So far, it hasn't come up.
In general, I think they're conceptually fine but a lot of specific ones are a bit lackluster. They're thus less in need of House Rules and more in need of new and better Talisman options.
If you were to say a goal, was to encourage talismans that are dropped as treasure, get attached and used, why not make talismans, when used lose there magic, and are in theory burnt out husks, but are technically equivalent to raw material for making the talisman.
If the can find a buyer, they can then sell the used talisman for half price. Or if they know of a talisman crafter(or are one) they can pay half price to get it functional again.
This would encourage you to keep a talisman for a while if you recognize it might come in handy. Only really selling it when you need cash right away, or after you used it once and don’t see it being likely to come in handy again.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That idea is fine if you think all Talismans are legitimately bad. It's really exploitable if even one of them is good, though, and can easily result in significant spamming of that one good one, since you've just halved its price.
I don't have sufficient faith that none of them are worth more than half their list price, and especially not sufficient faith that some worth more than half their list price won't happen in the future, to institute that rule.
|
Added a Sprint Activity and a change in the Hustle rules to more accurately reflect real-world human running speeds (these rules plus a speed of 45, achievable on a 7th level Monk, hit around the human limits...and 7th level is where most of the rest of those get hit, too).
Animals are still inaccurate, but only because some should have a higher base speed, and that's not worth going through each entry and fixing.
In practice, this will rarely matter but it makes me happy.
I like the sprint rules in general, think being fatigued for an hour on a failure seems a bit much. Surely a ten minute recovery time should be enough to get rid of the fatigue, but it starts at a higher DC and I just realised i'm really just fiddling with numbers here, carry on.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the sprint rules in general, think being fatigued for an hour on a failure seems a bit much. Surely a ten minute recovery time should be enough to get rid of the fatigue, but it starts at a higher DC and I just realised i'm really just fiddling with numbers here, carry on.
I made it an hour to intentionally encourage people to not over use it (if the Fatigue was the same duration as the DC reset then there's less incentive not to push it). It's intended to be '100 yard dash' speed and using it to get too much more distance than that is intended to be discouraged.
And I made the starting DC so low so that everyone could use it even the 1st level Con 10 guy...but probably only once or twice, at least at low levels.
You can definitely change it, but I thought I could give some insight into why I did it the way I did. :)
Also, I slightly changed the wording so as to clarify that you are flat-footed while moving, which was always the intent, but I wanted to make sure the wording properly reflected that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone in another thread pointed out that Bon Mot made as much sense for Society as Diplomacy, and that Int could use another use in combat. I agree with that and it's now available to both Skills in my games.
I also fiddled a bit with Disturbing Knowledge, allowing it to be used as one action if you're only targeting a single person.
Someone in another thread pointed out that Bon Mot made as much sense for Society as Diplomacy, and that Int could use another use in combat. I agree with that and it's now available to both Skills in my games.
I also fiddled a bit with Disturbing Knowledge, allowing it to be used as one action if you're only targeting a single person.
Ok, here is an interesting question then. If you allow Bon Mot to be used with Society (which I'm not disagreeing with) but it brings up the question. If facing an intelligent animal (say a Worg/Warg) would you allow Nature to be used. If facing an aberration, would you allow Occultism to be used? If facing an angel/devil would you allow Religion to be used? With a Dragon, would you allow Arcana to be used.
Would you allow Society to be used again a dragon or aberration?It is an interesting idea, but the above it what came to mind when reading it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'd restrict it to Society (well, and Diplomacy). The logic is partially just mechanical (having it work with a limited number of Skills works fine, having it work with any Skill the player tries to justify is much more problematic), but there is also some theme-based logic to this idea.
Society is the Skill for understanding cultures. You use it to subsist in a city even if that city is the City of Brass and populated almost entirely by elementals, and it's the Skill tied to language acquisition even if that language is Aklo, Draconic, or Infernal and deeply tied to a creature identified by another Skill. In the same way, witty quips are fundamentally about social constructs rather than the inherent capabilities or biological realities revealed about a creature by Nature or Occultism.
That logic works for me, and supports the simplest mechanical implementation, so I'm going with it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Added a weapon rune to allow a weapon to apply its item bonus to the same stuff spell duelist's gloves apply to. This doesn't get you a free cantrip, and requires wielding the weapon, but it avoids having to double up on costs if you want to both cast attack roll spells and engage in physical combat.
Added changes to the Focus Spells for Diviners, Enchanters, and Necromancers. Also updated Enchanters to get to choose either Society or Diplomacy, as is appropriate with my Bon Mot House Rule.
Love this change, however I think such a rune should 100% take up a rune slot and actually have a cost and level thats more relevant than 50gp. I think in my own implementation I'll move it to the same level and cost as Shifting.
My reasoning is this frees up the gloves slot and can be incorporated into a stave which most casters wield.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's intended to be about equivalent to Doubling Rings, as it has a similar effect in many ways, and hence a comparable price point and opportunity cost. Note that I did make it require Investment unlike all existing weapon runes, and that it doesn't grant you a free cantrip.
The gloves 'slot' is also pretty underused, with Gloves of Healing and Gloves of Storing being almost literally the only items I can find for it, so I'm not sure having it available is that advantageous.
I may, upon consideration, nevertheless make the basic spell duelist's item a Ring rather than Gloves, not for any real mechanical reason, but because I like the aesthetics better. That makes it a little better, but only a little and I think I'm cool with it.
EDIT: And done, the Spell Duelist's Gloves are now the Spell Duelist's Ring. I also clarified that you don't have to keep track of whether a Ring with Produce Flame is Arcane or Primal, you can pick.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Changed the Proficiency progressions of Wtch, Wizard, and Sorcerer to gain them Resolve at a more reasonable level (and a few others slightly quicker).
Also changed Diviner from Perception increases to getting Prescient Planner for free, which seems appropriate. And added Transmuters gaining Toughness when their Fortitude Save Proficiency would normally increase. This means they effectively have two bonus General Feats from level 17 on, but their other benefit is weak so I'm comfy with that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Added a change to Canny Acumen to bring it in line with my increased Save stuff, and another to make it painless to retrain out of it under the right circumstances.
Also, due to this, changed the Transmuter's additional benefit. I'm still not very happy with that one, honestly.
Errata has dropped and they have gone a similar route with a couple of your alchemist rules :
- 3 items per reagent for certain signature items (so not the 4 for all items but a similar principle)
- powerful alchemy for free (albeit at level 5)
Unsure if the proposed version is still a bit limited but it makes sense to me that you are better with your research field . “Signature” items
I haven't yet looked at what you did there, but IMO, if having X level 9 Heal spells is ok at level 17, heightening them to 10 at level 19 is ok too.
For Wizards and their Arcane Bond, a whole extra Wish or Time Stop per day is a different thing, but heightening their extra spell to 10 instead of 9 won't break anything.
On the contrary, NOT doing that means that the class loses relative power. Think about summon spells: if you liked to use them, by level 19 they have become obsolete.
What actually is the errata change to level 10 spells. I am not sure I quite understand
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What actually is the errata change to level 10 spells. I am not sure I quite understand
Nothing that gives extra spell slots (like a Wizard's School Specialization or a Cleric's Divine Font) or lets you use spells without a spell slot (like Arcane Bond) applies to 10th level spells. You get one per day, two if you take the Class Feat to increase it, and that's it.
I think that's mostly okay, but anti-theme and a tad overly harsh for Wizards and maybe a bit too harsh mechanically for Clerics as applied to Divine Font, hence House Rules.
Probably, I will be interpreting that rule in a different way: you do get extra slots and such, but you can only use them for heightened spells (like Heal/Harm for Divine Font).
Anyway, level 19 is far, and I will have time to think more about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Added a couple of Wizard Feats, allowing them to dabble in other Spell lists much as Sorcerers do, but with a more Wizard-y bent and justification (only within their Arcane School, needing to know about the Tradition they dabble in).
Generalist probably needs some equivalent option, but I'm still thinking what it might be.
Question on the Bomber / alchemist changes:
At level 5 they now get an extra +1 item bonus and Expert proficiency.
Given moderate bombs already have a +1 item bonus won't this make them more accurate (by +1) than any non-fighter wielding a +1 weapon
Is this intentional and if so what is the rationale?
*
In addition can I get a reminder on getting a hero point when getting crit by or critically failing against a more powerful enemy? Is this supposed to symbolise being heroic in battling someone stronger?
*
Could you explain the spell enhancing weapon rune to me? It has gone over my head a little
You know what would be a really simple and effective buff to Mutagenists? Make it so they don't suffer drawbacks. Turn Perfect Mutagen into a first level class feature. Mutagens are awfully complicated and not having to constantly weigh drawbacks would do wonders to make a play style with them more approachable. There is a flavor loss, though. Mutagens having drawbacks is deeply ingrained into their concept. It doesn't seem overpowered to me, either, but I might be wrong.
I'd say that could work well with your house rules, but the +1 status bonus to AC with it would be too much. Your own alchemist fixes are a lot more up to date then my own, and have enough overlap to where I don't see much point in making my own set. I do think their sheer quantity feels like a bit much, but that's less of a balance concern and more of a complexity one. I'd love to play an alchemist with those rules, but it feels like a GM would be alarmed if they were proposed and a player might be overwhelmed.
Side note... anyone bothered by how every published alchemist NPC seems to have high accuracy while PC alchemists are experts only to hit?
|
|
Question on the Bomber / alchemist changes:
At level 5 they now get an extra +1 item bonus and Expert proficiency.
Given moderate bombs already have a +1 item bonus won't this make them more accurate (by +1) than any non-fighter wielding a +1 weaponIs this intentional and if so what is the rationale?
It's an unintended side effect, but not an unwelcome one, and the rationale is pretty simple:
-This is not actually an accuracy change for the bomber, because they already had access to Quicksilver Mutagen which grants the same bonus to attacks. It's a removal of the necessity of Mutagens on a non-Mutagenist, and an HP buff since they don't suffer the HP loss of that Mutagen.
-The increased Proficiency is only relevant for two levels here, and I don't think Alchemists should get left behind in that regard. I mean, even with the official rules a Quicksilver Mutagen gets them to exactly this advantage over, say, a Barbarian at 7th to 9th level. Making that 5th to 9th doesn't really bother me. It does make it kick in before the martials get Weapon Specialization, but I still think it's probably fine, and adjusting it would have bad knock-on effects to non-bombers.
In addition can I get a reminder on getting a hero point when getting crit by or critically failing against a more powerful enemy? Is this supposed to symbolise being heroic in battling someone stronger?
It's more of a meta thing. A set of bad die rolls where you get crit repeatedly really sucks, and even a single crit can be quite unpleasant. This way you get some compensation for your pain and suffering. It also provides a concrete, in game, way in which anyone can gain Hero Points without debate or the GM needing to actively award them (important, since I tend to forget Hero Points exist about half the time).
Could you explain the spell enhancing weapon rune to me? It has gone over my head a little
It lets you add your Item bonus to attack from the weapon on spell attacks, and the attacks of your summoned creatures, but only while holding the weapon. It doesn't take a Rune Slot (in fact, after the Staff errata, I just went back and made it a fundamental Rune). You have to Invest it to use it.
That's really the whole thing.
You know what would be a really simple and effective buff to Mutagenists? Make it so they don't suffer drawbacks. Turn Perfect Mutagen into a first level class feature. Mutagens are awfully complicated and not having to constantly weigh drawbacks would do wonders to make a play style with them more approachable. There is a flavor loss, though. Mutagens having drawbacks is deeply ingrained into their concept. It doesn't seem overpowered to me, either, but I might be wrong.
It's not overpowered in combat, but probably is outside of it given the ability to, at high levels, just walk around with flat +4 item bonuses on whole swathes of actions at all time and at no meaningful cost. That's a pretty huge bonus. Even at lower levels, it can easily be +2 pretty quick and that's enough to be a problem.
I also don't like it thematically. Mutagens in PF1 had down sides and I think they're part of the whole theme that mutagens have going, and would hate to remove them for the most common users.
That said, if you check my Alchemical Item House Rules, I did reduce the penalty of a few Mutagens which I though had overly harsh down sides.
I'd say that could work well with your house rules, but the +1 status bonus to AC with it would be too much. Your own alchemist fixes are a lot more up to date then my own, and have enough overlap to where I don't see much point in making my own set. I do think their sheer quantity feels like a bit much, but that's less of a balance concern and more of a complexity one. I'd love to play an alchemist with those rules, but it feels like a GM would be alarmed if they were proposed and a player might be overwhelmed.
That is definitely an issue, and one I admit to. I may post a more stripped down version at some point, or simplify them in some way, for this very reason, but I haven't yet figured out how to do so while maintaining the degree ant type of changes I desire.
Side note... anyone bothered by how every published alchemist NPC seems to have high accuracy while PC alchemists are experts only to hit?
It's a tad annoying, yes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how specialist schools get a benefit to their type of spells, like dangerous sorcery for evocation spells as an evocation specialist!
Thanks! That was definitely part of my goal for those changes. I wanted to incentivize the idea of focusing heavily on your Arcane School even beyond the basic necessity of one spell per level, and this is one way I did that.
|
Hi, I'm building my own set of house rules (stealing shamelessly from yours!). One of my goals is to correct the imbalances I see among spellcasting classes (mostly between wizards/witches and clerics/druids).
On the subject of Will saves, what do you think about adding INT to the list Ability Scores that players can apply to their Will Saves (instead of Wisdom or Charisma)?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, I'm building my own set of house rules (stealing shamelessly from yours!). One of my goals is to correct the imbalances I see among spellcasting classes (mostly between wizards/witches and clerics/druids).
Cool. Good luck. :)
On the subject of Will saves, what do you think about adding INT to the list Ability Scores that players can apply to their Will Saves (instead of Wisdom or Charisma)?
Balance-wise, it's probably not a huge deal absent some of my Int-boosting House Rules (those on top of adding to Will Saves might make Int too good). That said, I personally don't like it as the thematic reasons for that to work are shaky at best and it reduces mechanical differentiation in a way I don't think is immersive or fun (it strongly disincentivizes having more than one high mental stat, and particularly Int/Cha both being high, which I feel is bad).
I'd personally boost Int in other ways or boost the Classes in question rather than use Int for Will Saves (as, indeed, I have done).
|
|
On the subject of Will saves, what do you think about adding INT to the list Ability Scores that players can apply to their Will Saves (instead of Wisdom or Charisma)?Balance-wise, it's probably not a huge deal absent some of my Int-boosting House Rules (those on top of adding to Will Saves might make Int too good)...
But I like your INT-boosting house rules and I'd prefer to keep them! (My PFS wizard will be Trained in Surival at L10 and Stealth at L20, for no real purpose).
But you're right that your rules and mine would make INT the best mental Ability Score. What do you think about the following buffs to CHA and WIS:
CHA: Every ability score modifier increase past +4 increases the limit om invested items by one.
WIS*: Every ability score modifier increase past +4 reduces by one the DC of the flat check to target creature that are concealed or hidden from you.
* Since WIS still governs Perception it doesn't need a boost, but I'd feel odd giving it nothing, so it gets a minor boost. If I thought it needed more, I'd boost Perception somehow
Flavor-wise, it makes sense to me that people like Artokus Kirran, Old Mage Jatembe, and the Whispering Tyrant resist attacks to the mind and spirit as easily as a Cleric or Druid of the same level. Also, I don't think it follows that awareness implies mental fortitude.
Crunch-wise, WIS is too important for PCs relative to INT and CHA. When I build any PCs, I feel uncomfortable keeping WIS low (woe to goblins & hobgoblins), even for characters who don't care about WIS-based skills. That's not true for INT and CHA, and that's a balance problem. Wisdom as-is basically mental Constitution, except it's important to ranged PCs as it is to melee PCs, plus some classes have it as a Key Ability Score, the luck SOBs.
I'd say that could work well with your house rules, but the +1 status bonus to AC with it would be too much. Your own alchemist fixes are a lot more up to date then my own, and have enough overlap to where I don't see much point in making my own set. I do think their sheer quantity feels like a bit much, but that's less of a balance concern and more of a complexity one. I'd love to play an alchemist with those rules, but it feels like a GM would be alarmed if they were proposed and a player might be overwhelmed.It's not overpowered in combat, but probably is outside of it given the ability to, at high levels, just walk around with flat +4 item bonuses on whole swathes of actions at all time and at no meaningful cost. That's a pretty huge bonus. Even at lower levels, it can easily be +2 pretty quick and that's enough to be a problem.
I also don't like it thematically. Mutagens in PF1 had down sides and I think they're part of the whole theme that mutagens have going, and would hate to remove them for the most common users.
That said, if you check my Alchemical Item House Rules, I did reduce the penalty of a few Mutagens which I though had overly harsh down sides.
You could simply add an "Adrenaline" mechanic. Which means that once you're engaged in combat, the drawbacks of Mutagens are removed, but outside of it you can't resist them.
|
|
But I like your INT-boosting house rules and I'd prefer to keep them! (My PFS wizard will be Trained in Surival at L10 and Stealth at L20, for no real purpose).
But you're right that your rules and mine would make INT the best mental Ability Score. What do you think about the following buffs to CHA and WIS:
CHA: Every ability score modifier increase past +4 increases the limit om invested items by one.
WIS*: Every ability score modifier increase past +4 reduces by one the DC of the flat check to target creature that are concealed or hidden from you.
* Since WIS still governs Perception it doesn't need a boost, but I'd feel odd giving it nothing, so it gets a minor boost. If I thought it needed more, I'd boost Perception somehow
Neither of those are nearly as good as the Int one, IMO. And you're right that the Wis one doesn't need to be, but the Cha one sort of does.
Mechanically, I agree there's a bit of overreliance on Wis, which is why I added Cha as an option, but that still leaves characters needing/wanting multiple mental stats at higher than 10. It makes high Wis/Cha less appealing...but Clerics are already strongly incentivized to invest in that combo, which softens the blow. By making it any mental stat, you strongly disincentivize a Wizard grabbing either Cha or Wis, and similar things, which I don't like.
You could simply add an "Adrenaline" mechanic. Which means that once you're engaged in combat, the drawbacks of Mutagens are removed, but outside of it you can't resist them.
Definitely more workable, but still not really what I want from Mutagens, personally.
|
|
Mechanically, I agree there's a bit of overreliance on Wis, which is why I added Cha as an option, but that still leaves characters needing/wanting multiple mental stats at higher than 10. It makes high Wis/Cha less appealing...but Clerics are already strongly incentivized to invest in that combo, which softens the blow. By making it any mental stat, you strongly disincentivize a Wizard grabbing either Cha or Wis, and similar things, which I don't like.
While Wizards wouldn’t need CHA or WIS for Will saves, they would still want the former for several Recall Knowledge skills and Perception (important!) and CHA for the social skills (YMMV, but the PFS PC I mentioned has a 16 CHA at L8)
But do you think that the other classes, besides sizards and clerics, have enough reason to increase mental stats? Does a bard or sorcerer that gets CHA to Will saves have enough incentive to invest in INT or WIS? Does a druid have reason to boost INT or CHA in the base game?
And isn't getting an increase in the limit on invested items good? At L10 that could be an extra +2 item bonus worn item, same as a skill increase granted by INT. That only gets better at higher levels, and the player can decide what sort of invested item they want.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While Wizards wouldn’t need CHA or WIS for Will saves, they would still want the former for several Recall Knowledge skills and Perception (important!) and CHA for the social skills (YMMV, but the PFS PC I mentioned has a 16 CHA at L8)
True enough, but it's still a decreased incentive to do so, which I'd prefer to avoid.
But do you think that the other classes, besides sizards and clerics, have enough reason to increase mental stats? Does a bard or sorcerer that gets CHA to Will saves have enough incentive to invest in INT or WIS? Does a druid have reason to boost INT or CHA in the base game?
I think Bards are incentivized to value Skills and Druids have a unique Cha-based ability that's hard to duplicate (Wild Empathy), and most of both have little incentive to focus on Str, so yeah, I think they've got some incentive to have at least two decent mental stats.
My worry is probably more for Fighters and the like (along with Int-based Classes like Wizards, who I already mentioned), who I'd like to not force to only take one mental stat. A lot will only take one anyway, but there should be a valid mechanical reason to grab two, IMO.
And isn't getting an increase in the limit on invested items good? At L10 that could be an extra +2 item bonus worn item, same as a skill increase granted by INT. That only gets better at higher levels, and the player can decide what sort of invested item they want.
It's not terrible, but it's very optional, with many characters having no use for it at all. I mean, it's only relevant if you want more than 10 invested items, which many characters will definitively not. 10 is a lot, after all. Heck, in practice it's often only really good if you want more than 12, since there's already a Cha-based Feat to go from 10 to 12.
Hey Deadmanwalking,
Similar to Necrogiant I am going to use some of thees in my own homebrew.
I also wanted to say thank you for posting this document and additionally that based on my observations of your various posts on the forums here over the past years I generally respect your opinions and analyses of the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Deadmanwalking,
Similar to Necrogiant I am going to use some of thees in my own homebrew.
Awesome! That's why they're up on the internet rather than sitting in a document on my computer, after all. So that people can use them if they like.
I also wanted to say thank you for posting this document and additionally that based on my observations of your various posts on the forums here over the past years I generally respect your opinions and analyses of the game.
You're quite welcome. And thanks, I obviously try for good analyses. :)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Added a note that generic Skill boost items are available (using the High Quality optional rule costs), because IMO the game's math assumes them, and official items are not always available at appropriate levels.
Also, reduced the price of rope on its own so there's a reason to buy it instead of the Climber's Kit.
Hey Deadmanwalking, have you made any notable changes to any of the APG material?
Just an update from my end: got another alchemist player and he and my original one are feeling much better about the class using all your changes.
Hope the holidays are treating you well!
Got a question about the alchemist's Perpetual Infusions.
The way I'm reading it the alchemist can pick any level 1 alchemical item rather than being restricted to a list.
The problem with that is the ability reads "At 11th they increase these to the 3rd level versions, and at 17th level they increase them again to the 11th level versions." Most of the alchemical items don't follow this leveling rate, unfortunately (poisons, various elixirs, antidotes, antiplagues etc.)
What's your recommendation on how to handle that?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone heard from DMW at all this year? I am always interested in his take on things and look forward to his houserule updates.
I do hope he is doing well.
No, and I've wondered about him as well.