One of my friends has started his Rise of the Runelords campaign. He also decided to lay down a few house rules before play started. Pretty much all of them sounded reasonable to us, the players, and we all agreed to them. Nevertheless, I wanted to post them here in the hopes of uncovering any unexpected ramifications of said house rules well in advance.
What do you think of the following?
- You do NOT have to move in a straight line while taking the run action, but if you don't, you can only run at x3 your speed (or x4 with the Run feat).
- You may make a Strength check to break down a door as a free action when using the run action. This does not apply to other obstacles, such as walls--not even while polymorphed into a very strong, huge creature (I asked).
- Spring Attack and Vital Strike may be used in conjunction with one another.
- You cannot create or modify a magical item so that it is essentially two magical items in one slot (GM thinks this unbalanced, even with the higher costs).
- You (or at least the GM's wife) may play a homebrewed medium-sized harefolk race with 40-ft. base speed, +2 Dex and Cha, +1 natural armor, Run as a bonus feat, and is always treated as though it had a running start when jumping.
- Massive damage, traits (2), and Hero Point rules are in full effect.
- Though not a hard rule stated outright, the GM implied he was heavily against switching characters mid-game. I intoned that I might play a fighter throughout the low levels, then switch to a spellcaster later as I thought that would be more fun for me. He gave me a stern look and said "you best to make and play that spellcaster right now then if that's what you want." Not sure how this will work out in the event of naturally occurring (for an adventurer) character deaths.
House rules are fine and all. I think they're pretty tame. Some of them make specific archetypes better, although massive damage, traits, and hero points help even it all out. The Harefolk race seems a little high powered. Does it have any negatives?
One of my friends has started his Rise of the Runelords campaign. He also decided to lay down a few house rules before play started. Pretty much all of them sounded reasonable to us, the players, and we all agreed to them. Nevertheless, I wanted to post them here in the hopes of uncovering any unexpected ramifications of said house rules well in advance.
What do you think of the following?
- You do NOT have to move in a straight line while taking the run action, but if you don't, you can only run at x3 your speed (or x4 with the Run feat).
- You may make a Strength check to break down a door as a free action when using the run action. This does not apply to other obstacles, such as walls--not even while polymorphed into a very strong, huge creature (I asked).
- Spring Attack and Vital Strike may be used in conjunction with one another.
- You cannot create or modify a magical item so that it is essentially two magical items in one slot (GM thinks this unbalanced, even with the higher costs).
- You (or at least the GM's wife) may play a homebrewed medium-sized harefolk race with 40-ft. base speed, +2 Dex and Cha, +1 natural armor, Run as a bonus feat, and is always treated as though it had a running start when jumping.
- Massive damage, traits (2), and Hero Point rules are in full effect.
- Though not a hard rule stated outright, the GM implied he was heavily against switching characters mid-game. I intoned that I might play a fighter throughout the low levels, then switch to a spellcaster later as I thought that would be more fun for me. He gave me a stern look and said "you best to make and play that spellcaster right now then if that's what you want." Not sure how this will work out in the event of naturally occurring (for an adventurer) character deaths.
-Some of these I like a lot. Especially the changes to run allowing you to go around corners.
-The polymorph stuff on the strength check to break down walls I would probably allow (that isn't to say it wouldn't be very difficult or that you wouldn't have a chance of hurting yourself) but I would at least let you try.
-Spring attack and vital strike working together is something I usually do in my hone games. It makes single attacks ALMOST worth it (and even then multiple attacks are still the norm).
-eh, the stacking two magical items into a single slot doesn't bother me all that much, but if this kind of rule was implemented it just mean I would only want/use big six magic items as the other effects tend to be a waste in my opinion outside of specific builds.
-The race would worry me especially with now it combines with the run rules so well. Actually, it would make me believe that he changed the run rules for the home brew race so his wife could have something special as opposed to actually trying to fix something in the rules themselves. (Basically, I would call it favoritism on his part).
-The massive damage rules in pathfinder are not that bad so that wouldn't worry me, and I usually run with traits and hero points as well so I can't really say anything against those.
-I would take it as a challenge and write up a character that I new could survive over the long haul of the campaign. Especially, if it meant that it would be more difficult to bring new characters into the game after my existing character died.
So, all in all, I would just adapt, but I would be wary of what else he ends up giving his wife as the game goes along.
The Harefolk race seems a little high powered. Does it have any negatives?
I'm sure it does since it was built using the ARG rules, but I don't remember them. I only got a glance at the wife's character sheet and she's hardly making her traits public knowledge at this time.
I haven't done the full math, but the hare race sounds about a 10-11 point race via the race builder. Without the full race stats (alternate racial abilities, etc) I couldn't confirm for sure, but the stuff you listed sounds about 10 or 11 points.
For the rest, nothing overpowered I saw, or crippling.
The only one I would be concerned about would be the magic item one. How would that work for core items that are already 2 bonuses on one item? The big example are the belts and headbands O multiple stat boosting. They use those rules, but are a key magic item in the game.
Pretty sure those are fine Kolokotroni. He just didn't want us using the "add a lesser magic item's effects to a greater one for 50% extra cost" rule, since he sees it as potentially unbalancing. I don't personally agree (as I've seen the best and worst of said rule), but it doesn't bother me nearly enough to make a big deal out of it.
I've made plenty of amazing characters without resorting to such things before.
Completely new homebrew items, on the other hand, seem to be okay, but all require the GM's approval (as they should) who will be playing it by ear.
|
The change to run I actually like a lot and will probably use it in my games actually.
The free break down door...meh. Not a fan of it but don't really see any issues with it.
Spring attack and vital strike working together is pretty much the norm around here. Heck even a lot of AP writers use it.
NOT A HOUSERULE. Custom magic items are all, every single one at the whim of the GM. They are not part of the ruleset. The guideline is there is the GM wants to add more stuff...not the players (although you can request).
The custom race seems a bit higher power then norm...but since you don't know all about it, can't say if it is so or not. Just because it uses the APG racial builder doesn't meant squat for balance issues.
The rest aren't houserules...just variant rules and really not a big deal.
|
I feel that the houserules are heavily oriented to benefit the GM's wife. Why these modifications to the Run action when she conveniently plays a fast character with the Run feat for free ?
I would not be surprised to learn that she will use the Spring Attack tactic a lot too.
Also, I am willing to bet that she will only ever invest in items boosting CHA and DEX (ie, a headband and a belt). Thus she need not worry about the single-stat item rule which will be of great inconvenience to any character who needs 2 mental or 2 physical stat-boosts.
You should ask your GM for the reasons behind these houserules. Also you should take the Run feat. Or ask to play the same race as his wife.
The GM's reactions could be telling.
well, I suppose I will retract my statement on DM favoritism if that isn't the whole of the race that she is playing.
Edit: That actually isn't a bad idea in the end. Ask if you could see the race he handed to his wife as you might be interested in playing it as well. See how he responds and if he lets you see the character. If it is all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips, then run it as your own character and see what happens.
|
|
Also, I am willing to bet that she will only ever invest in items boosting CHA and DEX (ie, a headband and a belt). Thus she need not worry about the single-stat item rule which will be of great inconvenience to any character who needs 2 mental or 2 physical stat-boosts.
You do realize that multi stat items already exists so are allowed? The "house rule"...which really isn't is that you can't have multi-fuction items. So no making a custom item ring that has freedom of movement, feather fall and protection +5.
|
|
NOT A HOUSERULE. Custom magic items are all, every single one at the whim of the GM. They are not part of the ruleset. The guideline is there is the GM wants to add more stuff...not the players (although you can request).
Way I read it, the GM is banning items such as the Belt of Physical Might, which is a part of the ruleset AFAIK. Thus a houserule.
I had already asked about why he chose these particular house rules. The explanation I got was "so you guys could run away more easily. It's not at all heroic to die because you had to use a move action to get to the door, stop, another move action to open the door, then a third move action to continue moving again--oh wait, you don't have three move actions--bad guys catch you and kill you I guess." <-- This actually led to a TPK in his game once.
It seems he doesn't think Hero Points and wits alone are enough to save us from some encounters.
And I'm totally fine with that. We have yet to get through a single adventure path without MULTIPLE TPKs so we could probably use a handicap at this point.
I suspect many of the house rules were suggested by his wife, which might be why many seem to favor her. The GM gave us a "ask and answer" session before our first game in which we cleared up a lot of stuff well in advance. I know for fact that another player specifically asked for the Spring Attack/Vital Strike house rule.
I don't see that one being much good to a bunnyfolk bard/lore master.
I do not see a big issue here, I might make house rules on the spot after a discussion with any player about the viability of some feats, I do not think you can call it favoritism if you do not know if he would be willing to do the same for any player with a reasonable concept. The changes made make sense and turn fairly weak feats into more useful ones.
I agree on the character swap limitation, make a character with the intention to play it through the levels. I would not stop a player from swapping characters if he truly does not enjoy playing but I take a dim view of a planned character swap.
EDIT : apparently he is quite willing to adjust reasonable suggestions from other players as well judging from RD's post above this one.
I don't normally like furry races, but that bunny race sounds useful for making Usagi Yojimbo, which is way cool.
|
One of my friends has started his Rise of the Runelords campaign. He also decided to lay down a few house rules before play started. Pretty much all of them sounded reasonable to us, the players, and we all agreed to them. Nevertheless, I wanted to post them here in the hopes of uncovering any unexpected ramifications of said house rules well in advance.
What do you think of the following?
- You do NOT have to move in a straight line while taking the run action, but if you don't, you can only run at x3 your speed (or x4 with the Run feat).
How does this interact with running speed reductions for encumbrance (seriously armored people already run at only 3x)? Otherwise, seems okay because the straight line requirement is a bit harsh anyway.
- You may make a Strength check to break down a door as a free action when using the run action. This does not apply to other obstacles, such as walls--not even while polymorphed into a very strong, huge creature (I asked).
Eh. Situationally useful.
- Spring Attack and Vital Strike may be used in conjunction with one another.
Makes Spring Attack a lot more useful.
- You cannot create or modify a magical item so that it is essentially two magical items in one slot (GM thinks this unbalanced, even with the higher costs).
He's probably exaggerating the unbalance, but it's not something you absolutely NEED to have.
- You (or at least the GM's wife) may play a homebrewed medium-sized harefolk race with 40-ft. base speed, +2 Dex and Cha, +1 natural armor, Run as a bonus feat, and is always treated as though it had a running start when jumping.
That's a fairly strong race, for certain classes. Not insane, but quite powerful.
- Massive damage, traits (2), and Hero Point rules are in full effect.
Massive damage has been toned down in PF I think. Traits are nice in RotRL. Hero Points will be useful in the boss fights or to survive sudden extreme misfortune. Hoard enough of them to buy off death now and then.
- Though not a hard rule stated outright, the GM implied he was heavily against switching characters mid-game. I intoned that I might play a fighter throughout the low levels, then switch to a spellcaster later as I thought that would be more fun for me. He gave me a stern look and said "you best to make and play that spellcaster right now then if that's what you want." Not sure how this will work out in the event of naturally occurring (for an adventurer) character deaths.
With long story arcs, it gets annoying if the people who learned all the context, had all the motivation and discovered all the clues, leave halfway.
I'm in the beginning of RotRL now as a wizard, and I expect that it's a fairly wizard-friendly AP; knowledge (arcana, history, planes) will be important and I've heard say there's a lot of lootable spellbooks. The dungeons have a lot of narrow passages in the first book, so battlefield control is powerful.
- You (or at least the GM's wife) may play a homebrewed medium-sized harefolk race with 40-ft. base speed, +2 Dex and Cha, +1 natural armor, Run as a bonus feat, and is always treated as though it had a running start when jumping.
My only beef with the house rules you present is this line. Any race made available for one player should be made available as a selection for all players. The fact you and the rest of your group don't have the full stats available for this is highly questionable.
Additionally, I'd love to see what "drawbacks" are included.
- Though not a hard rule stated outright, the GM implied he was heavily against switching characters mid-game. I intoned that I might play a fighter throughout the low levels, then switch to a spellcaster later as I thought that would be more fun for me. He gave me a stern look and said "you best to make and play that spellcaster right now then if that's what you want." Not sure how this will work out in the event of naturally occurring (for an adventurer) character deaths.
All of the house rules you mention seem reasonable — not necessarily the ones I use, or would use, but reasonable. I want to comment on this last one specifically:
I'm with the GM on this. I mean, if a player in a campaign I was running actually planned, in advance, to kill off their character at some point because they only made the character to play for a little while... I'd frown pretty hard too. That's a rather shockingly low level of investment in a character.
I mean, it's hard to enforce a rule against this — what do you do if the player says nothing, and then at some point goes — "What's that, a dragon lives over in that cave? Well it so happens I have a sudden hankering for cave mushrooms, let me go pick them all by myself oh hello mister dragon, surely you won't mind if I help myself to your treasure oh god my spleen, ow, ow, not the face, woe is me I am so unexpectedly dead, and at such a ripe young age, too. Welp, time for a new character, I s'pose."
But I'd be pretty disappointed to find that my players are so uninterested in my campaign that they treat their characters as disposable.
Maybe it wasn't your intent to take such an attitude? I don't know. But, it sure could easily look like that to your DM, yeah?
As a counterpoint to my previous reply, I have had players say "you know, Makhno, this character just isn't working out for me. I think, the next time I die, I'll communicate out-of-game to the players that they shouldn't res me, and I'll bring in something else, something that fits better with the campaign/party/etc. and that I'll have more fun playing. That cool with you?"
And I've said "sure". Sometimes characters don't work out; it happens. It's the attitude of planning to do so in advance that somewhat offends my DM sensibilities.
Your DM sure likes running.
None of those are too crazy, but they don't seem necessary to me either. Also, opening the door as a free action while running is pretty out there. I suggest you try it. You still need to pause momentarily to open it.
So adventurers aren't allowed to retire to a plush life after obtaining tens of thousand of gold now???
- You cannot create or modify a magical item so that it is essentially two magical items in one slot (GM thinks this unbalanced, even with the higher costs).I agree with your GM. It has extremely high abuse potential.
Name three.
"I'm with the GM on this. I mean, if a player in a campaign I was running actually planned, in advance, to kill off their character at some point because they only made the character to play for a little while... I'd frown pretty hard too. That's a rather shockingly low level of investment in a character."
Makhno, some characters just work better if they die tragically at some point. I'm not going to list any major spoilers here, but if a player plans for his character to fall at some battle, or to be betrayed by his wife on their wedding night, or something else like that, and he is instead made to live out as Grand Emperor of everything, that's kind of a punishment for no reason, I feel.
So adventurers aren't allowed to retire to a plush life after obtaining tens of thousand of gold now???
Sure. I think it depends on the type of campaign you're running.
In a sandbox campaign, it makes sense for an adventurer to say "The big score! Well guys, this is what I wanted out of all this, and now I'm out. It's been fun." Then the party hires or finds another willing dungeon-delver to take that guy's place. Fine and well.
In a more plot-oriented campaign, where interesting events unfold and the PCs participate in those events, each driven by his or her own motivations; or, even more so, if the campaign is both plot-heavy AND character-driven, as is largely the case in the current campaign I am running; well, then...
... then it not only makes relatively little sense for a PC to up and say "ok guys, I'm out", but it sort of disrupts things.
Furthermore, consider the character motivations: you've embarked on a quest, of great importance to your life and your convictions, with several other people. After facing death numerous times at their side, and sharing your goals, joys, and secrets with them, and accomplishing great deeds with their help, you finally manage to complete your own quest(s) and achieve your goal(s), and...
... promptly abandon your party, opting for the plushy life, leaving your companions to continue their own life-critical quests without you. What?
"I'm with the GM on this. I mean, if a player in a campaign I was running actually planned, in advance, to kill off their character at some point because they only made the character to play for a little while... I'd frown pretty hard too. That's a rather shockingly low level of investment in a character."
Makhno, some characters just work better if they die tragically at some point. I'm not going to list any major spoilers here, but if a player plans for his character to fall at some battle, or to be betrayed by his wife on their wedding night, or something else like that, and he is instead made to live out as Grand Emperor of everything, that's kind of a punishment for no reason, I feel.
Hm, this is an interesting perspective. If I might ask — do your games often play out like this?
I didn't consider such a possibility because this sort of thing sounds like planning out a story and then telling that story, which is not the style of gaming that I am used to (or prefer). (No disrespect meant toward those who do prefer such a style.)
Of course if that's your thing, and the GM undermines (after agreeing to it, presumably?), then that's unfair, yeah. On the other hand, you would work it out beforehand with your GM, right? It doesn't seem like this sort of plan would work very well as just a plan that you as the player have, with no GM consultation or input.
Works great for a Neutral Evil character.
"Sweet, look at all teh l00tz guise."
"Welp I'ma go buy a brothel now, who's with me?"
"What do you MEAN we're trying to save people's lives? LOOK AT ALL THIS CASH!"
Hm, this is an interesting perspective. If I might ask — do your games often play out like this?
I didn't consider such a possibility because this sort of thing sounds like planning out a story and then telling that story, which is not the style of gaming that I am used to (or prefer). (No disrespect meant toward those who do prefer such a style.)
Of course if that's your thing, and the GM undermines (after agreeing to it, presumably?), then that's unfair, yeah. On the other hand, you would work it out beforehand with your GM, right? It doesn't seem like this sort of plan would work very well as just a plan that you as the player have, with no GM consultation or input.
Well ideally, you'd want a DM who was in on it. Otherwise, just magically hoping that woman across the bar is the future mother of your children, one of which will stab you with a spear and bring ruin to your kingdoms, that would be a little silly.
I'm just saying, a character abruptly leaving has his place. And that above point of a character achieving his goals and just leaving the party...maybe he's a flake. Or maybe he's gotta pull a Wesley Crusher and just leave to find himself, or something like that. Maybe it shouldn't happen every adventure with every character, but not every ending has to be happy. For some, a story being...'complete' is enough.
|
I'm sure it does since it was built using the ARG rules, but I don't remember them. I only got a glance at the wife's character sheet and she's hardly making her traits public knowledge at this time.
Which strikes me as even more husband/wife Shenanigans...
I'd talk to him about it. Alone, or at least without his wife. He may feel the need to defend her/her character. Hell, it may all be his idea and she's just following his lead. No idea. But if it bothers you now, it will certainly bother you later.. in the middle of a game session, when she's batting her eyelashes, running through doors, Vitally Spring Attacking the $#!+ outta everything that moves, and hogging all the glory!! ;)
Well ideally, you'd want a DM who was in on it. Otherwise, just magically hoping that woman across the bar is the future mother of your children, one of which will stab you with a spear and bring ruin to your kingdoms, that would be a little silly.
I'm just saying, a character abruptly leaving has his place. And that above point of a character achieving his goals and just leaving the party...maybe he's a flake. Or maybe he's gotta pull a Wesley Crusher and just leave to find himself, or something like that. Maybe it shouldn't happen every adventure with every character, but not every ending has to be happy. For some, a story being...'complete' is enough.
Yeah, this seems reasonable. It's the "disposable character" attitude I object to, not a lack of in-character dedication per se.
(Incidentally, I thought the whole "Wesley Crusher leaves to find himself" thing was dumb. Perhaps why they (the studio and the actor) did it, but in-story, dumb.)
Well, anything involving Wesley Crusher is instantly a bad example. What about a character who became a Werewolf, and so goes to some monastery where they're all about learning to control that? Or, they receive word that something's happened to their home, and they have to go solve it alone? Or so on and so forth.
But if it bothers you now, it will certainly bother you later...
It really doesn't bother me at all. She seems to be having fun, the race (what I've seen) appears balanced, and I can deal with the silliness factor (she actually manages to make the whole thing very serious some how).
|
|
It's not that you can't find some justification to retire a character. That's not the problem.
Characters leaving mid-story, does hamper the story. Consider a quest, based on things that happened in the first book; that's where major clues got seeded, motivation for the quest was found and so forth.
And a while later none of the original cast are present. Does somewhat disrupt the story.
It's like a TV series: if all the actors from season 1 are gone, it's gonna look very strange.
I was thinking of whipping up a few house rules myself. Females get +1 Constitution, and males get +1 Strength. This modifies your base attributes at level 1.
Whaddya think?
|
|
But if it bothers you now, it will certainly bother you later...It really doesn't bother me at all. She seems to be having fun, the race (what I've seen) appears balanced, and I can deal with the silliness factor (she actually manages to make the whole thing very serious some how).
Assumption on my part I suppose. Well, if you're ok with everything the GM set forth, then "Play On!"
Piccolo that sounds good.
Should it be paired with a gender penalty to attributes as well?
Men are getting a +1 to Strength, women a +1 to Constitution, so... Men getting a -1 to Constitution and women a -1 to Strength, just to balance it out?
|
|
- Though not a hard rule stated outright, the GM implied he was heavily against switching characters mid-game. I intoned that I might play a fighter throughout the low levels, then switch to a spellcaster later as I thought that would be more fun for me. He gave me a stern look and said "you best to make and play that spellcaster right now then if that's what you want." Not sure how this will work out in the event of naturally occurring (for an adventurer) character deaths.
RoTRL is a campaign that (hopefully) will take local heroes to being near global heroes, through a series of interlinked events.
If you die, you die and the plot with adapt, but having an adventurer bow out in the middle is like saying "Yeah, I know we still have an uber threat and all...but I'm gonna go nap. Here is another character!"
Bad form.
If you want to play a spellcaster, you should start at 1st level and try to survive.
|
|
well the other guy can say that he has chosen not to adventure anymore he wants to teach or something else, and walk away from the party.
He could. It is still bad form and basically says "I don't really care about this character, I'm just here for the mechanics."
Which is fine in a like minded group. This GM seems to actually want to use the narrative.
YMMV.
well the other guy can say that he has chosen not to adventure anymore he wants to teach or something else, and walk away from the party.He could. It is still bad form and basically says "I don't really care about this character, I'm just here for the mechanics."
Not it doesn't. It says that the character's story has been told, and dragging it on further is unneeded.
Of course you might be saying, "That's foolish, how can you say with certainty what another person's actions say?"
Good question.
Not it doesn't. It says that the character's story has been told, and dragging it on further is unneeded.well the other guy can say that he has chosen not to adventure anymore he wants to teach or something else, and walk away from the party.He could. It is still bad form and basically says "I don't really care about this character, I'm just here for the mechanics."
It can be both bad form among the expected dynamics of the players/group and quality role playing in character/story.