| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the purposes of this thread, "houserule" is defined as "altering an existing feature of the game for any reason". Excluding things (like, say, the Samurai and Ninja classes) don't count.
Me: Firearms Houserule—attacks against flat-footed AC instead of touch at close range and take twice as long to reload, but cost 5% price. Simple weapon.
I love the style of old-fashioned guns, but I want to make them fit a world where they're common, not where they're practically magic items by default. With the above rule, they're less powerful than a compound bow, but easier to use (which matches the history as close as I think it can).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every player must pay me ten dollars.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every player must pay me ten dollars.
A hour.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My house rule is.. I will adjust the game as I see fit.
I will NOT GM otherwise under any circumstances.
Call me entitled, but I don't believe it's worthwhile to try swimming the English Channel while wearing a straitjacket either.
No wishing for more wishes. Disqualified.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LazarX took my answer, so I'd have to go with No Evil Characters, including Neutral (but really evil) or Chaotic Neutral (but I am evil tee hee)
Only one house rule? eeek!
Okay, um, um, um....
Got it!
I'm removing the combat resolution rules.
EDIT: Okay. More seriously. I'm replacing skills with a percentile system that improves through use a la BRP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No MMO talk jargon at or near or about the game..no builds, or tanks or DPs or any other new fangled silly talk. :)
Or
NO DICE! the guy to your left decides what you roll.
For the purposes of this thread, "houserule" is defined as "altering an existing feature of the game for any reason". Excluding things (like, say, the Samurai and Ninja classes) don't count.
Me: Firearms Houserule—attacks against flat-footed AC instead of touch at close range and take twice as long to reload, but cost 5% price. Simple weapon.
I love the style of old-fashioned guns, but I want to make them fit a world where they're common, not where they're practically magic items by default. With the above rule, they're less powerful than a compound bow, but easier to use (which matches the history as close as I think it can).
Rule 0 is a rule. No house rules are needed.
Assuming you mean one house rule beyond house ruling the rule 0 does not exist, then I would ban the synthesis. In an actual game, the synthesis is just so devastating in melee and so tanky in terms of HP, saves, and AC that no one else in the group can play a melee focused character without being objectively worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The premise is ridiculous for our group. It would never work so therefore my one houserule will be ridiculous.
My houserule is all PC's have to be morbidly obese - like 400lbs plus and take the minuses to their Dex and Con as a result.
Alignment?
Nope. No alignment. Just forget about that nonsense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hm...
Give me all the cure type spells in conjuration moving to necromancy because the school of life and death could do with a little more life.
Characters can trade in equivalent things for the same equivalent.
Ie, Two traits for a feat, etc.
There's a lot of things I'd do, like kill alignment restrictions on classes and such...but if I only get one?
Any player may (once per session), perform an appeal dance. If deemed worthy, they are granted a reroll to be used immediately.
LazarX took my answer, so I'd have to go with No Evil Characters, including Neutral (but really evil) or Chaotic Neutral (but I am evil tee hee)
This would be my one house rule as well. However, I'd word it as "all PCs must be within one alignment step of each other". So you could have a group which is either all good or all evil, but no LG paladins hanging out with CN almost-evil rogues. Which side of the grid would of course be agreed on before the game even started.
LazarX took my answer, so I'd have to go with No Evil Characters, including Neutral (but really evil) or Chaotic Neutral (but I am evil tee hee)
Is that a houserule, though, or a ground rule? Because I think there's a difference.
Houserules are a rules issue. No Evil characters is a style choice.
As to myself, I can't think of running a game where I couldn't make those adjustments that just make more sense to me (not to mention my players who have never disagreed with a houserule I've made).
I'd like to say I will think harder and try to come up with one single houserule I could definitely not live without. But... nyah, too much effort!
LazarX took my answer, so I'd have to go with No Evil Characters, including Neutral (but really evil) or Chaotic Neutral (but I am evil tee hee)
Excluded under the 'exclusion clause' listed in the first post. You still got a rule. :)
Extra skill points (2 per non-INT class per level) and extra feats (1 each at first and second level for every class). Call the Houserule 'Progression Adjustment'.
|
Probably allowing Charisma to be used for Will saves instead of Wisdom if you like. Widely expands the number if characters who dump Wisdom instead of Charisma, which makes characters more diverse and interesting, personality-wise.
I have lots of others that are likely more important, but they're all interdependent and thus poor choices for this specific context.
Use a hex grid instead of a square one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4 additional skill points per level per character, regardless of class, with the clause that 2 of those 4, must be spent on background skills, such as knowledge, profession, perform or craft.
Too bad you didn't grant me three house rules :(
Any 3rd party project ive been involved in is allowed.
|
No MMO talk jargon at or near or about the game..no builds, or tanks or DPs or any other new fangled silly talk. :)
AMENNNNNNN!!! Just make this a universal house rule and a great deal of what's made me queasy about contemporary gaming would be solved. Ask any linguist: Language influences thought, and an overly 'efficient' language is poison for independent and original thought.
Hm...
Give me all the cure type spells in conjuration moving to necromancy because the school of life and death could do with a little more life.
LIKEWIIIISE!!! Seriously: A few years ago I briefly (they let me play that night since I'd made an hour-long highway drive to reach the place, but there wasn't really room for me) played a game with a high school-age DM, who forbade not only Necromancers, but all Necromancy spells - his reason? "I don't like Evil characters." His reason for assuming all Necromancers and Necromancy were inherently Evil? "Negative energy." We were able to set him straight, however - he was genuinely surprised when I brought up the fact that before 3.0, ALL HEALING SPELLS WERE NECROMANCY.
Anyways, those are theirs, so mine would be:
Make Sorcerer magic (as well as the magic of many other classes that came up in the course of 3.0/3.5, but couldn't officially transfer to Pathfinder) Intelligence-based. Charisma-based magic makes sense for both Bards and Summoners, but it should be the exception for arcane magic rather than the rule that it wound up becoming by the end of the 3.5 era, and that ugly katamari started rolling with the 3.0 Sorcerer (PROTIP: Play the Baldur's Gate computer games, just on general principles, and don't forget Planescape Torment - they represented 2nd Edition's, and as fate would have it, TSR's, well-deserved and spectacularly-executed grand finale; the reason I say that here and now is that, at least as far as I'm aware, Baldur's Gate II was the Sorcerer's debut, and in that game, their magic was Intelligence-based).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking about chucking out perception.
Yeah, you know what I'm talking about, the pcs walk into a room and make a perception check to loot the entire room.
That's just not how it's gonna happen in my game. Just tell me you're checking out the chimney, and I'll tell you what you find inside.
I GM a backup game with only one house rule. I did away with xp and just level up the PCs when i see fit. So i guess i Will go with that one.
Roll 1D10 for initiative i/o 1D20... makes dex and improved initiative really count. Takes away the randomness and rewards specific builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For my youngest son's solo adventures, he was 9 when we started... I gave him max HP each level up.. Dwarf fighter... with 17 CON... he was quite pleased with that ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My house rule is.. I will adjust the game as I see fit.
I will NOT GM otherwise under any circumstances.
Call me entitled, but I don't believe it's worthwhile to try swimming the English Channel while wearing a straitjacket either.
I know you know this, Lazar, but just to point it out: that's not a house rule. It's actually in the CRB under the title "The Most Important Rule".
Which, I must admit, does make this thread somewhat silly. But I think that's the idea.
Mine would have to be...
The GM will always accept bribes. Acceptance of bribes in no way guarantees any form of mechanical or roleplaying advantage to the briber. But I'll still accept the bribes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm trying out some new death rules.
No one dies at less than 0 HP. You're essentially K.O'ed like in Final Fantasy. However in this state, some notable enemies may have the ability to take the time to finish you off. Or if it's a BBEG, they can kill you outright.
I will level the party up at certain points. No using XP<----I feel like I will think of something better as soon as I post this.
I will level the party up at certain points. No using XP<----I feel like I will think of something better as soon as I post this.This works quite well. It encourages players think of more 'in character' solutions rather than seeing each encounter as a chuck of XP to kill.
I don't even think of that as a house rule any more. APs treat it as a supported option, and I'd expect to see it in core if there were ever a brand new edition of the CRB. I have it filed under "nostalgic idea, but unnecessary bookkeeping", right next to THAC0 and precise tracking of encumbrance.
I'd alter rogue talents to be MUCH more attractive. For example, none of the rogue talents would be "1/day" but will be usable at will.
A rogue with the Charmer or Assault Leader rogue talents, for example, could use them as often as they liked.
I have three under the assumption that each would be used in a different game. I'd like to try all three of these out some day.
Everyone uses Gestalt Characters.
OR
Psionic classes and supporting material are allowed.
OR
The Words of Power subsystem is allowed.
You don't get the OP's intent. It's to nullify Rule Zero.
Or it's simply to find out which rules individual players consider most worthy of applying Rule Zero to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incremental advances ala 13th Age.
At the end of any session where the party does not level up (or at significant plot points), they get to add one aspect of a level up (i.e. feat, new spells known, increased spells per day, class features, skill points, etc), as distributed by the GM.
This makes leveling a smoother and more organic feeling to me. Rather than being static for a full level and then getting a huge power boost all at once, you get power a little bit at a time. GM distribution will also make it less abusable, and can tie into the RP more. PC takes a lot of damage? They get a hit die. PC runs through all their spells? They get more spells per day. Made a crucial save? Saves go up.
It just feels right to me.
I have thrown out CMB/CMD and just made the combat maneuvers part of the regular attack and damage sequence. Saves time and makes things flow faster.