Are you also going to require flails to waste an action readying after a successful hit? Yes they were able to ignore shields, but they were also slow as hell to use well, and awkward as all get out.
Your rule about martial classes being able to make CMB checks with an AoO... the reason that martial classes, specifically the fighter, is not simply able to do this, is because they get a feat at every level. I feel like letting the fighter simply have all those feats essentially, sort of breaks the fighter, IMHO.
I agree with your detect alignment rules intensely. There is nothing worse than when the paladin just detects evil all day trying to figure out where the enemies are... for example. In ROTRL,
A house rule that I imply in all of my games has to do with natural healing. Per pathfinder core rules, you heal your level per 8 hour rest... what I like to do if your level x your HD / 2.
For example, a level 1 bard would be 1 x 1d8 /2. let's say he rolls a 6, this has him heal 3 hp, as opposed to the 1. Not game-breaking, but enough to keep you from having to rest multiple days.
#1 This takes away the inherent qualities of the different races. Weaknesses and shortcomings distinct a race just as much as their strenghts. And who would play a human anymore?
#2 I don't get. Why does it turn you into an asthmatic wuss? Do your PCs keep their shields strapped to their arms when they try to swim?
#3 Banning wish spells shouldn't be too much of a problem. It won't come up until high level play anyway and by then PCs will have plenty of powerful options. Banning alignment detection is understandable, just make sure everyone knows what they're getting into (especially paladin players).
#4 This theoretically enables barbarian/monk/paladin builds. Didn't do any math and not sure if this is an exploit, but a raging smiting flurrier sounds too badass to be balanced.
#5 Do you apply the same rule to enemies?
#6 Maybe make it a "Swift Channel" feat? Will you be able to channel as a swift, a move and a standard action or is there some sort of "cooldown" involved?
#7 I think take average on your hit dice is more balanced, that's the way monsters are built anyway.
#8 Huge change and don't know how this impacts spike damage builds.
#9 I see...
#10 Expect a LOT of flails being used. Maybe think about giving other weapons and edge as well (like getting a bonus vs. certain types of armor).
Of all those rules I especially see a problem with lifting alignment restrictions on the paladin (for multi-classing exploits) and making flails an unsurpassable choice for any martial character by letting it ignore shields.
I think you should introduce those changes in a confined module first to see how it goes. From my very personal point of view, I don't like them very much because most of them have a "I just don't like it" reasoning behind it. But your game, your rules of course.
Just my two cents.
How far is too far? When it stops being fun for you and your group. YMMV
Rule #1 - Racial penalties to ability scores are banned. (this one seems self explanatory, it enables more freedom of choice, and I think just because someone wants to play lets say, a drow shouldn't mean that they can't also play a barbarian (hilarious by the way))
I like it. It takes a strange race/class choice (e.g. halfling barbarian) and instead of making it a complete waste of time it is just sub-optimal.
#2 - Maximum armor check penalties on medium armor is -3, heavy is -5 and shields (except tower shields) don't incur a penalty. (This just bothered me, whats the point of being a beefed up a bad-ass if you automatically get turned into an asthmatic wuss the second you don armor?)
My personal fix for this was to eliminate all speed and ACPs for pure melee characters. The weight can incur a negative for a heavier than light load.
I see an iconic D&D world as dragons and knights in platemail. The massive negatives from heavier armour makes everyone a DEX junky, and I am not a fan.
#7 - Take Max on you're hit dice. (this one I feel like alot of people do, I know the one group I played with did, and worst comes to worst, I can just do the same to the monsters :)
I do the same. Never understood all the "take half hit points plus an arbitrary number" or rolling. Just take max and everyone is balanced from level 1 and beyond.
--
Aside: One of my favourite D&D v. 4.0 rules was that there are two stats that lend themselves to each of the Saves. Suddenly smart people can avoid blows that previously only agile ones could. I am a fan.
|
You are obviously very adamant about your house rules. I haven't seen that many $%^#*(&@)'s in a while. And here's some input from someone who's been there (where there is altering the rules for realism). And after doing this and going back to RAW, they truly are balanced for play. Spell casters are powerful, but they have a ton of additional rules to be used against them as well (concentration checks and spell blights specifically).
It is all going to depend on your group. All it takes is one power gamer/min maxer and yes, he's going to take your rules and blow them apart. A Paladin/Barbarian that has no penalties to armor and can channel energy as a swift action and has all the CMB feats for free? By the by, how do you define a "martial character"? The obvious full BAB is one thing. But what if someone wants to play a combat oriented cleric? Do they also get the access to all the free CMB moves?
Some of them are fine. Like full HD per level. That one I've done myself multiple times. For d6 caster's, it is extremely useful. But I honestly think that it's going to depend on your group. If they're there for the role playing, this is fine. Encourage them to play whatever they want however they want. If they're there for the roll playing, then they are going to break this wide open.
Looks fine to me. The current hoops one has to jump for to get most of the Improved maneuver feats (Int 13 and Combat Expertise, plus the actual Improved feat itself) is ridiculous. You would have to define who gets it though, and how it works with multiclassing.
Your flails should be exotic weapons if they can completely bypass shields.
How far is too far? When it stops being fun for you and your group. YMMV
Total agreement.
If and when I ever wind up running PF, I WILL houserule in some kind of self-healing that isn't slower than a snail on downers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
House rules go too far when it becomes the DM's game and not the entire group's.
There exists a d2. Its called a quarter. Flip it.
The only one of these rules I would support as a player is #5. You can expand it to cover everyone and provoke AoO if you fail the check. It's a popular house rule, and it obviates the need for a list of classes that get the benefit.
The rest I don't really care for, but if your group likes them, you're doing it right.
#1 This takes away the inherent qualities of the different races. Weaknesses and shortcomings distinct a race just as much as their strenghts. And who would play a human anymore?
It's worked just fine in my games for years. Prior to the ARG release, I'd been using 3rd party race construction guides. People still play humans.
After ARG's release, I updated all my races using it (granting them the "flexible stat array).
Frankly, Pathfinder sets the precedent throughout their book for it (and they contradict it, as well). Static bonuses are worth approximately half that of "choose your bonus".
It stands to reason that two static abilities (one mental, one physical) equal one ability bonus of your choice for a wash in points.
Obviously, there are very valid arguments for both sides.
Rule #1 - Racial penalties to ability scores are banned. (this one seems self explanatory, it enables more freedom of choice, and I think just because someone wants to play lets say, a drow shouldn't mean that they can't also play a barbarian (hilarious by the way))
Thats fine, but it means that you need to re-balance many of the races. There are already races that dont have a penalty (human, half elf, half orc and a few non-core races) what do you do with them if the other races get the boost of no penalty?
#2 - Maximum armor check penalties on medium armor is -3, heavy is -5 and shields (except tower shields) don't incur a penalty. (This just bothered me, whats the point of being a beefed up a bad-ass if you automatically get turned into an asthmatic wuss the second you don armor?)
This is the part of the game that doesnt translate well to someone who's introduction was 4th Edition. For 3.x (pathfinder) players its kind of important for the rules to make sense and be connected to the world. Someone in full plate (50lbs of steel) should have a damned hard time doing back flips (acrobatics checks) thats why these penalties are so punative. Personally I think they should stay that way. Otherwise you lose the trade off. Heavy armor wearers get the AC without having to invest in dexterity. They can have higher strength (or other stats). The price is the armor check penalties. Thats a fair trade for being able to dump your dexterity and still have a good AC.
#3 - Any spells that detect alignment or that have the word wish in the title are banned, along with alignment penalties. (This is something I'm pretty adamant about, because the wish spell just leads to trouble, and as far as I'm concerned the alignment system is more of a rough guideline and not law. I also don't care that this hamstrings the paladin, since "shoot hole in plot" should not be a class feature, and people are not simply black and white, good or evil. as far as I'm concerned they can have some bonus ranks in sense motive and that's it.)
Shoot hole in plot is EVERY class feature for wizards. They are called spell. its not just detect alignment. Its divination, its teleport, its clerics commune, its zone of truth, its discern lies, its dominate/charm person, its gate, its plannar ally, its mass teleport, its black tentacles, its murderous command, its speak with dead, its raise dead, its scrying and many many more spells. If detect alignment ruins your plot, your plot isnt going to work in pathfinder or 3rd edition dnd unless you ban spell casters (or most of their spells). You could also just have important villains wear non-detection amulets.
#4 - Playing a divine character only obligates you to follow you're deity's code of ethics/morals to retain you're powers (again I feel this is self explanatory, you should be able to play and evil or chaotic paladin if you want)
In 3.5 there were paladins of freedom, and chaos, and such. I'm fine with this personally, so long as there is a code that suits the character and the deity.
#5 - Martial characters can make CMB checks without provoking aoo's (I realize there are feats that do this, but each maneuver has a separate feat, and I feel if you're job is "professional martial combatant" you should be able to pull of these maneuvers without inuring massive penalties. this is part of my attempt to give martial characters more options early on, as well as an effort I'm attempting to trim some of the feat trees, since it seems stupid to me that in the 3or so levels it takes for you're "investment feats" to pay off in the form of one nifty gimmick, a dedicated caster got 10-7 nifty gimmicks in the form of spells. And don't mention how feats are always active and spells are finite because as soon as a 3rd level caster busts out hold person all that martial expertise goes out the window over a single failed save.)
Define martial. A fighter sure, what about a monk? What about a rogue? What about a paladin or ranger? They have spells and they fight? What about a bard? What about an arcane duelist bard? What about a magus? Or a combat focused cleric or druid?
#6 - Healing abilities like the Warlord's shout or the cleric's Chanel energy are reduced to a swift action. (This is another bit of 4e influence, as I tend to play a lot of leaders and rather enjoyed not having to spend my entire turn in combat healing my idiot allies, I thought about adding an addendum about only when its used to heal, since the cleric can weaponize their ability as well but I'm pretty sure the wizard can do the same thing with the quickened meta-magic feat so Idk. This might be a little OP, but really It just means I can throw tougher encounters at my group, and I particularly have had a bad experience with being a 3.5 rouge bleeding out on the floor while the cleric and barbarian fight the bugbear after responding to the DM's request to heal me with "screw that I wanna fight s%%%")
Kind of an interesting idea. I might make it a feat, or maybe even a feature. Still not sure why some classes get lots of cool swift action abilities and others stay standard. Its certainly not because of how powerful the ability is. A magus arcane pool boost to a weapon isnt weaker then a paladins divine bond for instance.
#7 - Take Max on you're hit dice. (this one I feel like alot of people do, I know the one group I played with did, and worst comes to worst, I can just do the same to the monsters :)
To what end? To make characters more survivable? To make combats go longer? What are you trying to accomplish with this one, or do you just not like the luck of a die roll for hp?
#8 - If you roll a natural 20 on an attack roll it is automatically a confirmed crit, however any threat range below 20 still has to be confirmed. (this one again 4e influenced, but I feel like if you flat out roll a 20 you should be rewarded, and I can't tell you how many legit crits I got robbed of because I rolled something lame like a 2 to confirm, but this I feel still leaves room for balanced play for people who like to go crit fishing with their keen weapon of choice.)
Why do you feel like you get robbed? You still auto hit which is often nice. But i guess whatever works for you. This isnt a big issue, just not a chance I think needs to be made.
#9 - There is no such thing as a d2 or a d3, just use a damn d4 (I get you are supposed to use a coin or d6, but I just think its f%#+in stupid)
This is another one of those connection between rules and world issues. A pixies dagger (really small) should do less damage then a humans. Thats why the smaller dies exist, size changes.
#10 - Flails ignore shield bonus's to AC (Part of this is me and my thing with flails, but also because that's what their designed for.)
This one is really arbitrary. Combat is extermely abstract in game. Do people with rapiers get to make more attacks then those with a great axes? Because thats what they were designed for? Do crossbow bolts punch through armor? Because thats what the were designed for. Do Heavy hammers bash and damage armor even with failed blows? Because they do that too.
That's all I got so far, I'd like to get peoples opinion on these, but mostly I'd like to know of anything game breaking they might enable.
Nothing game breaking, but I think you probably need to take a deep breath. Its kind of silly to get angry about game rules. And sure you can house rule them, but you should consider what needs changing, and what you are changing simply because of your experience with a different system.
#3 - Any spells that detect alignment or that have the word wish in the title are banned, along with alignment penalties. (This is something I'm pretty adamant about, because the wish spell just leads to trouble, and as far as I'm concerned the alignment system is more of a rough guideline and not law. I also don't care that this hamstrings the paladin, since "shoot hole in plot" should not be a class feature, and people are not simply black and white, good or evil. as far as I'm concerned they can have some bonus ranks in sense motive and that's it.)Shoot hole in plot is EVERY class feature for wizards. They are called spell. its not just detect alignment. Its divination, its teleport, its clerics commune, its zone of truth, its discern lies, its dominate/charm person, its gate, its plannar ally, its mass teleport, its black tentacles, its murderous command, its speak with dead, its raise dead, its scrying and many many more spells. If detect alignment ruins your plot, your plot isnt going to work in pathfinder or 3rd edition dnd unless you ban spell casters (or most of their spells). You could also just have important villains wear non-detection amulets.
Kolokotroni is right on the money with this.
Trying to remove the absolutes in spells and plot-killing spells is the tabletop's equivalent of peeing into the wind.
#4 - Playing a divine character only obligates you to follow you're deity's code of ethics/morals to retain you're powers (again I feel this is self explanatory, you should be able to play and evil or chaotic paladin if you want)
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar!
#6 - Healing abilities like the Warlord's shout or the cleric's Chanel energy are reduced to a swift action. (This is another bit of 4e influence, as I tend to play a lot of leaders and rather enjoyed not having to spend my entire turn in combat healing my idiot allies, I thought about adding an addendum about only when its used to heal, since the cleric can weaponize their ability as well but I'm pretty sure the wizard can do the same thing with the quickened meta-magic feat so Idk. This might be a little OP, but really It just means I can throw tougher encounters at my group, and I particularly have had a bad experience with being a 3.5 rouge bleeding out on the floor while the cleric and barbarian fight the bugbear after responding to the DM's request to heal me with "screw that I wanna fight s@*$")
I'd consider implementing the same rule for cure spells (and inflict) too, for much the same reason. Sure, it means a caster can toast undead twice per turn, but he'd be blowing spell slots on a very sub-par attack.
Oh, and for the love of all that is pure and good, move healing spells to the necro school! And hey, clerics are already the best healers, so why not give the humble cure spells to all casters? Share the responsibility, as it were.
#7 - Take Max on you're hit dice. (this one I feel like alot of people do, I know the one group I played with did, and worst comes to worst, I can just do the same to the monsters :)
I don't think it's a huge deal either way, but this one has the side effect of making save-or-lose spells more powerful because they bypass that many more hit points. And it's a bigger boon to monsters, many of which have lots and lots of hit dice, than the PCs. I used standard hit points when I DMed 3.x, but again, I don't think it makes a huge difference.
Oh, and to answer the thread title: There's no such thing as too many house rules. (Although bad house rules are a different story...) I had seven pages of them by 2008, and those were just the ones I felt were absolutely essential. :)
But to clarify, I consider the martial classes to be fighter, rouge, ranger, and warlord. I think cavalier counts too, and maybe the monk, tho with the ki pool they have a bit more of a spiritual vibe, and they get a lot of fun gimmicks as is, so maybe not. But I would not consider the barbarian a martial class, as their abilities are specifically referred to as a inner reserve of primal fury, and are more exceptionally gifted savages than actual trained warriors.
Maybe this is my 4e sensibilities speaking, but I think you're being over-picky. For example, what if a player does imagine his barbarian to be a highly skilled warrior? He's got the BAB to back it up the idea. What if he's completely refluffed his barbarian character into an expert warrior who can summon his inner reserves to perform incredible feats? And these kind of questions don't only apply to the barbarian.
Personally I suggest either applying your house rule to everyone -- martial-types are already going to be better at combat maneuvers that anyone else due to their BAB -- or define 'martial class' more simply: Any class with high BAB is martial, and benefits from your house rule.
An evil paladin? That's an oxymoron (unless of course you're talking about an anti-paladin/blackguard).
To many people, 'paladin' is a rather broad concept -- probably akin to what you'd call a holy warrior. Aka, a cleric with less magic and more sword.
I wouldn't call 'em paladins then. "Champion" or some such would make sense, but the word "paladin" is already pretty firmly ingrained in the minds of most gamers as "holy warrior of good". I'd no sooner change that then I would give fighters access to spells.
*shrug* I'm going to assume for the sake of discussion that you have numbers and figures to back up what you claim most gamers think of when they hear 'paladin.'
A name's just a name. If you were part of Inkleth's group, I'd suggest that you think of his broadened paladin class as a quirk of his campaign setting. Like how Eberron and Dark Sun both have different takes on halflings, despite what most gamers think of when they hear that word. And if non-Good paladins bother you that much, you could call your own paladin PC whatever you wanted.
Assuming you're not in Inkleth's group though, what does it matter to you?
I don't have any statistics to back my claim, but there's the consistent manner in which paladins are depicted not only in tabletop games, but across the sword and sorcery / fantasy genre.
A quirk of his campaign, surely, and I've no problem with that. Doesn't particularly matter to me, but this is an open forum; I was merely putting forth an opinion. The OP is free to ignore my input.
Rules are too far when it no longer resembles the game you are supposedly playing. His stuff might be to some people's tastes, but Kirth's stuff is a prime example of that. He basically has a new game. His game, not Pathfinder. Not saying if it is a good set of stuff or not. That is an opinion you can make for yourself. All I can say, is if you are so against what is written, why play it at all? Are rules are understandable, but a complete rewrite?
Rules are too far when it no longer resembles the game you are supposedly playing.
I'd rather say, House Rules go too far when it no longer resembles the game you are expecting to play.
Kirth and Co wrote their houseruled document exactly because that was the game they were supposed to be playing. If you're expecting to be playing Pathfinder, Kirthfinder probably goes too far. If you're expecting to play WotC's D&D, Paizo's Pathfinder might go too far as well...
Houserules exist where we have identified an issue with the current rules, and corrected the rules concerning the issue. As long as everyone is on board with both the the issue and its solution, everything goes.
TL;DR: Houserules can go as far as what the group wants to play / is ready to try.
As for the OP's houserules, I don't have much of an opinion because I don't share the perceived issue with the original rule, except for #5.
Personally, I'd go as far as saying that Combat Maneuvers don't provoke AoOs, period. Forget about the martial character part. It's simpler, cleaner, and the wizard isn't going to attempt a grapple anyhow...
...and the goblins want their cake too!
#5 - Martial characters can make CMB checks without provoking aoo's (I realize there are feats that do this, but each maneuver has a separate feat, and I feel if you're job is "professional martial combatant" you should be able to pull of these maneuvers without inuring massive penalties. this is part of my attempt to give martial characters more options early on, as well as an effort I'm attempting to trim some of the feat trees, since it seems stupid to me that in the 3or so levels it takes for you're "investment feats" to pay off in the form of one nifty gimmick, a dedicated caster got 10-7 nifty gimmicks in the form of spells. And don't mention how feats are always active and spells are finite because as soon as a 3rd level caster busts out hold person all that martial expertise goes out the window over a single failed save.)
This one I like for the same reason you do but....it seems like it encourages dipping which is something pathfinder is designed to avoid. The way I think I would do it is to give the "martial" characters one of the feats for free at 1st and the rest at 4-5th level. At level 10-12 I would consider giving them the ability to use one cmb attempt as a swift.(could initiate grapple but maintaining it would work as normal.)
Forget about the martial character part. It's simpler, cleaner, and the wizard isn't going to attempt a grapple anyhow.
With true strike at least they might try some other Maneuvers. It is only a slight buff to spellcasters but I would still think that over.
I like houserules and use a lot of them. So here`s my 2 cents.
Rule #1 - Racial penalties to ability scores are banned.
I agree that you should be able to do something about this, but banning them completely would imbalance things. Instead I would allow a new character to drop a racial penalty to one score if they also drop one of their racial ability score bonuses. That keeps the basic balance in place.
#2 - Maximum armor check penalties on medium armor is -3, heavy is -5 and shields (except tower shields) don't incur a penalty.
Part of the idea here is to make there be some reward for characters who wear little or no armor. They are deficient in one way so they get an advantage somewhere else. If you mitigate armor check penalties then you are nerfing the rogue, who doesn't need to be nerfed. I would instead just increase the skill ranks granted by classes by 1 or 2 per level.
#3 - Any spells that detect alignment or that have the word wish in the title are banned,
This is partly a feature of your campaign world, and there's nothing wrong with it. This is how Castle Ravenloft worked, for example (the alignments anyway). If you don`t like wish spells, the simplest thing to do is to disallow using them in ways not explicitly described. Saying that a Limited Wish simulates any arcane spell of 6th level or less or any divine spell of 5th level or less doesn`t break the game.
#4 - you should be able to play and evil or chaotic paladin if you want
I agree in principle, though a chaotic evil paladin would make life hell for the rest of a party. You may want to invoke the PFS "no evil player characters" rule unless you are going for an evil campaign, but allow Paladins to be any allowed alignment.
#5 - Martial characters can make CMB checks without provoking aoo's
I definitely agree that the Maneuver rules are broken in this way. The problem stems I think from the fact that the rules started with grapples and unarmed strikes, and so the Combat Maneuver rules are based on the idea that you are attacking with your bare hands. In such a case, AoOs make sense as you are attacking with a part of you that can be easily hurt.
Where the rules break down is when one makes a combat maneuver with a weapon. Such a circumstance has no logical justification for provoking an AoO. My houserule would simply be that attacking with a weapon simply does not provoke. The improved maneuver feats allow you to make a maneuver with a weapon and still do 1/2 damage to the enemy in the same attack.
Also, on a failed trip attempt with a weapon you should always be able to drop your weapon, unless you are physically attached to it, such as with locked gauntlets.
#6 - Healing abilities like the Warlord's shout or the cleric's Chanel energy are reduced to a swift action.
If you are maxing hit dice (#7 below) then you want to make healing harder, not easier. Overall, in-combat healing is meant to be a problem and your characters need to try to avoid taking damage instead of counting on easy healing.
You could instead rule that Quicken Spell never increases the level of a healing spell to more than double its original level, making the Quicken feat a lot more valuable to clerics.
#7 - Take Max on you're hit dice.
Nothing wrong with this, though see #6. If all you want is to avoid luck affecting hit points, I would suggest the PFS hit point rule. All hit dice after the first provide average HP (rounded up), so a d6 always gives you 4, a d8 always gives you 5, and so on.
#8 - If you roll a natural 20 on an attack roll it is automatically a confirmed crit, however any threat range below 20 still has to be confirmed.
This does make weapons that have a range of 20 x3 much better than ones that have a range of 19-20 x2. They are supposed to be about equal. It also makes minor enemies much more dangerous, since they will rarely hit.
For example, imagine that Orc King has his 400 most loyal warriors awaiting you in the grand cavern where he holds court. They are all level 1 and have a ranged attack bonus of +2. The Orcs all are watching the door with drawn shortbows and a readied action. In steps the party Paladin, who between armor, shield, amulet, ring, and dex has an AC of 30. The orcs all shoot and they can only hit on a 20. out of 400 rolls about 20 will be natural 20s.
Under normal rules they do about 77 damage on average - that`s 19 hits and one crit.
Under your rules they instead score 20 crits and do about 210 damage on average.
So minor monsters which are not normally a threat will wear down parties much faster because their crits will be a large proportion of their hits.
If you want to spice up crits, I would instead us an exploding crit rule. Basically if when confirming a crit you roll another crit, then you get an extra crit and you keep rolling. basically the multiplier would increase, so x2 would go to x3, and then x4 and so on. if the base multiplier was x3 it would go to x5, then x7 and so on.
#9 - There is no such thing as a d2 or a d3, just use a damn d4
You can buy D3s from Chessex. I have a bunch. And a d2 you can use any die at all. I never had a problem with it.
#10 - Flails ignore shield bonus's to AC (Part of this is me and my thing with flails, but also because that's what their designed for.)
Well, actually the main point of the design of flails is to increase leverage, but the basis for the design of flails comes from an agricultural tool. The shield bonus assumes that the user is moving the shield around to block things, and it isn`t much more difficult to move your shield to block the head of a flail than it is to block the head of a mace. So this isn`t a very sensible change.
Flails can disarm and trip. If you are opening up combat maneuvers (see #5) there is no need to buff flails any further. Shields are already kind of weak and don`t need to be weakened any further.
Peet
Rule #1 - Racial penalties to ability scores are banned.I agree that you should be able to do something about this, but banning them completely would imbalance things. Instead I would allow a new character to drop a racial penalty to one score if they also drop one of their racial ability score bonuses. That keeps the basic balance in place.
Elves gain +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, and –2 Constitution.Either way, he gets a choice between keeping Intelligence +2 or Dexterity +2 - but only 1 bonus.
Human characters gain a +2 racial bonus to one ability score of their choice.
I'm failing to see how the elven bonus with your suggestion is in anyway equal/balanced. It is significantly inferior.
I agree that you should be able to do something about this, but banning them completely would imbalance things. Instead I would allow a new character to drop a racial penalty to one score if they also drop one of their racial ability score bonuses. That keeps the basic balance in place.
Elves gain +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, and –2 Constitution.Either way, he gets a choice between keeping Intelligence +2 or Dexterity +2 - but only 1 bonus.
Human characters gain a +2 racial bonus to one ability score of their choice.
I'm failing to see how the elven bonus with your suggestion is in anyway equal/balanced. It is significantly inferior.
Say you are playing an elven rogue. You can afford to lose the +2 to INT because getting rid of the -2 to CON is more important. It all depends on which class you choose. In some cases doing this will be superior, and in other cases it won't.
I am not saying that you have to do it; just that you ought to be given the option to.
Sometimes an attribute penalty basically makes it functionally impossible to play a certain class with a given race. Say you want to play a dwarven sorcerer? Practically speaking this isn't really possible. But getting rid of the -2 CHA in exchange for dropping the +2 WIS would make a half-decent sorcerer with good HP.
I agree that you should be able to do something about this, but banning them completely would imbalance things. Instead I would allow a new character to drop a racial penalty to one score if they also drop one of their racial ability score bonuses. That keeps the basic balance in place.
Elves gain +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, and –2 Constitution.Either way, he gets a choice between keeping Intelligence +2 or Dexterity +2 - but only 1 bonus.
Human characters gain a +2 racial bonus to one ability score of their choice.
I'm failing to see how the elven bonus with your suggestion is in anyway equal/balanced. It is significantly inferior.
Say you are playing an elven rogue. You can afford to lose the +2 to INT because getting rid of the -2 to CON is more important. It all depends on which class you choose. In some cases doing this will be superior, and in other cases it won't.
I am not saying that you have to do it; just that you ought to be given the option to.
Sometimes an attribute penalty basically makes it functionally impossible to play a certain class with a given race. Say you want to play a dwarven sorcerer? Practically speaking this isn't really possible. But getting rid of the -2 CHA in exchange for dropping the +2 WIS would make a half-decent sorcerer with good HP.
but now the dwarven sorcerer has become more inferior if he chose the empyreal bloodline, or if he wanted to play an inquisitor. I do understand where you are getting at with the power level being affected, but I don't see it as negative. Nerfing viable builds to make non-viable builds better doesn't solve much. If you simply dropped the negative (like I already have 3 monthes ago) you will just see more variety without hurting anyone's preferred build, like dwarven inquisitors. I also point out the reducing everyone to a single bonus dramatically shifts the favor even more towards the SAD classes. Dropping the penalty puts a slight shift in point buy, not enough to dramatically improve casters (you might see an extra 13 or 14) but in certainly helps classes like the monk who need a few extra scores to function. of course I also radically revised point buy to increase high level costs and decrease low level costs.
If you simply dropped the negative (like I already have 3 monthes ago) you will just see more variety without hurting anyone's preferred build, like dwarven inquisitors. I also point out the reducing everyone to a single bonus dramatically shifts the favor even more towards the SAD classes. Dropping the penalty puts a slight shift in point buy, not enough to dramatically improve casters (you might see an extra 13 or 14) but in certainly helps classes like the monk who need a few extra scores to function. of course I also radically revised point buy to increase high level costs and decrease low level costs.
Those are the same results I had, as well.
Nerfing viable builds to make non-viable builds better doesn't solve much.
Except I'm not suggesting you nerf anything. The option to drop a +2 bonus exchange for dropping a -2 penalty is an option. Your character would not be forced to do it, and you could keep both +2s and the -2 if you wanted. Obviously you would only choose to do this when it is of benefit to your character.
Races that get a +2 to two abilities also get a -2 to one ability as a balancing factor. The core races are pretty well balanced. Just getting rid of the penalty without giving a character some other drawback is just giving the character a boost in power for no cost. In my mind if they want to improve the character in one regard they should have to give up something in exchange.
Peet
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our only consistent house rule is you get one reroll a night if you take a shot of whiskey beforehand.
Except I'm not suggesting you nerf anything. The option to drop a +2 bonus exchange for dropping a -2 penalty is an option. Your character would not be forced to do it, and you could keep both +2s and the -2 if you wanted. Obviously you would only choose to do this when it is of benefit to your character.
I did misunderstand that it was optional, that being said, if you are going to go that far then just dropping the penalty is a more simple solution, and brings them more in line with the non-core races like the aasimar, hobgoblin, and merfolk. I also think you overestimate the value of racial modifiers, as they make alot less of a difference at later levels.
Races that get a +2 to two abilities also get a -2 to one ability as a balancing factor.
until aasimar, hobgoblin's and merfolk showed up in the first bestiary.
The core races are pretty well balanced.
Humans are always the second best if not the outright best option for most classes, especially sorcerer.
Just getting rid of the penalty without giving a character some other drawback is just giving the character a boost in power for no cost. In my mind if they want to improve the character in one regard they should have to give up something in exchange.
again the string of aasimars say high. the bar has already been raised, and these guys losing a penalty won't be pushing it any higher. And your change still leaves garuda blooded aasimar as the "one true monk race" as the only class I can see getting a distinct benefit is the monk. My change makes dwarven monks slightly better than they are, elven monks aren't a fools errand, halfling monks are half-viable, gnomes become decent paladins, as do halflings.
all races (even among the core) are not created equal, in terms of racial features (among the core) the dwarf and human stand out in comparison to others. Once favored class and the racial heritage feat is factored in the humans start being better at racial archetypes than the races themselves. I don't even want to get started on the human sorcerer with racial heritage half-elf and learning paragon surge...ugh. The point is humans are generally regarded as the best overall race, and they aren't the least bit affected by this. Them, half-elves, and Aasimar are still the root of the most broken combo in the game.
I kind of don't get why Detect Evil is some kind of automatic "shoot holes in the plot" ability. We have a paladin in our party, he detects evil on everything, and sometimes things detect as evil. And yet somehow I don't feel as if this invalidates the entire adventure. Just because somebody's evil doesn't mean they're the antagonist, after all. Heck, if you assume that D&D's alignments are roughly representative of the population, then about 1/3rd of everybody you meet will be evil (with 1/3rd being good and 1/3rd being neutral).
Honestly, I don't really get how Detect Evil is any more disruptive than a really high Sense Motive score (oh he's lying to me?! He must have something to hide! I waste him with my crossbow!).
Not least of which because they don't even register as evil (or anything else) until they have 5+ Hit Dice.
The vast majority of NPCs should just detect as blank. A big question mark.
Not least of which because they don't even register as evil (or anything else) until they have 5+ Hit Dice.
The vast majority of NPCs should just detect as blank. A big question mark.
At one point, I modified it slightly for my campaign:
House Rule
The entry for "Aligned creature1 (HD)" under spells and effects such as detect evil (chaos, good, law, and so on) now defines an Aligned Creature as any creature with an alignment subtype.
It had several interesting side-effects on the system, which required me to make alterations to many divine and/or alignment based class features, spells, magic item properties, and effects.
I also think you overestimate the value of racial modifiers, as they make alot less of a difference at later levels.
Then why are you so keen to keep both +2s?
Races that get a +2 to two abilities also get a -2 to one ability as a balancing factor.until aasimar, hobgoblin's and merfolk showed up in the first bestiary.
None of these are good examples. Let's look at them one at a time.
Aasimar: Paizo openly acknowledges that Aasimars are substantially more powerful than most races (along with Tieflings, Drow, etc.). They are considered "advanced" races and a party composed entirely of advanced race characters should be considered to be 1 level higher than it actually is when at levels 1-5. If you are starting a campaign at a higher level maybe it is less of an issue. But Aasimars are not a good example for this because they are not balanced.
Hobgoblins: If you look again at the Hobgoblin racial traits you will see that they really don't get very many. They get a stealth bonus and darkvision. That's it. These are both useful but overall they don't get very much in the way of racial traits. So the lack of an ability penalty is a balancing factor.
Merfolk: Yes, merfolk are awesome... if you are playing an underwater campaign. If, on the other hand, your campaign takes place mostly on land, merfolk bite the big one. With a 5 foot land speed they are pretty useless in land-based encounters and odds are pretty good that your game will be set on land. You could take the alternate trait that gives them a 15 foot land speed, but... that still sucks, as they are still penalized for encumberance. Underwater, they rule. But they are supposed to. For 99% of games though they are pretty useless as player characters. The ability bonuses are a balancing factor to deal with this.
So none of these are really valid examples.
The core races are pretty well balanced.Humans are always the second best if not the outright best option for most classes, especially sorcerer.
You know, I don't agree with that.
Humans are very versatile. The bonus feat and choice of ability bonus means they are a good choice for any class, and it is easy to make a decent build out of a human. But I disagree that they are always the best, even for sorcerers. It depends on your build.
You want to be a sorcerer? Halflings and Gnomes also make great sorcerers. Being small is very useful for a spellcaster and they dump the ability that you don't need anyway. I know the alternate favoured class bonus gives the human sorcerer extra spells known of a lower level than his highest level, but that isn't necessarily the only factor. If you are choosing your spells wisely you don't really need them and there are lots of magic items that can grant you extra spells known.
again the string of aasimars say high. the bar has already been raised, and these guys losing a penalty won't be pushing it any higher.
Once again if you are basing your argument on Aasimars then you have already lost the argument. Aasimars are not balanced relative to other races. If your GM allows them, then great! But PC races as a whole are not supposed to be that powerful.
My change makes dwarven monks slightly better than they are,
Why does it matter that a monk not have a charisma penalty? I don't see any monk class features that use CHA.
elven monks aren't a fools errand,
Same with mine. If you drop the CON penalty and the INT bonus you could make a reasonable monk. Keeping the INT bonus doesn't make him dramatically better.
halfling monks are half-viable,
The same logic holds. Dropping the CHA bonus won't hurt a monk so I don't see why you are so dead-set on keeping it.
gnomes become decent paladins, as do halflings.
I see here that you want a bonus to a physical ability AND a charisma bonus. Gnomes and Halflings get a lot of other useful abilities though, one of which is the fact that they are small. Bonus to hit and to AC plus the ability to ride a medium mount already makes them sound pretty good; being able to drop the STR penalty is gravy. Honestly, with that in mind you don't really need both ability bonuses to make a decent paladin.
all races (even among the core) are not created equal, in terms of racial features (among the core) the dwarf and human stand out in comparison to others.
Yet using your suggestion you want to improve dwarves.
I would have to say that the races don't have to be equal to be balanced. Each race has a niche that is somewhat class-dependent. Humans are useful because they are not class-dependent but if you play to a race's strengths you can get a great build out of any race.
Yes, I understand the sorcerer issues you are talking about. But frankly, I don't think they are broken. Paragon Surge is powerful but it does require you to spend two rounds and two spell slots to cast the one spell that you actually want. You've also spent one of your spells known to learn a spell that allows you to know other spells. It's cheesy to use it that way but I don't think it's broken. That's a whole separate discussion though - frankly an imbalance in non-core features for a single class doesn't invalidate the overall balance between races.
Then why are you so keen to keep both +2s?
I'm not sure of Toaster's reason, but I've found they impact MAD classes in a positive manner at lower levels. Why are you so against it?
Humans are always the second best if not the outright best option for most classes, especially sorcerer.You know, I don't agree with that.
I agree with Toaster, to a degree. Humans are always an optimal choice for majority of builds, in my opinion. The fact that other races can compete with them in specific niche doesn't in anyway invalidate this.
I intended to address more in this block of text, but you go into a lot of "ifs" and I'm not interested in debating the pros and cons of very specific conditional factors, as we'll end up locked in a not-so-epic debate until judgment day and trumpets sound (to misquote Barbossa).
Once again if you are basing your argument on Aasimars then you have already lost the argument. Aasimars are not balanced relative to other races. If your GM allows them, then great! But PC races as a whole are not supposed to be that powerful.
You don't accept his premise for argument (aasimar). I get that, as I don't accept your premise that "drop 1 penalty and 1 bonus" is in anyway, shape or form, balanced against a human's racial ability modifiers. We can all agree we disagree. That's progress, isn't it?
Frankly, you're stating a lot of your opinions as facts. Toaster isn't saying Aasimar are balanced against other races - I have seen no evidence to indicate anyone thinks otherwise. PC races are "supposed" to be as powerful as a group is comfortable for them to be. You don't get to determine that for anyone else.
I would have to say that the races don't have to be equal to be balanced. Each race has a niche that is somewhat class-dependent. Humans are useful because they are not class-dependent but if you play to a race's strengths you can get a great build out of any race.
You need to rethink that first sentence: balance is a synonym for equal; afterall, one of the definitions of balance (v) is to "make equal".
A number of GMs, myself included, are moving away from the idea of over-specialized races which pidgeon hole them into a very specific, niche role. Pathfinder continues this legacy from previous editions with racial penalties, race-specific favored class benefits, and so on to more narrowly define the roles they wish for the races to play. I see no reason for this, as it discourages certain races from being played in a variety of roles on a mechanical level. Your opinion differs, which is to be expected and respected - just as ours is.
Upon re-reading my post, it comes off as hostile (in my opinion). While I'm not apologizing for stating my views, I'm simply asking that you don't take it personally, as that was not the intent.
Rules are too far when it no longer resembles the game you are supposedly playing.
This has me scratching my head, since it suggests you can have fun wrong. If everyone is having fun, then the rules are perfect.
Rules are too far when it no longer resembles the game you are supposedly playing.This has me scratching my head, since it suggests you can have fun wrong. If everyone is having fun, then the rules are perfect.
xorial's comment doesn't come off that way to me, but it does come off as if he thinks there's something inherently underhanded about heavily house ruling a published game.
To be fair, players might feel like their DM has pulled the rug out from underneath them if he springs a book of house rules on them, after advertising his game as 'Pathfinder.' But this issue is easily solved by advertising one's game as 'Heavily House-Ruled Pathfinder,' or whatever.
#3 - Any spells that detect alignment or that have the word wish in the title are banned, along with alignment penalties. (This is something I'm pretty adamant about, because the wish spell just leads to trouble, and as far as I'm concerned the alignment system is more of a rough guideline and not law. I also don't care that this hamstrings the paladin, since "shoot hole in plot" should not be a class feature, and people are not simply black and white, good or evil. as far as I'm concerned they can have some bonus ranks in sense motive and that's it.)
Last straw, meet camel's back. I'm hiding this topic.