I am not an experienced game designer or theory crafter, so I'd like some input on a house rule that has just occurred to me. It sounds like a good idea...but many of my ideas turn out to be quite bad once I work may way through all of the consequences. Your CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is welcomed and highly appreciated.
So, here it is...
Weapon Proficiency [xxxx] skills replace BAB
- Anyone can use simple weapons, but you only add your STR (or DEX) modifier to attack rolls because BAB no longer exists.
- Anyone can spend a skill point to gain proficiency in any weapon. You wanna be a wizard wielding a dire flail, go for it. You just need to put a skill point into Weapon Proficiency [dire flail] to avoid the proficiency penalty.
- You add your skill ranks with THAT WEAPON to attack rolls with THAT WEAPON. So if that wizard put 4 ranks into his dire flail proficiency then he gets a +4 on attacks with a dire flail, plus Strength, of course.
- When a class grants a weapon proficiency (i.e. monk weapons for monks), that class gets to treat the proficiency skill with that weapon as a class skill, thus granting the extra +3. The wizard would get no class skill bonus to Weapon Proficiency [dire flail], but a fighter would get the class skill bonus to Weapon Proficiency [greatsword].
- I also like the idea of using the same proficiency skill for the shield bonus to AC. So, putting a skill point into the Shield Proficiency [light shields] adds +1 to your shield bonus to AC. Classes that are proficient with light shields would get the class skill bonus, too. This would help AC to keep pace with attack bonuses better.
Challenges to consider:
- Many classes, especially Fighters, will need their skill points per level bumped up if they need to buy their proficiencies and bonuses. Maybe 4 or 6 + Int?
- I see that this would actually HARM a fighter's weapon versatility since he just lost his BAB bonus to ALL weapons that he hasn't put a skill point into. In terms of the narrative, I don't mind this because warriors wouldn't automatically be equally skilled with any old weapon they pick up. But I do recognize that it's a nerf.
- Feats that require a minimum BAB (like Critical Focus) might need to be based off of hit dice, or maybe they only apply when using a weapon with a bonus greater than or equal to the required BAB.
- This is a pretty big change to the game, but I actually think it might simplify it by having all skills and combat bonuses operate off of the same core system.
- This would require a reworking of all stat blocks. This right here probably makes it not worth it. I'd like to try a stat block conversion and see how hard it would be though.
I think that's all I've got. Again, this is all coming right off the top of my head. It's almost certainly not something that could be easily implemented. For me, it was more of a thought exercise than a true consideration.
|
I'm not sure I'm super keen on this, that being said, to address one of your challenges constructively. Maybe fighters apply their skill points to weapon groups not specific weapons. They still need more skill point then they currently have, but it lets them get the bigger bang for their buck.
You would probably need to give Rangers and Paladins a similar boost, at least in skill points not weapon groups.
Actually across the board you probably have some issues, as wizards need ray, and touch attacks. Perhaps you give bonus skill points 2 for 1/2 BAB, 3 for 3/4 BAB and 4 1/1 BAB.
Eh, I think there are some serious balance issues. Sorry if I'm particularly negative, but there are some issues to think of:
-Namely, you could VERY easily have a full bab wizard. So why be a fighter, when you can have full 9 levels of casting & full BAB? 7 extra feats, armor training & weapon training are hard to compare to full 9th level casting.
-The idea of shield bonus to AC will have some problems. Namely, pre-existing items that allow AC to keep up already exist. So you will either have to jetisson a lot of items (armor, magical stuff, dex to AC) otherwise no-one will ever be able to hit each-other.
-Being stuck with one weapon... is kinda boring, and risky. I appreciate that you're trying to give some more versimilitude, but it wont work for games that where you dont necessarily have easy & permanent access to all items. You loose you longsword, you go from mighty to useless until you can find another.
I'd take Skill Focus (BAB) for my favored weapon as my 1st level feat every time. I wouldn't even care about backup weapons ... I'd just carry multiples of the one I like.
I'd be a one-trick pony, but it'd be one hell of a trick.
@Galnorag: I agree that this isn't really very feasible as a house rule. I just like game design exercises. It helps me to understand. I like the idea of weapon GROUPS.
@williamoak: No offense taken at all. You make good points. Why WOULD you play fighter if you could have a full BAB wizard? I hear (and see in my games) how AC just doesn't keep pace with attack bonuses at higher levels and I have always thought shields should grant much more AC. That said, you're right about combining this with AC boosting items. And, presumably, if a fighter is getting 4 or 6 skill points per level instead of 2, those 2 or 4 extra would be going to different proficiencies.
@aegrisomnia: You're right about those low-level bonuses being really big. There would have to be some kind of scaling bonus instead of a static lump at level 1...which is exactly what BAB is already. Haha! On the other hand, one (intended, though not necessarily accomplished) perk of this rule is that it should help with alleged caster/martial disparity by making fighters really gnarly in combat. Although williamoak pointed out that it actually does the opposite.
This is great. You are offering great insights. Like I said, this is mostly a thought exercise for me and I enjoy peeking at the underpinnings of the system.
@Zhayne: Good point. That would need to be addressed.
If you want to emphasize weapon groups with skill points, how about something likr ...
Classes that start with 'all martial weapons' instead start with just simple weapons and the martials of one group; normally they pick one, but certain archetypes may get them assigned (like the crossbowman must, obviously, start with Crossbows). Proficiency in a new group costs a skill point.
I say this never having been a fan of 'you know ALL the weapons', of course. Would need some ironing out, of course, but I was just brainstorming.
And then you get into skill-bonus boosting items and spells ...
I am not an experienced game designer or theory crafter, so I'd like some input on a house rule that has just occurred to me. It sounds like a good idea...but many of my ideas turn out to be quite bad once I work may way through all of the consequences. Your CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is welcomed and highly appreciated.
It's not a silly idea. It would go back to the Rolemaster origins of the 3E skill system, whereas characters must put skill point in weapon groups in order to get better at fighting.
That's also how the d20 Decipher edition of Lord of the Rings RPG use to work IIRC, except you had only two fighting skills (melee and ranged).
You could address the issue of skill focus... or you could leave it as is and consider it a feature rather than a bug. If you have PC purchase weapons groups (or melee/ranged) instead of individual weapons, you could enforce skill focus on one type of weapon only.
Here's my main criticism: it will become so much of a skill tax (and feat tax for skill focus) that you might as well automatically give PCs the automatic progression... which is what BAB per level does. It also encourages min/maxing even more than already, and create all-or-nothing scenarios (fighter has 20 ranks in swords, gets disarmed, picks-up an axe and goes down from 20 ranks to 0).
It looks like a houserule like this is putting a basketball hoop in a hockey rink. It just wasn't meant to work like that. It was a fun idea. I believe there's some merit to it, but not within the existing PF rules.
I've been playing warhammer fantasy roleplay recently, and it seems to work in a similar way, in that there is no "normal" progression of abilities. You "pay" for every gain through EXP. Hard to explain quickly though.
I am not an experienced game designer or theory crafter, so I'd like some input on a house rule that has just occurred to me. It sounds like a good idea...but many of my ideas turn out to be quite bad once I work may way through all of the consequences. Your CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is welcomed and highly appreciated.
What are you trying to accomplish?
Shadowrun works like this, except weapon types are split into groups. For example if you put skill points into Machine guns, you'd get better with any type of machine gun. If we were to compare this kind of thing for pathfinder, it would be something similar to the weapon training categories the fighter gets.
Regardless, Shadowrun is a completely differently designed game. If you were to put this rule in, you'd have to strip down and rebuild a lot of the pathfinder rules to keep everything balanced. And at that point, why not just play a different rpg with those kinds of rule sets?
What if caster level was a skill to go with it?