So, you're using infinite negative HP. After all, a Heal spell could work when someone is at -220 Health.
Mmmm. Well, it just forces the party to have some powerful healing magic on hand.
A party generally already has Heal and the most powerful Cures available, though.
I'm not that kind of GM. The PCs having to wait above every corpse because me reviving it is a serious concern is something I would find too jarring, so I don't use that tactic with any frequency. If I ever do it, it'll be notable and surprising that such a thing happened (Which, in my opinion, is good storytelling. If you want to surprise the players with underhanded tactics, use those tactics very sparingly, and they will be all the more surprising when they are used.).Also, to wait around at least X minutes to make sure things stay dead and nobody sneaks up to land a cure on them and save them.
==Aelryinth
That's generally only true at levels 9+.
The thing about Raise Dead is that it allows you to recover someone if you don't have or ran out of curing magic, after the fact. In other words, it's a fall back after you're out of resources, particularly at lower levels.
At higher levels, not so much. Emergency scrolls of Heal or Cure Crit are probably kept around for just this reason...and hopefully a divine caster is alive to use them!
==Aelryinth
Here's a document with my campaign's house rules. I mentioned a few of them in my previous post. In addition, I also allow my players to retrain for free with my permission during a rest period. I generally allow it as long as the character concept remains the same.
In one instance, I let a player retrain their race, which they turned into an awesome character development thing. One of my players wanted to play a monk of a fire-themed race with flaming ki attacks. So, he played an ifrit monk. However, the Wisdom penalty proved way too burdensome to bear, so I let him retrain as a suli that looks like a ifrit. After spending her whole life thinking she's an ifrit, his character discovered she's a suli and concluded that her mother lied about her suli heritage. She now feels betrayed by her mother.
Favorite house rule:
Add BAB to Initiative.
I like it. I'm tempted to steal it.
whenever i ether GM or play with one who uses critical fumble rules for rolling natural 1 in an attack i use (or offer to use) the following:
- when rolling a natural 1 before using the critical fumble. the attacker has a cahnce of 5% per bab to just miss. this is to offset the fact that highly trained fighters who get more attaks per round actuly tend to criticly fumble more then a less trained level 1 fighter.(this mean a level 1 fihgter has 5% to just miss any natural 1 attack he does before using the critical fumble tables. and the more experienced level 20 has only 1% if he rolls a 100)
Another approach is to only allow a fumble chance on the first attack roll of each round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
STOP RUINING MY CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR ANIME CLASSOne 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.
I don't think those kinds of GMs would like me. I don't just like Asian flavors, I watch anime and wuxia and let some of it creep into my setting and house ruling style. I feel like one of the few who actually wants anime in my Pathfinder.
In addition to many I've seen here, I do:
It almost never makes sense in the combats I run that either group is caught off guard enough (when it's not a surprise round) to warrant being flat-footed, and this gives a nice boost to Rogues. I don't think it ends up devaluing uncanny dodge too much since so many pre-made enemies seem to have rogue levels on them.
I like it. I'm tempted to steal it.Favorite house rule:
Add BAB to Initiative.
Works beautifully. Fits thematically.
All in all a nice balancing agent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A kitsune has a number of tails equal to the highest spell level they can cast (minimum 1). It's a purely cosmetic change, but my kitsune players absolutely love it.
> Spontaneous full casters (Sorc, Oracle, Arcanist, etc.) progress one level faster than their chart says, keeping them on par with prepared casters.
> Clerics and other characters with Domains may spont-cast their Domain spells by sacrificing memorized spells, just like Clerics do with Cure/Inflict spells and Druids do with Summoning spells.
> Paladins, Rangers, Bloodragers, and other 4-level casters gain Cantrips/Orisons. Paladins use the Cleric list for both available spells and progression of spell slots. Rangers do the same using the Druid list, Bloodragers the Sorcerer list. Any spells on their normal spell list that are Orisons on these additional lists are moved to 0 level.
> Cure and other healing spells have been moved to the Necromancy school.
> Breath of Life is called Cure Deadly Wounds; classes that automatically receive Cure spells also receive Breath of Life, and it can be spont-cast by clerics as if it were a Cure spell. If necessary, a Negative counterpart will be created.
> All characters get 2 more skill points per level than default.
> Characters who desire so may begin with a single item - magical, rare, anything - of their choice (subject to GM approval) for free, under the stipulation that the item carries some kind of curse. The character is unaware of this curse, and the nature of the curse is at the GM's discretion, though it will always be considered proportional to the item’s power. Will need at least a short explanation of how the item was acquired as part of the character's backstory.
There are more but these are the ones that jump first to mind.
I have a homebrew/houserule doc of class/feat changes and new feats and magic items here.
|
If I run PF again (which I may - I have a campaign on hold) I am looking to tie Skills with Attributes more strongly. This is an "anti-dump stat/Skill Rank exploit" fix.
Rule: Cannot place more Skill Ranks/Points in a skill than half the governing attribute - round down.
Attribute being defined as: Score on character unmodified by magical items or spells (but modified by Race or bonuses gained from level).
So a Cha 7 character with a related Skill would have a max allowable 3 ranks in any Cha related skills.
Exceptions:
If you have an 14 or more in a stat there is no extra limit on Skill Ranks you can place in a Skill. (need to run the PB numbers - may be raised to higher than 14).
Some of the martial/skill based classes will have exceptions/exemptions on certain class specific skills so they can place ranks without restriction.
This is part of a re-write and overhaul of the entire skill system that has tighter number ranges and takes the approach of skill and class protectionism (rogues are the best at rogue stuff, etc). This is a paradigm shift where skills become the province of classes that rely heavily on them and makes stats more relevant to associated skills.
Doesn't make much of an impact until mid and higher level but is designed to curtail the very "minor" impact low stats currently have in the game.
Not sure if I like it best (as of yet), but it has good potential in making stats>skill, or at least have stats play a more relevant part of the equation vs. being a minor inconvenience.
|
** spoiler exposed **
This is part of a re-write and overhaul of the entire skill system that has tighter number ranges and takes the approach of skill and class protectionism (rogues are the best at rogue stuff, etc). This is a paradigm shift where skills become the province of classes that rely heavily on them and makes stats more relevant to associated skills.
Interested to see the rest of this.
A form of "class skill protectionism" I use is only allowing cross-class skill ranks to be purchased if the new number of ranks wouldn't exceed half the character's level (whole numbers only!). But I also grant additional traits as part of leveling, as well as having Skill Focus and Skill "synergy" feats (Acrobatic, Alertness, Athletic...) promoting affected skills to "class skill" status, making picking up additional class skills along the way easier.
I also allow untrained checks of up to DC 20 to be attempted if the skill is a class skill (instead of just DC 10).
This limitation on cross-ranks somewhat overlaps your stat bonus cap and corresponding class skill uncap, as I had a similar goal in mind before adding it to my house rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if its been said or not: making damage dealing cantrips do 1d6/5 levels.
Because a wizard who can sling a ball of acid shouldn't be forced to carry a crossbow.
|
|
I also allow untrained checks of up to DC 20 to be attempted if the skill is a class skill (instead of just DC 10).
This, right here - is an excellent example of class skill protectionism - in fact this should have been part of the core game.
My approach is twofold. The primary is to protect class skills from exploitation (spell buffs from a caster making him temporarily better than the character who does it every day) and also to deal with the dump stat issue and the fact that stats only present an minor numerical difference (in the case of CHA for example, just add more ranks and the low stat is negated).
With limits being tied to stats you would wind up seeing less cookie-cutter characters - of course this depends on the skills and tasks the players want their characters to try. So if they want to dabble in a few skills and have a reasonable chance of doing them well they may want to change up the standard "array" for their character.
A re-write of skill function, with skills doing different things at higher rank and not just beating DCs makes the skills more attractive and viable. That of course - is the harder part of the re-write.
But I like your DC limit based on class/non-classed skill.... its simple and actually shouldn't even be a house rule. It should be in the CRB.
I also allow untrained checks of up to DC 20 to be attempted if the skill is a class skill (instead of just DC 10).This, right here - is an excellent example of class skill protectionism - in fact this should have been part of the core game.
Eh, personally I couldn't disagree more. But the whole idea of "class skill protectionism" is antithetical to my playstyle and GMing style as a whole.
|
|
Eh, personally I couldn't disagree more. But the whole idea of "class skill protectionism" is antithetical to my playstyle and GMing style as a whole.I also allow untrained checks of up to DC 20 to be attempted if the skill is a class skill (instead of just DC 10).This, right here - is an excellent example of class skill protectionism - in fact this should have been part of the core game.
I was never a fan of 3rd ed based skill binary successes and mutatable/easily exploitable Skill check and system (spells, pump skill ranks on dump stat skills, etc).
Also the fact that negatives on certain stats hold less weight than others (CHA vs. CON for example). So I am looking for a solution that addresses both.
Again, comes down to play styles.
|
Eh, personally I couldn't disagree more. But the whole idea of "class skill protectionism" is antithetical to my playstyle and GMing style as a whole.I also allow untrained checks of up to DC 20 to be attempted if the skill is a class skill (instead of just DC 10).This, right here - is an excellent example of class skill protectionism - in fact this should have been part of the core game.I was never a fan of 3rd ed binary and mutatable Skill check/DC system (spells, pump skill ranks on dump stat skills, etc) . Also the fact that negatives on certain stats hold less weight than others (CHA vs. CON for example). So I am looking for a solution that addresses both.
Again, comes down to play styles.
If you want Cha to have more weight for all characters, here's an idea: give PCs 2 + 1/2 Cha Mod character traits (min 0), rounding down in value not magnitude (e.g. Cha 5 => 0 traits). Now 10 Cha means normal traits, 14 is a bonus one, 18 is two bonus traits, while 6-9 cha is -1 trait. Also, at 18+ cha you can select from the same category twice as long as you have at least 1 trait in 3 different categories.
Since traits can bring in class skills...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A proper rewrite of the skill system means Ranks mean more then bonuses.
Ranks let you do things that bonuses don't. Bonuses just let you do those things better/faster.
Example: You need 8 ranks in Armorsmith to make Mithral Armor. It doesn't matter if you're +50...if you don't have 8 ranks, you don't know how to make it.
Things like Hide In Plain Sight can then be folded into the Rank system, perhaps only accessible with a feat. High ranks in perception might give you access to other senses.
Skill points gained from Int raising items are considered non-permanent bonuses, never full ranks. So, swapping them out doesn't gain you new skills.
Characters that don't have spellcasting or magical abilities should have more skill points and ranks then characters that use magic. In other words, fighters should have more points then rangers, and rogues more points then anyone.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Eh, personally I couldn't disagree more. But the whole idea of "class skill protectionism" is antithetical to my playstyle and GMing style as a whole.I also allow untrained checks of up to DC 20 to be attempted if the skill is a class skill (instead of just DC 10).This, right here - is an excellent example of class skill protectionism - in fact this should have been part of the core game.I was never a fan of 3rd ed binary and mutatable Skill check/DC system (spells, pump skill ranks on dump stat skills, etc) . Also the fact that negatives on certain stats hold less weight than others (CHA vs. CON for example). So I am looking for a solution that addresses both.
Again, comes down to play styles.
If you want Cha to have more weight for all characters, here's an idea: give PCs 2 + 1/2 Cha Mod character traits (min 0), rounding down in value not magnitude (e.g. Cha 5 => 0 traits). Now 10 Cha means normal traits, 14 is a bonus one, 18 is two bonus traits, while 6-9 cha is -1 trait. Also, at 18+ cha you can select from the same category twice as long as you have at least 1 trait in 3 different categories.
Since traits can bring in class skills...
As an addition to, maybe - but not instead of. Cha as an attribute needs to do way more than it currently does.
But I'm still for capping skills for crappy or even moderate stats is the way to go.
And yes - a re-write of the skills system so that it's not:
- Binary
- Skills do more at higher skill rank (as I said earlier)
- Less mutable and exploitable with number pumps (spells primarily)
Aelryinth pretty much nailed down what I was getting at. Minimum "pure" skill ranks to accomplish increasingly amazing tasks vs. +X system. Also a more defined (and powerful actually) skill system for those who actually invest the skill ranks. So at high level you can do some really amazing and almost magical things.
|
|
...
That's a complete rewrite of the skill system. Do not bother keeping any existant rules except maybe rough DCs, just start from scratch.
One thing I've been toying with (but not for pathfinder) is to have the following progression:
Untrained (tough skill): 1d6 + ability score
Untrained (easy skill): 1d10 + ability score
Trained: 1d20 + ability score
Trained+: can take 10
Trained++: 1d10 + 10 + ability score
Trained+++: 20 + ability score
Then the rest is a set of special abilities that cost about as much as a skill rank that grant special abilities related to the skill or unlock new usages.
Most "common" DCs should still work fine since many are based on what normal untrained people can do, and there's no need for "maximum success" for untrained since the 1d6 roll already caps you pretty hard on its own. If you have a 20 int, though, you deserve to have the knowledge to match. May need to bump some DCs by 5.
|
|
Auxmaulous,
Pardon the pushback, but I believe my cross rank system also accomplishes more or less what you are looking for in a simpler way (with exactly one sentence worth of of house ruling), by not explicitly emphasizing stats (by imposing stat-caps), instead implicitly doing so by increasing emphasis on class (and traits/feats). Math:
Consider Rogue 10 and Wizard 10:
Rogue has DX 20 and INT 10
Wizard has INT 20 and DX 10
They can both put up to 10 ranks in class skills, or 5 ranks in cross-class skills.
Rogue:
class DX skills max out at +18
class INT skills max out at +13
cross DX skills max out at +10
cross INT skills max out at +5
Wizard:
class INT skills max out at +18
class DX skills max out at +13
cross INT skills max out at +10
cross DX skills max out at +5
...
I'm not trying to overhaul the PF skill system. Two root-system tweaks ("half ranks max for cross", and "DC 20 untrained class ok"), plus lots of additional skill uses (I use a lot of 101 Skill Uses material plus my own tweaks), goes a long way in my game.
cheers folks.
We turned all the Proficiency feats into traits, and firearms no longer target touch AC for standard attack rolls, but do target touch AC when confirming critical hits.
A proper rewrite of the skill system means Ranks mean more then bonuses.
Ranks let you do things that bonuses don't. Bonuses just let you do those things better/faster.
Example: You need 8 ranks in Armorsmith to make Mithral Armor. It doesn't matter if you're +50...if you don't have 8 ranks, you don't know how to make it.
Things like Hide In Plain Sight can then be folded into the Rank system, perhaps only accessible with a feat. High ranks in perception might give you access to other senses.Skill points gained from Int raising items are considered non-permanent bonuses, never full ranks. So, swapping them out doesn't gain you new skills.
Characters that don't have spellcasting or magical abilities should have more skill points and ranks then characters that use magic. In other words, fighters should have more points then rangers, and rogues more points then anyone.
==Aelryinth
I like this. Very much.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My players can add their CON score to their hp at first level. This stopped the stupid 8hrs rest after a single encounter.
Worked beautifully in two campaigns.
At higher levels, those additional hp just don't matter anymore.
So, @1st level: max hp + CON-Mod. + CON-Score.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers get their 1st-level Bloodline Spell at 1st level, and from there, Bloodline Spell progression at the same rate as an Oracle's Mystery Spells.
In addition, a high Intelligence grants them bonus spells known in the following manner:
Take the Sorcerer's Intelligence modifier, double it, and check the "bonus spells per day for high ability scores" chart for how many bonus spells per day such a modifier would grant. The Sorcerer gains a number of bonus spells known equal to that number (as they qualify for spells of that level, of course). For example: Alamar is a level 5 Sorcerer with an Intelligence of 16 (so a modifier of +3). Twice that modifier is +6. A spellcaster whose spells per day statistic has a +6 modifier (22-23) receives 2 bonus 1st- and 2nd-level spells, and 1 bonus 3rd- through 6th-level spell per day. Hence, Alamar presently enjoys 2 extra 1st- and 2nd-level spells known, and at level 6 will gain a bonus 3rd-level spell, and so on. Magical items that increase Intelligence enable additional spells known just as Headbands of Vast Intelligence grant extra skill ranks.
I throw out the "Wildblooded" archetype and just allow you to take bloodlines as you want (however, I enforce concept on all characters, but especially if you want to take a 'rare' bloodline (and I include bloodlines outside of the core book as "rare" too), if I think you are just trying to min-max, you better come up with a better background than the player who is just going with a basic bloodline)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers get their 1st-level Bloodline Spell at 1st level, and from there, Bloodline Spell progression at the same rate as an Oracle's Mystery Spells.
In addition, a high Intelligence grants them bonus spells known in the following manner:
Take the Sorcerer's Intelligence modifier, double it, and check the "bonus spells per day for high ability scores" chart for how many bonus spells per day such a modifier would grant. The Sorcerer gains a number of bonus spells known equal to that number (as they qualify for spells of that level, of course). For example: Alamar is a level 5 Sorcerer with an Intelligence of 16 (so a modifier of +3). Twice that modifier is +6. A spellcaster whose spells per day statistic has a +6 modifier (22-23) receives 2 bonus 1st- and 2nd-level spells, and 1 bonus 3rd- through 6th-level spell per day. Hence, Alamar presently enjoys 2 extra 1st- and 2nd-level spells known, and at level 6 will gain a bonus 3rd-level spell, and so on. Magical items that increase Intelligence enable additional spells known just as Headbands of Vast Intelligence grant extra skill ranks.
Just curious, why don't you just grant him the same number of bonus spells known as a Wizard of equal intelligence? Seems fairer and more balanced.
==Aelryinth
Then you could simply set bonus spells known as Cha=Int. Basically, they get more spells castable and more spells known. I'm not sure why you came up with a totally new mechanic.
The limitations on Spells Known is one of the defining balance points of the sorc. It takes substantial investment to get around it, but a Sorc with unlimited spells known can blow the pants off a wizard.
There's even magic items which allow a sorc to grab a spell out of a spell book, so the problem of versatility and power really isn't there anymore.
But, It's your house rule, and if it works for you, I shouldn't be judgemental. Just trying to understand why you'd create a whole new mechanic instead of just deputizing an existing one.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Auxmaulous,
Pardon the pushback, but I believe my cross rank system also accomplishes more or less what you are looking for in a simpler way (with exactly one sentence worth of of house ruling), by not explicitly emphasizing stats (by imposing stat-caps), instead implicitly doing so by increasing emphasis on class (and traits/feats). Math:
** spoiler omitted **
I'm going to use both. 1/2 Attribute Skill rank cap combined with fixed 1/2 level cap (whichever impacts first).
Wizard Int 20/DEX 8
Wizard:
class INT skills max out at +10 (total after mods is +18)
class DX skills max out at +4 (total after mods is actually +6)
cross INT skills max out at +5 (total after mods is +10)
cross DX skills max out at +4 (total is actually +3)
May seem harsh (with plenty of QQ over here), but the idea is to make stats relevant beyond the current +1/-1 design.
|
I think I may add exploding criticals (so long as you keep critiing on your confirmation you keep adding damage ... after the first confirm though it will just be 20's to confirm. It'll never happen though.
I also am going to try the fumbled crit ... if you "confirm" a crit with a 1 you also fumble, and vice-versa, if you "confirm" a fumble with a 20 you get a crit on top of the fumble. You lop of the head but your sword goes flying.
3 twenty's in a row on your attack meant auto one-shot, but keep rolling because if you get 5 you die for loaded die.
Witches cast off of Wisdom. Really can't believe its not already like this.
Also, Inquisitors cast off of Intelligence. It makes them a touch more MAD but not to any great detriment. That gives an Arcane caster of each type and a Divine caster of each type.
Eh, personally I couldn't disagree more. But the whole idea of "class skill protectionism" is antithetical to my playstyle and GMing style as a whole.I also allow untrained checks of up to DC 20 to be attempted if the skill is a class skill (instead of just DC 10).This, right here - is an excellent example of class skill protectionism - in fact this should have been part of the core game.I was never a fan of 3rd ed binary and mutatable Skill check/DC system (spells, pump skill ranks on dump stat skills, etc) . Also the fact that negatives on certain stats hold less weight than others (CHA vs. CON for example). So I am looking for a solution that addresses both.
Again, comes down to play styles.
If you want Cha to have more weight for all characters, here's an idea: give PCs 2 + 1/2 Cha Mod character traits (min 0), rounding down in value not magnitude (e.g. Cha 5 => 0 traits). Now 10 Cha means normal traits, 14 is a bonus one, 18 is two bonus traits, while 6-9 cha is -1 trait. Also, at 18+ cha you can select from the same category twice as long as you have at least 1 trait in 3 different categories.
Since traits can bring in class skills...
I like this as its own separate rule, Traits equal to your Charisma mod plain and simple. That should lift Charisma into the same stratosphere as Intelligence (skill ranks and languages) and Wisdom (Will saves).
whenever i ether GM or play with one who uses critical fumble rules for rolling natural 1 in an attack i use (or offer to use) the following:
- when rolling a natural 1 before using the critical fumble. the attacker has a cahnce of 5% per bab to just miss. this is to offset the fact that highly trained fighters who get more attaks per round actuly tend to criticly fumble more then a less trained level 1 fighter.(this mean a level 1 fihgter has 5% to just miss any natural 1 attack he does before using the critical fumble tables. and the more experienced level 20 has only 1% if he rolls a 100)
I agree with this. Gaining higher levels = more attacks but it should not also cause more fumbles.
I use a similar rule: When you threaten a crit, you have to confirm it by rolling another attack roll, so when you threaten a fumble (natural 1) you get a chance to "confirm" it, or rather, to avoid it by rolling another attack roll - if you roll your BAB or less you avoid fumbling, otherwise, break out the fumble chart.
I think the math is pretty much the same as yours.
Note, this means that iterative attacks are more likely to fumble on the later attacks since the BAB is lower so it's harder to avoid them once you've rolled that natural 1. I consider this price of trying to do too much in so little time.
Witches cast off of Wisdom. Really can't believe its not already like this.
Also, Inquisitors cast off of Intelligence. It makes them a touch more MAD but not to any great detriment. That gives an Arcane caster of each type and a Divine caster of each type.
i use this well, it really stes them apart.
i use this well, it really stes them apart.Witches cast off of Wisdom. Really can't believe its not already like this.
Also, Inquisitors cast off of Intelligence. It makes them a touch more MAD but not to any great detriment. That gives an Arcane caster of each type and a Divine caster of each type.
My Witches are classified as divine and can choose to have a frumpier instead of a familiar, but that's.for flavor reasons, not mechanical reasons. (Clerics and Druids, as well as related classes, were taught to use divine magic by divine prophets and bid to keep the secrets of it within the church. Witches are those who use it outside the church, and are prosecuted. The church isn't exactly a stalwart force of good, nor is it totally bad, so being a Witch or Cleric is itself morally neutral. Arcane magic, meanwhile, is a new art, unlike divine magic.).
Any ability who's text reads "light or one handed piercing weapon" shall instead mean "light or one handed finessable weapon". This is important, because I consider the Spear, Quarterstaff, and Scimitar to be finessable weapons. Yes, this does mean a Swashbuckler with a Scimitar is as good as one with a Rapier.
The Greatsword is called a Longsword, and the Longsword is called an Arming Sword. Longswords, though two handed, aren't massive swords. Really big swords aren't common or popular in my setting.
A Katana is just a Longsword, though there is a trait allowing it to be weilded one handed for 1d10 damage.
Armor values are different. The heaviest thing available is a breastplate, but a breastplate is heavy armor with an AC bonus of 9. Full plate hasn't caught on and never will, but I wanted the basic numerical values of armor to remain the same.
The addition of adaptive variance for ability checks:
Ability Skill Checks - Various tasks have different numbers of variables. It makes little sense that an Arm wrestling contest could vary as much as twenty points when the average Orc is only two points stronger than the average human. However, due to various experiences, a variance that high could be justified for a wisdom check.
Variance
Physical Abilities- Physical abilities are Low Variance by default, using the Ability score (not modifier) plus a D6.
(Ex. Open Door Str check DC 16. Doc has a STR of 8, so he can't open the door. Grumpy has a STR of 18, so he can open it with relative ease. Dopey, with his 14 in STR, decides to make a roll for it, since he has a higher initiative than the others.)
Mental Abilities - Knowing or realizing things depends on a number of factors, therefore mental checks are Medium to high variance by default, using Ability Score plus a D10.
(I like to use these in Roleplay a lot, generally setting 15 as the Wisdom DC for a normal good decision, and 10 or less as time to be really stupid. Ex, Dopey gets bored on watch and rolls a D10+7Wis, landing a 2, he decides to play a prank on Grumpy. Grumpy rolls a D10+8Wis to avoid being angry. He rolls a 1 and promptly knocks Dopey the fluff out. Doc is asleep, but the Player Rolls anyway, 1d10+16. He rolls a 9, totaling 25, so the GM allows him to happen to wake up in time to witness the occurrence and react.)
All calls for level of variance are made by the GM because I haven't had time to make a huge list of examples.
Any ability who's text reads "light or one handed piercing weapon" shall instead mean "light or one handed finessable weapon". This is important, because I consider the Spear, Quarterstaff, and Scimitar to be finessable weapons. Yes, this does mean a Swashbuckler with a Scimitar is as good as one with a Rapier.
The Greatsword is called a Longsword, and the Longsword is called an Arming Sword. Longswords, though two handed, aren't massive swords. Really big swords aren't common or popular in my setting.
A Katana is just a Longsword, though there is a trait allowing it to be weilded one handed for 1d10 damage.
Armor values are different. The heaviest thing available is a breastplate, but a breastplate is heavy armor with an AC bonus of 9. Full plate hasn't caught on and never will, but I wanted the basic numerical values of armor to remain the same.
I have wondered if there were many beasties stomping about, whether the zweihander would become more or less prevalent.
Would it be considered better to try and kill monsters as quick as possible, or try to win over time with weapons meant for usage against humans?
Your longsword has the same greatsword stats?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I allow Awaken as a 4th level Paladin spell. They can only cast it on their god's favored animal. Intelligent and favored servants of their god! Retired paladins of sufficient level raise and train numbers of Awakened animals like their own children.
==Aelryinth
So cool Aelryinth!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it keeps the Awaken Elephants and Dire Tigers shenanigans under control. Basically, it's restricted to Bulls, Horses and Dogs, House Cats, and Raptors. Although Rare paladins of Flora can Awaken trees.
Now, PRIESTS of the Gods also get Awaken, and aren't as restricted. And yes, they do recruit animals as active guardians. An Awakened Elephant wearing a Ring of Sustenance on one tusk to get around his appetite is quite a formidable guardian.
My main LG nation generally has a thriving collection of G Awakened animals co-existing with the humans against the magical monsters of the world. Most homesteads have an Awakened Dog in residence, and it's considered a great honor to have a roost for Awakened Raptors, owls and bats that patrol the area or carry messengers over long distances. Awakened Horses and Bulls watch over the herds and bloodlines, Awakened Great Cats often end up companion and bodyguards to important figures...and every Elephant in the country is ritually Awakened soon after birth.
Tigers are normally wandering CG Rangers or Barbarians, while Lions are generally LG Fighters or Rangers with set territories, and Leopards/Pumas NG Rangers are scouts for the frontier areas.
Dogs, Horses, Raptors and Housecats are still the most common. The Housecats in particular make sure vermin are not a problem. The dogs patrol their areas, watch over the human kids, help herd stuff, and help the cats out if needed, or accompany most of the rangers and paladins around. Raptors patrol between far-flung homesteads, relay alerts and messages, and serve as scouts for patrol bands. Horses serve with the patrols and cavalry, and can rise to high rank. Meeting a horse R/5 with FE: orcs is not a good day for the orcs.
of course, meeting a Tiger Barb/4 is also not a good day for them. And inside Haxan, there simply is not a bandit problem.
heck, I had PrC's in 3E for dogs, great cats and horses. Heh! Won a PrC on Monte Cook's website way back when.
==Aelryinth
Ah, another rule I've been implementing.
Magic items generally must be Masterwork items. More powerful items need higher Masterwork DC's to contain spells. Only modifiers from skills, feats, traits and skill ranks affect this roll...things like competence and insight bonuses just help you craft faster, not make a superior product. The general DC is 20 + Caster level of the item, or minimum required to cast the spell/effect, whatever is higher.
Thus, awesome craftsmanship, well past masterwork, is required to make a +5 sword (A DC 35 sword, actually). Higher DC items sell for more accordingly, being demonstrably better artistically and fundamentally, with other special qualities.
Fabricate allows the caster to make 1 day's skill check for a skill per spell. Thus, one casting only makes things that can get done in one day. It thus speeds up making objects, but you can't leverage it to turn 700 gp of raw materials into a 2000 gp suit of armor instantly.
using non-standard items applies a penalty to crafting rolls, meaning its harder to make an awesome sword out of adamantium, and slower, and not just because of the materials cost.
A straight +1 weapon can be made out of a DC 20 sword, and will never get any better.
DC 21 allows you to add 1 more +1 enhancement.
DC 22 allows you to 2 more +1's.
DC 23 allows you to make the Sword +2, and unlimited +1's.
DC 24 allows you to add another +2 enhancement
DC 25 allows to add 2 +2's.
DC 26 allows to to make a +3 weapon, and unlimited +2's.
etc etc.
one of the main uses of Fabricate is using Craft checks to improved the DC level of Crafted items.
Many magical items are subjected to Full Tempering, which is a set of 5 spells used on them from the rules.
Runemark on a weapon makes it effectively magical for purposes of DR.
Bloodbond, when cast on an item, gives the first one to annoint the blade with their blood thereafter a +1 morale damage when using that weapon.
Reed increases the break DC of the item by half the caster level, as it makes the weapon flexible, bending incredibly before breaking.
Stone = that dwarven spell that doubles the objects hit points.
Adamant = Harden, increase Hardness of the item by half the caster level.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no common language. Creatures that get common as a language instead get a regional language of their choice. Players are informed of the region they will begin in, so as to start off with a language common to those around them.
I just think the inclusion of "common" is too meta for a realistic multicultural world. I can see one language becoming extremely popular around the world due to a nation being a past or current world power, like English is in our world, though. Given their history of having dominated nearly everyone at some point in the ancient past, I'd say Taldan...or because of their trade power, maybe Absalom.