House rules for mid-levels

[kinem]

I'm planning to DM my first mid-level PF game (ToH in the PBP forum). So far I have a few house rules. I'd like to know what you think of them and also whether there are other significant things that need fixing that I should be aware of. Thanks.

House Rules:

- A wizard can choose at 1st level not to form an arcane bond.

rationale: Instead of choosing a familiar and then leaving it at home, I see no reason why a wizard would need to form such a bond. I'm not a fan of familiars. Most will choose a bonded item anyway, but for those who are paranoid about loosing their gear, this is an option.

- A witch can choose at 1st level not to have a familiar and instead prepares and learns spells using a spellbook in the manner of a wizard. Such a witch can learn spells from the wizard list but treats them as 1 spell level higher.

rationale: See above, plus the idea of a witch learning spells by feeding burnt scrolls to his familiar really grates on me. The ability to learn wizard spells might be overpowered compared to having a familiar, but I see the witch as a variant wizard more than a separate class.

In fact, it doesn't make sense to me that the standard "familiar + mysterious forces" witch is an intelligence-based caster. Flavor like that is associated with charisma-based casters like the oracle and sorcerer. Intelligence-based casting should imply that you learn magic by studying complex formulas.

If it was really based on a "pact" then his powers should depend entirely on quid pro quo (what the witch will do for his patron, which had better be something concrete!) even more so than for a cleric. Clearly the "pact" idea is not meant to have any actual meaning or effects. It should be replaced.

New feat:

Mojo Skin:
Whenever you get magical tattoos as "slotless" versions of standard slotted magic items, it only costs as much as the standard items. (Normally it costs twice as much as the standard items.)

rationale: Nobody ever bothers getting magic tattoos since they're so expensive. It now costs a feat to make them cheaper, so not everyone will go for it, but some might. Other than saving slots, they are harder to take away from you and can't be looted from your dead body.

I believe that magic tattoos should be permanent - that being a main characteristic of tattoos after all - and I strongly dislike ones that "crawl" around or detach themselves.

Modified feat:
The spell level adjustment for Persistent Spell is +3 (not +2).

rationale: Needing two saving throws is overpowered. Compared to Quicken Spell, it's a bit less powerful, but that ignores the fact that you can cast both a Quickened and a Persistent spell in to same round, thus requiring 3 (or up to 4 with P&Q) saves with save or lose spells vs the same BBEG. I'm tempted to nerf it further but want to see what people think.

I'm also of the camp that thinks the Paladin is still overpowered even after the errata nerf - if you can't use a traditional-style BBEG (especially if your ability to do so depends only on whether a certain PC class is among the party) it's a problem with the ruleset not with the tradition - but will not be dealing with that this time around as it is more of a problem at higher levels.

 

[DonTadow]

I hate critters too

The other end of familiars, summons and all types of wierdies thing i hate is that players often just use them to play another character, and I don't feel the need to have the adventures of Benji playing out at my game table.

Your rational is just, have fun with it. Mid level is probably my favorite time of DMining.

I have seen the tatoo rules in other publications, so they seem to be just.

I disagree with paladins, I just don't think DMs do a good job of enforcing the moral code or creating situations where the moral code balances the Paladin.

 

[kinem]

Thanks. Anyone else?

 

[Samurai]

Why are these "for the mid-levels"? It sounds more like choices at character creation.

Would the wizard get anything in return for not taking a familiar? I mean, getting the Alertness feat for free, plus the equivalent of a 2nd free feat (+3 to a skill or +2 to a save) means the familiar is worth taking even if you never use him as a scout, deliverer of touch attacks, etc. I think you should at least give 1 free feat in exchange.

The witch idea is nice... I agree it may be a bit more powerful than a familiar, but does the lack of a familiar also mean the lack of Patron bonus spells?

No one has taken Persistent Spell in our campains at it's normal cost, so I don't see an issue there.

I agree tattoos are too expensive... 4x the cost of a scroll? That's just too much. I'd lower it to 2x, which would still be a lot, but at least in the ballpark, so that with the feat they become the same cost as buying a scroll.

 

[kinem]

Thanks for the comments. It's for mid-levels as that's what the game will be and there may be different issues for low, mid-, and high level play. In particular I expect that high level play has more unbalanced options that would need fixing.

A wizard could get a bonus feat instead of a bonded item or familiar, but I'm not trying to power up the wizard. Come to think of it though, for symmetry, what the wizard could get instead is access to witch spells (at 1 higher spell level).

But in that case I think it would make more sense to allow that to all wizards, so maybe giving that access to all wizards and perhaps allowing a bonus feat in place of a familiar is the way to go. I don't think that witch spells (that are not also on the wizard list) are so powerful that the more costly access to them would much change the wizard's power level.

The witch would still get Patron bonus spells.

Samurai, you are talking about "spell tattoos" which are like silent scrolls, but I am more interested in tattoo equivalents to permanent magic items, such as having a tattoo of giant strength +4 instead of a belt of giant strength +4.

 

[Samurai]

Thanks for the comments. It's for mid-levels as that's what the game will be and there may be different issues for low, mid-, and high level play. In particular I expect that high level play has more unbalanced options that would need fixing.

A wizard could get a bonus feat instead of a bonded item or familiar, but I'm not trying to power up the wizard. Come to think of it though, for symmetry, what the wizard could get instead is access to witch spells (at 1 higher spell level).

But in that case I think it would make more sense to allow that to all wizards, so maybe giving that access to all wizards and perhaps allowing a bonus feat in place of a familiar is the way to go. I don't think that witch spells (that are not also on the wizard list) are so powerful that the more costly access to them would much change the wizard's power level.

The witch would still get Patron bonus spells.

Samurai, you are talking about "spell tattoos" which are like silent scrolls, but I am more interested in tattoo equivalents to permanent magic items, such as having a tattoo of giant strength +4 instead of a belt of giant strength +4.

I definitely wouldn't give witch spells to wizards. Wizards are regarded as one of the most powerful classes as is, and the 1 sacrosanct spell type that wizards are not able to cast is healing spells. Adding the cure spells to their list (even at +1 level) means they can now use wands of curing, and the cleric's 1 real benefit just evaporated. And one of the main reasons to become a witch and put up with the highly limited spell list (compared to wizards) is the ability to cast both Lighting Bolt and healing spells. I'll tell you right now, given the many, many terrible Hexes on the witch's list and the vast number of additional spells available to a wizard, if I could do that as a wizard, I'd see no reason to play a witch.

Personally, I'd say leave the wizard alone, they already get a choice of bonded item or familiar, the same way druid's get a single choice of animal companion or cleric domain and paladins get a choice of bonded mount or bonded weapon. Don't give the wizard a 3rd option, each of their choices has a weakness or point of vulnerability built into it for a reason. Giving the witch a similar choice of 2 options is in keeping with this tradition, though, and you should strive to make the other option different from, but no better or worse than the familiar.

 

[kinem]

I'm not convinced that allowing wizards to do some healing would be unbalanced. When the 3.5 ed mystic theurge first came out, a lot of people thought it was too powerful, and I was one of them. But it didn't take long to realize that it wasn't.

As for using wands of curing, anyone with a good UMD skill can do a fair job of that already. And getting Cure Light Wounds as a 2nd level spell is not going to compete much with the cleric's healing power.

Flavorwise, we know that arcane magic can heal: the bard can do it, the alchemist can do it, and the witch can do it. So I see no logical reason why a wizard couldn't do it too, and some existing wizard spells already do to an extent, such as Infernal Healing. It's not their specialty, so they are not as good at it, but spells are spells and with enough effort they can learn to do it. I think they should be able to do it in some way, but I'm open to other ideas about how.

As for the witch, maybe the best thing to do would be to allow them to get a bonus feat in place of a familiar, and to allow all witches to access wizard spells at +1 spell level.