PDA

View Full Version : Ashiel's House Rule Adjustments + Downloadable Document



Ashiel
2010-03-11, 12:35 AM
I'm going to be making some adjustments to the campaigns I'm currently running. After a discussion with the group about what we wanted from the game, where we could improve certain portions of it, and what we wanted to mix in from 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder, I've written out a house-rule primer for our use. I figured I'd post it up here to chat about it, and share with others.

Here's the Link; lemme know what you think.
Ashiel's House Rules Document (http://www.mediafire.com/file/jmmwluy0iaz/D20 - House Rules.pdf)

Edit: Fixed a formatting error in document in the alignment section discussing subtypes; link updated with revised version.

Edit: Updated the house rules document again; this time with a fix for the PF-Cleave feat to make it useful with the new full-attacking mechanics past low-levels and changed the shield mechanics slightly.

Edit: Updated the house rules document slightly, involving shields. Fixed something I realized I left out.

Mystic Muse
2010-03-11, 12:48 AM
I like them.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-03-11, 12:54 AM
One thing I have doubts about is the Shield bonus: if a mundane Heavy Shield provides with an AC bonus of +4, and +2 vs. touch attacks, doesn't it completely invalidate two-handed fighting and two-weapon fighting builds? You just took the sword-and-shield build and gave it +2 AC for free; I don't see any compensation for other builds.

Superglucose
2010-03-11, 01:02 AM
Sword 'n board sucks as it is, and +2 dodge bonus to AC doesn't really make it all that much better tbh. I'd still play a THF.

Ashiel
2010-03-11, 01:06 AM
One thing I have doubts about is the Shield bonus: if a mundane Heavy Shield provides with an AC bonus of +4, and +2 vs. touch attacks, doesn't it completely invalidate two-handed fighting and two-weapon fighting builds? You just took the sword-and-shield build and gave it +2 AC for free; I don't see any compensation for other builds.

It's worth noting that traditional Sword & Board style fighting is heavily under-powered in a typical D&D game. Two-hander style tends to rule the school as far as melee combat is concerned, but the addition of a lot of nice dual-wielding feats in Pathfinder help alleviate the pains of dual-wielding and make it more viable. Combined with the increased mobility of warrior types (due to the full attacks as standard actions adjustments), this helps make dual-wielding a viable option.

A character who wishes to specialize in shields sports a notably higher armor class. This is an attempt to make a sword & board style warrior the best at tanking punishment; and to do that, they need a defense that is worth the loss in offensive ability. Animated shields were removed from the game because they kind of kill it for sword and board wielders (giving their focus to the guys who already out-damage them). The addition of applying part of or all of your shield's AC bonus against touch attacks is appealing as well.

It's worth noting that such features are due to the shield themselves. Other things that provide a shield bonus to AC (such as that of a shield spell) don't provide the extra benefit. Again, this makes sword and board warriors more useful. :smallsmile:


I like them.
Thanks. I'm glad to hear it. Are there any parts that you like the most; or anything that kind of jumped out at you? :smallsmile:

Godskook
2010-03-11, 01:09 AM
I'm not sure I like the full attacks as standard actions part.

Also, the shields applying to touch attacks is wonky, since that makes it a little too easy for a fighter to have a touch AC of 20+, and 30+ without much more effort, which in turn means that blaster-casters(A sub-type that doesn't need nearly as much nerfing as most) gets hit the hardest, since touch AC was a good number to target to deal damage. It also doesn't feel very 'realistic'. Most touch attacks are touch attacks for exactly the reason that they go straight through anything that doesn't provide you with cover(as opposed to a tower shield).

Otherwise, it seems rather......minor.

Superglucose
2010-03-11, 01:12 AM
I like a lot of them, except you should clarify if your "two extra standard actions" soft-bans Timestop. The Sundering rules may end up gimping sundering builds, but meh to that because sundering builds weren't common or good to begin with.

I'm not sure they dying rules make much of a difference past about 5th level, though.

Mystic Muse
2010-03-11, 01:12 AM
Thanks. I'm glad to hear it. Are there any parts that you like the most; or anything that kind of jumped out at you? :smallsmile:

Lack of massive damage. that was a really stupid rule.(WOTC's version. not yours)

Ashiel
2010-03-11, 01:28 AM
I like a lot of them, except you should clarify if your "two extra standard actions" soft-bans Timestop. The Sundering rules may end up gimping sundering builds, but meh to that because sundering builds weren't common or good to begin with.

I'm not sure they dying rules make much of a difference past about 5th level, though.

It's worth noting that time stop provides you 1d4+1 rounds to act in, with restrictions on what you can and cannot affect while acting in these rounds of apparent time; as opposed to actually granting you extra actions in a single round (you've basically got a few rounds to yourself, rather than extra actions during a round).

The dying bit actually makes a bit more difference at higher levels due to magic items and other effects allowing you to increase your constitution score. This allows characters to easily sport negatives upwards to -20 to -30 hit points, which makes it less likely that they will be taken from "All good" to "completely dead" in a single stroke.


I'm not sure I like the full attacks as standard actions part.

Also, the shields applying to touch attacks is wonky, since that makes it a little too easy for a fighter to have a touch AC of 20+, and 30+ without much more effort, which in turn means that blaster-casters(A sub-type that doesn't need nearly as much nerfing as most) gets hit the hardest, since touch AC was a good number to target to deal damage. It also doesn't feel very 'realistic'. Most touch attacks are touch attacks for exactly the reason that they go straight through anything that doesn't provide you with cover(as opposed to a tower shield).

Otherwise, it seems rather......minor.
Understandable. It took a lot of careful thought to finally decide on allowing full-attacks as standard actions (something I've been agonizing over for months now, but was refreshed due to a recent thread on these boards); and I've been carefully considering the effects it will have on the game.

As for the shields, it is intended to be a buff for sword and board wielders. Essentially, you're trading your ability to effectively slaughter your enemies with a 2-hander or dual wielding for the ability to sport extraordinary defenses against rays and similar spells. This is a fair trade I think. Essentially, yes, it is indeed very easy for a fighter to sport high touch AC if they're wielding a shield (preferably a heavy or tower shield). With the removal of animated shields, this becomes a choice of combat style.

Also, while it may upset the fighter fans out there, a wizard could simply catch the fighter flat-footed (where he would loose his dodge bonuses) with a grease spell or simply by surprise, and then blast the hell out of him as usual. The fighter will likely find the most use out of this against unprepared casters and monsters who make use of ray and touch attacks. :smallsmile:


Lack of massive damage. that was a really stupid rule.(WOTC's version. not yours)
Hah. That was a pretty minor adjustment I think; but yes I couldn't agree more. Horrible rule. Just horrible. :smalltongue:

Superglucose
2010-03-11, 01:36 AM
Except that at level 1, your death threshold will be say, -18 and your max HP will be 14. At level 20, your death threshold will be, say, -30 and your max HP will be 350.

At level 1, the damage that's done will be 2d6+6

At level 20, the damage that's done will be a couple thousand. Also Save or Die.

Ashiel
2010-03-11, 01:44 AM
Except that at level 1, your death threshold will be say, -18 and your max HP will be 14. At level 20, your death threshold will be, say, -30 and your max HP will be 350.

At level 1, the damage that's done will be 2d6+6

At level 20, the damage that's done will be a couple thousand. Also Save or Die.

Heheheh. Yes, I wouldn't try to argue that. It's worth noting that most huge damage tricks in 3.5 aren't quite as valid in Pathfinder (for example, Power Attack was slightly nerfed and there is no Shock Trooper unless you import it from 3.5). Save or Die spells were also by default; but overall I agree. It's mostly a mechanical rule that is intended to smooth out the rules for negative hit points, as well as provide a little more breathing room without greatly diminishing the threat of death.

Ashiel
2010-03-11, 01:58 AM
Otherwise, it seems rather......minor.

Oh, I forgot to respond to this in my previous reply. My bad.

In short, the alterations aren't supposed to be a huge re-working of the system. They're supposed to be minor adjustments in a few areas to smooth out some places where we felt were kinda rough or wanted something different. It's hardly a 3.x/Pathfinder re-write. Just patches. I wanted to share it with the play-grounders and discuss them with others. :smallsmile:

Godskook
2010-03-11, 02:27 AM
Understandable. It took a lot of careful thought to finally decide on allowing full-attacks as standard actions (something I've been agonizing over for months now, but was refreshed due to a recent thread on these boards); and I've been carefully considering the effects it will have on the game.

Did you notice that now, spiked shield + TWF = best melee option? It seems to be, as far as I can tell.


As for the shields, it is intended to be a buff for sword and board wielders. Essentially, you're trading your ability to effectively slaughter your enemies with a 2-hander or dual wielding for the ability to sport extraordinary defenses against rays and similar spells. This is a fair trade I think. Essentially, yes, it is indeed very easy for a fighter to sport high touch AC if they're wielding a shield (preferably a heavy or tower shield). With the removal of animated shields, this becomes a choice of combat style.

Also, while it may upset the fighter fans out there, a wizard could simply catch the fighter flat-footed (where he would loose his dodge bonuses) with a grease spell or simply by surprise, and then blast the hell out of him as usual. The fighter will likely find the most use out of this against unprepared casters and monsters who make use of ray and touch attacks. :smallsmile:

It pretty much sounds like the only good option left in your games is to go S&B, honestly. Since all attacks trigger on a standard action, TWF is completely viable. Since shields can be spiked, S&B can also TWF. Thus, why would anyone *not* wield a spiked shield offhand? If you answer: "They wouldn't" then you know you've gone too far.

Also, this needs to be addressed: Shields adding to touch-AC violates a core rule of the spirit of 3.5, and that's associated mechanics. Changing shields violates this because there are mechanical abilities that are now disassociated because of this rule change. For instance, why does a light shield protect me from a ghost's corrupting touch attack? He's ethereal, so he should be able to go right through it. Way too 4.0 for my tastes.


Oh, I forgot to respond to this in my previous reply. My bad.

In short, the alterations aren't supposed to be a huge re-working of the system. They're supposed to be minor adjustments in a few areas to smooth out some places where we felt were kinda rough or wanted something different. It's hardly a 3.x/Pathfinder re-write. Just patches. I wanted to share it with the play-grounders and discuss them with others. :smallsmile:

Ah. If it was your intent to be minimal in your houserules, outside the S&B and Full-attack rules, I say good job, then.

Milskidasith
2010-03-11, 02:51 AM
Seems like you didn't even attempt to touch casters, and made a bunch of minor alterations to weapons (DR +X, which I hate with a passion, impossible to sunder more magical gear, which means Sundering now won't target valuable stuff, I guess, making acid weapons 1d4 instead of 1d6, etc.), and the whole shield and full attack problem.

Also, I think that charging with a two hander is probably still better than TWF... TWF doesn't double your damage, but power attacking through Shock Trooper and Leap Attack does... far more than double your damage. Granted, you sacrifice AC, but so did every Shock Trooper ubercharger before that, so.. meh

Ashiel
2010-03-11, 03:30 AM
Did you notice that now, spiked shield + TWF = best melee option? It seems to be, as far as I can tell.

With a two-handed weapon in Pathfinder you will be sporting somewhere around a +15 bonus to damage with Power Attack by 20th level before applying strength and a half benefits (also likely +15 by 20th level), and barring specializations or special abilities that add to damage; and you can sport a good 4-5 attacks per round at this point without even trying.

With traditional two weapon fighting you're looking at about 3 feats for the extra attacks (TWF + ITWF + GTWF) as well as Double Slice to get your full strength modifier on off hand strikes, as well as Two Weapon Rend (1d10 + 1.5 strength modifier if you hit with main and off-hand attacks). Additionally, you'll want to stack critical or bonus damage on those attacks.

Sword & Board allows for a character to sport a solid AC bonus and improved defensive qualities against incoming attacks. The dodge bonus provided by the shield represents the ability to disrupt the incoming attack (if merely because you make it harder to see you behind the shield), and should you become unable to move or are caught flat-footed you loose any such benefits against the aforementioned touch attacks. You're still target-able by targeted spells and effects; merely that you are more difficult to aim at with rays and touch attacks.

Should you opt to go the Sword & Board option combined with TWF, you will sacrifice offense for defense. You will need the Improved Shield Bash feat to make use of your shield's benefits while attacking with it in addition to the usual two weapon fighting feats. The actual AC bonus provided by a large heavy shield under this method is +4 (the same as a shield spell) with the more desirable +6 version being unable to shield bash/TWF at all. Also unless you're going to dual-wield heavy shields then you may need to split your feats to accommodate your shield and weapon.


It pretty much sounds like the only good option left in your games is to go S&B, honestly. Since all attacks trigger on a standard action, TWF is completely viable. Since shields can be spiked, S&B can also TWF. Thus, why would anyone *not* wield a spiked shield offhand? If you answer: "They wouldn't" then you know you've gone too far.

Considering the feat and resource investment for keeping your shield and weapons on the cutting edge, I'm not entirely certain I see the problem here. Considering that characters in 3.5 had access to things like pounce from a mere 1 level dip into lion totem barbarian, or by using magic items that grant the lion's charge ability, not a whole lot has changed in this department - other than shields aren't complete jokes.

On a side note, I think it's funny that the worst option for melee is theoretically the absolute best option. It's ironic and humorous. :smalltongue:


Also, this needs to be addressed: Shields adding to touch-AC violates a core rule of the spirit of 3.5, and that's associated mechanics. Changing shields violates this because there are mechanical abilities that are now disassociated because of this rule change. For instance, why does a light shield protect me from a ghost's corrupting touch attack? He's ethereal, so he should be able to go right through it. Way too 4.0 for my tastes.

As noted previously it's a matter of making you difficult to target; hence why you receive half of the shield bonus as a dodge bonus (notice the shield bonus isn't actually protecting against touch attacks). A light shield would only provide you a +1 dodge bonus against a shadow's touch, while a tower shield would provide a +3 dodge bonus instead. A weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus provides the whole shield bonus against touch attacks, and thus would provide it's full bonus against a shadow trying to strength drain a fighter.

This has the mechanical advantages of giving a fighter-type character a slight boost against creatures with heavy usage of touch attacks, as well as ray spells such as Ray of Enfeeblement. At high levels, assuming a tower shield, this could equate to a touch AC of 21 (assuming a +5 tower shield) which is still hit-able with a roll of 11 or higher for a 20th level wizard with no dexterity bonus, no feats, and no preparation at all (such as casting grease to make the fighter-type flat footed). Essentially, the big-shield wielding guy becomes a less attractive target for rays and touch spells, but no less a target for AoE spells or direct targeting spells (those that don't require an attack roll).

I'm having a hard time understanding why this is a bad thing. Shields were so easy to completely bypass or overlook, and generally gimped the character hard in terms of damage output, weight capacity (at low-levels at least), and skill penalties (again at low-levels at least), and so on. Now they have a valid reason to be used for defense. :smallsmile:


Ah. If it was your intent to be minimal in your houserules, outside the S&B and Full-attack rules, I say good job, then.
Thanks. It's always fun to tinker. :smallwink:


Seems like you didn't even attempt to touch casters, and made a bunch of minor alterations to weapons (DR +X, which I hate with a passion, impossible to sunder more magical gear, which means Sundering now won't target valuable stuff, I guess, making acid weapons 1d4 instead of 1d6, etc.), and the whole shield and full attack problem.

Also, I think that charging with a two hander is probably still better than TWF... TWF doesn't double your damage, but power attacking through Shock Trooper and Leap Attack does... far more than double your damage. Granted, you sacrifice AC, but so did every Shock Trooper ubercharger before that, so.. meh

The damage reduction bit was done because frankly DR/Magic is a complete joke. It might as well not even exist in 3.5 for all it is worth. It's about as useful as DR/silver was in 3.0. By 4th level everyone can be running around comfortably sporting a +1 magic weapon, if only through the use of an oil of magic weapon as a 50gp consumable. A Dragon's DR in 3.5 for example is laughable. The largest DR/Magic you're likely to see by 20th level is +4 (likely on a dragon) as noted with the conversion guidelines (DR 20/+4 Magic).

As to touching casters, for the most part Pathfinder did a lot of that for me by adjusting a number of problematic spells. Of course, I've never found many of the spells to be all that terrible (I never had a problem with Polymorph as a DM for example), with the exception of the big-bads like Shapechange and Disjunction, which Paizo tweaked a bit.

Most of the changes affect warriors. Standard action full-attacks allow warrior types to be more mobile and still be threatening; and doesn't require squashing some sort of multi-class or other method of getting the pounce ability on a character. It and other adjustments also allow warriors to still be fun and powerful at high levels without being uber-chargers or anything silly like that (not that I hate uberchargers; in my last 1-25 campaign the party's barbarian was a great ubercharger).

Out of curiosity, what makes you hate the +X magic damage reduction, but not damage reduction in general?

Ashiel
2010-03-11, 10:23 AM
I updated the rules again just a bit. Deciding to risk erring on the side of caution, I adjusted the shield mechanics slightly to provide the most benefit to tower shields, and left the others granting 1/2 their bonus vs Touch Attacks.

Edit: Also, fun fact. The house rule document has been downloaded a total of 44 times as of this moment. :smallsmile:

Ashiel
2010-03-11, 04:15 PM
I will be posting some characters of different levels shortly that are using some of the mechanical changes to give some examples of the alterations and their effects on game-play.

I'm surprised that so few have commented on the changes. Most of us play-grounders tend to love some good crunch-talk; which is why I was sharing our new house rules document in the first place. :smalltongue:

Oh well, I'll be back later. :smallsmile: