I have recently stumbled into a whole heaping ton more free time and I am looking to run another game starting Thursdays. Now all but one of my normal players are busy on Thursday so I am drumming up some locals from my nearest gaming store. Of the candidates they all said they would be fine with house rules so long as they could see them first. An easy feat for me as I tend to keep a list like the one below on my PC at all times.
However this will be my first time gaming with strangers in a while- so I am hoping to get some feedback before I give them this list; does my House Rule Bible come off as too much? Of the candidates, one I know played a little 3.5 a few years ago and is just getting free time to play again, and I have another who speaks for two others plus himself and according to him the three are newer to Pathfinder but use house rules in their games anyway.
Also of Note- I may also run with them the Revised Action Economy as I do like it better than the standard action economy, but one of my regulars insistence to run a Musket Master with it always throws me off.
Looks ok, but couple of points:
4.Trapfinding applies to ambushes and haunts? I'm guessing you are enabling the ability to disable the haunt, but how do you disable an ambush?
5.Feat automatic scaling. Not all feats are created equal, I would be leery of ALL those types of feats automatically gaining greater versions. I mean, maneuver feats should scale, and two-w fighting too, but all style feats? Even Vital Strike seems too much for some builds (like conqueror ooze).
What are technique feats anyway?
6.Magic/psionic semi-transparency seems like a chore. Thematic yes, but ultimately a chore.
8."Pistols may be fired into melee as long as you are proficient in their use." not clear on this, is it don't provoke AoOs or don't suffer a -4 penalty for shooting into melee?
And because of the powering down of armor penetration of firearms, I would probably decrease the misfires too.
14. without knowing what injuries do, I can't comment on this, but it seems complicated, and I don't like death spiral rules in PF.
#4
Look up Danger Sense. The unchained barbarian and rogue have it.
#5
You should reconsider. Some of these feats are good enough to warrant not getting them for free.
#13
What is the intended purpose here?
Here's my review:
#2 - I disliked the idea of rounding up instead of down since it seems like the sort of thing which could screw players up a little for years to come when they try to play at other tables (while also not really making an important difference at yours)
#5 - I don’t think getting the Greater X feats for free is really needed, but I guess it wouldn’t hurt much. Making TWF+ITWGTWF a package deal makes more sense to me. Giving away the higher level style feats for free seems like a step too far.
#7 - Ok, that might be fun if you remember it when it comes up. All my groups use the crit and fumble decks because some of us like the random and sometimes stupid results (we also allow you to buy your way out of a fumble with a Hero Point if needed)
#8 - I’d probably make your penetration values a little higher there. Using the damage die size of the weapon might work well (1d8=8, 1d10=10). Even half of those values would make firearms a little more impressive than what you’re offering.
#9 - Ok, you obviously really like combat maneuvers
#10 - I use this variant rule and encourage my DMs to use it too
#11 - seems reasonable as a “DM’s Call” sort of option
#12 - I’d generally prefer that Combat Stamina is a feat and Fighters get it for free. I doubt your way would cause any big problems in general though.
#14 - I’m not familiar with the system you mentioned. My groups generally enjoy the Paizo Crit Deck with the variant rule that higher crit modifier weapons deal commensurately higher damage. In other words, if the card says “double damage” a x3 crit axe deals triple damage. If it says “triple damage” that’s quadruple. If it says “normal damage” that’s still double.
2: This is a really bad idea because it screws with the math of the game in a subtle way that can have a significant impact. The entire game assumes you round down, because it's a golden rule to the game. Plus, it'll confuse players.
3: None of this really sounds necessary to include.
4: So the rogue can use Disable Device on hazards, ambushes, and haunts?
6: I'm not a fan of this rule. One of the big reasons you would want a transparency rule is to keep things simple. This rule does the opposite and makes everything complicated for virtually no reason.
7: So the 4th Edition method of critical hits? The ones that made crits boring? Plus, this screws over weapons with high modifier. Also, why even confirm critical hits if they dont do more damage than a normal hit?
8: Maybe consider my firearm houserules? There's a link to it in my profile. Also, what does the last line mean? Does that mean you can get a free Precise Aim when using pistols?
10: Wait, so you're using a different skills system? Why hasn't this been mentioned anywhere? Why do you say you get extra background skills before you actually say you get background skills at all?
12: Not sure it's a good idea to give Stamina to all characters..
13: So critical hits are so overpowered that you have to nerf them, but you added skill criticals and skill fumbles, which could potentially unbalance the game even more?
14: What are you trying to accomplish with this rule? It's not a good rule because A) you don't actually explain what injuries do to the character, only that they get them. And B) the rule requires the players to always have a reference table on hand whenever they take damage. You might want to consider that one supplement that replaces critical hit damage with special effects (I forget its name).
7: So the 4th Edition method of critical hits? The ones that made crits boring? Plus, this screws over weapons with high modifier. Also, why even confirm critical hits if they dont do more damage than a normal hit?
13: So critical hits are so overpowered that you have to nerf them, but you added skill criticals and skill fumbles, which could potentially unbalance the game even more?
You're reading OPs crit rule as the 4e version, but it says nothing that I can find about changing the multipliers, just that when you confirm with a 20 you do max damage. Presumably that would be max damage on the 2x or 3x. So it's a boost.
You're reading OPs crit rule as the 4e version, but it says nothing that I can find about changing the multipliers, just that when you confirm with a 20 you do max damage. Presumably that would be max damage on the 2x or 3x. So it's a boost.
7: So the 4th Edition method of critical hits? The ones that made crits boring? Plus, this screws over weapons with high modifier. Also, why even confirm critical hits if they dont do more damage than a normal hit?
13: So critical hits are so overpowered that you have to nerf them, but you added skill criticals and skill fumbles, which could potentially unbalance the game even more?
Yep, this is how I read it as well - if you get a natural 20 on your confirmation roll, your crit damage is maximized. That actually makes high crit weapons bananas. Seems fine/fun.
Overall, looks good to me. They seem moderate and reasonable. Giving out the greater maneuver feats seems strong, which is silly for me to say when we use the World is Square feat tax variant and you can pick up a whole host of Improved Maneuver feats for the cost of a single feat. Yours is actually more conservative, so I really shouldn't judge.
And I wonder why anybody would ever invest in Lore.
If a character is limited in access to knowledge skills, the Lore skill can be used to gain some critter knowledge. And with background skill points, it makes it possible to invest in such a thing.