What are YOUR houserules?


Homebrew and House Rules

301 to 350 of 924 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
You can do funky things if you use Delay/Ready actions to put all the PCs next to each other in initiative order. Then one PC casts some spells to weaken a monster, and the next one immediately exploits the weakness before the monster gets a chance to react.

I call that 'teamwork', 'good tactics', and 'something to be encouraged and rewarded'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:

My unfamiliarity with Pathfinder may mean this question is based in ignorance, so apologies beforehand.

It seems to me that refusing to roll initiative each round would result in the individuals with the higher dexterity always acting first.

That is true and, in fact, the purpose and desired outcome of that rule.

Quote:
Does not the roll add a variable that simulates the ebb and flow of battle, yet allows the faster characters to customarily, but not constantly, act first?
The initiative system is an abstraction, a mechanic that allows combat to go smoothly by giving sequential turns when, in fact, everything would really be happening all at the same time. I would rather the 'ebb and flow' be determined by player choice (delay/ready) than a fickle die roll. It gives both sides more control.

One can always delay an action ... but invariably being ready first (or last) for an entire combat is, to me, nonsensical. To each their own.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
One can always delay an action ... but invariably being ready first (or last) for an entire combat is, to me, nonsensical. To each their own.

Well if you think about it as being 'ready' rather than a way of ordering turns in a chaotic game situation I can see why you'd have problems with it.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Adjule wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
2. Most magical armor and clothing resizes to the wearer. I think a lot of people house rule this and it might have been the truth in some edition or another. This is another convenience factor, and to be sure the PCs get treasure they can actually use so we don't have to conjure up magic marts. Exceptions would items that are clearly designed for a very specific creature/purpose -- the magical crown of the Cloud Giant King will only ever fit a Huge-sized humanoid's...
If I remember right, this has always been the way it happens. Mundane equipment doesn't resize, but magical does. So, if you have a party of all gnomes or such, and only fight humans, the gnomes could still use all of the magical equipment dropped by the humans they kill.

It's been written in and out of various editions. I look and see and it is in Pathfinder now but seem to recall it wasn't always... or maybe that was some past edition that I am confusing it with. Or perhaps even another GM's house rule that I thought was RAW, and adjusted back to RAW thinking I was house ruling. I do know I have played games where the GM insisted the items would not resize. Maybe I'm thinking of weapons. Weapons resize too.

At any rate, it is always true regardless in my games, even if we switched to a system where it didn't explicitly say so. Like I said they were fairly small rules anyway.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
I have to agree with RuyanVe. There's something very simplistic and rigid about rolling initiative once for an entire battle, no matter how long it lasts. It allows for very little ebb and flow, in my opinion.

Try doing that with a large group sometime. You'll very likely be going back to the standard method in a flash. Combat rounds are long enough without having to reconfigure battle order for a large number of combatants EVERY turn.


It will also hinder players from planning ahead effectively as they may actually go twice in a row or much more quickly than anticipated and the table will be waiting for them to think through their actions.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
One can always delay an action ... but invariably being ready first (or last) for an entire combat is, to me, nonsensical. To each their own.
Well if you think about it as being 'ready' rather than a way of ordering turns in a chaotic game situation I can see why you'd have problems with it.

I also have problems with the same turn order throughout the combat. To me, that's beyond ridiculous.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DeathQuaker wrote:
Adjule wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
2. Most magical armor and clothing resizes to the wearer. I think a lot of people house rule this and it might have been the truth in some edition or another. This is another convenience factor, and to be sure the PCs get treasure they can actually use so we don't have to conjure up magic marts. Exceptions would items that are clearly designed for a very specific creature/purpose -- the magical crown of the Cloud Giant King will only ever fit a Huge-sized humanoid's...
If I remember right, this has always been the way it happens. Mundane equipment doesn't resize, but magical does. So, if you have a party of all gnomes or such, and only fight humans, the gnomes could still use all of the magical equipment dropped by the humans they kill.

It's been written in and out of various editions. I look and see and it is in Pathfinder now but seem to recall it wasn't always... or maybe that was some past edition that I am confusing it with. Or perhaps even another GM's house rule that I thought was RAW, and adjusted back to RAW thinking I was house ruling. I do know I have played games where the GM insisted the items would not resize. Maybe I'm thinking of weapons. Weapons resize too.

At any rate, it is always true regardless in my games, even if we switched to a system where it didn't explicitly say so. Like I said they were fairly small rules anyway.

Could be a house rule you are remembering. All I know for certain is magic items resized to the owner in 3rd edition, so I assume Pathfinder carried that rule over. But, always better to house rule it in just to make sure.


You can always hold and ready.


LazarX wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
I have to agree with RuyanVe. There's something very simplistic and rigid about rolling initiative once for an entire battle, no matter how long it lasts. It allows for very little ebb and flow, in my opinion.
Try doing that with a large group sometime. You'll very likely be going back to the standard method in a flash. Combat rounds are long enough without having to reconfigure battle order for a large number of combatants EVERY turn.

I doubt it, considering that I've been doing precisely that for decades, going back to 1st Edition.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
I also have problems with the same turn order throughout the combat. To me, that's beyond ridiculous.

I also very rarely have the characters in the same order from round to round unless it's just a back and forth slugfest with no need for tactics, just endurance. Delays, readies, and people just plan not taking actions shuffle things up.


Adjule wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Adjule wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
2. Most magical armor and clothing resizes to the wearer. I think a lot of people house rule this and it might have been the truth in some edition or another. This is another convenience factor, and to be sure the PCs get treasure they can actually use so we don't have to conjure up magic marts. Exceptions would items that are clearly designed for a very specific creature/purpose -- the magical crown of the Cloud Giant King will only ever fit a Huge-sized humanoid's...
If I remember right, this has always been the way it happens. Mundane equipment doesn't resize, but magical does. So, if you have a party of all gnomes or such, and only fight humans, the gnomes could still use all of the magical equipment dropped by the humans they kill.

It's been written in and out of various editions. I look and see and it is in Pathfinder now but seem to recall it wasn't always... or maybe that was some past edition that I am confusing it with. Or perhaps even another GM's house rule that I thought was RAW, and adjusted back to RAW thinking I was house ruling. I do know I have played games where the GM insisted the items would not resize. Maybe I'm thinking of weapons. Weapons resize too.

At any rate, it is always true regardless in my games, even if we switched to a system where it didn't explicitly say so. Like I said they were fairly small rules anyway.

Could be a house rule you are remembering. All I know for certain is magic items resized to the owner in 3rd edition, so I assume Pathfinder carried that rule over. But, always better to house rule it in just to make sure.

That's a rule for convenience, and one I actually hate. Armor that magically re-sizes itself as a standard feature? Give me a break.

I understand, though, why people who want to de-emphasize certain aspects of play would prefer it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
I also have problems with the same turn order throughout the combat. To me, that's beyond ridiculous.
I also very rarely have the characters in the same order from round to round unless it's just a back and forth slugfest with no need for tactics, just endurance. Delays, readies, and people just plan not taking actions shuffle things up.

I understand, but ... I appreciate on occasion the type of battle in which plans are stymied, spells are disrupted mid-casting, and impromptu tactics rule the day, as opposed to the "we work like a well-oiled machine" cut-and-dried, neat and complete types many players enjoy. Sorry. The NPCs have plans, too ... sometimes they're slower and sometimes they're faster. Adapt. Overcome.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
I understand, but ... I appreciate on occasion the type of battle in which plans are stymied, spells are disrupted mid-casting, and impromptu tactics rule the day...

Happens all the time in my games. More often than not because one of the PCs messed up the other PCs plan.

Shadow Lodge

paladins get detect evil constant


Jaelithe wrote:

That's a rule for convenience, and one I actually hate. Armor that magically re-sizes itself as a standard feature? Give me a break.

I understand, though, why people who want to de-emphasize certain aspects of play would prefer it.

You wouldn't like my table, then. My seven players and I unanimously voted to extend that to weapons as well, with the specific caveat of if the player wanted an over/undersized weapon the magic would recognize that and not change size.


Zhayne wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
I've considered doing away with initiative checks and just doing Initiative in order of modifiers (using DEX Mod as a tie breaker).
I think there should be a contest, I just don't think it should be every round.
perhaps, but I'd not use a d20 for it. That wide of a spread, with no bell curve, you wind up getting out-initiative'd too often even if you max out DEX, take improved initiative, etc.

I've seen using a D12 instead as a popular idea. And it gives the D12 something else to do.


Orthos wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:

That's a rule for convenience, and one I actually hate. Armor that magically re-sizes itself as a standard feature? Give me a break.

I understand, though, why people who want to de-emphasize certain aspects of play would prefer it.

You wouldn't like my table, then. My seven players and I unanimously voted to extend that to weapons as well, with the specific caveat of if the player wanted an over/undersized weapon the magic would recognize that and not change size.

I'd hate that aspect. I'd not go so far as to say I'd hate your table.

Perhaps you're the F. Scott Fitzgerald of DMs.


Is there really a 'behind' when you're dealing with cyclical initiative? There's no real difference between going last in round 1 than first in round 2.


Orthos wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
I've considered doing away with initiative checks and just doing Initiative in order of modifiers (using DEX Mod as a tie breaker).
I think there should be a contest, I just don't think it should be every round.
perhaps, but I'd not use a d20 for it. That wide of a spread, with no bell curve, you wind up getting out-initiative'd too often even if you max out DEX, take improved initiative, etc.
I've seen using a D12 instead as a popular idea. And it gives the D12 something else to do.

I'd more likely use 2 or 3d6. Generates more predictable results.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Is there really a 'behind' when you're dealing with cyclical initiative? There's no real difference between going last in round 1 than first in round 2.

But there is a difference between going first in round two all the time and going sometimes first, sometimes last, and sometimes in the middle.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
But there is a difference between going first in round two all the time and going sometimes first, sometimes last, and sometimes in the middle.

Absolutely true. Some of us hate that, some of us love it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Is there really a 'behind' when you're dealing with cyclical initiative? There's no real difference between going last in round 1 than first in round 2.
But there is a difference between going first in round two all the time and going sometimes first, sometimes last, and sometimes in the middle.

Yes, there is a difference. I don't consider that a GOOD difference, however.


Myself I toy with a bunch of different ones from game to game just to try something new (banning Big 4 Wondrous Items and giving scaling boosts in their place is one), but some are consistent.

-I don't place much stock on alignment. Ignore the alignment descriptor on spells, alignment restrictions are loosened or done away with (All Good Paladins, can have non-Lawful Monks and Lawful Barbarians if you like).

-I allow 3rd party material on a case-by-case basis. Dreamscarred Press' Psionics books are always considered open, because I think they're pretty balanced and the classes are fun. Other stuff I need to take a hard look at before I allow it, since some stuff may LOOK balanced at first glance but is a broken mess (whether OP or nonfunctional) with an in-depth look. Lookin' at you, Taskshaper.

-I always use a high PB. 25 or higher. I like it when people can have the stats they want, and a lot of the time somebody wants a good score in their main stats and not have to dump anything, so now they can. Helps MAD classes a ton, too.

-Buying and selling items does both for full price. Simpler for me, better for the player. If they bought a +1 Flaming sword and then want to trade it in for a +1 Frost sword, they shouldn't have to be shafted out of 4k gold for the change. As I told teh players, it can be fluffed away pretty easy ("I traded in my used sword and Gondrak's used weapon and walked out with my brand new sword today!"

-Reskinning is a thing. I will allow it.

-My one and only hard ban: No Strix. They don't make sense in any campaign that could conceivably contain a human. And they fly damned fast for a level 1 character.

-Copy paste this one 'cuz I'm lazy "Certain spells are subject to vetting. Not necessarily banning, but we'll say being used "on probation". Use whatever spell you want, but if I see any "Blood Money + Simulacrum = Infinite Wishes for no cost" shenannery a god may strike you down where you stand. Fair warning.

That said, feel free to get creative with spells, skills, and other abilities. Run it by me first, but if you have an out of the box use for it, I always like to see that. That goes for pretty much anything, cinematic moments are fun to see. Ask me if you can do something, and the answer will usually be "Yes, but"."

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Dire Care Bear Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've removed some posts. Back and forth sniping and insulting other posters is not something we do here.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I try to make a habit of answering all of my player's "Can I do this?" type questions with "Yes, but..." I still struggle with this one from time to time.


Helaman wrote:
Seems very cinematic but wouldnt that sword lock rule sort of slow things down, and what about if someone gets sword lock twice... are sword lock counter attacks counted as free attacks or AoO?

They count as free attacks. It doesn't tend to slow down the combat, in fact it could speed the combat up if the enemies tie the player AC and then the player rolls better. It adds a bit of unpredictability into a fight. The point is to spice up Melee combat a bit while also making a player think a little before landing a blow on the enemy. Especially if they are mortally wounded.


Zhayne wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
You can do funky things if you use Delay/Ready actions to put all the PCs next to each other in initiative order. Then one PC casts some spells to weaken a monster, and the next one immediately exploits the weakness before the monster gets a chance to react.
I call that 'teamwork', 'good tactics', and 'something to be encouraged and rewarded'.

I had a sorc. who before going through a door would get out his licorice root and be ready to cast haste. If any member of the party spotted something and used a missile weapon, he cast. This is the only way shield, sanctuary, or a lot of defensive or support spells would be of any use at all. It's better to waste a use of bard song on an illusion, than try to begin it after being crit. upon.


dot


Detect Magic wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Toxicity for potions = potion´s spell level
Mind sharing more on this? I've considered implementing some sort of toxicity rating for potions, but I'm not sure where to start. Then again, I sort of want to completely re-work potions as a product of craft (alchemy) rather than spellcasting... Seems like a lot of work, though.

Its a lot of work indeed... the simpliest way is: Potion´s toxcicity = Spell Lvl in the potion + spellcaster lvl (CLW CL1 = Tox 2 [1 from CLW spell and 1 from caster level])

The longest and hardest way is asignate ingredients for every monster type, like in the withcer 1 & 2 games... i made my own conversion and it is very neat... the problem is that my lists are in spanish though

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Adjule wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Adjule wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
2. Most magical armor and clothing resizes to the wearer. I think a lot of people house rule this and it might have been the truth in some edition or another. This is another convenience factor, and to be sure the PCs get treasure they can actually use so we don't have to conjure up magic marts. Exceptions would items that are clearly designed for a very specific creature/purpose -- the magical crown of the Cloud Giant King will only ever fit a Huge-sized humanoid's...
If I remember right, this has always been the way it happens. Mundane equipment doesn't resize, but magical does. So, if you have a party of all gnomes or such, and only fight humans, the gnomes could still use all of the magical equipment dropped by the humans they kill.

It's been written in and out of various editions. I look and see and it is in Pathfinder now but seem to recall it wasn't always... or maybe that was some past edition that I am confusing it with. Or perhaps even another GM's house rule that I thought was RAW, and adjusted back to RAW thinking I was house ruling. I do know I have played games where the GM insisted the items would not resize. Maybe I'm thinking of weapons. Weapons resize too.

At any rate, it is always true regardless in my games, even if we switched to a system where it didn't explicitly say so. Like I said they were fairly small rules anyway.

Could be a house rule you are remembering. All I know for certain is magic items resized to the owner in 3rd edition, so I assume Pathfinder carried that rule over. But, always better to house rule it in just to make sure.

That's a rule for convenience, and one I actually hate. Armor that magically re-sizes itself as a standard feature? Give me a break.

I understand, though, why people who want to de-emphasize certain aspects of play would prefer it.

In my world, not just my rules, magic items take enough time and materials to make that they are going to make them be able to last beyond one wearer... otherwise it would be a waste. The hereditary armor and sword of the great lord in wars generations past can be wielded by his chosen heir, a halfling advisor who always served at his side. The halfling loses his magic ring but the elf warrior finds it and can use it in his stead, even though his fingers are a totally different size and shape. So yes, it is not just a meta-adjustment--story wise it is something considered standard by design, and most magical craftsmen are expected to design their items to work in this way, save for items made for very specific purposes. In particular, in my world, lower level magical gear (+1 weapons and armor) is common gear for war in well equipped armies, so it needs to be able to be designed to be used by the masses without requiring special adjustment as one soldier gets killed and the next soldier put on the line in his stead receives it. Not going to go further into detail as the economics and such of the world are boring but suffice to say I think it works from a fluff perspective, not just from the perspective of making things easier for players.

Besides there is basic magic that cleans and magic that creates, magic to adjust to the wearer's measurements is not out of the question.

Of course should you choose to do differently in your games, by all means. Different worlds, different standards. I respect other people's play styles, and would not discount or dismiss someone else's ideas by huffing "give me a break" simply because that idea doesn't appeal to me personally.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
Of course should you choose to do differently in your games, by all means. Different worlds, different standards. I respect other people's play styles, and would not discount or dismiss someone else's ideas by huffing "give me a break" simply because that idea doesn't appeal to me personally.

Well said DQ.

+1.


I also pointed out that I understood why other styles would employ it. So ... well said, but unnecessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, but you did so in a derogatory way. "Oh I understand why people who want to de-emphasize certain aspects of play would enjoy it." Maybe it's just me, but that comes off as very looking-down-the-nose at the difference in preference.


I didn't mean it that way. Clearly my "tone" needs work. I'll take more care in the future.


Items that don't re-size and toxic potions are unique items. If it says so in the item description, then yes. In the cleaves I placed an effretti sword cursed to remain large and a cure disease potion made with belladonna. The potion works against lycanthropy but the drinker still must save vs the poison. I call this Card Rules. In Magic the Gathering, what is written on the cards trumps the central rules of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread should be a happy place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gunslingers (and other class archetypes that focus on guns) are proficient in all crossbows and may select crossbows for their class abilities in place of firearms. In a setting with no firearms, this crossbow specialty allows the gunslinger class to still be played.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like the idea of the d12 over the d20 in Initiative, because those Initiative modifiers become much more significant.

I also auto-ID magic items, because it just saves time and book keeping. But another house-rule I adopted from Ghostwalk is that all magic items have a name. In order for the magic to "hold" on the magic item, a name is required. So casting "Identify" can tell you the true name of a magic item.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I also auto-ID magic items, because it just saves time and book keeping. But another house-rule I adopted from Ghostwalk is that all magic items have a name. In order for the magic to "hold" on the magic item, a name is required. So casting "Identify" can tell you the true name of a magic item.

Ooh, I like that. I'll give that a try in my next game.

301 to 350 of 924 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / What are YOUR houserules? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.