| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use a massive damage rule. It's based off a Wound point system of my design. If you take more than a certain amount of damage in one hit, it causes a System shock check (based on my stabilization rule). If you fail it, you still have the remaining HP's (you don't lose them), but you are knocked unconscious. You are not bleeding, but you are helpless and Prone. A second stabilization check causes you to regain consciousness.
My players have enjoyed this because it makes them play more as if they need to be able to get to someone if they go down quick. And a lot of times it only takes them distracting whatever knocked the player out until the player regains consciousness.
For instance: (these numbers are arbitrary and not indicative of my system, just an example) A giant smacks Valeros for 33 damage. Valeros has 126 HP, but only 30 Wound Points, so he must make a Massive Damage check because the damage exceeded the WP value. His Stabilization is 33% (the same as his Wound Points). He rolls a 54%, and immediately falls unconscious, with his current HP at 93, and WP at 30.
Seoni immediately chooses to cast a spell at the giant, as Merisiel hits him with some arrows, while Sajan runs over to engage the giant, (taking an AoO from the hobgoblins he runs past to reach Valeros), because they know that the giant will choose to squish Valeros with a Coup de grace if he gets the opportunity, and they don't want him to do that.
The next round, Valeros makes a Stabilization check of 18%, and wakes, Prone, under a pissed off giant, and continues to fight.
No auto-kills, but it creates reasonably threatening scenarios for both PCs and NPCs, and tries to emulate the fact that getting popped upside the head for a ton of damage is not something you shrug off.
Any combat rule introduced will apply to the PCs far more than it applies to any given enemy they face. PCs are the ones that, by virtue of narrative spotlight, are taking the hits over and over during play.
"Instant Kill" and "Critical Fumble" rules are really just an exercise in masochism (or sadism, on the part of the DM).
That being said, softer versions (knock unconscious) can make for grittier combat. Gives that chance of "anything could happen" in combat, fluke hits (the commoner nails the high level fighter just right).
Since this really hurts the ones taking hits the most (martials), I'd have to make sure to introduce some way to negate, reduce, or recover from this kind of thing, built into martials. Otherwise it's a straight up detriment to martials, creating an ever greater dependency on casters (healing).
.
I like the idea of reworking non-lethal damage too. Clunky double tracking has always been a problem for me.
It works great to emulate what you want in combat. I made a d20 Modern version of strain/injury rules that really made the non-lethal option worth it (ran an encounter with a "former boxer" taking on a group of guys, the combat played out like an action movie, it was great)... but good lord the hitpoint/injury/healing tracking was annoying as hell.
Good for a video game with a computer automatically tracking all that. Not so good for pen and paper.
Might work with a more "staged health" tracking system, instead of hitpoint attrition. Something like what I've seen in d20 Mutants and Masterminds.
But that's quite the departure from Pathfinder at that point.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I feel that the Core Classes really got screwed on saves. Fighter: 1 good save; Rogue: 1 good save; Sorcerer/Wizard: 1 good save. The Cleric got 2 good saves, and the Monk 3! (And I maintain Monks with all good saves in my games, not 2 like Unchained did to them.)
In a world of high magic, it makes more sense to me that Fighters would have all good saves simply due to an evolutionary process in such an environment. You wouldn't last long as a guard if you could be so easily manipulated by a simple Charm spell at 1st level! You'd want fighters to be resistant to both physical and magical threats.
I'm going back to only Rogues can detect traps, as well as disable them. And I'm toying with giving them at least 2 good saves - Reflex and their choice of either Will or Fortitude, depending on their build and background. (Are they more a fighter-type rogue, combat oriented? Or sneaky and manipulative, and thus resistant to mental attacks themselves?)
So, yeah - basically going back to D&D...
I've been on the receiving end of a 3-20 rule kill, from a sahuagin mook, ignoring both blur and mirror image
T'was not fun.
Was the monk using eco location? If you can see, you cannot ignore mirror image.
Was the monk using eco location? If you can see, you cannot ignore mirror image.I've been on the receiving end of a 3-20 rule kill, from a sahuagin mook, ignoring both blur and mirror image
T'was not fun.
Worse: it was a mOOk not a mONk, so it probably didn't even have a solid stance or a centered frame of mind when it made the strike.
I have a huge list of house rules, but I've borrowed a lot from this forum. Some of the ones I have used that are fairly plain and common are:
1) No fumbling on melee attacks. It was a long time before I realized fumbling (losing all remaining attacks, accidentally hurting yourself or throwing your weapon, etc) were actually the house rules that my first DM had imposed. Huge debuff to martials, especially if you're TWF. I guess technically this one isn't a house rule.
2) Weapon finesse and power attack are free feats. Power attack only adds +2 damage, regardless of weapon type.
3) Material components, carry weight, and other minutiae are rarely kept track of. Casters usually pay a component "tax" when they visit town, and carry weight is only really considered when we run into issues with absurd amounts of treasure or trying to haul friendly corpses to the temple without a horse.
4) Spears (the two-handed non-reach weapons) and bastard swords can be used one handed as martial weapons at a -1 penalty to hit.
@Goth: Nope, just a mook, and DM ignored blur and mirror image on the grounds of "Hey man, it's a triple nat 20, I don't know what to tell ya."
@Goth: Nope, just a mook, and DM ignored blur and mirror image on the grounds of "Hey man, it's a triple nat 20, I don't know what to tell ya."
I'd have gone with, "give me my 20% miss chance please."
simple rules that made my games easier/better?
PC crafting is banned (commission it or quest for it.)
multi-classing is banned (tired of characters with more dips than a Baskin-Robbins super sunday).
no 3p, and no unchained.
simple rules that made my games easier/better?
PC crafting is banned (commission it or quest for it.)
multi-classing is banned (tired of characters with more dips than a Baskin-Robbins super sunday).
no 3p, and no unchained.
PC crafting not banned. Obtaining special raw materials is a good excuse for adventuring.
I think a bard dip is the only way a rogue can contribute to combat without being one shotted.No unchained or 3rd party payola unless you provide a copy to the GM. I am providing my own much simpler big 6 bypass for The Cleaves playtest.
Spheres of power might be rules mush, where creating a character becomes a nightmare because you have to custom design every spell.
I can't tell because my local game store only carries Hasbro.
|
The closest thing I would have to a ban on multiclassing would be a limit on how many different classes your character could be; you can only be one or two Spellcasting classes, and you can only be two or three martial classes. You can be a max of four classes total, such as three martial and one caster, or two caster and two martial.
The Reason for my flat ban on multi-classing:
1: it is over used and unimaginative.
2: in my 40 years of experience the only reason players do it is just for "moar powah"(YMMV).
3: with 30+ classes; each of whom have an average of 10+ archetypes; an uncounted number of feats, and in most cases multiple choices on class powers there is no reason a player cannot design a character that will be a functional contributing party member (and meet their concept at the same time).
The Reason for a ban on 3p:
1: 90% of it is outright broken.
2: I am an adult with responsibilities outside of my chosen hobby (work, significant other, etc...) rather than waste time sifting through all the 3p to find that 10% that I would conceivably allow I choose to devote that time to building an elaborate setting and awe inspiring plots for our weekly sessions.
The Reason for the ban on Unchained:
1: I found none of it to my liking
2: not everyone can agree on what is good and what is not in it.
so to avoid the inevitable "but let Geoff use x from unchained; so why can I not use y (which clearly breaks my setting)?" I opted to just ban it.
The Reason for the Crafting Ban:
Crafting by PCs breaks the setting economy.
Players want a specific item?
either commission it (thereby generating at least 1 to 8 side plots)
or quest for it (thereby generating at least 1 to 8 side plots).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Mileage Does Vary.
which is why I did say in my experience.
Every argument for a multi-class concept that has ever been presented to me inevitably boils down to "I want x powers in addition to y powers and I want to avoid z built in downsides while doing it."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
in my 40 years of experience
You must have a time machine, since you were playing this game system 25 years before its original release. Of course I can take you seriously after a preposterous claim like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You must have a time machine, since you were playing this game system 25 years before its original release. Of course I can take you seriously after a preposterous claim like that.in my 40 years of experience
you do realize this system is an evolution of 3.x which in turn is an evolution of multiple iterations of D&D?
Multi-classing is not a recent development in the hobby. (there were rules for it in 1e. And it was a bad idea back then).
Dual-classing is nothing like multiclassing.
and Multi-classing came about not long after dual-classing. It was an option in 2e; 3.x just made it easier to pull off (still doesn't make it a good idea).
Then you don't have 40 years of experience with multiclassing I guess.
no...
but I do have 40 years of experience in the hobby.my apologies if that distinction was not clear.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
SarcasmDragon, please stop.
Damian expressed an opinion: he doesn't do multi-classing. He's gained little but headache from it. Your flippant, antagonistic comment is not warranted on these boards. This is a discussion about House Rules people use. He stated his rule, and you decided to outright insult him. It's not necessary, and it's not welcome in this community. Disagreeing is fine. Insulting is not.
SarcasmDragon, please stop.
Damian expressed an opinion: he doesn't do multi-classing. He's gained little but headache from it. Your flippant, antagonistic comment is not warranted on these boards. This is a discussion about House Rules people use. He stated his rule, and you decided to outright insult him. It's not necessary, and it's not welcome in this community. Disagreeing is fine. Insulting is not.
I am used to it.
Multi-classing is a "hot button" and a deal breaker when it gets banned from the table for most folks.An advantage of having been in the hobby for so long (and most of it as a GM) is the development of a thick hide. (compared to the insults I get for "daring" to run Rifts relatively House Rule free, these were practically non-existent).
Lol. I hear you. I have Extensive House Rules that basically make it a new system...and get hisses and gasps when I try to explain them. They work brilliantly on my table...they don't need to be on anyone else's. :) I just like to have fun, and dislike churlish comments towards others. Lets all go on an adventure. :)
Multi-classing is not a recent development in the hobby. (there were rules for it in 1e. And it was a bad idea back then).
Racial level limits were a really silly idea, but humans weren't affected by either rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol. I hear you. I have Extensive House Rules that basically make it a new system...and get hisses and gasps when I try to explain them. They work brilliantly on my table...they don't need to be on anyone else's. :) I just like to have fun, and dislike churlish comments towards others. Lets all go on an adventure. :)
Pathfinder is someone's House Rules that got published and accepted as canon. It was the development team's version of 3.5e that worked for them. It doesn't mean it works for everyone.
I know very few people who run any version of D&D without house ruling something. Most people I know tweak the system to fit their style, their story, and/or their group.
SarcasmDragon, please stop.
Damian expressed an opinion: he doesn't do multi-classing. He's gained little but headache from it. Your flippant, antagonistic comment is not warranted on these boards. This is a discussion about House Rules people use. He stated his rule, and you decided to outright insult him. It's not necessary, and it's not welcome in this community. Disagreeing is fine. Insulting is not.
Wow, dude, lighten up. Sarcasm Dragon made a joke. Seriously, his post was pretty darned tame for the boards.
Multi-classing is not a recent development in the hobby. (there were rules for it in 1e. And it was a bad idea back then).Racial level limits were a really silly idea, but humans weren't affected by either rule.
now humans can multi-class, still doesn't make it a good idea.
Maybe not, but at most you've had problems with humans multi-classing for 15 years. "Demihuman" multi-classing was hardly munchkin stuff.
Maybe not, but at most you've had problems with humans multi-classing for 15 years. "Demihuman" multi-classing was hardly munchkin stuff.
when the only thing players run is demi-human multi-classes it is a problem.
And if you think demihuman multiclassing wasn't munchkin then you were lucky.
If you don't play with multiclassing do you also not play with Prestige Classes? (Or only with those prestige classes that don't have multiclass requirements?) especially in pathfinder most prestige classes have more flavor than mechanical advantage (shadowdancer and dragon disciple may be exceptions but they are also highly flavorful some newer ones like Evangelist may also be fairly powerful but likewise also very flavorful)
I guess I wouldn't fit at your table (the poster whose house rule bans multiclassing) all but one of my current characters in campaigns or pfs are multiclassed)
nope... no prestige classess. Most of the more interesting ones have been converted into full classes or archetypes anyway.
If a player "must" play a prestige I will try to work with them to homebrew up either a full class or an archetype based around said Prestige.I have had a lot of "diehard" multiclassers give my games a try. Most end up staying with the game. But I have had a few who just say "f*** this" and walk away. It is not for everyone. Playing in a game where you are locked into a single class requires a different mind set. You do not have the advantage of going "my xxxx has a weak zzzz, I can just dip 3 levels of yyyy to compensate." Instead you have to find other ways of working with or around that weakness.
Dual-classing is nothing like multiclassing.
And triple classing is simply 3 classes. Possibly 2 core and one prestige. If you want to suggest that no prestige class should have more than one core class as a prerequisite, ok.
But no multi or prestige classes has pretty much been voted down.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only real problem I see with banning multi-classing is that it increases the martial / caster disparity as this ban will really only hurt martial builds. Full casters will almost never multiclass anyway because they don't want to lose out on spellcasting levels.
The only real problem I see with banning multi-classing is that it increases the martial / caster disparity as this ban will really only hurt martial builds. Full casters will almost never multiclass anyway because they don't want to lose out on spellcasting levels.
we have found the opposite to be true...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual-classing is nothing like multiclassing.And triple classing is simply 3 classes. Possibly 2 core and one prestige. If you want to suggest that no prestige class should have more than one core class as a prerequisite, ok.
But no multi or prestige classes has pretty much been voted down.
I was unaware that my personal house rules were up for a vote. The op simply asked what house rules we have implemented that have made the game better for us.
we have found the opposite to be true...
Well, you clearly have some very odd players.
Then again, people multi-classing in 2nd Ed were passing up all those single-class kits, some of which were distinctly cheesy.
My point exactly Damian.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we have found the opposite to be true...Well, you clearly have some very odd players.
Then again, people multi-classing in 2nd Ed were passing up all those single-class kits, some of which were distinctly cheesy.
It could be we don't approach character design as some kind of mini-game that needs "solved."
We've even tried a concept where the players just gave me their characters, but no rules. Describe who you are, and why you believe the way you do. What are your intentions and expectations, and worldviews. Whats a little bit of your history.
Then, as we play, I fill in their characters. (You feel comfortable trying to fight with both your weapons at once, whereas you feel comfortable trying to push your spell).
It made it so if the players stopped building around rules, and more about character, we ended up with more role and less roll. And because they didn't have a "class" with "abilities" the DM was more willing to go with their ideas as story rather than level build. They made choices based on their characters personality, and not their characters stats and inventory. It also made them less attached to magical items, and they REALLY hated bland magic items after that. But fewer items with more personality they LOVED.
Some things of course didn't work, but it was a lot of fun to "forget" the idea that you have to take a level of rogue to sneak attack. We based it more on the intention of the character, and the approach they want to take to achieve their intention.
But I still really love classes, lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It could be we don't approach character design as some kind of mini-game that needs "solved."
If you say so, but you're the one talking about how multi-classing is terribly broken and how all your players loved demihuman class cheese.
It could be we don't approach character design as some kind of mini-game that needs "solved."If you say so, but you're the one talking about how multi-classing is terribly broken and how all your players loved demihuman class cheese.
and by taking away their ability to game the system the had to stop relying on the brute force approach and start thinking of how to actually cope with a weakness.
A favorite example for me is the common "rogues cannot survive combat with out levels of xxxx".
If you are going toe to toe then of course they can't.
But maybe they weren't meant to be in your face combatants? I mean tgeir primary combat ability is called "sneak" attack.
The game is built so they can't move out of range after making the sneak attack.
A minor houserule that sneak attack can include any remaining movement for that round to move away, would help.
It could be we don't approach character design as some kind of mini-game that needs "solved."If you say so, but you're the one talking about how multi-classing is terribly broken and how all your players loved demihuman class cheese.and by taking away their ability to game the system the had to stop relying on the brute force approach and start thinking of how to actually cope with a weakness.
A favorite example for me is the common "rogues cannot survive combat with out levels of xxxx".
If you are going toe to toe then of course they can't.
But maybe they weren't meant to be in your face combatants? I mean tgeir primary combat ability is called "sneak" attack.
A Rogue that doesn't go toe to toe is generally a Rogue doing little damage, no sneak attack damage, and odds are, not doing anything useful at all. They're supposed to hang back, and wait for an opening (or something) because they're sneaky (or whatever). Is that what roleplaying is?
A Rogue that doesn't go toe to toe is generally a Rogue doing little damage, no sneak attack damage, and odds are, not doing anything useful at all. They're supposed to hang back, and wait for an opening (or something) because they're sneaky (or whatever). Is that what roleplaying is?It could be we don't approach character design as some kind of mini-game that needs "solved."If you say so, but you're the one talking about how multi-classing is terribly broken and how all your players loved demihuman class cheese.and by taking away their ability to game the system the had to stop relying on the brute force approach and start thinking of how to actually cope with a weakness.
A favorite example for me is the common "rogues cannot survive combat with out levels of xxxx".
If you are going toe to toe then of course they can't.
But maybe they weren't meant to be in your face combatants? I mean tgeir primary combat ability is called "sneak" attack.
if you think charging in "guns blazing" (as it were) is the only way a rogue can contribute to combat; then you and I have very different views of how a rogue can be a contributing member of the party.
The game is built so they can't move out of range after making the sneak attack.
A minor houserule that sneak attack can include any remaining movement for that round to move away, would help.
typically (in our games) the rogue acts more as a distraction/nuisance or ends up delivering the final blow (usually as a surprise strike from a flanking/behind position).
I do like your idea for remaining movement and sneak attack. It fits the "hit and run" rogue concept very well.
if you think charging in "guns blazing" (as it were) is the only way a rogue can contribute to combat; then you and I have very different views of how a rogue can be a contributing member of the party.A Rogue that doesn't go toe to toe is generally a Rogue doing little damage, no sneak attack damage, and odds are, not doing anything useful at all. They're supposed to hang back, and wait for an opening (or something) because they're sneaky (or whatever). Is that what roleplaying is?It could be we don't approach character design as some kind of mini-game that needs "solved."If you say so, but you're the one talking about how multi-classing is terribly broken and how all your players loved demihuman class cheese.and by taking away their ability to game the system the had to stop relying on the brute force approach and start thinking of how to actually cope with a weakness.
A favorite example for me is the common "rogues cannot survive combat with out levels of xxxx".
If you are going toe to toe then of course they can't.
But maybe they weren't meant to be in your face combatants? I mean tgeir primary combat ability is called "sneak" attack.
Okay, I'll bite. What do they normally do?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that ends up making rogues not work as well in the game is the depictions of sneaky, dexterity based characters in cinema. They do all the roguish things, but absolutely annihilate in combat, which is really what your warrior types should be doing.
Great examples -
- Ethan Hunt in Mission: Impossible. Super sneaky, crafty little skill-monkey, yet hardcore combatant.
- Jason Bourne in the Bourne series. As well, a sneaky assassin, yet a terror against groups of combatants.
- Legolas in the Tolkien universe. He's an archer, yet tears around the battlefield offing more orcs and enemies than the entire Gondor army, while back-flipping off the three giant Oliphants he just killed. With one arrow.
- The Assassin's Creed series. Probably the biggest thing that has hurt the Rogue class's identity is this series. You are the very definition of sneaky, small hidden weapon dexterity based combatant, yet again they tear through hundreds of people like toilet paper.
A rogue is really much more like the Thief games. Hidden. One kill at a time. Tricks. Shadows. Not dealing with a problem directly. Admittedly (and I'd even argue against this myself) Nathan Drake from the Uncharted series is a Rogue as well. He tends to want to sneak. He does silent take downs. He's climbing over everything. Yes, he can handle himself in a fight, but if you listen to his dialogue, it's never "I'm gonna get you!" like a warrior, or "Die!". It's "Oh crap, oh crap, oh crap!" and other things making the audience feel like he's stretching himself to his limit to survive. And he's all about LUCK. Very roguish. Oh,and no armor. Although I get it's the wrong genre for that.
The d20 systems, inadvertently, and the way most people DM and game, have made the focus on high octane (as it were) combat. A sneaky rogue is boring to a lot of people, so they want a rogue that can handle it's own, which, as written...it can't terribly well. Because it shouldn't, as written.
I think a big reason why sneaky tends to fail in tabletop is most DM's don't know how to tell a story with sneaky in it, and have tension. It's easy to say "you jump of the wall, killing two guys by stabbing your swords in their back as you slam them into the ground." Interesting. "You spend seven hours riding on the undercarriage of the wagon, being jostled and bumped, freezing the whole way just to sneak into the city, because you're a wanted person. Now roll to see if you get caught. Nope. You're safe." BORING.
Damian, it sounds like you run your rogues more traditionally. A lot of the newer (30 and under-ish) gamers like their rogues to be more super-spy, ninja Legolas-y. They want the monk, Jason Bourne, next to the rogue, Ezio, and the barbarian, Conan, and the fighter Boromir.
Both are a lot of fun. It just depends on what game you want.