My House Rules, Version 3.0

[Roxxy]

I like to modify my Pathfinder games a bit. In particular, I don't like how some of the feats give out things that I believe should be built into the combat system as basic options, and there are feats that I think should scale with level. I also like Monte Cook's idea of handing out more feats. There are also certain spells I don't like the PCs having access to for stylistic reasons. Fighters could use a bit more skills and skill points, and Rogues should have an optional alternative to Sneak Attack. Plus, there are some stylistic changes I want to make. Here is what I have, critiques, suggestions, and requests for explanations or justifications are appreciated.



Materiel from the Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic is allowed. Firearms are restricted to campaigns specifically intended for them.

From the third party supplement Psionics Unleashed, everything except the races is allowed.

The GM owns the following 3E/3.5 books (http://thyressa.wikia.com/wiki/Books_The_GM_Owns). Materiel from these books is allowed or disallowed on a case by case basis, and may be tweaked if necessary.

Online materiel may or may not be allowed. The GM will make this decision prior to character creation. If the GM decides that it is allowed, materiel from Grit and Gunslingers and the Ardwright (http://www.pathfinderdb.com/character-options/classes/288-ardwright) are allowed, and materiel from Maxximilius's Archetypes (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T54NZ_Hyz0Tj6b0DGO4uuihfhT7zjZ-aF3I_nD24PyI/edit?pli=1), Meepo's Archetypes (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz51hq?Epic-Meepo-Presents-Archetypes), and SmiloDan's Classes (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4fr8?Im-bored-give-me-ideas-for-a-new-base-class-I) is allowed by GM approval of the specific option in question.

If the GM allows something that proves to be unbalanced, the player may be asked to modify or replace the option in question.

The GM will provide a list of races that exist in her campaign setting prior to character creation. Some races, such as Gnomes and Halflings, are not available. Some new races are available, and some other races are modified. The list provided will explain all of this.

All classes except the fighter get an additional 2 skill points per level. This applies to archetypes that modify skill points.

Fighters get an additional 4 skill points per level. This applies to archetypes that modify skill points.

Spontaneous casters do not increase a spell's casting time when using metamagic.

Fighters add the following skills to their list of class skills: Acrobatics, Bluff, Diplomacy, Fly, Heal, Knowledge (Any), Linguistics, Perception, Perform, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Stealth, Use Magic Device

All characters gain one feat per level. This includes monsters.

Two Weapon Fighting and Vital Strike scale with level. This means you gain the improved version for free as soon as you meet the prerequisites.

All characters get Vital Strike for free.

All Characters get Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Weapon Finesse, Point-Blank Shot, and Precise Shot for free.

A Rogue or Ninja may trade her entire Sneak Attack progression for a bonus feat at 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th level and a full base attack bonus. A Rogue or Ninja may trade half her Sneak Attack progression for a full base attack bonus. If she does this, she does not gain the Sneak Attack ability until 3rd level, when she gets 1d6 of Sneak Attack damage, and it improves by one die at 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th level. A Rogue with the Master Strike ability and no Sneak Attack may use Master Strike whenever Sneak Attack would normally be able to be used.

Polearms with the trip feature or ability to grapple may be used to, with a trip or grapple attempt at a -2 penalty, pull rider from her mount, causing her to fall prone in a space next to her mount.

Scimitars, Quarterstaffs, Bo Staffs, and Longswords are finessable weapons.

A Spear (not a Longspear or Shortspear) may be used as a double weapon if desired, with the blunt end treated as a Quarterstaff.

You can shield bash with a buckler. It is treated as a light shield with a -1 damage penalty.

Traditional Katanas (those with the Ultimate Combat stats) have the Fragile special quality. Thicker, less brittle Katanas that use Greatsword, Bastard Sword, or Longsword stats (depending on the size of the individual sword) are available.

In Thyressa the gods are poorly understood by mortals, and people aren't even sure if god is the correct term for them. There also happen to be thousands of them. Polytheism is more common than monotheism, and religion is highly complicated. Character religion is handled by the player, not the GM, and the GM does not provide a deity list. There is a small list of major religions (so far, it has 1 religion), but players are free to make up their own religions and deities for their characters to adhere to. Characters from classes that can have any domain, such as Clerics, can choose whatever domains they want instead of working off of a list of domains by deity. It is permissible to be a Cleric, Oracle, or Inquisitor, or Paladin who is polytheistic.

Each paladin has a personalized code of conduct put together by the GM and player during character creation. The Core Rulebook code of conduct does not apply, this personalized code does. If it is violated, the paladin begins to fall from grace.

A paladin's fall from grace takes a long time, with the character losing paladin abilities for antipaladin abilities one by one as she descends further and further into unacceptable actions, until finally there is nothing left of her paladin abilities whatsoever. The GM decides when a paladin begins to fall, and the GM will not have a paladin begin falling without warning her about her actions so that she may avoid falling, unless she does something extremely evil, like genocide. Redemption works the opposite way, with antipaladin abilities being traded out for paladin abilities one by one as the paladin steadily ascends towards the path of good.

Alignment is not used. Here (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz389l?Intelligence-Check-Removing-Alignment-from#0) is an explanation of how this effects the game.

The atonement spell does not exist. Things that would require it are handled via RP.

Plane shifting spells are not available to mortals, only to outsiders. Plane shifting requires special techniques and components that require multiple adventures just to discover. The existence of planes and outsiders is known, but they are not well understood. They can be summoned and bound with the proper spells.

Any outsider of good bent is called an Angel, and any outsider of evil bent is called a Demon.

No time stop, wish, or miracle spells, including limited wish or minor miracle. Time Stop does not exist, and wishes and miracles are the domain of powerful outsiders, fey, and magic items.

Teleportation magic has a 90% chance of fatal mishaps. This does not apply to summoning or spell like abilities.

You may reroll a failed knowledge check if you come across a source of additional information such as a book or an overheard NPC comment.

There is no level or stat loss when being raised from the dead. However, it does cause mental stress. Roll a will save (DC 10 + character level + days dead). If you fail, you gain an insanity (3.5 Unearthed Arcana insanity, not Gamemastery Guide insanity). Insanities are not determined randomly. Instead, the GM talks with the player to see which insanity the player is most comfortable roleplaying, and gives the character that insanity. Characters who are raised from the dead have no memory of what happened to them after they died. The fate of the dead is unknown to mortals.

All medium armor uses the stats for either hide or breastplate, and all heavy armor uses full plate stats. Armors can still be made out of unusual materials (such as adamantine or mithril). The reason for this house rule is that there is no reason to wear medium armor that isn't a breastplate (unless you are a druid or first level character) or heavy armor that isn't full plate once you have the gold for it, and I dislike that, so I prefer for medium and heavy armor to have the same stats, with the differences being aesthetic. That way, you can wear chainmail instead of a breastplate or heavy lamellar instead of full plate without being less effective for it.

Traits are not used.

Ability scores are 25 point buy. Alternatively, you may roll 4d6, drop lowest die 6 times, then reroll the lowest result, in the presence of the GM.

When leveling up, you may either roll HP in the presence of the GM or just assume an average roll (which is half of the maximum dice roll, not a fraction).

Witches have a choice between summoning a familiar and forming an arcane bond. Witch familiars work the same as wizard familiars, as does the arcane bond feature. A witch writes spells in a grimoire, which functions like a wizard's spellbook but holds a great deal of ritual significance to the witch. A witch who loses a grimoire is treated as a witch in another Pathfinder game who has lost a familiar. A witch coven does not need to posses a hag. Bluff is on the list of witch class skills.

No communing with deities. I like my deities mysterious and ambiguous.

Clerics, Oracles, and Inquisitors can't lose their powers for becoming corrupt. That's a Druid/Paladin thing, and Paladins don't lose their powers, they just slowly accrue evil powers as replacements.

Ammunition, food, and water is not tracked unless scarcity is important to the adventure. Spell components are only tracked if they have a specific cost or scarcity is important to the adventure. If the GM decides to track resources, she will inform the players ahead of time so that they may prepare for this.

All characters are literate regardless of class except for those with the true primitive archetype.

Magic ratings (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm) are used. Arcane and divine magic ratings do not stack with each other.

Ultimate Combat called shots are allowed.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why the heck are katanas fragile?

And why does everyone get Vital Strike for free?

[Roxxy]

Why the heck are katanas fragile?Katanas are both thin and brittle. They can slice though softer materials just fine, but tend to chip, bend, or break against most metals, aside from some soft ones, and would probably do the same against many types of natural armor such as dragon scales. They are deadly against unarmored or lightly armored opponents, but against heavy armor (aside from the Japanese types, which had soft metal) or the magical protection almost everything has at higher levels I wouldn't trust one. They are not very durable.


And why does everyone get Vital Strike for free?To make mobile combat builds more feasible when compared to standing still and full attacking. Full attacking still does more damage, but the gap is nowhere near as large. That is how I thing the combat system should work.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Katanas are both thin and brittle. They can slice though softer materials just fine, but tend to chip, bend, or break against most metals, aside from some soft ones, and would probably do the same against many types of natural armor such as dragon scales. They are deadly against unarmored or lightly armored opponents, but against heavy armor (aside from the Japanese types, which had soft metal) or the magical protection almost everything has at higher levels I wouldn't trust one. They are not very durable.

A common misconception. While it is true that the edge would chip easily, the layering of steel around the edge leads to a blade that is actually surprisingly durable. Thus, only the edge is brittle, and it's held in place and strengthened by layers of much more durable metal. Hence the reputation for sharpness, good craftsmanship, and so forth. Realistically, however, it's just another type of sword, and not inherently better or worse than any other when it comes to "kill a person with this weapon."

If you want a more accurate representation of the weapon, you'd need a fourth damage type (piercing/slashing/bludgeoning/???) to account for the fact that weapons like the Greatsword and Greataxe (or, rather, their real-life counterparts) were designed to cut through brute force, rather than with sharpness of blade. Hence their heavy weight compared to other weapons. Armor would then reduce the damage from weapon types appropriate to the design of the armor...

But that's overly complicated. :smallbiggrin:

[Roxxy]

A common misconception. While it is true that the edge would chip easily, the layering of steel around the edge leads to a blade that is actually surprisingly durable. Thus, only the edge is brittle, and it's held in place and strengthened by layers of much more durable metal. Hence the reputation for sharpness, good craftsmanship, and so forth. Realistically, however, it's just another type of sword, and not inherently better or worse than any other when it comes to "kill a person with this weapon."

If you want a more accurate representation of the weapon, you'd need a fourth damage type (piercing/slashing/bludgeoning/???) to account for the fact that weapons like the Greatsword and Greataxe (or, rather, their real-life counterparts) were designed to cut through brute force, rather than with sharpness of blade. Hence their heavy weight compared to other weapons. Armor would then reduce the damage from weapon types appropriate to the design of the armor...

But that's overly complicated. :smallbiggrin:Katanas do in fact break against hard metals. The problem is that they are thin and made of weak metal. They are incredibly sharp, and deadly against softer targets, and perfectly adequate for Japanese warfare, but against an armored knight or a dragon it wouldn't be particularly useful.

Here is an example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hy_A9vjp_s#t=5m55s). Both of these swords (a katana and a broadsword) were forged by a German man, Stephan Roth, who is well known for expertise with both European and Japanese swordsmithing methods. These are both well made blades done in the traditional styles. The katana did very, very poorly. A second broadsword, meanwhile, did the job much, much better.

The simple fact of the matter is that a katana is basically a three foot razor blade, and, while incredibly sharp and capable of inflicting devastating wounds to unprotected flesh, it is very poor for D&D style combat do to the high levels of protection. This is because Japanese metal is of poor quality due to limited natural resources and the blade themselves are very, very thin.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Um, so you're basing the rule that katanas are brittle on subpar materials? Because trust me, when made with same quality metal, they wouldn't be much easier to break. There are a bunch of weapon rules that don't make sense, and you decide to fix the one based on a technicality.

Besides, this is D&D/Pathfinder, where a level 1 character with a single feat can lift up something that weighs 200+ pounds and wasn't designed as a weapon and wield it without penalty, yet pick up something that weighs 200+ pounds that was designed to be a weapon and suddenly take a penalty.

[Roxxy]

Um, so you're basing the rule that katanas are brittle on subpar materials? Because trust me, when made with same quality metal, they wouldn't be much easier to break. There are a bunch of weapon rules that don't make sense, and you decide to fix the one based on a technicality.Without subpar materials, there is no reason to forge a traditional katana. All that folding was a method of improving bad steel. There is also no reason to make them so thin without a rarity of iron. This isn't based on a technicality, it's based on why katanas are made the way they are made. Subpar materials and scarcity were major factors in the design of the weapon. Remove those factors, and the design would be different. With a large amount of good steel (which is what I'm assuming), they'd be made thicker and with less folding, making the alternative versions I listed the most likely to appear.

Even if, for some reason, you made a traditional katana out of superior metals, it'd still do poorly against heavy armor and thicker swords of the same metal. They are thin. That's fine in the type of fight the Japanese preferred, but we've added lots of good metal now. With more good metal, you'd see the Japanese wearing more and heavier armor than they did historically, at which point the thinness of the sword becomes a major issue when the sword fails to stand up to the beating of that sort of fight. Traditional katanas just aren't going to work in such a setting. They are a weapon for societies that lack a lot of good metal, not societies that have a ton of it.


Besides, this is D&D/Pathfinder, where a level 1 character with a single feat can lift up something that weighs 200+ pounds and wasn't designed as a weapon and wield it without penalty, yet pick up something that weighs 200+ pounds that was designed to be a weapon and suddenly take a penalty.I've never seen a first level character do anything like that.

To be frank, the way katanas are treated as being incredibly lethal without addressing their shortcomings bugs me. They aren't the super weapons they are made out to be. They are incredibly destructive against flesh and soft materials, but they do poorly against tougher targets. I like to throw in a lot of Asian materiel in my games, so I want to address this issue and add in versions that would be more realistic in a world with heavy plate armor and dragonhide. I specified that thicker katanas of better materials with longsword, bastard sword, and greatsword stats do exist and are available. With a thicker blade and good steel, and with less layering during construction (it takes forever, makes repairs harder, and is a technique for purifying low quality steel, not a technique for strengthening high quality steel), it'd do just fine in a heavy armor battle. Under my house rules, that sort of katana is widely available, and does not have the fragile quality. It's the razor thin, poor steel, layered katanas that are considered fragile.

[bobthe6th]

Without subpar materials, there is no reason to forge a traditional katana. All that folding was a method of improving bad steel. There is also no reason to make them so thin without a rarity of iron. This isn't based on a technicality, it's based on why katanas are made the way they are made. Subpar materials and scarcity were major factors in the design of the weapon. Remove those factors, and the design would be different. With a large amount of good steel (which is what I'm assuming), they'd be made thicker and with less folding, making the alternative versions I listed the most likely to appear.

Even if, for some reason, you made a traditional katana out of superior metals, it'd still do poorly against heavy armor and thicker swords of the same metal. They are thin. That's fine in the type of fight the Japanese preferred, but we've added lots of good metal now. With more good metal, you'd see the Japanese wearing more and heavier armor than they did historically, at which point the thinness of the sword becomes a major issue when the sword fails to stand up to the beating of that sort of fight. Traditional katanas just aren't going to work in such a setting. They are a weapon for societies that lack a lot of good metal, not societies that have a ton of it.

I've never seen a first level character do anything like that.

To be frank, the way katanas are treated as being incredibly lethal without addressing their shortcomings bugs me. They aren't the super weapons they are made out to be. They are incredibly destructive against flesh and soft materials, but they do poorly against tougher targets. I like to throw in a lot of Asian materiel in my games, so I want to address this issue and add in versions that would be more realistic in a world with heavy plate armor and dragonhide. I specified that thicker katanas of better materials with longsword, bastard sword, and greatsword stats do exist and are available.

Carthage steel. swords you could bend the handle to the tip, and they would bounce back with no ill affects... there are many reasons to use the massively time consuming process of forging the stuff. this I think is called master work...

[Roxxy]

Carthage steel. swords you could bend the handle to the tip, and they would bounce back with no ill affects... there are many reasons to use the massively time consuming process of forging the stuff. this I think is called master work...You are thinking of a different layering technique than I am. If you tried to bend the hilt to the tip of the blade with a katana, you'd either rip the blade out of the hilt or break it, and possibly hurt yourself or someone else very badly. The Japanese layering technique was a method to cope with bad steel, not a method of making a highly flexible sword. A katana can flex quite a bit without breaking, but not that much. Katanas are actually less flexible than most contemporary swords. The reason Japanese swords are so different than other swords is because of the circumstances they had to work with (and they did so pretty well), not because of the inherent superiority of the swords or forging techniques. They have their strengths, but they have severe drawbacks as well.

[Gemini Lupus]

If you're going to go with your ruling on katanas being fragile, you should also give rapiers this quality. And you should make it so that bladed weapons, after being used enough, change their damage type to bludgeoning, as with use, a sword's edge is dulled and becomes little more than a metal club.

D&D/Pathfinder is full of abstractions. I do not fall into the "katanas are the best weapons evar" camp. Yes, the Japanese had to cope with poor steel and to do so, they had to develop a specialized method of forging them so that they didn't suck as badly. Every weapon has its drawbacks. While I do appreciate verisimilitude, I don't play D&D for realism. IMHO, there is no reason why Japanese forging styles can't be used with superior materials if there is a reason for it to exist. Perhaps the society that developed it was in similar straights as the Japanese, but then another society introduced superior metals and they kept their methods of forging out of a stylistic and ascetic desire.

[Roxxy]

If you're going to go with your ruling on katanas being fragile, you should also give rapiers this quality. And you should make it so that bladed weapons, after being used enough, change their damage type to bludgeoning, as with use, a sword's edge is dulled and becomes little more than a metal club.

D&D/Pathfinder is full of abstractions. I do not fall into the "katanas are the best weapons evar" camp. Yes, the Japanese had to cope with poor steel and to do so, they had to develop a specialized method of forging them so that they didn't suck as badly. Every weapon has its drawbacks. While I do appreciate verisimilitude, I don't play D&D for realism. IMHO, there is no reason why Japanese forging styles can't be used with superior materials if there is a reason for it to exist. Perhaps the society that developed it was in similar straights as the Japanese, but then another society introduced superior metals and they kept their methods of forging out of a stylistic and ascetic desire.The issue is that katanas get better stats than similar exotic weapons. I also don't want them to be exotic, I want them martial. That necessitates a nerf, and the fragile quality works. Handing out thicker katanas that emulate other swords also works. Just pick up one of the thick katanas and use that. It looks the same, and it's still deadly. It just isn't the powerful object of reverence a katana usually is. Instead it's a common weapon to see. This fits my campaign setting, as the Samurai class is dead and gone as a casualty of changing economic conditions in my world.

Rapiers, meanwhile, have none of these issues to consider.



...Plus, I just plain hate it when katanas are treated as being superior to longswords. They aren't, and the stats shouldn't make them superior like they do. They may be razor sharp, but they are expensive and brittle. They are sexy, and I'd love to play a character with one, but I just can't take them seriously as is.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The issue is that katanas get better stats than similar exotic weapons.

...

They get, what, the performance quality? Bastard sword is roughly the same in power, and bastard sword isn't worth a feat no matter which way you slice it.

[Roxxy]

...

They get, what, the performance quality? Bastard sword is roughly the same in power, and bastard sword isn't worth a feat no matter which way you slice it.I'd rather have the increased crit and deadly quality of the katana than the increased bastard sword damage.

Plus, treating katanas as exotic suggests they are superior to longswords, and they aren't. Katanas are not bad weapons, but they aren't the superior blades they are touted to be, either. They have strengths (that cutting edge), but they also have weaknesses (uselessness against armor). I happen to like katanas, but they aren't better than longswords, and they shouldn't be good enough to be treated as exotic. They are great swords, but they aren't everything their reputation says. Because of that, I can't take their game stats seriously as they are written. That's why I made them fragile, created non-fragile versions, and made them martial, so that a katana and a longsword can be about equal, which is, IMO, about how it should be.

[Ashtagon]

I'm genuinely curious. What is your justification for saying that katana are flimsy weapons useless against armour? Do you have any cites we can check?

[Roxxy]

I'm genuinely curious. What is your justification for saying that katana are flimsy weapons useless against armour? Do you have any cites we can check?I have a video posted above showing what happens when a traditionally forged katana and a traditionally forged broadsword are used against metal (in this case, another broadsword).

The katana isn't 100% useless against armor (it's been shown to hack helmets in half), but it's worse against it than a European or Chinese sword. The issue is, again, poor iron, which effects Japanese armor as well as Japanese swords. Against Japanese armor, it can and did stand up just fine. Historical records say as much, as the Japanese did wear armor in battle, and the katana was able to kill such opponents. Against European or Chinese armor with much better iron, which is something very, very different than the Japanese armor katanas were intended to go against? I don't like it's chances, and can see it acting like the sword above against a knight in full plate.

See the parts about construction and comparison with European swords. (http://saw.wikia.com/wiki/Katana) Katanas have great impact resistance (they can take a bullet), but that's not what were are talking about here. We're talking about lateral flex, which is what will break it against European armor. That's where the katana falls behind.

Katanas aren't useless weapons, and they are well made, but they are weapons designed for a specific set of circumstances, namely iron shortages and armor of poor metal. If those circumstances do not exist, they aren't the best choice of weapons.

[Ashtagon]

Here's what I see there...


Katanas are capable of damaging armor to varying degrees; older Koto era Shobu Zukuri type swords were designed when armor was prevalent and were generally slightly more curved and thick, consequenty they had relatively good armor penetration, as sword making moved onto the Shinto period the blades tended to become thiner and slightly less curved for use against unarmored opponents. ... ... Sword attacks can be fatal to an armored opponent, with or without damage to the armor. The historic record is that swords were used in battle against armored opponents with success. Today Shinkendo masters perform a helmet cutting ceremony capable of causing great damage to a helmet with a single stroke.

So it looks as if the older shobu zukuri katana were designed for use against armour, and had curvier, thicker blades, while later Shinto period blades tended to be thinner and straighter. In other words, it matches the European sword evolution.

The article goes on...


In this light, the different characteristics of certain European swords are due less to the limitations of their makers than to the requirements of their use. Attempting to establish the superiority of the one weapon over the other is ultimately meaningless without first defining the circumstances in which they are to be compared. The European sword has much greater lateral flex, giving it the ability to survive some stresses the Japanese blade would not. While the katana has much greater impact resistance, allowing it to survive stresses that the European blade would not.

So, European sword design has more lateral flex, while Japanese swords have more impact resistance. In other words, swings and roundabouts.

This made me look up lateral flex. It's the motion of the blade as it twists at right angles to the normal swing trajectory. In other words, katana are less useful as parrying weapons, but can potentially hit harder without breaking.

If you wanted to note a difference based on these facts, you could make katana less useful for parrying, which is what lateral flex is all about. Unfortunately, d20 doesn't really get into that level of detail. Maybe you could just say you can't "fight defensively" with a katana.

As for the video, it could quite easily be a case of different material quality rather than inherent differences in design technology. I think it is quite well-known that the metal ore available in Japan was inferior.

[Roxxy]

That's my point. Japanese ore wasn't good, which is what caused the design of the katana as it is and is responsible for it's strengths and weaknesses.

Also, remember that Japanese armor is weaker and lighter that Chinese and European armor. Just because a katana is fine against it doesn't mean it should be used against plate armor. Those older katanas wouldn't necessarily stand up to European or Chinese armor, as they were designed to stand up to Japanese armor.

[Ashtagon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=EDkoj932YFo

Katana beats longsword vs leather armour and vs ice blocks.

Katana also beats longsword vs breastplate armour, whether counting slash or pierce attacks.

[Roxxy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=EDkoj932YFo

Katana beats longsword vs leather armour and vs ice blocks.

Katana also beats longsword vs breastplate armour, whether counting slash or pierce attacks.The problem is that there are no details of how these weapons and armor were made, whereas in the German video they are all forged by the same person using traditional methods.

Plus, it's History Channel. Anything from them is immediately suspect, especially without any details of where those weapons and armor came from.

[Ashtagon]

The problem is that there are no details of how these weapons and armor were made, whereas in the German video they are all forged by the same person using traditional methods.

Plus, it's History Channel. Anything from them is immediately suspect, especially without any details of where those weapons and armor came from.

I think we can assume the manufacture techniques were state of the art for each (to the extent of the state of the art within each weapon design's tradition), and that the materials used were modern weapons-grade steel in each case.

If your point is that a katana made using the materials available in mediaeval Japan was inferior to the longswords of mediaeval Europe, that's an unfair comparison, because the materials available were vastly different. It's like comparing an iron sword to a steel one, or a bronze sword to an iron one. D&D has rules for inferior materials in various supplements. Pull some of those rules out, apply that template to the curved sword base weapon of your choice, and be done with it. But a well-made katana does genuinely appear to be superior to a well-made longsword (though not as much as the orientalists think).

A finely-crafted katana made with the materials available to mediaeval Japan was probably inferior to a finely-crafted longsword made with the materials available to mediaeval Europe. I don't dispute that point. But the base weapon stats assume equivalent quality materials in the first place.

[Roxxy]

I think we can assume the manufacture techniques were state of the art for each (to the extent of the state of the art within each weapon design's tradition), and that the materials used were modern weapons-grade steel in each case.

If your point is that a katana made using the materials available in mediaeval Japan was inferior to the longswords of mediaeval Europe, that's an unfair comparison, because the materials available were vastly different. It's like comparing an iron sword to a steel one, or a bronze sword to an iron one. D&D has rules for inferior materials in various supplements. Pull some of those rules out, apply that template to the curved sword base weapon of your choice, and be done with it. But a well-made katana does genuinely appear to be superior to a well-made longsword (though not as much as the orientalists think).

A finely-crafted katana made with the materials available to mediaeval Japan was probably inferior to a finely-crafted longsword made with the materials available to mediaeval Europe. I don't dispute that point. But the base weapon stats assume equivalent quality materials in the first place.I do assume that a traditional katana is of inferior quality, because inferior metal is the only reason for forge them the way there are forged. The forging methods were a method of compensation for bad metal.

However, I also noted the common existence of katanas that are forged with better metal and that, while a bit less sharp, are not at all fragile. These katanas are commonly seen and cheaply available. It's the traditional katanas, which are rare in this setting, that break.

[Ashtagon]

I do assume that a traditional katana is of inferior quality, because inferior metal is the only reason for forge them the way there are forged. The forging methods were a method of compensation for bad metal.

However, I also noted the common existence of katanas that are forged with better metal and that, while a bit less sharp, are not at all fragile. These katanas are commonly seen and cheaply available. It's the traditional katanas, which are rare in this setting, that break.

Your game, your rules, of course.

I'll just note that if the Japanese went to great lengths to develop advanced smithing techniques because of poor materials, it can equally be argued that the Europeans were lax in developing advanced forging techniques because they had superior materials, and so saw no need to improve the state of the art.

[DeAnno]

I love how Katanas being nerfed instantly sparks a page long argument but 1 feat/level is completely ignored. I don't really know much about PF (and that is quite a bizarre 3.5e collection you have there by the way) so it's hard to judge a lot of this, but a couple other things stand out:

- Does the teleportation nerf apply to short range magic like Dimension Door? Do you find teleportation only strategically unreasonable, or both tactically AND strategically unreasonable? Personally I find the tactical applications much less objectionable.

- Do any metamagic reduction feats exist in PF (ala Practical Metamagic, Easy Metamagic, Arcane Thesis)? I can see that becoming a very dominant strategy if they do, with 1 feat/level.

- Time Stop isn't really that good, unless you abuse it with Delayed Blast Fireball/Vortex of Teeth/Drug of Choice.

- You seem to be encouraging people to risk permanent stats with rolling instead of getting "average" values. Over the course of his career a character taking average hp (under your system) instead of rolling will have 10 hp less, and while I haven't done the math on it yet I'm pretty sure your rolling method is definitively better than Point Buy 25. This is not the type of thing I would encourage as I find permanent random chance on characters often leads to bad feelings, but that is a personal decision.

- You should make sure that items which require spells you banned to be crafted are not easily buyable, which would sort of ruin the point. I think a lot of items are based off Limited Wish or Wish so watch out for those specifically.

In general I approve of most of the rest, and 1 feat per level is the sort of wacky thing I would love to try to make a build around. The treatment of teleportation seems a bit heavy handed in particular, but OTOH I am used to playing in 3.5e campaigns where large areas were covered in giant Dimension Lock wards.

EDIT: On the stat buy thing, I suppose that it's hard to get an 18 by rolling (10.8%), and even risky to hope for a 17 (34.1%), so Point Buy would be the safer course for SAD builds, which makes sense if you want to punish them more (though I can think of better ways, like adjusting the point buy rules). I still think the round down average hp thing is silly though.

[Roxxy]

I just plain don't like teleportation. It's partly mechanical, but largely stylistic.

I don't think there are any metamagic reduction feats.

I didn't notice that my rules encouraged rolling. I don't want to do that. I want both averages and rolling encouraged. Do you have a suggestion to approve average HP?

Are you thinking of 3.5 point buy or Pathfinder point buy? The systems have different values.

I will watch out for those magic items.

I got the feat per level thing from Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might, and love it. It opens up a lot of new options for character builds, and I like that.

[Roxxy]

I just plain don't like teleportation. It's partly mechanical, but largely stylistic.

I don't think there are any metamagic reduction feats.

I didn't notice that my rules encouraged rolling. I don't want to do that. I want both averages and rolling encouraged. Do you have a suggestion to approve average HP?

Are you thinking of 3.5 point buy or Pathfinder point buy? The systems have different values.

I will watch out for those magic items.

I got the feat per level thing from Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might, and love it. It opens up a lot of new options for character builds, and I like that.

[Spiryt]

I would be as always, extremely careful against using generalizations like that about katanas and co. in games especially using stuff like "Katana vs broadsword" as sources....



That's my point. Japanese ore wasn't good, which is what caused the design of the katana as it is and is responsible for it's strengths and weaknesses.

Also, remember that Japanese armor is weaker and lighter that Chinese and European armor. Just because a katana is fine against it doesn't mean it should be used against plate armor. Those older katanas wouldn't necessarily stand up to European or Chinese armor, as they were designed to stand up to Japanese armor.

No sword would or "should' be used against plate armor, it's not optimal against it.

Similarly, Japanese armor was in no way "weaker" and lighter than European armor, that's generalization that just cannot be made talking about hundreds of years of different armors and their usage.

Katana being sword against "lighter targets" and European swords being better against armor is old myth and completely deceiving one too.

All swords are rather poor against armor generally, and there were plenty of European longswords and one handed swords that were even poorer than your 'average' katana against mail or whatever.

As far as "poor metal" goes, Japanese hagane wasn't in any way "poor".

Sand ores were very ungrateful as far as extracting pure, uniform and workable billets of steel, but Japanese smiths still managed to do it a lot of times.


Katanas are both thin and brittle.

Most katanas had very thick bodies compared to a lot of other one edged swords.


They can slice though softer materials just fine, but tend to chip, bend, or break against most metals,

Any sword will chip, bend or break "against most metals".

Swords are not tools for hitting metal objects, generally.




All medium armor uses the stats for either hide or breastplate, and all heavy armor uses full plate stats. Armors can still be made out of unusual materials (such as adamantine or mithril). The reason for this house rule is that there is no reason to wear medium armor that isn't a breastplate (unless you are a druid or first level character) or heavy armor that isn't full plate once you have the gold for it, and I dislike that, so I prefer for medium and heavy armor to have the same stats, with the differences being aesthetic. That way, you can wear chainmail instead of a breastplate or heavy lamellar instead of full plate without being less effective for it.

Wouldn't it be worth to just re-stat few of them to make few worthwhile choices?



Traits are not used.

All characters gain one feat per level. This includes monster

I would say that actually allowing some traits would be better for more customizable and unique characters than that many feats.

It seems both a bit abusable and pain to track.

[DeAnno]

As for hp, the average value of a dX roll is actually always (X+1)/2. This means a d6 is 3.5, a d12 is 6.5, etc etc. The way my games have usually dealt with this is to take the low roll at the even level and the high roll at the odd level. For example a Wizard with 10 CON would get 4 hp at first level (a maximized d4), then 2 more at 2nd level, then 3 more at third, 2 more at fourth, etc. Basically you are keeping track of decimal hp, but it has no effect until the fractions add up to be a whole hp.

As for Point Buy vs rolling that is much more complicated, especially because I don't know how Pathfinder Point Buy even works. To decisively figure out the comparison I would need to do some computer programming and spend some pages on analysis, but it is my feeling that unless your character really requires a single high stat, rolling in your system will generally produce more palatable results than standard 3.5 PB 25. If you could give me a quick summary of how PF point buy works I might be able to the some deeper analysis in my spare time.

[Tvtyrant]

The big question that runs through my mind when I read this is why the Rogue gets the alternative features, but you don't have alternatives for the other classes. Monks, Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins and Bards all upgrade their primary class features as they level. Half your Rage uses for extra feats would seem to fit in.

[DeAnno]

So, when rolling 4d6 and dropping low, this is the respective odds of getting a certain score or greater per individual roll:

{table=head]Ability Score|Chance|Chance for this or Better
3|0.00077|1.00000
4|0.00309|0.99923
5|0.00772|0.99614
6|0.01620|0.98843
7|0.02932|0.97222
8|0.04784|0.94290
9|0.07022|0.89506
10|0.09414|0.82485
11|0.11420|0.73071
12|0.12886|0.61651
13|0.13272|0.48675
14|0.12346|0.35494
15|0.10108|0.23148
16|0.07253|0.13040
17|0.04167|0.05787
18|0.01620|0.01620[/table]

Because of this, if we figure that six rolls will be "expected" to produce evenly along the percentiles (a reasonable assumption), our default group of 7 of these rolls (assuming we guess 6/reroll lowest comes close to 7 drop lowest) is very roughly: 17, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, (8). So the expected (average isn't quite the right word here) sort of distribution your rolling system gives is 17,15,14,13,12,10 (though with a poor degree of certainty on definitely getting that 17+). In 3.5e terms that's point buy 13+8+6+5+4+2 = 38. If we assume only the high four stats actually mattered, so this is roughly the same as a 17,15,14,13,8,8 its still 13+8+6+5 = 32.

So in conclusion I'd say rolling is being pretty definitively rewarded. I'd probably roll stats rather than PB under this system for absolutely anything except a Druid. It's hard to quantify how much the assignation aspect of PB is worth compared to the randomness of rolling, but I think going to PB 28 at least would be wise, if not higher (again, this assumes the 3.5e system, I dunno how PF works).

[Roxxy]

The big question that runs through my mind when I read this is why the Rogue gets the alternative features, but you don't have alternatives for the other classes. Monks, Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins and Bards all upgrade their primary class features as they level. Half your Rage uses for extra feats would seem to fit in.It's because the Rogue class often has a lack of effectiveness, depending on the campaign.