Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 5512233" data-attributes="member: 43283">Hmmm. Well, off-hand I'd say that just about everything you've listed has been discussed in some fashion for almost the 10 years that 3.x rules have been around. Pathfinder's primary goal was backwards compatibility, so you're going to kinda need to be specific about _what_ you want to do exactly. From there, you'll be able to sort out the houserules folks have come up with over the years and then see if those are applicable to Pathfinder.One thing you might consider, if you don't mind spending $5 U.S. is some of the stuff in Trailblazer. You can find it here:<a href="http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=64009" target="_blank">Trailblazer - Bad Axe Games | RPGNow.com</a>It was initially meant to be compatible with Pathfinder and really shouldn't be a problem to integrate in if you so desire.That should help deal with points 1,2, and probably 4.A personal note on Point 1 (Iterative attacks):This is a bit of a contentious issue. A lot of gamers insist on wanting iterative attacks for a variety of reasons. I personally happen to be unconvinced by them and think that iterative attacks are more of a hassle than they're worth.The solution presented in Trailblazer is an attempt to keep everyone happy. My own personal solution in the past has been far simpler: Eliminate iterative attacks and add BaB to damage. So yes, a level 10 Fighter would have a +10 to damage in addition to anything else. I was always fine with it and didn't feel it either overshadowed the rest of the group, or that the Fighter's ability to inflict damage was somehow hindered by not having iterative attacks. YMMV and all the usual butt-covering disclaimers.Point 3 (Fixed enhancement bonus) aka "Page 42":There've been a few discussions about this, but no real definite solution that I'm aware of (possible that I've missed something though). Part of the problem you're bumping up against is the fact that 3.x rules are deliberately designed to be unbalanced and Pathfinder kept that sensibility.In trying to address this sort of approach, you also have to decide what to do as far as the magic items are concerned. If you design things in such as way as to address your 2nd point (Magic item dependence) through the use of a bonus, then you're going to have to deal with all the magic items already in the game.It's not an insoluable problem, but I'm not aware of a solution that folks like and doesn't simply introduce a set of other problems as far as people are concerned. Again, Trailblazer may help you out in this regard.Point 5 (alteration of game-changing spells ):Good luck. People have been messing with this for years. Solutions vary and folks don't agree. Some GMs don't have a problem with them, some do. Some players are basically uninterested in playing if a GM is going to "gimp" the spells the way the GM feels they ought to be. You'll get and find all kinds of advice ranging from "Don't worry about it" to GMs talking about flat out removing the spells, and GMs talking about how they effectively removed them from play (but still left them an option in theory) by making them so unattractive to players to take. You're pretty much on your own here.</blockquote>

Verification