| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think 90% of Rogue Talents need a heavy rework. Many are pointless or straight-up bad. Altering them to increase the flexibility of the class and to minimise the weaknesses of low BAB and poor saves would be a start.
Some changes or limits to Summoning might also be useful - it's a very powerful ability that can slow down combat by adding a bunch of additional characters. Limiting the maximum number of summons to half the number of PCs involved in combat could help keep things slick.
CMB/CMD scales badly with level, and CMDs can get high enough that things like Acrobatics checks to move through threatened squares become enormously hazardous at mid-high levels.
|
Well, I'm working on a complete gut and overhaul of the monster system. I'm not sure if you'd call that a "rule," though.
I replace a lot of save or die/suck effects with ability damage (like the cockatrice's petrification), regular damage, or provide some sort of "out." That's not so much for balance as it is for fun.
I wish I could get rid of iterative attacks, but I haven't figured out a great way to do that yet.
Cheers!
Landon
Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat for Rogues.
Doing away with the +1 BAB pre-req for Exotic Weapon Prof.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
God, so many things. I have an 8 page House Rules document.
Brief summary:
-I let some races take alternate penalties (Gnomes and Halflings can get -2 Wis instead of Str and Dwarves -2 Dex instead of Cha). This is largely because I use point-buy and cap stats at 16 pre-racial, so as to allow Dwarf Bards and Halfling Barbarians to not be totally screwed.
-I let people use Charisma instead of Wisdom for Will Saves. Makes Charisma more useful and enables concepts like charismatic Fighter.
-I vary Cleric class skills slightly by deity. It's a theme thing.
-Speaking of Class Skills, I allow people to trade up to two Class Skills for other ones (Knowledges only trade for Knowledges, Profession, Craft, and Perform only trade with each other, not allowed to grab Perception or UMD with this). Combined with Traits allows for a fair number of fun concepts that don't quite work otherwise.
-Fighters get 4 skill points per level, as do Sorcerers (both also get Knowledge-Local as a Class Skill, with Fighters also getting Perception while Sorcerers get Perform).
-Sorcerers get all Bloodline spells one level earlier.
-Rogue Talents and Ninja Tricks are interchangeable, and a full on Ninja Style Ki Pool is an available Rogue Talent. Evasion is also a basic Ninja Trick.
-I allow CG Paladins and LE Antipaladins, but no other Alignments. Their stats don't notably change.
-I have an extensive list of Monk House Rules (they're full BAB - though still d8 HD, their unarmed damage die progression is reduced, but they can add Wisdom to damage with unarmed attacks or monk weapons, and they crit on a 19-20 unarmed, when they spend Ki for extra movement, they can either add the 20 feet, or move it plus their Monk bonus speed as a Swift action, etc.)
-Permanent Magic Traps that reset only have what amounts to 50 charges, but regain one a year. To prevent the Create Food And Water trap abuse, but still allow centuries old traps that function.
-Creatures max out at +20 Natural Armor. anything that has more than that has the remainder converted to Deflection bonus. To make this more organic for Dragons, half their Natural Armor (rounded down) is instead Deflection (this works out really nicely since they officially max out at +40 NA).
-You can use Heavy Crossbows as a Martial Weapon, in which case they're only a Move Action to reload.
-Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers are one Feat. Called Weapon Finesse. If you have it, you can ignore your own size penalties on CMB and CMD.
-Crossbow Mastery, no longer necessary to reload, now doubles the weapon's damage die.
-The Vital Strike Feat line is one, scaling, Feat.
-Dervish Dance can also be taken on any finesseable weapon.
-Piranha Strike can be used with any finesseable weapon.
-Weapon Focus can be taken with a specific pair of weapons (Short Sword and Heavy Shield, for example)...but if taken that way only applies when you've got both. The same applies to Weapon Specialization and other Feats in that chain.
-Manyshot can be used with any ranged weapon. Except guns and thrown weapons.
-I use pre-errata Crane Wing.
-I let TWF be used as an attack action, though ITWF and later still require a Full Attack.
I have the following two new Feats, to allow for unarmored characters, and make Halfling Slingers a viable concept, respectively:
Prerequisites: Dex 15, BAB +3, the ability to reload Slings as a Free Action.
Effect: The user of this Feat may use Dexterity instead of Strength to add to their damage when wielding a sling, sling-staff, or other ranged weapon with 'sling' in the name.
Unarmored Dodge:
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Light Armor Proficiency,
Effect: You have found through experience that you seem to do a lot better at dodging while not wearing armor. As long as you are neither wearing armor, nor using any item, spell, or other effect that grants an Armor Bonus to AC, you receive a +4 Dodge Bonus to AC. For every five levels you possess, this bonus increases by an additional +1.
Special: This Feat may be used instead of Dodge as a prerequisite for any and all Feats, abilities, and Prestige Classes that require Dodge, but anyone who possesses it may never acquire the Dodge Feat.
There's a bunch of other little stuff (I modified a few specific archetypes, added a Domain to each Deity, came up with a coherent list of Inquisitions per God, clarified a few things, etc.) but that's most of it.
I'd either chuck out the CMB/CMD rules or make them the default combat system. There's no need for two different "Hit or Miss" rules, IMHO.
The "make having low HP make enemies less effective" argument is a persuasive one, but can have negative consequences. The Banner Saga, an indie CRPG has a system that works like this.
However, due to the fact that low HP enemies still get a turn that always alternates with player-controlled characters it created a "maim, don't kill" philosophy. You actually benefit from not killing very weak enemies as they're not a threat, and having them use up one of the finite actions of the enemy turn creates a burden on their action economy.
There could definitely be better ways to implement a similar system, but would likely be more complex in a pen and paper game. That said, I'd recommend the Banner Saga to anyone with a bit of time to spare. The visuals and music are worth the purchase price alone, and the rather bleak worldview is a bonus.
|
I'd change the way Enhancement bonuses work to where you gain the enchantments, and transfer them to whatever weapon you are wielding, be it a natural attack, unarmed strike, sword, bow, thrown axe, etc. to remove the expenses of things like TWF, Unarmed fighting, throwing weapons, etc. Magical weapon handouts would be replaced with other appropriate objects along with a masterwork version of the weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use hex grids for combat instead of square ones.
Use hex grids for combat instead of square ones.
You madman.
I spose I'll contribute.
Rework the Skills system. More vague less static DCs or less vague MORE static DCs =P
Expand their effect. 5 ranks in Climb for example lets you maintain your full movement when climbing. High ranks of Disable Device allow you to assess the danger of a trap once you find it, regardless of whether you disable it or not. Ranks of Diplomacy will dictate how many steps you can shift with it. Lots we could do here.
I'd change so many things I don't think I could list them all and how and why. Mostly to keep scaling more controlled, show more from progression, and make martials feel like they do more while keeping casters from becoming lesser deities so easily. Also! Empowering narrative and making flexible weapon rules rather than making restrictions and making things exact.
|
Just checking Ascalaphus... is it possible to go above 20 in a stat that way? Do all stat-ups over 18(pre-racial) cost 4 build points?
If going that route I'd actually strongly consider nixing the stat-boosters entirely, even if it meant increasing the points gained.
You can't buy stats above 18 at level 1. Thereafter, yes, although it keeps getting more expensive.
This system actually favors MAD buils over SAD builds. It encourages a wizard to find a way to use some of the other stats as well, because he can eventually buy a +1 in every other stat at the same price as a +1 Int. I consider this a feature.
I don't want to lose stat-boosters entirely, because combined with this system, they're actually really desirable treasure. So I want them to be rare and veeery expensive.
I'm still on the fence about the Bull's Strength line of spells. I wonder if I should get rid of those, since those are now even more powerful.
That would however still leave other spells and class abilities all over the place that give boosts, usch as Aspect of the Wolf. However, those spells are not so standard and widespread, and increasing their importance may actually be a nice side effect.
Just checking Ascalaphus... is it possible to go above 20 in a stat that way? Do all stat-ups over 18(pre-racial) cost 4 build points?
If going that route I'd actually strongly consider nixing the stat-boosters entirely, even if it meant increasing the points gained.
You can't buy stats above 18 at level 1. Thereafter, yes, although it keeps getting more expensive.
This system actually favors MAD buils over SAD builds. It encourages a wizard to find a way to use some of the other stats as well, because he can eventually buy a +1 in every other stat at the same price as a +1 Int. I consider this a feature.
I don't want to lose stat-boosters entirely, because combined with this system, they're actually really desirable treasure. So I want them to be rare and veeery expensive.
I'm still on the fence about the Bull's Strength line of spells. I wonder if I should get rid of those, since those are now even more powerful.
That would however still leave other spells and class abilities all over the place that give boosts, usch as Aspect of the Wolf. However, those spells are not so standard and widespread, and increasing their importance may actually be a nice side effect.
Those rules make threefold aspect really cool.
I'm sure everyone does this in their own games but I never keep track of carry weight or mundane ammunition. I am definitely in favor of everyone getting at least 4 skill points per level though maybe capping the int bonus to keep wizards and witches from eclipsing the rogue in skill ranks.
"Rogue Talents and Ninja Tricks are interchangeable, and a full on Ninja Style Ki Pool is an available Rogue Talent. Evasion is also a basic Ninja Trick." But I thought that they already got this? And I'm glad they do otherwise ninjas would completely invalidate the rogue.
The rogue needs a huge buff especially to sneak attack. They got it when undead were allowed to be sneak attacked but it could go further. The basic idea I had is to change the rules of flat-footed. The new system would change flat-footed to mean off-guard. If a monk and a fighter are flanking a cavalier and a rogue then attacks to the side of the cavalier, the cavalier is off-guard to the rogue but not the monk or fighter. there are already rules for conditional flat-footing like the rules for feinting. This just takes it further. If this means the rogue does too much damage then the amount of sneak attack dice can be lowered to compensate.
"I let people use Charisma instead of Wisdom for Will Saves. Makes Charisma more useful and enables concepts like charismatic Fighter."
QFT. I love how 4th Ed. (I know, I know.) changed the save system and Pathfinder could use it too. CHA for will, INT for reflex, and STR for fortitude allows for more heroic PCs and would help nerf spellcasters a lot. It would also give CHA an inherent value for every class rather than it being the most common dump stat by far. (STR is the only one that comes close.)
A personal pet peeve of mine that I don't strictly need to have fixed is how weak the assassin class is. I loved the assassin in 3.5 and am very disappointed that it lost most of what made it good. So I'd change it back.
|
|
"Rogue Talents and Ninja Tricks are interchangeable, and a full on Ninja Style Ki Pool is an available Rogue Talent. Evasion is also a basic Ninja Trick." But I thought that they already got this? And I'm glad they do otherwise ninjas would completely invalidate the rogue.
1 to, what 4 Ki a day you can effectively only use for Ninja Tricks you've grabbed and is useless on its own isn't worth it for most Rogues...and doesn't keep Ninja from making Rogue invalid. I allow the Ki Pool Rogue Talent to give a full, Ninja-sized, Charisma-based, Ki Pool that does everything the Ninja version does.
"I let people use Charisma instead of Wisdom for Will Saves. Makes Charisma more useful and enables concepts like charismatic Fighter."
QFT. I love how 4th Ed. (I know, I know.) changed the save system and Pathfinder could use it too. CHA for will, INT for reflex, and STR for fortitude allows for more heroic PCs and would help nerf spellcasters a lot. It would also give CHA an inherent value for every class rather than it being the most common dump stat by far. (STR is the only one that comes close.)
Yeah. I've admittedly seen a lot of Wisdom dumping due to this, but at least that accurately reflects the way many PCs play anyway...
"Rogue Talents and Ninja Tricks are interchangeable, and a full on Ninja Style Ki Pool is an available Rogue Talent. Evasion is also a basic Ninja Trick." But I thought that they already got this? And I'm glad they do otherwise ninjas would completely invalidate the rogue.1 to, what 4 Ki a day you can effectively only use for Ninja Tricks you've grabbed and is useless on its own isn't worth it for most Rogues...and doesn't keep Ninja from making Rogue invalid. I allow the Ki Pool Rogue Talent to give a full, Ninja-sized, Charisma-based, Ki Pool that does everything the Ninja version does.
Yeah. I've admittedly seen a lot of Wisdom dumping due to this, but at least that accurately reflects the way many PCs play anyway..."I let people use Charisma instead of Wisdom for Will Saves. Makes Charisma more useful and enables concepts like charismatic Fighter."
QFT. I love how 4th Ed. (I know, I know.) changed the save system and Pathfinder could use it too. CHA for will, INT for reflex, and STR for fortitude allows for more heroic PCs and would help nerf spellcasters a lot. It would also give CHA an inherent value for every class rather than it being the most common dump stat by far. (STR is the only one that comes close.)
Lol at the WIS dumping comment.
Well obviously buffing the Ki pool is the fix to that. Really it should be errata'd.
I wish I could get rid of iterative attacks, but I haven't figured out a great way to do that yet.
Have you tried replacing them with free Vital Strike line of feats? That's been my thought on eliminating iterative attacks but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.
I wish I could get rid of iterative attacks, but I haven't figured out a great way to do that yet.Have you tried replacing them with free Vital Strike line of feats? That's been my thought on eliminating iterative attacks but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.
I don't know if that works or not. That would severely lower the damage of marital classes and make TWF impossible. Vital strike only increases weapon damage. You only get the bonuses of things like power attack or sneak attack once under that system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if that works or not. That would severely lower the damage of marital classes and make TWF impossible. Vital strike only increases weapon damage. You only get the bonuses of things like power attack or sneak attack once under that system.
Have you tried replacing them with free Vital Strike line of feats? That's been my thought on eliminating iterative attacks but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.
That's the best quick fix, but Larkos nails the issue with it long-term.
Mythic Vital Strike fixes the bonuses not scaling, but actually causes an explosion of damage because nobody's missing with their iteratives.
You might be able to swing something like "Choose the level of strike you're going for: -0, -5, -10, or -15. If you hit with -5, the attack is treated as an 2x critical hit, 3x for -10, and 4x for -15." Which nails it, but only for characters who doesn't use bows, flurry of blows, two weapons, or sneak attack...
To get those you need to make some more changes. It ends up being sprawling -- more changes than I'm willing to make on the player side.
I've actually gotten rid of almost all multiple-attacks for monsters (either rolling them into one attack or abstracting them into one attack roll). That works great. I just wish I could help out my players the same way.
My gut says the best solution may be an alternate base class (or classes or archetypes) focused on standard attack actions. Then any changes can be kept contained to that material. As a bonus, that way each player can then choose if they want to opt out of iterative attacks.
Cheers!
Landon
It actually is distinctly possible to replace the Full Attack Paradigm with a simple Attack one, which has the added benefit of making Attacks of Opportunity far more dangerous.
Getting the math right would be challenging, but it's certainly doable.
You can also make full attacks less situational and keep their damage more under control. ToB also had some cool options aside from full attacking that worked with the full attack gig, though full attacking tended to do more damage unless you had a pretty pitiful damage.
You can definitely replace it though. Full attacking itself isn't that well done.
|
|
It actually is distinctly possible to replace the Full Attack Paradigm with a simple Attack one, which has the added benefit of making Attacks of Opportunity far more dangerous.
I've definitely noticed a bit more... liveliness around AoOs since I switched to most monsters having a single attack. Admittedly, everyone just avoids them all the time now, but at least they're paying attention.
Getting the math right would be challenging, but it's certainly doable.
It's not so much the math that concerns me as the base assumptions.
In theory a PC with wealth-by-level gear and heroic stats is a monster with CR equal to their level. If that's valid, it's the work of a weekend to figure out the exact numbers.
The tricky part, in my opinion, is the question of whether that's the right benchmark. I'd lean towards something more like "average number of attacks to kill an equal-CR foe," but even that just opens the question of how many attacks.
Cheers!
Landon
|
Star Wars Saga made iterative attacks a feat chain. You get a total of 3 attacks if you take the entire chain. I rolled the TWF feats into one scaling feat back in 3.x so I think that I'll do the same with iterative attacks for my next homebrew.
I also liked the way Trailblazer suggested giving each attack a flat penalty that improves from -2 to both attacks at +6 BAB, to -1 to all three attacks at +11 BAB and no penalty to any iterative attack at +16 BAB.
I blended the two together but have no had a chance to playtest them.
You can make an additional attack during a round of combat.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6, proficient with chosen weapon.
Benefit: When you use the full attack action, you may make one additional attack. However, you take a -5 penalty on all attack rolls until your next turn. The extra attack and penalty stack with those of Two-Weapon Fighting.
Normal: Making a single attack is a standard action.
Special: When you meet the following prerequisites you gain another attack. You must use a full attack action to get the extra attacks.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus + 11.
Benefit: When you use the full attack action, you may make one additional attack. However, you take a -3 penalty on all attack rolls until your next turn. The extra attack and penalty stack with those of Two-Weapon Fighting.
Normal: Making a single attack is a standard action.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus + 16.
Benefit: When you use the full attack action, you take no penalties to you attack rolls. The extra attack and penalty stack with those of Two-Weapon Fighting.
Normal: Making a single attack is a standard action.
You are adept at fighting with two weapons and double weapons.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 15.
Benefit: You may attack with two weapons or with both ends of a double weapon as a standard action, you take a -5 penalty (instead of a -10 penalty) on all attack rolls until the start of your next turn. You only gain this reduced penalty if you are wielding a weapon with which you are proficient.
If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each.
An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand or a double weapon, you get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –10 to all attacks for the round. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each.
An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Special: When you meet the following prerequisites you gain another off-hand attack. You must use a full attack action to get the extra attacks.
Dex 17, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it. You take a -5 on all attack rolls until the start of your next turn. You only gain this reduced penalty if you are wielding a weapon with which you are proficient.
If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each.
An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
Dex 19, base attack bonus +11.
You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon. You take a -3 penalty to all attack rolls until the start of you next turn. You only gain this reduced penalty if you are wielding a weapon with which you are proficient.
If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each.
An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
Dex 19, base attack bonus +16.
When you attack with two weapons or a double weapon you take a -1 penalty to all attack rolls until the start of you next turn. You only gain this reduced penalty if you are wielding a weapon with which you are proficient.
If your off-hand weapon is light, you take no penalties to your attacks.
An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
I have no idea if these are really balanced. The writers of Trailblazer noted an increase of 15% in damage with the changes to iterative attacks. I have used something close to this version of two-weapon fighting since 3.5 with no problems. Note that the base TWF feat gives you one extra attack as part of a standard action.
Any feat that requires you to burn an iterative attack to trigger adds "Iterative Attacks" to its prerequisites.
SM
fold Initiative into Reflex, makes for better scaling and makes sense to boot.
Star Wars Saga made iterative attacks a feat chain. You get a total of 3 attacks if you take the entire chain. I rolled the TWF feats into one scaling feat back in 3.x so I think that I'll do the same with iterative attacks for my next homebrew.
I also liked the way Trailblazer suggested giving each attack a flat penalty that improves from -2 to both attacks at +6 BAB, to -1 to all three attacks at +11 BAB and no penalty to any iterative attack at +16 BAB.
I blended the two together but have no had a chance to playtest them.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Don't forget, you also got to add 1/2 your character level to all damage, as well, to compensate for the loss of attacks.
Counterspell. It never gets used. I'd change it so that you just have to ready to do it and lose a spell of the same level or better. Maybe then it might be a part of the game system to get used.
Yeah, that would work. Anything to make it worth doing.
Agreed about counterspells. I like counterspells as a way of building a good spellcaster that doesn't overshadow the party and still contribute. Plus it gives sorcerers a distinct advantage over wizards.
For the most part, I love the optional Armor as Damage Reduction, Called Shots, and Piecemeal Armor rules. If it were my game, I'd see a variant of all three used as the mainstream rules set. In addition, I would re-tool with the basic combat system to allow for changes in initiative and to introduce parrying/blocking.
ABILITY SCORES
Since I'm going with Armor as Damage Resistance, and since I am a fan of more realistic combat, I would take away the bonus to hit from Strength and give it to Dexterity. Brute strength will now be important for hammering through armor, and not somehow indicative of dexterity in the melee.
COMBAT
Initiative
What I would introduce here is means by which an individual could "seize the initiative" as it were. Both in realistic combat and in what we see in books, movies, etc., the initiative shifts in a battle as one combatant gains an advantage only to surrender it to a superior foe later on.
For example, Martel's Initiative roll was 12. Jenna's was 18. At some point, Martel successfuly performs a riposte against Jenna. This "change of the initiative" should reflect in subsequent rounds.
Other examples I can think of could include a successful disarm, or if the character parrying or blocking (see below) not only beat his opponent's attack roll but rolled within his weapon's critical range.
Actions in Combat
Parrying with a weapon and blocking with a shield would become a standard action. Where weapons are concerned, the roll would be based on BaB and would benefit from Weapon Focus, enchantment, etc. Where shields are concerned, the shield bonus would be added to this roll.
ARMOR AS DAMAGE REDUCTION
Defense
I would re-tool this so that it doesn't rely on a flat 10 as its basis. Like the BaB, it would increase by level and would be better for some classes than for others.
CALLED SHOTS
Called shots would actually become the default melee and missile attack - a standard action. A Full Attack action would still a process wherein you take more than one attack (now a called shot) per round. Attacks would receive a penalty to hit appropriate to the target, as outlined under the Variant Rule section of Ultimate Combat.
Obviously, this means no Improved Called Shot and Greater Called Shot feats.
PIECEMEAL ARMOR
Piecemeal armor would be re-tooled to work with Armor as Damage Reduction. The wrinkle would be that you don't gain a bonus for each piece of armor you wear. Rather, each piece of armor provides the appropriate DR for the portion of the body it protects. E.g., Martel wears a proper breastplate. He has DR 8/magic over his chest, heart, and vitals. His arms are unarmored, and so he has no DR for them.
Lots of feats would have to be re-worked or removed entirely. I'm still in the process of figuring out how all this would work. Thematically and stylistically, though, I like it much more than the traditional AC system.
A number of things:
- Swift actions: you should be allowed to use a move or standard action to get another one. It's beyond dumb that something which is described as 'almost as fast as a free action' can't be accomplished by spending the time it would take to run thirty feet or cast a spell.
- While we're at it, immediate actions: make them distinct from swift actions. No more of this 'wait until your next turn is over to do swift actions crap'. It will make mythic play far more interesting, at the very least.
- The dazzled condition: it's crap. Get rid of it or make it actually matter. Kirth's idea is probably the simplest and best for this.
- Skills: Perception reigns right now as the 'must have' skill for pretty much everyone. While seeing it split back up into Spot, Listen, and Search is silly, more classes should have it. More classes should have more skill points, too. If a wizard can get a hit dice boost, fighters can get a skill points boost. Lastly, what classes get what as class skills needs to be looked at. I couldn't believe it when I found out Rangers didn't get Acrobatics or that Rogue's didn't get Ride.
- Feat prerequisites: they're out of control with combat feats and nonexistent for caster related ones. Either add them to the latter or lessen their burden / increase payoff on the former.
- Touch attacks: force effects such as Mage Armor should apply against them. This goes doubly true for firearms, which shouldn't be allowed to ignore all natural armor, either. At best, they ignore half the targets natural AC.
- Condition 'ticking': bleed, fast healing, poison, regeneration, ongoing spell effects, and other such conditions should have a standard 'happens now' phase in combat. If it's beneficial, it always happens at the end of your turn. If it's a detriment, then it always happens at the beginning of your turn. Also, regeneration being shut off the NEXT round is dumb, make it happen immediately.
- Readied actions: rearranging initiative simply to ready an action is a hassle. Have the action go off at the lower count, if at all, but keep the users initial initiative score constant unless they use the Delay action.
There are quite a few I would change, and have them written down as house rules. Some have already been said.
I have changed the saving throws around. Fortitude is still Constitution, Reflex is Wisdom-based (being able to react to things, to me, is more intuition/wisdom based than how nimble you are), and Will is Charisma-based (the stat is described as "force of personality"). Why did I make these changes? It makes Charisma a desired stat for everyone instead of only spontaneous spellcasters and paladins, keeps Wisdom desireable to everyone, and removes Dexterity as the super stat (normally gives bonuses to AC, to-hit with ranged/finesse weapons, CMD, initiative, and Reflex). Charisma needs to be relevant, in my opinion, and having a saving throw work off of it makes it something other than the defacto dump stat.
A number of things:
...
- Swift actions: you should be allowed to use a move or standard action to get another one. It's beyond dumb that something which is described as 'almost as fast as a free action' can't be accomplished by spending the time it would take to run thirty feet or cast a spell.
No. You cannot equate a swift action to a standard or move action (i.e. they're not the same as minor actions in 4th Edition). Nearly all swift action abilities are balanced around the fact you can only do it once per round and come at the opportunity cost of other swift action abilities.
No. You cannot equate a swift action to a standard or move action (i.e. they're not the same as minor actions in 4th Edition). Nearly all swift action abilities are balanced around the fact you can only do it once per round and come at the opportunity cost of other swift action abilities.A number of things:
...
- Swift actions: you should be allowed to use a move or standard action to get another one. It's beyond dumb that something which is described as 'almost as fast as a free action' can't be accomplished by spending the time it would take to run thirty feet or cast a spell.
I'm not the one equating them, the CRB does that.
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort.
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action.
See? They're saying the amount of time involved is virtually identically, a swift action just involves slightly more effort. Tell me why it's unreasonable to use the extra effort you'd normally put into a move, standard, or full-round action to activate something which normally requires a swift or immediate action. Give me a specific example of how it would unbalance things considerably. And remember, that's a move or standard action, both VERY useful in combat, you're not taking just to activate this other thing.
The mechanics of 5 foot stepping in melee.
It makes absolutely no sense to me that if I am locked in melee with someone that I can commit to some form of attack or spellcasting and then just disengage 5 feet with impunity. Combat can (and has) at times devolved into a flurry of mathematical chess in 5 foot increments at the cost of blowing any chance at a more realistic flow to combat positioning.
If melee ensues and you want to 5 foot step ring-around-the-rosey you ought to provoke AoO unless you employ acrobatics checks in the same manner as moving through threatened squares at any other time. Its reflective of the fact that while you may wish to disengage, it comes with inherent dangers and exposure to acceptable risk to achieve that positioning. (fyi: Yes I know about Step-up, but really? A feat?) An angry dog still pursues a movement in combat even if it’s never been to a fancy war college.
For what it’s worth, we adopted this change as a house-rule and it works very nicely at our table for our needs. A quick skills check and viola you either win your new position, or don’t.
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort.A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action.See? They're saying the amount of time involved is virtually identically, a swift action just involves slightly more effort. Tell me why it's unreasonable to use the extra effort you'd normally put into a move, standard, or full-round action to activate something which normally requires a swift or immediate action. Give me a specific example of how it would unbalance things considerably. And remember, that's a move or standard action, both VERY useful in combat, you're not taking just to activate this other thing.
Except you completely ignored the second part of that sentence. A swift action involves doing something complicated in a hurry, something you can do reasonably fast but too much effort to do more than once per round. It's easy to see how enabling substitution for swift actions would unbalance the game. You could chain multiple Quickened spells. A monk could expend tons of ki points at once. You could buff your attacks more than once with Arcane Strike. The magus, who already has many action economy benefits, can do tons of things at once. Even if it did not break the game, it would make classes with lots of swift action options much more powerful.
Ultimately, what's the point? Swift actions deliberately function as a one-per-round action economy that exists outside of standard and move actions. Swift actions add strategic decision-making. Substitution eliminates that and adds little to the game.