House rules...

[MrDisturbed]

The past few games my groups played weve spent most our time rolling skill checks.. I'd much rather keep the emphasis on "role" playing not so much "roll" playing. I've noticed a few other games offer ways to auto succeed skill checks by taking their time. Also skills such as barter in my opinion should not be used. That's where good old fashioned role playing come in to play. How would your barbarian barter with a seedy cloaked figure in a dark alley? The dice don't do that you do. Lol what skills do you all not use?

[kiralon]

The past few games my groups played weve spent most our time rolling skill checks.. I'd much rather keep the emphasis on "role" playing not so much "roll" playing. I've noticed a few other games offer ways to auto succeed skill checks by taking their time. Also skills such as barter in my opinion should not be used. That's where good old fashioned role playing come in to play. How would your barbarian barter with a seedy cloaked figure in a dark alley? The dice don't do that you do. Lol what skills do you all not use?

The problem with real bartering is not everybody can do it well because they don't do it in real life, whereas your character has probably be haggling since a young age. I do use the skill roll to help, they cant just walk up and say hi I barter, but they don't have to really get into it either if they don't want to. If they make a skill roll and have a half decent reason why something should be cheaper I allow it.
Those other games don't let you auto succeed either, they just give you a baseline that you use if you take your time. If the job wasn't too hard you succeed.

[zyanitevp]

You can view my very limited house rules (we play pretty straight up) here

[ShadowHawk]

if you roll an 5 or 4 on a skill's check you can increase your by 1d4, 3 or 2 by 2d4, and 1 is an automatic 10%.

at every level, you can choose to add a +1 to either strike, parry, damage, entangle, throw, disarm, riposte, etc to 2 weapons (upto but not beyond a +5); OR add 10% per +1 to the range of a ranged weapon (upto but not beyond 5 times).

to riposte in melee combat you must roll a natural 18-20 on a parry or victim must roll a 1-3 on an attack and you parry it, then you roll to riposte. (note: if you roll a 20 to riposte and choose strike, you get full damage automatically, not double) And you can choose you to entangle, disarm or strike.

at every level you either add 2 new skills OR add an extra 10% per skill slot to an already existing skill.

If the book says you can't have a skill you can still take it at a cost of double skills. Thus if a wizard wants falconry, it will cost 2 skill slots, if he wants martial arts or assassin it'll cost him 6 skill slots, in which case a level 2 wizard could get it but not receive skills until level 4.

[ShadowHawk]

you also get a single secondary skill at every level, but same rules apply as above.

use PPE channeling rules for all spell casters, and for every level you advance can cast that level worth of points as an action free cast, up to that level. thus a wizard at 4th level could cast blinding flash up to 4 times, globe of daylight twice, decipher magic 1 time, or climb and blinding flash and not be charged an action.

I use AD&D cantrips in my games, individual cantrips cost 1-3 points.

everyone gets horsemanship general to start the game off, unless a noble, paladin, squire, or a knight. Nobles get horsemanship knight and can if they so choose take horsemanship exotic knight as can squires.

[ShadowHawk]

he weight of the gryphon is ridicules...150-230 lbs and are typically 4' tall at the shoulders, 7' long, and are supposed to be flying mounts for human sizes or smaller? um, yeah...I don't think so. Not exactly sure how that came into being, but I've bumped them up to 1,000-1120lbs. I've also bumped the pegasi's up to 1500-2000 lbs. and made the rule that they can be beard with or artificially inseminated by a donkey and have a flying mule.

[Vrykolas2k]

Not really into house rules.
Really the only one I have is, play what you want to play; in general I don't even let the players talk about their characters before the game begins, which avoids the whole "niche-filling" trope.

Well most of the house rules I have seen in the game were mostly made to make sense of the things that are a bit game breaking.

The reason I hate house rules is because I see them break games far too often.

[kiralon]

Not really into house rules.
Really the only one I have is, play what you want to play; in general I don't even let the players talk about their characters before the game begins, which avoids the whole "niche-filling" trope.

Well most of the house rules I have seen in the game were mostly made to make sense of the things that are a bit game breaking.

The reason I hate house rules is because I see them break games far too often.

My house rules evolved from game breaking stuff in the game already (like coa, cos, mb, priests, mindmages)
or simply silly stuff like some players having 38 bazillion attacks per round and others having 2, or using teleport superior to teleport bad guys into a wall.

[Hotrod]

1. Hand to Hand: Assassin has no alignment restriction; it's just an alternative to the more-rounded martial arts/palladin hand-to-hand.
2. Druid OCCs and mystic herbology from Rifts England are allowed (all MDC becomes SDC, modern-ish skills are either deleted or replaced with an appropriate fantasy substitute), though they are only available in a few nature-centric cultures/regions, and classic fantasy druids regard all but the millennium druids as heretics of the true faith.
3. Healing psionic powers have no meditation times. They just work.
4. Psionics are optional as a choice for any eligible character who wants them at the minor or major levels (major level still involves the standard drawbacks). Deliberately choosing to not have even minor psionics gives the player the option of selecting a special ability of another O.C.C. subject to G.M. approval. for example, a non-psionic ranger might take the demon death blow of the palladin, the ability to fire from horseback of the long bowman, or the ability to make arrows like a fletcher.

[Alrik Vas]

Trading abilities is a cool idea, yeah. I both love and hate the psionic healing thing. Part of me wants to jump for joy and go, "finally we can heal during battle!" the other part of me wants to just go play D&D and see it done with some structure.

I like PF because at it's basic core, your resource management is crucial. I've always loved games like that. Which is why I trade so many rules in for something more lethal to ratchet it up even more.

[ShadowHawk]

a non-psionic ranger might take the demon death blow of the palladin, the ability to fire from horseback of the long bowman, or the ability to make arrows like a fletcher.

would be a neat idea, though my group wouldn't go for it.

[Zer0 Kay]

Every race gets the possibility for exceptional stats.
All 3d6 rates 16-18 and get a bonus right? K so:
n = number of dice rolled
s = sides
b = bonus die (b is first bonus b2 is second, etc...)
so for a 3d6 the n = 3 and s = 6
To get a bonus die a roll must be over n*s-n or max roll minus n = 15 or 16 or greater.
A race gets as many b dice as the n for a stat, with each consecutive bonus die beyond the first requiring s or the max roll on the previous die. So humans can have up to 3 bonus dice with stats from 3-36. Many will think this is broken but I did a study using Excel, in 9000 rolls there was rarely a single third bonus die in 9000 rolls and that is even with "ignoring" or rerolling ones. Only about 10 second bonus dice were rolled the number of initial bonus dice rolled were much larger. For creatures with larger n the max bonus dice was even less common. So the chances of getting an uber character is balanced by the low chance of getting such, granted that is all based on the honesty of the player. It is like a fence. Fences are made to keep honest people out and this system rewards honest people but is easier to be bypassed than a fence is by a thief.

[Hotrod]

Trading abilities is a cool idea, yeah. I both love and hate the psionic healing thing. Part of me wants to jump for joy and go, "finally we can heal during battle!" the other part of me wants to just go play D&D and see it done with some structure.

I like PF because at it's basic core, your resource management is crucial. I've always loved games like that. Which is why I trade so many rules in for something more lethal to ratchet it up even more.

Well, it's not quite like that. healing touches require you to actually touch someone for an attack, and I further house-rule that to skin-to-skin; if they're dodging, running, and/or running, that's not so easy, and clothing/armor can also be an impediment. Groups are generally better off if a healing character focuses on eliminating the threat first and healing second.

[Hotrod]

Oh, I forgot this house rule: Horsemanship is upgrade-able like hand-to-hand. A layman can take it three times to get Horsemanship: Palladin. A knight can upgrade to Palladin horsemanship with one "other" skill.

[Zer0 Kay]

Oh, I forgot this house rule: Horsemanship is upgrade-able like hand-to-hand. A layman can take it three times to get Horsemanship: Palladin. A knight can upgrade to Palladin horsemanship with one "other" skill.

I wouldn't agree with that. One cant trade up to commando unless their class says so. Horsemanship: Paladin should be the same. It takes so long to master BUT more importantly only trained to certain people. I think with the HtH and other skills each should allow multiple picks to increase starting level. I'm first level but I spent three picks on my hth basic instead of upgrading it to Martial Arts so I start of with level three bonuses.

[Alrik Vas]

That's an interesting idea, Zer0. Not sure if I'd allow it, but there's no particular problem considering what you trade for it.

Though I allow trading up types as well, as long as you have a specialised teacher.

[ShadowHawk]

Oh, I forgot this house rule: Horsemanship is upgrade-able like hand-to-hand. A layman can take it three times to get Horsemanship: Palladin. A knight can upgrade to Palladin horsemanship with one "other" skill.

Like it.

[Damian Magecraft]

I have so many different ones (constantly play testing "tweeks").

Here are a few that are pretty much standard in every game I run.

Skill restrictions only apply a character creation. Any skill may be learned in game as long as the following conditions are met. (These only apply to skills on the class's restricted list).
1: obtain an instructor (at least 3 levels higher than you. The Scholar class ignores the level requirement both as students and instructors).
2: have an available open skill slot.

For skill advancement bonuses: first level counts as a level.

untrained skill (a skill not taken by the character) checks: are the skills base and any exceptional IQ bonuses only.

[Hotrod]

Oh, I forgot this house rule: Horsemanship is upgrade-able like hand-to-hand. A layman can take it three times to get Horsemanship: Palladin. A knight can upgrade to Palladin horsemanship with one "other" skill.

I wouldn't agree with that. One cant trade up to commando unless their class says so. Horsemanship: Paladin should be the same. It takes so long to master BUT more importantly only trained to certain people. I think with the HtH and other skills each should allow multiple picks to increase starting level. I'm first level but I spent three picks on my hth basic instead of upgrading it to Martial Arts so I start of with level three bonuses.

That seems like a reasonable alternative approach. My reasoning for having nearly universal skill availability is that, given the right circumstances, anyone could develop most skills with the right teacher, the right equipment, and enough time. A commando hand-to-hand instructor instructing professional special forces could also the same techniques to hard-working high school athletes and get them to be just as effective. For out-of-the-ordinary skills, I would expect the player to provide some kind of upbringing-based explanation of how he/she came to learn them.

[Zer0 Kay]

Oh, I forgot this house rule: Horsemanship is upgrade-able like hand-to-hand. A layman can take it three times to get Horsemanship: Palladin. A knight can upgrade to Palladin horsemanship with one "other" skill.

I wouldn't agree with that. One cant trade up to commando unless their class says so. Horsemanship: Paladin should be the same. It takes so long to master BUT more importantly only trained to certain people. I think with the HtH and other skills each should allow multiple picks to increase starting level. I'm first level but I spent three picks on my hth basic instead of upgrading it to Martial Arts so I start of with level three bonuses.

That seems like a reasonable alternative approach. My reasoning for having nearly universal skill availability is that, given the right circumstances, anyone could develop most skills with the right teacher, the right equipment, and enough time. A commando hand-to-hand instructor instructing professional special forces could also the same techniques to hard-working high school athletes and get them to be just as effective. For out-of-the-ordinary skills, I would expect the player to provide some kind of upbringing-based explanation of how he/she came to learn them.

Yes but the idea is that they are restricted is that those teachers will not. A commando I structir will not teach highschol children how to kill a Paladin instructor won't teach the unworthy.

[Alrik Vas]

Generally does not. A crazy man who takes advantage of kids to make them his personal killers might teach very deadly techniques.

A paladin who is disillusioned might train anyone for pay, setting no worth in risking his neck for something as ridiculous as what's "right."

These are the sorts of NPCs that can make games memorable.

[eliakon]

Generally does not. A crazy man who takes advantage of kids to make them his personal killers might teach very deadly techniques.

A paladin who is disillusioned might train anyone for pay, setting no worth in risking his neck for something as ridiculous as what's "right."

These are the sorts of NPCs that can make games memorable.

I guess at some level it comes down to if you believe that character classes and skill categories have intrinsic value in your game or not.
I am guessing that you are more of a 'generalists' view where learning is modular and you build up as you go. Other people are more of a 'well the game is built around certain assumptions and those include classes for a reason so' and are fairly strict on what you can learn in (and out) of your class.

[Zer0 Kay]

Generally does not. A crazy man who takes advantage of kids to make them his personal killers might teach very deadly techniques.

A paladin who is disillusioned might train anyone for pay, setting no worth in risking his neck for something as ridiculous as what's "right."

These are the sorts of NPCs that can make games memorable.

A fallen paladin, wouldn't teach paladin. It would be modified with critical from behind. Bonus to conceal war tip with a false game tip and other distasteful stuff a Paladin who has decided the ends justify the means. While they'd not get such a high lancing bonuses. A Fallen Paladin is likely to be arrogant and unwilling to teach his peons his true technique, instead teaching them a technique that allows them to exploits his enemies weakness but leave a gaping weakness toward him.

[Alrik Vas]

I in no way suggested he would be dastardly. Merely selfish.

I gave an example, there are many other types of situations out there.

[Hotrod]

Generally does not. A crazy man who takes advantage of kids to make them his personal killers might teach very deadly techniques.

A paladin who is disillusioned might train anyone for pay, setting no worth in risking his neck for something as ridiculous as what's "right."

These are the sorts of NPCs that can make games memorable.

Absolutely so, and they can also help to make a PC more distinctive and interesting, even help to drive the plot of the game. A human blacksmith who knows the secrets of dwarf-quality smithing could attract all kinds of interesting trouble.

[Hotrod]

Generally does not. A crazy man who takes advantage of kids to make them his personal killers might teach very deadly techniques.

A paladin who is disillusioned might train anyone for pay, setting no worth in risking his neck for something as ridiculous as what's "right."

These are the sorts of NPCs that can make games memorable.

I guess at some level it comes down to if you believe that character classes and skill categories have intrinsic value in your game or not.
I am guessing that you are more of a 'generalists' view where learning is modular and you build up as you go. Other people are more of a 'well the game is built around certain assumptions and those include classes for a reason so' and are fairly strict on what you can learn in (and out) of your class.

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle. I'm ok with a fudge here and there for reasons that make sense and are explained in the background of the story, but I'm not about to say "sure, your paladin can also cast spells" or some such. There's some intrinsic value in having an archetype system, but fun and good roleplay are just as, if not more important. It can be fun to come up with unique little variations on an archetype.

In any case, most of Palladium's books have NPC characters that throw the rulebook out the window, going back to the entire tribe of orc soldier/mercenary OCCs employed as cavalry with Horsemanship: Knight or better in the 1st Edition's Gersidi adventure. When the author of the system ignores some rules to make his dudes more interesting, it seems implied that it's cool to do the same.

[Alrik Vas]

These are also...well, house rules, so though they can be argued if there is something breaking about them (up to the point where the author of the house rule says "I understand your point, but I still like this better") there isn't a lot of room to even show them there is something "wrong" with them.

The best you can really say is, "Well, that's interesting, but I wouldn't do it and here's why." Just don't let it turn into an argument about opinions, we all know how that goes.

[Razorwing]

The only House Rule that is consistent with games I tend to run is that we don't actually roll base stats.

We start with the spread: 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12 and 11... and then assign them to whatever stat we wish for the character we want. The three initial Exceptional stats then get an additional 1d6 added to them (and if a 6 is rolled, another 1d6 can be added again). This allows the players to create the characters they want without having to worry too much about whether or not the luck of a die roll will eliminate their choices. Additionally, since they are playing "Heroic" characters (as in better than your average person), these stats do tend to favor such play. Now if a player wishes a lower score for a given stat... that is their choice (and one I let them decide upon).

Yes, putting lower stats in physical attributes can, with the right selection of physical skills, give such characters more than 3 exceptional attributes... but this is balanced both by the fact that these raised stats don't get the bonus 1d6 that the naturally exceptional stats get and are somewhat limited to how high they can get (due to the limits of the bonuses physical skills provide).

As for races with natural attributes that are greater or less than the normal 3d6 standard... a character has the choice of using this spread or roll the race's usual dice for the attribute... but most of the time players choose to go with the spread... assigning the higher numbers to attributes that are normally higher for the race... and lower ones for stats that are normally lower. Even so, there will be times when such characters have attributes that are higher or lower than would be expected from an average member of such races... but since they are playing heroic characters, we generally don't worry about such things (they will be an exception to the average for such a race).

[Warpig]

I would like to introduce a couple house rules into my group:

1) PS based bonus damage for two-handed weapons is x1.5 (rounded down where applicable) of what the standard bonus is. More "science" and full application of strength in delivering a blow is possible as opposed to dealing a blow with one handers. Example: Jack the Knight has a PS of 28; he attacks with a long sword and does 2d6+13 damage; he attacks with a bastard sword and does 2d6+21.
Thoughts?

[Damian Magecraft]

I would like to introduce a couple house rules into my group:

1) PS based bonus damage for two-handed weapons is x1.5 (rounded down where applicable) of what the standard bonus is. More "science" and full application of strength in delivering a blow is possible as opposed to dealing a blow with one handers. Example: Jack the Knight has a PS of 28; he attacks with a long sword and does 2d6+13 damage; he attacks with a bastard sword and does 2d6+21.
Thoughts?

what do 1 hander weaps get to "balance" them against the superior damage of 2 handers?

[kiralon]

Paired Weapons and simultaneous strikes

[Library Ogre]

I would like to introduce a couple house rules into my group:

1) PS based bonus damage for two-handed weapons is x1.5 (rounded down where applicable) of what the standard bonus is. More "science" and full application of strength in delivering a blow is possible as opposed to dealing a blow with one handers. Example: Jack the Knight has a PS of 28; he attacks with a long sword and does 2d6+13 damage; he attacks with a bastard sword and does 2d6+21.
Thoughts?

what do 1 hander weaps get to "balance" them against the superior damage of 2 handers?

What do humans get to balance them against the superior stats of True Atlanteans?

[kiralon]

PFRPG Protection, they don't exist and so disappear in a puff of munchkin breaking logic

[Warpig]

I would like to introduce a couple house rules into my group:

1) PS based bonus damage for two-handed weapons is x1.5 (rounded down where applicable) of what the standard bonus is. More "science" and full application of strength in delivering a blow is possible as opposed to dealing a blow with one handers. Example: Jack the Knight has a PS of 28; he attacks with a long sword and does 2d6+13 damage; he attacks with a bastard sword and does 2d6+21.
Thoughts?

what do 1 hander weaps get to "balance" them against the superior damage of 2 handers?

1) Like Kiralon said, and it's a matter of practicality... In the example I gave there's a difference in the application of strength, under current rules there is no difference. The only difference would be the measly +2 damage on behalf of the weapon.

2) I would also include a house rule to add a parry bonus inherent to using shields... It's what they're purpose built for, and should inherently make it easier to parry an attack than an offensive weapon like a sword or axe. Thus carrying a 1 handed weapon paired with a shield is worth it.

3) Damage isn't the only factor important in a weapon. And really!? 1 handed weapons and 2 handed weapons are "apples and oranges" why does there damage have to be balanced?

4) to answer the question: you have 1 free hand, as opposed to using both. So you can use your imagination and do what you want with it.

[Damian Magecraft]

My concerns are only minimally connected to the damage discrepancy.
It has more to do with mechanical advantage.
As it stands in the attrition based system that is PB combat (he who does the most damage the most frequently wins) there is mechanical reason to use a 1 handed weapon except for as a twf (paired) which sword & board counts as twf.
What incentives are you considering to encourage 1 handed weapons use?
And no saying "well you have one hand free" won't work (turn based combat system you are only allowed one action per turn).

[Warpig]

My concerns are only minimally connected to the damage discrepancy.
It has more to do with mechanical advantage.
As it stands in the attrition based system that is PB combat (he who does the most damage the most frequently wins) there is mechanical reason to use a 1 handed weapon except for as a twf (paired) which sword & board counts as twf.
What incentives are you considering to encourage 1 handed weapons use?
And no saying "well you have one hand free" won't work (turn based combat system you are only allowed one action per turn).

Aside from what I've previously offered, nothing more.

We have a difference in opinion on "PB is attrition based" and you left my comment of "use your imagination" cut out of the "you have a free hand" part.
If the player doesnt have much creative thought, then I guess they're out of luck and they're stuck to playing the game as an attritionist... And it would be easy to pick apart a player like that. Finding room to maneuver in any pen n paper game easy enough though (it's discussed in the intro of every PB game's main book). And as for 1 action per turn; yes but a players "action" is again determined by there creativity... The attritionist will 'roll to strike, yet again' while the creative player might 'throw a fistful of sand in their opponents face, as they move to a more advantageous position to strike/run/whatever' -maximizing what they can do in that ~15 sec-
I severely doubt all players will want to build characters to wield 2 handed weapons b/c of a slight increase in damage. Keep in mind, it will cost them additional investments in physical skills to get a solid PS bonus too. IMO adding a rule like this would help to balance the current system of play to something more realistic.

[Damian Magecraft]

My concerns are only minimally connected to the damage discrepancy.
It has more to do with mechanical advantage.
As it stands in the attrition based system that is PB combat (he who does the most damage the most frequently wins) there is no mechanical reason to use a 1 handed weapon except for as a twf (paired) which sword & board counts as twf.
What incentives are you considering to encourage 1 handed weapons use?
And no saying "well you have one hand free" won't work (turn based combat system you are only allowed one action per turn).

Aside from what I've previously offered, nothing more.

We have a difference in opinion on "PB is attrition based" and you left my comment of "use your imagination" cut out of the "you have a free hand" part.

yes I did; because it is a subtle insult to the reader/player. (implying they are not using any despite playing a game of make believe).

If the player doesnt have much creative thought, then I guess they're out of luck and they're stuck to playing the game as an attritionist... And it would be easy to pick apart a player like that.

you may find that difficult given the mechanics of the combat system...

Finding room to maneuver in any pen n paper game easy enough though (it's discussed in the intro of every PB game's main book). And as for 1 action per turn; yes but a players "action" is again determined by there creativity... The attritionist will 'roll to strike, yet again' while the creative player might 'throw a fistful of sand in their opponents face, as they move to a more advantageous position to strike/run/whatever' -maximizing what they can do in that ~15 sec-

except tossing the sand requires a roll to strike ("yet again") results in no damage dealt and a wasted action in all likelihood.

I severely doubt all players will want to build characters to wield 2 handed weapons b/c of a slight increase in damage.

no not all of them... just most of them (the combat rules and hp/sdc set up encourage optimization... a hazard of attrition based systems)

Keep in mind, it will cost them additional investments in physical skills to get a solid PS bonus too.

not as significant as you think... in fact it would not alter my fighter character designs and skill picks in the least.

IMO adding a rule like this would help to balance the current system of play to something more realistic.

I am not saying the rule is a bad one... just not a fully fleshed out one.
As the combat system is currently designed it favors two weapon fighters significantly. Your house rule redresses that for two handed weapons quite well. But ignores the one handed single weapon fighter.
I am not saying one handed fighters need to get a damage bonus as well. I am saying to make the three basic forms of weapons combat comparable (just like irl) that one handed should also get some sort of inherent advantage.

[Warpig]

I am not saying the rule is a bad one... just not a fully fleshed out one.
As the combat system is currently designed it favors two weapon fighters significantly. Your house rule redresses that for two handed weapons quite well. But ignores the one handed single weapon fighter.
I am not saying one handed fighters need to get a damage bonus as well. I am saying to make the three basic forms of weapons combat comparable (just like irl) that one handed should also get some sort of inherent advantage.

I agree that currently paired (twf) is favored, a rule like this helps bring 2-handed wpn fighters up to par... I think I misunderstood you earlier w/ incentivizing 1-handers... A single 1-handed weapon in combat (no additional shield, etc).
I wouldn't want to incentivize that. Why would you? No Men at Arms OCC should/would favor that approach going in to combat. Pure 1-handed wpn fighting seems more like a back up option more than anything...
And if the reply is "what about non-Men at Arms OCCs?" Then I would say that it is common sense that they will not perform as well in melee combat (as men at arms). Not everyone gets a trophy IMO

[Damian Magecraft]

I am not saying the rule is a bad one... just not a fully fleshed out one.
As the combat system is currently designed it favors two weapon fighters significantly. Your house rule redresses that for two handed weapons quite well. But ignores the one handed single weapon fighter.
I am not saying one handed fighters need to get a damage bonus as well. I am saying to make the three basic forms of weapons combat comparable (just like irl) that one handed should also get some sort of inherent advantage.

I agree that currently paired (twf) is favored, a rule like this helps bring 2-handed wpn fighters up to par... I think I misunderstood you earlier w/ incentivizing 1-handers... A single 1-handed weapon in combat (no additional shield, etc).
I wouldn't want to incentivize that. Why would you? No Men at Arms OCC should/would favor that approach going in to combat. Pure 1-handed wpn fighting seems more like a back up option more than anything...
And if the reply is "what about non-Men at Arms OCCs?" Then I would say that it is common sense that they will not perform as well in melee combat (as men at arms). Not everyone gets a trophy IMO

Pirates, Swashbucklers, etc...
not all Men at Arms take up or can reasonably be expected to learn two handed weapons or two weapon fighting styles.

[Warpig]

Pirates, Swashbucklers, etc...
not all Men at Arms take up or can reasonably be expected to learn two handed weapons or two weapon fighting

Anyone of those can easily take WP paired, or why not invest some clout in ranged attacks too... Whether thrown or archery. I would also advocate bringing over the Fencing skill from RUE

[Damian Magecraft]

Pirates, Swashbucklers, etc...
not all Men at Arms take up or can reasonably be expected to learn two handed weapons or two weapon fighting

Anyone of those can easily take WP paired, or why not invest some clout in ranged attacks too... Whether thrown or archery. I would also advocate bringing over the Fencing skill from RUE

the idea is to prevent a superior/inferior skill pick situation.
the use of Fencing is a good suggestion.

[mirithol]

Pirates, Swashbucklers, etc...
not all Men at Arms take up or can reasonably be expected to learn two handed weapons or two weapon fighting

Anyone of those can easily take WP paired, or why not invest some clout in ranged attacks too... Whether thrown or archery. I would also advocate bringing over the Fencing skill from RUE

the idea is to prevent a superior/inferior skill pick situation.
the use of Fencing is a good suggestion.

One-handed fighting gives a player options: Most obvious is a shield if you want to balance offense and defense, but sans shield consider holding a torch in the off-hand, a readied vial of holy water, a flask of acid or oil (especially good with a flaming sword). Hard to swing from a chandelier or rope (as in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies) with a two-hander so mobility and tactics may be a factor if your game uses tactical terrain. If the maneuver adds fun and action to the game I'll give the player a roll.

I also allow an appropriate (not daggers, etc) one-handed weapon to be used with both hands adding +50% to rolled base damage (rounded down) then add in damage modifiers. If a player using a one-handed weapon with both hands rolls a fumble, the fumble has an 01-50% chance of shattering the weapon or 51%+ of being a normal fumble. If shattered the weapon gets a saving throw adjusted for the weapon's quality &/or magical attributes. We work this out before the game so there's no hard feelings in game when it happens or add it to the stats when the weapon is acquired in game. The weapon shatters or the attack results in a pathetically bad miss.You fumbled, you rolled under 50% so it's a shatter test not a fumble table roll, and your sword has a 30% shatter possibility. Roll...

[mirithol]

Thanks for all of the great ideas. Here are rwo not mentioned that our crew uses:

1) Player characters die and can do so in really cool ways. So we have the Excellent Death and Epic Death House rule.

If a character dies in an excellent way - in character, a flash of glory, saving young Susie, etc. the player is awarded the Excellent Death designation. This reward allows the player to add a D6 to one single attribute roll when creating the player's replacement character removing the lowest die roll. Essentially taking the best three of the four rolls for a human.

If a character dies in an Epic way (You'll know it when you see it), the player is awarded the Excellent Death advantage and may add an additional D6 to a second attribute roll (not the same as the first).

Alternatively you can give a +1 to any stat for an Excellent Death and +2 to a different stat for an Epic Death, but we like rolling dice.

Beware, if you have Munchkins in your game who try to kill their character early for the advantage on attributes, don't fall for it and there reward is being that much farther behind on the experience path. This happened once. Also, there are no Darwin Awards for stupid actions. If a player disbelieves the 200' drop over the ledge with razor sharp rocks below and jumps anyway... we'll there is no penalty on character generation. Just serve kabob skewers in his memory at the next game.

2) Story Awards: In addition to the experience, I award bonus skills or "campaign skills" that may not exist in the rules based on the narrative of the campaign. For example, if the characters have spent a month sailing on a ship in the campaign, then I award them the Sailing skill at 20% plus a D6% for free or the option of the Swim skill. If they have the skill already they get a bonus D6% roll. A player may add to their bonus sail skill as normal as long as the campaign arc keeps them around boats, docks, islands, etc. If they leave the sea and travel inland characters with the bonus skill may not add to it reflecting they have left the area and do not have the opportunity to add to their knowledge. Characters with the skill naturally may advance in the usual fashion.

Another example: In our campaign, the player characters spent a few months in the city of Topaz on Borich Island in the Byzantium Kingdom. The received a Local Lore bonus skill at a base 20%. They could choose one of three options: Lore: Topaz 20% +3D6%, Lore: Borich Island 20% + 2D6%, or Lore: Byzantium Kingdom 20% +D6%. This reflected time spent in the city and the knowledge the group gained by being there. The mechanic we used gave more probability of useful knowledge in the local environs and less as the geography expanded. Thus, the characters are more likely to know about the tavern on the docks of Topaz than a tavern in Gideon on Borich and even less about a tavern in the capital in Byzantium. A character specialized in Lore: Topaz could know something about Borich at 1/2 skill, and about another Byzantium Isle at 1/4 skill. A character with broader knowledge of Byzantium might know something specific about Topaz at Lore: Byzantium Isles skill chance.

[Damian Magecraft]

Pirates, Swashbucklers, etc...
not all Men at Arms take up or can reasonably be expected to learn two handed weapons or two weapon fighting

Anyone of those can easily take WP paired, or why not invest some clout in ranged attacks too... Whether thrown or archery. I would also advocate bringing over the Fencing skill from RUE

the idea is to prevent a superior/inferior skill pick situation.
the use of Fencing is a good suggestion.

One-handed fighting gives a player options: Most obvious is a shield if you want to balance offense and defense, but sans shield consider holding a torch in the off-hand, a readied vial of holy water, a flask of acid or oil (especially good with a flaming sword). Hard to swing from a chandelier or rope (as in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies) with a two-hander so mobility and tactics may be a factor if your game uses tactical terrain. If the maneuver adds fun and action to the game I'll give the player a roll.

I also allow an appropriate (not daggers, etc) one-handed weapon to be used with both hands adding +50% to rolled base damage (rounded down) then add in damage modifiers. If a player using a one-handed weapon with both hands rolls a fumble, the fumble has an 01-50% chance of shattering the weapon or 51%+ of being a normal fumble. If shattered the weapon gets a saving throw adjusted for the weapon's quality &/or magical attributes. We work this out before the game so there's no hard feelings in game when it happens or add it to the stats when the weapon is acquired in game. The weapon shatters or the attack results in a pathetically bad miss.You fumbled, you rolled under 50% so it's a shatter test not a fumble table roll, and your sword has a 30% shatter possibility. Roll...

Sword and Board counts as paired weps in my book (it is called WP Shield after all) and leads back to the paired weps is superior abuse issue.
the way the combat rules are written every single action you suggest requires the expenditure of an action that does not lead to a direct benefit (most would place the pc behind in action economy in the long run) or leads back to use two weapons or suffer.
Which is side stepping the issue rather than actually addressing it.
you suggest a method of dealing with "hand and a half" weapons but what about those 1 handed only ones? (every house rule design has a cascade effect that has to be taken into consideration).

[pblackcrow]

Something that I started doing recently. Throwing out the book and saying if you can find someone to teach you or at least 6-14 books to study, you can easily learn a new skill. At any point in the game. Also anytime that you research a topic, it should add to your knowledge.

[mirithol]

Something that I started doing recently. Throwing out the book and saying if you can find someone to teach you or at least 6-14 books to study, you can easily learn a new skill. At any point in the game. Also anytime that you research a topic, it should add to your knowledge.

Perhaps not a house rule, but a "treasure" or reward is finding an old library. There are books, tomes, grimoires that add to a skill or even allow a new one. It may a singe book or a set, but there is a time element involved (usually a month) that does not have to be consecutive study(because that's not fun). I may allow 1/4 of a day of study per day while adventuring if it makes sense, but try to avoid too much accounting (not fun). Sometimes it may take 4-6 months to learn the new skill. And, yes, miraculously there's a book or set of books in the treasure that is just what one player is looking for to differentiate his character. GMs - know your characters! Then, have a thief steal their **** including the final and crucial book 7 of the series with the last and most important information to complete the skill training! Side quest anyone?

I also allow any new secondary skill to be swapped for what we call local lore. If the player characters adventure in or around the city of Topaz, they can choose to have Lore: Topaz. This gives them bonuses to gather information, know contacts, etc. Or they may choose Lore: Borich, which gives them a chance to know something for the whole island, but with a lesser chance. Or they may even choose Lore: Byzantium Kingdom, which again gives them an even broader range to know something or have heard of something, but with a smaller chance of success. The more specific, the higher the probability. So if a character in Gideon or Port Lila has Lore: Topaz, he/she will still have a chance to discover some information, but less than if he/she had Lore: Borich because Topaz is specific. Lore in a specific city offers the best chance, but even then, somebody may have a cousin who knows somebody, and so on.

I will usually let players know that they may be spending significant time adventuring in "these parts" before having them take a skill focused on locale and then the adventure suddenly takes them to the Western Empire.

[Alrik Vas]

Sword and Board counts as paired weps in my book (it is called WP Shield after all) and leads back to the paired weps is superior abuse issue.
the way the combat rules are written every single action you suggest requires the expenditure of an action that does not lead to a direct benefit (most would place the pc behind in action economy in the long run) or leads back to use two weapons or suffer.
Which is side stepping the issue rather than actually addressing it.
you suggest a method of dealing with "hand and a half" weapons but what about those 1 handed only ones? (every house rule design has a cascade effect that has to be taken into consideration).

So, paired weapons is versatile, two handed gains damage...uh...

Give 1 handed weapons a bonus on defeating AR. It's easily the crappiest of the three (as we know AR is defeated pretty easily if your stats aren't terrible), but it's something?

My other thought was way over the line (if you succeed at a parry -10, you can counterattack for free, base damage of weapon only).

[Vincent Takeda]

The rules I use for my heroes/ninja's campaigns are

10+d8 for attributes unless otherwise specified. roll a string of 8d8, then if you feel like it roll another d8 wiping out the first roll in the chain until you've got a satisfactory chain of 8. Add 10 to each and put em where you want em.

Nothing stacks... All bonuses grow from these original rolls. Particularly physical skill bonuses.

Skill program can be traded in for a martial art, including exclusives

nat 20 plus bonuses can be beaten by non nat 20 with higher bonuses

on a crit, max plus a roll

AR is handled as both DR and ablative and handled as non penetrable ('natural'), though you no longer have to beat the AR rating on the attack roll

Thats all the stuff I can think of off the top of my head...

[pblackcrow]

Armor in my games now has ar, ppe, but also DR (Damage reduction rolls) for certain types of armor.

[Library Ogre]

Armor in my games now has ar, ppe, but also DR (Damage reduction rolls) for certain types of armor.

PPE?

I had some quick and dirty damage reduction rules for Palladium, once upon a time. Take the AR and subtract 4. That was the item's Damage Reduction. Any damage it reduced was removed from SDC... so Cloth Armor, with an AR: 5 and SDC: 6 would have a DR of 1 and survive for 6 hits.

Because DR of heavier armor could easily result in it completely absorbing a blow, I had a secondary rule regarding critical hits. If you critted, you got either *2 damage or could ignore the DR. If you normally would have *3 crits, you could either take a *3 crit OR ignore DR and have a *2 crit. Since a lot of armor still had a penalty on your parry, dodge, and roll, that was a balancing act on what you wanted.