|
Hey folks! It has been a while since I posted something and I thought I would throw this out and see if anyone feels the way I do. I see over and over again and again on the boards or in my group how people cannot do this or try that because the rules do not allow it.
People argue over how this is broken or that is not right and look to the creators for a fix or errata... Why? when you can just use common sense and do it yourself?
The game is ours to do what we want with, the rules are all just options that we can choose to use or disregard in choice of other options that get labeled House Rules. But it seems that if you "house rule" something its almost like a dirty word here on the boards.
When (way back...) I first started using RPG games you were lucky if you had one book to share and nothing else to go on but your imagination. You had to create everything from scratch, make up rules, invent ways to do things because we had no one else to do it for us. Now days Pathfinder is so good at helping DM's and Players that very little actual imagination is needed but does it make it less important? Why the disregard for making up your own rules?
Straight from Pathfinder...
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
I like to know if people do alot of house rules or if your a core rule person and why?
That sounds like a simple question, but it becomes surprisingly complicated given enough time.
I base my house rules on the system we're playing with, take that as you will.
Hey folks! It has been a while since I posted something and I thought I would throw this out and see if anyone feels the way I do. I see over and over again and again on the boards or in my group how people cannot do this or try that because the rules do not allow it.
People argue over how this is broken or that is not right and look to the creators for a fix or errata... Why? when you can just use common sense and do it yourself?
The game is ours to do what we want with, the rules are all just options that we can choose to use or disregard in choice of other options that get labeled House Rules. But it seems that if you "house rule" something its almost like a dirty word here on the boards.When (way back...) I first started using RPG games you were lucky if you had one book to share and nothing else to go on but your imagination. You had to create everything from scratch, make up rules, invent ways to do things because we had no one else to do it for us. Now days Pathfinder is so good at helping DM's and Players that very little actual imagination is needed but does it make it less important? Why the disregard for making up your own rules?
Straight from Pathfinder...
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
I like to know if people do alot of house rules...
I could not agree with your more, and damn people get offended when you say how you changed this or that/what you did or didn't adopt and why you did so.
To answer the question, I use a lot of house rules, and I add some new ones, take others out each game. A game usually goes for about a year.
I don't rebuild the systems as a whole, I try to keep it balanced with some new rules to spice it up. Weapon, armour and feat rules especially. Classes get a bit of re-designing in a small sense.
|
|
To answer the question, I use a lot of house rules, and I add some new ones, take others out each game. A game usually goes for about a year.
I don't rebuild the systems as a whole, I try to keep it balanced with some new rules to spice it up. Weapon, armour and feat rules especially. Classes get a bit of re-designing in a small sense.
I also use alot of custom rules in my games. I admit sometimes they don;t work out as I thought they would but other times... smashing success. I do learn from each time I change a rule... the mechanics and how it effects other parts of the game.
What are some of your favorite houserules?
- A simple change I use as a standard house rule is Armore Check Penalty applies to Reflex saves.
I have a few more but I like to hear yours, may help some of my games.
I agree with you for all things that are home games.
but.
Pathfinder Society operates under The Rules. Not the rules as altered by your DM or the rules as some dude on the internet say they are but the rules as they are supposed to be as written by the designers.
Because of that, it necessitates a certain amount of "I don't care what it Could say I need to know what it /says/" because some guys interpretation and some other guys interpretation isn't really a solution.
Knowing what The Rules are can also lead to a greater understanding of what it is you are changing when you house rule. Just saying "screw it, that rule says X and thats the end of it" can lead to all sorts of oddities. Like instantly rewriting archtypes with bows. *cough* or other such weirdness. Discussing something to figure out what exactly the rule -is- can help you avoid accidental and unseen ramifications for any part or parcel of it that you decide to alter.
-S
I generally like rules-tinkering, but I restrict that to Swords & Wizardry or other, simple systems I know reasonably well.
Pathfinder is complicated and big. There are lots of little rules and subsystems and I have no confidence that my rules tinkering wont create some kind of unexpected consequence which will come up midway through an adventure when some player introduces a cool knew trick he's worked out using one of my homebrewed rules and some as yet unnoticed feat/class feature/etcetera.
For complicated systems, I dont have the time to error-check myself so I just say "Anything Paizo say goes, anything else is not allowed unless you really, really want it in".
Hey folks! It has been a while since I posted something and I thought I would throw this out and see if anyone feels the way I do. I see over and over again and again on the boards or in my group how people cannot do this or try that because the rules do not allow it.
People argue over how this is broken or that is not right and look to the creators for a fix or errata... Why? when you can just use common sense and do it yourself?
Making rules is not common sense. I think there is more than one thread around here dedicated to terrible rules and GM/rulings.
The need to have rules is largely about consistency. The devs and boards are also good at noticing things you might not, so having extra eyes is never a bad thing. Any rules debates should be in the rules forum which is there to determine what the actual rules are. For suggestions we have the advice and houserule sections. It is important to know the intent of a rule before you go changing something so that you don't break it. In short all of these debates have a place. It has nothing to do with loss of imagination. I am on the rules forum a lot, as you probably know, but I don't follow the rules 100%, but if you ask me what the rule is I will give you that answer.
The game is ours to do what we want with, the rules are all just options that we can choose to use or disregard in choice of other options that get labeled House Rules. But it seems that if you "house rule" something its almost like a dirty word here on the boards.
Not true at all. Every group I know has house rules. If you make a suggestion people will say consider ........., but most of us are civil about it, even if we disagree. It is not like someone making a bad houserule is going to mess up my game.
When (way back...) I first started using RPG games you were lucky if you had one book to share and nothing else to go on but your imagination. You had to create everything from scratch, make up rules, invent ways to do things because we had no one else to do it for us. Now days Pathfinder is so good at helping DM's and Players that very little actual imagination is needed but does it make it less important? Why the disregard for making up your own rules?
Why do things like that if we don't have to anymore? Since when does using premade rules make someone a robot?
I like to know if people do alot of house rules...
I mostly use the core rules. I do change things I don't like though. Knowing the RAI of a rule makes it easier fro various people to play the game. Now if you are lucky enough to have a group that has been together for years then you are allowed to change more things, but even then you should know how the rules were supposed to work, so you can have a good idea on what will be different as opposed to what you hope will be different.
|
For me it depends on what setting I'm going to GM in, Golarion is mostly the book rules for, but my homebrew setting does have changes to almost all of the classes and races for fluff purposes.
Though I have noticed some players are a little iffy with houserules and if I propose a campaign setting in Talora, I make sure all my players are ok with it and have at least read over my houserules. Most are, but I've had a few you were totally against any changes to core. One player even walked out when, after I told him there were no elves in my setting, and only one god had paladins, he still expected me to allow an Elven paladin of a completely different god, cause, in his words, "It was optimized well"
I have lots of house rules.
Some are percolating in my head right now, some are getting phased out of the games we play slowly due to unintended consequences, some get yanked after one session. We have quite a few rules that someone else (players) came up with. One of the oldest is a haggling mechanic that a guy just made up on the spot, we've used it for years now.
I first came to these boards as a lurker, mostly to see what in Pathfinder I'd missed, nuance wise. Eventually I participated, but with the knowledge that my old games were both odd and heavily house ruled.
The funny thing about this board is that it seems to be more heavily slanted towards the optimizer-min/maxed players, of which I can be. This style of play is not indicative of my regular group which is very casual. The optimizers will have usually broken something long before my group has so this is valuable research.
The heavy involvement of PFS by the board members is also a factor, since there is little room for interpretation there.
To be honest, I've found the need to houserule less with Pathfinder. I don't know if that means that I've settled in to a comfort zone or the rules are finally a little more balanced.
I did not know you could not share gold in game. I understand that you should not be able to help your buddy get a significant boost in organized play, but no sharing at all seems extreme.
|
|
Well I guess I should of stated pathfinder Society as an exception. Of course if your trying to make a system to be played anywhere in the world rules need to have standardization.
That being said I see alot of none PF society guys on the boards always asking how they can do something and trying as hard as they can "within the rules" to tweet a build to what they want when with a little house ruling it would be easy. I wonder if the new crop of DM's are just core rule guys or is their room left to truly create something of your own as the game was meant to do?
Well I guess I should of stated pathfinder Society as an exception. Of course if your trying to make a system to be played anywhere in the world rules need to have standardization.
That being said I see alot of none PF society guys on the boards always asking how they can do something and trying as hard as they can "within the rules" to tweet a build to what they want when with a little house ruling it would be easy. I wonder if the new crop of DM's are just core rule guys or is their room left to truly create something of your own as the game was meant to do?
That still goes back to figuring out what the RAW says and does, then figuring out how to best get your concept built out of the rules. If it were as easy as "house rule it," those people wouldn't be here asking how to do make it work. Their GM would have house rule'd it and it would be a non issue.
Another thing that needs to be said is, many many people do run house rules, but if you are asking how to do something in the Rules Forum, by default you are asking how to do it RAW. The Rules Forum isn't the place for house rules, that is the Suggestion/Advice Forum. The responses you'll get from the Rule Forum are going to be based on RAW, that is what the forum is for, there is no room for "house rules" there. It is a dirty word there.The last thing I suggest keeping in mind is everyones group/game varies, with a game as popular as PFRPG, that means a great deal of distance can be possible between two points of view. What some people consider overpowered or broken, wouldn't cause another gamer group to bat an eyelash. RAW is a common ground, it is something we all have access to, something we can use as a reference point. I can't make a judgement call on your group and how a house rule will influence your game from a simple inquisitive post, but I can with regards to what will happen in an otherwise RAW game. For me, it is understood that RAW is the "right" way to play the game when discussing things on the forum with strangers that I know nothing about, because it is the text of the "rule book" of the game we are both playing, which we are having a discussion about.
Some view the rules as "The Rules". When they are so busy following them they are being observant and respectful, they are not putting the mental energies to making them better. Or, altering them to what can suit their games and their ideal experiences, or be cooler. So I think I get Whipshire's perspective.
I care very little for core, but pathfinder does give me some ideas and possible things to gauge before I do my own scribblings. There are some really major pitfalls with the way pathfinder has gone, so those I identify and try to avoid (the crunchiness, the massive-number power gaming and crafting without the xp balancing-cost mechanic, the increase in special abilities so that they don't even fit on tables anymore).
Despite all this, I can still use the new cool monsters and the APs, with just a little editing. Some though have expressed to me personally, their wish to not have to do any work or changing, they want paizo to give them the rules, the stats and take care of them. Taking a weight off their shoulders but also so they don't have to work so hard (no joke here, in person). Therefore I don't have much respect for followers of the rules that don't think and forge their own way. Chaotic here.
Well I guess I should of stated pathfinder Society as an exception. Of course if your trying to make a system to be played anywhere in the world rules need to have standardization.
That being said I see alot of none PF society guys on the boards always asking how they can do something and trying as hard as they can "within the rules" to tweet a build to what they want when with a little house ruling it would be easy. I wonder if the new crop of DM's are just core rule guys or is their room left to truly create something of your own as the game was meant to do?
I don't play PFS, but I don't have the luxury of always playing with the same people either. I live by a marine base, so I often recruit them to play, when the others have to leave.
Even without that though I know that the making rules is not easy. If I make a rule now and it work, but it does not work well with a newer rule then I have to adjust it again. It just seems easier for me to follow the book most of the time. It has nothing to do with lack of imagination.
I don't think the game(current version) was intended for you to create your own game. At some point if you do that you are not playing PF anymore. I am not saying it is wrong, but the fact that they have rules for almost everything goes against that thought. Back in the 1ed days I think "making it your game" was more likely to happen. That stopped with 3rd edition. I think Gurps is still good for making your own game though.
The idea now is that "these are the rules, but feel free to change things to have have fun". Back in the the day it was more like "here are some rules, the rest is up to you".
Some view the rules as "The Rules". When they are so busy following them they are being observant and respectful, they are not putting the mental energies to making them better. Or, altering them to what can suit their games and their ideal experiences, or be cooler. So I think I get Whipshire's perspective.
I care very little for core, but pathfinder does give me some ideas and possible things to gauge before I do my own scribblings. There are some really major pitfalls with the way pathfinder has gone, so those I identify and try to avoid (the crunchiness, the massive-number power gaming and crafting without the xp balancing-cost mechanic, the increase in special abilities so that they don't even fit on tables anymore).
Despite all this, I can still use the new cool monsters and the APs, with just a little editing. Some though have expressed to me personally, their wish to not have to do any work or changing, they want paizo to give them the rules, the stats and take care of them. Taking a weight off their shoulders but also so they don't have to work so hard (no joke here, in person). *Therefore I don't have much respect for followers of the rules that don't think and forge their own way. Chaotic here.
Since everyone has house rules they are making them better when they change what they don't like. Other than that they are trying to figure out the real intent of the rules, which makes perfect sense. From there you can guess/discuss how it will affect the game, and decide to keep it or not. This once again goes back to my statement of people should understand things before they change them.
The correct statement there are major pitfalls for your game. What is a pitfall for you is a boon for someone else.
It would be nice if all the rules fit a person's playstyle. I don't think that "wish" is unrealistic. It is unrealistic to expect it to happen, but the reality is that Paizo has to accomodate a lot of people so they will have to make changes.
Wanting Paizo to make things easier for you, is not the same as not being willing to do the work. That is not what you said, but it seems to be what you are implying.
No it still gets mentioned in the books, it being your game and that change can be done, as whip quoted above.
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
3rd ed is easy to customise and there has been plenty of it. AD&D started to get rules heavy but always some will throw in their ideas. I see it like a series of threads. Do you want to edit classes, feats, skills, combat options, weapons, armour, movement, spells?
Pathfinder though, I get what you mean. I find I have to cut meat off the rule bone to rebuild it in a direction.
No it still gets mentioned in the books, it being your game and that change can be done, as whip quoted above.
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
3rd ed is easy to customise and there has been plenty of it. AD&D started to get rules heavy but always some will throw in their ideas. I see it like a series of threads. Do you want to edit classes, feats, skills, combat options, weapons, armour, movement, spells?
Pathfinder though, I get what you mean. I find I have to cut meat off the rule bone to rebuild it in a direction.
I never said it could not be done. My point is that the game was not made to with the intention to be rebuilt.
I will put it this way, Gurps as I understand it is made to build the game you want to play. That is different from PF which has a standard ruleset, with rule 0 there to support the GM's right to change things.
I agree with you for all things that are home games.
but.
Pathfinder Society operates under The Rules. Not the rules as altered by your DM or the rules as some dude on the internet say they are but the rules as they are supposed to be as written by the designers.
Yeah but, I don't really think they are even trying. I'm playing in my first PFS game this next week and I've already lost all respect for it. Apparently if I wear a T-Shirt that says "Pathfinder" on it I get to make a free reroll, and apparently my paladin isn't allowed to share gold with other PCs.
Worrying about what the game designers are trying to do when they put crap like this in there after the fact is really pointless. I have a hard enough time dealing with RAW. I can't believe whats in the PFS manual.
I'm neither for or against PFS. Personally, I've played one whole session of it and its relatively unlikely that I'll play another.
But liking it or not liking it doesn't really invalidate the need for those who /do/ play it to have consistent and accurate rulings. Otherwise you sit at the table and DM A says you can do something and then next week DM B says that its illegal or cheesy or whatever and you can't.Sometimes you need /the rule/ not "well just decide for yourself what it means.".
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with a lot of what's been said in this thread and i can see both sides of the coin so to speak
personaly i think some player can be very blinkerd and if it's not in the rules you can't do it while other look at the rules like stats that are to be twisted to achive the most powerful character possable with little concern for the spirt of the game.
and yet others who use the bear minimum of rules or mechanics and have a game where every thing is very much how they think it should work
in the end no one is right or wrong it's all about enjoying the game and only the players can decide that
as for me i think that sometimes rules can get in the way of the flow of the game so i tend not to be to rigded about some of the finer points of game play but i do like to stick to the core of the rules as i find most of the time they work very well.
The main areas in which i tend to stray from the rules is when i think at a change will add a bit of color or flavour to the game as i tend to like more discriptive style of game and i encrouge my players to narate ther action a little more rather than just saying what they intend to do (in fact i've even been know to give bonus to players who really throw themselves into there characters).
but thats just how i play the game and at the end as long as everyone has fun them nothing else matters
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes you need /the rule/ not "well just decide for yourself what it means.".You really don't need /the rule/ at all.
You really don't need any rules at all. I don't know how many people play Pathfinder that way, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not so much a rule... my group tossed the entire WBL thing out and never looked back. Whoever is GMming (we rotate so nobody gets burned out) puts in whatever treasure fits into the scenario on an ad hoc basis. We have put a few items on the short list of Nope, but aside from that it's pretty much whatever.
We all know what items/spells/powers are available to the party; the treasure getting placed is in the hands of the NPCs and used against the party in the course of the game. We all design our encounters to be challenging and play the NPCs as intelligent (unless they ARE, in fact, mindless).
Hasn't broken our game yet. It HAS resulted in having two "versions" of all our characters: high fantasy scaling towards epic and "magic scarce." We like both styles, don't really want to flip the party mix back and forth, and one of our number really prefers running low magic (and is really good at it), so we ended up with a "what if" kind of solution. Some feat differences, some skill switches, but the same race/class/personality. Obviously a lot of gear changes. :)
Yeah, our high-fantasy version have magic items dripping out of their ears, with a metric butt-ton of unwanted items languishing in our vaults. And our low-magic group STILL enjoys similar social standing/influence on society, since our party isn't usually relying on magic to persuade various guilds, heads-of-state, etc.
YMMV
Not so much a rule... my group tossed the entire WBL thing out and never looked back. Whoever is GMming (we rotate so nobody gets burned out) puts in whatever treasure fits into the scenario on an ad hoc basis. We have put a few items on the short list of Nope, but aside from that it's pretty much whatever.
I think that's the core concept of "the Rule." I also try to give treasure that might be immediately useful to the party, or might be turned into something useful, despite the die roll or AP listing. Or a pile of gems, way shinier than a gift card.
Play it the way you like.
I'm not here to judge, so if you want NG Paladins with flying unicorn mounts or a spell that gives you X-ray vision, bully to you. Game on!
|
I have some house rules. I also have "system rules" that vary between systems. Then I have "campaign rules" that are chosen to bring out a certain atmosphere. Everything is always changing depending on the needs of each game.
I encourage my players to come up with interesting options rather than rely on published material. And I'm not afraid to undo something if it doesn't work out as intended!
|
|
A lot of good responses here...
3.5 Loyalist and tony gent said it much better then I ever could. I believe too many rules take away from the game at some point you reach rules saturation. lol
Also not trying to say Society play is better then home play or visa versa... just that people become too dependent on the rules to tell them how to play and that takes some of the fun out from my point of view.
@Skylancer4 I was not including the Rules forum where of course you would use the rules... common sense dictates that. I see people quote the rules on every board on here.
When people ask for a fix or how to do something and its left open to almost anything... I suggest house ruling ideas that would work and majority of the time, for some reason, that seems to upset others (not the Op usually) that are commenting on the same topic. Instead of just ignoring my comment it seems they have to react in a negative way to the idea that I just suggested house ruling it in.
Example:
- A few days ago A guy was on the advice board, he is playing a ranger and he wanted help with boosting his AC. He stated that he kinda tired of the rules that allow attack to keep increasing but defense is impossible without tons of gold to buy items. He as a player has issues with buying a ton of items just not his style of play and his PC in the game is reflecting that playing style. His DM showed a willingness to work with him so he can be effective in the game but keep the flavor he wants. The DM did this by allowing a few items he has to scale in power as they level but it was not working out well.
I suggested a watered down version of VOP from BOED. Call yourself natures Avatar and a divine gift from Erastil (or whatever?) He and the DM could take out bonus feats, remove almost everything that they thought would be "broken" about the feat and just keep AC and Exalted strike bonuses. Which by no means would break any game.
Someone came on (not the Op) and said how horrible broken that would be and it was a terrible idea? This person could of simply ignored my post . It happens alot on the boards so I started this conversation to see if I was a minority or in the majority.
I have never seen the rules get in the way. The rules cover most things, and what they don't cover the GM should rule on to keep the game moving.
I do know most of the rules, so not having to look at the book might be skewing my opinion, but even when I don't know the rule I know which chapter to go to so I can find it. It normally takes no longer than 30 seconds.
As far as the VoP I think that is a good idea for what the player wanted, and it is not OP. It is underpowered to a large extent. I would hold back on gold to make up for the freebies the player was getting though. It seems you ran into someone who has no idea of game balance, and these people as GM's are why I am wary of house rules.
|
|
I have never seen the rules get in the way. The rules cover most things, and what they don't cover the GM should rule on to keep the game moving.
Wraithstrike First thanks on the VOP thing. Second I like your post and I generally agree with you on most things.
I play with 2 groups one with 9 players and the other with 7 players. A large age gap in the groups with one group ages running from 18 - 21 (with the exception of myself age 42) they are new to the game and the second group ages range from 28 - 50 and all veteran players of at least 12 years each.Each group has at least 2 players that use the rules to break the game.
One Example: The CMD system... They will build PC's that tear CMD's apart and it's not very hard to do. Then the DM gets frustrated at the game mechanics and tries to fix it "by the rules" which is impossible as CMD increases vs the increases to CMB's is not an easy task. Sure anyone can build one encounter to be a challenge but not the entire game. So usually the games ends early and a new game starts.
Now with that many players and age difference i cannot believe that is only happening within my group. The rules do get in the way and sometimes you have to simply house rule in some fixes so the game can continue. Everyone should have the right to play what they want and if you use the rules that way the DM should have no problem putting a "fix" in via house rule.
or am I wrong in that thinking?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have had players try to game the system. I let them have their fun for a little while, but they often pay for it later. No I am not a vindictive GM. I often tell them about the faults of specialised builds. If they decide to stay with the build I let it be.
Now before I go further I will say that I don't give out too much treasure, but I do make sure the players are not poor. I also don't allow any and every thing into the game. Core, APG, UC, and most of UM gets in. That stupid feat that forces people to attack you is out. Any other ability, spell, and so one is looked over by me first.
I realised I was getting off topic, so I will say this the rules can get in the way depending on player vs GM system mastery, or how familiar someone is with the part of the rules that is causing the issue, but my main point was that they don't have to get in the way. As an example I know the game pretty well, but since I never use mounted combat I might have issues for a session or two if someone built a character through a misinterpretation of the rules because of my lack of knowledge in that area.
I think your point was addressing loopholes though. In that case I always tells my players the NPC's can do whatever they can do. I then provide an example of what happens when a higher CR monsters uses their plans against them. The loophole is often abandoned.
If the GM does not have time or inclination to comb over the rules because he has a wife, and kids, and a player tries to take advantage of that then I think a houserule makes perfect sense.
That is more of an issue of player being an issue than the rules though.
------------------------------------------------------------------
As for CMD it works against humanoids and monsters before level 10. Past
level 10 the monsters start to own the CMB/CMD arena. Now if you normally play lower level games, then depending on group playstyle and other factors you may need to house rule.
---------------------------------------------------------
In short I agree that in the rules can get in the way, and you may have to reel a player in.<---I thought of the other GM in my group, and his lack of free time as opposed to the time I have available to handle issues such as players trying to "win" the game.
Some do.
I like to know if people do alot of house rules...
You have recommended this before. It is certainly not my type of cheese. :}
Too many abilities, the numbers are ridiculous.
I agree with a lot of what's been said in this thread and i can see both sides of the coin so to speak
personaly i think some player can be very blinkerd and if it's not in the rules you can't do it while other look at the rules like stats that are to be twisted to achive the most powerful character possable with little concern for the spirt of the game.
and yet others who use the bear minimum of rules or mechanics and have a game where every thing is very much how they think it should work
in the end no one is right or wrong it's all about enjoying the game and only the players can decide that
as for me i think that sometimes rules can get in the way of the flow of the game so i tend not to be to rigded about some of the finer points of game play but i do like to stick to the core of the rules as i find most of the time they work very well.
The main areas in which i tend to stray from the rules is when i think at a change will add a bit of color or flavour to the game as i tend to like more discriptive style of game and i encrouge my players to narate ther action a little more rather than just saying what they intend to do (in fact i've even been know to give bonus to players who really throw themselves into there characters).
but thats just how i play the game and at the end as long as everyone has fun them nothing else matters
Yeah! Exactly. Throw out some boosts for really getting into it. The latest thing I am trying is that proficiency in weapons actually gives you special abilities you can use with said weapon, and groups of weapons have differing abilities. So far the players are going with it and using them, and altering their weapons around a bit, although they are not masters of the perfect weapon for the task yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly use houserules to reflavor things that I think are non-vital (ex. alignment restrictions to classes, changing the appearance of a weapon to what a player wants to wield while keeping the stats the same as something he's proficient in), and to remove parts of the game that I consider to be unfun (such as carrying capacity).
I'm much more hesitant with rules that change mechanics, for the sake of balance.
I've got one. Some say spellcasters are op compared to melee, but if you make it so that the 5 foot step still provokes attacks of opportunity (and in this I made it like a move, which will cause an aoo if you move away when threatened, if you want to back away and not get an aoo, choose withdraw) they can't just back up and blast, and can get killed quicker by melee up close. They can still tumble or acrobatics away if they are part time acrobats, but that is a check they have to make. This leads to the rush and hug them tactics to get rid of spellcasters, or course, there are outer blast spells, defensive stuff, etc etc.
Petty Al, you got rid of carrying capacity? No medium or heavy encumberance? I keep it in, but really don't do the numbers unless they make me do so. Okay, so yes, the 21 str centaur can carry a lot of stuff, but if he tries to walk out with two armoire's loaded with loot, we will look up the relevant stuff. It causes the most problem for intermediate str chars that want to carry and lot and be prepared. Then I give them the number and say don't go past this, or the penalties arrive. It is not the most fun part of dnd, tracking weight, urgh.
I keep carrying capacity also. It makes strength matter for casters. They can put points in strength or buy a handy haversack or a bag of holding. Ammo gets tracked also. There even online character sheets that do the math for you if you put in the weight of the item. There are also some you can download that are not web based.
I would take the AoO in most cases if the 5 foot step was gone, Barring a crit by a X3 or x4 weapon I can take the hit. Of course low hp may apply. Of course that assumes I can't cast defensively for some reason. In which case I am likely to use a SoD or SoS on the guy in front me, which I normally don't select when I play casters. That feat that forces people to make two saves would be my new best friend.
Well, we have a few that we've been using with Pathfinder (and we had plenty in D&D 3.0/3.5 as well).
Our current list:
Characters
✦ Hit Points: Maximum hit points at 1st–3rd levels. At fourth level and every level thereafter, players will roll for hit points, however any result of a "1" shall be re-rolled.
✦ Skill Points: Each player character (not NPCs) will treat all classes as granting +2 skill points per level (i.e.: for a player character, the Fighter class grants 4 skill points per level, instead of 2). This is modified by the character’s Int score as normal.
(We all despise that a Fighter w/ a 9 Int gets 1 skill pt, and a Fighter w / a 3 Int gets 1 skill pt. Come on, a 9 is a little below average. a 3 is an imbecile!)
Weapons
✦ Inappropriately Sized Weapons: Normally, if a weapon is already Two-Handed for a Medium character, a Small character cannot wield it. In some cases, a Small character can use certain Two-Handed weapons sized for Medium characters. In most cases, logic should prevail over the general rule. Several examples include the composite short bow, short bow, and spear.
Special Abilities & Conditions
✦ Frightened Condition: Fearful of a creature, situation, or object. A frightened character takes a −4 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature subjected to another similar effect (but not the same spell or effect) becomes panicked instead.
(Note: this variant was presented in the D&D book Heroes of Horror.)
Combat
✦ Death & Dying: Each character has a “Soul Departure” score equal to 2 + Con modifier (minimum of 1). This is the number of rounds the character’s soul remains with their body after suffering mortal injury. If the character can be healed within this time, the character doesn’t die. Note that certain conditions (such as having a Con score of 0 or suffering from the effects of disease or poison) must be healed during this period as well to prevent death.
Likewise, there are some effects that bypass a character’s Soul Departure, such as disintegration.
(Yes, we stole the concept of "Soul Departure" from Rolemaster.)
We also use the Critical Hit and Critical Fumble Decks.
Interesting idea. For the five foot I got out my fencing sword and explained, if you are engaged, and you take a couple of steps back and stop, you set yourself up for a lunge, a step chop or a leg cut and rush stab. If they make a full move, then its one swipe and you are gone, but easily in charge range still; but a short shuffle back and stop and start to do something doesn't make you safe from impalement.
Intriguing idea the removal of cast defensive, I still allow it though, because they have trained so long and hard, a good cast defensive is to get it off on instinct and training while also keeping yourself a bit safe. Bull mostly, but a tad more plausible.
Funniest related wizard kill. Wiz gets max damaged by a bastard sword fighter, then he opts to acrobatics away, fails abysmally, fighter takes the AOO and crits, again for max damage. Two beautiful cuts and he was dead. -14 or so. We should have hired the guy, not then killed him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was not including the Rules forum where of course you would use the rules... common sense dictates that. I see people quote the rules on every board on here.
When people ask for a fix or how to do something and its left open to almost anything... Someone came on (not the Op) and said how horrible broken that would be and it was a terrible idea? This person could of simply ignored my post . It happens alot on the boards so I started this conversation to see if I was a minority or in the majority.
But simply because every time you post about a house-rule somebody else expresses dislike of it doesn't prove that people are against house-rules as a whole, it just shows that in the 100% subjective realm of houserules, SOMEBODY is likely to dislike your personal house-rule, thinking their house-rule is better, or it's better to stick with RAW.
I think it's also important to recognize that people express disatisfaction with the RAW, opinions that it's broken/unbalanced/whatever... ALL THE FREAKING TIME. So I just don't see some prejudice against house-ruling, albeit everybody has their own rationale for how they run their games (RAW vs. a little/alot of houserules).
I would say that on a 'board etiquette'/communication clarity basis, it's HIGHLY recommended to specifically call out when you are discussing a house-rule scenario (regardless of the forum/sub-forum you're in), and the same goes for 3.5/3rd Party Publisher material.
Just get rid of the "casting defensively" option. It's pretty absurd to begin with.
I don't see an issue with it.
Petty Al, you got rid of carrying capacity? No medium or heavy encumberance? I keep it in, but really don't do the numbers unless they make me do so. Okay, so yes, the 21 str centaur can carry a lot of stuff, but if he tries to walk out with two armoire's loaded with loot, we will look up the relevant stuff. It causes the most problem for intermediate str chars that want to carry and lot and be prepared. Then I give them the number and say don't go past this, or the penalties arrive. It is not the most fun part of dnd, tracking weight, urgh.
I do it more in the way you mentioned. You can carry normal stuff, normal loot. If you want to carry out a grandfather clock (or an armoire), then there might be a problem.
I also feel okay giving players an adventurer's pack with mundane materials under a certain value, and within reason. Do you have a length of rope even if you forgot to say you bought one? Most likely. Sewing kit? Sure. Masterwork Tools of Disguise? Probably not.
I think the OP's question is a philosophically interesting one from the perspective of game design, but it's ultimately heavily based on the table etiquette of the group in question. You can have a group that is more interested in the story and dynamic action, which will intrinsically follow Rule Zero in as many possible situations as it can find, or you could have a tactically focused group that prefers to play by the RAW. Additionally, the less familiar the players are with each other, the more important the rules themselves are.
With PFS being a driving factor for Pathfinder's success, it's this last bit that really matters. Organized play requires a degree of trust, and that trust is in adherence to common rules. Players frequently interact for the first time at the table, whereas most home games are run among friends.
The existence of source material, then, can be quite essential to the play experience. It has little to do with creativity in this case, and much, much more to do with table consistency and table etiquette.
Because this sort of thing is thusly built in to the system, it becomes a typical mode of play outside of organized play, as well. I don't find anything intrinsically wrong with this, nor do I really feel that it harms the group's creativity. It merely forces the players and GMs to express that creativity in-character and in-scenario rather than in determining the way in which the rules function. A GM can still make up races, change encounters, etc. at will in a home game if they choose.
My home games typically have loose planning and a few twists that I don't expect prior to the session, but that's just how I run my table. At the same time, I am the group's rules guru and, as such, I hew to the rules as closely as possible.
PA:
I'm the kind of person who can tell you which Courtier's Outfit goes with which jewelry set, and which of four chests it's in, in the wagon-full of stuff I choose to cart around between towns. As well as the quality of lock said chest has.
I love stuff, and stuff to hold other stuff, and stuff to carry all that other stuff in...
I have a list of:
*gear always on my character
*gear typically on my character
*gear in a backpack (easily shed)
*gear that stays on a wagon
*gear that stays in a packsaddle
*gear that stays at home (once I decide where my base of operations will be.)
I realize not everyone enjoys the minutiae of organization to this degree.
That said, no; I despise the "generic adventuring kit." I expect players in my game to buy their gear in its entirety. If they ask for advice, I'll be happy to tell them whether they're likely to need (x) or not, with the proviso that sometimes they might. Or point out that having a shovel can be really, really handy if they don't have one on their list. Etc.
Unless you commission a Robe of Useful Items, though, you need to list that rope, that lantern, that piton...
Different folks, different strokes, Alitan. I wouldn't stop a player from being a packrat and buying all manner of things, but if they do they might end up going into the realm of having to actually keep track of carrying capacity.
I've played with players that match your self-description, that pick up everything that's not nailed down, that get bags of holding and carry an armory within them containing the swords and axes and so on of every monster the party has ever slain.
Some people have fun doing that.
I don't, and when I GM, I don't make that a necessary part of the game.
I just generally don't enjoy keeping track of minor purchases period, which is more or less anything under 50gp. It's irksome to mark off a gold and two silvers for a rest at the inn, when your PC has thousands of gold pieces and is worth more with his gear. As a player I see if the DM is alright with me marking off 100gp and calling myself set on food and lodging for a good while.
|
|
Just get rid of the "casting defensively" option. It's pretty absurd to begin with.I don't see an issue with it.
That's fine for your playstyle, but from my perspective I find it ludicrous that a fighter cannot shoot a longbow point blank without provoking but a wizard has a better than 70% chance cast a spell that murders everything within 60 feet, and even then doesn't provoke.
I had a DM in second edition who maligned the existence of kits, he felt that the reliance on TSR to come up with characters stopped players from coming up with their own concepts and working with the DM could accomplish anything they needed.