| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's start with an overview, I have some homebrew rules in need of fresh eyes on them. Not all of them need to be accepted as long as some are. Good feedback is hard to come by and seeing how some fresh eyes handle my mechanics is basically what I'm getting out of this game.
What I'm giving is running the first three books of Hell's Rebels (I only have the first three and am not in a position to buy more. If the players want to gift me the remaining books I'll happily run them as well) with chronicle sheets as per a home campaign in PFS.
The basic set of mechanics I'm looking at is PF1 core rulebook, Advanced Class Guide, Advance Race Guide. I'm willing to use things from other supplements on a case by case basis, though I'm doing any of the unchained stuff. I'm trying to keep the mechanics from getting too crazy with all the supplements out there.
Now, remember that the exact selection of these homebrew mechanics are up for discussion. I honestly don't expect to run with all of these, as I've found most players are far more comfortable with only a few changes at a time, but I've got enough to basically overhaul the entire d20 system (which is my eventual goal).
Note, I'm very much of the mind that mechanics should be used to represent the narrative and make rulings easier rather than be a game unto themselves, thus the most important element to me is maintaining the casual simulationism, though I know it's been rather popular to drop that in the newer systems.
A couple aspects of that which are supposed to be acknowledged but usually aren't, is that once you are level 6, you are superhuman compared to real world people. Additionally, I don't do the whole "all encounters should be roughly equal to the party's level" stuff. 3.x was explicitly not designed for that, and while I'm not sure if pf1 kept that encounter table (my core book is packed away at the moment), the system hasn't altered that in the general design, so I will be keeping hold to that.
Additionally, I ground my rulings and GM calls on what makes sense in the narrative, not technicalities of mechanics. I also go a step further and will use tactics and not rely on brute force of mechanical numbers. So if you encounter a bunch of guards to fight, expect them to work as a unit rather than individually. They will not be acting like the ai in an mmo.
Onto the homebrew!
Goals of this change: Aside from a preference for skill based actions, skill based casting is intended to accomplish three things, first is to allow a bit more magic into the setting in terms of how often it can be used and by whom. Second, is to make magic more exciting and risky, which doesn't work when overly limited in uses available, but with risk on the results of magic but less risk of wasting a very limited resource for a mere attempt.
And third, to alter how magic is balanced against martials. The balance between casters and martials in 3.x and older was based on two factors that don't really work in modern gaming. First was risk of death. In old school play, a caster was far more likely to die, making the extra power a sort of reward for surviving on "hard mode" as it might be put. You were very likely to die but if you survived you would get grand power, whereas a martial might not get as much power as a caster at high level, they were far more likely to actually reach high level. Thus casters vs martials was a strategic choice across a campaign rather than merely across any single encounter. The second old school balancing factor was spells per day. There was no 15-minute workday as the gm is not supposed to allow it. This meant that casters couldn't afford to just blast away then rest for every encounter, and that meant you could use a caster for spike damage if you wanted or to clear out minions (as it was never supposed to have only equal level encounters) if you wanted, but that wasn't really the most efficient use of spells in general.
So in part I want to change that balance, instead making magic a bit more of a gamble when actually casting but yet ease up on the per day limits. Martials are now supposed to be more reliable but specialized, while casters are now supposed to be more versatile but also more of a gamble and less reliable in combat.
How skill based magic works.
Magic is a skill that splits into subskills, like profession and knowledge. One subskill for each school of magic, each domain (for clerics and such), and each element or element like theme (like fire or shadow). Additionally are subskills for each subschool that isn't an alignment or element, such as the figment subschool, and these very narrow subskills get an automatic +2 bonus. Each spell can be taken as an individual skill which gets the plus +2 bonus like subschool skills, but also means the character does not need to memorize the spell from a spellbook nor reference a text to cast it. However, if a character puts ranks into a subschool or specific spell, they must use the most specific skill for such spells.
What happens if a noncaster puts ranks into magic? A noncaster can then cast that magic, however they require reading from a reference (unless they put ranks into the specific spell being cast) while casting and since they have no slots, they must spend HP to fuel the spell (caster classes can use HP to fuel spells as well if they desire). The HP cost is 1 for first level spells, and +2 HP cost per spell level. Cantrips can be cast once per approximately 10 minutes without cost, but multiple cantrips in a short time will cost 1 HP after the first cantrip.
To cast the spell, make the appropriate skill check vs a DC 5 + (10 per spell level).
Spontaneous caster classes get a list of spells known, and they can cast those spells by using the right spell school. They do not need to put ranks into the specific spells.
Caster classes can not spend slots on spells cast without the normal rules for the class. I.E. a sorcerer can learn extra spells by putting ranks into specific spells they don't have from the class' spells known, but these extra spells can not be cast using spell slots.
Metamagic increases the DC accordingly, but only requires one spell level higher slot to be expended, except for metamagic that only costs +1 slot normally, in which case they only increase the DC but not the slot. (for example, quicken spell raises the DC by 40 [4 spell levels at +10 each] and requires one spell level slot higher than the quickened spell normally uses, while still spell uses the normal slot for the spell and only raises the DC by +10)
Using this homebrew rule, increase a full caster's skill ranks per level by 4, and a half caster's skill ranks per level by 2, and a low caster's skill ranks per level by 1.
OPTIONAL RULE
Prepared casters can reroll a check to cast a prepared spell if the d20 was 5 or less (8 or less if using the 3d6 variant).
Spontaneous casters use metamagic cheaper, increasing the check DC by +5 per spell level increase instead of +10.
This makes prepared casting vs spontaeous casting feel even more different and gives each an extra advantage over the other.
This rule is simply because I prefer skill based, and thus this gets rid of BAB and CMBas unique mechanics and turns them into skills that work like other skills. Obviously, the other half of attacks and combat maneuvers, AC and CMD respectively, also become skills.
There is some additional math, but it's all preparatory math that is dealt with when leveling up, equipping items, etc, and is therefore static during play, in general.
Each weapon proficiency is a skill, and being trained in said skill counts as having the proficiency while being untrained incurs a -4 penalty to the check and counts as non-proficient. When classes grant proficiency, instead consider that as them being class skills.
Non-proficiency "weapons," such as rays from spells or wands, count as skills as well. These include, but not limited to (as I might have missed something), rays, magic "thrown" such as acid splash, and magic bolts like the bead of a fireball.
Armor and shield types become skills with a skill for each armor/shield proficiency.
Weapons are quite obvious, you make a skill check with the appropriate skill for the weapon used whenever an attack roll is called for.
Armor skill uses either the skill ranks or the armor's bonus, whichever is lower, to a minimum of half the armor's bonus. When not rolling AC, the dice is replaced with 10, just like normal (in case this is ever used with the standard "players roll all the dice" variant).
Each rank in the armor skill beyond the armor's bonus reduces some of the penalties of the armor. Each extra rank reduces arcane spell failure by 5%, and every 2 extra ranks reduces the armor's skill check penalty by 1 (except for swim, for which the penalty is purely the weight causing one to sink and can't be overcome by armor skill at all). Every 5 extra points of armor skill beyond the armor's bonus increases the armor's effective armor bonus by 1. Any bonuses that apply to normal AC applies to these skill checks. When it comes to stacking, such as armor bonus from a spell, skill ranks and armor bonus count as the same thing and don't stack.
Magic armor, such as from the spell or a magic item granting an armor bonus, counts as it's own skill. You can use a magic item providing such a bonus against incorporeal threats and not worry about it's impact on regular armor should it be too little to improve regular armor, I.E. you could have bracers of armor and regular armor even if the regular armor is better than the bracers, thus letting the character immediately use the bracers against ghosts or other incorporeal attacks.
Unarmored defense normally can't parry weapons like armor can, and thus is an independent skill but which takes a -4 penalty inherently. However, natural armor or DR against physical damage reduces this to only -2. (this is because A, armor is normally used to parry and deflect attacks, an option unavailable to one without armor, and B, it maintains armor's advantage over unarmored individuals, otherwise everyone would just put ranks into unarmored and ignore armor altogether.) Any bonuses to touch AC apply to this skill.
Shields apply their shield bonus to Armor checks or unarmored defense checks, and extra ranks can work exactly like armor such as increasing the shield's bonus for every 5 extra ranks. They can also be used with unarmored defense, as well as against touch attacks (where the shield takes the damage if the shield's bonus was the difference between being hit or not). Shields double their bonus against ranged attacks if the target knows of the incoming ranged attack. (this gives shields an actual advantage and makes them feel different from armor. Also reflects what they are actually good at)
Touch attacks. If the defender knows to expect a touch attack, they roll unarmored defense, even if they are wearing armor (armor check penalties still apply though). However, if they don't know to expect touch attacks, such as from a successful faint or are unfamiliar with such attacks from the enemy (such as fighting an unknown monster), then they roll unarmored at a -2.
Flat-footed AC is 10 + size + half the armor's bonus + 2 if the target is significantly moving (such as fighting someone else or being defensive against an unseen foe).
Natural armor applies fully to all the defensive skills.
Aid another works as normal for attacks and defense.
This splits raw power from level, allowing a few adjustments to easily customize the power of a campaign. You could have 20 levels of advancement while remaining at normal human levels of power, or you could start at level 1 with the high raw, but untrained, power of a superhero.
The basic premise is to split levels into skill levels and power levels. Both count towards gaining feats (at 2nd level and every four levels thereafter) and ability score increases (every 4th level as normal).
Skill levels let you gain skill points. Gaining skill ranks requires a number of points equal to the rank. So gaining the second rank in a skill would require 2 points, and the third rank would cost 3 more points for 6 points total to go from 0 ranks to 3 ranks.
Likewise, Ability scores require a number of points equal to the modifier to improve. Thus lower scores will improve faster.
Power levels is when a character gains a level in a class, gaining those class features and establishing how many skill ranks they gain per level until the next power level. Power levels also gain skill points.
Using this, we could have a 20 standard level campaign gain 100 levels without expanding beyond the desired power level. I like this concept for pbp as I have only thrice ever leveled up a pbp character (not including a single character in my only long lasting pbp as a player), but even those three level ups felt ages apart. More levels to be gained gives that feeling of advancement more often which is good for slower paced methods of play. I've also always felt feat and skill starved in pf1 and 3.x and this fixes that, granting 22 feats up till level 90.
The premise of this homebrew is highly flexible and intended to be adjusted to the desired campaign, similarly as one might adjust E6 to fit their desires.
For this Hell's Rebels campaign, I figure on sticking with pf1's classic zero to demigod progression having power levels at level 1 and every that is a multiple of 5 (5, 10, 15, etc).
XP required to level is obviously a lot smaller, level*(level-1)*24. This is the same formula as normal except normal xp is *500 instead of *24. Using this formula, the 190,000 xp to reach level 20 is now just shy of the 192,240 xp required to reach level 90, which in this game is the 19th power level.
The idea here is that instead of a d20 or 3d6, dice are rolled based on stats. A new stat tier, and two ability scores.
Tier 4 is a normal person. Tier 5 is an elite, and tier 6 is a hero.
Ability score modifiers are different however, equaling (score-1)/4.
Each die is sized twice the static value, so tier 4 is a d8, and strength mod of 2 is a d4.
Applies two abilities scores to every check however.
(Tier represents a character's agency in their life. Tier 4 is rather reactive, taking life as it comes and just dealing with the consequences, but tier 5 is more active, actively seeking to advance one's life goals, while tier 6 can affect the course of the world in seeking their goals.)
The idea here is that instead of just HP, health is two parts, vitality points and injuries. Deaths should happen most often from injuries, but one could die from losing VP however VP also covers fatigue and morale.
VP represents general and nonspecific damage, such as poison, bloodloss, bruises, fatigue, morale, etc.
Injuries represent actually getting seriously hurt, such as taking an axe to the face. Injuries are not points, but rather a bit freeform. When taking an injury, roll HD against the damage for severity. If the injury is severe enough, it can kill, but if minor enough it might just be a gash or broken bone.
VP is equal to constitution score squared. Every multiple of con score in damage taken results in a -1 penalty to all checks, and status checks occur. Status check depend on the type of attack and damage, but for players would usually only apply for falling unconscious or similar, but for npcs these can be morale checks to see if they keep fighting or try to break off.
Injuries occur on critical hits or when an attack exceeds defense by twice the defender's con modifier. I.E. if your con modifier is 3, then if an attack beats your AC by 6, you'd take an injury. The severity of the injury is determined by rolling the attack's damage against the defender rolling their HD. If the damage exceeds the HD by 10, the defender fall unconscious and dying. If damage exceeds the HD roll by 5, the defender becomes disabled. If the damage exceeds the HD roll then a significant injury occurs such as a broken or severed arm. If damage is less than the HD roll, then the injury will be smaller and apply a minor penalty of some sort, such as slower speed if the leg is hit.
Whew, that's a lot of writing. This covers some of the basic things I want to try. Let me know what you guys think of these.
I couple smaller things I want to try but I'm out of time for writing, are armor as dr, damage types having different functionalities, players rolling the dice, etc.
I looked through the pf2 playtest, though I don't remember much of it now, but I remember that it fails at the things I care about most, casual simulationism and the smooth scaling from normal people to superheroes and beyond to greek gods-like beings. 5e fails at the same things.
I also like bringing certain playstyle traits similar to old school, such as lethality and players interacting with the world over the mechanics. I want to continue to support these traits even if not requiring them.
It's only a complete overhaul if all or most of these are selected, but just one or two alone wouldn't really be much of an overhaul. The end goal is to make a complete system, but it's much harder to find players for a completely new system than just a couple houserules, hence why I'm asking players to select what they are comfortable with trying.
I think you're being a bit unfair. Having a vague concept be similar doesn't mean the actual implementations would be anything alike. For example, d6 system and savage worlds both have attributes impact what dice are rolled but they are very different from each other and very different from my suggestion.
That said, where exactly have you seen my health, advancement, and dice mechanics?
"This isn't Pathfinder anymore, Toto"
I'm sorry, but the homebrew rules seems way too complicated to learn and use for something that must remain a pleasure, an escapism.
I respect and salute your creativity, but this doesn't look like a game I would enjoy, and so I won't join.
@hustonj
I don't think you have any idea what I'm trying to do.
You even admitted to not reading past a little bit of the first spoiler, so if you're going off the spoiler names, then you are clueless about it.
I hated the playtests for both 5e and pf2. I am absolutely not trying to compete with them. They are going a different direction completely. The only care I have about them, is that I don't want any if their players thinking that what those systems do is even remotely a significant portion of what RPGs can do. I want more exploration of the art of RPGs by the community at large, not specialization into a very narrow niche for all but the community fringes.
Your comparisons are misleading and quite mistaken. Even a quick glance at this arcanis system shows it is not doing everything I'm doing (it's clock is the same as one I developed, but I didn't share that in this thread). And your comparison of my skill modifications to a percentage system (pretty sure you meant rolemaster, as that's a percentage system and runequest is an mmo with basically no comparison on mechanics) is just silly.
And market forces? Well they can go jump in a black hole. I don't give two hoots. I'm making my ideal system, not the next DnD killer.
"This isn't Pathfinder anymore, Toto"
I'm sorry, but the homebrew rules seems way too complicated to learn and use for something that must remain a pleasure, an escapism.
I respect and salute your creativity, but this doesn't look like a game I would enjoy, and so I won't join.
I was hoping folks would pick one or two, but I get the impression folks are thinking I intend all of them. Would that be correct?
@Dark Light Hitomi: When I looked at Runequest in the 80’s it had a percentage system that allowed you to get better with every use.
DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
"This isn't Pathfinder anymore, Toto"I'm sorry, but the homebrew rules seems way too complicated to learn and use for something that must remain a pleasure, an escapism.
I respect and salute your creativity, but this doesn't look like a game I would enjoy, and so I won't join.
I was hoping folks would pick one or two, but I get the impression folks are thinking I intend all of them. Would that be correct?
Don't get me wrong, I understand you want something that suited you. And you were honest and clear, saying multiple times that you didn't expect to use the whole set of homebrew rules.
But what if, for example, one player want one set of rules (for example the rules on Health system), another player wanted skill based combat, and a third wanted Skill based magic, but neither your Health system or skill based combat?
Maybe you could class your options by importance order to you, the first one being mandatory, and then the others would be some tresholds, so you can see how far your players want to use your rules? All the players would have to agree on which level of modifications they want.
Have you tried your system, all by yourself and with other players? Could you give an example of a character sheet from Pathfinder in your system (say, how would a level 1 Amiri; a level 1 Ezren would translate?)
Mastering an AP is quite a feat by itself, have you already transformed the first book with your own homebrew rules?
@Dark Light Hitomi: When I looked at Runequest in the 80’s it had a percentage system that allowed you to get better with every use.
80s? I guess we are not thinking the same thing after all.
DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
"This isn't Pathfinder anymore, Toto"I'm sorry, but the homebrew rules seems way too complicated to learn and use for something that must remain a pleasure, an escapism.
I respect and salute your creativity, but this doesn't look like a game I would enjoy, and so I won't join.
I was hoping folks would pick one or two, but I get the impression folks are thinking I intend all of them. Would that be correct?
Don't get me wrong, I understand you want something that suited you. And you were honest and clear, saying multiple times that you didn't expect to use the whole set of homebrew rules.
But what if, for example, one player want one set of rules (for example the rules on Health system), another player wanted skill based combat, and a third wanted Skill based magic, but neither your Health system or skill based combat?
Maybe you could class your options by importance order to you, the first one being mandatory, and then the others would be some tresholds, so you can see how far your players want to use your rules? All the players would have to agree on which level of modifications they want.
Have you tried your system, all by yourself and with other players? Could you give an example of a character sheet from Pathfinder in your system (say, how would a level 1 Amiri; a level 1 Ezren would translate?)
Mastering an AP is quite a feat by itself, have you already transformed the first book with your own homebrew rules?
I wanted to see what the players go for without my influencing them in any particular direction. Better yet would be if the players have a discussion to reach consensus with talk about why they do or do not want particular subsystems. That'd be hugely valuable. But if required I can step in to finalize things, though how I do that would depend largely on the players.
-
Now, I've tried all these myself, some I've actually tried older iterations with players, though not very many players as they are very hard to come by,
-
I'm an expert at improve, and improve is actually my normal way of GMing. I can create, recreate, and adjust any of the encounters on the fly without trouble, so I'm not concerned about that part. It's the larger arcs and faction/boss motivations and plans that require more thought and consideration. Besides, how can I properly convert enemies without knowing which homebrew we will use?
-
I'll work up a sheet conversion here in a bit.
One thing that I thought while skimming through your house-rules that I thought would help me personally would be an example of each houserule being used in a sample situation so I could see it in practice. Mostly it was a giant barrage of concepts and ideas but no tacit example of them working to help me understand. Also, I’m getting a lil rusty on PF1, so there’s that.
I should also add that I am completely uninterested in your concept (moving away from PF1 and becoming familiar with PF2, so a heavily houseruled PF1 is the opposite of what I’m looking for…) but thought I’d offer that thought above.
I said on the initial look.@hustonj
I don't think you have any idea what I'm trying to do.You even admitted to not reading past a little bit of the first spoiler, so if you're going off the spoiler names, then you are clueless about it.
While I may have missed this particular detail, your comments largely were of a very assumptive form that were not the kind of comments to make when you haven't read the material. They were "I made up my mind" kind of comments.
And did you look at the now hard-to-find Arcanis rules set, or the readily available setting material to sit on top of 5e, that changes almost nothing from the 5e engine?
I did find and look through the free pdf on Arcanis (you may notice above, my comment on Arcanis' clock mechanic).
The free pdf is missing a bunch, but no, it does not appear to do what I want.
I'm not the greatest at communicating in this format, but it seems to me that you made a bunch of assumptions without even skimming through the material. That's what it seems like. Mix that with your admittance to not reading very far. And that makes for a very poor showing on your part. To come to my thread entirely about this topic, those things together make you sound very ignorant and insulting.
That may not be your intent, but that is the result none-the-less.
Nothing about your presentation implied it was just an initial impression. You even at one point make it clear that you are viewing yourself as a "more experienced player" that is trying to teach me about the error of my ways, or at least teach me what I don't know. When it is absolutely clear that you don't know what I wrote, it makes you the insulting one. I'm not new to this hobby. I've been around a good long time. I don't appreciate being talked down to by someone who can't be bothered to read the material before telling me how wrong I am.
Further, if you truly don't see how insulting your comments are, remember that this is text and that means that many aspects of the words, such as tone and stress and intent are things you hear in your own mind because you know your intent, but those things are missing from the text itself, which means that us readers must infer the intended tone and therefore, the impression we get will not always be what you intended. Though, just the attempt to educate me without knowing what I wrote is insulting all on it's own.
Skill based magic example.
We'll assume the Ezren level 1 premade character.
Ezren will gain 4 skillpoints as a full caster, which get put into Magic Evocation, Conjuration, Abjuration, and Transmutation. With his +4 int and +3 class skills, he gets a +8 bonus for these skills.
If Ezren wants to cast burning hands, he initially decides if he wants to use a spell slot or cast it slot free (which would cost 1 HP), next he would roll his Evocation skill, and let's assume he gets a result of 18. The base DC for a 1st level spell is 15, which he beat by 3, thus he successfully casts the spell with +3 CL, thus dealing 4d6 fire damage as per a 4 CL burning hands.
Now, let's pretend Ezren has the Silent Spell metamagic.
If he casts Magic Missile silently, the spell DC raises by 10, making the spell's DC 25. As Silent spell only has a 1 spell level cost, it doesn't actually raise the spell's level with these mechanics. Ezren needs to roll a 17 on his Evocation skill to successfully cast the spell. Let's say he rolls a 3. Because he is a prepared caster, he gets to reroll that 3 since it is 5 or less. If the reroll gets a 17 or better, he successfully casts Magic Missile silently.
---
Next, let's take Valeros, the fighter pregen.
Let's say Valeros decided to learn how to cast Mage Armor from Ezren, thus learning Magic Conjuration as a wizard. His class is a non-casting class so he gets no extra skill ranks. So we'll say he spent a skill point on this skill instead of on Ride. It's not a class skill for him, so he gets a +2, one rank plus a +1 int.
Valeros needs a spellbook or scroll of Mage Armor. When he wants to cast the spell, he must pull out his spellbook and reference it while casting the spell. He first spends 1 HP since he doesn't have any slots to use. He then rolls his Conjuration skill. With only a +2 for the skill, he needs to roll a 13 or better to successfully cast the spell. We'll assume he rolls a 15. That lets him succeed with +2 CL, thus he successfully casts the spell at CL 3, which means his Mage Armor will last 3 hours.
Ezren pregen with just the skill based magic mechanics. I will bold the differences.
Ezren
NG medium humanoid (human)
Init +2: Senses Perception +1
AC 12, TT 12, FF 10 (+2 dex)
HP 8, HD 1d6
Fort 3, Ref 2, Will 3; +1 vs divine spells
Speed 30
Melee: Mstrwrk Cane +1 for 1d6, dagger +0 for 1d4
Ranged: L X-bow +2 for 1d8
Special: Hand of the Apprentice +7 for 1d6, 7/day
Spells prepared: Burning Hands DC 16, Magic Missile.
Cantrips: Acid Splash, Detect Magic, Light
Abilities: 10, 14, 13, 18, 12, 10
BAB: 0, CMB 0, CMD 12
Feats: Combat Casting, Great Fortitude, Spell Focus (evocation)
Skills: Abjuration +8, Appraise +8, Conjuration +8, Evocation +8, K Arcana +8, K History +8, K Nature +8, K Planes +8, Linguistics +8, Spellcraft +8, Transmutation +8.
Traits: Focused Mind, History of Heresy
Languages: Common, Draconic, Goblin, Infernal, Osiriani, Terran
SQ: Arcane Bond (cane)
Combat Gear: Scroll of Mage Armor, Tanglefoot bag
Other Gear: Dagger, L X-Bow, 10 Bolts, Mstrwrk cane, Backpack, Scrollcase, Spell Pouch, Spellbook, 15 GP
Spellbook: All cantrips, Burning Hands, Color Spray, Expeditious Retreat, Grease, Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Sleep
[Excluded the remaining as it's just explaining elements of the above.]
As you can see, not much change to the sheet for this homebrew set.
Temporary post,
SEELAH
Female human paladin of Iomedae 1 LG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +0; Senses Perception +1 DEFENSE
AC 17, touch 10, flat-footed 17 (+5 armor, +2 shield) hp 13 (1d10+3)
Fort +4, Ref +0, Will +3
OFFENSE
Speed 20 ft.
Melee longsword +5 (1d8+3/19–20)
Ranged shortbow +1 (1d6/×3)
Special Attacks smite evil 1/day (+2 attack and AC, +1 damage) Paladin Spell-Like Abilities (CL 1st; concentration +3)
At will—detect evil
STATISTICS
Str 16, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 15
Base Atk +1; CMB +4; CMD 14
Feats Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword)*
Skills Diplomacy +6, Knowledge (religion) +4, Sense Motive +5,
Survival +2; Armor Check Penalty –5
Traits armor expert*, poverty-stricken*
Languages Common, Osiriani
SQ aura (faint good), code of conduct
Combat Gear holy water; Other Gear scale mail, heavy wooden
shield, longsword, shortbow, with 20 arrows, sunrod (2),
backpack, wooden holy symbol, trail rations (4), 13 gp
* The effects of this ability have already been calculated into
Seelah’s statistics.
SAJAN
Male human monk 1
LN Medium humanoid (human)
Init +2; Senses Perception +5
DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 14, flat-footed 11 (+2 Dex, +1 dodge, +1 Wis) hp 11 (1d8+3)
Fort +4, Ref +5, Will +3
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee flurry of blows +2/+2 (1d6+3) or
unarmed strike +3 (1d6+4) or
temple sword +3 (1d8+4/19–20)
Ranged shuriken +2 (1d2+3)
Special Attacks flurry of blows, stunning fist (1/day, DC 11) STATISTICS
Str 16, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 10
Base Atk +0; CMB +3; CMD 17
Feats Combat Reflexes, Dodge*, Improved Unarmed Strike, Mobility,
Stunning Fist
Skills Acrobatics +6, Climb +7, Knowledge (nobility) +1, Knowledge
(religion) +1, Perception +5, Sense Motive +5, Stealth +6
Traits child of the temple*, deft dodger*
Languages Common, Vudrani
Combat Gear potion of magic fang, potion of mage armor; Other
Gear temple sword, shuriken (35), belt pouch, silk rope (50 ft.),
trail rations (2), wooden holy symbol
* The effects of this ability have already been calculated into
Sajan’s statistics.
Unfortunately I’m withdrawing my interest at this time as well. I think a lot of us were expecting home-brew rulings not entire mechanics but I wish you best of luck in filling the game and developing your system. If you do decide to run a game based mostly in pathfinder 1 I’ll be happy to sign up.
I'm curious as to what you mean by "homebrew rulings," because generally speaking, a ruling is when players want to do something that in some way is not explicitly covered by the mechanics and the GM makes a decision on how to handle it.
|
I just meant rules as apposed to entire mechanics. For example, to me, a rule is something like we are playing with crit fails or keen and improved crit stack. Imo, what your are presenting IS an entirely different system as presented but you’ve also said you’re willing to only accept a few. I would echo what others have said and maybe rank which ones are deal breakers for you and which are flexible.
Skill based magic example.
We'll assume the Ezren level 1 premade character.
Ezren will gain 4 skillpoints as a full caster, which get put into Magic Evocation, Conjuration, Abjuration, and Transmutation. With his +4 int and +3 class skills, he gets a +8 bonus for these skills.
If Ezren wants to cast burning hands, he initially decides if he wants to use a spell slot or cast it slot free (which would cost 1 HP), next he would roll his Evocation skill, and let's assume he gets a result of 18. The base DC for a 1st level spell is 15, which he beat by 3, thus he successfully casts the spell with +3 CL, thus dealing 4d6 fire damage as per a 4 CL burning hands.
Now, let's pretend Ezren has the Silent Spell metamagic.
If he casts Magic Missile silently, the spell DC raises by 10, making the spell's DC 25. As Silent spell only has a 1 spell level cost, it doesn't actually raise the spell's level with these mechanics. Ezren needs to roll a 17 on his Evocation skill to successfully cast the spell. Let's say he rolls a 3. Because he is a prepared caster, he gets to reroll that 3 since it is 5 or less. If the reroll gets a 17 or better, he successfully casts Magic Missile silently.---
Next, let's take Valeros, the fighter pregen.
Let's say Valeros decided to learn how to cast Mage Armor from Ezren, thus learning Magic Conjuration as a wizard. His class is a non-casting class so he gets no extra skill ranks. So we'll say he spent a skill point on this skill instead of on Ride. It's not a class skill for him, so he gets a +2, one rank plus a +1 int.Valeros needs a spellbook or scroll of Mage Armor. When he wants to cast the spell, he must pull out his spellbook and reference it while casting the spell. He first spends 1 HP since he doesn't have any slots to use. He then rolls his Conjuration skill. With only a +2 for the skill, he needs to roll a 13 or better to successfully cast the spell. We'll assume he rolls a 15. That lets him succeed with +2 CL, thus he successfully casts the spell at CL 3,...
Do you know what? I actually understand that, and what's more I really like it. You must understand however I don't actually play casters, so I'm not entirely au fait with how else this interacts with the game. I'm not sure the low HP cost for casting slotless is enough (seems pretty cheap...) and I do like the extra damage dice from successfully "casting at a higher level" through a dice roll, but doesn't that play havoc with spell-slot economy by completely circumventing it through lucky rolls?
It definitely gives early Runequest vibes where anyone could be a "spellcaster". I would personally use just the concept of allowing martials to use skill points to learn spells if I were still playing a lot of PF1e.
What level spell can a martial learn,
how many skill points would higher level spells cost,
how many skill points could a martial spend per level on spells, and
how do you treat armored spell failure?
To be honest though, this thread is turning more into something that should probably be in the PF First Edition Homebrew section...
I just meant rules as apposed to entire mechanics. For example, to me, a rule is something like we are playing with crit fails or keen and improved crit stack. Imo, what your are presenting IS an entirely different system as presented but you’ve also said you’re willing to only accept a few. I would echo what others have said and maybe rank which ones are deal breakers for you and which are flexible.
The only deal breaker for me to have none selected.
Recently, someone quoted that campaign mode could be run with entirely different rpg system if someone wanted. If I'd known that I would probably have tried that first then see if people were willing to try just some parts of my system. But it doesn't really matter that much, I know I need more eyes on these to find issues I missed or tell me how pathetic or awesome or middling these mechanics are.
What level spell can a martial learn,
how many skill points would higher level spells cost,
how many skill points could a martial spend per level on spells, and
how do you treat armored spell failure?
Spell level is meaningless aside from cost, save DC, and the intelligence required. Therefore anyone can learn a high level spell they can figure out how to cast (having a high enough int score). Yes making a Megumi like character is possible, casting a high level spell that makes them collapse near death every time might not go over well with their allies though. :)
The skills don't cover what spells are known, the need for a spellbook or similar reference covers that. Extremely expensive for normal people. A knight would spend as much on their spellbook as they do their armor for only the smallest collection of low level spells.
A martial can spend all their skillpoints on casting skills if they want, but the standard limit on maximum skillranks still holds, so they can spend up to their level on each skill.
Spell failure from armor works as normal, though if the skill based combat rules are used, getting enough ranks in armor can mitigate as can the feats (which I'd consider having skillpoints in casting skills to count for prerequisite.).
When you said homebrew, I was thinking it was more along the lines of Gestalt, changes in skills from Pathfinder Unchained (section 2), changes to the races, things like that. Not a rewrite of the rules.
Looking over the rules for full casters and having a preference for generalist casters, I would be losing half of my schools (not sure how universalist fits in). Also, if you fail, do you lose the HP/Spell slot?
How does it work with divine casters? Do domain spells work all the time?
Let's start here, imagine playing exclusively level 15+ characters for years, then getting into a low level game. Would the low level game be less fun because the characters are less than what you are used to? I think of it the same way towards the restrictions imposed here, except that those restrictions impart resource management and a different feel. Two wizards may now feel very different by having a different range of casting skills. And spells, specializing in certain schools now encourages use of certain spells over others based on their school when normally they'd never be considered.
You do lose the HP but not the slot. It's part of the balance vs martial combat. The cost and reliability of magic vs swinging swords.
As noticed by another post, the HP cost seems low, until you consider two factors, low level characters of 1-3 levels, and the fact that magic can't heal the HP lost from casting magic (I'd allow wish to heal 1d6+3), a limit to prevent abuse of getting infinite spells at effectively no cost. And it provides drama. Do you really want to cast that fireball, knowing that you'll lose a quarter of your HP and it'll take days to recover that back (at low levels)? And if you do cast that fireball, how good would it feel for it to pay off and get an amazing cast check that saved everyone by ending the encounter, especially knowing that it could fizzle and give you nothing but wasted time and lost HP?
Divine casters work the same except that skill in casting arcane magic does not stack with skill in casting divine magic. Domains are another advantage for casters who have them, as I'd allow any spell that is thematically related strongly to be cast using the skill for that domain regardless of school.
I came to look at the thread because it seemed like something I might like and while I admire your ideas the thread is intimidating as anything.
I've read all the spoilers and it's a huge amount of information and, as others have said, rewrites the rules to a truly huge extent. I think if you played with all five house rules you really wouldn't be playing Pathfinder any more.
Looking at them specifically...
1. I'm not a huge fan. Casters are strong regardless and I'm not sure that the skill system would improve it. Even losing health isn't necessarily a huge deal because most parties won't push into more fights if one of their members is dangerously low. I think Hell's Rebels might be a particular problem there because its mostly a game of individual encounters that are tougher than normal. In that case burning 25% health for fireball absolutely is worth it because the weeks bed rest is no trouble. Something with more of a grind or time pressure, like Shattered Star or Ironfang Invasion might be better.
2. More skills. I can see that you like skills rather than anything else but again I feel like this is making a lot more maths in an already mathematically heavy game. I'm honestly not sure why this needs to be changed. Functionally they pretty much are skills already, just named differently, and making them a skill doesn't stop there being plenty of ways to mess with the maths.
For example, what if I play a half-elf with their free skill focus and take it in archery? With high dex I could be packing a modifier of +10 to +12 at level one. That's a nasty spike and will give me an extra +3 for free at 10th level. Great value from a feat and stuff like weapon focus suddenly becomes worthless.
All in all I wouldn't want to play with either of these.
3. I don't quite get this one and would appreciate an example. In theory at least it seems doable, but I don't understand how it would play in practise and again, it seems like more maths. Also note that you gain feats every two levels normally but you said two and every four levels afterwards. Was that intentional? I have to confess I've very rarely felt feat starved in PF1 myself.
Would be willing to try with this, as long as I got some help with how it actually worked.
4. More alternate maths. Again I don't fully understand either how this works or the purpose of it. I'm willing to be convinced but more information required please. What's the point in changing the dice anyway? Having more small dice decreases variance which doesn't exactly help PF1's already unbalanced maths.
5. Health seems interesting, I like the idea certainly. I worry about some of the numbers involved, especially if someone is playing a squishy caster. Playing this against the base games maths would make a fair few horrendous hits from monsters, especially if you added in your other changes to weapons/AC etc.
I think this is the one I'd be most interested to try, but injuries would need some clarity, otherwise I think people might burn through characters pretty fast.
I hope this helps at least a bit. Your ideas are interesting but I do think you're effectively playing a new game with elements of pathfinder in it. Fair enough and more power to you but I'd suggest putting a bit more time into it so you could offer four characters with stat blocks already done and some example combats etc. Then you can use the plot of Hell's Rebels if you want but make it clear that it's the story not the system.
Maybe start with a short one shot instead of a full AP?
Thanks for feedback.
Technically it is part of a full system, but I have a lot of trouble getting anyone who is willing to even look at a new system. I've two players for a long term campaign and two more for a one shot and a few others who didn't play but did look and give feedback. That is the sum total from over a decade of trying to get players. 11 years of work for 4 players.
Hence, my trying this idea of testing just a small amount of change in exchange for chronicles, hoping that by giving players something outside the game itself that they'd then be willing to play.
Now I got a bit of attention but I'm uncertain if anyone here will actually play in the end.
Thus this recruitment. No body cares about one shots, not for a new system or extensive play. Makes sense, why learn a new system for a single 4 hour module? A full campaign might be worth it though, and I can sweeten the pot by offering chronicles. Unfortunately, I only have three books for Hell's Rebels, and no other APs at all.
Of course, I have since learned that I could actually just run an AP in an entirely new system and still give chronicles for it. Since it seems that many had expectations far short of my intentions here, I'll probably try that if this recruitment falls through.
5. The injuries are intentionally a bit vague, as that leaves me room to make the result fit well with whatever caused the injury. Bludgeoning would be less likely to remove an arm, and sonic would almost certainly not take an arm off without being so strong as to just rip a body apart entirely. But a sword slash would be far more likely to cut an arm off.
It also is due to my philosophy. I don't play the game system. I play freeform, with a few mechanics to cover the weaknesses of freeform play, and to work as shorthand for communicating necessary but otherwise uninteresting info about the world or events. Dice is really the only thing that truly does more than just aid the otherwise freeform play. This philosophy means that I absolutely will never just resolve things mechanically. To me the mechanics alone do not and can not be detailed enough. And while I can't really expect players to this until they become veterans of my style, and absolutely will encourage players to break away from the pure mechanics by focusing on mechanics association with the narrative world, such as needing more than just a dice roll to achieve something.
4. The use of multiple dice adds greater consistency and less wildly crazy results. Pathfinder and 3.x have pretty good math, but that is highly dependent on the perspective. 3.x was never intended for mechanical balance, if is focused on naturalistic balance. 3.x is also a massively larger range of scale compared to what the community believed. Level 5 is the peak of real world human potential. But if you look at it trying to make level 20 as the real world peak, then the numbers wouldn't work, because that's not what the system was going for.
|
|
I just meant rules as apposed to entire mechanics. For example, to me, a rule is something like we are playing with crit fails or keen and improved crit stack. Imo, what your are presenting IS an entirely different system as presented but you’ve also said you’re willing to only accept a few. I would echo what others have said and maybe rank which ones are deal breakers for you and which are flexible.The only deal breaker for me to have none selected.
Recently, someone quoted that campaign mode could be run with entirely different rpg system if someone wanted. If I'd known that I would probably have tried that first then see if people were willing to try just some parts of my system. But it doesn't really matter that much, I know I need more eyes on these to find issues I missed or tell me how pathetic or awesome or middling these mechanics are.
after rereading them, I would agree with alot of what Nikolaus de'Shade said, I would be interested in Hells Rebel's using regular pathfinder but with your HP/ vitality system but the other ones seem like at best different math and at worst more math.
I also think it might be a good idea to run a one shot, maybe even one you write to highlight your system to help gauge and generate interest.
I just meant rules as apposed to entire mechanics. For example, to me, a rule is something like we are playing with crit fails or keen and improved crit stack. Imo, what your are presenting IS an entirely different system as presented but you’ve also said you’re willing to only accept a few. I would echo what others have said and maybe rank which ones are deal breakers for you and which are flexible.The only deal breaker for me to have none selected.
Recently, someone quoted that campaign mode could be run with entirely different rpg system if someone wanted. If I'd known that I would probably have tried that first then see if people were willing to try just some parts of my system. But it doesn't really matter that much, I know I need more eyes on these to find issues I missed or tell me how pathetic or awesome or middling these mechanics are.
after rereading them, I would agree with alot of what Nikolaus de'Shade said, I would be interested in Hells Rebel's using regular pathfinder but with your HP/ vitality system but the other ones seem like at best different math and at worst more math.
I also think it might be a good idea to run a one shot, maybe even one you write to highlight your system to help gauge and generate interest.
If anyone here would be willing to play a one shot, I'd absolutely do it. My many attempts at getting players for such a thing has always been nil however. A few times I got comments or even expressed interest, but never coalesced into an actual game except for the one time I was still in the army and had a regular in person group I could finagle into playing.
Nothing about your presentation implied it was just an initial impression.
Except of course for the specific statement
The first time I looked at this thread, I opened that first house rules spoiler and closed the thread.
Couple that with the fact that they not only returned to the thread they said they had closed and then made specific comments about the content behind the other spoiler tags would indeed imply that they were stating an initial impression.
I'm not the greatest at communicating in this format
After literally YEARS of discussing these rule changes on this forum and constantly running into the wall of your admitted disadvantage at communicating via threaded forum posts - perhaps the best suggestion I can make is that you take your burgeoning system and the potential playtest of it to a venue where you are more comfortable and adept in communicating with your potential playtesters.
this is text and that means that many aspects of the words, such as tone and stress and intent are things you hear in your own mind because you know your intent, but those things are missing from the text itself, which means that us readers must infer the intended tone and therefore, the impression we get will not always be what you intended. Though, just the attempt to educate me without knowing what I wrote is insulting all on it's own.
This is an example of rules text for a TTRPG, which is technical writing and should be devoid of "implied tone." This kind of content is meant to be presented as matter-of-fact description without the reader needing to infer your intent.
Nothing about your presentation implied it was just an initial impression.Except of course for the specific statement
Naturally. But just saying something is true, doesn't make it true.
The first time I looked at this thread, I opened that first house rules spoiler and closed the thread.Couple that with the fact that they not only returned to the thread they said they had closed and then made specific comments about the content behind the other spoiler tags would indeed imply that they were stating an initial impression.
They never reference anything other than what one might infer, incorrectly, from the spoiler names.
I'm not the greatest at communicating in this formatAfter literally YEARS of discussing these rule changes on this forum and constantly running into the wall of your admitted disadvantage at communicating via threaded forum posts - perhaps the best suggestion I can make is that you take your burgeoning system and the potential playtest of it to a venue where you are more comfortable and adept in communicating with your potential playtesters.
this is text and that means that many aspects of the words, such as tone and stress and intent are things you hear in your own mind because you know your intent, but those things are missing from the text itself, which means that us readers must infer the intended tone and therefore, the impression we get will not always be what you intended. Though, just the attempt to educate me without knowing what I wrote is insulting all on it's own.This is an example of rules text for a TTRPG, which is technical writing and should be devoid of "implied tone." This kind of content is meant to be presented as matter-of-fact description without the reader needing to infer your intent.
I would love to, but it's not an available option. If there are a few people around who are willing to start paying me a livable wage to run games and don't care what system we use, then I might actually be able to do so. But until then, I'm literally working 12-16 hours a day, seven days a week, and no I'm not exaggerating. Whatever I do with gaming is done during my breaks or during the rare guard shifts where things are slow and I get thumb-twiddling time in the clock.
So yes, I am totally aware that I'm not going about this in the best way, but that's because I don't have any better options right now.