A set or rules that could use some critical, constructive eyes.


Homebrew and House Rules


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Our group has a set of house rules that work for us, but I believe getting some fresh eyes on them can't hurt either. Please take a look, if you care and comment away...

http://pathfinderhomebrewrules.wordpress.com/about/


First suggestion: Put them all in a document with headers, instead of scattering them over multiple pages.

Second: Why, of all things, is Master Craftsman banned?


First suggestion, Pupsocket, thank you and I'll get working on that.

Second... Master Craftsman is a way around coming up with an interesting answer to create magic items by non-magical characters. Pygmalion's statue comes to life due to his love for his wife and the respect of the gods. The Dwarves of Norse mythology are more than just characters with a feat and 5 ranks of skill. I am adding feats that allow greater forms of Masterwork from an older Sword & Sorcery supplement, as well as runes from the Midgard Campaign Setting. There is also no reason incantations from Midgard can't be used to create magic items as well. I just think Master Craftsman is, well, boring.


That's a good reason.


I'm a pretty big fan of systematic overhauls when done well, so I have a bit to say. For now I'll limit myself to thoughts about your ADR/parry/dodge system.

Let me start by saying that I really like the idea behind your dodge/parry mechanics. One of them is probably much stronger, but is limited in uses. It demands a choice in combat that is both interesting and important. As an added bonus, it provides a clear and differentiated advantage to shields (many free parries), two weapon fighting (more attacks exhaust the defender’s options), and two handed weapons (high damage means bypassing armor is of little concern). It’s worth noting that, mechanically, this rule system probably strengthens the full BAB classes while weakening the rest. Turning all attacks into opposed rolls will also slow down combat a fair bit.

Here are some thoughts, question and suggestions:

Regarding Armor as Damage Reduction::

  • To match standard pathfinder damage reduction rules, you should specify what, if anything, bypasses ADR (special materials, alignment, etc), and list the DR provided accordingly (by which I mean, in the format x/-). This is largely a formatting issue, and fairly minor.
  • When bypassing ADR, consider adding the armor value to the defender's dodge/parry/AC instead of applying it as a penalty to the attack roll. This is merely to avoid revealing the armor value of the enemy every time the PCs make an attack. My experience is that the PCs probably shouldn't know all the behind-the-scenes values for most encounters. It will also speed up gameplay if you don’t have to communicate the value to the player (and they don’t have to communicate it to you) every time an attack is rolled.

Regarding Dodge & Parry Rules:

  • Under normal rules, armor bonuses (including their enhancement bonus) apply to flat footed armor class, but here you've put enhancement bonuses under “Bonuses that require you to be able to move.” Essentially, you've changed it so that armor enhancement no longer applies to flat footed defense. Why?
  • How does a character use a standard action to parry an attack that happens during someone else’s turn? I think the intent is pretty clear here - the standard action is to “ready” a parry- but it could use clarification.
  • If I have a shield, and I turn my standard action into a move action (such as with a double-move), do I still get a parry? I can see an argument for either ruling, but it’s important to state clearly whichever you decide.
  • Also regarding shields, RAW I don’t actually have to wield a shield to get extra parries when I full attack; I merely need to be proficient with them. Again, the intent is fairly clear here, so it's probably a minor concern. Changing “Those proficient in wielding shields gain…” to “A character wielding a shield with which she is proficient gains…” would fix the problem.
  • I'm not sure that there is ever a reason to choose Absorb. It seems like Absorb allows the attack to auto-hit, which is never a better choice than Dodge (if I have misinterpreted this, please let me know). If Absorb had a static defense value (maybe 10 plus the flat footed modifiers), then it would be a better choice than Dodge sometimes, making it a valid choice. Thematically, this even makes sense for a heavily armored, low agility, warrior.


With regard to balance::

It's hard to say for sure without playtesting, but I have two thoughts here. Neither are criticism, but thing that players and DM alike need to be aware of.
  • The ADR system essentially allows you to trade defense for damage reduction, based on the attacker's choice. While it makes thematic sense for the attacker to choose, it is important that you be aware that this will make combat more deadly. Trading AC for DR is, for example, always a bad trade against enemies that deal high damage per attack. DR 10/- simply isn't worth as much as +10 AC against an enemy that averages 30 damage per hit (which can happen as early as CR 7). The problem only gets worse as levels increase (High damage monsters might average 100 damage per hit at level 18, against which even DR 20/- is fairly useless compared to +20 AC). You could maybe fix this problem while keeping the idea intact by adding some kind of level-based scaling to the DR, but I'm not sure how to balance that properly. The point, really, is that for a given attacker one option (either bypass or not) is always better, and intelligent enemies will always choose that option. This makes combat more deadly, and it is important to be aware of that.
  • The dodge/parry system will probably widen the disparity between martial and nonmartial characters at high levels. By tying the parry value to your attack roll, you're ensuring that the fighter has a defense option that scales much, much faster than the rogue or cleric. Again, this makes thematic sense, but it's something to be aware of.

I would consider using this system in my own games, especially at lower levels where my concerns are invalid. At the very least, I'm curious to see how it plays.


WithoutHisFoot, thank you very much for your input. I sometimes forget how many of my house rules I haven't written yet when I hear these questions.

Regarding Armor as Damage Reduction:

1. I didn't want an automatic bypass built into the ADR system such as a material or an alignment. Taking a negative covers the only bypass I foresaw as a plausible way around it (not to mention brilliant energy weapons).

2. The reason I made it a negative for the attacker and not a bonus to the defender comes into play during the Parry rules. When I tried to do it the other way (as a bonus for the defender), I ran into a few problems that had undesirable results (from spells, feats, abilities).

Dodge & Parry Rules

1. Armor generally gives a bonus twice, once as an enhancement to the ADR and again as a Dodge bonus. So when not moving, you only get the enhancement once (yes magic armor is cool).

2. I will clarify that, thank you.

3. Taking a double move would only leave the defender with the immediate action parry, albeit with the bonuses from a shield, enhancements, feats, etc.

4. Again thank you, clarification will probably help there.

5. Absorb is when you don't want to waste a Dodge or Parry on what you consider an insignificant attack. This does not mean you'll be right, it is just a choice to represent no effort to avoid the incoming attack. You won't see it's use that often, granted, though future rules make put it to more specific use. (It solved an issue one of my players was asking about)

Balance

This should really be on the page and soon will be... I don't multiply damage on the back end. (players/enemies alike) I end up with a generally lower damage game. This has lead to more drawn out, but dynamic battles (so far).

I really do appreciate your input, and will work on many of your suggestions. These are my answers to some of the things you mentioned as of now. Thank you for taking the time to help.


I feel like these damage reduction rules will begin to come apart at higher levels as joe-blow tarrasque will happily not care whether you are wearing a chain shirt or not, his full attack is just going to kill you. Likewise: the tarrasque's impressive natural armor will be no match for the mighty cavalier's mounted charge that triples his bonus damage from challenge.

Really, your rule just makes armor worse compared to the old rules since the attacker can ignore the rule all together and follow the old rules by attempting to bypass the armor. The attacker can follow the new rules or the old depending on which is more advantageous. Meanwhile, builds that only rely on innate bonuses grant the attacker no such additional option.

I know dodge and parry rules are meant to address this but they do not. Dodgey-mic-rogue-guy has access to all the parries and dodges that the full plate guy has but also does not give the opponent the option to deal with damage reduction rather than accuracy reduction. In particular, an archer with a knife and quickdraw becomes even more powerful relative to other martial classes (where he was already arguably king of martial classes before anyways). You just need cluster shots later on. Meanwhile, the poor monk and rogue are particularly shit out of luck as their 3/4 attack progression bites them harder on the ass than ever before (since they've simply not the attack bonuses to parry well, making them worse defenders as well as worse attackers).

I also don't like your witch edit. I feel like the whole point of witch hexes was that it gave the witch a bag of tricks that would not run out over the course of the day. Now the resource does not not merely run out but also actively eats into the witch's spellcasting potential.

Speaking of spells though: spell replenishment if bananas nuts. Spell casters are as gods already (even more so in your system--I realize--as they are capable of ignoring potentially crazy-high armor classes by targeting opponents' saves). Don't incentivize them to use their spells even more freely.


As far as fighter changes I would suggest that you allow fighters to take most fighter archetype abilities as bonus feats or give them as path abilities. I like the 4+Int and good reflex.

I would not give 4+Int to casters as they already have significant versatility and less skills helps to lessen their power advantage.


Metamagic Mana Pool
I think you should leave it at Caster Level*2 for all casters. Magus and Bard need metamagic for powerful spells late game (though magus has arcana already so that reduces the need for a metamagic mana pool) and pallys already get a caster level = character level -3.


I like the look of everything else. A nice website for displaying everything. I like the idea of armor as damage reduction + parrying rules but having never tried such a thing in my own game cannot effectively comment.


I cannot comment anything in particuluar to what you should keep or discard. But I will admit you got me inspired for my homebrew system!
I have alwyas wanted to implement a DR system with dogde/parry etc.
I guess I can recommend reading the warhammer fantasy rules, as they have a dogde parry system there. But they are mostly one time uses (making multiple combatents deadly!) and you roll under your own stat, in this case it is a d100, which means it disregards the opponent's skill in battle.


I will try to address individual responses and thank you for the feedback.

Excaliburproxy, the armor rules already work as the "bypass" system. The Tarrasque is still going to hit and tear you apart, but you have the chance of lessening some of the damage. "Bypass" in these rules also creates a negative for the attacker, not just a different DC. This can be stacked with other effects and used to some advantage. I also use bypass as an act of intelligence or a style a particular creature may use. You do cite some specific circumstances I should address, such as clustered shot. I do feel the need to explain shortly that I don't expect monks and rogues to be on par with fighters, and I don't think of balance the way many here on the boards do. It's about flavor, and rogues should use a host of tricks to win, and monks should use maneuvers.

I understand your opinion on the witch edit and understand Paizo's intention, and completely disagree with it. Wizards & Sorcerers only get unlimited cantrips, but Witches get unlimited hexes. It just didn't work for me, but I did lift the once per 24 hour limit usually applied. So this seems more of a taste issue.

Spell replenishment is almost nuts until you watch your group try to rest for the 3rd time in a day. There's only so many times I can ambush them while they're resting before I destroy their suspension of disbelief. I'd truly appreciate any comments on how you would try to fix any of your above concerns, as I'm looking to better the system and not discard it. (Though I'm sticking to the Witches limit.)

Bardarok, the choices for the Metamagic Mana Pool were conceived in theory and are just beginning to be tested now. I'd appreciate if you could extrapolate on how you think the current numbers will go wrong.

Thank you Amir, but I'm asking for your comments on what you think. It's not a scientific document and your opinions are appreciated.


I am pretty sure that you can only benefit from a rest once in a 24 hour period.

I do not see how the bypass option creates a negative for the attacker. The attacker has a choice between fighting two ways for armor builds but can fight only one way against dex builds.

And the witch's mostly resource-less hexes are to balance against wizards and sorcerers' clearly superior spell lists. Your witch is pretty much weak sauce. They have to eat into their metamagic to use their class abilities while the wizard and the sorcerer have bloodlines and schools of magic with separate resource pools and there is literally nothing to make up for the witch's generally worse spell list. The sorceror and wizard now obviously dominate the witch as a class choice (though they did before if you think about it)).


Niztael I think that giving full caters more metamagic on top of everything else further unbalances them particularly against lv 6 caters. Metamagics are very useful for magi and bards with their limited spell lists. I can see your reasoning and can not fault it but I think it would be better to just key it off caster level equally. Of course that's a gut feeling not varafied by playtesting.


Excaliburproxy:

1. It does call the Caster's Limit, a daily limit, but I'm kind of breaking that rule. Though the idea of running away and resting is something I still see in a lot of groups as a standard tactic. Though that may just be from my reading the boards.

2. Stated under the "Armor as Damage Reduction", the negative is to the attack roll. This matter greatly in the face of enemies who can parry as they only have to beat your modified attack roll to parry. It does not matter whether the attacker has rolled a critical or not. This is more indicative of a master sparring his pupil when the gap in skill is vast. Against Dex builds, maneuvers are a better choice, which I feel is more accurate of real combat. (I know it's a game, but we try.)

3. I don't feel the witch is only up against wizards & sorcerers. They have the ability to be healers as well. They cross both classes and the ability to drop the same hex on an individual, I feel balances the limited resource.

Bardarok:

The reason I limited the magi, bards, rangers, paladins, etc. is because their limited spell list would end up entirely with metamagic. Also the lowering of some spells to fit on their list may have unforeseen consequences. I'm am listening to what you have to say and may edit my response in the future. I just don't have any characters at the level where I can cite an example as of yet.


1. I would avoid breaking an important rule to make the best classes even better. I would abhor replacing the broken rule with a another rule that makes spell-casting classes even better beyond what they even were with your broken rule.

2. That is a good note about parrying. I had not considered that particular rules interaction and it is kinda neat and I think the dodge/parry/absorb rules change the way the game plays in a potentially interesting way.

3. The witch is also worse than Druids and Clerics who also have separate resource pools for their class powers and also have an arguably better spell list. The Druid in particular has an unlimited use class ability. It is called an animal companion.


Nitzel
Good points it seems you have thought it through.


I'll chime in with a comment about the magic replenishment rules as well, but to a different point.

I have no real opinion about whether or not to have them at all, recognizing of course that it's going to change the flow of the game significantly (you will, for example, see mages much more willing to go nova in every fight, knowing that they can simply replenish afterward).

Rather, my problem with your rule is the clear disparity between replenishment methods of different caster types.

The Sorcerer's method, using hit points, is very minor. Even a 9th level spell, the pinnacle of spellcasting power, costs only 9 hp under your rule - only a charge or two from a wand of cure light wounds. This is an unbelievably good trade, even for the d6 hit die sorcerer. Similarly, the cleric's method, exhaustion then fatigue, is a fairly minor cost when you consider that the condition can be cured with the spells he just replenished (Lesser Restoration, a 2nd level spell, is probably the lowest level way to do this). Again, this is an unbelievably good deal.

On the other hand, the Wizard suffers increasing Con damage. This penalty is more severe than the previous ones (Con damage is serious bad news) and harder to cure as well (not impossible, of course, but the restoration spells aren't on the wizard list, which means making friends or investing in UMD).

The Oracle & Inquisitor have it worst of all. Their penalty (saving throws) is severe - easily as bad as Con damage, in my opinion - and, because it is a unique penalty, cannot be cured at all.

I like the fact that you were trying to create some variety in replenishment methods for different caster types. Ultimately, however, I feel that the disparity in the severity of the methods is far too wide. The Sorcerer's and Cleric's are so minor that they are almost laughable, while the Oracle plays a dangerous game every time she replenishes her allotment.

In all, I think the Wizard's penalty is about right for severity - it's a serious penalty, but it can be overcome with proper preparation.


Before I hide this topic, I should tell you why. Damaging classes to help other classes is something I have a vendetta against. Also, I don't understand most of your rules. Armor that absorbs damage should be an additional trait, and the armor should heal that over time. Since negative armor AC was gotten rid of, I have been happy with the AC system and don't want to poke the sleeping owlbear.


To all those taking a look at our rules, thank you. I've changed the replenishment since there was an oversight. Something my group was taking for granted as we had discussed it, but I forgot to write in. There is no way to magically heal any of the detriments from Exigent Magic Replenishment. "Withouthisfoot", I almost didn't understand your post until I went back and read through the rule and realized I had forgotten that important detail. I'd appreciate your feedback with the change.

Excaliburproxy:

I don't want to completely roll back to the witch being able to affect every person on the planet 1/day. I like the idea of multiple attempts against the same opponent, or the healing of an ally. Magic, except in small doses, generally has a limit and this is reiterated throughout fantasy and mythology. A Druid only has 1 animal companion, and though I don't hunt someone's mount/companion/cohort on a regular basis, they can be killed. Ending that resource for a time, especially if they're not used wisely. I'd appreciate any insight into how you might change it without going back to the original version.

And to Goth Guru... I would like to have a discussion here, and you would not. My apologies and happy gaming.


Niztael wrote:

First suggestion, Pupsocket, thank you and I'll get working on that.

Second... Master Craftsman is a way around coming up with an interesting answer to create magic items by non-magical characters. Pygmalion's statue comes to life due to his love for his wife and the respect of the gods. The Dwarves of Norse mythology are more than just characters with a feat and 5 ranks of skill. I am adding feats that allow greater forms of Masterwork from an older Sword & Sorcery supplement, as well as runes from the Midgard Campaign Setting. There is also no reason incantations from Midgard can't be used to create magic items as well. I just think Master Craftsman is, well, boring.

Master Craftsman is a more difficult way to create magic items than the traditional way. Why would you ban a feat that requires investment in a weak skill AND another feat on top of that? The MC feat only allows you to take an item creation feat.

Are you entitled to use plot to turn a mundane object into a magical one? Yes! And it is encouraged. However, you are taking any sense of control out of the player's hands. A wizard can start crafting magic items at first level. Why do you want to punish the non-casting classes?


Niztael wrote:

To all those taking a look at our rules, thank you. I've changed the replenishment since there was an oversight. Something my group was taking for granted as we had discussed it, but I forgot to write in. There is no way to magically heal any of the detriments from Exigent Magic Replenishment. "Withouthisfoot", I almost didn't understand your post until I went back and read through the rule and realized I had forgotten that important detail. I'd appreciate your feedback with the change.

Excaliburproxy:

I don't want to completely roll back to the witch being able to affect every person on the planet 1/day. I like the idea of multiple attempts against the same opponent, or the healing of an ally. Magic, except in small doses, generally has a limit and this is reiterated throughout fantasy and mythology. A Druid only has 1 animal companion, and though I don't hunt someone's mount/companion/cohort on a regular basis, they can be killed. Ending that resource for a time, especially if they're not used wisely. I'd appreciate any insight into how you might change it without going back to the original version.

And to Goth Guru... I would like to have a discussion here, and you would not. My apologies and happy gaming.

It is pretty easy to replace or revive an animal companion. I think replacement takes a day and the druid can start raising them from the dead at 1k a pop starting at level 9. The Figurine of the Concealed Companion would further curb this cost.

I would at least give the witch a resource pool that is separate from the one that powers her metamagic to use her hexes.


I know you've basically stated at the outset that the witch rule is the one rule you aren't open to argument, but I and many others think you should reconsider.

On top of the weak spell list (all missing: haste, invisibility, magic weapon, stoneskin, polymorph, the image spells, wall of force/stone/iron, ethereal jaunt, limited wish, contingency, planar binding, permanency, polymorph any object, the hand spells, the shadow conjuration and shadow evocation lines, wish, magnificent mansion, energy drain, etc.; only a very small number can be recovered via patron choice, and these are limited by most being mechanically similar or redundant).

On top of all that,

the witch gets one less spell per day of every single spell level compared to the wizard and the cleric.

In terms of spells per day, the witch is on the level of the druid. But the druid's spell list is stronger, and the class has some of the most powerful features in the game, as well as a better base attack bonus.

All in all, the witch has a relatively weak class chassis, and this is compensated for with the hexes.

Your issue seems to be that unlimited use magic just doesn't sit well when compared to the per-day limits of most other magic class abilities. But the once-per-target-per-24 hours stipulation is actually much more limiting than the spells-per-day limit, especially given the all-or-nothing nature of many witch hexes. Imagine a sorcerer that could only attempt their save-or-suck spell on a monster one time (since the party will kill it or be killed by the end of the encounter).

The witch is also very frail, and lacks most of the protective spells of the wizard, so getting within 30 feet of an enemy to hex it is actually a very difficult call that can easily backfire.

The witch is also pretty terrible overall in encounters with multiple enemies. Her strength is in locking down single monsters so that other party members can defeat them easily. Since the fighters that stab the hexed enemy can keep swinging their weapon all day long, the witch is part of that picture too.


Excaliburproxy:

I may create a separate resource pool, as that seems to strengthen their spellcasting power. Thank you for the long walk to that.

Thelemic Noun:

I may even up the distance of the hex, while creating a separate pool. This will make it a little more caster friendly I hope. A separate pool, mixed with the ability to try more than once a day on a given subject, and increased range may meet what I want.

Ciaran Barnes:

I'm not taking any sense of control out of the player's hands, just the one that makes magic items. Perhaps I'm a bit retro in my belief that the control does not rest in player's hands and I'm not worried about that. Players can work together to make magic items, sharing their skills to reach the goal. I don't find making each player capable of what the other player can do any more enriching.


It was only a long walk because I was trying to go down the "don't change it" road.

That road is so short and the scenery is so beautiful and the the balance is just so.


It was still changed, just differently. As to thoughts of balance, D&D hasn't had that... ever. Neither does Pathfinder, everything is based on situation. I'm interested to see what Paizo does with Pathfinder Unleashed. It's a sign they too see some things that don't work as intended.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / A set or rules that could use some critical, constructive eyes. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules