Critique my house rules.

[frogglesmash]

So far I haven't had any problems while using these house rules, but I'd like to see if the playground can find anything that could potentially cause problems. The only thing that currently bothers me is that my Improved Spring Attack has a little too much overlap with the pounce ability, but I'm not to sure how to go about fixing it, or even if it's as much of a problem as I seem to think. I'm also not sure whether #11 is giving too much to spell casters, or not.


1. You may split up your movement between actions (attacks casting spells etc.) however you see fit. You still can't take a 5 ft step and a move action in the same round.

2. You can make a partial charge as a standard action as long as your move action is not also used for movement.

3. Ranged precision damage applies within the first range increment of the weapon.

4. Bad feats bundled with the feat at the end of the feat path or eliminated entirely on a case by case basis, ask me if you think a feat needs bundling/eliminating. (so far stuff that has been covered by this are things like weapon focus, dodge and mobility and other feats that exist as nothing more than a feat tax.)

5. Weapon finesse is no longer a feat, instead all weapons previously affected by weapon finesse will now offer the option to use dex. instead of str for attack and damage. Wielding a weapon in two hands does not increase the amount of damage dealt if dex is used in place of str. Ranged weapons will also add you dex to damage. Mighty versions of bows allow you to add both str and dex to damage. Thrown weapons use dex for all attack rolls but can add either str or dex to damage.

6. Hide+Move Silently=Sneak, Spot+Listen=Perception, Disable Device+Open Lock=Disable Device, Sleight of Hand+Use Rope=Sleight of Hand, Balance+Tumble=Acrobatics, Climb+Swim+Jump=Athletics, Decipher Script+Forgery+Read/Write Language=Linguistics (as in Pathfinder except new languages are only learned after every 3 ranks.), Diplomacy+Gather Information=Diplomacy

!!!7. All classes get an additional +2 skill points per level.

!!!!8. On character creation you can add any two skills to your class skills, these skills are always class skills for you, if any of the skills you choose are already class skills for you, you also gain a +4 untyped bonus to that skill.

9. At every 4th level when characters would otherwise gain a +1 to one of their ability scores they can choose to instead gain a bonus feat.

10. Most race/alignment prerequisites can be partially or completely ignored. (decided on a case by case basis).

11. Casters can cast a spell at a higher spell level than normal to increase the spell's save DC doing so uses uses up a spell slot of the appropriate level. Psionic classes can manifest powers at a higher level to achieve the same effect, doing so consumes a number of power points appropriate to the powers new level. heighten Spell is no longer a thing.

!!!12. "Trapfinding" is a feat, identical to the Rogue ability. Anyone with 4 ranks in Search AND in
one of the following–Craft: Trapmaking, Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, or Survival– may take this feat. Rogues still get this ability as a class feature.

13. Feat Re-Writes:
!!![Spring Attack]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, BAB +1
You no longer provoke attacks of opportunity when moving out of threatened squares of creatures you've attacked this round.
[Improved Spring Attack]
Prerequisites: Spring Attack, Dex 15, BAB +6
You can make a full attack action with a melee weapon and move up to your speed in the same round, your movement may be split up between multiple attacks. You cannot charge in the same round you use this feat.
[Two Weapon Fighting]
Prerequisites BAB +1
Works the same as before however if you meet the Dex and BAB prerequisites for the next feat in the original tree you automaticaly gain its benefits.
[Improved Two Weapon Fighting]
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, BAB +6.
You may make a an attack at your full base attack bonus with both your main and offhand weapon as a standard action, you take a -2 penalty on both attacks.
[Shot on the Run]
Prerequisites:Dex 15, BAB +6, Precise Shot
You may make a full attack action with a ranged weapon and move up to your speed in the same round, your movement may be split up between multiple attacks.

14. Intimidate can be either Str or Cha based, but not both.

15. No XP penalties for multiclassing.

16. Once a class skill, always a class skill.

!!!=rule which I've decided needs removing/editing as a result of input from the playground.

Current edits that I'm considering
#3 Amended to include all precision damage (major oversight on my part).
#7 Amended to only apply to certain "skillmonkey" classes. Until I actually go through all of them this will mean any class that gets >6 + Int skill points per level. All other classes get +1 skill points per level.
#8 Amended to 1 extra class skill or a +2 to any one class skill.
#12 Amended to "Lesser Trapfinding" with the only difference being that it does not allow for the identification and disarming of magical traps.
#13 [Spring Attack]
Benefit: Now reads "At the beginning of each of your turns you select one enemy that you are aware of and can see, you no longer provoke movement based attacks of opportunity from that target. If your selected target should die, fall unconscious, or become an invalid target for this feat before the beginning of your next turn you may immediately select a new target."
[Two Weapon Fighting]
Reducing prerequisites for additional offhand attacks from 15, 17, 19 to , 13, 15, 17.
17. Feat requirements for Dervish are now Combat Expertise, Spring Attack and Improved Spring Attack.
Dervish Dance now allows you to use your Perform [dance] skill for attack roles and provides the benefits of haste for its duration.

I feel like these edits fix most of the problems that have been pointed out. If you feel I'm wrong, that's why I made this thread.

[Morcleon]

I like most of these. :smallbiggrin:

#12: I'd just remove the requirement of Trapfinding altogether. Change the requirement to find the traps formerly only findable via Trapfinding to require Search ranks.

[AvatarVecna]

3) Maybe change this to precision damage? That's all I can think of so far.

11) This is essentially giving casters Heighten Spell for free. While I don't think it's a bad idea, if there's a PrC or feat that requires Heighten Spell, it requires a caster to take a feat that gives them nothing new. Not necessarily a bad thing, giving casters a feat tax, but just thought I'd let you know.

That's all I can think of to say.

[frogglesmash]

3) Maybe change this to precision damage? That's all I can think of so far.

11) This is essentially giving casters Heighten Spell for free. While I don't think it's a bad idea, if there's a PrC or feat that requires Heighten Spell, it requires a caster to take a feat that gives them nothing new. Not necessarily a bad thing, giving casters a feat tax, but just thought I'd let you know.

That's all I can think of to say.

If heighten spell no longer exists it can't exactly be a prerequisite. It would be like requiring your to have 16 perspiquewity stripes if you want to take power attack.

[AvatarVecna]

If heighten spell no longer exists it can't exactly be a prerequisite. It would be like requiring your to have 16 perspiquewity stripes if you want to take power attack.

It's however you want to do it. Just keep in mind that, without delving into severe TO, the most perspiquewity stripes you can get on a single character is 12.

[Brova]

The only one that seems all that bad is #11. I would just have everything scale to 10 + 1/2 CL + Casting Stat. The current version is incredibly marginal - I can't really imagine a situation where you'd want 4th level web over regular black tentacles.

[frogglesmash]

The only one that seems all that bad is #11. I would just have everything scale to 10 + 1/2 CL + Casting Stat. The current version is incredibly marginal - I can't really imagine a situation where you'd want 4th level web over regular black tentacles.

I'll try it out and see how it goes.

[BowStreetRunner]

3) Maybe change this to precision damage?
I would also amend this to precision damage so Skirmish and Sudden Strike are not left out.

Oh, and I am fairly certain that you can get up to 21 perspiquewity stripes on a character if you have the Assume Supernatural Ability feat. There is a trick to it though. It's complicated and involves sacrificing a kobold.

[Crake]

I can't really imagine a situation where you'd want 4th level web over regular black tentacles.

I can? Web lasts longer, blocks line of sight and effect over any area longer than 15 foot, makes movement through it INCREDIBLY hard (5 or so feet as a full round action), and only a high str benefits that. On the other hand, black tentacles only reduces movement by half, and gives enemies grapple checks, which can be improved by high bab, size modifiers, or feats, and they also only last for rounds per level.

[frogglesmash]

3) Maybe change this to precision damage?

That's the way I've been treating it, but I guess it slipped my mind while writing it out.

[Brova]

I can? Web lasts longer, blocks line of sight and effect over any area longer than 15 foot, makes movement through it INCREDIBLY hard (5 or so feet as a full round action), and only a high str benefits that. On the other hand, black tentacles only reduces movement by half, and gives enemies grapple checks, which can be improved by high bab, size modifiers, or feats, and they also only last for rounds per level.

Okay, but why does that web need to be 4th level?

[OldTrees1]

Everything looks like good steps (even the free Heighten Spell if Psionic augments are any indication).

You might consider "Full Attacks are a Standard Action(possibly with a BAB prerequisite)". It seems in line with #1 and #2.

[frogglesmash]

The only one that seems all that bad is #11. I would just have everything scale to 10 + 1/2 CL + Casting Stat. The current version is incredibly marginal - I can't really imagine a situation where you'd want 4th level web over regular black tentacles.

Y'all are missing the point. I made the rule so if someone has a favourite spell/power for flavour reasons, or what have you, it doesn't suddenly become completely useless just because you leveled up.

[frogglesmash]

You might consider "Full Attacks are a Standard Action(possibly with a BAB prerequisite)". It seems in line with #1 and #2.

I did consider it but ultimately rejected it because it makes charging a strictly worse option most of the time and overshadows pounce even more than my Improved Spring Attack does. I like the current setup because it makes full attacks as a standard action on option that is available, but does require a modicum of investment to obtain, investment that is even less of a problem due to my removal of various feat taxes.

[Magma Armor0]

The only one I'm foreseeing trouble with is the second part of #8:


8. On character creation you can add any two skills to your class skills, these skills are always class skills for you, if any of the skills you choose are already class skills for you, you also gain a +4 untyped bonus to that skill.

A +4 untyped bonus on character creation is...rather large. I love the first part of this rule, but the second part scares me, to be honest. I'm imagining any level one character with a +11 to two skills to start the game (4 from stat, 3 from ranks, 4 from houserule) that makes skill checks really hard to balance.

[AvatarVecna]

Oh, and I am fairly certain that you can get up to 21 perspiquewity stripes on a character if you have the Assume Supernatural Ability feat. There is a trick to it though. It's complicated and involves sacrificing a kobold.

You mean that pile of cheese where you have your dragonwrought kobold cohort bring you into a layered Time Stop before promising their soul to multiple Elder Evils (which destroys them utterly), just so you can shapechange into the Ice Assassin of a sarrukh, copy the Incantatrix class features, and use the "your spell is my spell now" one, before using infinite CL tricks to make the Time Stop effect permanent while allowing you to still interact with everything, letting you collect as many perspiquewity stripes as you want before the Elder Evils get a chance to smite you down for it? Oh yeah, I'm sure that'll fly in an actual game.

[frogglesmash]

The only one I'm foreseeing trouble with is the second part of #8:



A +4 untyped bonus on character creation is...rather large. I love the first part of this rule, but the second part scares me, to be honest. I'm imagining any level one character with a +11 to two skills to start the game (4 from stat, 3 from ranks, 4 from houserule) that makes skill checks really hard to balance.

Would a +2 be more manageable? Or would changing the bonus type be a better solution?

[BowStreetRunner]

Would a +2 be more manageable? Or would changing the bonus type be a better solution?

Another option would be a scaling bonus, similar to what Pathfinder uses in many places. A +2 bonus that increases to +4 at 10th level for instance.

[Sian]

I'd be slightly concerned about that between 6+7+8 it might well outcompete the skillmonkey as a distinct archetype in that they aren't as needed because that within a certain sized group all the skillmonkey can do can be replicated across the rest of the characters, or that the point of dimishing returns on getting more skill points comes around to quickly. Leaving them only having Precision damage to differentiate themselves from other mundane characters

[bekeleven]

What do you want the rogue to be?

Most of these buff mundanes - a lot of support for martials, especially allowing them to actually hit things with other things, which is kind of their trademark.

But besides beatsticks, you give a (rather generous) buff to rogues' ability to punish in combat.

Then you give 4 ways for a wizard or other class to get the utility of the rogue (6, 7, 8, 12).

Basically you made rogues more beatsticky, then made everyone besides rogues into skill monkeys.

For reference in case of bias: I am of the opinion that tier 1 classes should get 0 skill points per level.

[Gnorman]

Have to agree, this pretty much turns the Rogue into "uh I guess I sneak attack again." Marginalizes the role pretty significantly. Maybe not a bad thing, but also maybe not what you intended.

Also I'd take it one step further and just eliminate Two-Weapon Fighting as a feat entirely, and just make it a basic option like you did with Weapon Finesse. It's not so overpowered as to warrant concern (although it will reinforce the Rogue sneak attack pigeonhole even further).

+4 bonuses to skills need to go - that's a huge bonus at any level, and especially at level 1. It literally doubles your skill levels. I'm even skeptical about adding two skills as class skills - I don't think the Wizard needs any more help in the form of UMD and Diplomacy, which would probably be the natural picks. If you're insistent on it, I'd leave it at one skill, especially since you've consolidated a great number of them.

[Telonius]

For TWF and Improved TWF, do you give Ranger anything else for their higher-level Combat Styles? Personally I just bundle the iteratives into Two-Weapon Fighting, then make Improved and Greater lessen the penalties.

[Khedrac]

1. You may split up your movement between actions (attacks casting spells etc.) however you see fit. You still can't take a 5 ft step and a move action in the same round.
13. Feat Re-Writes:
[Spring Attack]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, BAB +1
You no longer provoke attacks of opportunity when moving out of threatened squares of creatures you've attacked this round.

Believe it or not, you just weakened spring attack.

With the default you don't get hit either when going up to an opponent with reach or when retreating from them again. A lot of fragile melee types use Spring Attack like this so they can contribute against an opponent who can floor them with a hit or two. This works particularly well if someone else can go toe-to-toe and is already in melee. If not it usually still prevents the opponent from get a full attack on the Spring Attacker (move 5' sideways, attack, pull back rest of move).
With your rules Spring Attack only protects against AoOs from opponents you have already attacked - this means the more fragile melees may never get to attack in the first place as they get clobbered on the way in.

Potentially a more useful change would be to include Mobility in the Spring Attack feat (so that it is no longer a pre-requisite).

[frogglesmash]

In response to those who feel that I'm rendering rogues redundant. (feel free to poke holes in my arguments).
First off, the group I play with isn't particularly large (3 and the DM) so any issues that would arise from a large group shouldn't be an issue for me. As far as making skill monkeys obsolete, I don't feel that this would actually be the case.
A fairly large number of mundane classes -especially the combat oriented ones- have a rather abysmal selection of class skills so giving them a couple extra skill points does very little for them. It's true that giving them two extra class skills could let them fill most of the roles that skillmonkeys fill, but they will rarely be filling more then one of those roles, (especially when considering their typically average to low int scores) and will more often then not be choosing skills that complement their role of combatant, after all why endanger oneself scouting and disabling traps when there's a perfectly good rogue around to do it for you. There's also the fact that a fighter isn't going to wan't to spend his money on items that make him a better rogue when he could be spending it on being a better fighter. On the other hand, giving extra skills to casters isn't going to change much 'cause they'll still be good at everything if played competently, and if played incompetently they'll still rely on their magic more often than not.

Concerning the +4: I didn't put a whole lot of thought into that one beyond "if you're a skillmonkey those extra class skills are going to be pretty redundant, eh give 'em an optional +4," and it seems that it could have a much larger impact than originally anticipated.

Concerning Trapfinding: I just imported that one from another set of houserules because my players kept on feeling like they were getting forced to have at least one rogue in the party, looking at i've got to agree that it makes that much more useless rogue. My idea for a compromise would be to change the feat so it's identical to the class feature minus the ability to detect/disarm magical traps, and maybe imposing a penalty on checks against traps with DCs higher than 20 maybe 25. Thoughts?

Concerning UMD: I'm thinking I'll bringing back the 3.0 rule where some skills were unique to specific classes for this one skill.

Concerning Rangers and TWF, and other class that are significantly altered: When I wrote these house rules it was with very little regard for any specific class and as such I have not given much thought to how to fix said classes (ranger, and Dervish are the first two that come to mind). My intention is to work with players on modifying these classes should they want to play them. My general goal when doing this would be to replace anything removed with something similar both in terms of theme, and usefulness.

Concerning TWF specifically: I want to keep it a feat for a few reasons 1. Because I like it that way (yes it's arbitrary, I know) 2. Because it's actually an incredibly difficult thing to pull off in real life and as such should require some form of investment to pull off in game (having the extensive feat tree is probably more realistic, but it's also bad game design imo) 3. I don't want every ubercharger I ever DM for to start wearing a spiked gauntlet just for that extra attack.

Concerning the sentiment that I'm turning the rogue into just another beatstick: I don't think I've changed much about their combat style, I've just made it so their prefered combat styles are a little less useless (I could be very wrong about that so feel free to explain why if I am).

Concerning Casters: As we all know, casters are super broken, and I don't want to even bother trying to fix them. Yes they get more skills, but I don't think that's going to make them noticeably more broken (UMD notwithstanding) As for the free heighten feat, I put that in for two reasons, neither of them have much to do with balance. 1. It really bugs me that so many spells become useless simply because you're a higher level. 2. In what way does it make sense that it is easier for you to resist a temporary modification to mind set (charm) than absolute control of your actions (dominate), and why is a temporary control of your actions (dominate again) easier to resist than a complete and permanent erasure/edit/corruption of your psyche (mindrape)? I don't know about you guys, but that seems pretty backwards to me.

[OttoVonBigby]

Your #6 looks pretty much like mine. The major difference is that I incorporated Use Rope into Survival, since to me Use Rope involves much more than just one's manual dexterity. It's sort of a knowledge-and-physical skill IMO.

To ensure rogues remained special in light of #6 in my houserules, I gave them most of the Pathfinder rogue "special abilities" but converted them into feats which are on my rogue bonus feat list and for which rogues qualify much faster than anybody else (and in some cases exclusively). Based on my in-game results of this skill system fix (and other, more narrowly targeted ones I've implemented), I agree that your #7 and #8 might be going a bit far.

[frogglesmash]

Believe it or not, you just weakened spring attack.

With the default you don't get hit either when going up to an opponent with reach or when retreating from them again. A lot of fragile melee types use Spring Attack like this so they can contribute against an opponent who can floor them with a hit or two. This works particularly well if someone else can go toe-to-toe and is already in melee. If not it usually still prevents the opponent from get a full attack on the Spring Attacker (move 5' sideways, attack, pull back rest of move).
With your rules Spring Attack only protects against AoOs from opponents you have already attacked - this means the more fragile melees may never get to attack in the first place as they get clobbered on the way in.

Potentially a more useful change would be to include Mobility in the Spring Attack feat (so that it is no longer a pre-requisite).

You're right, I wrote it like that because of combination of me taking #1 into account, not wanting render tumble useless, and a misguided attempt to remain as close to the original Spring Attack as possible. How about this:
[Spring Attack]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, BAB +1
Benefit: At the beginning of each of your turns you select one enemy that you are aware of and can see, you no longer provoke movement based attacks of opportunity from that target. If your selected target should die, fall unconscious, or become an invalid target for this feat before the beginning of your next turn you may immediately select a new target.

[frogglesmash]

Your #6 looks pretty much like mine. The major difference is that I incorporated Use Rope into Survival, since to me Use Rope involves much more than just one's manual dexterity. It's sort of a knowledge-and-physical skill IMO.

To ensure rogues remained special in light of #6 in my houserules, I gave them most of the Pathfinder rogue "special abilities" but converted them into feats which are on my rogue bonus feat list and for which rogues qualify much faster than anybody else (and in some cases exclusively). Based on my in-game results of this skill system fix (and other, more narrowly targeted ones I've implemented), I agree that your #7 and #8 might be going a bit far.

In light of responses I'm getting I've considered limiting #7 and #8 to a select number of classes who need it the most (i.e fighter, barb ec), they were after all, the ones I intend to help out with those rules in the first place. I should take a look at the pathfinder rogue, it sounds promising.

[Barstro]

Another option would be a scaling bonus, similar to what Pathfinder uses in many places. A +2 bonus that increases to +4 at 10th level for instance.

Or be, IMO, more logical than Pathfinder and make it a +2 bonus that increases to +3 at 5th and +4 at 10th. I never understood the sudden jump when a gradual increase is just as easy.

[Razanir]

6. Hide+Move Silently=Sneak

Just call it Stealth. Pathfinder already did exactly this.


Decipher Script+Forgery+Read/Write Language=Linguistics (as in Pathfinder except new languages are only learned after every 3 ranks.)

You might add this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?172691-3-5-Speak-Language-revised-skill). It's a houserule by Ernir for making those ranks in Speak Language actually matter beyond learning a language.


Diplomacy+Gather Information=Diplomacy

This old rule (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html). Seriously, the Giant's revision should be standard for Diplomacy.

[Hal0Badger]

They seem nice, but for TWF, that Dex requirement for iterative attacks still hurts IMO. I might merge 2 feats into 1 (TWF and ITWF into 1, GTWF and PTWF into 1), and remove the dex requirement. 15 dex means you are already quite an agile character compared to average people.

For moving after and before full attack, I am hesitant to this. I think full-attack should be a full-round action (pounce and charge has it's limitation to movement), which should make players and monsters carefully think about their movement. This being said, I also dislike the "Lion spirit totem" acf of the barbarian, snow tiger berserker (full attack on charge only with light weapons) is much more balanced and close to what a lion-tiger does when he charges.

[martixy]

1. The generic "move and attack as you see fit", while cool obsoletes certain things like the Dervish class(that's their whole shtick) and a certain binder vestige.

2. Some charging combos start to get funky.
Imagine Shadow Blink + Leap Attack.
Normally a charge is defined as a full-round action regardless of circumstances.

5. Basically making the ability to use dex a property of the weapon(I approve). Just some additions. You could also make the Feycrafted template add this property to a weapon. And swashbucklers who receive that feat at level 1 should probably get a Fighter Bonus Feat now.

7./8. Just give them an obscure bonus skill they can choose. One they don't have to level, but is always considered to have max ranks. They still get more mileage of their points(and maybe a unique character trait - like a cheat bard, who picks Sleight of Hand).

12. I'm actually okay with the prereq's. Less damage on rogue's uniqueness if all others have to pay prereqs.

The rest people already touched upon or I find okay.


P.S. DON'T do fumble rules if you have a TWFer in the party.

[Curmudgeon]

7. All classes get an additional +2 skill points per level.
This is going to give the Cleric double the skill points, and the Rogue/Scout only +25%. You're devaluing the distinguishing characteristic of skillful characters.

My preferred house rule is 150% of the base number, which would give Clerics 3 + INT mod skill points to start, and Rogues/Scouts 12 + INT mod.

[frogglesmash]

They seem nice, but for TWF, that Dex requirement for iterative attacks still hurts IMO. I might merge 2 feats into 1 (TWF and ITWF into 1, GTWF and PTWF into 1), and remove the dex requirement. 15 dex means you are already quite an agile character compared to average people.

For moving after and before full attack, I am hesitant to this. I think full-attack should be a full-round action (pounce and charge has it's limitation to movement), which should make players and monsters carefully think about their movement. This being said, I also dislike the "Lion spirit totem" acf of the barbarian, snow tiger berserker (full attack on charge only with light weapons) is much more balanced and close to what a lion-tiger does when he charges.
I agree to an extent about the Dex requirements and will probably dial them back though not remove them entirely (13, 15, 17 instead of 15, 17, 19)
As for for splitting it into two feats, I don't think that's necessary seeing as it's a combat style with a relatively low damage output that works best with classes who typically get less feats than the average fighter.
Concerning movement and full attacks. Why should a fighter be limited to one attack if he moves when a spell caster can move, teleport, and still have actions left to cast Circle of Death? And while it's true Pounce and charge put limits on your movement, they also open up options to vastly increase your damage output making them better choices than my Improved spring attack in many ways.


1. The generic "move and attack as you see fit", while cool obsoletes certain things like the Dervish class(that's their whole shtick) and a certain binder vestige.

2. Some charging combos start to get funky.
Imagine Shadow Blink + Leap Attack.
Normally a charge is defined as a full-round action regardless of circumstances.

5. Basically making the ability to use dex a property of the weapon(I approve). Just some additions. You could also make the Feycrafted template add this property to a weapon. And swashbucklers who receive that feat at level 1 should probably get a Fighter Bonus Feat now.

7./8. Just give them an obscure bonus skill they can choose. One they don't have to level, but is always considered to have max ranks. They still get more mileage of their points(and maybe a unique character trait - like a cheat bard, who picks Sleight of Hand).

12. I'm actually okay with the prereq's. Less damage on rogue's uniqueness if all others have to pay prereqs.

The rest people already touched upon or I find okay.


P.S. DON'T do fumble rules if you have a TWFer in the party.
1. I've been thinking about the Dervish, and how to keep it unique and appealing in light of these changes, and the basic idea I've come up with is to let them use their Perform (dance) skill for attack roles while they do their dervish dance as well as giving them the benefits of haste for the duration.
2. I don't really see what you're getting at here. You could do the Shadow Blink + Leap Attack combo before, the difference being that now you have time to drink a potion, get something from your haversack, gain your psionic focus etc.
5. All of this sounds good, it was actually my intention (though I neglected to right it down) to replace any lost feats/feat redundancies 'caused by my house rules with fighter bonus feats.
7/8. I think I've settled on my final decision for this house rule, but all input is still welcome

I don't use fumble rules unless my party asks for it (it does happen sometimes).

[frogglesmash]

This is going to give the Cleric double the skill points, and the Rogue/Scout only +25%. You're devaluing the distinguishing characteristic of skillful characters.

My preferred house rule is 150% of the base number, which would give Clerics 3 + INT mod skill points to start, and Rogues/Scouts 12 + INT mod.

This is actually one of the house rules I've changed since starting the thread, see the "edits" spoiler for details.

[frogglesmash]

Just call it Stealth. Pathfinder already did exactly this.
I'm more concerned with the mechanics than with the semantics.



You might add this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?172691-3-5-Speak-Language-revised-skill). It's a houserule by Ernir for making those ranks in Speak Language actually matter beyond learning a language.

I can't see this enhancing my game enough to bother putting in.


This old rule (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html). Seriously, the Giant's revision should be standard for Diplomacy.

This I like, I like it a lot.

[Brova]

This I like, I like it a lot.

I was discussing this in another thread, and I don't think it's actually that good. I mean, it is probably more balanced, because there are slightly less BS bonuses to pick up and because there isn't a result which is explicitly "they are your slave", but it really just pushes the problem off. There are two basic issues:

First, a dedicated specialist can still get results that are pretty broken very consistently. The DC to convince your nemesis to accept a deal that is horrible for them is 15 (base) + 10 (nemesis) + 10 (horrible deal) + level + Wis mod. To get them to do it on a "take 1" you have to come up with 31 points of bonuses (level and three points of base cancel with diplomacy ranks, Cha mod cancels with Wis mod). That's tough, but not impossible. You can start with a +2 synergy bonus from Bluff, add a +6 bonus from Warlock beguiling influence, a +20 bonus from guidance of the avatar, and your Cha mod again from a Marshall aura. That's doable by level five (Cleric 3/Warlock 1/Marshal 1).

Second, DCs diverge in stupid ways. For example, it is harder to convince a 20th level Cleric to take a fantastic deal (DC 35+ depending on Wis modifer) than a 1st level Commoner to take a terrible deal (DC 26 or 27). That's not helpful, and super counter-immersive.

[frogglesmash]

I was discussing this in another thread, and I don't think it's actually that good. I mean, it is probably more balanced, because there are slightly less BS bonuses to pick up and because there isn't a result which is explicitly "they are your slave", but it really just pushes the problem off. There are two basic issues:

First, a dedicated specialist can still get results that are pretty broken very consistently. The DC to convince your nemesis to accept a deal that is horrible for them is 15 (base) + 10 (nemesis) + 10 (horrible deal) + level + Wis mod. To get them to do it on a "take 1" you have to come up with 31 points of bonuses (level and three points of base cancel with diplomacy ranks, Cha mod cancels with Wis mod). That's tough, but not impossible. You can start with a +2 synergy bonus from Bluff, add a +6 bonus from Warlock beguiling influence, a +20 bonus from guidance of the avatar, and your Cha mod again from a Marshall aura. That's doable by level five (Cleric 3/Warlock 1/Marshal 1).

Second, DCs diverge in stupid ways. For example, it is harder to convince a 20th level Cleric to take a fantastic deal (DC 35+ depending on Wis modifer) than a 1st level Commoner to take a terrible deal (DC 26 or 27). That's not helpful, and super counter-immersive.
Gad dang it, do you know of any other homebrewed diplomacy systems that work better than the default?

[martixy]

Gad dang it, do you know of any other homebrewed diplomacy systems that work better than the default?

Would using common sense be a satisfactory answer or does it need to involve arithmetics?

The problem with diplomacy is that it's too formulaic for the area of human* experience it covers.

* Or whatever inter-species interaction you're currently engaged in.

[frogglesmash]

Would using common sense be a satisfactory answer or does it need to involve arithmetics?

The problem with diplomacy is that it's too formulaic for the area of human* experience it covers.

* Or whatever inter-species interaction you're currently engaged in.

That's what I've been doing, but having some sort of unbiased metric to base DCs off of would be nice.

[Brova]

Gad dang it, do you know of any other homebrewed diplomacy systems that work better than the default?

Honestly, it's hard to do. You want a simple system, because it is one skill. You also want a system that can output results such as "the woodsman is swayed by your argument and takes up his sword to fight with you", because that is a thing that happens in the genre. Ideally, you want a system that is transparent and predictable. Those conditions are not easy to fulfill at the same time.

The simplest solution is to wing it. Figure out the times PCs are expected to use diplomacy and have outputs for the scenario coded to "got him to friendly", "got him to helpful", and "got him to fanatic". That works pretty well, but is kind of unsatisfying because it doesn't have a predictable outcome. The PCs can't know if the 54 the Beguiler rolled will get them a 10% better deal on gear, or a regiment of guards to support them.

Other solutions abound. I've suggested a system that breaks diplomacy into Negotiation (make a check to get a favorable deal within set conditions), Persuasion (make a check to get someone to believe you), and Popularity (make a check to win a debate/election/trial). That's okay, but needs to be mathhammered. You could leave things as is and simply declare a hard cap on how many people you can have fighting for you. That's kind of meta and kludge-y, but it does work. You can probably find several just by search "diplomacy fix".

One thing to keep in mind is that regardless of what you do, people can push the RNG really hard. You basically need to accept that by avoiding results like "will trade castle for a piece of string" or "jump in front of charging dragon", or ask people not to do that. Otherwise the system collapses rapidly.

[Hal0Badger]

I agree to an extent about the Dex requirements and will probably dial them back though not remove them entirely (13, 15, 17 instead of 15, 17, 19)
As for for splitting it into two feats, I don't think that's necessary seeing as it's a combat style with a relatively low damage output that works best with classes who typically get less feats than the average fighter.
Concerning movement and full attacks. Why should a fighter be limited to one attack if he moves when a spell caster can move, teleport, and still have actions left to cast Circle of Death? And while it's true Pounce and charge put limits on your movement, they also open up options to vastly increase your damage output making them better choices than my Improved spring attack in many ways.

I made it 2 feats, because I removed the further dex requirements. If you gona keep up with dex requirement, making it 1 feat seems reasonable enough.

I have trouble with pounce+leap attack+shock trooper, not because it is OP, it just leads to 1 trick ponies.
My trouble with move+full attack, it really does not solve the problem, while giving some of your monsters tremendous advantages (I see no reason why a dragon who favors melee fights would not go for this route). Melee mundanes, rather than moving and doing damage only, needs more abilities that they can use with standard actions, I rarely any see any other maneuver than Trip. I think this is why people like ToB classes that much.

[Razanir]

(stuff)

The benefit, though, is that it still avoids a fairly easy DC 25 check to turn someone hostile indifferent. The benefit is that it makes the outcomes more reasonable, even if the DCs can still be counterintuitive.

[Brova]

The benefit, though, is that it still avoids a fairly easy DC 25 check to turn someone hostile indifferent. The benefit is that it makes the outcomes more reasonable, even if the DCs can still be counterintuitive.

I mean, charm person and charm monster still exist. And while I have no idea what those things do under the new system (as the friendly condition does not exist), under the old system they pulled people out of combat and made diplomacy against them stupidly easy. If you really wanted to stop people from dropping mid-combat diplomacy checks to shut down enemies, you could just declare that it always took at least a minute.