View Single Post

Thread: How would you react to these houserules?

  1. - Top - End - #12
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Proven_Paradox's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Riffington View Post
    If you need to make the Favored Soul SAD, I'd consider making it Wis-based rather than Cha-based. Mainly since all arcanists will need Cha.

    Actually the Sorcerer buff I like best is to give them 4 skill points/level and add a few social skills to the class skill list. They're certainly *powerful* enough as is, but adding a bit more versatility is nice.
    That's something I would be open to, I think. [edit] And by "that" I mean both suggestions.

    Quote Originally Posted by elliott20 View Post
    The barring the full caster classes might not go over well with the players and will probably draw more flak than encouraging ToB. If you want that to be their justification for not adventuring, you need to make it mechanical so it doesn't feel ENTIRELY like a GM fiat. (unless, of course, your players are the sort who can be understanding, then no problem) i.e. wizards/clerics have their responsibilities that really does tie them down to their respective institutions.

    i.e. a tower whose entire structure is supported by magic and requires that mages come in everyday and pour a certain number of their arcane powers into it. (represented by having them expend spell slots) this means that most days, their spell cache is already drained and they really wouldn't be all that useful except as guides or source of knowledge.
    Nitpick: I'm not barring full-casters. I'm barring PREPARED full-casters. A subtle but important difference.

    Frankly, I'm okay with it feeling like GM fiat. There are plenty of examples of wizardly types who gain power by remaining at all times in their labs or libraries studying, and if a player really stirs a stink about that, I'd cite that as further justification. Plus, to me, making their lairs supported by their presence also feels like GM fiat--perfectly acceptable, but none-the-less GM fiat.

    Quote Originally Posted by ocato View Post
    If you are SADing characters, the spirit shaman needs it too.
    Heheh, sprit shaman needs more than that... Regardless, it's a class I don't see in play often, so I didn't mention it. But if a player wanted to run one, I'd do at least that and may make a couple of other tweaks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raum View Post
    This is the only rule which makes me...wary. Even then I don't have anything against banning the class. It's just I've had some...experiences with a DM using NPCs significantly more powerful than the PCs. I prefer to avoid those types of campaigns now. Have you considered simply banning them altogether?
    The "joins the PCs" bit would be extremely rare, and the caster in question probably wouldn't be the best suited to battle anyway. At the same time, I want to leave myself the option of throwing a wizard enemy at the players. I use the same justification for me being allowed to use a wizard while the players can't as I do for me being allowed to use a dragon while the players can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bassikpoet View Post
    If you have any players that want to play anti-undead PCs, then you just put them out of luck by taking away the cleric (and the ability to turn undead effectively). You could fix this by upping the power of the paladin, but that would take quite a bit of homebrew.
    Paladin re-writes would be among the re-writes I mention in the fifth point--there are a lot of them: I have two that I use regularly and really enjoy. Among their capabilities is improved turning abilities. There're also several ways for favored souls (and possibly druids) to get turn undead, and if a player goes that route I would probably allow their divien caster levels stack with the PrC levels for turning strength; using turn undead to -actually- turn undead is usually a rather weak tactic anyway.
    Last edited by Proven_Paradox; 2008-10-22 at 10:35 PM.