Ok,everyone I am looking for some constructive criticism on my proposed house rules.
If you would like to just say "I like it" or "I don't like it" please do, however I am really looking for in depth responses if anyone is willing to give them.
If something I propose here is a terrible idea I would rather catch it now than later after my players, who at this point have a rather high level of system master, get to it.
Anyway, a preemptive thanks to you all.
1.) Healing changes
Example: Cure Light Wounds will now cure 1d8 +10 at 5th level where it maxes out.
B. I have removed all of the "Cure X wounds, Mass" spells except Cure critical wounds, Mass.
C. Cure Critical Wounds, Mass is now a fifth level cleric spell and the appropriate level for all other classes that would receive it. Basically it replaces Cure Light wounds, Mass on characters spell list.
D. Heal, lesser is a 6th level heal version that only heals hit point damage and nothing else. (Caps at 15th)
E. Heal is now a 7th level spell. (Caps at 20th)
F. Heal, Greater is an 8th level spell that removes everything that Heal removes with the addition of acting as a break enchantment and removing all negative levels from the target. (Caps at 25th)
G. Heal, Mass is a mass version of the 7th level "Heal" spell, not the 6th level "Heal, lesser" or the 8th level "Heal, greater"
H. All of the "Heal" line of spells only restore 7 hp per caster level not 10.
2.) I require from my players a written background, of at least one paragraph.
3.) I have banned leadership and antagonize. (I hate these feats, I may be wrong.)
4.) I have removed the faction requirements for "Master Performer and Grand Master Performer."
5.) I require all players that choose to play paladins to sit down with me and hammer out the details for their particular paladin’s code before play starts.
6.) Magic item creation and use changes.
I.E. A caster could pick up a stored magic device of the third level and while carrying it would as a prepared caster be able to memorize an extra prepared spell of the third level. A spontaneous caster would simply gain another spell castable.
Stored magic devices come in two categories, limited use and rechargeable. A limited use item has a certain number of spell levels available and once that many extra spell levels are used is nothing more than an ordinary item.
A rechargeable item has a certain maximum capacity of spell levels and may be drained of them by use, however may be refilled by the sacrifice of spell slots while preparing spells. Rechargeable items are extremely difficult and dangerous to make and are also extremely rare and expensive. (Trying to decide if I should make these wondrous or if they deserve a category of their own such as staves.)
B.) 5 classes of items: Enchanted, Patterned, Imbued, Masterwork, Normal
bI.) Normal: These items follow the rules found in the Pathfinder CRB for normal quality items.
bII.) Masterwork: These items follow the rules found in the Pathfinder CRB for Masterwork quality items with one exception, they cannot become enchanted items without first passing through the patterned state.
bIII.) Patterned: These items are granted a magical pattern that allows for the acceptance of various imbues up to the limits of the value of the pattern. Note that a Patterned item must be Masterwork, however Masterwork items are not necessarily Patterned.
bIV.) Imbues: An Imbue is an item that contains a certain magical power, and can when used in conjunction with a patterned item exercise that magical effect. Note that while Imbues may be overwritten they may not be removed or reused. I.E. A fighter wishing to enhance his patterned blade sprinkles it with dust containing a +1 Imbue, this makes the blade a +1 enchanted item. Now if the pattern of the blade allows for more enhancements to be added the fighter may do so up to the limits of the pattern. He may not however, ever in any way retrieve the imbue from his blade, that +1 imbue is locked into the blade and while the blade may be wiped clean, making it a patterned item again or overwritten with another imbue the +1 imbue may not be retrieved.
bV.) Enchanted: An enchanted item is one that possesses both a pattern and an Imbue.
C.) You no longer need to have an enhancement bonus added to an item before adding a special property. However the item does not count as magic for the purposes of removing damage reduction or any other purpose that benefits the wielder until an enhancement bonus is added.
D.) A linkage cost is associated with combining two or more imbues on the same item. To calculate simply see the table for two imbues, or when adding multiple imbues to an item simply add together the existing bonuses of the item and treat as a single bonus for the purpose of linkage.
Example: A sword has a +1 enhancement bonus, to add a second +1 imbue rather than overlaying a +2 imbue, a linkage cost is required as well as an increase in pattern.
We see that this item has a +1 imbue already worth 1,000 gp, and a +1 pattern worth 1,000 gp.
To add the additional +1 imbue we must pay the difference between a +1 and a +2 pattern which is 3,000 gp. We must further pay for a second +1 imbue which is 1,000 gp
We have now spent, including the cost of the original sword enchants;
1,000gp (Original Pattern cost)
+ 1,000gp (Original Imbue cost)
+ 3,000gp (Pattern expansion cost)
+ 1,000gp (New +1 Imbue)
For a total of 6,000gp, however when looking at the magic weapons table we see that a +2 weapon should cost 8,000gp. This explains why our new shiny sword is not working!
We need a linkage to allow our two lesser imbues to act as one greater imbue. In this case the linkage cost is easy to calculate at only the difference between what has been spent 6,000gp and what a +2 weapon costs, 8,000gp, i.e. 2,000gp for the linkage. We add 2,000gp worth of linkage and now our sword is instantly +2!
So total cost is:
1,000gp (Original Pattern cost)
+ 1,000gp (Original Imbue cost)
+ 3,000gp (Pattern expansion cost)
+ 1,000gp (New +1 Imbue)
+2,000gp (New Linkage)
=’s 8,000gp.
To add a further +1 enhancement bonus to our +2 sword so as to make it +3 we must add enough pattern so as to allow for a +3 imbue, buy a +1 imbue, and pay for a linkage.
Current cost:
1,000gp (+1 Pattern cost)
+ 1,000gp (+1 Imbue cost)
+ 3,000gp (+1 to +2 Pattern expansion cost)
+ 1,000gp (New +1 Imbue)
+2,000gp (New Linkage)
=’s 8,000gp.
New costs:
1,000gp (New +1 Imbue)
+ 5,000gp (+2 to +3 Pattern expansion cost)
+4,000gp (New Linkage*)
=’s 10,000gp.
*Due to the fact that we are treating the two +1 enhancement imbues already on the sword as a single +2 imbue. Which is what should be done for all existing imbue. I.E. a +2 and a +3 imbue already on a sword would count as a single +5 imbue when adding another imbue.
So total cost for our new +3 sword is:
1,000gp (+1 Pattern cost)
+ 1,000gp (+1 Imbue cost)
+ 3,000gp (+1 to +2 Pattern expansion cost)
+ 1,000gp (+1 Imbue)
+2,000gp (Linkage)
+1,000gp (New +1 Imbue)
+ 5,000gp (+2 to +3 Pattern expansion cost)
+4,000gp (New Linkage*)
=’s 18,000gp.
This is exactly what a +3 weapon should cost and layering further imbues proceeds in the same manner.
E.) Pattern and Linkage may be bought in any amount; however they have no effect until reaching the minimum required for the bonus desired.
Example: A sword with a Pattern value of 3,999gp is still only able to hold a +1 imbue. As soon as the sword reaches 4,000gp worth of pattern however it may hold a +2 imbue. The same is true for Linkage.
F.) Linkage and Pattern is permanent and may not be removed unlike imbues. This does mean that once you have upgraded an items Pattern to the maximum of +10 and its Linkage to the maximum required by the appropriate table you are able to switch imbues at only the cost of buying the new imbues. Please remember new imbues may overlay old imbues but then the old imbue is lost permanently. You must pay the appropriate linkage each time the Pattern amount changes. Max Linkage 45,000 for Bonus x Bonus x 1,000 items, 90,000 for Bonus x Bonus x 2,000 items?
Example:
A sword has the following already:
4,000gp (+2 Pattern cost)
+ 1,000gp (+1 Imbue cost)
+ 1,000gp (+1 Imbue cost)
+2,000gp (Linkage)
=’s 8,000gp.
The sword’s owner is allowed to add the new Fiery +1 imbue that was found on the parties most recent adventure by overlay in the following manner.
4,000gp (+2 Pattern cost)
+ 1,000gp (+1 Imbue cost) 1,000gp (+1 Fiery Imbue cost)
+ 1,000gp (+1 Imbue cost)
+2,000gp (Linkage)
=’s 8,000gp.
Leaving the sword as a +1 enhancement and +1 fiery sword, or as usually stated a +1 fiery sword.
Total cost to the owner however was only a 1,000gp +1 Fiery imbue.
If the sword had originally had a +2 enhancement imbue the cost’s change slightly.
Example:
4,000gp (+2 Pattern cost)
+ 4,000gp (+2 Imbue cost)
=’s 8,000gp.
New costs:
4,000gp (+2 Pattern cost)
+ 4,000gp (+2 Imbue cost) 1,000gp (+1 Imbue cost*)
+ 1,000gp (+1 Fiery Imbue cost)
+ 2,000gp (Linkage cost)
=’s 8,000gp.
*In this case the +2 enhancement Imbue becomes permanently a +1 enhancement Imbue, allowing for the addition of the +1 fiery Imbue.
While this does mean the owner could have potentially have spent 11,000gp for an 8,000gp item it is the cost of flexibility and the ability to change items on the fly with enough stored imbues.
G.) Some Imbues have no bonus value and only a GP value, these imbues do not consume Pattern and may be layered on any masterwork item, or enchanted item without affecting Pattern or Linkage cost.
H.) Linkage for non-weapon/armor items is equal to ½ of the cost of the cheapest Imbue being placed on an item.
I.E.:
2,000gp (Ring with Imbue of Protection +1)
1,000gp (Cloak with Imbue of Resistance +1)
Total: 3,000 GP (2 Body slots)
New Ring of Protection +1 and Resistance +1:
1,000 gp (+1 Resistance Imbue)
2,000 gp (+1 Protection Imbue)
Linkage = ((1/2)*Lowest value which is 1,000gp)=500gp
Total: 3,500gp (1 Body slot)
Magic Item Cost Tables
7.) Players need to fill out the following questionnaire. Vague answers are ok, this is just to get the player involved with the character as a person rather than a collection of stats.
B.) How Old are you?
C.) How tall are you?
D.) What do you weigh?
E.) What color are your eyes?
F.) What color is your hair?
G.) Do you have any family? Please at least list names, ages, genders, and alive or dead for your known family.
H.) Do you have a SO?
I.) Why are you a _______ Class Here______?
J.) List three defining moments in your life.
K.) Do you have any friends? If so who?
L.) Do you smile or frown more easily?
M.) Do you have life-goals? If so what are they?
N.)If you are non-human how do, you, deal with the pressure that a mostly human empire puts on you societally?
O.) Do you have a family history? Do you have Famous ancestors?
P.) Have you traveled prior to the start of the campaign? If so where?
Q.) What is your favorite color?
8.) I give one free Hero point to anyone who fills out the questionnaire and then types a backstory that is at least one page double spaced size 12 times new roman font.
Edit: Added magic item cost tables.
I like 1a, but the rest of 1 seems arbitrary and unnecessary. I applaud 2. 3 doesn't seem like a house rule so much as a condition for being the dm, its understandable. 5 is reasonable, and needn't be only paladins. Alignment choice shouldn't be discarded when play begins.
I don't have input on the others.
I like 1a, but the rest of 1 seems arbitrary and unnecessary. I applaud 2. 3 doesn't seem like a house rule so much as a condition for being the dm, its understandable. 5 is reasonable, and needn't be only paladins. Alignment choice shouldn't be discarded when play begins.
I don't have input on the others.
Thank you for your input.
As for the healing changes, well the Cure XXX,Mass spells are a huge terrible trap mathematically, and I decided that I woul like healing to remain a viable option all of the way throughout an adventurers lifetime.
Also the Heal spell was so good it was ridiculous mathematically speaking.
If anyone would like I can dig out my spread sheet and post a link.
Heal, Greater I am still not sure about yet, it may be slightly OP but at level 15 things are kinda crazy anyway so it may be OK.
Please understand I am just trying to clarify and not argue in anyway, I do value all input negative or positive.
My thanks again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The questionnaire is okay, but most of it doesn't produce much of interest really. These are some that I really like:
What honor do you fight for?
What ideal do you value most?
What happened to make you so angry at the world?
Who forged you into the warrior you are?
What price do you pay for your power?
What are you trying to protect in this world?
Why do your dreams frighten you?
Do you trust your magic? Why/why not?
What did you promise your family/people?
What cruelties have you endured?
What did you give up that can never be replaced?
Why were you cast out?
What skill has best helped you to survive?
I like prompting questions that not only tell me something about the character, but also contain info about the game world and the story the player is interested in seeing. Obviously, you wouldn't want all of these answered for one character, but letting the player pick 2 would work well. They don't need to be long paragraph answers either, 1-2 sentences will contain a lot of info that can be fleshed out later (like in their back story) or during play.
The questionnaire is okay, but most of it doesn't produce much of interest really. These are some that I really like:
What honor do you fight for?
What ideal do you value most?
What happened to make you so angry at the world?
Who forged you into the warrior you are?
What price do you pay for your power?
What are you trying to protect in this world?
Why do your dreams frighten you?
Do you trust your magic? Why/why not?
What did you promise your family/people?
What cruelties have you endured?
What did you give up that can never be replaced?
Why were you cast out?
What skill has best helped you to survive?I like prompting questions that not only tell me something about the character, but also contain info about the game world and the story the player is interested in seeing. Obviously, you wouldn't want all of these answered for one character, but letting the player pick 2 would work well. They don't need to be long sentences either, 1-2 sentences will contain a lot of info that can be fleshed out later (like in their back story) or during play.
Thank you for the questionnaire ideas Irontruth.
As for healing math, do you want bigger in combat healing? Or just a little increased healing power overall?
If it's the first, I would look at increasing the dice variable, this makes them more compatible with things like Empower and Maximize.
If it's the second, consider adding some lingering effects, or healing over time bonuses. Like a cleric that casts a cure spell as a full-round action and then maintains for another round does 50% more healing or something. This makes spells cover more HP, but doesn't increase their effect during combat.
Your new version of 'Heal' will make it hard for groups to remove certain status effects, like insanity. (I suppose buying a level 7 scroll would cover it.)
As for healing math, do you want bigger in combat healing? Or just a little increased healing power overall?
If it's the first, I would look at increasing the dice variable, this makes them more compatible with things like Empower and Maximize.
If it's the second, consider adding some lingering effects, or healing over time bonuses. Like a cleric that casts a cure spell as a full-round action and then maintains for another round does 50% more healing or something. This makes spells cover more HP, but doesn't increase their effect during combat.
I am aiming for better in combat healing so that using a standard action to heal is not a complete waste.
Assumptions:
I: The average HP gained at each level for any PC is 10 HP.
Average wizard HP is (3.5) average barbarian HP is (6.5) so average HP from Dice is (5).
Give a +5 HP per level in addition to this for Toughness, Favored class , and Con bonus seems reasonable to me.
I know that the highest possible permanent Con is 36 and 1 is the lowest possible which if the modifiers where averaged would only give us a (4) however I feel that more PC's would be at the median rather than the mean.
I could however see the argument for using either (+4) or (+6) rather than (+5) however that is what I felt was most likely.
-
II: My goal is to allow a "Cure" or "Heal" spell to restore between 40-50% of average health at the level gained.
"Lesser Heal" gained at Level 11, average HP (110), Heals (77), Percentage Healed (70%), percentage of average healed at 20th (52.5%), Heals more than Average[high] monster damage at CR11 (50)
"Heal" gained at Level 13, Average HP (130), Heals (91), Percentage Healed (70%), Percentage of health healed at 20th (70%), Heals more than Average[high] monster damage at CR13 (60)
"Greater Heal" gained at level 15, average HP (150), Heals (105) Percentage Healed (70%), Percentage healed at 20th (70%), Heals more than Average[high] monster damage at CR15 (70)
I know that "Lesser Heal" and "Heal" start higher than I wanted, however when I at first tried this change there were some concerns about the numbers and I eventually became more permissive even if this is slightly stronger math wise.
-
III: The addition of status effects and the reduction in health healed in "Heal" and "Greater Heal" is supposed to be a balancing factor.
I saw "Greater Heal" as a way in combat for a caster to wipe away Negative levels from "Enervation" or "Energy Drain" or to remove Ability drain during combat. I felt this was extremely valuable.
-
IV: I do not want any of the "Heal" spells to become what "Heal" was in the corebook, which was the go-to, amazing, better than anything else spell. I also felt "Heal, Mass" was a little ridiculous. A 200 point heal for the entire party which also removes most status effect seems very strong to me.
Your new version of 'Heal' will make it hard for groups to remove certain status effects, like insanity. (I suppose buying a level 7 scroll would cover it.)
I agree, and the interaction of the new Heal spells with effects are a concern.
However it was my opinion that the old "Heal" spell was just too good for its level.
Thank you both for your input.
So given the information I have posted thus far does anyone have any input?
I am particularly interested in critiques of my magic item creation system.
|
So given the information I have posted thus far does anyone have any input?
I am particularly interested in critiques of my magic item creation system.
I don't think I'd stick around long enough for the magic item creation rules to matter. Most of it isn't bothersome except #1, where I don't think you have put enough thought into what impact that will have on the deadliness of certain opponents and how this will interact with non-cleric healers. (I.e. is Heal now an 8th level spell for druids and if not why not? And that would make your greater heal a 9th level druidic spell).
I don't think I'd stick around long enough for the magic item creation rules to matter. Most of it isn't bothersome except #1, where I don't think you have put enough thought into what impact that will have on the deadliness of certain opponents and how this will interact with non-cleric healers. (I.e. is Heal now an 8th level spell for druids and if not why not? And that would make your greater heal a 9th level druidic spell).
I appreciate the input.
Just to ensure I am clear, you find that the healing changes weaken the PC's too much and would make some fights too deadly, correct?
If so could you please give me an example so that I can run some numbers.
-----
Second to address the Heal line of spells, any class that receives the old "Heal" spell instead receives the "Lesser Heal" spell in its place and progresses through the Heal spell line as appropriate. In the case of the Druid class this means that the progression is as follows:
7th level spell: "Heal, Lesser"
8th level spell: "Heal"
I am on the fence about whether druid's should receive "Heal, Greater" as a 9th level spell, due to the fact that the do not normally get "Heal, Mass" and I have also had no chance to check the balance of giving it to them as no one has chosen to play a druid for my games at levels 17+.
Basically the difference is 3 hp per level less and the fact that you do not get to remove conditions until you receive the 8th level of spellcasting.
Do you find this crippling, and if so would you please explain with examples, so I may yet again run some numbers?
-----
Please understand I am not trying to be argumentative or disagreeable. I simply want to ensure a balanced and fun game for all participants.
I do this via trying to understand the math underlying the system which I admit I do not have a firm a grasp on as many on these boards, and listening to my players.
The entire healing changes section of my house rules comes from looking at the healing numbers, and discussing them via excel spreadsheets with a cleric player of mine who felt all of the Cure XXX spells were too weak and that Heal was too strong.
The numbers and curves I developed are in one of my posts above, and I would love to have them corrected if they are in error.
I honestly was going to have Heal, lesser be 6hp/level, Heal be 7 hp/level, and Heal, greater be 8 hp/level but my players did not like that part so I changed to a flat 7 hp/level which they preferred.
-----
I am sorry for the length of this post I am just trying to be transparent and also I feel that saying
I don't think I'd stick around long enough for the magic item creation rules to matter.
is a very strong statement and if the rules are that upsetting perhaps they have a fundamental flaw, that I need to address.
-----
Anyway thank you again for taking the time to read and reply, please feel free to do so again, as I appreciate all input.
Honestly, I don't understand the point of your magic item creation process. It seems like you've made a more complicated method of achieving essentially the same thing. Tell me why I'd want to use your system over the standard system, and why your added layer of complexity is required.
Honestly, I don't understand the point of your magic item creation process. It seems like you've made a more complicated method of achieving essentially the same thing. Tell me why I'd want to use your system over the standard system, and why your added layer of complexity is required.
I have some of the same misgivings about the system as well. It gains two things but I am not sure there is not a more elegant system for doing so.
1.) A player may switch around the properties of an item in this system allowing for an item to become more adaptable.
2.) It allows a GM to drop/sell imbues without weapons attached. I can drop a small bag of "Dust of Power" that acts as a +1 enchant to any weapon the party has without having to drop a +3 nodachi to replace my players +2 nodachi. I can sell a "Flaming" enchant to make the same nodachi a total of a +3 flaming nodachi without having my monsters or merchants just miraculously having the exact weapon my melee has taken weapon focus in.
I like this for help with a more realistic experience, however it is more work for the GM, as a player it should be about the same.
However I would love some advice on it.
My goals are:
1.) Adaptability
2.) Realistic and immersive magic system.
Thank you again IronTruth.
Any ideas?
I think I know what you are up to, but IIRC, a magic item can (almost) always be reenchanted!
The +2 nodachi character wants a +3 nodachi? Fair enough, go see a caster with the appropriate requirements and let him (or her) improve the weapon.
I believe you even only have to pay the price difference RAW!
Personally, I am sort of a fan of magical runes/crystals and "item sockets".
Any ideas?
Personally I love where you are going with this. For my campaign I went back to the D20 roots of 1st & 2nd ed. Under these old systems there was no hard and fast formula, you simply worked it out with your DM as to what level of power a given item would have vs the cost in time, money and rare items needed to create such. These were simply compared against spells and items of similar level to get a general feel for where the item should be in relative power.
As such I simply put into my campaign world the concept of master craftsmen (most of whom are retired adventures) that spend their days crafting potions, weapons, etc. In this way the players can go to such a person and request "Can you enchant my sword?". This technique allows the players to request specific enchants. Of course the crafter in question will require payment and all of the materials necessary for the work, and may require you be part of a specific group such as a Mage's Guild or military unit before they will take on your job.
Because these "Artificers" are in the campaign i completely banned the Create Item feats. The PC's in my campaigns are adventures, warriors, heros, the leaders of men and nations...not merchants.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
~ Lazlo ~
A simpler solution is to use the viewpoint that the gold cost of item creation is buying certain components, similar to expensive spell components.
In a horde there might be 10,000gp in enchanting materials, the players might decide to divide that up and make a +1 and a +2, or use it to upgrade a +2 to +3. The process is exactly the same, the materials just become slightly generic.
You could have certain materials work for different types of items. Like maybe weapons used powdered dragon scales. So 2,000gp worth of powdered dragon scales is enough to enchant a +1 weapon. If the players don't want to use it to enchant with, they can sell it at 1/2 price (like normal loot or however you handle that in your campaign).
It could be that a wizard/cleric needs to prepare the dragon scales, but once prepared any skilled blacksmith can infuse them into a sword (even upgrading a sword).
No major rules changes, but from the player perspective you achieve pretty much the same result. It's mostly just giving names to previously unnamed objects in the game.
|
|
Just to ensure I am clear, you find that the healing changes weaken the PC's too much and would make some fights too deadly, correct?
If so could you please give me an example so that I can run some numbers.
You have removed condition clearing from the standard heal spell. It's stil available to some extent through the Restoration spells, but those spells are no available to druids. Druids are not as effective at healing as clerics and your changes make this worse.
You haven't said anything about whether there were issues with your groups that led you to come up with these house rules. IME, in-combat healing is minimal and generally consists or clerical Channeling. So I see a bunch of house rules for a situation (in-combat healing) which I rarely encounter.
1) Healing changes
I agree that cure spells tend to be lacking and need enhanced but would simplify your changes to them to just; all cure spells have the bonus healing due to the characters level doubled.
I’m not sure why you think mass cure spells are a trap you can try and say that they don’t heal as well but that’s not accurate. How much net healing you can gain is considerably higher. For example at 9th level a cleric has both critical and cure light wounds, mass. Cure critical would heal 4d8+18 for an average of 36 hit points, while the cure light wounds, mass spell would heal 1d8+18 for an average of 22 health per person. Heal just two characters and you net an average or 44 hit points worth of healing and, theoretically, you can heal up to 9 for an average or 198 hit points worth of healing. Now I’ll grant you that a situation like that will rarely happen but still healing 2 or 3 party members at once and from a distance without having to take attacks of opportunity etc is pretty nice, I certainly wouldn’t call it a trap.
As for heal, I believe most people will agree that it’s one of the most powerful healing spells in the game and probably over powered for its level. That said, I would personally just lower the healing to 7 hit points per caster level and leave the rest alone. I think that would be sufficient to bring it down to a more appropriate power level.
For a comparison consider heal and cure moderate wounds, mass both gained by a cleric at 11th level. Heal would allow a single target the cleric touches to be healed for 77 hit points and remove an array of different effects from them. Cure moderate wounds, mass wound heal 2d8+22 for an average of 31 health per person affected but could heal the entire party simultaneously granting a net healing from 31 to 124 depending on the number of party members effected. This healing could be done from 50 feet away without endangering the cleric and could heal for significantly more if there are more characters in the party or if NPC’s, animal companions, etc, around that need healing as well.
2) I require from my players a written background, of at least one paragraph.
Sounds good to me.
3) I have banned leadership and antagonize. (I hate these feats, I may be wrong.)
I see no problems with this… and you can’t be wrong, it’s your opinion and you have a right to it.
4) I have removed the faction requirements for "Master Performer and Grand Master Performer."
Not sure where these are from so I have no opinion.
5) I require all players that choose to play paladins to sit down with me and hammer out the details for their particular paladin’s code before play starts.
Sounds good. In my opinion paladins are always need a sit down with the GM to be sure you’re both on the same page as to how they should behave and what acceptable.
6) Magic item creation and use changes
Not sure about your reasoning here. You say quote realism as being one reason you did. That way you don’t have to mysteriously arrange for an enemy to just happen to drop a certain magic item… except what the chance a person is going to be walking around with unused imbues? Seems awfully unlikely to me unless they happen to be an enchanter. Honestly I’d consider a different approach.
Perhaps allow skilled artificers to swap permanent enchantments for a fee. That way if you find a flame sword you can have it added to your +3 axe and either loss a bonus to the axe and pay a small fee or add both together and add a significantly larger fee. Something along these lines would probably be more realistic then a bunch of enemies that got imbues but never actually got around to using them.
7) Players need to fill out the following questionnaire. Vague answers are ok, this is just to get the player involved with the character as a person rather than a collection of stats.
I would divide it into 2 parts, physical description where all of the “questions” must be answered, and the other half where I’d ask for something like answer any 5 of the following 10+ questions. That way theirs some wiggle room. I for one enjoy developing my characters but never do it all at once. I get ideas that I use for starting points and then flush them out more as I play. So a detailed, or large questionnaire, would bother me quite a bit since you wouldn’t have given me the time I need to “feel out” my character.
8) I give one free Hero point to anyone who fills out the questionnaire and then types a back story that is at least one page double spaced size 12 times new roman font.
I see no problems with that. Can I assume you still get this upon completion even if you don’t get everything filled out until several sessions in? As I mentioned above I doubt I’d be done on day 1 and would be irritated if I were penalized for taking a few game sessions to get a good feel for my character.
|
Item creation:
I agree that the magic items creation rules you outline are too complicated. I think that hiring enchanters to make items would solve some of the problems involving getting characters specific desired items. To allow adaptability in this process, you could as Revel suggests allow enchanters to swap out enhancements to the same effect without all the technical language. However, if you really want quick in-field adjustments to be an option, imbues might be necessary. And if it's understood that swapping out enhancements in-field can be tactically useful, then they would essentially be a consumable item like potions, and it would not at all be unusual for intelligent enemies to carry unused imbues. If this is the case, I recommend keeping your system with these simplifications:
1) When explaining, describe patterns as "the raw magical strength of the item" and imbues "the magical framework that directs that power into a specific useable form." That should help your players to understand the function, and why a specific level of pattern (amount of power) is required to use certain imbues (effects). Consider inverting the names in order to better fit their functional roles (a pattern forces the imbued power into a specific shape).
2) Simplify your system by removing linkage costs for weapons, armor, and items with only one effect. As far as I can understand, the linkage cost is simply a correction factor, and there is no reason that you can't fold this into the "Pattern" cost for most purposes. For example, if all imbues cost 1000 gold for every effective +1, a +1 weapon pattern would cost 1,000 gold (2000-1000 for a +1 imbue), a +2 pattern would cost 6,000 (8000-2*1000), a +3 pattern would cost 15,000 (18000-3*1000).
3) You would need to calculate special linkage in the case of the Ring of Protection +1 and Resistance +1. You could calculate this based on pattern + imbue, or just make this equal to 1/2 the cost of the lesser pattern. This would make it a bit cheaper to link items, but would probably not be that big a deal and would be much simpler. You'd need to pay extra to increase the lesser pattern at that point, but could increase the greater pattern normally.
4) Use only +1 imbues (1000 gold) to improve an enhancement bonus. To get a higher enhancement bonus, you simply add a +1 imbue to a weapon that has a sufficient pattern for the upgrade. That should remove unnecessary confusion regarding the distinction between adding a +1 imbue and replacing a +1 with a +2.
5) Imbues for specific properties with high effective bonuses are more expensive, because you can't separate them into +1 imbues. A holy imbue would cost 2,000 gold for the +2.
6) Imbues for properties that are similar could be obtained by using the same imbue repeatedly. For example, add a Fire imbue (1000 gold, +1)to a flaming weapon with a +2 pattern (6,000 pattern + 1,000 existing imbue) and you get a flaming burst weapon (8,000 gold, +2). Light, Moderate, and Heavy fortification would require 1, 3, and 5 "Fortification" imbues, respectively. This allows the player to lose a little less when adapting a weapon since they only wipe part of the effect (however many +1s they need to lose) and not the full effect.
Background
I like your idea of requiring some background from your players before starting, and think that getting specifics on the moral codes of paladins or any other characters with strong codes is a particularly good idea. However, your players may not appreciate being forced into answering a set number of specific questions about their character's background. For example, I've played one character who came with a complete family tree including ages, but another one only needed to be described as "coming from a large extended family." I second Revel's suggestion of splitting the questionnaire into core physical details and background, and allowing players to pick a certain number of questions from the latter.
Healing
I've seen a healing-optimized cleric rock the party with CMW Mass. Heal works for one player taking massive damage, but the Mass Cures are great for keeping HP at an even level in the face of area attacks or multiple enemies. Channel can be used to similar effect, but it heals enemies as well unless you take a feat, doesn't have a range that extends with level, has more variation because it lacks a +X, can't be boosted with effects that improve spells, and can't be used to both heal living creatures and damage undead at the same time as the Mass Cures can.
Sometimes you can ask too many questions of a char, and demand too much introspection and total knowledge of what they are and what they represent. Seen this in a vampire game, when 2 pages on the char with no stats was not considered really enough.
I like my chars to have a background and then to develop from there. What happens in game is far more important than what happened before.
Yesterday I ran a dnd game for someone completely new to the game. It was a ninja mission and they were successful. They loved it and look forward to the next one. Before the game I got them to answer these questions for their female ninja.
What does she look like?
Why is she out adventuring? (Your first game will be a mission you took before you met the party)
What are her skills apart from stealth and bluff?
What are her aims?
Do you want to be a ninja from a monastery, or are you based in a country/court, are you from a ninja family and free, out and roaming, or something else?
What is the best thing that has happened to her?
What is the worst thing that has happened to her?
What is her name? You can search names of a country or ethnicity to help here.
Covent, great idea for 5). I wish I had done the same and for other characters that can lose their alignment (genocidal druids, clerics breaking the rules of their faith for convenience).
As for healing math, do you want bigger in combat healing? Or just a little increased healing power overall?
If it's the first, I would look at increasing the dice variable, this makes them more compatible with things like Empower and Maximize.
If it's the second, consider adding some lingering effects, or healing over time bonuses. Like a cleric that casts a cure spell as a full-round action and then maintains for another round does 50% more healing or something. This makes spells cover more HP, but doesn't increase their effect during combat.
I am aiming for better in combat healing so that using a standard action to heal is not a complete waste.
** spoiler omitted **...
Your math and assumptions are very similar to mine. I worked through the same numbers and our group went with doubling the dice instead of the bonus. We also made Cure spells close range. I know most people don't agree with that, but we were tired of clerics who actually wanted to heal spending all of there actions getting into position--then conditions change and it's a waste. Works for us.
One thing that no one has pointed out: Covent's changes to the cleric cure and heal spells mean that there is a Cure spell from spell levels 1 to 5, and a heal spell from spell levels 6 to 9.
Bravo, you have fixed the healing domain. :D
I think I know what you are up to, but IIRC, a magic item can (almost) always be reenchanted!
The +2 nodachi character wants a +3 nodachi? Fair enough, go see a caster with the appropriate requirements and let him (or her) improve the weapon.
I believe you even only have to pay the price difference RAW!Personally, I am sort of a fan of magical runes/crystals and "item sockets".
I understand a weapon may be improved by the existing rules consuming only the difference in GP.
The system I was proposing is based around the idea that someone may want to rewrite a weapon at a later time, rather than simply adding to it.
The system I propose actually works very close to a socket system, as "Pattern" is how much magic your item may hold (Sockets), "Imbues" are powers that fill your pattern (Runes/crystals), and Linkage is the magic that connects disparate imbues to allow them to work together.
Personally I love where you are going with this. For my campaign I went back to the D20 roots of 1st & 2nd ed. Under these old systems there was no hard and fast formula, you simply worked it out with your DM as to what level of power a given item would have vs the cost in time, money and rare items needed to create such. These were simply compared against spells and items of similar level to get a general feel for where the item should be in relative power.
As such I simply put into my campaign world the concept of master craftsmen (most of whom are retired adventures) that spend their days crafting potions, weapons, etc. In this way the players can go to such a person and request "Can you enchant my sword?". This technique allows the players to request specific enchants. Of course the crafter in question will require payment and all of the materials necessary for the work, and may require you be part of a specific group such as a Mage's Guild or military unit before they will take on your job.
Because these "Artificers" are in the campaign i completely banned the Create Item feats. The PC's in my campaigns are adventures, warriors, heros, the leaders of men and nations...not merchants.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
~ Lazlo ~
I thought about making crafting NPC only, however several of my players adore it. I am loath to take away something they like so much.
Just for transparencies sake, magic item crafting in my games is not generally a way to get more than your wealth by level. It simply allows for a party member to have exactly the item they want rather than hoping it shows up in loot or in a town.
A simpler solution is to use the viewpoint that the gold cost of item creation is buying certain components, similar to expensive spell components.
In a horde there might be 10,000gp in enchanting materials, the players might decide to divide that up and make a +1 and a +2, or use it to upgrade a +2 to +3. The process is exactly the same, the materials just become slightly generic.
You could have certain materials work for different types of items. Like maybe weapons used powdered dragon scales. So 2,000gp worth of powdered dragon scales is enough to enchant a +1 weapon. If the players don't want to use it to enchant with, they can sell it at 1/2 price (like normal loot or however you handle that in your campaign).
It could be that a wizard/cleric needs to prepare the dragon scales, but once prepared any skilled blacksmith can infuse them into a sword (even upgrading a sword).
No major rules changes, but from the player perspective you achieve pretty much the same result. It's mostly just giving names to previously unnamed objects in the game.
This in my eyes is a simple reskin of existing rules as it requires an enchanter to turn the loot into magic on an item, if I am understanding you correctly.
It also fails to address how much it would cost or how I would turn a +2 sword into a +1 Flaming sword, or any other rewrite/conversion.
My players generally love to have concise rules for things so that was why i was trying to create more options in the magic item creation rules.
You have removed condition clearing from the standard heal spell. It's still available to some extent through the Restoration spells, but those spells are no available to druids. Druids are not as effective at healing as clerics and your changes make this worse.
You haven't said anything about whether there were issues with your groups that led you to come up with these house rules. IME, in-combat healing is minimal and generally consists or clerical Channeling. So I see a bunch of house rules for a situation (in-combat healing) which I rarely encounter.
So your main concern with the heal changes is the fact that it renders Druids unable to clear conditions until the get the 8th level spell "Heal" rather than the replacement I offer at 7th level "Heal, Lesser".
I can understand that, however I am not sure making a single class wait one spell level so 2 class levels is worth throwing the whole idea out, but I do agree it could be a concern.
As I said I have yet to see a high level druid see play at my table, and that fact may have made me overlook the fact that this is a nerf to that class. I honestly just do not see it as crippling. When I was asking for examples I meant could you please provide me some monsters or AP encounters that this change will make substantially more difficult to the point of impossibility or unreasonableness, as I have yet to find any. I have had several encounters trivialized by the original "Heal" spell, however that is simple anecdotal evidence and may honestly be nothing more than statistical anomalies.
As to what led to my creation of this house rule. From above:
The entire healing changes section of my house rules comes from looking at the healing numbers, and discussing them via excel spreadsheets with a cleric player of mine who felt all of the Cure XXX spells were too weak and that Heal was too strong.
The numbers and curves I developed are in one of my posts above, and I would love to have them corrected if they are in error.
To expand on the above after discussing and creating these rules with a cleric player of mine, they were proposed to the table, we all picked at them for about two weeks and then they were implemented when everyone agreed they would like to see them in play.
Also the whole idea of these changes is to make In-combat healing more not less viable.
I agree that cure spells tend to be lacking and need enhanced but would simplify your changes to them to just; all cure spells have the bonus healing due to the characters level doubled.
I’m not sure why you think mass cure spells are a trap you can try and say that they don’t heal as well but that’s not accurate. How much net healing you can gain is considerably higher. For example at 9th level a cleric has both critical and cure light wounds, mass. Cure critical would heal 4d8+18 for an average of 36 hit points, while the cure light wounds, mass spell would heal 1d8+18 for an average of 22 health per person. Heal just two characters and you net an average or 44 hit points worth of healing and, theoretically, you can heal up to 9 for an average or 198 hit points worth of healing. Now I’ll grant you that a situation like that will rarely happen but still healing 2 or 3 party members at once and from a distance without having to take attacks of opportunity etc is pretty nice, I certainly wouldn’t call it a trap.
As for heal, I believe most people will agree that it’s one of the most powerful healing spells in the game and probably over powered for its level. That said, I would personally just lower the healing to 7 hit points per caster level and leave the rest alone. I think that would be sufficient to bring it down to a more appropriate power level.
For a comparison consider heal and cure moderate wounds, mass both gained by a cleric at 11th level. Heal would allow a single target the cleric touches to be healed for 77 hit points and remove an array of different effects from them. Cure moderate wounds, mass wound heal 2d8+22 for an average of 31 health per person affected but could heal the entire party simultaneously granting a net healing from 31 to 124 depending on the number of party members effected. This healing could be done from 50 feet away without endangering the cleric and could heal for significantly more if there are more characters in the party or if NPC’s, animal companions, etc, around that need healing as well.
I have just found, Yet again anecdotal evidence, that area of effect heals are seriously lacking in power by the time you get them.
For example:
Healing math
This means that the only times the Cure XXX, mass heals do not outpace an average damage fireball ever for single target.
It also means that that they under the old rules average less than half of an at CR monsters average damage.
In my opinion that makes them completely worthless, as why should you have to blow an 8th level spell slot to "mostly" undo what a 3rd level spell can do?
The Aoe numbers look great, however if you ever need to heal more than 4-5 people at a time your party is seriously bloated. This does not mean badwrongfun, it simply means that according to normal average party size you will never reach anywhere near your max number of targets.
Also most sources of damage will focus a single target and the Cure XXX,mass spells just do not keep up mathematically.
However moving Cure Crit, mass to 5th and applying the 2 hp/level rule you reach an average of 36 hp per target which undoes an average fireball completely and coincidentally also undoes a monsters average damage at that CR.
This appears much more balanced as I have no problem with a player expending a 5th level spell slot to undo the standard action of an equal CR mob or the effect of a 3rd level spell.
Anyway this is my math. Please if you see any holes I would like to know as I want to fix any problems with it.
I would divide it into 2 parts, physical description where all of the “questions” must be answered, and the other half where I’d ask for something like answer any 5 of the following 10+ questions. That way theirs some wiggle room. I for one enjoy developing my characters but never do it all at once. I get ideas that I use for starting points and then flush them out more as I play. So a detailed, or large questionnaire, would bother me quite a bit since you wouldn’t have given me the time I need to “feel out” my character.
That would be fine and to address your next question, yes I have no problem awarding the Hero point to a player after play starts.
The idea for the back story and a questionnaire is to get you started, honestly you could leave as many questions blank as you wanted as long as you had a coherent character concept beyond "I want the best spell DC's possible!".
Now I have no problem with optimization as I think is obvious, however my next game will be 15 point buy, slow experience, in a slightly lower powered than Golarion world. That is why I want a little more story for this game, due to the fact that I see it lasting one and a half to two years.
Item creation:good stuff
Humm, I will run some numbers on this, thank you for the suggestions.
For the healing and background comments please see my answers above.
Background and paladin comments
Thank you for the compliment, and also please see above for my answer to background inquires.
Your math and assumptions are very similar to mine. I worked through the same numbers and our group went with doubling the dice instead of the bonus. We also made Cure spells close range. I know most people don't agree with that, but we were tired of clerics who actually wanted to heal spending all of there actions getting into position--then conditions change and it's a waste. Works for us.
One thing that no one has pointed out: Covent's changes to the cleric cure and heal spells mean that there is a Cure spell from spell levels 1 to 5, and a heal spell from spell levels 6 to 9.
Bravo, you have fixed the healing domain. :D
I thought about dice or range adjustments, however there are already some options to get ranged healing and I preferred a static bonus, however they are very valid ideas and I am glad you are happy with them.
Also, the healing domain was a concern, so thank you again.
Also, the healing domain was a concern, so thank you again.
It would be particularly useful in a variant where Clerics do not get the Cure spells spontaneously unless they have the healing domain. Our game doesn't do that so the problem we've always had with the Healing domain is all the damn Cure spells that are in it...you have them anyway. Thus our "fix" for the Healing domain is as follows:
HEALING DOMAIN
Granted Power: You cast conjuration (healing) spells at +2 caster levels and +1 DC.
Healing Domain Spells
1 Faith Healing: Cures 16 hp +1/level (max+5) to worshiper of your deity.
2 Restoration, Lesser: Dispels magical ability penalty or repairs 1d4 ability damage.
3 Remove Affliction: Cures one affliction affecting subject.
4 Panacea: Removes most afflictions.
5 Restoration: Restores level and ability score drains.
6 Heal: Cures 10 points/level of damage, all diseases and mental conditions.
7 Regenerate: Subject’s severed limbs grow back, cures 8d8 damage +1/level (max +35).
8 Restoration, Mass: As restoration, but multiple subjects.
9 Heal, Mass: As heal, but with several subjects.
You'll notice a homebrew spell in the list Remove Affliction. I came up with that because it seems very ineffective for the cleric to have access to Remove Disease, Remove Poison, and Cure Blindness/Deafness. I mean, who prepares those spells, and which one. And then, does it get turned into healing before you need it. Of course there are scrolls and wands, but I think all the spells on a spell list should be viable choices to prepare for an adventure. Anyway, here it is:
Remove Affliction
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Clr 3, Drd 4, Rgr 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
This spell ends one of the following conditions affecting the subject: blinded, deafened, diseased, nauseated, paralyzed, sickened, or stunned. Alternately, the spell removes any further effects of poison. The caster chooses which function at the time of casting. Note: This may require that the caster first determine what the affliction is. Remove Affliction does not restore ability damage, ability drain, hit point damage, or negative levels.
I should note that we also take away the domain spell slot and give spontaneous access to domain spells. So the possibility of a truly powerful dedicated healer is very real in our games.
-Cheers
|
|
I'll trust your math on the healing spells.
Glad the item crafting suggestions were at least worthy of further thought. A few more thoughts:
1) How do you decide which imbue is overwritten when a new one is added? Does the person adding the new imbue choose? Otherwise, does it automatically override the oldest imbue? The newest? The numerical bonus? The special properties? Is it random?
2) Are all imbues going to cost 1000 gold, with the pattern making up the difference on total magic item cost, or will imbue cost be related to the cost of the item? For example, will an armor imbue cost 1000 gold, making a +1 pattern essentially free on MW armor, or will the imbue cost 500 gold, making a +1 armor pattern 500 gold, a +2 armor pattern 3000 gold, etc? If imbues make up a higher portion of the cost of armor, players will likely overwrite them less often.
3) Expect Bane imbues to be popular. If I were given the opportunity to carry a +X Bane weapon, where I could pay 1000 gold to change the Bane to "whatever BBEG I expect to fight next" I would probably do so by mid-to-high levels. If I'm capable of personally crafting imbues for half price, I'd definitely make use of Bane.
I have just found, Yet again anecdotal evidence, that area of effect heals are seriously lacking in power by the time you get them.
For example:
Healing mathThis means that the only times the Cure XXX, mass heals do not outpace an average damage fireball ever for single target.
It also means that that they under the old rules average less than half of an at CR monsters average damage.
In my opinion that makes them completely worthless, as why should you have to blow an 8th level spell slot to "mostly" undo what a 3rd level spell can do?
How are you getting from point A to point B here? I agree with you that the healing spells could use a bump in power and never argued that, the point I was trying to make is you are close to giving them to big of a boost in power.
Using only your rules for enhancing cure spells works quite nicely, if you stop there. As I said above the cure light wounds, mass spell would heal 1d8+18 for an average of 22 health per person using just this enhancement and nothing else. This means it would undo most of the damage with a single casting even if everyone failed their save. And those that made their save would be healed for all of damage taken. And this is a 5th level spell, not 8th level one.
Also you aren’t taking into account resistances and abilities like evasion and improved evasion that can seriously hurt the ability for AoE spells to do damage in the first place but have no affect on the players that are being healed. In actual play 22 points per character is good and probably will eliminate the vast majority of the damage dealt by a typical fireball. With your cure critical wounds, mass spell at 5th level you could likely ignore the damage for 2 fireballs without any difficulty and this is simply too much in my opinion.
You seem to have this idea that mass cure spells should be able to at least equal the damage being dealt to the party and that line of thought goes to a bad place, I’ve been their. It’s a world were instead of fighting and defeating the enemy you simply outlast them… whoever runs out of healing first losses. I did not find that particularly fun. Healing spells should be weaker then the damage spells of the same level or the party will fight one fight and if the enemy has even decent healing, win through attrition, and then rest cause their low on healing magic. I can’t reiterate enough I have both been in and ran games were healing was made too powerful and it did not go well. Combat can get ridiculously long, many good tactics are rendered pointless, and the combat itself just stops being fun.
The Aoe numbers look great, however if you ever need to heal more than 4-5 people at a time your party is seriously bloated. This does not mean badwrongfun, it simply means that according to normal average party size you will never reach anywhere near your max number of targets.
Umm... I’m guessing you are again taking about without the changes to cure spells because in my post above I already showed that it only 2 to or 3 party members being healed will net you more healing then even the single target heal spell. Also, 4-5 people does not mean your party is seriously bloated a standard group is assumed to have 4 people and I find most groups have a mount, animal companion, or other creature such as an eidolon. So a normal sized party can often end up with 4-6 members.
More importantly there are a number of situations that you can really get some mileage out of the mass cure spells. Have you never defended an inn, keep, or castle against opponent were their were NPC’s around that could greatly benefit from the healing? How about fighting in a war against an opposing army? I’ve done both, more then once, and while the situations may not be common they aren’t all that rare either… at least they haven’t been for me. Remember the spell doesn’t have to only target party members. Oh, I can’t believe I almost forgot an example… How about when you are fighting undead? Heal the whole party and deal some damage to the enemy at the same time. And I don’t think I’ve ever seen a campaign were undead were not encountered.
Anyway I apologize if any of this sounds argumentative. It’s hard to tell on the Internet sometimes. I like playing with house rules and have played with healing spells myself. A little improvement is good but I found the long drawn out battles that result from over doing simply aren’t any fun and I’m hoping you can learn from my mistakes :)