PDA

View Full Version : House Ruleset for feedback



Talentless
2011-10-28, 06:39 PM
Hi all. This is my first major attempt at some homebrew of a world. If you are interested in the ruleset I will be posting here, keep an eye on the world-building sub-forum for the setting I plan to implement it in. Will probably get started on that thread sometime in the next week or so.

The following is a bit of a houserule set that I will be applying to EVERYTHING in my world.

I'm mostly posting for some feedback on whether any of them really stifle or flat out murder the fun of what they affect.

Oh, and if anyone can help me figure out a name for the world, that would be cool too :smallbiggrin:

Pathfinder Rules Base

NPC Classes shifted to Core, with bonuses added.


Core Classes shifted to Prestige Classes. Magus is unavailable. Fishing for ideas on what to do with current Prestige classes.


All Full Casters spell progression dropped by half. This goes for all Monsters as well. (7th and above spells don't exist)


All Half-Casters spell progression dropped by half. Also applies to Monsters.
Resurection spells do not exist.


Core Classes. All designations seperated by a / require you to pick one. All classes BAB, HP, Skill points and Saves progress along the standard NPC Class progression. They also gain the following bonuses:


Priest(1/2 Cleric/Oracle Progression)


Scholar(1/2 Wizard/Sorceror/Alchemist/Witch/Summoner Progression)


Aristocrat (1/2 Bard/Paladin/Ranger/Inquisitor Progression)


Expert (1/2 Rogue/Monk progression)


Warrior (1/2 Fighter/Barbarian/Cavalier progression)


Qualifying for a prestige class is available earlier than level 5 at DM discretion, preferably for good RP done by players.

Level 5 automatically qualifies for an associated Prestige class off the Base class(Essentially, if you play a Warrior, and pick Cavalier progression, you automatically qualify for Cavalier by level 5 if you don't impress the DM earlier).


Other Prestige Classes are available to a Character that already has a Prestige class if they are willing to use a level on a Core class first. (Said Cavalier wants to multi-class into Cleric, they have to spend one level on the Priest class first, then when they next level up the Priest, they can shift it to Cleric)


Prestige class levels replace their respective Core class levels on a 1 for 1 basis.


There is no multi-classing XP penalty.


All WIS based casting shifted to INT based casting. Same with Wis based class features, with the exclusion of Monk features(May or may not remove this and make all Wis based features Int based).


WIS bonus is used for Will saves AND how many spells can be active at any one time.



All Archetypes are still available, but region specific.
Key Note: That means if you want a Samurai, you will play a citizen of the country that has Samurai, and if you play one knowing that your country is at war with another player in the party's country, you damn well better RP it out, and if it doesn't come to PvP, it should have a damn compelling reason for why not.


Armor as DR and Wounds/Vigor Alternate combat systems will be in place. As a caveat, I will leave the AC bonus of armor in simply because I would like armor to actually BE very effective at low levels and semi-effective at higher levels.


I will also be going through the spells and modifying them somewhat on a case by case basis. The extremely useful and powerful spells will still be high up on the power scale, but they won't be broken, I hope. However, that will take me a bit more time as I work out the logistics and exactly which spells I feel will need to be changed.

Feel free to post a list of spells you'd like me to look at as possible contenders for nerfs.

So, what do you guys think?

jiriku
2011-10-28, 08:13 PM
My first thought is that this is a pretty sweeping set of changes, and if you haven't already, you should get your players involved in the decision-making and world-building. Some players may resist such a radically altered gamescape, and if you get their buy-in early and let them build a sense of ownership in the setting, that resistance might be eliminated or at least greatly reduced.

Secondly, I see a huge emphasis on cutting everything or nearly everything to a half progression. I see potentialy fun-stiflage here, because that's a lot to remember and excessive complexity can stifle pretty thoroughly. If I could propose an alternative, you might consider using standard (non-halved) progressions, granting 1/2 XP, and setting the maximum level in the game world to 10th level instead of 20th. This achieves a similar result with far fewer rules changes. The benefit to you is that the houserules are easier to learn and remember for all involved, and it's faster and easier for you to incorporate external content (stock monsters, modules, etc) into your campaign. If you want to maintain a faster pace of frequent power-ups despite the fact that everyone will be leveling less often, you can add a system of unlockable achievements (like the magical locations described in many D&D sourcebooks) as a way to expand character power. I promote this because this system doesn't (visibly) take anything away from anyone, nor does it force anyone to learn a new ruleset. Unlockables would be available but optional, so no one is forced to get into them any faster than they want to. This is desirable because people often dislike having things taken away from them or being forced to do something new, but they often enjoy having things added or being allowed to do something new.

Talentless
2011-10-28, 09:12 PM
My first thought is that this is a pretty sweeping set of changes, and if you haven't already, you should get your players involved in the decision-making and world-building. Some players may resist such a radically altered gamescape, and if you get their buy-in early and let them build a sense of ownership in the setting, that resistance might be eliminated or at least greatly reduced.

Secondly, I see a huge emphasis on cutting everything or nearly everything to a half progression. I see potentialy fun-stiflage here, because that's a lot to remember and excessive complexity can stifle pretty thoroughly. If I could propose an alternative, you might consider using standard (non-halved) progressions, granting 1/2 XP, and setting the maximum level in the game world to 10th level instead of 20th. This achieves a similar result with far fewer rules changes. The benefit to you is that the houserules are easier to learn and remember for all involved, and it's faster and easier for you to incorporate external content (stock monsters, modules, etc) into your campaign. If you want to maintain a faster pace of frequent power-ups despite the fact that everyone will be leveling less often, you can add a system of unlockable achievements (like the magical locations described in many D&D sourcebooks) as a way to expand character power. I promote this because this system doesn't (visibly) take anything away from anyone, nor does it force anyone to learn a new ruleset. Unlockables would be available but optional, so no one is forced to get into them any faster than they want to. This is desirable because people often dislike having things taken away from them or being forced to do something new, but they often enjoy having things added or being allowed to do something new.

Thanks for the response. For the first, yes, I am getting my players involved insomuch as letting them know the premise of the changes I'm doing, I'd like to get them more involved, but conflicting schedules and time constraints make it a bit more difficult than I'd like for the moment.

As for the 1/2 Progression thing, asside from spell casting and the starting classes that players are expected to leave once the adventure gets rolling, all classes progress as normal, so I don't think you are taking that into account with the second suggestion you gave.

To reiterate: All non spell based class features
Rogue Talents
Barbarian Rage
Fighter Feats and Features
Ranger Favored Enemy/Terrain and Fighting styles
Cavalier Challenge and Order Bonuses
Etc.

Only progress at half when you are using the Warrior/Priest/Scholar/Expert/Aristocrat basic starting classes.

Otherwise it progresses at normal.

It is kinda there to make the Heroes more powerful, while at the same time making it so that a DM can populate cities and armies with a range of levels, while keeping the PCs *Special*, but not gimping the general populace while doing so.

Ashtagon
2011-10-29, 04:40 AM
All Archetypes are still available, but region specific.
Key Note: That means if you want a Samurai, you will play a citizen of the country that has Samurai, and if you play one knowing that your country is at war with another player in the party's country, you damn well better RP it out, and if it doesn't come to PvP, it should have a damn compelling reason for why not.

By role-play their relationship out properly, do you mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce)? Frankly, either ban the combination of PCs completely, or let them be friends. Encouraging PvP is a great way to end a campaign.

Siosilvar
2011-10-29, 10:38 AM
By role-play their relationship out properly, do you mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce)? Frankly, either ban the combination of PCs completely, or let them be friends. Encouraging PvP is a great way to end a campaign.

I'd like to add onto this that just because countries are at war, doesn't mean individuals are. Some people just don't really care and others will make it a point not to be prejudiced. The majority of NPCs in one country or the other would have some sort of distrust (but not open hostility), assuming that they're reasonably in touch with the events.

Talentless
2011-10-29, 11:46 AM
I'd like to add onto this that just because countries are at war, doesn't mean individuals are. Some people just don't really care and others will make it a point not to be prejudiced. The majority of NPCs in one country or the other would have some sort of distrust (but not open hostility), assuming that they're reasonably in touch with the events.

I know this, but at the same time, think about it.

I am not saying that players can't be more reasonable and work with whoever is in the party. What I'm saying is that I want some actual in game RP discussion and actions to justify it beyond arbitrary DM rulings or "well, in my backstory, I'll have made friends with someone from an enemy country, so I don't have immediate prejudice towards working with someone from that country".

I want the world to have realistic political sides, parties, and ideals.

And to me, nothing breaks the world continuity more than two people who should be enemies working together for no justifieable reason.
A third enemy that both countries want taken out of the picture? Acceptable.
Just because they are members of the same gaming group? Not Acceptable.

Also, war between countries tends to be the second highest cause of irrational immediate hatred of another group of people. The highest tending to be clashes of Religious Beliefs.

Hazzardevil
2011-10-29, 12:59 PM
By role-play their relationship out properly, do you mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce)? Frankly, either ban the combination of PCs completely, or let them be friends. Encouraging PvP is a great way to end a campaign.

That houserule doesn't really mean anything, it is practically built into archetypes like aldori swordlord, but it should be official anyway outside of DM fiat.
I think if your having all wis based casting shifted to Int, I think the same should be applied to wisdom based class features.

Also, I think with this houserule, you will need each player to plan exactly what the build will be before you start, in case a player thinks Holy Vindicter should be part of Oracle when you disagree or other examples.
Although this variant does make gishing classes easier, for example, a warrior could take a level in adept and then start taking sorcerer, and you could possibly be a good caster and a melee attacker. Although, this variant could encourage taking a level in inquisitor, bard, magus and summoner and then have level 10 class features for each class by level 20, or something along those lines.

jiriku
2011-10-29, 01:21 PM
I think what they're getting at is that most DMs discourage PvP, since it often causes campaigns to disintigrate, which would render all of your hard work and preparation wasted. As an alternative, you might assume that players who come from conflicting countries are allies and ask them to work together to develop an interesting story behind it, rather than the reverse.

Talentless
2011-10-29, 03:33 PM
That houserule doesn't really mean anything, it is practically built into archetypes like aldori swordlord, but it should be official anyway outside of DM fiat.
I think if your having all wis based casting shifted to Int, I think the same should be applied to wisdom based class features.

Also, I think with this houserule, you will need each player to plan exactly what the build will be before you start, in case a player thinks Holy Vindicter should be part of Oracle when you disagree or other examples.
Although this variant does make gishing classes easier, for example, a warrior could take a level in adept and then start taking sorcerer, and you could possibly be a good caster and a melee attacker. Although, this variant could encourage taking a level in inquisitor, bard, magus and summoner and then have level 10 class features for each class by level 20, or something along those lines.

Whoops, thanks for that, will edit that in, forgot about those.

Mostly the Int based is to streamline casting in to two types. Prepared, based off int. And spontaneous, based of cha. With both using wis as a secondary stat to keep casters from having every long duration buff up at once, then adding short durations as they need them. I want the casters to juggle which buffs they need, and if they find they chose wrong at the start, they cancel the buff to make space for the one they need.

Also, Magus doesn't exist in the setting, and I'm not sure quite what you mean with taking inquisitor, bard, and summoner and getting 10 class features in each by level 20.

To progress in features, you have to take the class level that gives you the features... and you have to re-take a level in adept every time you want a new variant in casting.

Ashtagon
2011-10-30, 06:14 AM
I know this, but at the same time, think about it.

I am not saying that players can't be more reasonable and work with whoever is in the party. What I'm saying is that I want some actual in game RP discussion and actions to justify it beyond arbitrary DM rulings or "well, in my backstory, I'll have made friends with someone from an enemy country, so I don't have immediate prejudice towards working with someone from that country".

I want the world to have realistic political sides, parties, and ideals.

And to me, nothing breaks the world continuity more than two people who should be enemies working together for no justifieable reason.
A third enemy that both countries want taken out of the picture? Acceptable.
Just because they are members of the same gaming group? Not Acceptable.

Also, war between countries tends to be the second highest cause of irrational immediate hatred of another group of people. The highest tending to be clashes of Religious Beliefs.

A better way to encourage this sort of nationalism is to encourage the character-mindset of "I hate [nationality xxxx]. Present company excepted, of course." In other words, the character is generally hostile to a particular nationality, but makes an exception for specific friends. Which still allows for "like me, like my people" pvp RP.