Mechanical Tinkering Thread - Rule 0 Unwelcome Here!

We all know a good DM can fix problems, but sometimes the rules themselves cry out for improvement. I wanted to start a thread for people who actually see ways in which the mechanical game rules could be tweaked for the better. Because most often, whenever such a topic appears, throngs of people quoting Rule 0 or some variant thereof drown out any constructive tinkering ("A good DM would fix that!" "It's fine!" "It's not a problem in my game," etc.).

Basically, if you accept that the designers are fairly good but not perfect, and would like to discuss improvements in some aspect of the mechanical rules with like-minded people, I want this to be your haven. A place where you don't need to spend all your time explaining to fanboys why some aspect of the game is NOT really "fine."

Possible topics include, but are in no way limited to:

Oh I am SO HERE!

Opening salvo: Monks need a class feature to use Wis for att/dmg in place of Str. Flurry needs to work with movement. The suggestion of allowing a monk to Flurry as a standard action here is an interesting one, allowing you to get your extra attack on the move without going full-on Pounce-mode.

Oh I am SO HERE!

Opening salvo: Monks need a class feature to use Wis for att/dmg in place of Str. Flurry needs to work with movement. The suggestion of allowing a monk to Flurry as a standard action here is an interesting one, allowing you to get your extra attack on the move without going full-on Pounce-mode.

I am on board with this...especially the wisdom bit, the monk's biggest problem is needing 4 good stats to equal an average point buy fighter.

We all know a good DM can fix problems, but sometimes the rules themselves cry out for improvement.

Possible topics include, but are in no way limited to:

How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica;

How to make it so that every single wizard is not automatically a specialist;

How to make Charisma something other than an auto-dump stat;

Why monks still suck fat wax candles, and how to fix them;

How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use;

Why the mystic theurge punishes his teammates, and how to lighten their burden;

How to make exotic weapon proficiencies actually worth a feat;

etc.

Anyone want to start?

These are off the top of my head.

For magics..

Probably the best thing to do is allow things such as skill tricks or maneuvers like in book of 9 swords.

In an anime I'm watching (one piece) you have people with super powers that are really awesome. You'd think that the people without the super powers (who are main characters) would be left in the dust.

However they also got crazy abilities too. Like one character can temporary focus energy into his arms to give him a huge boost in attack power. Another person can some how ignite his leg without actually igniting it, and proceed to kick people with it. Others rely on gizmos and gadgets to fight.

So by creating some sort of ability, lets say.. martial practice, where classes can learn maneuvers and fighting styles that trancend classes, I think we can at least put a bit of a dent into that gap.

Exotic weapons..

First off the weapon itself needs to do something right off the bat.
The dueling sword for example requires additional feats before it stops acting like a long sword.

Butterfly knife? bleh.

Having cool and interesting effects on equipments would be a good start. I'd also remove weapon finesse and make it a property of the weapons. Two key words. Finessable and Finessed. Finessable means you can use str or dex, while finessed means you only use dex.

Cha

A feat chain, like int, dex wis and str have, where you've got some sort of bravado or luck bringing you on.

Course also reworking what stat gets what.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Oh I am SO HERE!

Opening salvo: Monks need a class feature to use Wis for att/dmg in place of Str. Flurry needs to work with movement. The suggestion of allowing a monk to Flurry as a standard action here is an interesting one, allowing you to get your extra attack on the move without going full-on Pounce-mode.

I am on board with this...especially the wisdom bit, the monk's biggest problem is needing 4 good stats to equal an average point buy fighter.

Even with rolled stats a monk's MAD is harsh.

As for flurry, if I'm reading that linked thread correctly, on a standard action you would basically remove your iterative attacks from the flurry progression but keep the bonus attacks. I like the general direction, but that thread is based on 3.5 and I'm not sure I like how the changes in Pathfinder interact with it without some tweaking. Perhaps having the Standard Action Flurry based off of normal BAB and getting only one additional attack per each normal iterative.

Possible topics include, but are in no way limited to:

How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica;

I think spells need major nerfs assuming we do not wish to change the game engine. Give every form of magic a more defined role. Note, these are just rough ideas based on how I think magic should be separated.

Wizard: mostly transmutation, conjuration, and illusion
Sorcerer: mostly evocation, enchantment, and divination
Witch: mostly illusion, enchantment, and necromancy
Cleric: less environmental and battlefield control spells, more self buffs
Druids: less healing, more battlefield control and environmental
Bards: lots of group buffing
etc.

The other method is to restrict magic to FAR less combat effective spells, and make them buffing classes within combat, and utility outside of combat.

Increase casting times, and possibly removing concentration checks are another method that I'm sure has been done before.

How to make Charisma something other than an auto-dump stat;

It needs to manage more aspects of the game, but I don't know what. Lots of discussion on this already, so I won't get into it too much.

Why monks still suck fat wax candles, and how to fix them;

Full BAB, less MAD, make WIS grant damage while unarmed in addition to STR.

How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use;

There's 2 ways to go about this. 1, consolidate the Combat Maneuver feats into fewer feats. 2, they do not provoke AoOs. I prefer the 2nd because I think the AoO causes lots of tactic movement in combat, which really slows down the game.

Why the mystic theurge punishes his teammates, and how to lighten their burden;

The best way is to reduce the pre-reqs to ability to cast level 2 and 1, instead of 2/2. Allow them to cast 2 spells in one action from the very beginning, but only like once or twice a day early on.

How to make exotic weapon proficiencies actually worth a feat;

Exotic weapons give bonuses to certain combat maneuvers or certain attack types. I hate trying to make exotic weapons better, but it's the only way to make it worth a feat.

Why monks still suck fat wax candles, and how to fix them;

if monk = nun, then relax, else run

I always really thought monks should have built as a full base attack class that has some kind of penalties or restrictions that make playing them like a fighter with a greataxe a bad idea, rather than a 3/4 base attack class with some abilities that let them kinda sorta be a full attack class.

That and eliminating the idea of monk weapons per se. Look, a kama is a sickle. Give monks proficiency with sickles, let them flurry or whatever with sickles, and remove kamas from the game. Etc.

Those two changes don't fix half their problems but I think they're still good ideas.

There is 1 thing all stats other than Cha have in common:

On the subject of Exotic Weapons, I've been thinking about getting rid of the category. Weapons are either Simple or Martial, and the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat would unlock certain options/rules exceptions for certain weapons.

As an easy example:
Bastard Sword becomes a two handed martial weapon, but with EWP you can wield it one handed no penalty (just like it currently works).

For Double Weapons, they become Martial and EWP would unlock TWF.

Repeating Crossbows become Martial Weapons with no EWP special ability.

Weapons that are just Asian versions of other weapons get rolled into the base weapon.

I think the martial-melee gap should be solved largely by nerfing casters. nerfing ideas:

-limit the number of self-affecting spells someone can have layered on them

-slow spells the hell down. Battlefield control spells and save or sux should generally have a casting time of at least 1 round to give other characters a chance to matter before spells end the game.

-nerf the spells they forgot to nerf in pathfinder.

-take things away from conjuration and transmutation and put them into the other schools. Give Abjuration almost every defensive spell. Leave virtually all blasting to Evocation. Dump all divination into the universal school and make it a subschool.

-Make spell resistance matter

-I like the idea of replacing the specialist mechanic with alternate classes that actually accomplish the concept. Especially the necromancer. When I play a necromancer I want to raise an undead army, like in Diablo 2. As it stands clerics can raise skeletons before I can, and I'm just rubbing people with my nasty touch attacks.

-give everyone and everything better saving throws. Make the good and bad saving throw progressions better. maybe base every save off of 2 ability scores

-limit the amount of magic items you can create per level, by gold value. Possibly allowing this amount to be increased by things like skill points or feats.

I think we should avoid relying on book of 9 swords anime maneuvers, or letting the fighter emulate magic with his attacks. The goal shouldn't be to turn the fighter into a wizard, but to change the system so that he doesn't need to be one.

here's an idea for CHA. Use CHA as a bonus to all healing spells a character receives. Cure light would be 1d8+caster level + recipient's CHA mod. Apply this to all forms of magical healing.

The only issue I foresee is that Paladins will get a huge boost out of this.

Exotic weapons need to have a reason to be worth learning how to use. Great damage, improved crit threat, something. I see alot of people taking elven curve blade because that's just what it does. It offers everything a falchion does but improves upon it with higher overall damage.

Wizards and martial characters is an easy solution I think. Make martial characters more resistant to magic. I know this is taboo, but back in second edition, not only did martial characters have significantly more hit points(a much greater disparity then they do now) but they also had by far the best saves. Make fighters and barbarians relentless combatants who can shrug off the effects of even the most powerful spells, except when dice rolls go bad. If martial characters aren't as worried about shoring up their defenses to spells and spell like abilities then they can focus on greater damage output. So maybe give non spell casting classes SR = to 5 + BAB + CHA(just to further make CHA worth not dumping). Wizards will be far less powerful when roughly 1/4 of their spells don't affect the targets before saves are even rolled. As a trade though increase spells per day by 1/4. This compensates for the spells "lost" by this rule, but not the actions lost.

-slow spells the hell down. Battlefield control spells and save or sux should generally have a casting time of at least 1 round to give other characters a chance to matter before spells end the game.

-Make spell resistance matter

-give everyone and everything better saving throws. Make the good and bad saving throw progressions better. maybe base every save off of 2 ability scores

1. Heck yes. Full-attack/full-round actions for SoD spells. Let warriors duck under cover before it goes off to avoid.

2. Spell resistance should be a minimum of 10+character level+maybe Cha mod(to give Cha something else?). Possibly more. Also, make it a swift action to drop but a standard(maybe just a move?) to raise. So you can get that beneficial spell at the cost of no defenses until your next turn.

3. I could see increasing the poor save to d20 Modern's average save, where it ends up +9 at the end. Not sure how much that would help. Not a fan of the 4E ability scores thing, but it's not based on anything concrete, just my feelings.

Another thought I just had on my way out the door. One of the biggest problems with spell casters is what they can accomplish in a standard action as compared to other classes. Since I generally like to add and not take away I think make the vital strike chain of feats just be built into part of the game. Once your BAB reaches +6/+1 you can either take two attacks that deal normal damage or 1 attack that you get to roll your weapon damage twice. At +11/+6/+1 it's roll weapon damage 3 times and so on and so forth. That way a charging fighter is still rolling 8d6+bonuses on a charge with a greatsword at level 16, very comparable to the damage output of a blaster wizard when you consider he can do it all day long.

and I second medium save progression instead of bad saves for the martial classes.

Spellcaster vs. melee thoughts;

In previous editions, spellcasters could be interrupted *very* easily. As of 3.X, it became much harder to do so, and the wannabe interrupter had to delay his action (and pretty much surrender the initiative) to even force a check (as opposed to being automatically able to interrupt a spell in 1e/2e).

Specific changes;

1) Changing all standard action spells to take a full attack action to cast, and take effect at the end of the round (creating a larger window of opportunity to interrupt them) could help. Adding a caveat that any damage taken during the round of casting, even from a hit that occured before the spellcaster begin the spell, is painful and distracting and requires a concentration check, could take it a step further.

2) Getting rid of everyone being automatically equally good at concentration checks, and folding the concentration check into the Spellcraft skill, could apply a small skill tax as well, for the character who wants to be able to cast spells without risking interruption all the time (although, tying the concentration check to a skill allows for pumping that skill with Skill Focus, trait bonuses, possible custom items, etc., etc., so that's something that needs to be considered).

3) If all spells always required a Spellcraft (or concentration) check to cast, and could auto-fail on a 1, that would perhaps add a little more risk to the nature of spellcasting. Barring unusual circumstances (long ritual castings), one could never 'take 10' on a Spellcasting roll. Magic is slippery and doesn't want to be controlled, it's *always* a struggle to hold onto the forces and bend them to your will. Spellcraft, in this case, would likely need to be changed to a Int/Wis/Cha based skill, using for this check the modifier that you use for your spellcasting, so that Wizards aren't automatically better at casting spells than Clerics, Druids and Sorcerers.

On the other hand, perhaps that would be a feature, not a drawback. Perhaps the disciplined nature of wizards makes them inherently better at forcing reality to sit down and shut up, while undisciplined sorcerers and 'begging power from higher entities' divine casters aren't necessarily as adept at managing their powers.

On the other, other hand, from a mechanical standpoint, if I was going to use these checks to make one class a bit better at controlling their magic than others, the Sorcerer seems the one that most needs the help, and making these 'spellcasting checks' Charisma based might give them a tiny leg up over the Wizards, Clerics and Druids... I could flavor that up, to say that the magic doesn't fight a sorcerer the way it does the ritualist or prepared caster, as it flows through them and they ride it like a surfer on a wave, while the cleric may be attempting to interpret divine will and call power down *(or up) from distant realms and the wizard may be attempting to force his will on ambient energies.

How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica;

Tricky. Inasmuch as this is a problem, I'm inclined to believe that it would require a radical restructuring of the game to something that was no longer Pathfinder in order to really do this.

Still, I'll see what ideas I can come up with...

How to make it so that every single wizard is not automatically a specialist;

Ooh, I actually have an idea for this one: Give the Universalist a bonus spell slot on every spell level but his highest that can be filled with any spell he likes (so a 9th level Generalist would have bonus slots for 1st through 4th, but not 5th level spells)...though that might be going too far.

Maybe drop Specialists to only one barred school to compensate? No, that makes Wizards too good compared to everyone else...maybe give even Universalists one barred school in exchange for the above while Specialists get two?

I'm really just brainstorming here.

How to make Charisma something other than an auto-dump stat;

Well, I do the classic 'poor man's fix' of allowing either it or Wisdom to apply to Will Saves, but there are surely better options out there.

Oooh, combined with weakening spellcasters, maybe add Charisma to all of everyone's saves, but only vs. spells and spell-like abilities. Basically the Dwarf bonus, only Charisma based. That'd make saves much more likely.

Why monks still suck fat wax candles, and how to fix them;

Well, the MAD and low damage capacity are...less than ideal.

My house rules on Monks are as follow:

Monk: The Monk’s unarmed damage progression, AC bonus, and movement are changed as follows:
1: 1d4/+0/+0 ft
2-6: 1d6/+1/+10 ft
7-11: 1d8/+2/+20 ft
12-16: 1d10/+3/+30 ft
17-20: 1d12/+4/+40 ft

These numbers are for a Medium creature. Adjust damage normally if their size is either greater or lesser.

However a Monk does receive a damage bonus equal to his Wisdom modifier on unarmed attacks and with all Monk weapons. A Zen Archer monk may do this with bows only when using his ki arrows ability.

The Monk is a full Base Attack Bonus Class (though they keep their d8 hit dice). This makes the Flurry of Blows ability a bit less necessary. Maneuver Training is also thus completely redundant and does not exist.

If the Monk does not otherwise move in a round, the +20 ft movement use of Ki points allows the Monk to move 20 ft + Monk bonus Speed as a Swift Action that provokes Attacks of Opportunity normally. If the Monk does otherwise move, it remains only a +20 ft bonus.

Amulet of Mighty Fists: In addition to providing a bonus on attacks, an AoMF also provides a bonus to Natural Armor equal to it’s rating, whether that rating is taken up by actual bonuses or effects such as Flaming. So a +1 Shocking, Flaming, Amulet of Mighty Fists also provides a +3 enhancement bonus to Natural Armor.

The mobility, enhanced AC (via the Amulet), and ability to ditch Strength entirely if you're willing to invest in Weapon Finesse (which I have effect Combat Maneuvers as well), all make the class much more viable.

How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use;

Well, removing the AoO, at least under some circumstances, seems like a good start. Maybe you can try them once per opponent without provoking? That shouldn't be too hard to keep track of, and would leave specialization useful.

Why the mystic theurge punishes his teammates, and how to lighten their burden;

Drop the prereqisites to 1st level spells in both Divine and Arcane, while keepng the Skill prereqs. Grab the Magical Knack trait. You're now only 1 level of spellcasting progression behind in your primary, no CLs behind, and get 11 levels of the secondary, and the spontaneous caster version is even viable.

How to make exotic weapon proficiencies actually worth a feat;

Maybe combine this with the Combat Maneuvers thing and have all Exotic Weapons have one or more Combat Maneuvers they're suited for and don't provoke AoOs when performing. Good weapons (like, say, the falcata or most double weapons) get maybe one (if that), while bad weapons (like butterfly knives) get two or even three.

Improve Cha: remove the Diplomacy skill.
Make Diplomacy an alternate use of other skills.
Want to persuade the librarian that you can be trusted to look at the forbidden section?
Make a Diplomacy check, using Knowledge (arcana).
One person can't dominate the social game, other players can now contribute.

Improve Cha: remove the Diplomacy skill.

Make Diplomacy an alternate use of other skills.
Want to persuade the librarian that you can be trusted to look at the forbidden section?
Make a Diplomacy check, using Knowledge (arcana).
One person can't dominate the social game, other players can now contribute.

Uh...this makes Charisma the attribute vastly worse, since it removes one of it's most useful skills from it (and the skills are all poor Charisma's got).

We all know a good DM can fix problems, but sometimes the rules themselves cry out for improvement. I wanted to start a thread for people who actually see ways in which the mechanical game rules could be tweaked for the better. Because most often, whenever such a topic appears, throngs of people quoting Rule 0 or some variant thereof drown out any constructive tinkering ("A good DM would fix that!" "It's fine!" "It's not a problem in my game," etc.).

You have no idea how much I cringe(want to disintegrate someone) when I see that silly argument, [/b]especially in the rules forum[/b]

Possible topics include, but are in no way limited to:

Limit magic: remove the Spellcraft skill.
Stop making one skill cover all magical knowledge, and confusing people with its overlap with the Knowledge skills.

Make 'Spellcraft' be an alternate use of the relevant Knowledge skills.

Eg Knowledge (arcana) for arcane spells, and spell-like abilities.
Knowledge (religion) for divine spells, and spell-like abilities.
Knowledge (dungeoneering) for Darkland creatures spells, and spell-like abilities.
Knowledge (nature) for fey, or other magical, prime-plane, above-ground beasts.
Knowledge (whatever) for other creatures spells, and spell-like abilities.

This

• removes the artificial disconnect between being able to identify a clerical spell, but not the same cleric using a domain power, or SLAs, or racial powers, that are spells in all but name,
• ends arguments over whether Spellcraft/arcana is most appropriate (I don't think scenario writers have ever agreed on this),
• allows semi-casters or non-casters with knowledge skills (especially Rangers with Favored Enemy) to demonstrate knowledge of the magical abilities of the creatures that naturally inhabit their world,
• doesn't cost arcanists any extra to know their arcane spells,
• doesn't cost divine casters any extra to know their divine spells,
• means arcane or divine casters don't get automatic knowledge of the other disciplines (though the ranks they save on Spellcraft can be spent that way if they wished),
• allows clerics to learn skills other than Spellcraft and Religion, maybe occasionally take a rank in a skill relevant to their faith?,
• allows the easier integration and introduction of other magical power sources or creature types (no more 'psicraft isn't spellcraft, or vice versa, nyah!').

Improve Cha: remove the Diplomacy skill.

Make Diplomacy an alternate use of other skills.
Want to persuade the librarian that you can be trusted to look at the forbidden section?
Make a Diplomacy check, using Knowledge (arcana).
One person can't dominate the social game, other players can now contribute.

Uh...this makes Charisma the attribute vastly worse, since it removes one of it's most useful skills from it (and the skills are all poor Charisma's got).

I wasn't clear; I intended for the relevant skill mod to be replaced by the Cha mod.

The situation we keep seeing is that one person maxes Cha and Diplomacy, so no-one else need ever bother trying to keep up.
By making more skills potentially useful at influencing NPC reactions, the rest of the PCs have an incentive to get back in the game, and thus, keep Cha, if not high, then at least average.

The way to solve the martial-caster disparity is to force much more limited specialization on casters. That way, casters suddenly cannot solve every problem - they must choose the areas they want to be good at. An example would be splitting the wizard class into several sub-classes. Here is a potential split:

Light Magic Class: Access to the following schools: abjuration, divination, evocation and illusion.

Dark Magic Class: Access to the following schools: conjuration, enchantment, necromancy and transmutation.

Of course, some spells might need to be purged or reassigned. For example, conjuration should not double up as a virtual evocation school. Hence, spells like Acid Arrow would be moved to evocation and also would be affected by spell resistance.

One might call the Light Magic Class a Wizard and the Dark Magic Class a Mage if one wanted to preserve relatively generic names. Note that these split-class/subclass/alternate class names are somewhat arbitrary and the very divisions are just an example of what I would do to the game. Note also that these divisions do not correspond to alignment restrictions. One could still have "good-aligned" dark magic wizards - the archetypal people who delve into secrets man ought not know...

It would also be possible to let a wizard simply pick and choose 4 schools to have access to, but a split-class/alternate classes is/are easier to balance.

Similar thematic divisions could be used to hit other spell-casting classes, such as sorcerers, clerics and druids, as well as possibly also the lesser spellcasters.

I think that silly flat DC chart is the issue. The version made by Rich Burlew seems to work well in my games. Of course anyone that decides to pimp diplomacy will have an easier time, but it is better than a flat chart.

The other issue is GM's and players treating diplomacy like a non magical mind control.

edit:I take that back, but I still think the DC's are too low and Rich's idea was better.

How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica;

How to make Charisma something other than an auto-dump stat;

How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use;

How to make exotic weapon proficiencies actually worth a feat;

Martial-caster disparity is a matter of playstyle. I've been playing D&D and its spinoffs since the beginning, and I've never encountered the problems others have in this regard.

Charisma is not "an auto-dump stat." Again, this is a playstyle issue.

Combat maneuvers not getting used is partially a playstyle issue. A single AoO isn't that big a deal. Just take it. If that doesn't work, do what I did for a mini-campaign: Get rid of AoO entirely.

For EWPs, get rid of the feat, and make EWs martial weapons instead.

I agree with Spes...I have never played in a campaign in 20 years with the precieved caster disparity that everyone raves about on these boards. Maybe I have been fortunate that over that span I have had only 4 different core groups of players who usually have a hive mind level of agreement on the power level we want to play at. Or maybe is the fact most of my games as a player and DM have ended around level 16. But I have to say, in almost every instance it is a melee beater who shines in combat, a caster who shines as a problem solver, bards and clerics as buff machines, and Rogues as skill monkeys. Dont get me wrong people can and do build against type often, but they are seldom better than the class designed for that purpose.

I'm amazed that much of this is still perceived as such a problem.

1) I've never really had a problem with this. Maybe I've been lucky.

2) What's wrong with specialist wizards?

I don't think generic wizards should be more common than any specialist wizard, and since there's 8 specialist wizards before we get to the APG, specialist wizards are going to be more common. I also happen to think they're more flavorful.

3) So what if it is a dump stat? How does that hurt the game? Is it somehow more realistic that people who spend all their time out fighting and putting their lives on the line should be well adjusted socially?

4) You noticed brass knuckles in the APG, right?

5) If exotic weapons were worth a feat they'd get a lot of use and become martial weapons.

IMO your list of things you want to see is making everything more balanced when handled by people who want nothing more than to eek every possible mechanical advantage out of their characters.

Can I direct the last three posters to the title, and first post of the thread?

Some things that I kicked around in a low magic item high fantasy thread I started in regards to caster / martial.

Spellcasting:
My proposition is magic is fickle, unless you dedicate extra time and attention it may not go off.
When casting any spell make a modified concentration check DC = 12+double spell level. IF YOU FAIL THIS CHECK THE SPELL (OR SLOT) IS NOT EXPENDED. Of course other concentration checks for damage, weather, etc. can cause you to lose the spell and must still be made.
If a caster decides to increase the casting time there is a +4 bonus to the concentration check per increment (below). Spending even more time beyond what is required to make the check succeed on a 1 or better can increase the DC of the spell(max of +3).
swift
standard
1 round
1 minute
10 minutes
1 hr
2 hr
4 hr
8 hr(max)
So a magic missile cast by a sorcerer at 1st level with a +3-4 stat mod, will succeed 50-55% of the time. If he fails he DOES NOT lose the spell. If he makes it a full round action he will get the spell off 70-75% of the time. To me, this makes having non-summoned physical types around useful.

ANOTHER OPTION: would be to modify spell casting by requiring a check based off of amount of movement a caster takes in a round. A “5ft Step” would not require a check. Moving 1/3, 2/3, full base movement would create a spell craft check based on the vigorous, violent, and extremely violent motion Spellcasting checks currently in the game. IF YOU FAIL THIS CHECK THE SPELL (OR SLOT) IS NOT EXPENDED.

and a much more elegant rework of option two

This is a better direction, however lose the fractions and tying it to motion checks. Go with a DC 10 + Spell Level +2 for every 5' beyond the first.

+2 if you move 10'
+4 if you move 15'
+6 if you move 20'
+8 if you move 25'
etc.

I do like looking at increasing cast time bases as well

Exotic weapon profs: TBH they need to resemble the curve blade or falcata in terms of effectivenss to become viable. In that regard the majority need to be flat out reworked. Barring that perhaps add a bonus to a combat maneuver to the feat IE I take EWP Dwarven Waraxe i choose one CM at levels 1-10 I get a +2 on that maneuevr when using the exotic weapon, +4 from 11-20.

Adding Charisma to healing effects (other than fast healing/regeneration) and making it tied to Will saves seem like strong options to keep it form being the preferred dump stat. Moving save from wisdom may serve to shift the preferred dump stat however the healing bonus is new and dosent shift a potential problem.

Monks: as TOZ knows I have lots of gripes about monks. So lets see...

TOZ's wisdom replaces Str for to hit/ damage is likely the best way to go to undercut the MAD issue make it read as MAY REPLACE so you can play Bolo Yeoung (Str focused) or the little old man with the stick (Wis based).

Spear and Long spear become Monk weapons. Able to flurry the whole nine yards with reach

Instead of only upping the damage increase critical threat range (possibly multipliers) with unarmed damage progression. Add tripping critical and feats like that form the APG to the monks bonus feat list(ignoring prereqs but only available at level 10+).

I am woefully ignorant on the whole mystic theurge issue so unless some one wants to enlighten me I got nothing.

I dont know if it has been mentioned for monks but perhaps each time they get a fast movement increase the 5 foot adjustment is increased by 5 feet gets them to a 35 foot adjustment by end game for the full attack flurry of doom?

Ooh,ooh, I want to play too!

How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica;

I think part of the issue is in the spells themselves. I think that in order to work better, the casters are not so much to be changed as the spells need to be pruned. If I had to "redo it", that's the way I would go.

IMO, the philosophy that a caster should always have a spell or some spell-like ability to cast, even if its weak, contributes to caster's superiority as well.

I also think that the principle of stat boosting, as a whole, favors casters more than melee type characters in the end.

How to make it so that every single wizard is not automatically a specialist;

Good question. I'd be curious to know why you see that as a system's flaw however.

How to make Charisma something other than an auto-dump stat;

I think you proposed the best solution so far - make will saves based on CHA. You got me convinced, mechanically speaking and fluffwise, that CHA was a better stat to represent willpower than WIS.

Why monks still suck fat wax candles, and how to fix them;

more to come to that one later

How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use;

Also have a lot to say about that. More to come later

'findel

Exotic weapon proficiency was deboned in 3rd edition when all things normally non-weapon were excluded. I think an urban ranger should be allowed to take exotic weapon proficiency rat. If someone finds an admantium butterknife, Exotic weapon butterknife should allow them to use it without penalty. By association, throw anything should include furnture.

I'm still angry about the stupid fox rule. Darwin's ghost should invade their dreams and tell them that any foxes that had 2 intelligence died out in the cave age. Either use natural selection none of the time, or all of the time. As for familiars, they are supposed to be paranormal. You don't let spellcasters just cast find familar on any rat you find in the sewer, do you? No. The rule needs a total rewrite.

Oh I am SO HERE!

Opening salvo: Monks need a class feature to use Wis for att/dmg in place of Str. Flurry needs to work with movement. The suggestion of allowing a monk to Flurry as a standard action here is an interesting one, allowing you to get your extra attack on the move without going full-on Pounce-mode.

Dear god please yes. I like monk's but at some point you can't do anything except swing at air causing minor distraction to enemies and a slight breeze for their enjoyment.

here's an idea for CHA. Use CHA as a bonus to all healing spells a character receives. Cure light would be 1d8+caster level + recipient's CHA mod. Apply this to all forms of magical healing.

The only issue I foresee is that Paladins will get a huge boost out of this.

The other problem with this is that there are players who have low cha characters for a reason that isn't about stats. I play a really surly and poor socially-minded dwarf. He's out-spoken and loud. That's best reflected by a negative cha. I'm consciously taking that penalty to reflect in the game, not to min max. But now if I'm told, as a fighter where my ability to continue fighting is based on my HP, that I get less healing due to my cha being negative and now I need more healing, it's going to get irksome.

I say if using cha as a bonus to healing then have it only affect if you have a positive score. Otherwise you treat your cha mod as 0.

I know not everyone is role play oriented but in order to fix the cha dump stat problem I think we need to make it (cha as a positive mod) more appealing, not make it a hindrance if you have a negative mod.

Much respect, Kirth, but I'd like to provide a (polite) dissenting opinion. Consider it my attempt to help you avoid groupthink in this thread. With respect to your posted list, here are my subjective judgements:

How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica;

For me, this is not a problem. It can be problematic sometimes, but certainly nothing on the exaggerated scale of the forums. I could offer anecdotal evidence, but I'll rather say that the game gives GMs the tools they need to manage casters. For some reason, they are more often overlooked than the tools to manage martials, but the tools are there. That's not quite rule 0 by the way, although it would be easy to mistake.

That said, there are a few sticking points: like why are some casters allowed to change up their powers completely and martials are expected to pick from a very narrow set of very focused powers and sit on them forever. You also know my solution on this one: swappable combat feats. I find this is working well.

How to make it so that every single wizard is not automatically a specialist;

For me, this is not a problem. Maybe it is because I lived through a 3.5 era where (for good or ill) everyone played a Universalist. *yawn* If I had my druthers, there would be more specs to choose from, and Universalist would not exist. But again, boldly into the realm of opinion do we wander.

How to make Charisma something other than an auto-dump stat;

I am a GM interventionist when it comes to Charisma. I believe that over-reliance on rules for this kind of interaction will make the game silly. NOT FLAME BAIT: Sort of in the way that 4e skill challenges put you at one step remove from roleplaying, that's what I fear. If you like skill challenges, disregard that analogy.

Now, if you really care about having six ratings that all contribute "equally" to the game (whatever that means), I could support swapping Charisma for Wisdom on Will saves. While that has all manner of unforeseen consequences I'm sure, it has good flavor. I'm not going to make this change, because I am lazy, and I only make changes when I see it is making the game un-fun over multiple instances.

Why monks still suck fat wax candles, and how to fix them;

Again, I only change what's un-fun, and two Sundays ago I saw a monk grapple a black dragon (above party CR). There could be a problem here, but I'm not seeing it.

Now, I have made houserule changes to the monk. I use Trailblazer's "focus" rules (and also the iterative attack rules if you're counting), which has a net affect of making standard attacks not suck. I allowed him a a magic item to boost his CMB. Aaaaaaand swappable feats (a la Battle Adaptation).

How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use;

Create tactical scenarios where it is better to not kill people instantly, but rather do something else to them. Do I really want a system that encourages people to *&%# around in combat, or to do things when it makes sense? As long as "just kill him" is a combat option, it will see the majority of use, no? Unless there is a good reason otherwise.

Why the mystic theurge punishes his teammates, and how to lighten their burden;

I know nothing about this.

How to make exotic weapon proficiencies actually worth a feat;

Some are, some aren't. I was a little sad to see the spiked chain get over-nerfed, but I definitely thought it needed to be reigned in a bit. I agree, you should get something more for your feat than an affectation.

I hate to keep plugging my solution, but swappable combat feats help a lot on the issue of weapon proficiencies in general. Even if there is no miraculous fix for EWPs, I might actually end up using an EWP now and then if I wasn't locked into it for the rest of my character's life!

Anyway, I realize that this post is largely about negation. I'm not trolling you, I just disagree with the premise that you can design in a vacuum. If you can accomplish your mechanical goals without a total departure from the things that I like and use, I think that makes it a better design (SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT). So let's not go too far down the GMless rabbit hole, please?

I apologize to anyone who read all of that.

Okay, for what it is worth, I think there may be a way to retroactively fix EWPs.

I think Exotic Weapon Prof should work a little more like Equipment Trick. Each weapon should have a small list of flashy things it can do in addition to just being a weapon.

You still have to meet sub-pre-reqs like equipment trick, so that can constrain the number of crazy powers you get (and that helps the feat scale with level). Any takers?

Can I direct the last three posters to the title, and first post of the thread?

I would like to point out to the esteemded Bull of smashiness, that none of us invoked rule zero and all politely implied that maybe one of these was not like the others...that is all.

Ok, shadowcatX, point by point, just to let you know what people are thinking and hopefully not start a long discussion or anything. Goes for others too:

1) Other people have, so meh.

2) Nothing is exactly wrong with them; they're just flat out better than generalists, which kinda sucks if you want to shine as a generalist, which doesn't seem an unreasonable thing to want to do. You might think they're not much better. If so, cool, but this isn't the thread for that.

3) It's a problem simply because some people don't like it that way. For example, I like playing charismatic players and I like to be the guy who does the talking. The system tells me my character is not charismatic and makes him fail at talking unless I put a high score in my charisma stat, but that's not a worthwhile investment, in terms of raw power. I feel I have the right to be as effective as everyone else, regardless of what I chose to be good at, so long as it's relevant to adventuring.

4) We did. They're widely known about. The fact that this thread is here is a clue that many people don't think brass knuckles do the job.

5) Nope. A crap option is a crap option. If they weren't worth using, nobody would ever use them at all. I don't think there's any good reason for me to pay for a chain if I can get a better sword for free. That just rewards people for being the same. I want the game to encourage individuality and looking cool, not charge for them or give them prerequisites.
Anyway, a weapon is exotic because they're hard to make, hard to use, not even imagined by most people or just plain weird. Not because it's worse. The term for that would be Inferior weapons, which isn't a category for a good and obvious reason.

All that said, this thread is not for deciding whether any of these perceived problems are real. It's for those who believe that they are to share potential solutions without needing to justify themselves like I just did, so lets move on.

*AHEM*

I'm pretty sure I have a good solution to the exotic weapon problem:

Finally- Thanks for bearing with me, guys! There are now no exotic weapons (unless I missed one), but nothing has really been lost from the game. A couple of options have changed forms, a couple have been removed and replaced, but overall, you have slightly more variety and a lot less restriction. Case closed?

If the gnome hammer is now a simple weapon for all gnomes, then I'm onboard with you.
On the other hand, I have weilded a sledge hammer, it's two handed or forget it.

My addition to the list is to give people a reason to take the rogue, other than trapfinding. I think that in the same way the ranger has different weapon paths the rogue should have different specialization it can follow, and I don't mean archetypes. The specializations would add on to what the rogue has now without taking away.

How about rogue talents that mean they are approximately as good as an equivalent spell at approximately the same level. e.g. Improved stealth the rogue can effectively become invisible (+20 or +40 stealth) for 1 minute/level.

Goth Guru, if you were talking to me, then no, the rules behind the spoiler button don't make the hook hammer a simple weapon for gnome. They replace the double weapons system wit ha new one that allows you to build a kind of double weapon by combining two light or one-handed weapons, using the normal proficiencies for both.
You could use that new system to stick a pick on a warhammer, then wield the resulting weapon in two hands. You'd get to choose which weapon to use each time you made an attack, or if you prefer, count as using one in each hand and use TWF.

Mortuum,

2) Why does everything have to be about who is the best?

3) If people don't like it then they shouldn't dump charisma. See point 2.

4) That was actually a bit tongue in cheek.

5) "Hard to use" actually does "make it worse".

As for exotic weapons...

I think all weapons should be either simple or martial, some of them coming with a set of "perks" that can be unlocked with EWP.

In addition, create a new category of weapons: 1-1/2 handed weapons. Basically, a series of weapons that can be used 1-handed with extra training [insert name of feat here]. I could see use of it for swords (the bastard sword), axes, spears and bludgeons. There would be a case to allow crossbows to be used 1-h without penalties with that feat only.

I'd go as fr as not making this feat weapon specific; make it work for the whole category.

'findel

As for exotic weapons...

I think all weapons should be either simple or martial, some of them coming with a set of "perks" that can be unlocked with EWP.

I like this, combined with my earlier suggestion that the "perks" work like Equipment Trick.

In addition, create a new category of weapons: 1-1/2 handed weapons. Basically, a series of weapons that can be used 1-handed with extra training [insert name of feat here]. I could see use of it for swords (the bastard sword), axes, spears and bludgeons. There would be a case to allow crossbows to be used 1-h without penalties with that feat only.

Can we call them bastard weapons? I'm a sucker for tradition, and we get to say "bastard".

Laurefindel wrote:

As for exotic weapons...

I think all weapons should be either simple or martial, some of them coming with a set of "perks" that can be unlocked with EWP.

I like this, combined with my earlier suggestion that the "perks" work like Equipment Trick.

Not aware of Equipment Trick. Looked thought the PRD but couldn't find anything...

Not aware of Equipment Trick. Looked thought the PRD but couldn't find anything...

Featured in Adventurer's Armory (and expanded in Sargava: The Lost Colony).

d20pfsrd.com version (same as printed)

I think it is a nice, rich approach. Would work quite well for EWP.

Also, perhaps we should retain a category for really exotic weapons. Some weapons are just... weird. But for the most part, people with all-martial-weapon-proficiency should be able to kill with an exotic weapon, even if they are denied its nuances.

Laurefindel and Evil Lincoln, the stuff behind my big wall of text spoiler makes all weapons martial or simple, except for a small group of weapons designed to capture people, which are their own new group. It also has the approach you suggest for bastard weapons. Apart from a suggested greatsword nerf, that's basically all it is.

The extra tricks idea would be fully compatible, I'm sure. I don't think you'd need it, but it would be good to have something none the less.

ShadowcatX, I disagree with every one of your answers, but this ain't the place.

Laurefindel wrote:

Not aware of Equipment Trick. Looked thought the PRD but couldn't find anything...

d20pfsrd.com version (same as printed)

I think it is a nice, rich approach. Would work quite well for EWP.

Hum, I see. Interesting...

Laurefindel and Evil Lincoln, the stuff behind my big wall of text spoiler makes all weapons martial or simple, except for a small group of weapons designed to capture people, which are their own new group. It also has the approach you suggest for bastard weapons. Apart from a suggested greatsword nerf, that's basically all it is.

Indeed we are swimming in the same waters.