - or go from cover to cover.
The penalty to hide after attacking is -20 with a melee attack, and -10 with a ranged attack, but only -5 with a bowstring silencer (Cost 10 gp).
That one I don't like: If you go and stick your sword into some guy, he'll know where you are and turn towards you instantly, so you don't get to hide again.
And you may as well forget about the silencer, they're too cheap not to get. But sniping (shooting from hiding) is not just about sound - it's about knowing which direction the arrow came from and looking that way.
It shouldn't be too easy to keep shooting at someone from hiding from 10 feet away without him getting to know where you are.
My house rule for wizards is making them play by the rules. See all that stuff under "Spellbooks"? Yeah, I actually make the wizard players do that to acquire more than 2 spells per level up.
You mean the stuff about the process taking rolls and costing time and money? That's not a house rule, it's the rule.
Not requiring wizards to spend time and money on this is a house rule.
I render creatures bigger than large size immune to death from massive damage
This is actually a meta-house-rule, as massive damage isn't an official standard rule any more.
just because they are going to make the fortitude save except on a one, and just having it keel over round one from a lucky fighter crit isn't much fun.
That's the reason the rule was dumped altogether. At high enough level, 50 points of damage in a single attack isn't such a special thing, and forcing a save against death for each such attack means that statistics will kill your character once every, say, 10 - 20 combat rounds (you're going to roll that natural 1 sooner or later)
I made ray/touch of stupidity reduce ability scores to one (Like ray of weakness) to prevent animal/ooze killing casters.
Can you run that one past me again? I'm not quite following. I'm not quite sure what spells you're talking about.
There is a touch of idiocy that gives you a 1d6 penalty to int, wis, cha.
There is ray of enfeeblement that gives you a 1d6+1/2 level (fort half) penalty to strength.
Neither can decrease your scores below 1
And there is feeblemind, which reduces your Int and Cha to 1 and makes you unable to use magic (will save negates the whole thing, arcanists get -4)
I'm not sure which spells you changed and how you changed them.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. Let me put it this way: Two experienced martial artists, one in karate, the other in kung fu. Both are using light weapons (unarmed), and both are just as flexible, quick to react, and coordinated. The karate guy still isn't gonna be using weapon finesse because his style is based on strength.
I'm not sure how this applies to the current discussion.
Moreover, wouldn't the karateka have higher strength, anyway? Plus, his fighting style is based on strenght, it's like having a karateka class or bunch of feats that say that you can do this and that but use strength.
You're right that the combat training in even getting a +1 attack bonus would at least help you learn to relax, but finesse isn't JUST the ability to relax, it's learning how to use your agility get around someone's defenses rather then just bashing through, it's a style thing.
Well, those guys have learned fighting. Many of them have learned using fighting with their agility. So it stands to reason that they have learned using their agility in their fighting.
[EDIT: Yeah, I know I ended up using two different arguements, but you were also originally saying giving weapon finesse to EVERYONE, and didn't specify everyone with a +1 BAB until later.]
No, I said I give WF to everyone.
I also said that all those PF characters are combat trained, so they won't tense up (no fear save for entering combat, so the standard assumes that they keep their head in a fight unless something explicitly scary comes along.
Plus, weapon finesse doesn't require a BAB of +1, so it's not a matter of excessive combat training.
Each player has a timer before them
That would cause me to walk out of the game, seriously.
as going turn by turn seems to have too much time for planing out 6 seconds.
Well, it's mitigated by the fact that I only play this game on weekends and never actually fight in real life, but my character (I roleplay a character that is not me, a character that has different strengths, and weaknesses) has gotten years of combat training so combat tactics come naturally to him.
Plus, there is the huge sensory gap: In the real world, we have some miniatures (usually not a 100% model of what it represents) on a flat piece of paper (or vinyl) with a square grid on it. But within the game world, the character is within a full-size, three-dimensional environment with all sensory information in perfect clarity perceivable with the actual senses. So, while the character can take this all in in a split second, I may need to search my memory, ask the GM for some stuff, and generally have to get into the game (I don't immerse myself fully into the game and become my character, because that way lay the steam tunnels)
If you've ever played guitar or been in martial arts, you'd probably agree muscle memory is very important.
I done either. I won a guitar battle against satan, and learned a martial arts technique where I simply touch some guy and he dies unless his fortitude is better than my wisdom and experience.
And yes, neither one was in the real world. Same as the characters I play in RPGs.
In the case of making attacks of grace and finesse such as fencing or sparring, there is little time to think and the muscles mainly do the work on maneuvering as best they can. I see the acquring of this feat as training to get your reactions to take advantage of your speed. A martial artist with the natural talent will actually lose to one with fantastic reactions as they move quicker.
I still maintain that this training to use your speed is part of the martial training you get with every class. It's basically something everybody will learn because it makes them better warriors (an important point in the game). Well, not everyone - the strong, clumsy guys will just learn ever more brutal techniques.
This may also be a matter of experience, but my perspective remains the same. Anyone can do whatever they wanna do with their house rules, but for my games, this breaks suspended disbelief as a martial artist myself.
Well, it doesn't break mine. I grant you that I'm not a martial artist, but for me, stuff like jumping up 20 feet from a standing position, or being in ground zero of an apocalyptic inferno and taking no damage at all already means that if I cannot accept that in this world of magic and elves and dragons (how do those huge lizards manage to fly???), the heroes do exceptional stats, the fact that everybody seems to get the proper training to fight with agility won't change anything.
Hell, I am fairly sure that makes a 1d3 weapon statistically the best weapon in the game. Hell, everyone roll small Barbarians and see if you can get a 1d2 weapon.
Exploding dice aren't a good idea like that (because we already have critical hits), and note that this makes a weapon with 2d4 that much worse than a weapon with 1d8, since the chance of rolling an 8 with 1d8 is 1 in 8, while for the 2d4 it's 1 in 16.
Unarmed strike. Fear the Halfling Fist of Death!
Jujitsu is the classic "overpowered" martial art. If it was effectively simulated in D&D... Let's just say Fighters would cry. I'm thinking of the hip throw I was shown from old Jujitsu that starts in an armbar and has your throw the opponent onto his head, snapping his neck.
Bah. Fighters gain the ability to decapitate things that have bigger necks than their weapons.
They wield huge junks of metal with lighting speed, getting past or through everything you can throw up in defence and introduce you to the world of cutting-induced pain. :P
my favorite house rule is when leveling players can reroll if they roll a 1 for hit points
I banned all dice from character generation and advancement. You don't roll HP in my game, you get average rounded up. You don't roll for ability scores, you use purchase.
this breaks suspended disbelief as a martial artist myself.Which is exactly where I'm coming from myself. What art(s) do you practice? Danzan Ryu Jujutsu here.
Over the years I've practice multiple forms of Kempo, moved onto a couple Aikido dojo, and even taken a couple ninjetsu classes (overrated IMHO). It's been a while since I've practiced though...(Sorry I didn't get back earlier BTW, been slaving away at updates, trying to get the form files size to a tolerable amount, it was getting WAY too big to submit!)
One question, how would you handle a feat like vital strike?
Vital Strike and other similar feats function regularly. Having a greataxe pump out 78 damage unmodified (12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1=78) is a bit of a train wreck if this can be done every hit... wouldn't you agree? *big lol*
I've seen this in one other campaign and switched to it for a campaign I'm running - rolling hit points. The player rolls a die, the DM rolls a die. The PC gets the higher of the two. Rolling low on hit points becomes a lot less likely and the expected value ends up being about 70-75% of max depending on the size of the die.
It makes the PCs likely to be a little more durable and insulated from a run of bad luck on hp rolls.
My players really rarely make special requests, primarily because they are aware of my golden rule :
That which is good for the PC is even better for the GM.
As the GM I have unlimited resources and can see the future. As a friend of mine who also GM's likes to say, if you give the players a bright shiny distraction they don't care that you are bringing a 50 gallon drum of industrial lubricant to assist in #*@&#@'ing them over.
This is a hillarious metaphor BTW... :D
I hate tracking wand charges, so one house rule I always use is to the way wands operate. A wand has a charge die instead of a fixed number of charges. The charge die starts at d20 for a fully charged wand and goes down to d8. Every time you use a wand you roll the charge die. If you roll a 1, the charge die is permanently downgraded (d20 - d12 - d10 - d8). If you roll a 1 on the d8, that is the last charge for the wand.I find the rule dramatically decreases bookkeeping, causes the players to be more liberal with their wand use, and does not slow play appreciably.
Neat idea! Ticking off charges like ammunition makes the wand seem less magical. To make it even more unpredictable, you could roll a final d6 to see what happens:
1. Fizzles
2. Works normally
3. Breaks and misfires (random target)
4. Fizzles and recharges to d8
5. Fizzles and recharges to d10
6. Surges (adds Maximize Spell and Widen Spell metamagic)
I deeply dislike this idea based on luck. When I drop the gp to craft a wand, I really want to be sure I can depend on it... otherwise I'd UMD scrolls. If I used this, it would probably be for for UMD in addition to the normal rules. I've alway been a fan of keeping a sort of expendable charges/uses sheet of some sort or another.
Just my POV...
...That would cause me to walk out of the game, seriously.
That's fine, but we had already lost a guy who quit because the wizard and the monk took *FORVER* to take turns in combat. (the wiz looking up stuff and the monks many flurried attacks) It was a decision we came to as a group... YMMV
Well, it's mitigated by the fact that I only play this game on weekends and never actually fight in real life, but my character (I roleplay a character that is not me, a character that has different strengths, and weaknesses) has gotten years of combat training so combat tactics come naturally to him.
Plus, there is the huge sensory gap: In the real world, we have some miniatures (usually not a 100% model of what it represents) on a flat piece of paper (or vinyl) with a square grid on it. But within the game world, the character is within a full-size, three-dimensional environment with all sensory information in perfect clarity perceivable with the actual senses. So, while the character can take this all in in a split second, I may need to search my memory, ask the GM for some stuff, and generally have to get into the game (I don't immerse myself fully into the game and become my character, because that way lay the steam tunnels)
Your turn gets extended up to an additional 3 minute timer if needed, based on circumstances. This was a fix for the guy who never pays attention during anyone elses turn. That guy you sometimes run across that stops the excitement and intensity whille you have to explain what JUST happened, but gets mad when he gets skipped.
You can use any kind of timer, but we all like our system because it works well for us. Yet again YMM, it's not a comprehensive solution, but it definitely reduces the boredom of waiting for someone else to have their **** together and abnoziously indecisive people who make a decision and then spend five minutes confirming it.
Try it sometime with six 15th levels characters against a BBEG, maybe with one minute timers... and if you still hate it, then my apologies.
I done either. I won a guitar battle against satan, and learned a martial arts technique where I simply touch some guy and he dies unless his fortitude is better than my wisdom and experience.
And yes, neither one was in the real world. Same as the characters I play in RPGs.
I thought we were trying to figure why there was a feat cost for this, not that we are plying a fantasy game. We're playing a game, but one based on some degree of reality and balance factors. I personally feel that I wouldn't give WF for free as it takes away from the STR score in game (creating a bigger dump stat for some power gamers) and in real life, that this just ISN'T my experience. I'll leave it at agreeing to disagree.
I'm happy to throw in my two cents, but I'm not intereset in debating something we obviously disagree on and neither of us are interested in changing. If you wanna debate how to obtain a golden fiddle or pick of destiny, that's another topic altogether... ;)
I still maintain that this training to use your speed is part of the martial training you get with every class. It's basically something everybody will learn because it makes them better warriors (an important point in the game). Well, not everyone - the strong, clumsy guys will just learn ever more brutal techniques.
...see above...
Well, it doesn't break mine. I grant you that I'm not a martial artist, but for me, stuff like jumping up 20 feet from a standing position, or being in ground zero of an apocalyptic inferno and taking no damage at all already means that if I cannot accept that in this world of magic and elves and dragons (how do those huge lizards manage to fly???), the heroes do exceptional stats, the fact that everybody seems to get the proper training to fight with agility won't change anything.
I agree this is a fantasy setting with monks that can run on clouds, holymen who can raise others from beyond death, and mages that can walk on water. I just don't agree with some of the more mundane aspects of it. If nothing else, again, I think this takes away from the STR stat giving my players of muchkin cheezedom more of a reason to have another crappy stat in a point buy system. I personally want a 7 in any stat in a point buy system to REALLY hurt, as the player chose to take it for an advantageous boost over their peers who put a 10 there, but didn't get the extra points 4 points from the 7.
EDIT: If they have a 7 to STR, they'd be worm food in a few touches from a shadow or eidolon poison...
my favorite house rule is when leveling players can reroll if they roll a 1 for hit pointsI banned all dice from character generation and advancement. You don't roll HP in my game, you get average rounded up. You don't roll for ability scores, you use purchase.
The players were disappointed that I switched to point buys, but drew the line here... I guess there's a gambler in each of us. I do, however, always allow 1s rerolled. I've been thinking about changing the hp dice:
1d6=2d3 (d4 reroll on 4s)
1d8=2d4
1d10=3d4 (reroll on 4s on the first two d4s)
1d12=3d4
No reroll on ones this way, and at least 2-3 points per level depending on the dice. Just an idea.
...That would cause me to walk out of the game, seriously.That's fine, but we had already lost a guy who quit because the wizard and the monk took *FORVER* to take turns in combat. (the wiz looking up stuff and the monks many flurried attacks) It was a decision we came to as a group... YMMV
That's extreme, but I never hold with answering one extreme with the opposite.
Your turn gets extended up to an additional 3 minute timer if needed, based on circumstances. This was a fix for the guy who never pays attention during anyone elses turn. That guy you sometimes run across that stops the excitement and intensity whille you have to explain what JUST happened, but gets mad when he gets skipped.
I consider that another overreaction.
He doesn't pay attention but gets mad for getting skipped? Tough luck. He can try to pay attention, or he can look for another group.
Try it sometime with six 15th levels characters against a BBEG, maybe with one minute timers... and if you still hate it, then my apologies.
Nah, my players pretty much have their stuff together.
I thought we were trying to figure why there was a feat cost for this, not that we are plying a fantasy game.
Then read the rest of the thread again, with all the Bruce Lees speaking about karate and kung fu and how the feat makes sense because in kung fu you learn to break necks. Or something like that. As I said, read the other posts, the whole story's there.
We're playing a game, but one based on some degree of reality and balance factors.
As for reality - I still maintain that it's realistic that characters can fight with dex even without a feat. The training's already there.
I personally feel that I wouldn't give WF for free as it takes away from the STR score in game (creating a bigger dump stat for some power gamers)
You need strength for the top damage output. Plus, that one feat won't dissuade the power gamers.
I just don't agree with some of the more mundane aspects of it.
Well, that's what it is. We have a lot of stuff that just doesn't work that way in real life, even if we stick to humans and swords.
If nothing else, again, I think this takes away from the STR stat giving my players of muchkin cheezedom more of a reason to have another crappy stat in a point buy system.
That's why I kick munchkins out of my games.
You could already go and get really abysmal scores in more than one attribute, limiting it to one less isn't really solving the problem. It just lessens it a bit, and presents the munchkin with a challenge.
I personally want a 7 in any stat in a point buy system to REALLY hurt, as the player chose to take it for an advantageous boost over their peers who put a 10 there, but didn't get the extra points 4 points from the 7.
What does that have to do with weapon finesse, and where did anyone say that a 7 doesn't hurt?
The players were disappointed that I switched to point buys
I personally despise those pseudo-luck rolling methods people use.
I found that a lot of the time, those who say they want "the thrill of rolling" or something like that really only want high attributes across the board. That's why there's stuff like "roll 3 sets of stats using the 5d6 drop 2 lowest times 7 drop lowest methods and choose one, but you can exchange one roll from the set you chose with one from another set" The chance of bad stats is reduced as much as possible while still maintaining the illusion that the Lady gets a say in things.
Even the standard 3e methods had re-roll clauses. That's why I use purchase (oh, and the part where this allows you to play the character you want really appeals to me).
But if someone really wants to roll the dice, I let him. 4d6 drop lowest 6 times. And you keep the attributes you roll. No re-rolls. Even if you roll nothing but 1s. Even if your character dies and you start a new one. No takers so far. Maybe I should present the option without my Catbert grin. }>
It may seem like a bit of an overreaction, but two of my players approached me and asked if we could do something different. In this particular situation, the players are all part of a group of friends that have know each other a LONG time, and I've only known them a couple years. They were unhappy with the way things were going in game and wanted to do things different. So we sat down before a session and discussed our current house rules and decided what needed to stay, what needed to go, and what was needing tweaked.
We all came to an agreement on what to try and spent the next few sessions weeding out what worked and what didn't. To make a long story shorter, this works well for us.
As far as having stuff together, that's what got me started making products. I've only done initiative cards and a massive character sheet file, but I plan on tackling spell/power cards, random trasure generating, summoning cards, etc. Mostly I do this on paizo boards requests and my players requests, but since I've been supplying them with the tools, they've gotten much better.
EDIT: For your other two posts...
Our group tends to work pretty well right now, but if munchkining became a problem after our sit-down, I would probably have to boot someone, which other wouldn't want to play without their friends. On another note, I just started gaming with a different set of gamers (completely seperate from the others). In the past I only had the people to game with in that group.
I dispise when someone wants to keep rerolling until it looks good to them. I used the same dice roll setup you had at the bottom. I'm running CotCT now, so I forced the purchases based on attributes. As far as hit points go, I'm more indifferent. If you wanna leave it to luck, you're the one that's gonna play it. I just don't want anyone breezing through with 16-19s across the board. Have to break out the "no" stick there.
That's a valid point. To be honest, I never really saw much "Dex-Greatswording" either, so can't say that I backed my notion with proper experience. I could see this being a solid houserule... nothing stands out as particularly bothersome. The only reason I implemented such a thing was because my players complain about how they have to take a feat to start as a finesse-based character, and I don't blame them.Of course, at the same time, they've been pushing for me to allow them to start with characters who are trained in two-weapon fighting and instead penalized for single-weapon fighting... I guess if you give a mouse a cookie...
Honestly you could probably allow two-weapon as a starting ability as well. But, it would be a world cultural thing. That means you'd treat shields as exotic, since the world culture is that everyone fights with two weapons, same with two-handed weapons, they'd be exotic as well. You'd balance it as Exotic Defense (Shield) and Exotic Combat Style (Two-Handed). :)
My players really rarely make special requests, primarily because they are aware of my golden rule :
That which is good for the PC is even better for the GM.
As the GM I have unlimited resources and can see the future. As a friend of mine who also GM's likes to say, if you give the players a bright shiny distraction they don't care that you are bringing a 50 gallon drum of industrial lubricant to assist in #*@&#@'ing them over.
Well see, they were hoping I'd let them slip in some TWF without any penalties associated (since, if they were trained in TWF from the start, it should penalize them to single-weapon fight as their training would clash with using one weapon). I thought it seemed a little cheesy, but we gave it a go for a while.
All in all, it appeared to work out fine, but like you said, it became a tool of awesomeness in the DMs (me) hands. Whereas a PC would only make one TWF character and stick with it, I got the chance to make several as NPC enemies, and got the chance to perfect each next one based on the last ones shortcomings. It became a little too crazy for me, so we chucked it and went back to the old rules.
Unfortunately, we've all still never been quite satisfied with TWF... and metamagic feats.
Well see, they were hoping I'd let them slip in some TWF without any penalties associated (since, if they were trained in TWF from the start, it should penalize them to single-weapon fight as their training would clash with using one weapon). I thought it seemed a little cheesy, but we gave it a go for a while.All in all, it appeared to work out fine, but like you said, it became a tool of awesomeness in the DMs (me) hands. Whereas a PC would only make one TWF character and stick with it, I got the chance to make several as NPC enemies, and got the chance to perfect each next one based on the last ones shortcomings. It became a little too crazy for me, so we chucked it and went back to the old rules.
Unfortunately, we've all still never been quite satisfied with TWF... and metamagic feats.
Yep, and my players have generally been playing in my games for 10+ years in general, so they know by now that all rules apply to all characters, NPC or PC. So yeah, it works well.
I hate tracking wand charges, so one house rule I always use is to the way wands operate. A wand has a charge die instead of a fixed number of charges. The charge die starts at d20 for a fully charged wand and goes down to d8. Every time you use a wand you roll the charge die. If you roll a 1, the charge die is permanently downgraded (d20 - d12 - d10 - d8). If you roll a 1 on the d8, that is the last charge for the wand.I find the rule dramatically decreases bookkeeping, causes the players to be more liberal with their wand use, and does not slow play appreciably.
Neat idea! Ticking off charges like ammunition makes the wand seem less magical. To make it even more unpredictable, you could roll a final d6 to see what happens:
1. Fizzles
2. Works normally
3. Breaks and misfires (random target)
4. Fizzles and recharges to d8
5. Fizzles and recharges to d10
6. Surges (adds Maximize Spell and Widen Spell metamagic)
I deeply dislike this idea based on luck. When I drop the gp to craft a wand, I really want to be sure I can depend on it... otherwise I'd UMD scrolls.
Oh well. A lot of people liked wild mages, who made every spell you cast unpredictable. This only affects the final charge of the wand, so it's just a little fun that you don't normally have to worry about.
A wand normally has 50 charges when created. Assuming you rolled each charge die as many times as the number of sides on the dice (20 + 12 + 10 + 8) that would equal 50. The odds of rolling anything but a 1 on d20 nineteen times in a row are about 37.7%. However there's a 22.6% chance that you could get 10 extra charges out of that first d20, and an 8% chance you could get all 50 charges just out of the first d20. At the risk of a fizzle or two at the end you might even extend the life of the wand well beyond its last charge. It's a gamble that could pay off.