Hello, everyone.
I've posted several times now that if Pathfinder wishes to repair 3.5, it needs to look at the big picture (the core of the system) rather than the small picture (individual classes, for example) and solve it from there.
I'd like to contribute an explanation of a core problem with 3.5, one which really should be considered along with other, smaller issues.
Reposted from a tangent of the 3-buff limit thread:
A major, and core, problem with 3.5 is that it simply fails to account for all values of X in d20+X.
For example: Let's say we have Fighter-man and Rogue-man. At level 2, Fighter-man has +2 BAB, say 16 Strength, and Weapon Focus, so he's at +6 to hit with his sword. Rogue-man has +1 BAB, say 16 Dex, and Weapon Finesse, so he's at +4 to hit with his rapier. So when they face off against a monster with AC 17, Fighter-man needs to roll an 11 to hit it, while Rogue-man needs a 13. Not a big deal.
But that spread of X in d20+X starts becoming a problem at higher-levels. Let's say around 15th level, Fighter-man is up to +40 to hit, while Rogue-man is scraping his way up to +25. Now we've got a problem. How does a DM provide an appropriate challenge to these two PCs? Anything that Rogue-man can reasonably hit, Fighter-man can hit with a 2; anything that challenges Fighter-man, Rogue-man is looking for 20s. The system has failed to account for all values of X in d20+X.
Similarly, let's look at high-level skill DCs. Rogue-man might be pushing +55 on Stealth, while the party Cleric might've found a way to make +2. How does a DM set a Stealth DC for these two?
How about Perception? The party Ranger could have +40, while the party Fighter could have +8. How does a DM set a Perception DC?
In all three cases, the system has failed to account for all values of X in d20+X.
Fourth Edition fixed the problem by having all PCs scale linearly and equally. Everyone's BAB, skill ranks, and base "saves" are all the same, and every offensive value scales at the same rate as every defensive value. 4E reduces the spread of X (and Y) in d20+X (vs. 10+Y) by just just giving everybody the same level of ability at everything they do. As most of us can agree upon, that's just total trash... but it does a good job of demonstrating the problem inherent in the existing system. We don't want 4E.
So what we do about it?
Good question.
This problem is inherent to the very foundations of the d20 system; the d20 never changes, only the X in d20+X does. And since X is the only method of expressing differences in ability, the larger the spread of X, the faster the system breaks.
A solution I've been kicking around is imposing a system of diminishing returns. Once that X reaches a certain amount, further bonuses to X can yield lesser effects.
However, such a solution would essentially create a "ceiling" on X. Once you've capped out your attack bonus, it doesn't get any better. Similarly, AC and DCs will have to have similar diminishing returns systems attached.
But then, we could take things a step further. What if, after reaching a certain value of X, bonuses would stop applying directly to the X, but instead boost the d20 side of things?
Sounds strange, I know, but bear with me...
What if after, say, d20+20, every +6 thereafter converted into a d6 that would be added to the roll? And what if, when rolling multiple d6s, you didn't get to keep all of them, instead getting to add the highest few to the result?
For example:
-A PC with +32 to hit would roll 1d20+2d6+20, but only keep one of those d6s.
-A PC with +44 to hit would roll 1d20+4d6+20, but only keep two of those d6s.
-A PC with +80 to hit would roll 1d20+10d6+20, but only keep three of those d6s.
For this top-of-my-head thought, I'm having the kept dice scale with the square root of the number of dice rolled. Thus, keep one at 1d6, two at 4d6, three at 9d6, etc.
What something like this would accomplish is instead of having X in d20+X continue to scale upwards, we would focus on boosting the d20 side of the equation, lessening the effects of luck on the roll, which would still yield more desirable results more often, but the maximum value of the result would not continue to scale upwards. Increase the average result, not the maximum result.
Just a quick thought to mull over. The important point, though, is the expression of the problem.
-Matt
Now that I'm on track, I thought I'd also repost another long explanation of another core problem with 3.5, which Pathfinder should consider: Challenge Rating
Reposted from the Why Do Games Break Down At High Levels? thread:
-Challenge Rating is built for single-monster encounters. Which stop working very quickly, simply because the single monster has an inherent action disadvantage. Four standard actions (some of which become full-attacks) will most often overwhelm one.
-Challenge Rating is built for a very sub-par party of four. The rules offer no guidance on how to adjust encounters for different party sizes. Six or seven PCs can take on different classes of encounters than parties of two or three. Also remember that Challenge Rating is built for a party of the Four Iconics, the absolutely horrible party that gave Toughness to Mialee.
-Challenge Rating, and its daughter Encounter Level, assume the party will face four encounters in a day. The rules offer no guidance on how to tweak encounters when the party will face fewer or greater numbers of them, aside from the tiny table on Page 49 of the 3.5 DMG that uses terms like "Challenging," "Very Difficult," and "Overpowering" as its guidance. Also note that often, the party has a measure of control over the number of encounters it faces in a day, as the party can often choose to rest. Also, since different campaigns place a different emphasis on number of encounters per day, this fact means that Challenge Rating is, by definition, inconsistent among campaigns.
-Inconsistent circumstances behind encounters. The rules provide no guidance about how to tailor Challenge Rating and Encounter Levels to various circumstances. An encounter that takes place behind the great double doors, where the PCs can load up all their rounds/lvl buff spells, is a wildly different level of challenge than an encounter that takes place in the middle of the night, when two-thirds of the party is sleeping.
-Inconsistency among monsters with a given Challenge Rating. One can take two monsters of equal challenge rating, and often one will be more powerful, more Challenging, than the other. A quick look at the back of the 3.5 Monster Manual shows that an Ogre Mage and a Nine-Headed Hydra are both CR 8.
-Inconsistency within the monsters themselves. For several reasons, the first of which goes hand-in-hand with Inconsistent Circumstances: A Human Cleric15 is a wildly different challenge when he's pre-buffed than when he's unbuffed.
-Challenge Ratings do not take into account monster equipment, which a monster can have, but is most often is not factored into its Challenge Rating. For example, if I give a Babau a Chain Shirt, its AC goes up by +4, with no adjustment to Challenge Rating. If I give a Glabrezu a melee weapon, it suddenly can switch out its two Claw attacks (+18/+18 - 1d6+5) for three weapon attacks (+20/+15/+10 - weapondamage+15, reduces pincer attacks to +18), significantly increasing its ability to damage PCs just by picking up a weapon of negligible GP value.
-Monsters have varying levels of optimization of their stat blocks for their Challenge Rating. That same Glabrezu from the previous example has Persuasive as one of its five feats. If I switch Persuasive out for, say, Weapon Focus (glaive), its ability to hurt PCs, its Challenge, increses, with no adjustment to Challenge Rating.
-The monster advancement rules are busted. As I've posted previously, if your DM touches the monster advancement rules, his or her monsters will be significantly more powerful than their Challenge Rating shows. For example, did you know that if a monster is given one nonassociated class level, its CR increases by 0.5, effectively nothing due to rounding, yet more importantly, the monster receives the Elite Array (base stats of 15/14/13/12/10/8 instead of 11s and 10s) for free?
My previous example post on the matter showed how quickly an advanced monster scales for its Challenge Rating by using an Advanced Otyugh, and how, for +3 CR, it would go from 6HD to 18HD, and all the crazy amounts of benefits it would receive. Page 292 of the 3.5 Monster Manual uses a 15HD Otyugh as an example of advancement, which actually makes a good example of my point. Take a look at it, but as you examine it, note that its CR only increases by +2. Yes, its attacks do go from +4/+4/-2 - 1d6/1d6/1d4 to +14/+14/+11 - 1d8+4/1d8+4/1d6+2, yes, it gains 79 hp, yes, its saves go up by +7/+2/+4, and yes, it gains two attribute bumps and three (two of which are suboptimal) feats, all in exchange for a mere +2 CR.
So in conclusion, Challenge Rating and Encounter Level are in desperate need of repair, and the problems inherent to them are present in all levels of play; high-level games simply have a way of making those problems very clear. No matter how much Pathfinder fixes the PC classes, if it doesn't fix the challenges they face, the system will still be riddled with problems.
-Matt
I apologize for any annoyance created by two massive reposts. I figured it would be a good idea to condense two very large, very core-issue posts into one thread for its own consideration.
Big-picture thinking and all that.
Carry on.
-Matt
I apologize for any annoyance created by two massive reposts.
It's all good. It's a discussion forum.
Regarding the first post, I'll say your assessment is correct: high level play drives characters further into their niches. If a cleric is bad at sneaking at 3rd level, he'll be terrible at sneaking by 15th.
You proposed solution isn't going to cut it though. First of all, how do you make the transition from bonus to dice? If it's every six points, aren't you going to have people optimizing for 5 points of bonus over the limit so that they average better than 3.5 damage? It's an interesting idea, but I think it is too out-there for Pathfinder's goals.
The second post: I share your concern for the whole Encounter Building deficiency. One thing I can say, I might like to see a modifier to XP awards based on number of consecutive encounters. Probably the best way to end the 15 minute adventuring day might be to subtract XP rewards from resting more often than the adventure is designed for. Resting diminishes the challenge, and therefore the reward? Just a thought.
MORE GM SUPPORT. I cannot stress this enough! Even reprinting verbatim the OP point about the widening gap in skill performance of different classes— right in the "DMG"— would be an improvement over remaining silent on the nuances of GMing.
Encounters can't be boiled down to a single number. We need more numbers to balance encounters properly! Or at the very least, an exhaustive explanation of the mysterious factors a GM must account for when building encounters. A point-based encounter/adventure building system would be better than an explanation. I'll take either at this point.
I think I see what you're going for here, Ruemere, and I'm not really sure how to respond, other than "something just doesn't feel right about it." Maybe it seems a wee bit artifical.
The perspective I'm taking is twofold:
-Analyze bonuses non-inherent to a PC/monster, and condense them so they don't get too wild. Or, looking not only at individual buffs, but buff suites as a whole, and condensing the bonuses that way. For example, changing Divine Power to basically Improved Divine Favor is a great idea.
-After examining the possibilities, attacking outliers rather than the standards.
Good thoughts, though. I like it when someone uses actual math to explain issues in the system that consist of actual math.
-Matt
You proposed solution isn't going to cut it though. First of all, how do you make the transition from bonus to dice? If it's every six points, aren't you going to have people optimizing for 5 points of bonus over the limit so that they average better than 3.5 damage? It's an interesting idea, but I think it is too out-there for Pathfinder's goals.
Yeah, it probably won't cut it as-is. I would like to clarify that the "remainder" to bonuses, like your +5 example, would just get rounded away, or rather, you don't get any extra bonus until you hit an increment of +6.
But the idea that remains, which is what I'm really proposing, is diminishing returns on bonuses to d20+X. Either that, or creating a method which yields desirable results more consistently when large bonuses are in play, but doesn't increase the maximum value of the roll nearly as much as it used to.
Another off-the-top of my head idea would be to convert massive bonuses over a certain amount, say +25, into the ability to roll multiple d20s and use the best result. That way, a desirable result is achieved more often, but again, the maximum result doesn't increase.
To relate to my illustration, instead of Fighter-man attacking at +40 and Rogue-man attacking at +25:
-Rogue-man would roll d20+25
-Fighter-man would roll 2d20+25, or d20+25 twice, and use the best result.
Of course, the specifics would need to be worked out, but the concept is what matters.
-Matt
Another idea I've been kicking around is coming up with a way to remove full-attacks from the game. They take a really long time to complete, they make combat less interesting by converting damage into massive spikes, and as time goes on, they make full-attacking the objective for a martial character, removing viability of bull-rushing, disarming, etc.
From the "Feats Shouldn't Suck" thread:
It seems, at least to me, that the reason full-attacks exist in the first place is to balance martial damage output with higher-level spells. A single attack does not scale nearly as quickly as a caster's highest-level spells do. So, in a roundabout way, full-attacks represent a spellcaster taking longer amounts of time to complete higher-level spellcasting. At 11th level, when a full-BAB PC is at +11/+6/+1, a spellcaster takes three times as long to cast his 6th-level spells than he did with his 1st-level spells. Not chronologically, but with regards to action capacity. One attack per spell at 1st, two attacks per spell at 6th, three attacks per spell at 11th, and four attacks per spell at 16th.
So, looking at the situation from this direction, one logical conclusion comes to mind:
Instead of granting multiple attacks to compensate for higher-level spells, why not make higher-level spells take longer to cast?
As mentioned a moment ago, one attack per spell at 1st, two attacks per spell at 6th, three attacks per spell at 11th, and four attacks per spell at 16th. Why not slow down casting time instead of speeding up attack time to follow this progression?
-4th and 5th-level spells require two standard ("attack") actions to complete.
-6th and 7th-level spells require three standard actions to complete.
-8th and 9th-level spells require four standard actions to complete.
So if a spellcaster wants to cast, say, Disintegrate, he'll be able to cast it, but then he loses his next two standard actions. Or full turns; the idea will have to be revised of course.
This way, we can then accomplish what iterative attacks were designed to accomplish, and then we'd be able to phase out the convoluted "it's all about getting your full-attack, because full-attack > everything else" system that currently stands. Play would be sped up, as all the full-attack math would not have to be done, and combat would be more interesting, since damage would no longer come in massive spikes as it does now, allowing PCs and monsters to defend themselves instead of sitting back and dying to a full-attack. Also, other non-full-attack actions, like bull-rushes, would be viable again, since they only have to compete with the effectiveness of a single attack, not a full-attack as well as the actions which grant one.
-Matt
|
I am sure this won't help any, but I will give you how I am handling BAB problems.
Mainly I have removed BAB entirely from the game.
Instead I took the weapon catagories from Unearthed Arcana and changed them into skills. Yes, skills. Then, I have every class gain 4 additional skills to their normal allocation. I also have armor feats as skills.
For weapons it becomes very simple. For a class skill weapon, the attack is almost always level +3. Essentially a flat number. Any class can take any weapon, they just don't get the +3 for non-class weapons. So, you can have a wizard who wields a Scythe or a Cleric who wields a Great Axe, etc. It depends upon what the player wants to do. They can munchkin it out if they want, or they can roleplay it as well. BTW Wands also requires a skill to use as a weapon.
AC is trickier and is still a work in progress.
For starters we have dropped all of the stackable modifiers for AC. You know the 10,000 modifiers that could be stacked. Instead a modifier to AC is just that, a modifier. Pick your best one and move on. One modifier is all you get. Faster that way.
Next we reconfigured the formula. THIS IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS
Armor+DEX Mod+Shield+ACModifier+1/2 Armor Skill+1/2 Shield Skill.
So at level 5 you have a weapons skill of 8 (we'll stick with base numbers since variables are so variable anyway)
You have an AC of 1/2 Armor Skill (4)+ 1/2 Shield Skill (4)+ Shield (2)+ Armor (Breastplate 5)= 15
7 or better hits.
level 20 you get a weapon skill of 23
AC of 1/2 Armor Skill (11)+ 1/2 Shield Skill (11)+ Shield (2)+ Armor (Fullplate 8)= 32
9 or better hits.
It is still a bit too easy to hit in my opinion and a better formula is needed. But I like the concept of it. I just need to tweak the execution.
Unfortunately this will never be accepted as it strays too far from the normal d20 system.
I have also considered removing Saves entirely from Classes and make them a free standing choice. That is upon creation a player assigns one good and two poor saves to the character and that is it for the rest of the game. I am alos considering taking away the saving throw and making it a target number instead. So instead of casting a spell and the defender then has to Save, instead the caster has to roll and over come the Save. Just like AC works. I have not used this yet but am intrigued with it.
Nice analysis on your first post.
One of the problem that I've been eyeballing since the early days of 3.5 (I stuck to AD&D for a while) is the linear progression of the character. You've criticized the progression "speed", I'm addressing the progression "curve" (or lack thereof).
A character goes to +10 to +11 (BAB, skill rank etc) just as easily as going from +9 to +10, which I think leads to huge gaps at higher levels.
This is mitigated by the fact that XPs are progressing in a non-linear fashion, but since higher level characters have the ability to harvest more XPs, it remains more or less the same combats/level ratio (I think it was even intended as such).
While I have some solutions to fix that, they won't go along well with backward comparability
'findel
I really wish I could come up with more to add to this thread, but I do have to say this is probably one of the best posts on the board in terms of trying to make PFRPG a true improvement of 3.5 rather than a different arrangement within the 3.5 framework. As someone who is currently DMing a campaign of 4th, and someone who is regretting making the transition but so wary of switching back to standard 3.5, I had hopes that PFRPG would be my answer. Of course, it isn't a final product and still has issues, but thats also a sign of hope!
Mattastrophic - I'd be more than happy to help do a lot of tests for some of your ideas, as they seem to be what I would houserule to PFRPG if I decide to run it.
|
My thoughts on the first point, deliberately made as simple as possible for house rule use.
1) Drop low BAB entirely from the game (or save it for NPC classes). Everyone either has full BAB (Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers) or medium BAB (everybody else).
Note that some monsters, such as Undead, use Low BAB. It would be a GM call whether or not to bump them to 3/4 BAB, or leave them as is.
1a) Using Fractional BAB from Unearthed Arcana would deal with those multiclass sorts who fall behind.
2) Change 'good saves' to start at +1 (as Jason has suggested for PrCs), and increase at one level behind the current 'good save' progression. Something else would likely be needed as well, but my train of thought derailed here. :)
A completely different method of dealing with this issue, used in Mutants & Masterminds, is to set level caps on various sub-attributes. If you are 10th level, you can't have more than a +15 to a saving throw from all factors combined, period. Might as well hand that Cloak of Resistance +X off to somebody else, Mr. Monk, if you've already maxed out your saving throws.
It's a *hugely* artificial construct, much like 'dwarves can't be magic-users,' but it works mechanically and ensures that everybody, regardless of class, equipment, etc. ends up fitting within a certain range and doesn't min-max themselves into CR-inappropriate places.
|
|
Instead of granting multiple attacks to compensate for higher-level spells, why not make higher-level spells take longer to cast?
As mentioned a moment ago, one attack per spell at 1st, two attacks per spell at 6th, three attacks per spell at 11th, and four attacks per spell at 16th. Why not slow down casting time instead of speeding up attack time to follow this progression?
Something I kind of expected to see in 4E instead of the 'at will,' 'encounter' and 'daily' thing was something like this.
A Wizard could have the following options;
Pew Pew, Lazors;
a Wizard could cast every round a mediocre single-target damaging effect. Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, etc.
Cover Me, This Will Take a Moment;
a Wizard could cast a longer-term or area-effecting spell, but he'd have to spend a full round action casting it (and risking disruption), so that Glitterdust or Haste or Web or Fireball would have their risks, as opposed to the guaranteed damage of Pew Pew.
Keep Them Busy For a Minute, I Gotta Invoke Hecate For This One...;
a Wizard would also have the option of 'weaving' spectacular spells, such as meteor swarm or time stop, total combat-changers, but they would require *multiple rounds* to cast.
Instead of being purely level based, the 'action tax' would depend entirely on the size and scale of the effect. Polar Ray, regardless of it's higher level, would be standard action. Glitterdust, regardless of it's low level, would be a full-round action and disruptable.
Also, instead of the 4E, 'per encounter' or 'per day' effects, the larger encounter-affecting powers would simply be the ones that are most readily disrupted, and require the non-Wizard characters to run interference and 'cover' their artillery dude who is only on round three of Invoked Apocalyse. There wouldn't be 'per day' restrictions, so much as 'This takes four rounds to cast' restrictions.
|
Set,
This is something I've been wishing for as people explained how AD&D 2 worked, and as I remembered the way casting worked in my old gold box dragonlance games from 1994 or so.
Actions are the most valueable commodity in the game, and casters use them most efficiently due to:
- Only needing a standard action 95% of the time to pull of their class abilities
- Gaining options that allow them to utilize their swift actions in multiple useful ways - even to using a swift action to pull off a standard action, at a reasonable cost
- Having abilities that deny their enemies access to their actions
- Having abilities that grant them extra actions
Fighters utilize their actions poorly because:
- After 5th level, using their class abilities robs them of all a round's actions but a swift action
- They dont' have many good uses for swift actions, and none of those uses equates to their standard or full round actions
- They only do damage - which only robs an enemy of their actions once the enemy is staggered or dead.
- they have no ability to be granted extra actions
this inequity and the greater versatility granted to spellcasters by virtue of the extensibility in ability spells gives them combine to keep fighters from being relevent past about level 5. When the only thing a fighter can do is inflict hit point damage - and he can't even do that with economy of actions - and he's even specifically designed to not be able to do anything else via denying him reasonable skill access....well, it really comes down to "Fighters don't get nice things."
Even the things fighters were given in Pathfinder - attack bonuses especially - don't solve the initial problem, and worsen another problem (mentioned above by matt) - the growing disparity between [X]s of the haves and have nots in d20 + [X]. Remove the self balancing characteristics of Power Attack and Combat Expertis, and you've built for yourselves a perfect storm. Monsters that are a challenge for the crazy attack bonuses of fighters are unhittable now by rogues, monks and bards, even. And without Power attack or combat expertise to encourage a fighter willingly lower his attack bonus for some other benefit, the problem grows worse as he levels...even as he becomes helpless against those monsters that require a magical touch to affect.
Requiring casters to sacrifice more actions as their spells grow in power goes quite a ways toward evening the score. Maybe casters become nauseaous for a number of rounds after casting certain spells - they can get the spell off quickly, but can take nothing but move or swift actions for a while. Or they have the interruptible long casting time up front. Either way, spellcasting needs have the same action sacrifices for power introduced that fighters pay - or the fighter action tax needs to be removed and other actions taken to build up his action usability.
|
|
Fighters utilize their actions poorly because:
- After 5th level, using their class abilities robs them of all a round's actions but a swift action
- They dont' have many good uses for swift actions, and none of those uses equates to their standard or full round actions
- They only do damage - which only robs an enemy of their actions once the enemy is staggered or dead.
- they have no ability to be granted extra actions
Some crazy mechanic that allowed a Fighter to sacrifice an iterative attack to make his other attacks as a standard action (thus allowing him to move and almost-full-attack) could be neat.
If nothing else, it could make an interesting Feat for the 11th+ Fighter type, allowing him to trade in that last iterative attack for the ability to move and use his other iterative attacks in the same round.
Still, even that solution isn't useful until 11th+, when the Fighter gains his third iterative attack.
Way back in Alpha, I argued that Fighters should be able to skip iterative attacks entirely and choose to just add that number of bonus dice to their primary attack as a standard action. An 11th level Fighter with a Longsword would be able to move and take a single swing that did +2d8 damage, rather than stand around and *maybe* hit three times. The loss of multiplied damage bonuses would make this an inferior choice to a full attack in many cases, but the option would basically serve as extra damage for that 'attack and move' maneuver.
Anywho, I like the basic idea of 'action taxes' better than various other options, such as 4Es fairly arbitrary decisions as to which sword swings can only be used once per encounter or once per day.
I think the problem here is a real one. THE real one. Granted there's a lot of problem and not much flexibility in terms of a solution. You have to keep it a d20 system and backwards compatable as much as possible with the core of the old game.
That said, one of the biggest issues is with the d20. Until middle levels, there's no modifier that you can give to a d20 that even matters. You're looking at +1s to maybe +8s--and while the very tippy top end numbers do sway the rolls, these are the guys with maxed stats or max skill or both who are even making a dent. Even then a bad die roll could just as easily give it to the guy with nothing in either. There just isn't nearly enough effect.
Case in point: A character with an 18 in Strength, as strong as you can be without being a half-orc, versus a character with 8 Strength--pretty wimpy and as bad as you're likely to see in a starting character. The difference between these characters equates to only a +5 advantage to someone who's just hands down better. But in play? The die roll determines everything. Who wins if these guys arm-wrestle? Who knows? It could go either way. That's a problem, because these are the extremes. One of these guys is the best and the other one is goshawful--it shouldn't be a contest.
These problems just stack up. You get feats and abilities that grant you +1s and +2s to things, but those plusses just don't add up to much in the shadow of the gigantic d20 and the swinginess of the numbers. Consequently, when I'm leveling a character picking feats and skills becomes a chore rather than a joy. I just don't see any benefits that don't get totally wiped by a good or bad roll on the raw die. Things that could stack to provide a real effect to the die roll usually don't, so you are stuck pretty much alternately doing great or lousy completely at random.
The fix we implimented in our group was not to divide by two when you roll up stats. So an 11 is a +1, and an 18 is a +8. Correspondingly we've increased the spread of DCs to accomodate this broader spectrum of character abilities. The result is that at midling stat ranges luck matters a whole lot more, but the low end guy going after the high end guy is going to have a much harder time of it, and with the new difficulties being generally higher is going to fail more often (reflecting the fact that he genuinely has WORSE stats).
The other problem is worse. Once you get to the highest levels, there's no roll that you can make that matters--it's either a one or a success no matter what reasonable difficulty you impose. What difficulty do you give someone who has a +21 to his skill? Do you unfairly boost the DCs so that the exact same rolls that would have been a DC 5, 10, 15 or 20 back at the beginning of the game are now 30s or 40's--just to give him a reason to pick up his die? Do you have him auto-succeed at everything?
No solution works here, nothing I've been able to find. Not sure what to do about it.
I think the problem is based on some false assumptions.
- A rogue is not supposed to take enemies out in combat as well as a figher.
- A cleric is not supposed to sneak as well as a rogue.
- You're not (really) supposed to play beyond level 20.
Though it is true, that if you want to play the game like that, the issue becomes a real problem. But I would not try to change a system that is made for A, so that it works well for B. Because than it won't work well for A anymore.
Of course, there's nothing that would stop anyone from making a "d20 Epic" game, that could probably be very fun. But I wouldn't want to try to change one existing system into something else. And Pathfinder is aimed for everyone who likes playing the D&D way. (I think it has drifted off to something entirely else, but that's another thing.)
|
|
The only places these issues "break" the game is attack bonuses for middling vs. high BaB characters (character meant to use attack bonuses) and saves. Skills can be specialized in or not without killing a character - sometimes one party member should be maxed, but if it's in the party somewhere, you're good. Attack bonuses for wiz and sorcs are okay because they've got touch attacks and other options.
The "swinginess" of attack bonuses for middling and good fighters can bemitigated by going toward the high range of the midling fighter - and make combat expertise and power attack fully customizable and a basic combat option - then good fighters will voluntarily lower their to hit to get better damage or defenses as the situation calls for - this is a retrofit, but it'll work.
Now, how can we tackle the issue with saves?
In a point-buy system, you an easily build in a "diminishing returns" by using ranks for everything, and by making each rank/level cost more (in terms of xp earned per combat) than the one before it. That doesn't work in a level-based, linear d20 system that's back-compatible with 3.5; there will always be "haves" and "have-nots."
SO we need to be tricky, and create backward-compatible mechanics (i.e., not selectable feats) that allow the "haves" to share with the "have nots" a bit. Some suggestions already made can be tweaked to serve that end; many of these are predicated on the assumption that initiative works so that actions are announced in reverse order of initiative, allowing the faster characters to anticipate the slower ones:
(Also, low-Fort wizards get killed easily by things like baleful polymorph. Let fighters intercept line-of effect spells as well as attacks.)
---
The point is, make synergy between characters ameliorate their essential inequities. This fosters cooperation and also lessens the sting of an inherently poorly-scaling system.
A great topic Mattastrophic.
Having GMed high level play for over a year now, I have seen exactly what your talking about with regards to melee combat. It's disheartening to see the cleric cast spiritual weapon to aid combat or sneak in to get a shot on a foe only to miss every time whereas the fighters happily dole out damage.
I think a good solution would be to de-power the numbers. This is for 2 reasons:
1) It would help reduce the disparity of X between to characters in 1d20+X.
2) It speeds up gameplay by reducing the number of modifiers to apply.
Months ago, in my campaign, I've ruled that you add 1/2 your Strength or Dexterity bonus to attack roles, and to my eyes it is looking promising.
When I start anew (we are currently running the AoW and are on the final chapter), I'm thinking of eliminating Str and Dex bonuses to attack rolls completely. Parity between classes in combat would be significantly better in this case with the primary influence being BAB, and the next significant bonus being weapon enhancement. There would be some minor changes, on the player's side (2 I can think of are: Weapon Finesse would be useless, and I would give the barbarian a bonus to hit when he rages).
This has a side effect of making the last iterative at high level play nigh useless, unless opponent ACs are below average for the level of play, which isn't a bad thing. I've noticed that good BAB characters auto hit on their first 1 or 2 attacks and then the roll really matters on the last 2. A solution to this is to provide useful alternatives where a player may give up an iterative for something else. One idea I like is losing an attack during a full attack to gain an additional 5' step.
I have not explored the impact on Monster side of doing away with Str and Dex however, and I think it might warrant significant changes to their attack bonuses to keep them challenging. Perhaps a straight attack bonus based on Hit Dice for all monsters?
AC becomes a lot better with this idea.
Basically, I think lessening the number of bonuses that stack, merging certain bonuses (such as competence&morale bonuses for instance)or eliminating certain bonuses altogether would be a good solution. Cuts down the math, speeds up the game, and helps restore parity.
I haven't come up with any good ideas for Saving Throws yet.
Swapping out every d20 roll with a 3d6 roll would make things a hell of a lot less 'swingy.' But that's an idea whose time is not now.
Yeah like I said. A lot of problem, little flexibility in fixing it. Our thought was to use a d10 instead of a d20, so the die doesn't have so much wrecking-ball force behind it to totally overwhelm stats and skills. But...then without a d20 you couldn't really call it the d20 system could you?
Its sorta' like bell peppers and beef like that.
|
|
I'm going to spend time reading everyone's posts in this thread later... so far I've read the first three....
Please allow me to make one comment early on....
There are those who continue to seek the perfect mechanical system for d&d a.k.a. Pathfinder.
There are those DMs who secretly know how to run the most awesome games ever!
I think what has broken down, if anything, over the years, is not the mechanics, but the human aspect of facilitating an awesome game. This stuff has been relegated to mere secrets and things avoided, misunderstood or trampled upon by 97% of messageboard posts having to do with mechanics. The current generation doesn't fully grasp, or has forgotten how the game was meant to be played, and how it actually was played, and rarely is an incredibly awesome game of d&d actually understood for the techniques it used to get that way.
Look - I like the math in this thread, and I too would love to see a more perfect system, but in the same way 4th edition does not meet the need for better mechanics, I just want to say that the "TRUE PROBLEM" as the OP suggests does not lie with system mechanics at all, though fixing mechanics is always interesting and welcomed by our community.
IMHO, the "True Problem" is a social/inter-personal/communal issue that 1) stemmed from corporate greed in publishing all rules for players to rule lawyer and judge (in an obvious attempt to make everyone the type of consumer that would buy the 6x-as-much that the DM was buying and 2) the result of years of manipulative "forgetting" about the art of dungeonmastering (and the lack of senior DMs teaching younger ones this art). DMing has become characatured as a series of "handwaives" and "rule-breaks" instead of what it is/what it was designed to be.
Restore the skill of DMing/GMing and you will have addressed the "True Problem" for a great GM can make any system work incredibly, more miraculously than ever imagined.
Just my two cents.... I return you now to your regularly scheduled thread, and will stop back later to try and contribute to the actual mechanical aspects of this thread. Thanks for listening.
|
|
...Restore the skill of DMing/GMing and you will have addressed the "True Problem" for a great GM can make any system work incredibly, more miraculously than ever imagined.
Just my two cents.... I return you now to your regularly scheduled thread, and will...
This is true. A good DM can make a fun game in any system. A bad DM can ruin any game played in the most bulletproof system designed ever. Complete truth.
My goal in "fixing" PRPG's problems which stem from 3.5 isn't to make a perfect system. It's to patch the holes well enough that high level play isn't an experience in pain, agony, and frustration for the DM and players. PRPG really upped the fun in low levels - I'd like to do the same for high level.
Reintroducing Power attack in all it's former glory, and Combat Expertise in a freer form than it ever even existed in 3.5 would, in my opinion, patch the holes in high level play pertaining to BaB and AC well enough to keep it playable through 20.
My only remaining systemic concerns are getting saves into the same position, and fixing the huge disparity in economy of actions between spellcasters and martial characters.
With these three areas "patched" it should be relatively easy to create a target for monster design at each level that is fun and challenging - keeping PRPG play viable through all 20 levels, or nearly so.
|
Conversely, wizards, clerics, and especially druids get full movement and spellcasting. A wizard who maxes out acrobatics can tumble 30 ft. a round and still cast a spell and cast another quickened spell, and avoids attacks of opportunity the whole time. That's absurd: make spellcasting a full-attack action.
This example sounds familiar...
;)
|
|
Of course, reading this thread just reenforces my belief that 1e AD&D is the greatest version of D&D ever. Period.
Things you never heard in 1e AD&D:
"My 15th level fighter sucks."
"Man, whoever designed this CR system was loco!"
"I wanna play a cleric (or druid)! they ROCK THE HOUSE!!!!"
"What do you mean I can't block the ogre from charging the magic user?"
Two magic users: "Eh, we don't need any melee support..."
(Remember, Tenser had to come back with two fighters to save Mordenkainen's bacon...)
etc.
But then, my beard trips me on occasion, and they don't make a belt my size, so what do I know...
;)
I think that when people begin to over-analyze the game of D&D they risk ruining that in which they care to play under whatever guise they are speaking on. This holds true in my mind about this thread when speaking on the problems that 3.5 are said to hold by the original OP and many others including myself at times.
When playing a character based game that such characters have some overlapping abilities but for the most part have very different ones there should be "x" values in which each different character, due to their skills cannot attain. Just as due to customization some of the same characters decide not to attain though they very easily could have. That is why this game has many members to each party, and even with the regular 4 to 6 in a party the group may still have trouble or even never be able to figure out every part of the game in question. That is where the builders of the modules and/or the GM come into play to find and make things work, many times on the fly. That in and of itself is one of the core aspects of RPG's and that should never be forgotten.
Heck, when they send a group of Astronauts into space do they send them all with the same skills, or do they all have some skills that overlap with most having totally different skills for obvious reasons. This is one of the reasons in which I enjoy 3x and due not want it to change.
I think that when people begin to over-analyze the game of D&D they risk ruining that in which they care to play under whatever guise they are speaking on. This holds true in my mind about this thread when speaking on the problems that 3.5 are said to hold by the original OP and many others including myself at times.
When playing a character based game that such characters have some overlapping abilities but for the most part have very different ones there should be "x" values in which each different character, due to their skills cannot attain. Just as due to customization some of the same characters decide not to attain though they very easily could have. That is why this game has many members to each party, and even with the regular 4 to 6 in a party the group may still have trouble or even never be able to figure out every part of the game in question. That is where the builders of the modules and/or the GM come into play to find and make things work, many times on the fly. That in and of itself is one of the core aspects of RPG's and that should never be forgotten.
Heck, when they send a group of Astronauts into space do they send them all with the same skills, or do they all have some skills that overlap with most having totally different skills for obvious reasons. This is one of the reasons in which I enjoy 3x and due not want it to change.
While I don't disagree with this, I think you may not be understanding why people are making these claims and grievances. There are definitely different skills that everyone can do here - wizards cast spells, druids communicate with nature, fighters generally triumph over things by stabbing them a lot, etc. And we all do enjoy role playing games - that's why we're here discussing them!
The problem is when one skill becomes so great it actually strips the skills from another through outclassing them (the issue between melee and wizards). Or when players are at the lower levels and have skill differences that make every class unique, and more importantly create a balanced and fun playing field, and then these skills become grossly unbalanced due to a flaw in game mechanics (the first point Matt brings up.) When flaws in the game make the game become NOT fun to play, there is a problem. And when these problems have a chance to be fixed, especially when there is a publisher that wants to (or at least gives the illusion that they want to) collaborate with players to fix these issues, that's why they're brought up here.
If anything, all this is because we love the game so much we want to make sure we can attempt to perfect it.
In all my years of playing, I've never really thought there was a problem with attack bonuses from one character outstripping another. In fact, with the introduction of Power Attack and Combat Expertise, I think 3e has come farther than any other edition to giving a fighter a use for his extra attack bonus. In fact, I can see a real benefit to removing any requirement on those feats and making them automatic bonus feats.
So it may be true that something the rogue has trouble hitting, the fighter can smack around with low die rolls. So what? I'm not about to determine the whole challenge of an encounter to be based on the creature's AC. I want the AC to make sense for the creature. And if I want that creature to be particularly challenging, I'll look at the whole creature as I assess it.
That said, I think we can find better ways to differentiate between the fighter and the rogue and how they deal with creatures. I could see rogues always getting +4 to hit for flanking rather than +2 without having to spend a feat to get it. It's very roguish and it's a lot like the bonus thieves got in 1e for attacking from behind. But the main point is that a rogue trying to compete with his fighter friend in a straight-up knife fight should get beat. But the rogue should do well under certain roguish circumstances while the fighter shines under fighterish circumstances.
I think the point made about economy of actions is probably the most important observation of this thread. I could really support finding ways for a fighter to do interesting things without having to rely so heavily on using full attack actions to get the work done. I like multiple attacks and always have, ever since 1e. Maybe it's worth redefining how the iteratives work a little. Perhaps, when a character gets a new iterative attack (because his BAB is now high enough to generate a new +1 to hit iterative), that last attack can be used only with a full attack action. But any other iterative attacks with higher bonuses can all be taken during a standard action.
That may be too complex to manage with other sources of multiple attacks, but I could certainly support giving other characters more ways to use the action types in interesting ways.
My thoughts on the first point, deliberately made as simple as possible for house rule use.
One pretty easy change to help, but not entirely fix, the spread of X would be to remove multiclass save-and-BAB stacking by switching to some form of fractional system. Thus, we wouldn't have the issue of non-full-BAB multiclass characters taking a penalty to attack rolls (lowering X's minimum value for attack rolls), and we wouldn't have the issue of multiclass characters having higher (or lower) base saves than would be possible with straight-class characters.
For example:
In the typical large campaigns I played in, a typical Fighter was not a straight Fighter. Instead of Fighter6, sporting +6 BAB and base saves of +5/+2/+2, it would be something like a Barb1/Ftr2/Ranger2/PiousTemplar1, with a BAB of +6 and base saves of +10/+3/+2, with the ability to Rage for another +2 Fort/+2 Will, a sizeable difference over the Fighter6.
Similarly, my own PC, a Wizard5/DivineOracle2/Loremaster1/Virtuoso7, has base saves of +3/+3/+14, where a Wizard15 would have +5/+5/+9. Here, the spread of X is extended in the negative direction as well as the positive, due to having Fort and Reflex base saves lower than what is normal, while a Will base save higher than what is normal.
Thus, the spread of X in regards to saves increases due to multiclass save-stacking.
Under a fractional system, that second Fighter would instead have base saves of:
Fort +5 - six levels of good Fort
Ref +4 - two levels of good Reflex, four levels of poor Reflex
Will +3 - one level of good Will, five levels of poor Will
So he would gain a benefit to saves by multiclassing into classes that grant good non-Fort saves, but the spread of saves is within normal parameters (max of +5 at 6th level, min of +2 at 6th level).
Similarly, the Virtuoso would instead have base saves of:
+5 - fifteen levels of poor Fort
+5 - fifteen levels of poor Reflex
+9 - fifteen levels of good Will
In this case, the Virtuoso ends up being identical to a Wizard15 in terms of base saves, since all its component classes have identical save progressions. But more importantly, the spread of saves is within normal parameters.
The same can be applied to BAB stacking. Instead of a Rog2/Bard2 having BAB +2, it would have BAB +3, thus placing this build within normal parameters for builds that consist of classes with 3/4 BAB progression.
So moving to a fractional system won't fix everything, but it's a necessary component towards fixing everything.
-Matt
|
|
One pretty easy change to help, but not entirely fix, the spread of X would be to remove multiclass save-and-BAB stacking by switching to some form of fractional system.
Oh, I totally agree. Unearthed Arcana had some *amazing* stuff in it, and Fractional BAB, Fractional Saves, and the concept of a Magic Rating (and moving spells-I-don't-want-to-mess-up-my-game to Incantations), are some of the absolute best of the bunch.
These problems just stack up. You get feats and abilities that grant you +1s and +2s to things, but those plusses just don't add up to much in the shadow of the gigantic d20 and the swinginess of the numbers.
and
Swapping out every d20 roll with a 3d6 roll would make things a hell of a lot less 'swingy.'
Unfortunately, I'm arguing the exact opposite. The problem is in the X of d20+X, not the d20. The answer is in the spread of possible results. The d20 side of the expression (or the 3d6 side, in Set's reponse) yields a consistent spread, between 1 and 20 (or 3 and 18). The spread of X is not constant; it can be infinitely large.
-Matt
It probably doesn't work in a D20 system but I used to play Role Master and they had scaling benefits from the skills you bought.
It would take an overhaul of the experience point and levelling systems, but something like that could be done. Instead of gaining levels at certain XP values, XP could be spent to "purchase" additonal ranks of BAB, saves, Defense, skill ranks, spellcasting, etc. And of course, each rank would cost more XP than the previous one.
-Matt
|
|
It would take an overhaul of the experience point and levelling systems, but something like that could be done. Instead of gaining levels at certain XP values, XP could be spent to "purchase" additonal ranks of BAB, saves, Defense, skill ranks, spellcasting, etc. And of course, each rank would cost more XP than the previous one.
*If I'm understanding you correctly...*
Divorcing such things from an arbitrary 'level,' IMO, will only exacerbate the problem, as one player could dump every single point / training option / whatever into upping his BAB, while not 'leveling' his saving throws or skills at all, leaving him ridiculously lopsided, even by 3rd edition standards.
Level-based BAB / saves / skill ranks is a balancing mechanic that D&D and the later d20 system have pretty much based their entire game upon.
The 'problem' is that, using multiclassing and various other bonuses, characters of level X are ending up with saving throws or BABs or skill ranks that are woefully behind the curve (X-10 or more) or obscenely over the curve (X+10 or more), making balancing an encounter to challenge multiple characters a royal pain-in-the-butt.
Divorcing BAB, Save, Skill, etc. aquisition *further* from raw character level would only make this worse, IMO.
(Whereas Fractional BAB / Fractional Saves brings everyone closer to similar numbers, so that multiclass characters don't fall behind on BAB and get way ahead on saves. Magic Rating, also from Unearthed Arcana, does a similar thing for caster level, allowing a multiclassed character to not fall too far behind. Finally, Pathfinder BETA takes it a step further and gets rid of the 'half ranks in CC skills' issue that caused some multiclass characters, like Bards or Rogues, to fall prohibitively behind in skills necessary to the function of one of their classes.)
I think the problem is based on some false assumptions.
D&D is not about dictating what a PC is "supposed" to be capable of doing. That's what 4E does.
To pose an example:
We have two melee fighters.
One of which multiclasses into classes like Barbarian, bought a high Strength, and took feats and items which increase his to-hit roll, because he's using 3.5 Power Attack and wants to utilize it effectively. At 14th level, he possesses:
+14 BAB
+9 Strength (17+2 start, +3 bumps, +6 Belt of Giant Strength)
+2 Rage
+1 Weapon Focus
+3 enhancement
+1 Haste - Boots of Speed
+2 Inspire Courage (from his Bardic buddy below)
=+32/+32/+27/+22
Meanwhile, another melee fighter decided to diversify, by multiclassing into classes like Rogue and Bard to increase his ability to participate in noncombat situations, and to give himself interesting tricks like Tumble (Acrobatics), Bardic Music, and some Bardic spellcasting. His concept is a two-weapon fighter. At 14th level, he possesses:
+12 BAB
+6 Strength (this guy had to take some Dex to qualify for his TWF chain)
+1 Weapon Focus
+2 enhancement (since he's enchanting two weapons)
+1 Haste - Boots of Speed
-2 Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
+2 Inspire Courage
=+22/+22/+22/+17/+17/+12/+12
Two melee fighters, very different spread of X in d20+X. If these two fighters go up against an opponent with, say, AC 37, the two-weapon fighter is going to have a lot more trouble than the to-hit-focused Fighter will.
The type of situation presented above happens everyday. It's not a false assumption.
-Matt
*If I'm understanding you correctly...*
I'm not advocating for it at all, Set. I'm addressing the respondent by mentioning what it would take to make it work.
Off that tangent,
-Matt
Now, how can we tackle the issue with saves?
That's tough.
As with everything else, we can reduce the spread of X by looking at the system as a whole and nipping small outliers and reducing bonus-stacking issues. Such as with fractional multiclass save progressions.
For example, the Pathfinder Divine Power is a very elegant change, as not only is the issue of Divine Power granting a BAB increase addressed, but it also doesn't stack with Divine Favor, thus significantly reducing the top end of achievable Cleric attack bonuses.
I have a very preliminary idea for dealing with saves, which also addresses save-or-dies:
Currently, if I hit the DC with a saving throw, I save against the effect. If I miss by 1, I fail. Save or No Save.
Well, what if instead of "Save or No Save," we institute varying degrees of success or failure?
Let's take Finger of Death. In 3.5:
Save: 3d6+13 damage
No Save: Death
Instead, we could use something like:
Save by 6+: no damage
Save: 3d6+13 damage
Failure: 1d6/lvl +13 damage (for example)
Failure by 6+: Death
So, instead of only one number, the DC, being meaningful, a whole range is now meaningful. Instead of attempting to hit only the bulls-eye, there are benefits for getting close.
So, let's use a gameplay scenario. We've got a Fighter14 with +16 Fort, and a Sorcerer with +8 Fort. An enemy caster casts Finger of Death on each of them. The DC is 24.
In 3.5, the Fighter saves on 8+ while the Sorcerer saves on 16+. Thus, the Fighter dies on 7-, and the Sorcerer dies on 15-.
With a range of saves, however, the Fighter takes 3d6+13 damage on 8+, but takes no damage on 14+. Meanwhile, the Sorcerer takes 3d6+13 damage on a 16+, and has no chance to take no damage.
Also, the Fighter takes 1d6/lvl +13 damage on a 7-, but only dies on a 1. The sorcerer takes 1d6/lvl +13 damage on a 15-, and dies on a 9-.
Suddenly, not only is it tougher to die from a save-or-die effect, but since we have a meaningful range of results, spreads of X in d20+X are accomodated. The Sorcerer might have a tough time saving against Finger of Death, but whether or not he dies is a meaningful roll. Meanwhile, the Fighter might save easily, but whether he takes no damage, 3d6+13 damage, or 1d6/lvl +13 damage is up in the air, thus making the roll meaningful.
It would take some adjustment and revisions, but the idea, a range of save results rather than yes/no save results, is there.
Combined with looking at the system as a whole to narrow the spread without resorting to 4E-ian artificialities, we might be on to something.
-Matt
|
|
Instead, we could use something like:
Save by 6+: no damage
Save: 3d6+13 damage
Failure: 1d6/lvl +13 damage (for example)
Failure by 6+: DeathSo, instead of only one number, the DC, being meaningful, a whole range is now meaningful. Instead of attempting to hit only the bulls-eye, there are benefits for getting close.
So, let's use a gameplay scenario. We've got a Fighter14 with +16 Fort, and a Sorcerer with +8 Fort. An enemy caster casts Finger of Death on each of them. The DC is 24.
In 3.5, the Fighter saves on 8+ while the Sorcerer saves on 16+. Thus, the Fighter dies on 7-, and the Sorcerer dies on 15-.
With a range of saves, however, the Fighter takes 3d6+13 damage on 8+, but takes no damage on 14+. Meanwhile, the Sorcerer takes 3d6+13 damage on a 16+, and has no chance to take no damage.
Also, the Fighter takes 1d6/lvl +13 damage on a 7-, but only dies on a 1. The sorcerer takes 1d6/lvl +13 damage on a 15-, and dies on a 9-.
Suddenly, not only is it tougher to die from a save-or-die effect, but since we have a meaningful range of results,...
I have no problem with SoD spells, so I really like this as a compromise between my playing preference and the people who think SoD is "unfair" (whatever that means...).
:)
I spent 2 years experimenting by playing with results proportional to rolls.
Effects/damage on a save or no save depended on degree.
Damage from weapons depended on how much you hit by.
We abandoned the experiment because players were simply announcing results, leaving the DM (me) to do all these calculations and then figure the outcome (Unless you want to announce the monster's AC and save DCs for all encounters?). One player? No problem. Four players, all yelling results for different things, and me thinking, "OK, James got a 19, he made his by 2, so he's staggered 1 round; and Mike got a 12, so he failed by... 5, I guess, so he's ... um ... stunned 2 rounds..." It was a disaster. Any effect that called for multiple attacks or saves ground play to a halt.
And I crunch numbers for a living.
|
|
I spent 2 years experimenting by playing with results proportional to rolls.
Effects/damage on a save or no save depended on degree.
Damage from weapons depended on how much you hit by.We abandoned the experiment because players were simply announcing results, leaving the DM (me) to do all these calculations and then figure the outcome (Unless you want to announce the monster's AC and save DCs for all encounters?). One player? No problem. Four players, all yelling results for different things, and me saying, "OK, James made his by 2, so he's staggered 1 round, and Mike failed by 5, so he's stunned 2 rounds..." It was a disaster. Any effect that called for multiple attacks or saves ground play to a halt.
And I crunch numbers for a living.
You vill crunch zem und you vill like zem. We haf vays to make you like zem. Yes. Vays.
|
|
I have a very preliminary idea for dealing with saves, which also addresses save-or-dies:
Currently, if I hit the DC with a saving throw, I save against the effect. If I miss by 1, I fail. Save or No Save.
Well, what if instead of "Save or No Save," we institute varying degrees of success or failure?
They call these 'staged effects' in Mutants and Masterminds. Get hit with a Paralyze attack, and you have to fail your save by five to actually be Paralyzed. If you only fail it by up to four, you are Slowed instead.
It's a pretty neat idea, and some effects could have multiple incremends (fail by 1-4, Shaken, fail by 5-9, Frightened, fail by 10+, Panicked) for instance.
It would also allow for a back-door system by which magical effects could 'critically hit' or be 'empowered.' Fail that Reflex save vs. the fireball, take 6d6 damage damage. Fail by five, take 6d6+6 damage. Fail by *ten,* take 6d6+18 damage hp damage and catch on fire!
Well, what if instead of "Save or No Save," we institute varying degrees of success or failure?
Let's take Finger of Death. In 3.5:
Save: 3d6+13 damage
No Save: DeathInstead, we could use something like:
Save by 6+: no damage
Save: 3d6+13 damage
Failure: 1d6/lvl +13 damage (for example)
Failure by 6+: Death
I like this idea very much.
You haven't changed the structure of the save progression that 3.5 introduced at all, but how the spell works itself. I think looking at the spells individually such as this, is the best way to bring the power of spell casters under control. There are other ways as well, but this IMO is the primary way.
I think the structures of how BAB and Save progressions, etc. are quite sound in 3.5 (except when you multi-class). It's the sheer number of modifiers, the stackability of those modifiers, and the fact that some of those modifiers can vary so much (STR bonus to BAB for example), that cause the system to get really screwy at higher levels.
Any effect that called for multiple attacks or saves ground play to a halt.
The current system of attacks and saves is slow enough:
"Is it an Enchantment?" (Elf)
"Is it a spell or spell-like ability?" (Dwarf)
"My Spot check is 32, 38 vs. Evil Outsiders, 36 vs. Undead, 34 vs. Humans." (Ranger)
"He takes 28 damage, 35 if he's evil." (Holy)
"Hits AC 28, 30 if it's undead." (Bane)
"Does that spell target, or is it a ray, or an area spell?" (Spell Turning)
"If it's a giant, that misses." (Dwarf)
"Is that effect Reflex(partial) or Reflex(half)?" (Evasion)
So as you can see, situational modifiers already slow the game down, including the process of saving throws. So any innovation with the DCs would not lead to a significant change.
Reducing the sheer number of situational modifiers, though, that would.
-Matt
I like this idea very much.You haven't changed the structure of the save progression that 3.5 introduced at all, but how the spell works itself.
May I also note, to any designers in our studio audience tonight, that it's incredibly backwards compatible?
-Matt
May I also note, to any designers in our studio audience tonight, that it's incredibly backwards compatible?
-Matt
Yes. The other, secondary way to control spell power, (and remain backwards compatible at the same time), is to regulate casting times. If a spell is more powerful, it should take longer to cast. But that might be for another thread.
So really, what you're proposing when trying to "fix" saving throws, is to alter the spells to be sympathetic to how saves currently work. That's a lot of work, but well worth it I think.
|
|
So really, what you're proposing when trying to "fix" saving throws, is to alter the spells to be sympathetic to how saves currently work. That's a lot of work, but well worth it I think.
I humbly offer the suggestion that it's a HUGE undertaking for Jason this late in the game...maybe a relatively comprehensive list of premade examples will make it a more attractive prospect to adopt at this stage of the game? An endeavor to have a comprehensive list of such save modifications ready for the spell chapter playtest would be a wonderful thing.
I humbly offer the suggestion that it's a HUGE undertaking for Jason this late in the game...maybe a relatively comprehensive list of premade examples will make it a more attractive prospect to adopt at this stage of the game? An endeavor to have a comprehensive list of such save modifications ready for the spell chapter playtest would be a wonderful thing.
Twenty-five days till the Magic chapter starts. And we all know that save-based spells are likely going to be the biggest issue.
It'd be a more elegant solution than merely replacing "Death" with "1d10 damage/lvl," that much we can definitely establish.
-Matt
|
|
I humbly offer the suggestion that it's a HUGE undertaking for Jason this late in the game...maybe a relatively comprehensive list of premade examples will make it a more attractive prospect to adopt at this stage of the game? An endeavor to have a comprehensive list of such save modifications ready for the spell chapter playtest would be a wonderful thing.Twenty-five days till the Magic chapter starts. And we all know that save-based spells are likely going to be the biggest issue.
It'd be a more elegant solution than merely replacing "Death" with "1d10 damage/lvl," that much we can definitely establish.
-Matt
Hear, hear! ;)