GM is planning a game with a ton of house rules. Most of them are no skin off of my nose but some I either am planning to oppose or cant resist to break them. For the most part I'm looking for advice on what to do with these rules or what argument I should use against them. (assuming that they are arguable instead of me just being picky. )
The big ones are;
1) All prepared casters are spontaneous casters. They get a spells known list. This means that Magi, Wizards, and Alchemists cannot increase their spells known. They will have more spells known than their spontaneous counterparts but for the post part their spells per day stay the same.
2) Metamagic feats can be applied without increasing the casting time but metamagic feats grant a 'metamagic pool' of points that limits your ability to apply metamagic feats.
3) Feats work on a system of points. Feats cost 1, 2, or 3 points based on percieved power and usefulness by the GM. Any time you would get a feat you get 3 feat points. Bonus feats give feat discounts. I know not what happens when a feat discount goes to zero. I think you have a feat per level limit or something.
4) we get a bonus to two ability scores instead of one every four levels.
5) we get an automatic enhancement bonus every level in either armor, deflection, weapon, or natural armor ending in +5 each.
6)climb and swim are folded into one skill
7)acrobatics checks are used instead of fly.
8) we get this:
Choose 3 boons. These boons are made to help characters fill in gaps of the party while still playing the characters they enjoy. Unless the boon says it can be selected more then once, it can only be taken once.
Boon of Health: Increase the Hit die of the Class by 1. A d6 Hit Die would become a d8, and so forth.
Boon of Accuracy: Advance the BAB of the Class by 1. (So Half HD progression would become ¾ HD progression, and so forth). Can be selected up to 2 times, but the character can not have a higher BAB progression then equal to their Hit Die.
Boon of Weapon Mastery: Gain proficiency with 3 marital weapons. If the character is already proficient with all martial weapons, instead select 3 exotic weapons. Can be selected more than once, and each time choose 3 different weapons.
Boon of Skill: Increase the amount of skill points gained per level by 2. Can be selected multiple times.
Boon of Training: Add 3 skills your list of Class Skills.
Boon of the Past: Gain the Additional Trait feat for free.
Boon of Spellcraft: Gain an additional spell per day for each level you can cast, except 9th level. This spell slot can only be used to cast lesser spells. This boon can be selected multiple times.
9) a number of busted things like teleportation and synthesist are banned. Whether the power is real or perceived are debatable but are too numerous to count and may add in number as I find new ways to break them.
Overall I personally don't think all these rules need to happen at once unless the GM is expecting invincible super-PCs. (Which the DM isn't really. The GM does not expect for me to make a fighter dishing out 100+ DPR.
The rest of the party is likely to underoptomize so I do not think that it would help me more any anyone.
I'm directly opposed to all spontaneous casters all the time and metamagic points. I hate having new things to track and it definitely nerfs metamagic feats which are already situationally good.
1) Pretty big change but nothing inherently wrong with it. I assume that they're getting rid of spellbooks then.
2) Interesting idea. I'd have to see the numbers to know how it works, but it branches metamagic out into almost a field of its own.
3) This is probably a good idea, but it's entirely dependent on the GM's ability to perceive the power and utility of a feat. Also, why give feat discounts when you could just give another 3 feat points every bonus feat. The 'discount' thing seems strange.
4 & 5) Your GM isn't planning on using magic items. Plan accordingly.
6 & 7) These seem like reasonable skills to consolidate. Hardly likely to break the game unless you're worried about the almighty power of swimming being abused.
8) These boons don't look equal to one another which is worrying in terms of balance. (Also makes me worry about the numbers he would pick for house-rule 3). Also what is a 'lesser spell'?
9) Depends which things are banned.
I think you're already in the wrong frame of mind when you mention trying to break the rules. If the rest of the group is good with the house rules, you shouldn't be trying to circumvent them.
I don't see any problem with most of these. They seem to power the PCs up, specifically the boons.
I'd say roll with it and try to be a good, cooperative player.
Overall I don't see a problem with those houserules, though for the feat thing, the bonus feats becoming a discount instead of just some extra feat points seems strange, seems less complex to just go with extra feat points there.
The first houserule with the prepared casters all becoming spontaneous is one I dislike. How does that work with for example the alchemist? Does he create extracts on the fly and then drink them, all in one standard action? Having some trouble imagining that. And how would it work with infusions? One of the nice things of infusions is that you can hand them out to your party members in advance, so they can use them when they need/want to.
On the other hand the boons, imagine a spontaneous wizard focused on polymorph spells, having full bab and d8 hit dice. Or a druid focused on wildshape, with full bab and d10 hit dice. On the other hand a fighter can't increase his bab from what you mentioned, and could a barbarian increase his hit dice beyond d12?
Overall from the boons I get the feeling they are tailored towards spellcasters, while making martials somewhat redundant. Does your DM like spellcasters a lot?
So many house rules seems cumbersome to me, more than anything else, but it seems to be an experiment the GM wants to try, so give him a break and and roll with it.
GM is planning a game with a ton of house rules. Most of them are no skin off of my nose but some I either am planning to oppose or cant resist to break them. For the most part I'm looking for advice on what to do with these rules or what argument I should use against them. (assuming that they are arguable instead of me just being picky. )
Hey Malwing,
I'm, not going to give you any arguments against these house rules; they sound ok for me. My only argument would be if the DM is trying to impose something against all other players, advocating the "fun for all" argument etc.
But as with every conflictual situation (or potential conflictual situation), I'd say talk with your DM and fellow players, make them know what annoys you so much and why it bothers you to the point where you are considering being disruptive to the game.
You don't have to play a game you don't want or like; there's a polite way to say "thanks but no thanks, see you guys the next time you wanna play RaW"
I'm guessing that no.9 is the most problem, but since there is no list, cannot help you more. Agreeing with mkenner on other things, with others that say try, then attack if it doesn't work.
I remember when I used to make house rules like these. They were mostly exercise in rulecrafting and game balance. Most of them didn't work, but some were fun.
The message I'm getting is that I'm just being picky. I don't mean that in an "I'm insulted" way, I posted this with the possibility that I was just being picky.
I don't plan on trying to break the game with these additions I just feel that it is inevitable because all of them together makes some options too good to pass up. My best bet is to make a busted character and never show it until the rest of the party is in trouble.
Or just make a monk.
|
1) Reasonable. Dragonlace setting had an era where there were no spontaneous casters.
2) Rule experiment, can't argue for or against it.
3) Risk of extreme arbitrariness, but understandable. Doubt it will change anything as players still won't likely choose a "+" to a skill feat over a combat themed feat.
4) Rewards classes like monks & paladins far far more than single-score classes like wizards. But, little different than a high-fantasy style campaign with boosted ability scores.
5) Assuming the corresponding wealth by level is reduced to account for what is a magic-item ability, it works. I'm using a home-brewed system inspired by the forums that has eliminated most "plus" items in lieu of bonuses when leveling.
6)Sure
7)Sure
8) Highly unbalanced. +1 spell per level as a boon? That's a Ring of Wizardry on crack. Boon of Accuracy is massive and eliminates the usefulness of a fighter class (after all, what is a fighter going to take than can match its one useful feature compared to a cleric or druid? some exotic weapon proficiencies? +1 hit points a level?
Tremendous abuse can be heaped here. I'm playing a druid or cleric in this campaign and will overpower and overshadow most other classes.
9)Unknown. A home-brew world might have a reason teleportation is banned, though it needs to apply to monsters like devils and demons. Others ban synthesist because it has too much potential for abuse. Then again, #8 is already creating abusive scenarios.
You need to get spelled out a list of what feats cost how many points, and the same for metamagic. It seems like this GM has played a fighter and a wizard, and didn't like something about both. So they will individually either become way overpowered, or way underpowered. Entirely dependent on his perception of "power level."
The boons are ridiculous IMO. Sorcerer spends 2 boons on full BAB progression, 1 on HD. Rogue spends 1 on BAB, 2 on HD. Monk does the same. Why play a fighter? Now that I think about it, I'm gonna guess he played a low level wizard along side a fighter and got very tired of being shown up in combat.
I have the list. Its one of the things that makes me feel like I can't not break this. That and the boons. Its supposed to be a modified gestalt kind of thing but I think it benefits people that know the game way way more because they are certainly not close to being equal to each other. I mean I'll give it a shot and probably argue against turning prepared casters into spontaneous casters, but these things seem easy to break.
The Acrobatics-as-Fly makes no sense. Oppose the hell out of that.
I can think of dozens of creatures off the top of my head that can soar across the skies but can't do a barrel-roll/headstand worth a damn.
Like dragons, for example.
I think it makes some sense, but considering that Acrobatics is already a combination of a few skills I'm compelled to max it out.
I think it's pretty poor form to try and disrupt the game your GM is running on you because you disargree with his houserules. Either accept that it's his game and going to be run the way he wants to run it, or don't play in it.
Its less because I disagree with the house rules and more because every character I think of comes out abusive with the house rules.
None of these really shake me up at all.
Have you talked about the houserulles with your GM? And if you haven't why haven't you?
Its less because I disagree with the house rules and more because every character I think of comes out abusive with the house rules.
Well, as far as your DM is concerned, this comes with messing-up with the rules: one of your player is going to show you the weakness of your own houserules. That's kind of part of the deal...
So without saying "go crazy and abuse the hell out of his houserules!", do use the material he's given you.
|
I think it makes some sense, but considering that Acrobatics is already a combination of a few skills I'm compelled to max it out.
A wizard, for example, usually has some ranks in Fly for his flight spells. I just find it a little head-scratching that he'd now (presumably) get what used to be jump and tumble as class skills. YMMV if your GM thinks wizards should be trained athletes. And creatures that can fly really well can also be pretty cumbersome and sluggish on land.
It's a nitpick for sure, but since Acrobatics is already arguably a strange combo of old skills, adding Fly seems a little over-the-top. I haven't run into a case where a player feels maxing out both is too taxing.
EDIT: And PF rolled Balance into Acro as well IIRC. I also miss fighters being able to leap around, but that's another topic.
Have you talked about the houserulles with your GM? And if you haven't why haven't you?
Since making this thread I have. I pretty much just said that If I make something super broken I'll keep it to myself until the party is in trouble.
Do you mean break them as in disobey them or break them as in power gaming?
Power gaming, or gaming in a way to make something really really stupid happen by abusing some rule combination or enabling effect. I'm more prone to the second one. (example: I asked if I could play a druid that takes nothing but Boon Companion so that I eventually collect 13 reindeer animal companion and give them Overland Flight and Crane Style. This got Overland Flight banned and I'm not allowed to have multiple reindeer animal companions anymore. )
(example: I asked if I could play a druid that takes nothing but Boon Companion so that I eventually collect 13 reindeer animal companion and give them Overland Flight and Crane Style. This got Overland Flight banned and I'm not allowed to have multiple reindeer animal companions anymore. )
I Laughed So Hard At This! Bravo!
I Say Go Hard And Pull No Punches. The Man Wants To Monkey With The Fundamental Mechanics Of The Game? Show Him Why That Might Not Be Such a Grand Idea. Don't Be a Dick, But Don't Go Easy Either. He Won't Learn Unless He Makes Mistakes, And He Won't Know He Made Them Unless You Show Him.
And Duiker, Relax Man! He Was Being Funny And Showing a Potential Loophole In The New Rules At The Same Time. He Doesn't Need To Grow Up, You Need To Grow a Sense Of Humour. ;)
(And I Really Wish I Knew Why My Phone Capitalizes Every Word. Only Does It On This Forum...)