|
| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
The following are direct links to the Word documents. At some point in the future I intend to make a SRD style site for them. In the meanwhile, feel free to post comments and questions here.
Armor.
Feats.
Houserules.
Races.
Skills.
Weapons.
Barbarian.
Bard.
Cleric.
Druid.
Favored Soul.
Fighter.
Inquisitor.
Monk.
Prestige Paladin.
Ranger.
Rogue.
Sorcerer.
Wizard.
THANKS, TOZ!
Appreciate the links.
BTW, the Sundering and Movement Speed should have been in the "draft" folder; please delete those!
And for anyone keeping up with the errata, you can find them by clicking on this avatar.
Glad you could answer in time for me to edit the opening post.
Me, too! Yeah, those and everything in the "draft" folder on the CD is a random stew of half-formed ideas I was working with. It's pretty safe to ignore them, unless you're intensely interested in the Arcane Warrior class versions I abandoned, and so on.
You'll also notice that hero points tied to Cha bonus didn't make the final cut. Why not? Because it exacerbates melee guys' MAD far more than it helps make Charisma inherently valuable. I'll keep thinking about alternative uses for Charisma, though, and hopefully come up with something good one of these days.
I enjoy your house rules, but I noticed I was not able to open the barbarian, druid, ranger, sorcerer, and wizard files for some reason on my computer. Are you using a special program for them?
I tried open office also and it did not work, when I download it is a zip file though so maybe that is the problem.
I enjoy your house rules, but I noticed I was not able to open the barbarian, druid, ranger, sorcerer, and wizard files for some reason on my computer. Are you using a special program for them?
Some of those appear to have been created with newer versions of MSWord, perhaps 2007 or a later variant. I can open them with MSword 2003 seemingly okay, but I do not have Open Office to confirm if it opens with that.
On the OP:
Just my first thoughts -- it is still early days for me as I read through this. I am no expert; just an adventure writer.
There is some stuff I like here. (All I need now is a more regular game in which to playtest these...but Saint Nick didn't bring me new friends in this new town this Christmas). I'd like to see this stand alongside the actual PFRPG rules, on its own two feet. It would require tidying up a lot of the text to remove/rename the non-OGL references and class name changes so they could stand alongside the core classes...kinda like what happened with Iron Heroes for 3.5 (e.g. rename Kirth's Monk to Exemplar; Ranger to Hunter; Wizard to Arcanist, Sorcerer to Occultist, that type of thing). Just a thought.
The problem with this (unless there are some dramatic changes from before) is that this system isn't intended to be played alongside core. The casters are toned down (through action economy) and the martial classes get big boosts, especially at the higher levels.If you tried playing a PF monk next to a Kirth monk, the PF monk would probably feel SEVERAL levels (depending on the level of play. At first level it wouldn't be huge, but that gap over time will be painful) behind, because these classes are a 'rebalancing' of sorts, and the monk had the farthest to go.
You are quite correct. I am not sure if one would play the IH classes against the vanilla 3.5 classes either --but in any case, I still think that the ideas presented here deserve some merit as Variant Player's Handbook in some capacity. This is all IMO, of course :)
First, well done considering layout and presentation.
I like what you did with the Rogue. I feel that with the APG the classes are pretty much balanced around Level 5-15 (except of course an optimized Druid), with the exception of the Rogue, who falls short unless your GM especially plays into his strengths (a plethora of traps, unusualy skill checks galore, not that much combat).
Your Rogue seems to be much better at holding his own, especially starting with Level10.
|
First, well done considering layout and presentation.
I especially like what you did with the Rogue. I fell that with the APG the classes are pretty much balanced around Level 5-15, with the exception of the Rogue, who falls short unless your GM especially plays into his strengths (a plethora of traps, unusualy skill checks galore, not that much combat).
Your Rogue seems to be much better at holding his own, especially starting with Level10.
I'm playing a Rogue 4/Fighter 2 under v1.0 of these rules, and he is a beast. I am quite happy with the way he plays (even though, due to party makeup, I'm pretty much the front line fighter/damage dealer and I "fall down go boom" a lot). I don't think I could go back to a vanilla 3.5/Pf rogue after Cadogan.
Edit: I suspect that, after I rebuild Cadogan with v2.0, he'll be even nastier. I get another feat for one (Weapon finesse is free now), and the change of the less popular (i.e. least likely to be taken) rogue talents to regular class features will add some dimension to him as well.
My other character (we run two groups) is a wizard, and, while he still functions well, I find myself thinking a lot more about the tactical situation as casting isn't automatic any more. And I'm less mobile. So, playing a wizard in a 3.x based game is actually challenging again, to a degree.
I'm actually looking forward to playing a fighter for the first time since my first 3.0 character also (I've played fighters since, but the only two who were at all decent were a Warforged I took to the Juggernaut PrC, and a dwarf optimized within an inch of his life), so that's cool as well.
I'm playing a Rogue 4/Fighter 2 under v1.0 of these rules, and he is a beast. I am quite happy with the way he plays (even though, due to party makeup, I'm pretty much the front line fighter/damage dealer and I "fall down go boom" a lot). I don't think I could go back to a vanilla 3.5/Pf rogue after Cadogan.First, well done considering layout and presentation.
I especially like what you did with the Rogue. I fell that with the APG the classes are pretty much balanced around Level 5-15, with the exception of the Rogue, who falls short unless your GM especially plays into his strengths (a plethora of traps, unusualy skill checks galore, not that much combat).
Your Rogue seems to be much better at holding his own, especially starting with Level10.
Yeah, you much prefer your French Vanilla Rogue now :P
Emphasis on 'French'
I am of Catalan descent, not, ugh..."French"...
Dot'd.
This s**t is amazing. Great work, all.
And a great deal of it is being integrated into d20OpenRPG :)
|
|
Kirth, there are a couple of issues with some of the "simple/martial proficiencies" differences between some weapons not being all that different (mostly concerning a couple of -4 competence penalties for a couple under Martial) I'd like to go over with you next time we meet. Overall, I'm really digging that whole idea, though.
|
If you tried playing a PF monk next to a Kirth monk, the PF monk would probably feel SEVERAL levels (depending on the level of play. At first level it wouldn't be huge, but that gap over time will be painful) behind, because these classes are a 'rebalancing' of sorts, and the monk had the farthest to go.
I played a monk with the first version of these rules, and she was good in combat. And hilarious out of it.
Ah...Trog.
|
|
If you tried playing a PF monk next to a Kirth monk, the PF monk would probably feel SEVERAL levels (depending on the level of play. At first level it wouldn't be huge, but that gap over time will be painful) behind, because these classes are a 'rebalancing' of sorts, and the monk had the farthest to go.I played a monk with the first version of these rules, and she was good in combat. And hilarious out of it.
Ah...Trog.
It'll be nice having a monk familiar...
;-)
Ah...Trog.
Trog was our plot hook to railroad eveyone into the adventure on Monday. "Carnival! Come on! I'm going!"
It did not end well for the citizens of Logger's Bridge.
Alright, I'm done criticizing your work for the night lol. Hope I've been more helpful than annoying.
Quite a bit so! Thank you. I'll go through your comments one at a time tonight, and edit the documents accordingly (and post errata under the Egg of Coot alias).
Kirth, there are a couple of issues with some of the "simple/martial proficiencies" differences between some weapons not being all that different (mostly concerning a couple of -4 competence penalties for a couple under Martial) I'd like to go over with you next time we meet.
Sounds good -- I look forward to it.
And a great deal of it is being integrated into d20OpenRPG :)Be careful with that, though. Quite a bit of it is non-OGL content, since it's just our "at the table" houserules, and nothing we're (I think) seriously considering publishing.
Yes. Please tell me what you plan to integrate before doing so. There is a LOT of closed content material represented in the rules -- I've tried to reference it in the "source" notes for the feats and such -- but inevitably I will have missed some.
These house rules are intended for personal use only. No copyright challenge or infringement of any kind is intended. Any improper use will be made without my consent and against my direct request to the contrary. They are posted here only for the convenience of out home group, and to give suggestions as to the kinds of modifications that can be made to the OGL rules to expand the balance of the game at higher levels. Most specifics as posted, on the other hand, are closed content and should be carefully treated as such.
Ok, to clarify, are you saying that you make no claims of OGL status of items from non-OGL sources which you may have used in your documents, OR, that content you have created is specifically not released as open game content?
If its the former, ok, I get that and know what to do.
If its the latter, ok, I'll stop looking at the docs.
Ok, to clarify, are you saying that you make no claims of OGL status of items from non-OGL sources which you may have used in your documents, OR, that content you have created is specifically not released as open game content?
Any content I have created or modified which references (directly or indirectly), or in any way relies or draws upon closed content, is specifically not released as open game content, nor should in any way be considered, used, or treated as such. Material which references and/or relies or draws upon open content only is hereby likewise designated as open content.
I really like the monk write up...but unfortunately I do not own most of the books in which the powers are referenced...
Do the rest of the classes rely on them as well?
Also, in your "wound" houserules, would "orc ferocity" allow orcs or half-orcs to ignore the penalties?