Yeah but it is less spells known, thats all im adding, not slots.
Here is an updated version of my rules:
These look better, and friendlier. I have a concern with rule #1 though. Not the entire rule, and probably not the rule as you intended it, but the wording of it.
The GM has the final word at all times. The rules are subject to change at will, and will be arbitrated by the DM in whatever manner is necessary to preserve balance and fun for everyone at the table, including all players and the GM.
If I were new to you as a GM and read that the rules were subject to change at will I would ask in painful detail what that means exactly. In any game, the players and the GM alike need to act with consistency.
...
Concerning rule #22:
Please do not use stealth in an abusive way. Depending on how you use stealth we may have to discuss what is and isn’t fair. If I think your usage is unreasonable expect to see enemies ambushes with similar abilities.
Most of the time these characters appear to be far scarier and harder to deal with than they really are. If someone starts heading down the road of Super Stealther, don't automatically assume some untouchable scourge on your game. They are easier to handle than you think, especially with the books your game will be limited to.
...
Concerning rule #23:
If you roll a natural 20 three times in succession on an attack roll the opponent is automatically killed or destroyed.
This is not exactly what I meant when I suggested the rule. If you are modifying what I talked about, go for it, but I wanted to make sure you understood. It's not three nat-20s in a row. It's two nat-20s and a regular crit confirmation on the third roll.
So if a creature has an AC 15 and your player has a +5 bonus to attack: The rolls to auto-kill that creature are: 20, 20, and 10 or better.
Again, if you are just modifying it to make the occurrence super rare, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure you knew that wasn't exactly what I was talking about. It still doesn't happen often.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.
Honestly I think the caster-martial disparity should be dealt by acknowledging the class-tiers and picking classes with close power levels.
If I were to move the power level, I would boost the martial classes instead of trying to nerf the casters. Martial classes can be pretty dull, and don't have nearly enough versatility - so expanding the things they can do seems like a good plan.
These look better, and friendlier. I have a concern with rule #1 though. Not the entire rule, and probably not the rule as you intended it, but the wording of it.
Quote:If I were new to you as a GM and read that the rules were subject to change at will I would ask in painful detail what that means exactly. In any game, the players and the GM alike need to act with consistency.
The statement is pretty much a statement to reserve the right to run the game without protracted arguments at the table about what the rules are. Some things in the rules are pretty clear cut, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes I disagree with rulings that are made in FAQ's from Paizo. It's hard to know everything and keep up with all of it. That's what I'm trying to get to with my statement. I will always run rules the same for both PCs and NPCs, it wont change from side to side. But on a new topic I may make a ruling that goes against the established order. If I'm clearly wrong and it can easily be shown then that's fine. But if it requires discussion it will be one of those things I just make a judgement call on, and we can discuss it outside the game.
Concerning rule #22:Most of the time these characters appear to be far scarier and harder to deal with than they really are. If someone starts heading down the road of Super Stealther, don't automatically assume some untouchable scourge on your game. They are easier to handle than you think, especially with the books your game will be limited to.
...
Concerning rule #23:
Quote:If you roll a natural 20 three times in succession on an attack roll the opponent is automatically killed or destroyed.
This is not exactly what I meant when I suggested the rule. If you are modifying what I talked about, go for it, but I wanted to make sure you understood. It's not three nat-20s in a row. It's two nat-20s and a regular crit confirmation on the third roll.
So if a creature has an AC 15 and your player has a +5 bonus to attack: The rolls to auto-kill that creature are: 20, 20, and 10 or better.
Again, if you are just modifying it to make the occurrence super rare, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure you knew that wasn't exactly what I was talking about. It still doesn't happen often.
Indeed, on both rule 22 and 23. I agree that with the rule book limits I've imposed it shouldn't be a problem. They wont have a way to negate blindsight or blindsense. The first way I know to counter tremorsense (Boots of the Soft Step) aren't from the books I've listed as available either, so there wont be easy ways to negate enhanced sense.
On rule 23, I just need to change it. I typed it in haste when I added that in, Friday was kind of a busy day and I may have been "working" on this stuff at work.
The statement is pretty much a statement to reserve the right to run the game without protracted arguments at the table about what the rules are. Some things in the rules are pretty clear cut, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes I disagree with rulings that are made in FAQ's from Paizo. It's hard to know everything and keep up with all of it. That's what I'm trying to get to with my statement. I will always run rules the same for both PCs and NPCs, it wont change from side to side. But on a new topic I may make a ruling that goes against the established order. If I'm clearly wrong and it can easily be shown then that's fine. But if it requires discussion it will be one of those things I just make a judgement call on, and we can discuss it outside the game.
These look better, and friendlier. I have a concern with rule #1 though. Not the entire rule, and probably not the rule as you intended it, but the wording of it.
Quote:If I were new to you as a GM and read that the rules were subject to change at will I would ask in painful detail what that means exactly. In any game, the players and the GM alike need to act with consistency.
That is what I figured this rule was about. And I am not by any means telling you that you shouldn't have final call when you are GM. But as an outsider looking in on your house rule, the wording you chose would concern me. Not from a stand point of "you shouldn't be able to make the call" but from a stand point of consistency through out the campaign. I didn't imagine you intended to make your rulings chaotic from session to session, and your current group might not even bat an eye, but a new player to your group might have some concerns when reading this line. That's all I meant.
This is one of those instances where, I don't have great examples but I know it when I see it. And if I could forsee all possible bad combinations I would ban them, unfortunately while I have decent system mastery I don't know everything. I actually do try to avoid character death, I want PCs to survive, but just barely (so it feels like a true challenge). Sometimes I think the best way to illustrate what is fair or unfair is not use certain tactics unless the PCs choose to use them. Like Mage's Disjunction. I wont use it, unless the PCs do so first.I see. I thought you were not the GM, but I misread an earlier post.
I think you should outline what "abuse" is for the players, or at least any new players, even if you don't specify for those of us on the boards.
You can also just ban certain things so it wont be an issue for your table. That is better than saying "You are breaking my game, so now I will kill your character(s)."
I have GM's for powergamers before and I let them know there were things I would not do, but anything they can do so can my NPC's. It did make them second guess certain strategies.
No Metamagic Rods or Pearls of Power.
This hurts the half casting classes more than the full casting classes. a wizard or sorcerer has the spell slots to burn, and magus doesn't. further more without the rod a 20th level magus can at best quicken a second level spell. Maybe keep the lesser rods but not the greater ones. Same with pearls of power maybe limit them to 1st-3rd.
Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two Weapon Fighting feats are now just one feat.When you meet the prerequisites for the better versions you obtain them for free. If you do not wish to utilize TWF then this can be applied to Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, and Greater Vital Strike. You take Vital Strike feat and receive the others for free when you meet the conditions. Alternatively,if you do not want those options you can take power attack as a feat and receive two feats that have power attack as prerequisite one at level 6 and one at level 11. You must meet the conditions for the feats normally, but you receive them for free. You can only use one of these options, you could not for instance take Two Fighting and Vital strike and get all four other feats for free, you only get one set for free.
Everyone receives Weapon Finesse for free.
I think this is probably giving away too many feats to the martial characters. It's especially good for rogues. Too good I'd say. Sneak attack can be very powerful when you're talking 6 hits. Maybe instead of giving all three TWF feats as one instead subtract -1 from the penalty when taking the improved and greater feats.
I would maybe only give the vital strike or power attack feats for free and not the improved/greater extra feats. I get that you want to give martial characters extras but I think you'll end up having them be too good at the mid levels while still falling behind at the higher ones.
Poor saves have been eliminated from the game. Replace the poor save progression with the medium save progression using the 5/12*level+1 progression described here.
I don't like it. It boosts wizards and sorcerers as much as fighters. It also devalues the monk's good all around saves. It devalues the dwarf's bonuses. Maybe instead you change bravery to affect more than fear affects so the fighter alone gets a boost.
Other things you could add to help boost martial characters:
Paladins and Fighters get 4 sp per level, monks get 6.
Flexible BAB:
This is something I've been going over in my head and I think it would help balance issues with the rogue, monk and fighter. Instead of a set 20/15/10/5 BAB progression you can move points around. So if you are a fighter and you have so many bonuses that you'll never miss on your first attack you could take 5 points from that attack and add it to your weak attack and do a 15/15/10/10 routine. If you're a rogue or a monk and you're having trouble hitting a well armored foe you could take the points from your weakest attack (that wasn't going to hit anyways) and add it to your secondary attack so you attack at 15/15 instead of 15/10/5. Each hand has a separate pool of bab and you can't take a penalty on your off hand to boost your primary. You can never go above your normal max bab. You must have at least one bab point allocated to make a 3rd or 4th attack. Monks would combine all of their attacks in a flurry of blows in to one pool. extra attacks granted by abilities or spells (such as haste or the extra ki attack) would not be included in the pool.
For the most part this rule would remain balanced with the current system. After all if you have a 75% chance and a 25% chance to hit it's the same as 2 50% chances for average DPR. The place it makes changes are when you have too many bonuses and they are being wasted on your first attack or too few bonuses and your later attacks will always fail. It also helps even your damage out across rounds instead of getting lucky and doing 100 pts 1 round and then rolling poorly the next and doing nothing you're more likely to do 50 points in each round. The average damage is the same but tactically it could be a huge change. Finally it would have a side benefit of giving martial characters more to consider each round. "I full attack" is boring but change that to "I full attack but should i take a -5 on my primary or gamble that my secondary bonus is going to be enough to hit or not?) and players are more engaged.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My two electrum:
Easiest way to balance casters and martials is to:
A) Start reacting to caster tactics
If they keep SOS/Ding solos, start dropping twins or groups, or even more fun: decoys. Too bad you cast your big bad kill, here's the real threat!
If they keep bypassing things, start dropping anti-magic, SRs, non-dectection, dimensional anchor, materials like otataral and counterspells.
If they overshadow in combat, neutralize them. Casters can nullify casters so nicely with a little wand of dispel magic. Or even UMDers. Oh man, a bunch of tricked out rogues rocking UMD and just shooting casters so they can't get spells off: priceless.
Also stuff like this: http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/rise-of-the-thall-lord/items/gloves -of-greater-spell-disruption
Just homebrew some spell disruption weapons or items and the world's your oyster!
B) Always hold action economy over your party.
Well, not always, but it's a very effective way to keep casters in line: save a standard action or two per combat dedicated to keeping them in check ON TOP of normal tactics.
C) Inhibit the 15 minute adventure day.
Trap them, raid them, provide them with deadlines, whatever it takes to force them to measure their resources. And up the EPD to 5-7. Suddenly Martials look a lot better with those infinite resources.
D) Gygax your treasure.
Random stuff that they need to build around instead of feeding them the toys they want. No magic shops, no crafting wizards, maybe even no crafting feats!!!
Also, favour dropping magic weapons and armour over rings and wands. And give the group lots of healing, so HP is less precious when it's spent in 5-7 EPD.
Maybe even make SPELLS treasure. Take away their choices and impose make them learn to make do with what you give them. Or what they roll >:)
E) Give your Martials agency off their character sheet.
Kingdoms, friends in high places, knighthoods in Angelic Orders, all these things let Martials control the story in ways casters might not.
F) Give your Martials more toys.
Build some feats or powers for high level Martials that allow for some reality bending: let rogues use stealth to be invisible even to true seeing, let fighters become immune to magic, let barbarians use their rage to fly like the Hulk. If magic spells allow the impossible, let willpower and discipline do the same.
G)Make sure every player gets a chance to be a star
Hardest thing to do, easiest way to overcome "balance issues". If your two power gamers aren't constantly the centre of attention, then other players may not feel threatened by them.
Also, I think banning evil alignment is a good idea: evil campaigns have a delightful flavour, but there are the occasional rules meant for NPCs that unbalance PCs.
Hope my two electrum help!
If they keep bypassing things, start dropping anti-magic, SRs, non-dectection, dimensional anchor, materials like otataral and counterspells.
I have to disagree -- if you don't want them casting spells that let them bypass stuff, just ban those spells. I wouldn't give them the spells, pretend like I was OK with them, and then turn around and make them never work. That's dishonest.
(If you're going to allow those spells at all, a better solution is to design adventures that REQUIRE their use. That requires a lot more creativity on your part, but it makes the casters feel special without allowing them to hijack the whole game world.)
Inhibit the 15 minute adventure day. Trap them, raid them, provide them with deadlines, whatever it takes to force them to measure their resources. And up the EPD to 5-7. Suddenly Martials look a lot better with those infinite resources.
All of this accomplishes exactly nothing unless you also ban Magnificent Mansion, teleport, plane shift, etc. -- all the spells that allow the casters to freely disregard all of the above.
--High-level casters are a problem because their spells let them contol the narrative. There are two ways to deal with that: either empower the martials similarly ("OK, fighters now get an entire kingdom as a class feature at 10th level, and a world-spanning empire at 15th") or else simply nerf/remove the offending spells.
Build some feats or powers for high level Martials that allow for some reality bending: let rogues use stealth to be invisible even to true seeing, let fighters become immune to magic, let barbarians use their rage to fly like the Hulk. If magic spells allow the impossible, let willpower and discipline do the same.
These are really good. If you're not going to nerf spells, I would strongly encourage these as well.
Also, I think banning evil alignment is a good idea.
Having played in and DMed evil games, I've found them fun as a "one-off," but not really workable for a full-length campaign. If the latter is what you're going for, I'd agree that sticking to your guns and leaving in the "no evil PCs" rule is potentially a very good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree -- if you don't want them casting spells that let them bypass stuff, just ban those spells. I wouldn't give them the spells, pretend like I was OK with them, and then turn around and make them never work. That's dishonest.
(If you're going to allow those spells at all, a better solution is to design adventures that REQUIRE their use. That requires a lot more creativity on your part, but it makes the casters feel special without allowing them to hijack the whole game world.)
I think it's circumstantial: Teleport is a useful, valuable and fun spell, as are planeshift, knock, and all the other spells that make it faster to get places and can work in a pinch when the rogue is dead.
But when the PCs decide to use teleport to bypass the guardians of a treasure room or knock to get through a "quest door" that's when magical counter measures are called for.
More often than not I like it when a spellcaster can offer a creative use of a spell, but some encounters are designed for the Martials and Experts, so you need to use countermeasures to prevent spellcasters stealing the spotlight.
I do agree that designing adventures with the caster's spell list is a good idea though.
All of this accomplishes exactly nothing unless you also ban Magnificent Mansion, teleport, plane shift, etc. -- all the spells that allow the casters to freely disregard all of the above.
Well this is what dimensional anchor, materials like otataral (an antimagic ore from Erikson for those out of the loop), time constraints and reactive dungeons/encounter flows with intelligence gathering monsters are for. If they stop after one fight and pop into their mansion, immediately provide an ambush right where they'll pop back out.
Time sensitivity is the best way to force 5-7 EPD though. Someone will die of poison without the cure, the magic security will only be suppressed for x hours, Lord Deathkill returns in two days and he's a challenge too great, etc.
High-level casters are a problem because their spells let them contol the narrative. There are two ways to deal with that: either empower the martials similarly ("OK, fighters now get an entire kingdom as a class feature at 10th level, and a world-spanning empire at 15th") or else simply nerf/remove the offending spells.
Well, Part E covered non-class feature agency, and I agree that nerfing the spells or limiting them (ala spells as Gygaxian treasure instead of a right)
The key thing with these tips though is to not use them constantly: Give the casters time to shine too.
Clerics should get undead encounters to be the superhero just as much as the caves full of otataral quest will nerf the casters and force the party to lean on the martials and experts.
Variety is the spice of life and sometimes the fighters will suck and sometimes the casters will suck.
materials like otataral (an antimagic ore from Erikson for those out of the loop)
I'll admit I had to Google that one. I originally took my cue in that direction from Steven Brust -- his "phoenix stone" (similar gimmick) can be found only on the hostile Island of Greenaire, which seems to be made of the stuff, providing a location that's magic-free, but a far greater difficulty for people wanting to spread the stuff around.
Because one castle made of weird antimagic rock is really cool! But when six or eight of them in a row work that way, it's time to take a hint from the Tomes and just declare a universal houserule that X thickness of stone or earth of any kind blocks teleportation and scrying (which is what I did in my home game). In essence, you've nerfed those spells and also provided a rationale for the existence of castles and dungeons, in one fell swoop.
Because one castle made of weird antimagic rock is really cool! But when six or eight of them in a row work that way, it's time to take a hint from the Tomes and just declare a universal houserule that X thickness of stone or earth of any kind blocks teleportation and scrying (which is what I did in my home game). In essence, you've nerfed those spells and also provided a rationale for the existence of castles and dungeons, in one fell swoop.
I very much like this idea. What thickness of stone/earth/metal did you use?
I'm thinking like 5ft/1ft/1in would shield or prevent from scrying or teleportation. Definitely adds to the degree of difficulty if you don't know where exactly something is or can't just teleport to it.
What thickness of stone/earth/metal did you use?
I'm thinking like 5ft/1ft/1in would shield or prevent from scrying or teleportation. Definitely adds to the degree of difficulty if you don't know where exactly something is or can't just teleport to it.
I don't remember off-hand -- I can look it up when I get home -- but something like 2 ft. of stone, 5 ft. of earth, 1 in. of random metal, or a minute amount of lead ought to do it. Then a palace can have stone walls with leaded glass windows in the donjon tower -- court wizard needs to scry, he opens the windows to that room, but leaves the iron door closed. A meeting can be held in a room with lead-lined walls, and even a person in the same building can't scry it -- but he could conceivably just listen at the door and overhear them that way!
materials like otataral (an antimagic ore from Erikson for those out of the loop)I'll admit I had to Google that one. I originally took my cue in that direction from Steven Brust -- his "phoenix stone" (similar gimmick) can be found only on the hostile Island of Greenaire, which seems to be made of the stuff, providing a location that's magic-free, but a far greater difficulty for people wanting to spread the stuff around.
Because one castle made of weird antimagic rock is really cool! But when six or eight of them in a row work that way, it's time to take a hint from the Tomes and just declare a universal houserule that X thickness of stone or earth of any kind blocks teleportation and scrying (which is what I did in my home game). In essence, you've nerfed those spells and also provided a rationale for the existence of castles and dungeons, in one fell swoop.
No, no, I totally agree that the material should be rare and used sparingly. But to make your casters aware of it, to have it in the world as a potential menace is a valuable tool for your toolbox.
It works in the malazaban books as a means for Martials to provide a scissors to the caster's paper: highly elite officers, assasins and mage killers use it to police casters, but it's dangerous, poisonous and nerfs the group if it contains casters, so it's not the kind of sword you want your fighter carrying.
Having a door or a vault or weapon made out of it every 3-4 dungeons is more how I'd suggest using it, at higher levels. Just like anti-magic fields. Having one dungeon where magic fails frequently, or is dead (like a demi-plane of antimagic) is cool. Having 5 is lame.
But let's be honest, how many dungeons are you crawling in the average campaign? 1-3 a month? What's your advancement rate? A level a session? A level every 3? If you play weekly or bi-weekly, you're probably seeing a minimum of 20 sessions for 20 levels in 5 to 6 months. If you have 4-5 of those sessions feature a variety of antimagic, that's less than once a month in a very busy campaign, and once every two or three in a moderately paced one.
I think we both agree totally nerfing casters is lame. I just suggest occasionally doing it to give the martials and experts some time as the go to guys and to create a realistic feeling that a world with magic also has developed countermeasures, even at high levels.
Having one dungeon where magic fails frequently, or is dead (like a demi-plane of antimagic) is cool. Having 5 is lame.
I can agree with that. After 30 years playing, I sort of get low on new ideas, though... if an antimagic dungeon comes up only once a decade, that's still 3 of them already! So, I started off with the whole "teleportation somehow just doesn't work here," then graduated on to "high-level adventures take place on other planes where magic works funny," and finally added, "oh, and continuous stone/earth/metal blocks scrying and teleportation anyway" when I realized that there really needs to be an in-world explanation for why there are castles and dungeons everywhere.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I very much like this idea. What thickness of stone/earth/metal did you use?I'm thinking like 5ft/1ft/1in would shield or prevent from scrying or teleportation. Definitely adds to the degree of difficulty if you don't know where exactly something is or can't just teleport to it.
Here's the text from the tome Kirth Gersen was referring to:
9.9 The Constructanomicon
“How does that even stay up?”
Perhaps the most important question surrounding Dungeons and Dragons is the question why there are
Dungeons and Dragons. When you think about it, that’s pretty weird.
9.9.1 Dungeons: By the gods, why?
Alright, we know that you love dungeons. We love them too, despite the fact that we’re pretty sure there is
no good reason for the silly things. The average D&D game world is frankly incapable of the technology or
manpower needed to build vast underground complexes. I mean, look at our own world history: aside from
a single underground city in Turkey and a couple of pyramids and tombs, the ancient world took a pass on
underground life. Even the old excuse of “Wizards can magic it up and they do it because its defensible” is a
bit lame considering that we are talking about a world with teleport and burrowing and ethereal travel; being
underground is actually a liability since its harder to escape and people can drop the roof onto you, not to
mention the incredible costs involved in doing it even if magic is available.
So here is what we suggest: dungeons have an actual magical purpose. By putting anything behind at
least 40’ of solid, continuous material (like solid walls of dirt, stone, ice, or whatever, but not a forest of trees
or rooms of furniture) the area is immune to unlimited-range or “longer than Long Range” spells like Scrying
and transportation magic like teleport, greater teleport, the travel version of gate, and other effects. You can
use these magics inside a dungeon, but you also stopped by a 40’ solid, continuous material in a Line of Effect;
this means you can use these effects inside a dungeon to bypass doors and walls, but entering and leaving the
dungeon is a problem, and parts of the dungeon that have more than 30’ of material in the way between your
position and the target of your effect will be effectively isolated from your position.
In summary, in a best-case scenario you can transport yourself to a dungeon, then bust in the entrance and
enter the dungeon, then transport yourself to the place you want to be inside the dungeon. In a worse-case
scenario, the dungeon designer will have built the dungeon in such a way that only someone aware of the
layout can take full advantage of unlimited range or transportation spells like teleports and Scry, or even that
most or all areas if the dungeon are inaccessible to these effects.
Of course, there are exceptions. The idea of permanent portals, gates, or teleport circles are just too common
in D&D and too fun to just abandon. Permanent effects will continue to regardless of materials in the way, and
will be the premier way to enter and leave dungeons, as well as the best way to move inside a dungeon.
By incorporating these changes in your D&D world, you are ensuring that players actually explore rooms
in your dungeons that you have painstakingly built, you avoid all the problems with Scry-and-Die tactics, and
you’ll find that players actually care about dungeon geography. It also adds a bit to suspension of disbelief in
your setting, which is only good for a cooperative storytelling game
I suggest reading the whole thing if you have time. It's 3rd or 3.5 edition but the authors give a lot of good ideas.
Having one dungeon where magic fails frequently, or is dead (like a demi-plane of antimagic) is cool. Having 5 is lame.I can agree with that. After 30 years playing, I sort of get low on new ideas, though... if an antimagic dungeon comes up only once a decade, that's still 3 of them already! So, I started off with the whole "teleportation somehow just doesn't work here," then graduated on to "high-level adventures take place on other planes where magic works funny," and finally added, "oh, and continuous stone/earth/metal blocks scrying and teleportation anyway" when I realized that there really needs to be an in-world explanation for why there are castles and dungeons everywhere.
I really do like that rationale. I may just steal it. I'm definitely going to give kirthfinder a good looking over and share it with my groups for potential house rules, as I agree with much of your thinking.
@Dr. Calvin
Do you have examples and suggestion for part F beyond what you've listed?
I can say that Paizo has done okay for the Barbarian in terms like you've stated because they have interesting rage powers. Dragon Totem will let a barbarian grow wings and fly for instance.
I would love to incorporate things like this into the game world, but I'm just not sure how to do it.