Questions pertaining to Homebrew

[Axzarious]

Greetings all. I have lurked and visited these forums for a while now, seeking insight and wisdom on various builds, classes, and other sorts of things through the months, and now I come in person to seek wisdom and reflection from the giants with a few questions of my own.

First and foremost, I would ask where homebrew ends, and where the creation of something new begins, and if this still counts as homebrew?
What started as a simple theoretical revamp of Pathfinder/3.5 is beginning to snowball into something new and radically different in a few ways - partially because I have also wondered if I could make a system that could be both a tabletop wargame and an RPG at the same time, or with little change in the overall rules.

In short, I suppose what I am asking are the follows? How much do you guys think the current changes/ideas below would break Pathfinder? How much of them sound fun or interesting to implement? Should I just write a full overhaul of the system and have you guys critique it if you are willing?


My most radical changes/ideas to Pathfinder/DnD as a whole.

1 : Having ability score bonuses operate on a Stat-10 system. 18 strength is no longer a +4, but a +8. In my experience, odd numbered stats were always something my players seem to dislike. Throw in the fact that you only get a single stat point every 4 levels, and although it's supposed to be special, it doesn't really feel like you gained much when you have to add +1 to something even.

2: Doing away with Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saving throws. Instead, things would be tested against specific stats like Constitution, Dex, ect. To balance the loss of the saving stats, I was thinking of having character classes grant stat boosts, OR simply saying Class gains +X to a roll when tested against X stat.

3: Removing the system of Standard, swift, partial, ect actions and replacing what players/monsters can do with a pool of Action Points. For example, first level characters could have a total of 2 AP. Moving your speed would be 1 action, while attacking would require 1 action. Casting a spell could be anywhere from 1-4 or however many AP. These numbers could be subject to change (e.g. Moving your full speed is 2, as is attacking, while previous swift actions could be 1)
This idea was mainly in response to some of those 'infinite' combos/loops I have seen. I know many DMs would step in against such tomfoolery, but it also provides rules that are a lot clearer and less convoluted.

4: Experience would be changed to a variable resource for several things. XP can be used to gain a level in a class, add to your stats, gain class abilities you qualify for, gain extra skill points, ect. This is perhaps one of the most difficult and iffy things to balance, and I will admit, inspired by Dark Souls/Demon's Souls. I already know there would need to be special clauses to avoid making multi-classing absolutely broken.


Thank you for your time, and if any of these are significantly stupid or foolish I do apologize. Many of my players do not have much experience, and my own experience in Pathfinder/DnD is not as extensive as I would like. Hence why I am coming here to gather some feedback and such on these musings I have had. If you all wish, I can post some of my other musings here as well.

[erikun]

First and foremost, I would ask where homebrew ends, and where the creation of something new begins, and if this still counts as homebrew?
Both are fine. The forum is called "homebrew" due to homebrew being the most popular content, but entirely new material is welcome here as well. People have even posted entirely new systems! Don't be worried about it being too original or not homebrewy-enough, because that isn't a concern.


1 : Having ability score bonuses operate on a Stat-10 system. 18 strength is no longer a +4, but a +8.
The biggest problem is how this scales to other values in the game, most notably AC. Most first-level characters are looking at AC 17 (scale mail, +2 dex, small shield) and getting as high as AC 21 without magic (plate, large shield, +1 dex), but you could easily have a +10 to hit at first level (compared to around +6 otherwise). Wizards and other spellcasters would easily have DC 21 spells at first level, meaning unless a character specifically put good stats in their defenses, they will automatically end up failing.


2: Doing away with Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saving throws. Instead, things would be tested against specific stats like Constitution, Dex, ect. To balance the loss of the saving stats, I was thinking of having character classes grant stat boosts, OR simply saying Class gains +X to a roll when tested against X stat.
I'm not sure what the difference is between having a Fortitude save with Constitution + Class bonus, or having saves that use Constitution and add a class bonus to them. They've basically the same thing, although I think that having "Constitution saves" that are separate from Constitution rolls, and get a special bonus, would just confuse people.

Plus, adding to stats has the problem of increasing other factors. Bonuses to Constitution grants extra HP, bonuses to Wisdom grant extra spellcasting to Clerics, and so on.


3: Removing the system of Standard, swift, partial, ect actions and replacing what players/monsters can do with a pool of Action Points. For example, first level characters could have a total of 2 AP. Moving your speed would be 1 action, while attacking would require 1 action. Casting a spell could be anywhere from 1-4 or however many AP. These numbers could be subject to change (e.g. Moving your full speed is 2, as is attacking, while previous swift actions could be 1)
This idea was mainly in response to some of those 'infinite' combos/loops I have seen. I know many DMs would step in against such tomfoolery, but it also provides rules that are a lot clearer and less convoluted.
Action points aren't going to prevent action economy abuse or infinite loop abuse, because you'd simply be getting AP rather than actions directly. In fact, it would likely be worse, because there are methods of getting move actions easily, which in an AP system would translate into standard actions.

You could prevent these infinite loops yourself, but doing so would be independent of the AP system.

The biggest problem here would be making characters capable of taking two standard actions. It's been recommended before, and the ability to cast two spells (as the strongest example) is just too much of an advantage. Even if you balance it out, such as 2 AP for standard and 1 AP for move, you still have situations where a character could get an extra move action (+1 AP) and take two standard actions - to say nothing about getting three move actions a round. If you're fine with that kind of planning, continue working with that idea.


4: Experience would be changed to a variable resource for several things. XP can be used to gain a level in a class, add to your stats, gain class abilities you qualify for, gain extra skill points, ect.
While this isn't a bad idea, you end up in a situation where you'll need to XP price the worth of pretty much everything in the system. That's a lot of work, if you're up to it. This might be a massive project just by itself, if that's something you want to do.

[DracoDei]

Creating something from scratch is a fine thing to post in this forum.

I know you aren't, but I'm just saying that the line between "homebrew for existing system" and "making a new system" exists, but isn't as relevant as you seem to be worried it is.

[Axzarious]

Thanks for the replies and feedback so far! It's good to know that what I'm doing isn't too much of a problem in regards to homebrew.


The biggest problem is how this scales to other values in the game, most notably AC. Most first-level characters are looking at AC 17 (scale mail, +2 dex, small shield) and getting as high as AC 21 without magic (plate, large shield, +1 dex), but you could easily have a +10 to hit at first level (compared to around +6 otherwise). Wizards and other spellcasters would easily have DC 21 spells at first level, meaning unless a character specifically put good stats in their defenses, they will automatically end up failing.
I had forgotten about save DCs, and would probably have to muck around with that formula. As for damage, I would probably end up boosting the amount of AC shields add. I had also thought about reducing the Dex penalty on armour as well as having Armour give DR over AC.



I'm not sure what the difference is between having a Fortitude save with Constitution + Class bonus, or having saves that use Constitution and add a class bonus to them. They've basically the same thing, although I think that having "Constitution saves" that are separate from Constitution rolls, and get a special bonus, would just confuse people. The reasoning behind this idea was an attempt to reduce the amount of formulae in things. Asking for a CON or DEX check vs DC seems a little more straightforward logistically - seeing as how there are times where people already make checks based upon such stats. Seemed a little like a 'two birds wit one stone' kind of idea at first. The second part? DnD/Pathfinder has always been kind of fuzzy on exactly what the exact differences between INT and WIS are (And in some cases aspects of CHA and WIS). Leaving INT and WIS aside for the following, I will add that one problem I have is that while Wisdom represents common sense and awareness, it also represents willpower... yet having 0 CHA seems like one is without will... while having 0 WIS is like being unable to interoperate your surroundings.


Plus, adding to stats has the problem of increasing other factors. Bonuses to Constitution grants extra HP, bonuses to Wisdom grant extra spellcasting to Clerics, and so on.



Action points aren't going to prevent action economy abuse or infinite loop abuse, because you'd simply be getting AP rather than actions directly. In fact, it would likely be worse, because there are methods of getting move actions easily, which in an AP system would translate into standard actions.

You could prevent these infinite loops yourself, but doing so would be independent of the AP system.

The biggest problem here would be making characters capable of taking two standard actions. It's been recommended before, and the ability to cast two spells (as the strongest example) is just too much of an advantage. Even if you balance it out, such as 2 AP for standard and 1 AP for move, you still have situations where a character could get an extra move action (+1 AP) and take two standard actions - to say nothing about getting three move actions a round. If you're fine with that kind of planning, continue working with that idea. Just the possibility of such movement with the idea gave me a small headache as is. You're right about all the logistical problems with this idea - If I was to use this idea, it would probably require an extensive revision of various rules. One idea that I had pertaining to AP was that combat feats would be modified by AP (e.g. Power attack costs x AP, as does cleave. Combine for Cleaving Power Attack or doing two whirlwind attacks in a round for example)


Another thing that has always bugged me is that while Everybody loves DEX and CON, Casters are often burdened with a more lenient stat preferences than other classes overall. Max either CHA, WIS, or INT and you will be good for the most part. CON and DEX are added bonuses. Melee class? STR, DEX, and CON are core, say nothing of the monk.
It would likely be impossible to make each stat give something inherently valuable to everybody or making the choice of what stats to dump far less obvious. INT influencing bonus spells gained while CHA makes spells harder to resist? But where does that leave wisdom?

Perhaps making a whole system from scratch would be the best idea while using Pathfinder and Dungeons & Dragons as a kind of general guideline may be best.

[Vadskye]

First and foremost, I would ask where homebrew ends, and where the creation of something new begins, and if this still counts as homebrew?
What started as a simple theoretical revamp of Pathfinder/3.5 is beginning to snowball into something new and radically different in a few ways - partially because I have also wondered if I could make a system that could be both a tabletop wargame and an RPG at the same time, or with little change in the overall rules.
This is how Rise started, and now it's 250 pages of almost entirely new material. Nothing wrong with that.

1 : Having ability score bonuses operate on a Stat-10 system. 18 strength is no longer a +4, but a +8. In my experience, odd numbered stats were always something my players seem to dislike. Throw in the fact that you only get a single stat point every 4 levels, and although it's supposed to be special, it doesn't really feel like you gained much when you have to add +1 to something even.
I did that (and got rid of the extraneous "start at 10" while I was at it), but keep in mind that you'll still need to halve this result for many things. A number that is about the right size for a d20 is usually not right for, say, uses per day. Also, applying full Strength to damage and full Con to hit points yields bad things.

2: Doing away with Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saving throws. Instead, things would be tested against specific stats like Constitution, Dex, ect. To balance the loss of the saving stats, I was thinking of having character classes grant stat boosts, OR simply saying Class gains +X to a roll when tested against X stat.
D&D Next did this, though I don't know how it handled class-related saves. I decided not to go down that route, instead making all ability scores contribute to saves, but this has merit. Just make sure you use Charisma as the "willpower" ability and Wisdom as the "perception/intuition" ability.

3: Removing the system of Standard, swift, partial, ect actions and replacing what players/monsters can do with a pool of Action Points. For example, first level characters could have a total of 2 AP. Moving your speed would be 1 action, while attacking would require 1 action. Casting a spell could be anywhere from 1-4 or however many AP. These numbers could be subject to change (e.g. Moving your full speed is 2, as is attacking, while previous swift actions could be 1)
This idea was mainly in response to some of those 'infinite' combos/loops I have seen. I know many DMs would step in against such tomfoolery, but it also provides rules that are a lot clearer and less convoluted.
There are much less dramatic fixes to infinite loops. This sounds unnecessarily numerical and metagame-y. Casting multiple spells or using multiple items in a round sounds like a very dangerous idea; one swift action is not half a move action. It's just different, and a character getting four swift actions in a round would be crazy. This system is much more ripe for abuse than the original system.

4: Experience would be changed to a variable resource for several things. XP can be used to gain a level in a class, add to your stats, gain class abilities you qualify for, gain extra skill points, ect. This is perhaps one of the most difficult and iffy things to balance, and I will admit, inspired by Dark Souls/Demon's Souls. I already know there would need to be special clauses to avoid making multi-classing absolutely broken.
This is one of the most prominent features of White Wolf and the Storyteller System, so you should investigate that for research. Having played in a number of games using XP as a variable resource, I think it is a terrible idea that should be avoided at all costs.

[Just to Browse]

1. In a system with multiple defenses, large number disparity favors offense.
An attacker just needs 1 attack stat, a defender needs 3. By virtue of the fact that small numbers doubled are still small and big numbers doubled are even bigger, you will see that offensive capabilities are a much bigger deal and a lot more fights will devolve into RLT.

2. You will need to rewrite the classes
There's nothing wrong with this. But with (1) and (2) along you're talking a total d20 rework, and this might as well just be a new d20 heartbreaker instead of 3.x/PF houserules. This is a lot of work.

3. Please never do action points
This leads itself to more abuse, more rewriting, and more noob confusion. I do not recommend it.

4. Point-buy systems are nonfunctional without serious access barriers
Being able to point-buy your to-hit into the stratosphere while never increasing your HP or saves is toxic to the game, because it encourages 1-dimensional characters. Without proper incentives to balance your character, this breaks the game in half.

You can write functional point-buy rules, but again that's not anywhere near 3.x/PF. It's a total system redesign.

I honestly recommend designing inside the box before you go to crazytown and make your own system. A lot of radical ideas seem awesome at first and then turn into balls of confusion and complication. Find the ways you want your material to fit into D&D, then write things to make it fit, and when you start coming across the same problem over and over then write something rules to deal with that.

EDIT: On top of that, you are attempting to appeal to a specific market of wandering cats with one niche construction out of many. For all of vadskye's work, he's probably going to get a hundred people glancing at his homebrew over the course of its visible lifetime, and maybe 1 of them will use it. So writing a system isn't just a lot of work, but it comes with little to not reward.

You see this same problem with Don Quixote's spellshaping variant, Ziegander's enormous breadth of fighter fixes, eldan's arcane magic fix, etc. The only people that I know get a lot of views are F&K (Tome of Necromancy, Tome of Fiends, Races of War, Dungeonomicon) and ErrantX (Libram of Battle, Iron Man/Ebon Initiate and his new PF ToB book). You need to be forum-famous to get people to even use your stuff.

[Axzarious]

I did that (and got rid of the extraneous "start at 10" while I was at it), but keep in mind that you'll still need to halve this result for many things. A number that is about the right size for a d20 is usually not right for, say, uses per day. Also, applying full Strength to damage and full Con to hit points yields bad things. Neat! So i'm not the only one who thought of that! My main problem is that while gaining ability scores is awesome, it's always felt lackluster and dissapointing with the current systems when you have to raise something to an odd number.


D&D Next did this, though I don't know how it handled class-related saves. I decided not to go down that route, instead making all ability scores contribute to saves, but this has merit. Just make sure you use Charisma as the "willpower" ability and Wisdom as the "perception/intuition" ability.[QUOTE]
Hrmmm. Interesting. This merits some further research.

[QUOTE]There are much less dramatic fixes to infinite loops. This sounds unnecessarily numerical and metagame-y. Casting multiple spells or using multiple items in a round sounds like a very dangerous idea; one swift action is not half a move action. It's just different, and a character getting four swift actions in a round would be crazy. This system is much more ripe for abuse than the original system. You're probably right about that. Part of the idea behind it was to give other classes a chance to compete with some of the insanity casters can unleash - but that's probably also tied to how ridiculous casters can be. Hell, there's no need for the candlemakers when light can easily be cast at any time in pathfinder.


This is one of the most prominent features of White Wolf and the Storyteller System, so you should investigate that for research. Having played in a number of games using XP as a variable resource, I think it is a terrible idea that should be avoided at all costs.
Duly noted. Though, to sate my curiosity, mind giving me some examples as to why? I've found this idea to be one of the most compelling things about Dark Souls, where the same currency is used for the purchase of spells, stats (cost to increase is based on your total stats), as well as money and equipment. It really makes you think and plan - though like some things, it probably only works best in certain mediums.

[Vadskye]

1. In a system with multiple defenses, large number disparity favors offense.
An attacker just needs 1 attack stat, a defender needs 3. By virtue of the fact that small numbers doubled are still small and big numbers doubled are even bigger, you will see that offensive capabilities are a much bigger deal and a lot more fights will devolve into RLT.
Good point - I forgot to mention that, and it's absolutely true. Rise dramatically increased saving throw progressions in order to compensate for this problem - and it will be even worse if you have six[b] defenses instead of just three.


I honestly recommend designing inside the box before you go to crazytown and make your own system. A lot of radical ideas seem awesome at first and then turn into balls of confusion and complication. Find the ways you want your material to fit into D&D, then write things to make it fit, and when you start coming across the same problem over and over then write something rules to deal with that.
Absolutely. An incremental evolution away from core D&D is much more likely to result in a functional system than trying to start completely from scratch.

[b]EDIT:

Neat! So i'm not the only one who thought of that! My main problem is that while gaining ability scores is awesome, it's always felt lackluster and dissapointing with the current systems when you have to raise something to an odd number.
I mostly did it because it was simpler for new players and I preferred the math, but that is also true! :smallsmile:

You're probably right about that. Part of the idea behind it was to give other classes a chance to compete with some of the insanity casters can unleash - but that's probably also tied to how ridiculous casters can be. Hell, there's no need for the candlemakers when light can easily be cast at any time in pathfinder.
Dealing with casters requires a more nuanced approach. Changing action mechanics won't touch the real problems. /Obligatory advertising of the Spell Reformation.

Duly noted. Though, to sate my curiosity, mind giving me some examples as to why? I've found this idea to be one of the most compelling things about Dark Souls, where the same currency is used for the purchase of spells, stats (cost to increase is based on your total stats), as well as money and equipment. It really makes you think and plan - though like some things, it probably only works best in certain mediums.
Just_to_Browse said it well. I'd add that there is (at least) one key difference between D&D and Dark Souls which affects how well a system like that can work: D&D is a party game. In Dark Souls, you can't minmax too much or else you're screwed when something comes up that targets your weaknesses - and it's a cruel game that loves targeting your weaknesses. In D&D, you can easily have hyper glass cannons running around supported by their party members. Imagine a barbarian who put all his XP into attack and damage, who only survives because his wizard friend put all his points into "casting improved invisibility", however that works. The point is, things get much more abusive in multiplayer settings.
Also, it's more complicated and easy to screw up, yielding terrible characters.


EDIT: On top of that, you are attempting to appeal to a specific market of wandering cats with one niche construction out of many. For all of vadskye's work, he's probably going to get a hundred people glancing at his homebrew over the course of its visible lifetime, and maybe 1 of them will use it. So writing a system isn't just a lot of work, but it comes with little to not reward.
Google tells me that about 350 people have visited the full Rise PDF, so nyah. :smalltongue:

I mean, you're basically right. Posting here is not going to get my system any serious attention; it's more to make the system better. At some point in the nearish future, though, I do intend to turn it into an actual book with shiny artwork and everything. I have dreams!

[Axzarious]

Allright. I'll make an attempt to tone it all down.

However, my question is this - how do you make defense more of an option over offense? Aside from perhaps tinkering with armor granting DR and shields being more useful towards AC as a baseline.

Hell, In many cases there's weapons which are clearly better than others. This is another problem I feel like I need to address! Has anybody here done any work on this?

Making odd numbers feel like less of a waste should be significantly easier, but I would like to hear as to how this problem has been tackled in the past. If it has.

Note: Yes, I'm asking about the weapon thing, and then i'm probably going to try some search-fu to see. However, somebody might already know of a better resource or idea that I might not even find.


EDIT: Yes, I know what I do probably won't go noticed or used, but I always loved designing games and systems. Hell, I'm going to school for game design, whilst also taking programming and other such things. I can ART passably as well.

As for Dark Souls/Demon's Souls? If it can be done, I've probably done it at this point. Did a soul level 1 run before. While some things might be hard, you can get past it if you know what you are doing. Still, I'd have to say that the Velka Int/Faith build I made did run into one problem, largely because I was probably a few soul levels short for what I was trying to do. And by a few, I mean probably about 20. Did great for PvP in its soul level, but that bosses magic resist?

[Vadskye]

However, my question is this - how do you make defense more of an option over offense? Aside from perhaps tinkering with armor granting DR and shields being more useful towards AC as a baseline.
Increase saving throw progressions and the differentiation between saves such that, say, a raging dwarven barbarian is essentially immune to level-appropriate Fortitude saves, while still being vulnerable to Will saves and having low AC. I use three save progressions: Good (1/level+2), Average (3/4+1), and Poor (1/2). Everyone should have a weakness (except maybe monks), but allow characters to have defenses that matter. Also, give them the tools to improve those defenses, such as feats like Great Fortitude.

Hell, In many cases there's weapons which are clearly better than others. This is another problem I feel like I need to address! Has anybody here done any work on this?
koffkoffRiseagainkoffkoff

[Axzarious]

koffkoffRiseagainkoffkoff

Edit on my last post aside, I cannot help but think you are perhaps trying to tell me something.

[Vadskye]

Edit on my last post aside, I cannot help but think you are perhaps trying to tell me something.
I'm sorry! I'm not actually here just to advertise, I promise. I'm sure there are other weapon fixes out there somewhere, but it's such a niche issue that I can't remember any in particular. Most people here aren't interested in nitty-gritty stuff like preventing strictly superior weapons, from what I've seen.

[Axzarious]

I'm sorry! I'm not actually here just to advertise, I promise. I'm sure there are other weapon fixes out there somewhere, but it's such a niche issue that I can't remember any in particular. Most people here aren't interested in nitty-gritty stuff like preventing strictly superior weapons, from what I've seen.

It's all right. Largely a kind of joke reply on my part. :P

I know in real life Armour doesn't hinder or slow as much as people think it did or does - The weight of knight's gear was roughly equal to what a soldier today carries. In real life, all weapons had purposes. Some swords were for on foot, while others were for mounted combat. What made swords great were their overall versatility in many situations. Against armored knights, things like hammers and axes were better than a sword - or so I read.

In fictionland, things are governed more by rule of cool. Giving weapon classes unique properties to distinguish themselves, or something they can do that other weapons can't is something I think I should also work on. I think it would add a little more spice than 'This stick is better than that stick'.

[Just to Browse]

Vadskye wrote a KSFH. He's proud of it and he wants you to look at it.


However, my question is this - how do you make defense more of an option over offense? Aside from perhaps tinkering with armor granting DR and shields being more useful towards AC as a baseline.This is a wonderful theorycraft question. Allow me to spleerg on you:
Universal Defense Boosts: Abilities that improve all defenses (AC, Saves) or circumvent them entirely (Mad Foam Rager, PHBII). A bonus to all saves (Paladin's Divine Grace), or a reduction to all damage regardless of source (I can only think of homebrew and video game references).
Contingent Total Victory: Defending against only a few types of attacks is OK from a balance standpoint if you totally blow those attack forms out of the water. Will saves so high that you're basically mind blanked (but better) and construct/undead immunity to fort saves is a good example.
Bigger Numbers: This is a middle-ground between the first two. Just increase the defensive values--if you have 4x as many common defenses as common attack forms, increase defense bonuses by 4.


Hell, In many cases there's weapons which are clearly better than others. This is another problem I feel like I need to address! Has anybody here done any work on this?This matters until level 3-6. If you really care, homogenize weapon damage (small 1d4, med 1d8, large 1d12).

If you're looking to maintain differences at high levels, D&D does that on its own with enchantments. If you're looking to maintain differences at low levels, you are cruel and all players will walk around with a polearm, sword, net, and axe just to win at the strange rock-papers-scissors thing that you end up going with.


Making odd numbers feel like less of a waste should be significantly easier, but I would like to hear as to how this problem has been tackled in the past. If it has.It really isn't a problem. If you're concerned with people getting +1 bonuses to attributes and those not being very good, then just improve +1 bonuses instead of messing with the core system. If you're concerned with people wanted to distinguish their 17 from a 16, you should look at the system again from a balance standpoint. The difference between a 17 and 16 will be very small even if you emphasize it, which means the difference is smaller than the chance of rolling poorly in any given session.

[Vadskye]

It's all right. Largely a kind of joke reply on my part. :P
:smallsmile:

I know in real life Armour doesn't hinder or slow as much as people think it did or does - The weight of knight's gear was roughly equal to what a soldier today carries. In real life, all weapons had purposes. Some swords were for on foot, while others were for mounted combat. What made swords great were their overall versatility in many situations. Against armored knights, things like hammers and axes were better than a sword - or so I read.

In fictionland, things are governed more by rule of cool. Giving weapon classes unique properties to distinguish themselves, or something they can do that other weapons can't is something I think I should also work on. I think it would add a little more spice than 'This stick is better than that stick'.
Be careful. Down that road lies madness and tables describing the individual effectiveness of each weapon against each type of armor. I recommend using "tags" that assign common effects to weapons. For example, a flail might have the "disarming" and "tripping" tags, giving it a +2 bonus to disarm attempts and allowing it to be used to trip. A warhammer might have the "forceful" tag, giving it a +2 bonus to bull rush attempts. I would advise not going into full "realistic" detail, for the simple reason that reality is unintuitive. A perfectly realistic system would be more likely to confuse your players with its complexity than do anything good.


Vadskye wrote a KSFH. He's proud of it and he wants you to look at it.
I have no idea what that means, but it is probably true. But honestly, if I had a separate "Weapons Reformation", I'd direct people to that instead! No reason to involve the whole system unnecessarily when you're only interested in a small piece. The problem is that it just has a huge number of changes, and I don't have the time to describe them all in detail...

[Just to Browse]

Kitchen Sink Fantasy Heartbreaker.

[johnbragg]

EDIT: On top of that, you are attempting to appeal to a specific market of wandering cats with one niche construction out of many. For all of vadskye's work, he's probably going to get a hundred people glancing at his homebrew over the course of its visible lifetime, and maybe 1 of them will use it. So writing a system isn't just a lot of work, but it comes with little to not reward.

You see this same problem with Don Quixote's spellshaping variant, Ziegander's enormous breadth of fighter fixes, eldan's arcane magic fix, etc. The only people that I know get a lot of views are F&K (Tome of Necromancy, Tome of Fiends, Races of War, Dungeonomicon) and ErrantX (Libram of Battle, Iron Man/Ebon Initiate and his new PF ToB book). You need to be forum-famous to get people to even use your stuff.

This overlaps with something I've found with people's homebrews--there's a point where Eyes Glaze Over. If I'm trying to come up with something that other people might use, how short do we think it has to be?

I know that Vadskye's opus defeats me. I know that Ngilops' list of 50 new fighter feats defeated me. There's just so much to wade through, so many moving parts, that it becomes very hard to guesstimate an evaluation.

I think 10 is a good rule of thumb--ban 10 spells, 10 spell nerf/tweaks, 10 new feats/class features. Do I just have a really short attention span, or does that sound about right?

[Vadskye]

Kitchen Sink Fantasy Heartbreaker.
I should have guessed.


This overlaps with something I've found with people's homebrews--there's a point where Eyes Glaze Over. If I'm trying to come up with something that other people might use, how short do we think it has to be?

I know that Vadskye's opus defeats me. I know that Ngilops' list of 50 new fighter feats defeated me. There's just so much to wade through, so many moving parts, that it becomes very hard to guesstimate an evaluation.

I think 10 is a good rule of thumb--ban 10 spells, 10 spell nerf/tweaks, 10 new feats/class features. Do I just have a really short attention span, or does that sound about right?
Absolutely. You have to break things down into bite-size chunks, each of which is individually explained and justified, or else no one will care. Think of it as a story. You have to lead people through it slowly, making sure that each part is coherent and interesting on its own, or else people's eyes quickly glaze over. After your first group of fixes, you can create another, and slowly build a new system piece by piece. I wouldn't be a slave to the number 10, though. I think my "Seventy-Five Theses" thread got a decent amount of interest and feedback, but that's definitely pushing the limit of what you can accomplish in a single chunk.

Unfortunately, that's a lesson I learned after creating said opus... Don't make that mistake!

[Just to Browse]

I think that number really depends on what you plan on doing. 10 classes or ACFs and I will snooze, 10 skills and I won't look beyond the first page, but 10 feats is barely one feat chain.

When producing large character options or major rule changes, I'd limit the number to <5. When writing brand new feats, the amount of reading is smaller and the quality control is easier so you can probably put out 20 if they're 1-2 lines long and/or come in chains (though 5 long-winded feats might be too much).

Of course I've read through lots of options from the Tomes, and I think the reason they can have such a high information density is because they pad the character options with crunch-lite discussion (why monks are bad, how things live underground, why material components are sad) and humor. It gets you engaged and you're more willing to keep and look over any given character option.