Many times in APs and modules you'll see how some wizards have come up with a nifty "like this spell but not really" kind of effect. It's really common in the Thassilonian pieces of published modules. For example, there was a binding-like effect that was customized that only resembled the base function of that spell. It had other functions that were not anything like RAW.
So, I'm curious what kind of poetic license you let your players have with such things. I've toyed about encouraging said effects in my own games but, honestly, some of the stuff I see that's really cool in APs or the tales books I don't know if I'd allow if a player came to me and did a cold pitch because of how remarkably off base it is with RAW.
What do you think?
I've done it. I allow one of my players to be a "hammer saint" (IE, sword saint with hammers).
But once we get into magic, I'm a bit more nervous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the areas I've thought about making some house rules around is identifying items. I'm talking about going way beyond just identifying the item. I mean like having a caster concoct a ritual that would reveal the story background of an item that would let me reveal at least bits of the multiparagraph history the AP attached with it. Or letting the party go through those laborious rituals I'm sure most of have read about to gain some nifty powers or different abilities. I'd love to let my player do it but I'm up the air on how to judge things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I allow all sorts of home brew and crazy stuff. If it makes sense in the narrative and World feel i am going fore. But i also almost exclusively throw home knittet monsters at the PCs.
Edit: often when players come to me with wishes i incorperate it in the story or make there idea a project for the PC in game.
Like researching a forgotten way to use imprissonment or make a special sword move that end up as a unique feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Constantly. I don't even play remotely by RAW; I have a metric crapload of houserules, ranging from 'natural 1s and 20s do nothing special' to 'ignore racial restrictions that don't actually apply to your racial mechanics'.
And that's just for PCs. For NPCs, I don't even pretend. He needs to mind-control an entire city? He did it. Am I gonna write it up? No; it's a plot device. He did it because it needed to happen. I've got a city of intelligent undead who live under a constant night, just in their city limits. I'm not writing that up as a game mechanic; it just works.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I allow a certain amount of "rule of cool", especially if he's not already a super-optimized munchkin.
For example, I gave the rogue the wpn prof for War razor. It's just cool.
Constantly. I don't even play remotely by RAW; I have a metric crapload of houserules, ranging from 'natural 1s and 20s do nothing special' to 'ignore racial restrictions that don't actually apply to your racial mechanics'.
And that's just for PCs. For NPCs, I don't even pretend. He needs to mind-control an entire city? He did it. Am I gonna write it up? No; it's a plot device. He did it because it needed to happen. I've got a city of intelligent undead who live under a constant night, just in their city limits. I'm not writing that up as a game mechanic; it just works.
Now, would you allow your PCs to engineer a way to mind-control a city themselves and other things?
We call these exceptions "house rules" at my table. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly, you just need to watch out for the guys who try to use it as precedent or as a repeatable event they can take advantage of.
People often speak ill of rules lawyers. It's rules engineers who are worse.
If you can't trust your players, why play with them?
If you can't trust your players, why play with them?Certainly, you just need to watch out for the guys who try to use it as precedent or as a repeatable event they can take advantage of.
People often speak ill of rules lawyers. It's rules engineers who are worse.
I get the distinct impression from the boards that most people dont have much player availability. So you take what you can get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, would you allow your PCs to engineer a way to mind-control a city themselvesConstantly. I don't even play remotely by RAW; I have a metric crapload of houserules, ranging from 'natural 1s and 20s do nothing special' to 'ignore racial restrictions that don't actually apply to your racial mechanics'.
And that's just for PCs. For NPCs, I don't even pretend. He needs to mind-control an entire city? He did it. Am I gonna write it up? No; it's a plot device. He did it because it needed to happen. I've got a city of intelligent undead who live under a constant night, just in their city limits. I'm not writing that up as a game mechanic; it just works.
Probably not. Pcs and NPCs are different, serve different purposes, and occupy different design space. Abilities appropriate for NPCs may be wildly inappropriate for PCs. Since NPCs are entirely under GM control, you don't have to worry about them breaking the game wide open.
'Other things', of course, depends on the thing.
You mean this?
Don't pick apart the example. Stick to the general question.
Probably not. Pcs and NPCs are different, serve different purposes, and occupy different design space. Abilities appropriate for NPCs may be wildly inappropriate for PCs. Since NPCs are entirely under GM control, you don't have to worry about them breaking the game wide open.
'Other things', of course, depends on the thing.
That's where I was trying to go with the question. Rephrased it would probably be: would you allow PCs to do things that are perhaps wildly outside of RAW?
If you can't trust your players, why play with them?Certainly, you just need to watch out for the guys who try to use it as precedent or as a repeatable event they can take advantage of.
People often speak ill of rules lawyers. It's rules engineers who are worse.
It's unrealistic to expect a player/character to not make use of any resource which he has available. It's a very rare day in which you find a player willing to say 'This could give me a major advantage, but I won't use it'.
The main thing is that both sides need to be mature enough to accept that a mistake was made, and work together to fix it. If, f'rex, the GM permits a spell or magic item that turns out to be a problem, both the GM and the player need to be willing to go 'this is a problem, let's exchange it for something else'.
That's where I was trying to go with the question. Rephrased it would probably be: would you allow PCs to do things that are perhaps wildly outside of RAW?Probably not. Pcs and NPCs are different, serve different purposes, and occupy different design space. Abilities appropriate for NPCs may be wildly inappropriate for PCs. Since NPCs are entirely under GM control, you don't have to worry about them breaking the game wide open.
'Other things', of course, depends on the thing.
Perhaps. It depends on the thing. RAW can't possibly cover every action the PCs wish to undertake ... sometimes, you just gotta make stuff up on the fly.
That's where I was trying to go with the question. Rephrased it would probably be: would you allow PCs to do things that are perhaps wildly outside of RAW?Probably not. Pcs and NPCs are different, serve different purposes, and occupy different design space. Abilities appropriate for NPCs may be wildly inappropriate for PCs. Since NPCs are entirely under GM control, you don't have to worry about them breaking the game wide open.
'Other things', of course, depends on the thing.
If doing so is more fun and makes sense, of course.
And I don't think Darkwarrior was trying to be rude. When I read what you were going for "Legend Lore" was the first thing in my head too.
That's where I was trying to go with the question. Rephrased it would probably be: would you allow PCs to do things that are perhaps wildly outside of RAW?Probably not. Pcs and NPCs are different, serve different purposes, and occupy different design space. Abilities appropriate for NPCs may be wildly inappropriate for PCs. Since NPCs are entirely under GM control, you don't have to worry about them breaking the game wide open.
'Other things', of course, depends on the thing.
It's my habit to reward player creativity. That said, I try to be consistent about how I rule things - players may want to try such a gambit again, after all.
If doing so is more fun and makes sense, of course.
And I don't think Darkwarrior was trying to be rude. When I read what you were going for "Legend Lore" was the first thing in my head too.
I wasn't trying to be rude either. The binding deal was the better example, though. It was like binding but without the physical restraints, but kept you confined to an area like a magic circle, a domination mixed in that forced the bound creature to attack anyone that didn't fit the binding spell's passing criteria, and it had very specific deactivation criteria. It was a weird amalgamation of effects that had been active for the last 10,000 years so it was permanent. But, like I said, I'm not sure I would necessarily allow a PC to do that if he tried to cold call me for it, let's say. But, reading the background to that effect in the AP I could see it working. So, the thread. I was curious what others have let their PCs do that are not RAW.
|
If you can't trust your players, why play with them?Certainly, you just need to watch out for the guys who try to use it as precedent or as a repeatable event they can take advantage of.
People often speak ill of rules lawyers. It's rules engineers who are worse.
It's unrealistic to expect a player/character to not make use of any resource which he has available. It's a very rare day in which you find a player willing to say 'This could give me a major advantage, but I won't use it'.
The main thing is that both sides need to be mature enough to accept that a mistake was made, and work together to fix it. If, f'rex, the GM permits a spell or magic item that turns out to be a problem, both the GM and the player need to be willing to go 'this is a problem, let's exchange it for something else'.
Some players try to find the janky, unrealistic 'rules as written' crazinessand run with it. Others try to use past rulings to form a sort of weird precedent in a game.
'You let that town have an item that was 2,000gp, so therefore they all should, unless that one is special and you're just being inconsistant, etc etc.'
When you introduce stuff or allow stuff thats odd, its best to make sure you indicate its provisional, or being considered, or being used for reasons of simplicity, or what not.
I actually do the unforgivable crime to some people and keep some of my campaign world's house mechanics unseen by the PCs to prevent them from being able to plan, mitigate, or maximize a situation that nobody ICly really knows the full extent of. The players have vague ideas of how the mechanics work, but they don't know the specifics, and therefore are unable to engineer them.
This increases the mystery of them and the enjoyment.
At times though, the DM needs to let crazy stuff happen. Like someone using a feather token anchor as a giant grappling hook for example. Just make it clear to the player, this probably won't work again this well.
I find the more I try and let my players be creative, the more they try and get away with without having the proper resources. Being a certain spell prepared, feat, or even the correct action in a turn.
Most often than not, anything a player has asked me about doing by GM fiat, there is something in the rules already that would let them do it, but with a cost.
For the most part, I try and decide whether or not that tax is worth enforcing (usually it is) and at that point I decide whether or not it's worth it.
My group plays Nat 1's and 20's on everything, and I hate it, I would much rather play like Zhayne does when it comes to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the Title question, yes. In fact, I help them with it.
I grant templates, bonus feats, additional skill ranks, special abilities, and otherwise heavily bend or even outright break the rules to generate nifty abilities, traits, or similar for my players.
In response to, "Would you let your players develop things that follow the spirit and basics of the rules-system that you're using, and introduce it." (which seems to be the actual question - please correct me if I'm wrong!) the answer is, "Rarely, but sometimes."
(Of course, it's extremely rare that people actually ask for such a thing, so...)
The thing is, to me, if it exists in the world, in theory, players can get at it, if they want... and they take the same path that others have to take to get the same thing. This effectively eliminates many things from the game - few of my players would ever have been willing to sacrifice a sentient creature in order to get lichdom, for example - and sometimes it just doesn't work with our story - I've once or twice actually told a player that the story, as developed, would completely end if they took an action or pursued a certain thing they were about to, which has caused a change in the planned whatever it was - but the fact that it's theoretically there (and I would not deny them, if they chose to go through with it nonetheless) is important for immersion to us.
As far as players developing their own things... well, I've just not run into it all that much. I tend to be a bit cautious about it, but so far I've actually been able to permit it - a variant flesh golem, a yak familiar, and a functioning set of trade-routes and caravans that work for them/generate money automatically have all been approved, as some examples.
I don't know that anyone has specifically asked for a variant spell, though.
In response to the ritual magic concept, I actually really like it... but that stuff is partially arbitrated anyway as opposed to following strict interpretations of rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. Rule of cool, baby.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With me, it honestly depends. If it's something that was created with restrictions based on fluff, I'll be more open to changing it to be less restrictive. For example, a lot of racial archetypes are open to more than just a single race. Certain ones of course are kept to a single race, or a subset of races if it doesn't make sense otherwise, but ones where the race barely affects the mechanics of the class, I'll make more open.
Otherwise, it's very play it by ear. I'll be more lenient moving away from RAW for a class that I know is generally underpowered or a bit of a one trick pony. After all, classes like the Wizard already have ways to casually twist reality to their whim within the RAW, so I'm probably not going to give them he same benefit of the rule of cool, as I would a fighter or the like.
Yes, gestalt is an example. Pretty much anything with a good story goes.
I encourage them to think outside the box, and I strongly modify the rules to nerf/empower certain aspects, small things like some teleporting is blocked by a mundane material and adamantine is immune to disintegration.
I would give out thematic abilities when they overcome some challenge, like a permanent 'resist electricity 5' for defeating an tough lightning elemental, or some spell a number of times per day.
I also ignore the no stacking of resistances, I use a multiple layer scheme.
The price of something really awesome is going on adventures and building your character and his or her life.
If they get something that's is completely OP, then the difficulty of their challenges go up... "Remember, Peter: With great power comes tons of (other) power hungry jerks trying to take it from you!"
I try to. I usually make sure to say "We'll try it, but I reserve the right to undo this later if it causes a problem" for stuff that seems like it might not be OP but could turn out problematic later. I told my newly minted (level 1) Musket Master that he could take the Feat Crossbow Mastery (when he has the prereqs, of course) and apply it to his musket/rifle if he liked. Didn't seem like being able to reload as a Free action would cause any issues that him firing a Revolver wouldn't. Fluff it as his rifle holding multiple shots and bam, isn't even logically inconsistent.
I have one guy who keeps asking me stuff that is alternately fun, challenging, and just tiring. Has a lot of big ideas that sound cool but I'm not sure if I wanna allow in some cases. He's an Alchemist, to give you a vague idea.
It's unrealistic to expect a player/character to not make use of any resource which he has available. It's a very rare day in which you find a player willing to say 'This could give me a major advantage, but I won't use it'.
So pretty much all your players fall into the categories "busts the game wide open with undead, planar binding shenanigans, and advanced Zen Archery" and "just not very good at Pathfinder"? I find that players who would cross any (legitimate) line for an advantage are the exception rather than the rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's where I was trying to go with the question. Rephrased it would probably be: would you allow PCs to do things that are perhaps wildly outside of RAW?Probably not. Pcs and NPCs are different, serve different purposes, and occupy different design space. Abilities appropriate for NPCs may be wildly inappropriate for PCs. Since NPCs are entirely under GM control, you don't have to worry about them breaking the game wide open.
'Other things', of course, depends on the thing.
Of course. This isn't PFS and good DM'ing is the ability to know when RAW is stupid and needs to be adjusted or tossed out entirely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got good players, access to just about every 3.5 WotC book, and a load of 2nd edition stuff as well. And then there's the internet.
I always give a shout-out to the incantation section of the d20srd. Under Variant Rules - magic. Magical rituals accomplished by skill checks. So good. I've even expanded them out to work for games more like the Supernatural TV series, where magic is really hard or time consuming (for mortals at least).
As an example of how liberal I am with RAW, I recently ran Carrion Crown for a group of two. One was a Dhampir Magus, the other a Half-Elf Ranger. To give the group some staying power, I used an NPC from Ulustav, Talvien the Revenant, played up as the great-great-great-grandfather of the half-elf.
As the game progressed though, it became apparent that, especially considering the amount of undead in Carrion Crown, the party was not well suited for keeping up with healing/removing the damage/conditions dealt to them.
So, when they hit the Shrine of Desna in the third adventure, the Dhampir received a vision after being infected with lycanthropy. He had to perform a ritual at the shrine, but in doing so could "take the first step on a new journey". The ritual required several powerful components, including the Packlord's heart. After collecting a load of ingredients (several of which I never mentioned but the player felt would boost his chances) several high DC skill checks and an entire day of wracking pain, the dhampir became a full lycanthrope.
He then immediately worked up a version that would allow him to repeat the transformation in others. And from there to understand how to infuse creature essences into other creatures. By the end of it, the half-elf was also a wear-bear, and the revenant was infused with the power of a Peri celestial.
Was any of this RAW? Nope. Was it fun, solved in-game problems, and made for a more memorable story? Yep, yep, and yep. That's all that matters.
That's awesome, Black Bard. I'll take a look at the incantations on D20.
Well, then, I couldn't run any Paizo published APs or modules. :-/
These are just my experiences, and should be in no way construed as an attempt to guide anyone else's experience, heh.
The smaller the group, the more likely we are to use house rules. As the group size grows, we will often try to ratchet back the house rules, as balance is easier, and you don't have quite as much trouble keeping everyone on the same page.
Two of my players have created totally homebrewed classes, the Death Warden and the Wandering Pistolero. Took a bit of work on all our parts to balance them, but was definitely worth the effort.
We've found it much easier to veer off the beaten path when the players and GM are all working towards the same goals.
Generally, the more inner-party conflict a group shows, the less likely I am to worry much about expanding houserules. I don't know that it's a causal relationship, but I have found that players who gravitate towards rolling against one another also try to create some batsh!t crazy rules.
I use non-RAW in my games like Chicago votes.
Early and often.
I don't trust myself as GM to go off RAW. I know I have players responsible enough to handle whatever, but I know I discriminate on a person to person basis, and following RAW relieves me of any discrepancy between powers levels among the PCs. It also voids the following argument:
PC: Rogues are weak.
Me: Probably, but it could be based on build.
PC: So, let me have uber power.
Me: Ok.
Next Campaign...
PC2: Man, my rogue would be amazeballs with something like this.
Me: Well, with your build and the campaign specifically you are already doing well.
Pc2: Yeah, well last campaign you gave bonus stuff to PC because you said rogues were weak..
You get the point. My players are veterans and know what they are getting into with RAW. If the characters aren't up to snuff they can only blame themselves.
I go off RAW sometimes... usually due to things the RAW can't even attempt to cover.
Like the scroll golem...