Some of your house rules that you like best


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 100 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

My group likes the one where we remove the +3 bonus for class skills and rolls twice instead, taking the highest score. All other bonuses are added normally.


CHOKE UP:
With any reach weapon, the wielder may take a move action to adjust the grip, and attack only adjacent targets, or a move action to shift back to reach.

Spears are one-hand weapons. Though I like the earlier suggestion that they are one-hand as martial, not simple. I'll need to think about that one.


toxicpie wrote:
My group likes the one where we remove the +3 bonus for class skills and rolls twice instead, taking the highest score. All other bonuses are added normally.

I remember seeing this on the forums before. Why is this preferable? I never really got an answer to that question.

Silver Crusade

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
toxicpie wrote:
My group likes the one where we remove the +3 bonus for class skills and rolls twice instead, taking the highest score. All other bonuses are added normally.
I remember seeing this on the forums before. Why is this preferable? I never really got an answer to that question.

I believe because it puts value on class skills beyond just a numerical boost that diminishes in importance with levels. This probably works better if you don't allow traits, or at least any that add class skills.


Riuken wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
toxicpie wrote:
My group likes the one where we remove the +3 bonus for class skills and rolls twice instead, taking the highest score. All other bonuses are added normally.
I remember seeing this on the forums before. Why is this preferable? I never really got an answer to that question.
I believe because it puts value on class skills beyond just a numerical boost that diminishes in importance with levels. This probably works better if you don't allow traits, or at least any that add class skills.

I always saw the point of the +3 bonus was to make low level PCs suck less at skills, not for much benefit to high level PCs.

Liberty's Edge

Barathos wrote:
Riuken wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
toxicpie wrote:
My group likes the one where we remove the +3 bonus for class skills and rolls twice instead, taking the highest score. All other bonuses are added normally.
I remember seeing this on the forums before. Why is this preferable? I never really got an answer to that question.
I believe because it puts value on class skills beyond just a numerical boost that diminishes in importance with levels. This probably works better if you don't allow traits, or at least any that add class skills.
I always saw the point of the +3 bonus was to make low level PCs suck less at skills, not for much benefit to high level PCs.

It's a combination of that and being equivalent to the legacy scaling of 4 ranks at 1st level and 23 at 20th (which itself probably had the same logic behind it). Definitely not a high-level concern.

Silver Crusade

Barathos wrote:
Riuken wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
toxicpie wrote:
My group likes the one where we remove the +3 bonus for class skills and rolls twice instead, taking the highest score. All other bonuses are added normally.
I remember seeing this on the forums before. Why is this preferable? I never really got an answer to that question.
I believe because it puts value on class skills beyond just a numerical boost that diminishes in importance with levels. This probably works better if you don't allow traits, or at least any that add class skills.
I always saw the point of the +3 bonus was to make low level PCs suck less at skills, not for much benefit to high level PCs.

Right, but the question wasn't why the +3 exists, it was why the roll twice method would be preferred over the +3. The roll twice still helps at low levels, but unlike the +3, it's importance doesn't diminish.


Oh, I see. I hadn't considered that.

Still not my cup of tea, but consider my question answered!


Diplomacy can be rolled with 1/2 Wisdom mod rather than charisma
Bluff the same but with Intelligence
Intimidate the same but with Strength.

It's a rule my group has been using for a while and it makes sense to us on both a logical basis, as well as allowing characters with low charisma to participate a little more in important conversations - without making the charisma kings entirely irrelevant.

FWI: I really like that Choke Up Rule, Mellowgoth, i'll probably introduce it to the group next time and see what they think.


Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
toxicpie wrote:
My group likes the one where we remove the +3 bonus for class skills and rolls twice instead, taking the highest score. All other bonuses are added normally.

Doesn't that make taking 10 less desirable though?


Canthin wrote:
toxicpie wrote:
My group likes the one where we remove the +3 bonus for class skills and rolls twice instead, taking the highest score. All other bonuses are added normally.
Doesn't that make taking 10 less desirable though?

It does! The average roll on [2d20 take the best] is something like a fifteen, I think. On the other hand, taking 10 is kinda' boring, and this mitigates the risk of rolling because the distribution on 2dx take the best is an extremely block-y bell curve (average results are _much_ more likely).

Think of two coins: odds of at least one heads is 3/4, odds of no heads is 1/4, and odds of 1 head 1 tail is 2/4. If you only need one heads to pass (a 10 or better), there's only a 25% chance of failure. In D&D, there would have been a 50% chance of failure.

The two major mechanical implications for this house rule are a) you are decreasing the maximum possible role by 3 and b) unless they roll very high, you are sort of giving them a +5 bonus instead of a +3 bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Medium-Sized Animated Object wrote:
Canthin wrote:
toxicpie wrote:
My group likes the one where we remove the +3 bonus for class skills and rolls twice instead, taking the highest score. All other bonuses are added normally.
Doesn't that make taking 10 less desirable though?
It does! The average roll on [2d20 take the best] is something like a fifteen...

[Pedantry] The average is actually 13.825. [/Pedantry]


Barathos wrote:
A Medium-Sized Animated Object wrote:
Canthin wrote:
toxicpie wrote:
My group likes the one where we remove the +3 bonus for class skills and rolls twice instead, taking the highest score. All other bonuses are added normally.
Doesn't that make taking 10 less desirable though?
It does! The average roll on [2d20 take the best] is something like a fifteen...
[Pedantry] The average is actually 13.825. [/Pedantry]

That's not pedantry! My guestimate was off by 300 bucks. :)


Rabbiteconomist wrote:

So many. I often make house rules for specific campaigns.

By far my favorite (besides strength for intimidate) is using the Net Libram of Wild Magic, the d10000 chart for surges. It resulted most recently in turning a wyrm green dragon bbeg into a gate to the nearest brothel.

I love that chart. I've used it for years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just like Ability scores which can receive upto a +5 inherent bonus from wish or miracle, we also allow those spells to grant a character up to 5 new feats. one feat per casting.


I have threads full, which I can post later. I do have some in consideration:

HP represents general vitality, HP damage getting beat down but not seriously wounded. Critical hit deck from Paizo is in use, but only applied to monsters or PCs at -HP. Healing magic is too slow to close wounds in battle (it will remove scars and replace lost body parts, but that takes time), but can reinvigorate warriors. HP healing is as usual, except magic cannot stabilize dying characters or stop bleed damage, and restoration type spells effectively require resting the party for at least one in game day (not a big deal, since we can fast forward right back to the action). Healing magic can be used to reinvigorate a dead character, provided they have only been dead a couple minutes at most. This puts the character back to -1 HP at most if it provides enough healing for the character to be alive again (dead characters accrue damage past the point of death, so somebody at -50 HP may not be healed enough to come back to life, in which case they do not gain any HP). The character does not stabilize automatically. Spells such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection are not allowed. If a character isn't brought back by the healing magic mechanic in the first couple minutes, they can't be brought back at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you really want to take two archetypes, but they both replace the same ability, I'll allow you to have one replace a different ability if I feel it will be balanced.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
If you really want to take two archetypes, but they both replace the same ability, I'll allow you to have one replace a different ability if I feel it will be balanced.

First idea in this entire list I thought was remotely balanced and fair. I've been following from post one looking for good ideas, and so many seemed to seriously screw up balance, at least in my opinion. I like this one, as long as the player can't cherry pick the given up stuff, but its GM chosen, otherwise you end up with build-a-class.


Really? Monks being proficient in monk weapons isn't balanced or fair? Mostly kidding.


I let my players roll knowledge checks as a group; the highest roll is the base roll used and the others are considered "aid another" and increase it by +2 (or more for certain abilities that increase aid another). I do the same with perception, too. This is because we play a lot of APs and there's a lot of the game that's hidden behind knowledge checks and perception checks. it still leaves a chance of missing it, but the chance is lowered and simulates a group working together.

I've also removed magic items which give a bonus to stats and instead have given them a flat +2 to any stat each level except levels 1 and 20. Following the guidelines of removing the big six magic items, they can only add a +2 to any stat that they have not previously increased through this method. Once all six stats have an increase, then they can go up to a +4, and then again to a final +6. I've kept WBL the same; gives them a bit of an advantage and helps increase magic item variability so they don't have to focus on one of the big six. This is new; I've just started this system for our Iron Gods campaign.

I'm seriously considering giving rogues full BAB and the option to use either Dex or Str to hit with melee weapons (chosen upon character creation). Haven't fleshed this one out yet, though.

I've also been toying with the idea of changing racial stat bonuses. Instead of two +2 stats, they would instead get one +2 (pick one from the two normal stats that increase) and the second +2 comes from their favored class. For example, a fighter would give the option of a +2 to Str or Dex. Still need to work with this, as I'd have to figure out which stats would increase by class (and maybe archetype), and I'm not sure how the human's floating bonus would work. If I can get it to work, though, it would increase the racial choices for a lot of classes. Might make the halfling fighter a viable option.


Dotting. Will add my list soon.


Elves.

I made all the traditional elven races into Drow equivalents with spell resistance and spell like abilities flavored for their particular breed.

I made CRB elves into the new Half Elves, and CRB Half Elves became Elf Touched (representing those with only a small amount of elven blood).


Zander Liteshadow wrote:

Elves.

I made all the traditional elven races into Drow equivalents with spell resistance and spell like abilities flavored for their particular breed.

I made CRB elves into the new Half Elves, and CRB Half Elves became Elf Touched (representing those with only a small amount of elven blood).

That's cool. I hadn't thought of that. I like the idea.

It really elevates Elves to where their ego is ; p


My favorite is probably rolling for attributes, but everyone can choose which set they use.

Multiple people can use the same set, if that isn't clear. It's not like a white elephant exchange or something.

It gives the unevenness of rolled attributes (and takes less time than screwing around with point buy), but nobody gets stuck with a vastly worse array than anyone else.

It also has a side benefit of preventing people from building their whole character before they show up. It's way too easy to create dysfunctional parties that way.

Cheers!
Landon


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
Really? Monks being proficient in monk weapons isn't balanced or fair? Mostly kidding.

Outrageous! If you gives monks proficiency with monk weapons, it reduces their ability to cause forum arguments, which, as everyone knows, is the monk's primary niche. Nerfing the monk's primary ability for a minute boost in combat is too unbalancing against the monk. In an environment in which the monk already has to compete with the paladin for internet argument starting supremacy!


mellowgoth wrote:

CHOKE UP:

With any reach weapon, the wielder may take a move action to adjust the grip, and attack only adjacent targets, or a move action to shift back to reach.

I do this, but at a -2 penalty to attack.


137ben wrote:
Azten wrote:
Really? Monks being proficient in monk weapons isn't balanced or fair? Mostly kidding.
Outrageous! If you gives monks proficiency with monk weapons, it reduces their ability to cause forum arguments, which, as everyone knows, is the monk's primary niche. Nerfing the monk's primary ability for a minute boost in combat is too unbalancing against the monk. In an environment in which the monk already has to compete with the paladin for internet argument starting supremacy!

I think you'll find the rogue is king of that one, specifically in the "this class suxxorz!!!1!" department.


Nay, surely the Paladin's ability to cause alignment arguments is vastly superior!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Paladins are no longer restricted to Lawful Good - they must agree with the alignment of their god (as opposed to the one-step-away that Clerics are required to be).
All paladins on the Good spectrum get "___ Evil" abilities and Positive-Energy channeling, all paladins on the Evil spectrum get "___ Good" abilities and Negative-Energy channeling.
Lawful Neutral Paladins get to choose energy channeling (static once chosen) and get "___ Chaos" abilities, Chaotic Neutral Paladins get to choose energy channeling (static once chosen) and get "___ Lawful" abilities.
True Neutral Paladins get (slow) scaling bonuses to Perception/Sense Motive, which can be expended in a "blast" once per day, and must expend HP equal to the damage/healing rolled in order to heal or harm all living/undead creatures in the radius.

2. If a character takes a significant (usually 50% or more) amount of damage on a single turn, I might come up with an imposition (broken arm, shattered kneecap, etc.), which can only be fixed through regenerative means (or just more than simple magic, like splinting a broken bone). Same goes for long falls, severely abrupt stops, and the like. I tend to make fights very cinematic.

3. A roll of "20" adds +10 to the subsequent roll IF that roll is above 11, otherwise the roll is 20. Likewise, a roll of "1" adds -10 to the subsequent roll IF that roll is under 10, otherwise the roll is 1. This can be repeated for truly epic results in either direction.


Perception* = 10+HD+WIS
PMD** = 10+HD+WIS+CHA

These two new stats sit at the top of statblocks. Also at the top of "name tents" I have my PCs use and update at level increases.

*This is for passive checks only (DM: "Everybody roll Perception"). The skill is used for active searching. If the skill bonus is higher, it boosts passive Perception to 10+bonus instead.

**Psychological Maneuver Defense - sets the base DC for all Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate. If Sense Motive bonus is higher, it boosts PMD to 10+bonus instead.


rainzax wrote:

Perception* = 10+HD+WIS

PMD** = 10+HD+WIS+CHA

These two new stats sit at the top of statblocks. Also at the top of "name tents" I have my PCs use and update at level increases.

*This is for passive checks only (DM: "Everybody roll Perception"). The skill is used for active searching. If the skill bonus is higher, it boosts passive Perception to 10+bonus instead.

**Psychological Maneuver Defense - sets the base DC for all Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate. If Sense Motive bonus is higher, it boosts PMD to 10+bonus instead.

What if my Perception is worse than that?


"if higher" = of the two check results, take the highest.

Only active searching (the skill) can take 20, so even if your character level is high, but you have no ranks, you can still get a pretty big check by taking 20.

does that answer your question?

I'm tempted to rename the skill into Search, to avoid some confusion, albeit creating other confusions (ex. does Keen Senses or Alertness bonus apply to Search?...)


3pp stuff is okay as long as the GM gets a chance to study it first and deems it appropriate. Some 3pp fits a campaign world better than "official" material.

A few feats have been merged with other feats, dropped altogether, or come as standard abilities for any character (Weapon Finesse, for example).

All prestige classes can now be entered at level 4 by most characters. All prestige classes will have their requirements reduced to allow this. Early Entry through SLA tricks are not required.

All characters gain one 0-level spell of their choice to use 1/day as a SLA at CL 1. If the character gains the ability to cast spells from a class, that SLA is added to that class's spell list as Arcane or Divine as appropriate to that class and can be cast at the character's full caster level.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The worship of pantheons. You can select a pantheon as your divine source and any two domains, but you're not allowed to pick subdomains because in setting fluff, subdomain usage comes from devotion to a specific deity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:

Reworked firearms so they're no longer touch attacks, only misfire if broken, and apply Dexterity mod to damage as an innate feature. Gunslinger was changed to compensate. Fast muskets is gone, but now the Musket Master gets Vital Strike feats for free to emphasize two-handed firearms as single-shot burst weapons.

Being "denied your Dexterity bonus to AC" is renamed to the flat-footed condition. I think even SKR is doing this in his new Five Moons game, except he's calling it "distracted."

You can grapple a target bigger than you. It doesn't immobilize the target, but this allows you to climb up on them Shadow of Colossus style.

I'm borrowing these, and Flanked should be a condition, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I like this one, as long as the player can't cherry pick the given up stuff, but its GM chosen, otherwise you end up with build-a-class.

Well, I use Talented Classes, so build-a-class is something of a possibility already. In my eyes, it's on the balance of things a positive.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing that I guess is kind of a house rule but really shouldn't be:

I actively encourage my players to change the flavor of classes in order to make the mechanics work for the type of character they want to role play. For example, one of my players once converted the ninja class into a gypsy. The ninja's ki pool was flavored as gypsy magic, shurikens became small throwing knives. All the mechanics were identical, just the flavor was different.


bookrat wrote:

One thing that I guess is kind of a house rule but really shouldn't be:

I actively encourage my players to change the flavor of classes in order to make the mechanics work for the type of character they want to role play. For example, one of my players once converted the ninja class into a gypsy. The ninja's ki pool was flavored as gypsy magic, shurikens became small throwing knives. All the mechanics were identical, just the flavor was different.

STOP RUINING MY CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR ANIME CLASS

Shadow Lodge

Anime?

Gypsy is a common character archetype found way more frequently in fantasy literature than in anime. I would know I've watched hundreds of anime. And read many more fantasy novels than that.

Also, an actual romani would probably get violent over the idea of being related to something Japanese. That is they would if they didn't believe they'd be soiled by touching outsiders.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
bookrat wrote:

One thing that I guess is kind of a house rule but really shouldn't be:

I actively encourage my players to change the flavor of classes in order to make the mechanics work for the type of character they want to role play. For example, one of my players once converted the ninja class into a gypsy. The ninja's ki pool was flavored as gypsy magic, shurikens became small throwing knives. All the mechanics were identical, just the flavor was different.

STOP RUINING MY CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR ANIME CLASS

Joking aside, I've shared that experience with many a GM who bans the ninja class for the exact reason you stated. I've yet to meet one who would allow it as a gypsy, and they can never seem to give a reason why other than they don't like the oriental setting. They've also never explained how the gypsy culture is in any way resembling the oriental.

But I do love reflavoring or refluffing classes and abilities to try and make characters in unusual ways. I've been saying for a while, "don't let the prewritten fluff deter you from making the character you want to play."

Liberty's Edge

bookrat wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
bookrat wrote:

One thing that I guess is kind of a house rule but really shouldn't be:

I actively encourage my players to change the flavor of classes in order to make the mechanics work for the type of character they want to role play. For example, one of my players once converted the ninja class into a gypsy. The ninja's ki pool was flavored as gypsy magic, shurikens became small throwing knives. All the mechanics were identical, just the flavor was different.

STOP RUINING MY CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR ANIME CLASS

Joking aside, I've shared that experience with many a GM who bans the ninja class for the exact reason you stated. I've yet to meet one who would allow it as a gypsy, and they can never seem to give a reason why other than they don't like the oriental setting. They've also never explained how the gypsy culture is in any way resembling the oriental.

But I do love reflavoring or refluffing classes and abilities to try and make characters in unusual ways. I've been saying for a while, "don't let the prewritten fluff deter you from making the character you want to play."

I've always hated people who ban things because they don't like the flavor. IMO, if you don't like it, then you probably just don't understand it and should spend like 15 minutes reading about it. If you still don't like it, then just say "okay, but people think it's weird and will treat you with some suspicion for it". Banning is VERY harsh, IMO, even when applied for actual balance reasons. (And if it isn't the flavor the player is after, reflavoring should be considered a no-brainer.)


Here's my ideas on revising the Traits optional rules...
Instead of getting feats every odd level, all characters get 4 Trait points at first level and 1 trait point every other level. Characters can either purchase 1 trait per Trait point or 1 feat for 2 Trait points. (It is possible to retain an unspent Trait point to purchase a feat later).
(I am also seriously considering downgrading many of the existing feats into Traits. For example, if a feat only provides a +1 bonus to a specific task or weapon, it wiould be downgraded to a Trait.)
It is also possible to upgrade a Trait to a feat when leveling up (And when this is done the character is no longer considered to have a Trait in that category, and henceforce can later purchase another Trait in the same category). In such a case the player could customize the character as follows:
Example: A fighter takes Weapon Focus as a Trait. Upon leveling up, the character can either upgrade to Greater Weapon Focus with that weapon, or convert it to a +1 bonus with all weapons from that weapon group. Example: Another fighter takes Dodge as a Trait. Upon leveling up, the character can upgrade Dodge to Mobility by spending a Trait point. The character still gains the benefits of both former feats.


bookrat wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
bookrat wrote:

One thing that I guess is kind of a house rule but really shouldn't be:

I actively encourage my players to change the flavor of classes in order to make the mechanics work for the type of character they want to role play. For example, one of my players once converted the ninja class into a gypsy. The ninja's ki pool was flavored as gypsy magic, shurikens became small throwing knives. All the mechanics were identical, just the flavor was different.

STOP RUINING MY CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR ANIME CLASS

Joking aside, I've shared that experience with many a GM who bans the ninja class for the exact reason you stated. I've yet to meet one who would allow it as a gypsy, and they can never seem to give a reason why other than they don't like the oriental setting. They've also never explained how the gypsy culture is in any way resembling the oriental.

But I do love reflavoring or refluffing classes and abilities to try and make characters in unusual ways. I've been saying for a while, "don't let the prewritten fluff deter you from making the character you want to play."

Luckily, my GM isn't one of those. I play a Half-elven Ninja in a Way of the Wicked campaign. Her Ki powers are flavored as fairie magic, and her tradition is the (twisted) remnant of an ancient Elven order of Fey warrior-monks. Her katana is an elven long blade like Arwen's from LotR (Hadhafang), and her wakazashi is like Legolas long-knives.


My favorite house rule I use is-

If you've got a concept within reason that you can't make, talk to me, and I'll try and make it work.

That, and
"No excessive amounts of minions."


StabbittyDoom wrote:
bookrat wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
bookrat wrote:

One thing that I guess is kind of a house rule but really shouldn't be:

I actively encourage my players to change the flavor of classes in order to make the mechanics work for the type of character they want to role play. For example, one of my players once converted the ninja class into a gypsy. The ninja's ki pool was flavored as gypsy magic, shurikens became small throwing knives. All the mechanics were identical, just the flavor was different.

STOP RUINING MY CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR ANIME CLASS

Joking aside, I've shared that experience with many a GM who bans the ninja class for the exact reason you stated. I've yet to meet one who would allow it as a gypsy, and they can never seem to give a reason why other than they don't like the oriental setting. They've also never explained how the gypsy culture is in any way resembling the oriental.

But I do love reflavoring or refluffing classes and abilities to try and make characters in unusual ways. I've been saying for a while, "don't let the prewritten fluff deter you from making the character you want to play."

I've always hated people who ban things because they don't like the flavor. IMO, if you don't like it, then you probably just don't understand it and should spend like 15 minutes reading about it. If you still don't like it, then just say "okay, but people think it's weird and will treat you with some suspicion for it". Banning is VERY harsh, IMO, even when applied for actual balance reasons. (And if it isn't the flavor the player is after, reflavoring should be considered a no-brainer.)

Define ban. I have my own campaign setting. If I dislike something, I don't include it in the setting. Is that a ban?

Is the fact that I do not feel technologists are not of an appropriate flavor for the game really all that bad?


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
bookrat wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
bookrat wrote:

One thing that I guess is kind of a house rule but really shouldn't be:

I actively encourage my players to change the flavor of classes in order to make the mechanics work for the type of character they want to role play. For example, one of my players once converted the ninja class into a gypsy. The ninja's ki pool was flavored as gypsy magic, shurikens became small throwing knives. All the mechanics were identical, just the flavor was different.

STOP RUINING MY CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR ANIME CLASS

Joking aside, I've shared that experience with many a GM who bans the ninja class for the exact reason you stated. I've yet to meet one who would allow it as a gypsy, and they can never seem to give a reason why other than they don't like the oriental setting. They've also never explained how the gypsy culture is in any way resembling the oriental.

But I do love reflavoring or refluffing classes and abilities to try and make characters in unusual ways. I've been saying for a while, "don't let the prewritten fluff deter you from making the character you want to play."

I've always hated people who ban things because they don't like the flavor. IMO, if you don't like it, then you probably just don't understand it and should spend like 15 minutes reading about it. If you still don't like it, then just say "okay, but people think it's weird and will treat you with some suspicion for it". Banning is VERY harsh, IMO, even when applied for actual balance reasons. (And if it isn't the flavor the player is after, reflavoring should be considered a no-brainer.)

Define ban. I have my own campaign setting. If I dislike something, I don't include it in the setting. Is that a ban?

Depends: are you removing the flavor or the mechanic? If the flavor, then nope; flavor can go away to make for other fluff for any given setting. If the mechanic, then would you be willing to allow the mechanic if it fit the fluff of your campaign? If yes, then it's not really a ban. If no, then you're banning something in the exact way that Stabbity is taking about.

Edit: fixed the name of the person I was referring to.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Define ban. I have my own campaign setting. If I dislike something, I don't include it in the setting. Is that a ban?

I've banned classes I liked because they didn't suit the campaign I was making.

Like, in one, i banned alchemist, but not summoner, because alchemy is strictly a science in that setting, and magic + science took a very different route.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
bookrat wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
bookrat wrote:

One thing that I guess is kind of a house rule but really shouldn't be:

I actively encourage my players to change the flavor of classes in order to make the mechanics work for the type of character they want to role play. For example, one of my players once converted the ninja class into a gypsy. The ninja's ki pool was flavored as gypsy magic, shurikens became small throwing knives. All the mechanics were identical, just the flavor was different.

STOP RUINING MY CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR ANIME CLASS

Joking aside, I've shared that experience with many a GM who bans the ninja class for the exact reason you stated. I've yet to meet one who would allow it as a gypsy, and they can never seem to give a reason why other than they don't like the oriental setting. They've also never explained how the gypsy culture is in any way resembling the oriental.

But I do love reflavoring or refluffing classes and abilities to try and make characters in unusual ways. I've been saying for a while, "don't let the prewritten fluff deter you from making the character you want to play."

I've always hated people who ban things because they don't like the flavor. IMO, if you don't like it, then you probably just don't understand it and should spend like 15 minutes reading about it. If you still don't like it, then just say "okay, but people think it's weird and will treat you with some suspicion for it". Banning is VERY harsh, IMO, even when applied for actual balance reasons. (And if it isn't the flavor the player is after, reflavoring should be considered a no-brainer.)

Define ban. I have my own campaign setting. If I dislike something, I don't include it in the setting. Is that a ban?

Yep.

If knights don't exist, fine, but let them still play the cavalier or paladin, but call it something else. Banning for flavor is silly, as classes don't have to be tied to flavor text, but are merely a set of abilities. Balance banning is more understandable, but still, if your player can break one class, he can and will break another.

This is why I've fallen in love with classless systems. Build your hero to do what you want, call him whatever will shut the GM up. Don't like ninjas? Fine, he's a thief. All thieves must be in the guild? Just a sneaky guy who stabs well. Whatever. His sheet doesn't have a class listed, he's whatever you want him to be, and it's not defined by his abilities, not are his abilities defined by his title.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
bookrat wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
bookrat wrote:

One thing that I guess is kind of a house rule but really shouldn't be:

I actively encourage my players to change the flavor of classes in order to make the mechanics work for the type of character they want to role play. For example, one of my players once converted the ninja class into a gypsy. The ninja's ki pool was flavored as gypsy magic, shurikens became small throwing knives. All the mechanics were identical, just the flavor was different.

STOP RUINING MY CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR ANIME CLASS

Joking aside, I've shared that experience with many a GM who bans the ninja class for the exact reason you stated. I've yet to meet one who would allow it as a gypsy, and they can never seem to give a reason why other than they don't like the oriental setting. They've also never explained how the gypsy culture is in any way resembling the oriental.

But I do love reflavoring or refluffing classes and abilities to try and make characters in unusual ways. I've been saying for a while, "don't let the prewritten fluff deter you from making the character you want to play."

I've always hated people who ban things because they don't like the flavor. IMO, if you don't like it, then you probably just don't understand it and should spend like 15 minutes reading about it. If you still don't like it, then just say "okay, but people think it's weird and will treat you with some suspicion for it". Banning is VERY harsh, IMO, even when applied for actual balance reasons. (And if it isn't the flavor the player is after, reflavoring should be considered a no-brainer.)

Define ban. I have my own campaign setting. If I dislike something, I don't include it in the setting. Is that a ban?

Is the fact that I do not feel technologists are not of an appropriate flavor for the game really all that bad?

If you ban it for flavor, why can't it be reflavored? If you ban it for unfitting mechanics, then it's your world and you can do as you please.


Yeah, but short of guns, which can reflavored as special piercing crossbows, or magic altogether, in which case why are you playing a high fantasy game, what mechanic sans flavor could not possibly fit a setting? Even the previously mentioned alchemist could be re flavored as an essence mage that drinks bottled pure magic and ignores the pseudo science of alchemy.

51 to 100 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Some of your house rules that you like best All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.