Here are my house rules for an upcoming campaign to run alongside my scifi campaign.(both are every other week).
I'm posting it here asking for criticism and pointing out mistakes but I also wanted to pose the question; Is this too many house rules? Currently this is the longest document I've ever made for house rules, normally I keep it at two pages but sometimes it goes up to four due to setting descriptions and and explanations of third party stuff. A good chunk of this is about the setting and describing third party considerations but a good chunk are rule changes and it doesn't include house ruled feats which is a separate document. When I format it and print it out it comes out to 10 pages.
Would seeing a list like that turn you off from a campaign before it starts? Normally I find it important to list all my house rules on day one and type them up so I don't have to repeat myself, which is why its so long, but I am aware that in the past I've had plenty of players that simply do not read more than a page of bonus information but I'm unsure as to how to convey systematic changes, especially if they include third party or unchained considerations without giving concrete idea as to what's going on in the campaign.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I looked at the document, but I didn't read it because it's 13 pages.
I'd be very hesitant to play in a game where the GM feels like he needs 13 pages of houserules just to make things playable. I don't assault my players with anything over about a half page, and most of that is character creation rules.
With that said, if this works for you and your players are good with your houserules, I wouldn't care much what people here thought about them. People spend far too much time worrying about the rules anyway.
So, happy gaming, Malwing!
-Skeld
I looked at the document, but I didn't read it because it's 13 pages.
I'd be very hesitant to play in a game where the GM feels like he needs 13 pages of houserules just to make things playable. I don't assault my players with anything over about a half page, and most of that is character creation rules.
With that said, if this works for you and your players are good with your houserules, I wouldn't care much what people here thought about them. People spend far too much time worrying about the rules anyway.
So, happy gaming, Malwing!
-Skeld
Well the thing is these house rules kind of developed based on one shots with two other people. They've been working out at that table but for the campaign I'm bringing in new people and I don't know how they feel about house rule bloat yet.
Aside from the Consolidated Skills and Automatic Bonus Progression a good chunk of it is non-drastic and wouldn't be noticed unless you're playing particular classes but I personally hate surprise house rules or game assumptions when I'm playing so my main concern is that long documents may scare people away.
They can toss their skill rank into Linguistics to get an extra language. No need to double up.
Also, Bucklers are generally better than light shields, Perhaps you switch the order?
There's a boatload of material you don't exactly need to include. The less you write, the more you play. If you want to rewrite the CRB, feel free to, just know that your players won't be all that familiar with it. If you can, trim down the houserules to the absolutely most necessary ones, and have everything be succinct as possible. Have a "short list" of the biggest changes from the CRB.
Oh yeah, and also have a table of contents.
What would I trim?
Haha, I've got a lot of houserules for my own upcoming campaign as well.
I must say, though, that this document is intimidating. I think proper formating would help, and splitting up in multiple documents perhaps. Does character creation really need to be in there? I made it a seperate document, because it's only relevant once, before the game starts. I don't dislike a bunch of the changes you made, such as merging skills, but they seem complicated to keep track of with standard character sheets. Though I only scan read it, the contents, for the most part, look less intimidating than the form.
Haha, I've got a lot of houserules for my own upcoming campaign as well.
I must say, though, that this document is intimidating. I think proper formating would help, and splitting up in multiple documents perhaps. Does character creation really need to be in there? I made it a seperate document, because it's only relevant once, before the game starts. I don't dislike a bunch of the changes you made, such as merging skills, but they seem complicated to keep track of with standard character sheets. Though I only scan read it, the contents, for the most part, look less intimidating than the form.
Because Google Docs doesn't have the formatting tools I like to use I have another copy on my computer. Its cleaner, in 2 columns, a bit more divided, and with images because it's meant to be printed. It comes out to about 10 pages including the setting information.
I felt the need to include character creation because its happened before where I have to repeat myself about it a lot in the past.
I had to pick up a blank version of the dyslexic studios character sheet and edit it myself to have a character sheet that accommodates the consolidated skill list. It seemed the only feasible thing. With Pathfinder Unchained and third party products offering bigger skill lists, smaller skill lists and tweaked skill lists I would have figured that people would have editable character sheets with editable skill lists by now. Would sure beat having class specific character sheets that have been going around since they immediately choke on third party options. I had thought of making the consolidated list optional for that reason (Some classes may not want it but in playing with it Fighters come out of it with 4-6 more effective skills than they would normally have and rogues make out like bandits. Things that made me want it as a mandatory thing.)
You don't need to ban Divine Protection anymore, it's been errata'd and is now terrible. Also, Blood Money is a spell, not a feat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every group is different, but speaking for myself, I wouldn't join a game with so many house rules. It's indicative of a DM who enjoys rules more than story or action, which probably means we'll spend a lot of time learning, reviewing, and altering the rules as we play instead of having fun. Maybe you're different, but that's been my experience with DMs that do this kind of thing.
Are you sure Pathfinder is the game for you? With all of your changes to the system, it seems like you really want to use something else or write your own from scratch (something I've done many times, by the way, so I understand where you're coming from).
It's like when you go to a restaurant and order a rare steak, baked potato, and asparagus, but then you spend ten minutes telling the waiter about how you want chicken instead of steak, mashed potatoes instead of a baked potato, and carrots instead of asparagus. He rolls his eyes and points to the "chicken with mashed potatoes and carrots" on the menu and you shake your head. "No, I want what I want, just with some little changes."
With house rules, you should ask yourself, "Is this houserule going to improve the game enough to be worth the changes?" Please note that this evaluation has to be taken looking at the whole body of house rules. You have to remember everything applicable to your character. If people have a history with pathfinder or are playing in other games, it's much harder to keep track of the changes. I've found that games go best when you are spending time playing, not dealing with the rules.
Look into the reasoning behind each rules and try to find why they help. For example, some people choose Inherent bonuses because they don't like how characters just spend money on the big six items and don't get the flavorful items. I've found it doesn't work well for that because the reduced money coming in means that they can usually not get the cool flavorful items that are at their level, so it feel like they just get trinkets that aren't really important. Plus it further disrupts the balance between classes like monks, paladins and magi that use magic items differently than other classes.
You also need to worry about how each of these changes works in combination. How do each of the new classes work with revised action economy? There's talk about that for the Paizo classes, but have you evaluated each of the other classes? If a class is particularly hampered by this, then allowing the class becomes a trap for anybody that didn't see the problem coming. You've just unintentionally screwed one of your players. Likewise, there might be another class that gains a lot from the action economy and becomes overpowered. In some cases it only works when you look at multiple rules. Since each one is a moving part when you change a lot of them it takes work to figure out what you end up with.
Finally, when you have a huge tome of rules changes then it's time to evaluate if this is the right game system. Perhaps there's another system that will fit your concept better.
Are you sure Pathfinder is the game for you? With all of your changes to the system, it seems like you really want to use something else or write your own from scratch (something I've done many times, by the way, so I understand where you're coming from).
There aren't that many actual changes. Functional changes are mostly native to Pathfinder Unchained or Ultimate Campaign. A good chunk is conversion considerations when it comes to third party products. The rest is a list of free feats, and clarification on complicated rules that we never observed in the first place, such as the distance limits for jumping. I don't think using third party Pathfinder specific material and alternate rules that the system's company provides in it's primary book line warrants questioning whether or not I actually want to use the system.
Rules Content : The only issue I have with your rules are the number of allowed classes. 70 classes is a huge number, and as a player, I would probably be either intimidated by the number or classes, or wary of the kind of cheese the other players may try to pull. Otherwise, many of the rules are pretty classic.
Rule Presentation : Here, I would have much to say, if you didn't clarify that this was only a copy/paste from another application, and that you didn't care for formating of this copy.
That said, formating incompatibility asside, my main issue would be the overaboundance of lists. Lists isn't the be-all and end-all of presentation, and in some cases may hurt the way you try to convey information.Just for my personal enjoyment (and because I've too much free time), here's a reorganized and reformated version of your document.
Thank you for the reorganization. My liber office copy is considerably less terrible than my google doc copy. pasting it didn't work that well and the pictures got so messed up that I had to scrap them for that version entirely. However your copy would be useful for online specific players but is page intensive to print out a copy for everyone.
You might want to edit the document to separate the fluff from the crunch.
Also, you are allowing so many classes, that it may be shorter to just list what you aren't allowing.
Particularly given that a LOT of your adjustments are Pathfinder Unchained stuff, I think you've made less modifications than you think. With that in mind, presentation is just as important as content. Handing a player a 13 page doc and saying "Here ya go" is very different from handing a half a page of changes that exist to your character.
I just added two players to a campaign that I am running which is fairly heavily modded. I first asked what kinds of characters they wanted. When they said "Alchemist and Hunter", I only then said "I rewrote alchemy, so check this out and let me know if you're sure". For the Hunter player, I didn't need to bother her with anything.
I think your mileage will go a lot more if you customized what you were presenting to only show the stuff that directly affects them, and then handing over the thirteen page doc if they want to know everything that was modified.
How would I compensate for session zero? My expectations are that people would be shifting classes during session zero to make the party well rounded, and most of my verbal explanation of the implications of the house rules occur during session zero. Also some house rules are negotiable due to herolab dependence of some players and I have to verbally explain third party classes that some players may shift to because they previously did not know about them beforehand. (The document was almost twice as long when I had a written explanation for each class and build considerations for taking advantage of new or changed rules.
Side note: how important is it to notify players how loose or tight you are running particular rules. Prestige is purposely not codified and I mentioned skills are sometimes played loose with 'rule of cool' application.
Do I divide the document by subsections and hand them out as they are relevant?
You might want to edit the document to separate the fluff from the crunch.
Also, you are allowing so many classes, that it may be shorter to just list what you aren't allowing.
I concur with Melkiador: you allow so many 20 level classes that the list would almost certainly be a lot shorter to have a list of proscribed 20 level classes and their publisher.
Suggest splitting into three separate items: world fluff, rules changes, character generation.
RE: player notification. Depends on the players. If your group is highly fluid, they'll need to know ASAP, especially on any mechanics that are not oft disputed.
RE: document subsections. Yes, do this.
I think JAMRenaissance made a good point here: One key is to keep it
manageable for a player. Most humans can only manage a few new things at a time - but a lot of them over time.
In regular game design, Sid Meier once made the following suggestions: Only add good content. Avoid mediocre one. Fight bad one. In case of houserules, the question would be 'Does this houserule improve the game?'. If you can't really say why it helps, it should be removed. If you can justify it with consistency, it might be ok - a game world should feel consistent to be fun, as discussed in another recent thread.
I only skimmed the houserules, but the race restrictions got my attention. For instance, as a player I'd dislike the absence of halflings - since I enjoy to play them. Question is: How does banning them improve fun? This is meant to be just a question, no negative emotions included.
I use a few houserules myself, but appearantly my players only liked the ones where I spontaneously simplified in their favor, e.g. no negative levels after a raise dead. Players don't want good game design directly, they want fun.
Finally, probably the players can give some helpful feedback. Ask them about their honest opinion, preferably via e-mail and in a private conversation (so both sides feel less need to justify or get hurt). I guess they will surprise you - take everything as opportunity to improve your game, not as personal offense...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just skimmed the whole document and it really wasn't that bad once I read through it.
Most of the house rules were simply clarifications on what materials are accessible and on building characters. I like that you included setting information and your own incarnation of traits to hook your players into the game. That's all good stuff.
The bad stuff is where you go messing with the mechanics of the game, and some options are much stronger than you realize. Letting a player give up 2 bonus hit points in exchange for exotic weapon proficiency is really strong, especially because it doesn't waste a feat. In fact, most of your favored class stuff is pretty over the top seemingly for no reason, I'd personally nix all of that.
The skill system is also kinda wack. Wizards get completely screwed out of skill points, and other classes get buffed. I think the consolidated list is alright (I use one myself) but divorcing INT from gaining skills changes one of the core mechanics of the game which will have serious repercussions on the players who don't bring up the differences to accommodate. Giving wizards and magi more skills per level is all but necessary since they receive 2+ because they have INT as a primary stat by design. Messing with game design is usually bad.
I am unfamiliar with Ultimate Charisma so I am not really sure what to say about Prestige and Psych DC.
Spellcasting is a mess. I would either stick to Words/Spheres or stick to regular spellcasting, not try and amalgamate them into one supersystem. Too complicated and spellcasting already requires a lot of lookup to make work in the first place, this will slow the game to a complete stop and make the game 100% not fun for anyone at the table, including you.
|
I've got to agree with Marshmallow, the Favored Class bonuses and changes to Game Mechanics can be overwhelmingly powerful. In 30+ years of running games, I've always found that it's best to err on the side of lower power and give it out sparingly if you need to. PC's are far more powerful and creative than most encounters of their challenge level can handle. My 'house rules' for my own games are pretty relaxed in my opinion, but they are:
House Rules
• 20 point character build.
• Only one stat may be reduced for points
• No stat may begin below 8 after racial modifiers
• Free Campaign Trait from appropriate AP Player’s guide.
• Unchained versions of Barbarian, Rogue, Monk and Summoner are used.
• No other options from Unchained are in use.
• No 3rd party sources.
• No custom spells, magic items, etc.… All spells/items must be from published sourcebooks.
• No non-regional/racial choices (class, feat, spell, items, etc.…) unless encountered in game. (I.e. no Keleshite Sorcerer in Katapesh with the Snowball spell and a Katana, no Tien Magus with Varisian tattoos and the thunder and fang feat, etc.…)
• Loot is calculated by re-sale value of all items, then sold and divided into equal “shares”. A character may claim a found item by deducting its re-sale value from their share and paying the difference if the share is too small. Items that are unsellable (artifacts) or otherwise part of the storyline are not included in this calculation. The party may also choose to retain any item as “group property” if all members are willing to give up their share of its value.
• One rare race and one rare class per party each campaign. Players choose distribution.
• Race and Class rarity will be determined for each campaign based upon the AP’s theme and location.
As an example, our next campaign is "Council of Thieves, set in Westcrown, Cheliax, so the rarity chart is:
Races
Common (+1 build point)
Human (Chelaxian)
Halfling
Uncommon
Dwarf
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Human (Taldan)
Tiefling (Infernal)*
Rare (Limit 1 in party)
Elf
Gnome
Human (Azlanti Heritage)
Human (Other Heritage)
Tiefling (other, no Abyssal)
Disallowed
All other races
*Tieflings must take “Infernal Bastard” campaign trait
Classes
Common (+1 Trait)
Bard
Cleric (Asmodeus)
Fighter
Rogue (spies / scouts themed)
Uncommon
Alchemist
Cleric (Abadar, Erastil, Iomedae, Shelyn)
Druid
Inquisitor
Monk
Ranger (Urban / Underground are best terrains)
Rogue (Thief themed)
Sorcerer (Infernal)
Summoner
Witch
Wizard
Rare (Limit 1 in party)
Arcanist
Barbarian
Bloodrager (Infernal)
Brawler
Cavalier (not useful in campaign)
Cleric (other deities)
Hunter
Investigator
Magus
Oracle
Paladin
Slayer
Spiritualist
Swashbuckler
Warpriest
Disallowed
Gunslinger
Kineticist
Medium
Mesmerist
Ninja
Occultist
Psychic
Samurai
Shaman
Skald
Characters MUST be concerned citizens of Westcrown who seek to return the city to a place of safety, justice, and honor after a century of strife and oppression. Specifics behind your motivation are up to you, but a character who does not have this drive won’t belong in the campaign.
I think you're fine. Depends on the group. Mine are just as long with numerous custom systems as well and if you find the right players that are into that? No issues at all. The thing I did do for mine is try break them into manage-able chunks. One document for classes, one for spellcasting (also use spherecasting), one for custom races, etc. Might help a little, though I personally would have no issues with what you have here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@master_marshmallow;
The weapon/shield proficiency favored class bonuses were motivated by the rarity of seeing weapon proficiency feats being used combined with the amount of new weapons that exist in third party material and the found treasure nature of the campaign. If I see compelling argument that it is too powerful I will remove them since its a new thing I haven't really playtested.
The HP one was has a bit more complicated reasoning. I wanted to keep the +1 skill rank but it is now worth double to quadrupal it's original worth due to skill consolidation. Took some soul searching and figured that I'd be willing to handle it if players have the option of being super durable compared to monsters since some of the third party material increases the rocket tag factor when it comes to high level martials. Plus with the exploration nature of the campaign long adventuring days would be the norm meaning that I needed to supply more means of HP regeneration or have an opt in means of having more HP. If I see compelling argument that it is too powerful I will remove them since its a new thing I haven't really playtested.
I've argued up and down the forums about it since Unchained came out and playtested it out in one shots and I'm thoroughly convinced that removing Int from skills per level is better for everything. The classes that its relevant to generally have the kind of magic that render skills irrelevant so don't need it. Even making consideration for Spheres of Power conversion they get enough talents to get the basic ability of each sphere through shear talent accumulation. Doing the math for a lvl 20 wizard with 24 INT, they would get only 1-3 more effective skills maxed out than simply using 2 skills per level with the consolidated list. The difference is drastically reduced if the wizard is a human or using the favored class bonus. Int based casters are way less screwed over than it seems. INT commands 3/7's of the consolidated list, one of them being a multi-skill taking up more of the list representing 20 effective skills within the 6 Int-based skills which include the reintroduction of crafting. Int remains powerful meanwhile other classes are not penalized for not needing Int for class features. A typical fighter can max out 5 effective skills and actually be useful, or to a more atypical route and have up to 8 effective skills maxed. A Rogue will actually have a huge amount of effective skills making capable of actually defending his title as 'the skill man'. Magus loses out the most. He can gain the same number of effective skills but his low sphere/talent accumulation makes for fewer advantages than a Witch or Wizard unless he opts out of spherecasting conversion.
If you ignore Ultimate Charisma options, Prestige is basically Reputation(Ultimate Campaign) and Leadership put together. Normally it stays where it is unless you save the town or something. the psych dc effectively already exists but isn't tracked as a unified number. I would recommend it. It makes some things much faster.
Things that did not make the house rule document that I typically use;
Alchemical crafting is more relevant. I like to introduce specific plants from a third party material that can be used to make various potions and poisons accessed by NPC knowledge, books, and quests. Effects range from healing to temporary stat bonuses. Not relevant unless the players start getting into alchemical crafting.
Food and drink crafting is more relevant. Options for gaining benefits for cooking and eating magical meat is included along with wondrous food and drink along with mundane food and drinks that give effects, like coffee. Not relevant until players start interacting with food a lot.
Alcohol works differently based on Red Dragon Inn's Guide to Inns and Taverns for pathfinder. This includes wondrous alcohol. Not relevant until players start drinking a lot.
Relationships from Ultimate Campaign are used. Not relevant unless you want to start personal relationships with NPCs but it makes cohort acquisition easier and can lead to benefits like discounts and political favors.
|
|
Finally, probably the players can give some helpful feedback. Ask them about their honest opinion, preferably via e-mail and in a private conversation (so both sides feel less need to justify or get hurt). I guess they will surprise you - take everything as opportunity to improve your game, not as personal offense...
I'm still a little miffed over this one with my own players, I published pretty basic character creation guide lines about 3 months before we started the campaign.
Stuff like # of points for point buy, how we would do HP, allowed races, allowed material.
In the intervening time I asked quite openly for feedback on numerous occasions, the days before the game was scheduled to start I started getting characters in, not to explicitly audit, but because folks were posting them, and it was evident that the guide lines hadn't been read by many of the players, when I called them on it, they suddenly found and disagreed with the guidelines. I capitulated, but it was annoying to delay the discussion until it was at the last minute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have to ask...
well hey im glad fighter nuances made the cut at least.
The answer to the original question = yes
@master_marshmallow;
The weapon/shield proficiency favored class bonuses were motivated by the rarity of seeing weapon proficiency feats being used combined with the amount of new weapons that exist in third party material and the found treasure nature of the campaign. If I see compelling argument that it is too powerful I will remove them since its a new thing I haven't really playtested.
The HP one was has a bit more complicated reasoning. I wanted to keep the +1 skill rank but it is now worth double to quadrupal it's original worth due to skill consolidation. Took some soul searching and figured that I'd be willing to handle it if players have the option of being super durable compared to monsters since some of the third party material increases the rocket tag factor when it comes to high level martials. Plus with the exploration nature of the campaign long adventuring days would be the norm meaning that I needed to supply more means of HP regeneration or have an opt in means of having more HP. If I see compelling argument that it is too powerful I will remove them since its a new thing I haven't really playtested.
I've argued up and down the forums about it since Unchained came out and playtested it out in one shots and I'm thoroughly convinced that removing Int from skills per level is better for everything. The classes that its relevant to generally have the kind of magic that render skills irrelevant so don't need it. Even making consideration for Spheres of Power conversion they get enough talents to get the basic ability of each sphere through shear talent accumulation. Doing the math for a lvl 20 wizard with 24 INT, they would get only 1-3 more effective skills maxed out than simply using 2 skills per level with the consolidated list. The difference is drastically reduced if the wizard is a human or using the favored class bonus. Int based casters are way less screwed over than it seems. INT commands 3/7's of the consolidated list, one of them being a multi-skill taking up more of the list...
If you're convinced then I guess there really isn't a point in asking our opinions about it.
The consolidated skills in the Unchained release also change how many skills characters get per level, including an adjustment for INT.
Personally, I have a larger list, and adjust how many skills each class gets per level, still including INT as normal.
Alertness (WIS) = Perception, Sense Motive, Tracking and other non wilderness based Survival checks
Anthropology (INT) = Knowledge (Local, nobility, history, geography in regards to nations)
Arcana (INT) = Knowledge (Arcana, some Planes)
Artistry (INT, background skills taken individually) = Craft, Appraise, Artistry
Athletics (STR, ACP) = Jump, Climb, Swim
Deception (CHA) = Bluff, Disguise
Finesse (DEX, ACP) = Sleight of Hand, Escape Artist, Stealth
Linguistics (INT) = Language learning, Linguistics
Lore (INT, background taken individually) = Lore as the same skill, but allowed to be broader
Mechanics (INT) = Knowledge (Engineering, Dungeoneering in buildings, Arcana related to identifying mechanical like enemies such as constructs), Disable Device, Ride with regards to vehicles
Medicine (INT) = Heal, Survival/Nature in regards to finding herbs and plants for the sake of Alchemists, Craft (Alchemy)
Nature (INT) = Knowledge (Nature, geography in regards to climate/flora/fauna/land formation, Dungeoneering in regards to cave diving and underground exploration), Survival in regards to checks in the wilderness
Persuasion (CHA) = Intimidate, Diplomacy
Profession (CHA, background, taken individually) = Profession, considering changing it back to WIS
Spellcraft (INT) = Spellcraft, Use Magic Device
Tame (CHA) = Handle Animal, Ride in regards to animals
Theology (INT) = Knowledge (Religion, Planes)
Classes with 2+INT skills and 4+INT skills are unchanged, classes with 6+INT become 4+INT and classes with 8+INT become 6+INT.
Every class gets one extra background skill rank every level.
There are other skills I have considered incorporating, given different materials. Something akin to your Psionics skill, as well as a Warfare/Warcraft/Tactics skill, and a Spirituality/Prayer like skill.
I removed Performance as a skill because there was really no point in it existing exclusively for bards and/or someone dumping 2 ranks into dance for Dervish Dance, so I got rid of that. Instead bards can just make performance checks like spellcasters make concentration checks, and versatile performance let's them pick a single skill every few levels to include as skills they can sub out for their performance ability. Originally I had Profession switched to performance, and combined into one skill, but I don't necessarily like that either.
|
If you have to ask...
This. I look at the KISS rule...keep it simple stupid. 13 pages is just too much. I would never play in a game where someone is that controlling. If you are rewriting tons of rules then you really should look into other systems or figure out how to let go of some of the control issues that are going on. Or write your own game system...I know some people who did that.
The point of using a open and published game system is ease of use and joint familiarity with the rules for the players. Change a bunch of the rules hinders the purpose of using a published system. If I have to balance my life, kids, work, extracurriculars and whatnot, and some goof hands me 13 pages of houserules for a game that I am trying to fit in for fun then the game is now more work then it may be worth to me. Life is busy for some people, this hobby is an escape...don't make it into work.
If you're convinced then I guess there really isn't a point in asking our opinions about it.
Sorry. Its just that how the consolidated skills function is one of the things I've gone over a lot already. Even to the point where if I were on board for a Pathfinder 2.0 I'd argue long and hard for Int to skills in the first place. At first I was against 5th edition doing it but really the concept generates so many more problems than it solves that it became one of the things I actually liked about 5th edition and part of my reasoning that Wizards are okay with 2 ranks per level was that in 5th edition that's what they get and they're basically fine.
The other stuff is drastically more negotiable.
@JAMRenaissance; I'm thinking of making a two page shortlist of the most relevant rules and have the real document on hand as a reference.
@Galnorag; I sometimes have the problem of people not reading stuff too. Even easily agreeable stuff like 'TWF is one feat now'. Weirdly its not the new players that ignore new options but the more experienced players. They seem to have a character and build in mind a week before I even talk to them and then pitch a fit when I say that Tengu don't exist in the setting. Meanwhile new players are like "OMG! I can be a psionic squid-man with bat wings?!?! I'm taking ALL the third party options!".
@Christos Gurd; Between Bravery Feats, Fighter Nuances and Book of Martial Action, Fighters are sick. I actually had to nerf fighters in my scifi campaign because they quickly become capable of killing anything within a round when they have access to futuristic options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would never play in a game where someone is that controlling.
To be fair, Paizo is way more controlling since they set up way more rules - Core Rulebook alone is close to 600 pages. It's just that most players are much less willing to dive into GM's or 3pp rules than the 'official' ones. As a player I am no exception. And I think it's about what we think we can find in the respective documents:
Paizo content presents interesting options for my character, so I am motivated to read. Additionally I can focus on the sections I like and can skip the rest.
GM content presents restrictions - which is usually neutral or annoying for players. It also presents modifications I have to understand - and probably I am not convinced they were necessary at all. Finally it may have some additional options, which is likely the most enjoyable part, even though the GM probably has different preferences than me. Finally, it feels like you have to read and understand the entire GM content - sounds like work.
3pp content presents new options also. That's good technically, but it has to compete with Paizo's options, is prejudiced as sometimes imbalanced, probably costs additional money and likely can't be used in other campaigns. Finally, the Paizo content is already overwhelming, so a player is tempted to stay away from even more material.
Thank you for the reorganization. My liber office copy is considerably less terrible than my google doc copy. pasting it didn't work that well and the pictures got so messed up that I had to scrap them for that version entirely. However your copy would be useful for online specific players but is page intensive to print out a copy for everyone.As you are using Libreoffice, I would recommend Exporting you doc as a PDF, and share this PDF to your online players.
If you upload the PDF on GDrive, you can update it with a new version of the PDF whenever you want.
I would suggest just writing the file in the Google Drive in the first place (assuming DSL/cable connection without data limit). You can edit it there without problem. Not as many fancy edit options as in Libre Office but it still should be enough for a document of that type.
With the list of classes may I suggest adding the sources for them? Maybe instead of space-taking list you could make it something like that:
Core Rules: All classes.
Advanced Player's Guide: All classes.
Liber Influxis Communis: All classes (or list of classes actually allowed, or "all clasess except <list of excluded classes> if that would be quicker).
It might sound exaggerated, but clean presentation of the house-rules is very underestimated matter. It can easily create a negative impression, and the first impression is important when trying to "sell" the campaign to the new players and maintain interest in the campaign in the established players alike.
|
|
I would never play in a game where someone is that controlling.To be fair, Paizo is way more controlling since they set up way more rules - Core Rulebook alone is close to 600 pages. It's just that most players are much less willing to dive into GM's or 3pp rules than the 'official' ones. As a player I am no exception. And I think it's about what we think we can find in the respective documents:
Are you really comparing a game company putting out a rulebook with a team of professionals working on it to a single, non-professional deciding that their idea of how rules work is right?
I would never play in a game where someone is that controlling.To be fair, Paizo is way more controlling since they set up way more rules - Core Rulebook alone is close to 600 pages. It's just that most players are much less willing to dive into GM's or 3pp rules than the 'official' ones. As a player I am no exception. And I think it's about what we think we can find in the respective documents:
Are you really comparing a game company putting out a rulebook with a team of professionals working on it to a single, non-professional deciding that their idea of how rules work is right?
13 pages is a bit long, but cone on- who doesn't have house rules?
Are you really comparing a game company putting out a rulebook with a team of professionals working on it to a single, non-professional deciding that their idea of how rules work is right?
At one stage my games houserules list was 15 pages long, my players were fine with the whole thing and it caused only a few hiccups in the first two sessions. Sometimes, the rules made by a team of professionals has issues. Sometimes they have A lot of issues. 3.x is one of those games. Having those houserules did not make me a controlling GM, I asked my players if they agreed with each ruling and changed or reverted rules that were disagreed upon. It was simply an easy way of tweaking and fixing the issues present in a game so the group can optimize our enjoyment.
I do not have pathfinder unchained.
I tried to get the test version of it and could not.
What I understand of it seems ok.
Maybe my group is just weird, but my collection of house rules and homebrew material is practically the size of a Pathfinder Chronicle and I've yet to hear one complaint. You're fine, Malwing.
At one stage my games houserules list was 15 pages long, my players were fine with the whole thing and it caused only a few hiccups in the first two sessions. Sometimes, the rules made by a team of professionals has issues. Sometimes they have A lot of issues. 3.x is one of those games. Having those houserules did not make me a controlling GM, I asked my players if they agreed with each ruling and changed or reverted rules that were disagreed upon. It was simply an easy way of tweaking and fixing the issues present in a game so the group can optimize our enjoyment.
Are you really comparing a game company putting out a rulebook with a team of professionals working on it to a single, non-professional deciding that their idea of how rules work is right?
I think this line of argument is moot anyway. We literally have two entire books of alternate rules systems for this game and numerous statements on how the spirit of the second book of alternate rules is specifically to do what you want with the game which is why it has both a skill system that makes more skills and one that reduces the number of skills. Some devs outright say that some rules they mod or don't follow themselves and hardly expect anyone else to actually follow them by the time their deep in the game. Right now the team of professionals explicitly say "do what you want to make your game fun. Here we'll even hand you tools to do this. Heck, sometimes we'll go out of the company to give you more drastic tools to do this.".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people are just seeing numbers, or even just reading what others have said, and coming up with their response.
If you actually read what Malwing has, it's not a giant list of houserules. It's not 13 pages of "new rules overlaying Pathfinder".
Perhaps he should have said "Is my Player's Guide to my campaign too much?"
I'm going to look at this like it's an actual Player's Guide, rather than a list of house rules.
.
Here's a breakdown of the 13 pages:
- 3 pages of Campaign Setting Fluff (if you count the race page, since it's nearly entirely "racial fluff here" notes).
- 1 page on "Generally what's allowed" rules (third party content).
- 1 page on character creation (including background specifics).
- 2 pages listing available classes (which didn't have to be that long, it's just more legible and inclusive this way, easy on someone walking into the game).
- 1 page on equipment rules
- 1.5 pages on skills and feats (half a page being the skill list chart)
- 1 page on character advancement (some new stuff, but some "how to combine spheres of powers with the rest" stuff)
- 1 page on misc rules
- 1 page on class specific rules
Maybe 6 total pages of actual rules, even if you include the charts.
~
Conversely, Kingmaker's Player Guide has:
- 6 pages for fluff, including specifics for races and classes. This, for an adventure being tacked onto an already existing world and system, and not really changing any of it.
- 3 pages of campaign specific rules for a single minor add-on (traits).
- 4 pages of visuals needed to run the new "hex map + city building" rules introduced in this campaign.
.
Both have 13 pages of content, lots of fluff, some new rules, bunch of padding with charts and such.
Yeah, Malwing has actual tweaks to the game, however just like the Kingmaker player guide, you will only need to read a few pages that deals specifically with the game world, then target a couple pages that actually deal with the character you are building.
Considering what Malwing has here (an actual Players Guide to his game world he's running), it doesn't look like too much.
Mostly, it's greasing the rules so that several different game options choices (spheres of power, unchained & several 3pp content) can work alongside each other.
The amount of "new rules" is *not* overwhelming or "making his own system".
And he's being far more inclusive then I've been with Pathfinder games (I don't own a bunch of those books, so the classes and game options likely wouldn't even be allowed).
In fact, going into a new game world blindly, I'd expect at least something *near* this level of information to be able to have my background down right for a character I'm building.
As for a breakdown of the actual house rules you've done, I'll go through each section with my thoughts and reactions.
(I'll only comment on stuff I am familiar with.)
Skills & Feats
- Consolidated Skills: I can see this working fine. It's a change meant to make characters more generally skilled at such things. It does mean skill resolution will be a little less complex, and thus a little less in the forefront of the gameplay.
- Skills per level & Skill List: Something to keep in mind for removing Int from ranks is that it lowers the value of Int to non-spellcasting/knowledge classes. What I mean is, being a "smart" fighter has less value.
Perhaps having Int be a factor in how many class skills you have would be a nice way to bring it back? That way a person can be a bit more diverse in their skill ranks (personally I create characters that way), instead of being locked into the couple choices they have.
- Skill Functions and DCs: This is an unfortunate by-product of changing the skill system: rules on the fly. This can be a turn off for some people, and it seems you are trying to allow it just in the case of inclusiveness. At least people are warned in advance with your document.
An example of how it can go bad: some players may try to use this system to get "cool stuff" all the time. As a GM, you are now faced with possibly other players getting upset that this one guy gets all kinds of fancy skill actions because "he can play the GM", or you deny it and you've got a frustrated player who may or may not understand that he's going overboard and feels like he's being stymied after being told "rule of cool is ok".
- Languages: I see it's added later in favored class, but that can be kind of limiting on the character who's already missing Int bonus to ranks.
Perhaps adding a feat that grants a set of Languages (like a Polyglot feat or something). For that matter, maybe a feat that grants extra skills/class skills, with a requirement of 13 Int, would be another good one. Gives more ways to build your skilled character.
- Athletics: I'm not sure what limits you are speaking of here. Do you mean that height isn't a DC of 4 times the distance anymore? Or do you mean that you can jump further than your movement per round, by virtue of your jump skill (kind of like a burst of speed)?
- Free Feats: This just makes sense, and it's been a major change to general combat that I've been thinking of doing for a long time now.
.
Character Advancement
- Favored Class Bonus: I really like what you did here. I've been looking at more complex ways to add in proficiencies, and here you've snuck in a simple way for a specific character to pick up just what he wanted, and it makes sense thematically (maybe he found a new weapon, spent a level training, and can use it properly now).
- 4-level Spell Progression: This looks good. I don't see a big issue with giving them magic access sooner (especially limited to higher stat bonus spell access). In my own games, I've come up with a spontaneous caster progression that is closer to prepared caster progression instead, when I found my Oracle player always a level behind the expected capabilities of spellcasting in a published adventure (curing specific things for example).
.
Equipment
- Weapon Sizes: This brings back the 3.0 feel, and I don't have a problem with it inherently. The cumulative -4 penalty means most people won't go all "final fantasy anime" swords on you (or try to set up vital strikes with 24d6 damage hits).
- Item Available & Inherent/Enhancement Bonus: I'm assuming that the Automatic Bonus Progression covers the loss of those, in which case this section is basically just a given.
Also, the "no magic shoppe, except consuables" idea fits well within this, since the key factors are being covered by the automatic progression.
Magic items will feel a bit more... "magical" (special? unique? je ne sais quoi?).
- Hand Word Weapons & Firearms: Two rules that I absolutely approve, and I can tell you that in my limited experience with non-touch, non-misfire, Dex-to-damage firearms it worked out fine.
.
Misc House Rules
- Combat Maneuvers: I'm interested to see how this plays out, especially if a character tries to push this to it's limits. Then again, it's really only a boost of martial characters for the most part, so by the time the bonuses can affect creatures of those sizes, it's probably at a level that's narratively fine (6+).
- Retraining: Neat! I like it.
- Ressurection: Not familiar with the template, but it's very interesting and gives a bit of a "hard core mode" feel to the game. In my experience, most of the campaign won't involve a lot of ressurections until higher level (when it's likely they can pull it off within 24 hours anyways).
That 24 hours thing, is it affected by Gentle Repose spells and effects (like the item that does it)? Say, if they cast the spell on the corpse immediately after combat, then take it back to town and have the person raised within the time limit of the spell... is that still "within 24 hours" due to the "time within the spell doesn't count against normal time"? Or is it less a factor of "intact corpse" and more a factor of "time the soul has spent away from the body"? Should Gentle Repose *also* affect the soul, tethering it to the now-dead body? Things to think about.
- Alignment: Simple social contract info that I tell my group before starting a game too. "Please work together, and you can't all be brooding anti-heroes."
.
The rest are all specifics to game systems that I haven't really gone over too much, or just rules that need to be in place based on how something is being run (Gunslingers with Dex to Damage built into firearms).
Looks pretty good overall. I'd still push for the idea of adding a feat or two to add some additional skill options (languages and class skills & ranks).
- Skills per level & Skill List: Something to keep in mind for removing Int from ranks is that it lowers the value of Int to non-spellcasting/knowledge classes. What I mean is, being a "smart" fighter has less value.
Perhaps having Int be a factor in how many class skills you have would be a nice way to bring it back? That way a person can be a bit more diverse in their skill ranks (personally I create characters that way), instead of being locked into the couple choices they have.
I thought of that. The rogue kind of turned me off from the idea, I needed to be careful that they don't get ALL the class skills, but now I'm just unsure how to value class skills in this lineup. I have a +3 class skill feat in a separate document but in regard to allowing INT to improve the number of class skills, I'm going to look at some numbers on that one. But INT is still pretty useful. It still contributes to your starting languages, and is responsible for the sheer amount of skills its responsible for. Plus, one thing I didn't discuss because it's not relevant until you do it, I put in a lot of third party feats, even combat feats that I don't share for being broken as training manuals. Meaning a smart fighter (besides the INT-based class features from Fighter Nuances) would get better access to training techniques overpowered feats, as opposed to a charismatic fighter who gets better access to fame, cohorts and psychological combat, and a wise fighter who gets to have a good will save. (I'm working on Wis)
- Athletics: I'm not sure what limits you are speaking of here. Do you mean that height isn't a DC of 4 times the distance anymore? Or do you mean that you can jump further than your movement per round, by virtue of your jump skill (kind of like a burst of speed)?
Just jumping distance. Basically you can jump as far as your DC allows or less without your movement speed being the upper limit. Its a rule that I didn't notice for over a year of playing and the skill has only gotten worse when I do remember it.
Weapon Sizes: This brings back the 3.0 feel, and I don't have a problem with it inherently. The cumulative -4 penalty means most people won't go all "final fantasy anime" swords on you (or try to set up vital strikes with 24d6 damage hits).
That already happens with the limiter in place. One third party product lets you count as a size category larger for weapons within two feats. I've seen vital strikes go for 12d6. Its been fun.
Combat Maneuvers: I'm interested to see how this plays out, especially if a character tries to push this to it's limits. Then again, it's really only a boost of martial characters for the most part, so by the time the bonuses can affect creatures of those sizes, it's probably at a level that's narratively fine (6+).
I don't know. No one tried to test it out. I just know that at higher levels CMDs can get ridiculous and CMB hard to boost so I figure that if you get your CMB high enough, you deserve to trip whatever has legs. Just imagine a guy with a theoretical 100 CMB in grappling. Imagine what his hands look like. And he still can't choke hold a Tarrasque. He's stronger than any human being possible for that 100 CMB, I think he deserves to choke hold that Tarrasque.
Ressurection: Not familiar with the template, but it's very interesting and gives a bit of a "hard core mode" feel to the game. In my experience, most of the campaign won't involve a lot of ressurections until higher level (when it's likely they can pull it off within 24 hours anyways).
That 24 hours thing, is it affected by Gentle Repose spells and effects (like the item that does it)? Say, if they cast the spell on the corpse immediately after combat, then take it back to town and have the person raised within the time limit of the spell... is that still "within 24 hours" due to the "time within the spell doesn't count against normal time"? Or is it less a factor of "intact corpse" and more a factor of "time the soul has spent away from the body"? Should Gentle Repose *also* affect the soul, tethering it to the now-dead body? Things to think about.
I wanted to add a hard limit to resurrections but not invalidate Resurrection spells. The template basically makes you superficially undead and gives you access to a bunch of ghost-like feats and some other abilities.
Gentle Repose does affect this time limit although has chances to fail in the cases of Player Characters since in situations like that I'm likely to have a psychopomp harass the PC just so that they have something to do while dead. Otherwise they'd just be on the etherial plane unable to do much for their team mates.
Superfically undead. Sounds like my pre petitioners. They spend their time in the land of the dead learning from other creatures and hoping for being raised. Goth’s Freakshow..
Fighting incorporeal undead is a good way to gain experience as a pre petitioner. I will add that to my thing. Thanks.
I think the problems is that Pathfinder has been around long enough that it's gotten its gotten too much "splat" (extended options). I mean your list of available classes is 70 (as opposed to the original 11), though you do have thaumaturge on there twice...
And that works against you in multiple ways:
1) Just listing what is or isn't available
2) Any minor changes that you want to make to new things you want to include
3) There are so many options already available, people just want to make stuff off of what they already know and don't want to have to cipher through another document just to fact check.
Most players will just build what they want to play and toss it against the GM to see if it will work. They'll try to fit it into the setting later.
That's why it's best to come up with 1 or 2 sentences to describe the setting (anymore than that will actually drive off most players from bothering to read it)
Also seriously consider subdocuments; especially for the exceptions (like modifications to spell lists of fullbab partial casters).
Are you really comparing a game company putting out a rulebook with a team of professionals working on it to a single, non-professional deciding that their idea of how rules work is right?
I do. The professionals may have more experience, but Malwing is the one familiar with the setting. Even Paizo states that finally the GM is the arbiter of rules - and I think it's not primarily because of niceness or giving back control, but really because the GM knows the setting and the players.
Reading through the document, I have some remarks:
* The favored class bonuses are actually a simplification. They look huge first, but he decided against race specific bonuses which results in an implosion of options - so a player can rather pick the race he likes. Though I feel they are quite focused on martial combat and there are some imbalances (e.g. 1 rank in Linguistics already adds 1 language, and helps with checks).
* Personally, I like the availability of additional multiclassing options.
* Also I like the upgrade of 4th level casters.
* 'All monks gain proficiency in the monk weapon group.' caught my attention - doesn't this weaken the focus of some archetypes? I mean, e.g. if you play a Monk of the Empty Hand, you are supposed to move out of the usual comfort zone and actually play something different.
* Core rogue is banned. I think he has no advantage over the Unchained one - given that all tricks are available to any version here. But, why restrict players here, perhaps they don't want to be pushed into the Dex corner etc..
* I'd like the Int bonus (and penalty!) to skill ranks to stay. Fighters etc. should have the chance to get 4 or 5 ranks per level, and dumping Int shouldn't be a no-brainer. You may not like 'MAD' fighters, but some players don't mind spending some stat points on secondary scores.
* I guess the removal of several skill feats is due to the changed skill system. Took me a few moments to understand this, first I was confused about a few harmless feats being removed. Perhaps state the motivation there?
* With free Power Attack and Piranha Strike you favor certain combat styles. Shield users and one-hand warriors gain less than the others, despite being not the greatest choices anyway. And two-weapon fighters gain practically nothing, if they can't afford the reduced attack bonus.
* Personally, I am not a big fan of Leadership. It reduces relying and interacting with party members.
* A Medium sized Titan Mauler can use a weapon four times his length without penalty, at level 12. Hmm. Or an eight times one (Colossal) with a -4 penalty.
To be continued (if interest exists).
I went ahead and copy-pasted my house rules to a new document removing the tables, clarifications on what third party material is being used, Clarification on what paizo alternate rules are being used and how they apply, and spheres of power traditions and conversions. The only thing that remains are things that I actually change from how they are written in their respective sources.
The document is about 2 and a half pages long.
@Goth Guru; From it's book, Restless Souls are are people brought back from the dead with a scar from the cause of their death and no memory of the actual event. They can self-rez by Deity-fiat. Animals freak out around them, they cant cross running water by themselves, recoil from their deity's holy symbol and smokesticks, and cant disguise their undeath. They can replace any feats with restless soul feats which include getting bane damage against your murderer and his allies, DR, and telekinesis to regenermation, physing through walls and Ghost Rider's Penance Stare. You can also replace spells with Restless Soul spells.
Overall its been a cool way to handle Resurrection. I got the idea based on a description of how Endzeitgeist used the product.
* The favored class bonuses are actually a simplification. They look huge first, but he decided against race specific bonuses which results in an implosion of options - so a player can rather pick the race he likes. Though I feel they are quite focused on martial combat and there are some imbalances (e.g. 1 rank in Linguistics already adds 1 language, and helps with checks).
Saw this a couple times in this thread.
See that he's folded linguistics into Society, and 1 rank in Society does NOT give a language; you only gain languages via Favored Class bonus.