|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Okay, i have come up with an alternate version of Pathfinder (i call it Pathfinder Lite) that is simpler yet allows for more complexity, and hopefully solves a lot of balance issues and gripes people have about the huge amount of maths involved.
I'm going to start with the basics and then work through the various modules (feats, skills, classes, combat, spells, monsters, etc).
BASICS
So lets start with the basics and a redefinition of the common terms.
AC: One of the Defence statistics. Your AC score is the target for certain attacks to beat in order to hit you. AC = 10 + Dex modifier + Armour bonus + Shield bonus + Other modifiers.
Attack: A d20 roll made to overcome a target value to indicate whether an attack action (melee, ranged, or spell) was successful or not. This roll is compared against one of the defence values (AC, CMD, Fort, Ref, Will)
BAB: This no longer exists and has been removed completely from the system.
Bonuses: Bonuses come in various types according to their point of origin. Bonuses of the same type do not stack (in most cases). The types of bonuses are Class, Race, Feat, Spell, Circumstance, Magic Item, Armour, Shield.
Check: A d20 roll made to overcome a target value to indicate whether an action was successful or not. Attacks rolls and skill checks are the most common forms of checks.
CMB: A d20 roll made to determine whether a combat manoeuvre is successful or not. It is usually compared against the CMD value.
CMD: One of the defence statistics. Your CMD score is the target value to beat in order for certain attacks to hit you. CMD = 10 + Str modifier + Dex modifier + other modifiers.
DR: Damage Resistance is a value that reduces physical damage by the indicated value. This resistance value is ignored if a target is vulnerable to the incoming type of damage. Damage Resistance values always stack.
ER: Energy Resistance is a value that reduces energy damage by the indicated value. This resistance value is ignored if a target is vulnerable to the incoming type of damage. Energy Resistance values always stack.
Spell Resistance: This no longer exists and has been completely removed from the system.
XP: Experience Points are a counter indicating how much progress has been made towards the next level. Upon attaining a new level in any class, the XP counter is reset to zero.
HP: Hit Points are a counter indicating how much damage you can sustain before becoming unconscious, disabled, or dead. Hit Points are derived by rolling Hit Dice as indicated by the class or monster type. You gain a bonus number of hit points equal to your Constitution or Strength modifier (whichever is highest). This bonus is applied only once. Not at each level
Fortitude: One of the defence statistics. Your Fortitude score is the target value to beat in order for certain attacks to hit you (usually spells). Fortitude = 10 + Str modifier or Con modifier (whichever is highest) + other modifiers.
Reflex: One of the defence statistics. Your Reflex score is the target value to beat in order for certain attacks to hit you (usually spells). Reflex = 10 + Dex modifier or Int modifier (whichever is highest + other modifiers.
Immunity: If a target is immune to an effect or type of damage then he automatically ignores any of the effects and ignores all damage of that type.
Spells: All spells now take the form of an attack roll compared against the defence value indicated on the spell. An attack roll is not required if the target is a willing recipient and therefore intentionally fails his save by not resisting the effect.
Vulnerability: If a target is vulnerable to a type of damage then he incurs 150% of the damage inflicted upon him (multiply the value by 1.5). Common vulnerabilities can include Slashing, Piercing, Bludgeoning, Silver, Cold Iron, Adamantine, Fire, Cold, Acid, Electricity, Sonic, Positive Energy, Negative Energy.
Willpower: One of the defence statistics. Your Willpower score is the target value to beat in order for certain attacks to hit you (usually spells). Willpower = 10 + Wis modifier or Cha modifier (whichever is highest + other modifiers.
Example of Play: Using the definitions above only the player performing the action makes the roll. The result of this roll is then compared to the defence value of the target. If the result is successful then the target incurs the consequences. If damage is inflicted then reduce the value by the damage resistance value, or increase it by 150% if the target is vulnerable.
Player: "Im attacking that orc". Rolls 1d20 and adds bonuses. The total is 15
GM: Your attack roll beats his AC score of 12. You hit.
PLayer: Rolls 1d8 damage and adds bonuses. The total is 6
GM: The GM notices the orc is vulnerable to slashing damage and so the damage is 6 x 1.5 = 9 The orc has 8 hit points and is therefore defeated.
Next is feats
FEATS
Feats operate in a similar manner, allowing the improvement of existing abilities and the selection of new abilities to augment the character.
However the organisation of feats and philosophy behind them is different.
Feats should not add thousands of random new abilities unique for each occurence.
Instead feats should concentrate on augmenting a single ability, adding new options and improvements for that ability. This encourages the player to specialise.
Furthermore the feats are now organised into trees centred around certain abilities with fewer prerequisites to make things easier to select.
The idea around trees are that you have to invest in the tree in order to gain access to the best abilities, but the requirements for feats within the tree are lessened.
In order to aid multiclassing there are also feat trees for iconic class abilities, such as Rage, Familiar, Wild Shape. These feats allow a player to improve the ability if they are granted it from their class. Alternatively they can expend a feat to gain the ability instead of taking a number of levels in the appropriate class to acquire it.
As an example here are a number of feat trees i created earlier.
Deadly Aim Tree
Tier One
DEADLY AIM [GENERAL]
You can make exceptionally deadly ranged attacks by pinpointing a foe’s weak spot, at the expense of making the attack less likely to succeed.
Prerequisites: Dex 12,
Benefit: You can choose to take a penalty (maximum -5) on all ranged attack rolls to gain a bonus on all ranged damage rolls worth twice the penalty selected (maximum +10). You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
BOWSLINGER [GENERAL]
You can ready ranged weapons surprisingly quickly.
Prerequisite: Deadly Aim
Benefit: When using the Deadly Aim feat, you gain a +2 bonus on your attack roll when you fire or throw a ranged weapon at a flat-footed opponent.
COORDINATED SHOT [GENERAL]
You are extraordinarily talented at making ranged attacks past your allies.
Prerequisite: Deadly Aim
Benefit: When using the Deadly Aim feat against a foe who has cover due to the position of your ally or allies, your ranged attack ignores the Armour Class bonus granted to the target because of that cover. Cover from other sources is unaffected.
DEADEYE SHOT [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Deadly Aim
Benefit: When using the Deadly Aim feat, if your target has already been damaged by an ally with a melee attack that round, then the target loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) against your ranged attack.
PRECISE SHOT [GENERAL]
You are skilled at timing and aiming ranged attacks.
Prerequisite: Deadly Aim
Benefit: You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard –4 penalty on your attack roll (see Shooting or Throwing into a Melee, page 140).
SHARP SHOOTING [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Deadly Aim
Benefit: Your targets only receive a +2 bonus to Armour Class due to cover. This feat has no effect against foes with no cover or total cover.
Normal: Cover normally gives a +4 bonus to AC.
Tier Two
IMPROVED PRECISE SHOT [GENERAL]
Your ranged attacks can ignore the effects of cover or concealment.
Prerequisites: Dex 20, Deadly Aim
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.
Normal: See pages 150–152 for rules on the effects of cover and concealment. Without this feat, a character that shoots or throws a ranged weapon at a target involved in a grapple must roll randomly to see which grappling combatant the attack strikes.
PENETRATING SHOT [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Improved Precise Shot
Benefit: When using the Deadly Aim feat, you can choose to unleash a single penetrating shot, if so your shot takes the form of a 60-foot line. Make a separate attack roll against each creature in the line. If struck, creatures along this line take damage from your shot, though any extra damage (such as from a sneak attack or a flaming weapon) is applied only against the first creature struck.
FAR SHOT [GENERAL]
You can get greater distance out of a ranged weapon.
Prerequisite: Improved Precise Shot
Benefit: When you use a projectile weapon, such as a bow, its range increment increases by one-half (multiply by 1-1/2). When you use a thrown weapon, its range increment is doubled.
Tier Three
PINPOINT TARGETING [GENERAL]
You can target the weak points in your opponent’s armour.
Prerequisites: Dex 25, Improved Precise Shot
Benefit: When using the Deadly Aim feat, the target does not gain any armour, natural armour, or shield bonuses to its Armour Class. You do not gain the benefit of this feat if you move this round.
Weapon Focus Tree
Tier One
SPELL/POWER/WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL]
Choose a school of magic, such as illusion. A psionic discipline, such as psychokinesis. A weapon group, such as heavy blades.
Benefit: Add +1 to the attack roll for all attacks with spells, powers, or weapons from the chosen school of magic (or alignment keyword), psionic discipline, or weapon group.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack.
Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new school (or alignment keyword), discipline, or weapon group
DEFENSIVE WEAPON TRAINING [GENERAL]
You know how to defend yourself against a certain class of weaponry.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus
Benefit: Choose a weapon group for which you have the weapon focus feat. You gain a +2 dodge bonus on AC and saving throws when an opponent attacks you using a weapon from the chosen weapon group.
Special: You can select this feat more than once. Its effects do not stack. Each time you select this feat, it applies to a different weapon group for which you have the Weapon Focus feat.
STAGE COMBATANT [GENERAL]
You are a master of stage and non-lethal combats.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus
Benefit: When you make an attack with a weapon that you have Weapon Focus in, you take no penalty on the attack roll when you are attempting to make an attack that deals no damage or non-lethal damage.
Normal: When making attacks that deal no damage or non-lethal damage, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Tier Two
SPELL/POWER/WEAPON SPECIALISATION [GENERAL]
Choose one school of magic, psionic discipline, or weapon group with which you already have weapon focus.
You deal extra damage when using this weapon.
Prerequisites: Any one ability score 20, Weapon Focus
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon for which you have the Weapon Focus feat.
GREATER SPELL/POWER/WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL]
You are especially good at using this weapon.
Prerequisites: Weapon Specialisation
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus stacks with other bonuses on attack rolls, including the one from Weapon Focus.
Special: You can gain Greater Weapon Focus multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon for which you have the Weapon Focus feat.
PENETRATING STRIKE [GENERAL]
Your attacks are capable of penetrating the defences of some creatures.
Prerequisites: Greater Weapon Specialisation
Benefit: Your attacks made with weapons selected with Weapon Focus ignore up to 5 points of damage reduction.
Tier Three
GREATER SPELL/POWER/WEAPON SPECIALIZATION [GENERAL]
Choose one school of magic, psionic discipline, or weapon group with which you already have weapon focus.
You deal extra damage when using this weapon.
Prerequisites: Any one ability score of 25, Weapon Specialisation
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus stacks with other bonuses on damage rolls, including the one from Weapon Specialization
Special: You can gain Greater Weapon Specialization multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon for which you have the Weapon Focus feat.
DEADLY STROKE [GENERAL]
With a well-placed strike, you can bring a swift and painful end to most foes.
Prerequisites: Greater Weapon Specialisation
Benefit: Your attacks made with weapons selected with Weapon Focus deal 1 point of Constitution damage. This ability damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.
GREATER PENETRATING STRIKE [GENERAL]
Your attacks penetrate the defences of most foes.
Prerequisites: Greater Weapon Specialisation
Benefit: Your attacks made with weapons selected with Weapon Focus ignore up to an additional 5 points of damage reduction (this stacks with penetrating strike)
SPELL/POWER/WEAPON SUPREMACY [GENERAL]
Choose one school of magic, psionic discipline, or weapon group with which you already have weapon specialisation.
You gain additional bonuses when using this weapon.
Prerequisites: Greater Weapon Specialisation
Benefit: When fighting with the weapon that you choose for this feat, you gain a number of additional advantages.
You gain a +4 bonus on all checks made to resist being disarmed.
You can wield your weapon in a grapple without penalty and without first making a grapple check.
Once per round you may take 10 on any one attack roll with this weapon.
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while wielding this weapon.
Special: You can choose this feat only once. The dedication and focus it requires makes it impossible to gain this feat more than once.
As the last feat tree makes clear, because spells are now considered attacks, you can use your Weapon Focus feat and subsequent feats in that tree to improve your attacks made with spells from a particular school of magic, psionic discipline (if you use psionics), and weapon group.
SKILLS
Skills are now a subset of the feat system.
Skill points no longer exist. Instead progression in skills is obtained by acquiring feats in the following feat tree.
Because of the much lower skill values obtainable now (with the removal of skill points), the target DCs for particular actions should also be lowered. All basic actions should in general be DC 10 and escalate from there
[u]Tier One[/u]
SKILL TRAINING [GENERAL]
Benefit: You receive a +5 bonus to skill checks with your chosen skill and can use those skills for checks that require training
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take this feat, it applies to a new skill.
SKILL FOCUS [GENERAL]
Choose a skill, such as Stealth. You have a special knack with that skill.
Prerequisites: Skill Training
Benefit: You get a +3 bonus on all checks involving that skill.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill.
[u]Tier Two[/u]
SKILL SPECIALISATION [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Any one ability score 20, Skill Training
Benefit: You receive a further +5 bonus to skill checks with your chosen skill with which you already have the Skill Training feat. This bonus stacks with Skill Training
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take this feat, it applies to a new skill.
[u]Tier Three[/u]
SKILL MASTERY [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Any one ability score 25, Skill Specialisation
Benefit: You receive a further +5 bonus to skill checks with your chosen skill with which you already have the Skill Training and Skill Specialisation feat. This bonus stacks with Skill Training and Skill Specialisation
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take this feat, it applies to a new skill.
Furthermore the number of skills has been slimmed down by merging existing skills into others. Certain skill actions can be duplicated in many skills, for example the climb action is part of both the acrobatics and athletics skills.
The new list of skills is as follows.
Acrobatics (Dex)
Appraisal (Int)
Arcana (Int)
Athletics (Str)
Bluff (Cha)
Craft (Int)
Diplomacy (Cha)
Discipline (Cha)
Fly (Dex)
Heal (Wis)
Insight (Wis)
Intimidate (Cha)
Knowledge (Int)
Linguistics (Int)
Nature (Wis)
Perception (Wis)
Perform (Cha)
Profession (Wis)
Psionics (Int)
Religion (Wis)
Ride (Dex)
Stealth (Dex)
Streetwise (Cha)
Tinker (Int)
Acrobatics: Acrobatics comprises jump, climb, escape restraints, balance, tumble, squeeze, and safe falling actions.
Arcana: Arcana comprises all the actions of Spellcraft, as well as actions from the Use Magic Device and Knowledge (Arcana)
Athletics: Athletics includes jump, climb, swim, run, and escape restraints actions.
Bluff: Bluff includes the bluff, creating diversions, feinting, delivering secret messages, disguising surface thoughts and alignment, forgery, and disguise actions.
Discipline: Discipline includes all the actions from the Concentration skill as well as the Autohypnosis and Control Shape skill.
Insight: Insight includes the hunch, assess opponent, discern secret message, recognise illusion, and sense enchantment actions
Nature: Nature includes all the actions of the Survival skill, Animal Handling, Knowledge (Nature), and the actions from Spellcraft as well as the activate magic device blindly and use scroll actions.
Perception: Perceptions includes all actions from the Listen, Spot, and Search skills, as well as the tracking action
Psionics: Psionics is a mirror of the Arcana skill but for psionic items and effects.
Religion: Religion is a mirror of the Arcana skill but includes Knowledge (Religion) actions.
Stealth: Stealth includes all actions from the Hide in Shadows and Move Silently skills.
Thievery: Thievery includes all actions from the Pick Pocket, Sleight of Hand, and Rope Use skills
Tinker: Tinker includes all actions from the Open Lock, Disable Device, and Use Magic Device skills
CLASSES
The major change to classes is that BAB is gone. Also gone as well are level based progression for Fortitude, Reflex and Willpower saves.
At every level a class grants the indicated number of hit points, number of new abilities as indicated, and a number of new spells as indicated. Thats it.
As well as implementing Weapon Group feats for all classes, i have implemented Armour Group feats (Light, Medium, Heavy, and Exotic) and Shield Group feats (Buckler, Light, Heavy, and Tower), and each class gets a different number of these feats, allowing them to customise what they want.
So for an example class below is the fighter.
FIGHTER
Abilities: Strength is especially important for fighters because it improves their melee attack and damage rolls. Constitution is important for giving fighters lots of hit points, which they need in their many battles. Dexterity is important for fighters who want to be good archers or who want access to certain Dexterity oriented feats, but the heavy armour that fighters usually wear reduces the benefit of a very high Dexterity score.
Alignment: Any.
Hit Die: d10.
CLASS SKILLS
The fighter’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Athletics (Str), Craft (Int), Intimidate (Cha), Nature (Int), Ride (Dex). A fighter begins with 3 trained class skills
CLASS FEATURES
All of the following are class features of the fighter.
Weapon and Armour Proficiency: A fighter gains the Weapon Group (Basic) feat and any 4 other weapon groups. A fighter also gains 3 Armour Group feats and 4 Shield Group feats.
Fighter Styles: As a fighter continues his training he may select a number of Fighter Styles as indicated. A fighter gains one style at level 1, two styles at level 2, one style at level 3, two styles at level 4, and so on. At 10th level he may select options from the Advanced Fighter Styles list instead of the Fighter Styles list.
Armour Training (Ex): Every time this Fighter Style is selected the fighter gains a +1 bonus to Maximum Dexterity Bonus and a +1 bonus to Armour Check Penalty (max 0) whenever he wears armour.
Bonus Feats: Every time this Fighter Style is selected the fighter may select a bonus feat from any feat trees:
Bravery (Ex): Every time this Fighter Style is selected the fighter gains a +1 Willpower saving throw against fear.
Shield Training (Ex): Every time this Fighter Style is selected the fighter reduces the armour check penalty and increase the maximum dexterity bonus allowed for any shield he wields.
Weapon Training (Ex): Every time this Fighter Style is selected the fighter gains a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls with all weapons in a selected Weapon Group. This Fighter Style can be selected multiple times for multiple Weapon Groups, or it can be selected multiple times for one Weapon Group.
A fighter also adds this bonus to any combat manoeuvre checks made with weapons from this group. This bonus also applies to the fighter’s Combat Manoeuvre Defence when defending against disarm and sunder attempts made against weapons from this group.
Each class has its own set of optional abilities that contain abilities unique to them. For instance the barbarian can select his rage ability as well as other abilities applicable to a barbarian.
Using the above framework i have converted all the various archtype abilities into either abilities that can be selected only once, or abilities that can be selected multiple times to give an increasing bonus.
This allows a player to fully customise his character however he wishes. I have shown only the base abilities for the fighter above, but by converting all the archtypes a player could create a fighter that is good with a sword and shield and crossbows, but does not gain any benefit from wearing armour.
Each class gains a different number of abilities. Fighters have 30 in total over a 20 level progression, so do barbarians, rangers, and druids.
Rogues and monks get 40 abilities to choose from over a 20 level progression (2 per level).
Clerics, Wizards, and sorcerers gain 20 abilities over a 20 level progression.
COMBAT
So as mentioned before, BAB is gone, Spell Resistance is gone. Spells are now considered attacks. Damage Resistance and Energy Resistance work differently and there are a bunch of new vulnerabilities to work out.
The basic premise of the new combat system is to simplify and speed things up.
So only the attacking player makes the dice roll. This result is then compared against the players defence score and if it is higher then the attack is successful.
Size: A creature's size adds the same bonuses and penalties before to AC and CMB and CMD checks. It does not add any bonuses or penalties to attack rolls.
Special Abilities: All Extraordinary, Spell Like, and Supernatural abilities are now also considered attack, just like spells. And because BAB and level based progression of saves has been removed the +1/2 HD modifier to these attacks is no longer needed.
So for example a Dragons Breath Weapon attack is 1d20 + Con modifier + other modifiers (such as from feats). This is compared against the targets Reflex save score and if greater then the attack hits.
Criticals: To make criticals simpler. A successful critical hit deals an additional +1d6 damage regardless of the original damage dice used. For weapons with higher multipliers or feats and abilities that improve the multipliers when a critical is scored, just add an additional +1d6 for every single point increase in the multiplier (so a x3 weapon would deal +2d6 damage on a critical). This change is necessary because spells are now considered attacks and so can score critical hits, but their increased damage potential does not lend well to multipliers.
Armour: Because all BAB scores have been removed, the AC bonus of armour and natural armour needs to be changed slightly.
A piece of armour's AC bonus is now equal to half the original armour value (rounded up).
In addition each armour gains a Damage Resistance value equal to half the original armour value (rounded down).
Each suit of armour allows the character to lose a number of vulnerabilities based on its type. Leather armour allows the player to lose Piercing and Bludgeoning vulnerabilities. Chain armour allows the player to lose Slashing and Bludgeoning vulnerabilities. Plate armour allows the player to lose Slashing and Piercing vulnerabilities.
Natural Armour: Natural Armour also needs limiting for the same reasons as armour. Natural Armour now has a maximum limit depending upon size.
Tiny or smaller = +1
Small = +2
Medium = +2
Large = +4
Huge = +6
Gargantuan = +8
Colossal = +10
These limits are a maximum limit. Common sense will indicate that a horse should not have a natural armour bonus of +4 but a rhino perhaps should.
Natural Armour provides a Damage Resistance value equal to half the armour bonus (rounded down).
Multiple Attacks: The complicated formula for making multiple attacks is gone.
Now when performing a full attack action, the player needs to decide how many attacks he will be performing as part of that action. For each additional attack after the first, the player incurs a cumulative -2 attack penalty on all attacks made in that action.
Making attacks with two or more weapons incurs the same penalty. Each attack after the first incurs a cumulative -2 attack penalty for all attacks made during that action.
Monsters with natural weapons have a different rule to compensate them for having weapons that are unable to be enchanted. For each attack method used after the first, the creature incurs a cumulative -2 attack penalty on all attacks made during that action. For instance claws are one attack method, a bite is another attack method. A creature with 2 claws and a bite could use all three natural weapons to attack and only incur a -2 penalty on all those attacks because the two claws count as one attack method.
Spells: Spells now count as attacks and so can be treated the same as melee or ranged attacks (depending upon whether it is a ranged or close combat spell). So spells can be used to make multiple attacks following the same rules. A player can cast multiple spells as part of a full attack action providing the spell in question to be used has a casting time of 1 standard action and the player has multiple copies of the same spell memorised.
For ranged attack spells the player may require other feats such as Rapid Shot in order to perform this type of action.
Explanation: The new combat system is designed around speed and simplicity. A single roll per action (by the attacker only) should speed up the rolling aspect of combat.
The lower AC and attack rolls makes it easier to calculate what the scores are. and more importantly it ensures that lower level characters and creatures can still hit higher level opponents (although they may not be able to damage them because of higher damage resistance - however this can be negated by exploiting vulnerabilities)
Lower Hit Points mean that creatures die that much quicker.
The new Damage Resistance and Vulnerabilities system means that tactical thinking is encouraged. Players should research opponents to determine their weaknesses, and even when facing a white dragon, a few well place fireballs should even the odds considerably.
Combat should no longer be a slog fest and tactical use of abilities should end combat within a few rounds.
Otherwise the options within combat remain unchanged. You can still perform attacks, cast spells, use abilities, perform combat manoeuvres, etc.
Spells
Now that spells are considered attacks and have attack rolls to hit a target we have much more freedom and more options available.
However because spells are now attacks, and because level based progression of saves has been removed, and hit points are lower for everyone, spells need reworking a bit.
The new design philosophy behind spells is as follows.
Targeted spells that strike a target use AC as the defence value to beat.
Area effect spells use Reflex as the defence value to beat.
Spells that affect a person's physique use Fortitude as the defence value to beat.
Spells that affect a person's mind use Willpower as the defence value to beat.
All attack rolls are made using the casting class's Spellcasting Primary Attack Bonus (SPAM for short) - this is Int for wizards, Wis for druids and clerics, Cha for sorcerers.
A spell's attack roll is 1d20 + SPAM + other modifiers.
Since spells are now attack rolls, and the saving throws and ACs of creatures are much lower, Ranged Touch Attacks are unnecessary. Spells that previously used ranged touch attacks should be converted using the above design philosophy. Rays use Reflex as the defence value to beat.
Spell Resistance: Spell Resistance no longer exists and need not be considered when designing spells. Defence values now indicate whether a character resists a spell or not. Those creatures with spell resistance could be given a bonus to saves if desired.
Damage: Because hit points are lower and vulnerabilities now allow for increased damage output, the damage of a spell should be limited to 1 dice per level of the spell. This is a general maximum limit but in special circumstances could be altered.
Because spells are now considered attacks, spells always deal damage of a certain type; fire, bludgeoning, slashing, positive energy, etc. This damage can be reduced by damage resistance or energy resistance or multilied by vulnerabilities in the same way as normal attacks.
Range: This value could now be considered a range increment if it is used as an attack, with all the normal penalties that apply for exceeding the range increment.
Critical: Now that spells are considered attacks they can score critical hits. The values given indicate the critical threat range and additional damage score when a critical is rolled. (if not threat range given then assume 20)
[i]Special:[/i} Special conditions can be applied if certain classes cast a spell. For instance the basic magic missile could do 1d6 damage instead of 1d4 per spell level if cast by a sorcerer etc.
An example spell follows.
Magic Missile
Evocation [force]
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 1
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S
Range: Medium (10 squares. + 1 squares./level)
Targets: 1 creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Attack: vs. AC
Hit: A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4 force damage per spell level (+ primary spellcasting ability modifier + other modifier) points of force damage.
Specific parts of a creature can’t be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell.
Miss: Negates
Critical: +1d6 force damage
Special: If critical roll is also a critical then pick another creature within 3 squares and make another attack roll to deal damage against that creature.
Monsters
Finally after all these changes monsters will need a bit of a rework, specifically looking at vulnerabilities.
These changes also affect player characters.
Obviously BAB, and level based progression of Fort, Ref, and Will are gone. Calculation of these figures and hit points should be much easier now.
Each Type has been organised into a hierarchy/tier to aid in classifying and developing monsters.
When it comes to vulnerability, creatures can be vulnerable to just about everything with two exceptions. Living creatures are always vulnerable to negative energy. Undead creatures are always vulnerable to positive energy. Constructs are immune to both.
Tier 1
Animals, Vermin, Plants, Humanoids, Undead
Creatures in this tier are typically vulnerable to everything (with the exception of positive and negative energy) with only one or two vulnerabilities missing at most (generally in the basic damage types of Slashing, Piercing, or Bludgeoning depending upon their natural armour type)
In general creatures in this group should have 1d8 hit points per HD.
Tier 2
Monstrous Humanoids, Outsiders, Fey, Magical Beasts, Constructs, Oozes
Creatures in this tier are should not be vulnerable to a maximum of 5 or 6 damage types (typically eliminating vulnerability to the basic damage types - Slashing, Piercing, and Bludgeoning, as well as Silver, Cold Iron, or Adamantine).
In general, creatures in this group should have 1d10 hit points per HD (fey are the exception having 1d6).
Tier 3
Dragons, Giants, Aberrations
Creatures in this tier should in general be vulnerable to only one or two damage types (typically one physical damage type and one energy damage type)
Creatures in this tier should have 1d12 hit points per HD.
The above rules are of course generalisations. Specific monsters may have unique traits that alter the above rules. Armour, templates, and classes can change what a creature is vulnerable to or not.
Have you playtested any of these changes at all?
I've been playing with these rules for about 3 years now. I originally started designing it to make play by email faster (hence reducing the number of rolls required).
Now does anyone have any idea how i can get someone from Pathfinder to read this thread.
I love paizo and pathfinder, but it has its problems (complexity, number creep, balance, etc), and there is a chance it might suffer now that WoTC have brought out a new version of D&D (although i dont like the new edition).
I would love a job helping produce a new version of Pathfinder and i'm hoping the framework above would make a good start. It plays the same as Pathfinder and converting stuff is quite easy so it wouldnt invalidate any existing products.
I really doubt that an unsolicited alteration to their system from a completely unknown source (correct me if I'm wrong) has much chance at all of seeing publication.
Unknown as in from my head, yes.
Well hopefully they will recognise a good idea when they see it
Dazzlerdal wrote: Now does anyone have any idea how i can get someone from Pathfinder to read this thread.
I love paizo and pathfinder, but it has its problems (complexity, number creep, balance, etc), and there is a chance it might suffer now that WoTC have brought out a new version of D&D (although i dont like the new edition).
I would love a job helping produce a new version of Pathfinder and i'm hoping the framework above would make a good start. It plays the same as Pathfinder and converting stuff is quite easy so it wouldnt invalidate any existing products.
I agree with the sentiment that Pathfinder has many flaws that could use some sprucing up. I've love to see Paizo trim some of the fat of 3.5e from the game, and I eagerly await Pathfinder Unchained. I can tell you put some thought into this. If you truly did playtest all of this over the past 3 years, then great! I'm glad to hear it's working for you. Paizo designers do check out these forums on occasion and sometimes even remark on homebrew material that captures their attention.
That being said, I find your attitude rather presumptuous and arrogant. You lack credentials and you're new to the forums. Your suggestions are a forum post rather than a document. While the amount of material here is not insignificant, I feel like I'm reading the cliff notes. Is there more to this? The suggestion would suit much better if presented in a well formatted Google Document or something. If you want to work for Paizo, I do recommend participating in the annual RPG Superstar competition. Check out the RPG Superstar forums and submit some drafts to the Blazing Nine thread. The forum there has an excellent community of passionate designers that have been trying to take a shot at a freelancer career for years.
As for your content itself, I also completely disagree that this plays the same as Pathfinder. You make a lot of radical changes that alter the way the game feels. For example, one of the major reasons saving throws differ from AC is how the mechanic makes abilities feel. Attack rolls imply an active participation whereas saving throws imply a passive offensive ability. This makes sense, because after a wizard casts a spell, he doesn't really need to do anything. The spell's success depends more on his opponent's ability to resist it. You removed a major part in how mechanics influence the flavor, which is one reason I did not like 4th Edition. Speaking of 4th Edition, I can also tell you took most of these ideas from 4th Edition, such as the removal of BAB, removing saving throws in favor of spell attacks, borrowing terms from 4th Edition, combining all magical skills into one, and even using their ability stat block structure. While borrowing ideas from other games is not a bad thing, this does hurt your proposition because it's not as innovative as you advertise and most people play Pathfinder because they prefer it over 4th Edition. I also see many balance issues here. Deadly Aim is too powerful. Mages can full attack with spells. There's action economy problems with all the multiple attacks a character can do. There's no reason to play a martial character because a 1st level wizard can fight just as well as a 1st level fighter. Mages don't need to invest as many skill points because all magical skills have been combined. Also, why is Psionics here? It's not a canon part of Pathfinder. You also don't explain what happens when a spell or effect targets multiple creatures -- does the assailant have to make an attack roll against each target?
The most important issue is whether or not these changes meet your design goals. Ultimately, I say "no."
1) Combat is not faster and simpler to run because characters can freely make multiple attacks per round. That combined with making all spells attacks significant increases the number of rolls per turn.
2) The proposition actually removes depth rather than add it, because it encourages the mindset that every spell should be some kind of offensive effect rather than provide a non-numeric utility. These houserules also fail to provide martials with new options to solve problems. Nearly all of your feats just make martials better at what they do rather than give them new options. In fact, you given them more obstacles with the more abundant inclusion of damage reduction and vulnerabilities.
3) It solves no balance issues. In fact, it makes spellcasters much more powerful. Mages can now cast as many spells as they want per round. BAB no longer exists to differentiate a class's skill level in combat. Martials have less hitpoints to survive lethal combat. While you provided some vague suggestions for the fighter, mages benefit much more from all of your changes rather than martials.
4) The new rules are not simple, because they change many fundamental aspects of the game and invalidates or breaks existing content.
Overall, I can't say I support your proposition.
These are the cliff notes, but not wanting to get sued i cant just go posting the whole documents. And i didnt mean to sound arrogant, i'm just posting what i have.
Going with the points raised.
1)Lower hit points and damage vulnerability means that combat rarely extend beyond 5 or 6 rounds. Making a spell an attack results in the same number of rolls its just that instead of the defender rolling a saving throw, the attack rolls an attack roll (and the defender rolls nothing). And since the defender makes no rolls in general the number of rolls made is halved (no AC or CMB roll).
2)Making all spells attack was an attempt to include spells into the same mechanic as ranged and touch attacks. Feats can now be applied to spells as well and it means you dont need an entirely separate set of feats to augment spells. I have feat trees for spells as well and other core abilities.
One problem with 3.5 and Pathfinder was that you get a list of abilities as long as your arm that can only be used in specific situations. So a feat that allow you to make a special attack that can stun, another feat that allows you to make another attack that deals continuous damage, andother feat that allows you to make another attack that deals fire damage.
By lumping all those feats together so they all augment power attack with that ability, the fighter specialises to enhance his preferred ability. He will choose to use that most often, but in the instance he comes to an encounter that he cannot use his preferred specialised ability, he is less effective. The choice becomes a tradeoff between specialising in one core ability or gaining a number of core abilities that are less effective.
Either way the list of abilities is reduced but the number of options remain the same.
3)With BAB gone, a character survives based on his ability scores. A fighter will be better at fighting because he will invest his ability scores into Strength, Constitution and Dexterity. A wizard will not be as effective because his ability scores will go into Intelligence (and maybe Dexterity and Wisdom). Further the removal of BAB and the lowering of ACs means that armour and equipment is more important so again a fighter is more effective at fighting because they can wear and invest in better equipment (whereas a wizard is more focused upon spells and cannot wear armour).
A fighter can down an opponent with one or two swings at 1st level, a wizard can do the same (which is how it works now). At later levels a fighter does less damage when compared to a spellcaster and again that hasnt changed. What has changed are the amounts of damage. So a spell is limited to 1d6 per spell level.
What has changed is that a spellcaster now has a chance to overcome a 20th level fighter's fortitude save or AC and we dont need additional rules for ranged touch attacks. Classes are not punished for bad choices by them becoming ineffective in combat or indeed anything else, therefore there are no bad choices (or maybe they are less bad choices). Because the numbers are all lower the playing field is more even so to speak, but thats just my experience of playing with the rules.
And if you notice i changed the number of bonus spells. Its not an amount per spell level, its a total so you have to choose which spell level to split the bonus among. So yes a 20th level mage could memorise 7 magic missiles and fire them all off in a single round using a full attack action. He would however incur a -12 penalty on all attacks, and since his attack bonus is largely dependant upon his Int bonus (+ other bonuses) chances are he will only be able to hit an unarmoured orc if you are lucky.
The same goes for a fighter. You can choose to make 20 attacks a round with a full attack action (imagine just swinging a sword wildly in the air at an opponent), but with a -18 penalty on attack rolls you arent going to hit anything unless the opponent puts his head in the way.
4) And no system is 100% compatible, if it were it would be exactly the same system, but if you had a monster in pathfinder i bet you could convert it to the above rules in a few moments without any difficulty. Try doing the same to 4th edition.
I think its best explained with an example.
So take a fighter with strength 18 a longsword and chainmail against an orc in leather armour.
The fighters attack roll is 1d20+4 (assuming he hasn't taken any feats to augment his attacks because it isn't necessary. The orc's AC is 11 (+1 from the leather). If the fighter hits he does 1d8+4 damage and the orc is vulnerable to slashing damage so its +50% damage.
A wizard with Intelligence 18 and lesser orb of fire against an orc in leather armour.
The wizard's attack roll is 1d20+4 (again assuming the same as a fighter). The orc's AC is 11 (its a targeted spell so it attacks AC). If the wizard hits then its 1d8+4 damage and the orc is vulnerable to fire so its +50% damage.
Both the wizard and the fighter can score critical hits. And if you wanted to you can now have enchanted wands (+1 to +5 like enchanted swords).
At later levels when a wizard gets access to a higher level of spell he can do an extra 1d6 damage with the highest level spell, but that damage is generally limited to 9d6 with a 9th level spell instead of the level scaling damage at the moment which can go as high as 20d6. But that wizard could be finished off with an arrow or two or a single sneak attack.
Yes the characters are more vulnerable to energy attacks but this can be overcome with spells, magic items, and even class abilities (many of the archtypes granted energy resistance and if you use the changes to classes they can pick what they want). But even then a 9d6 9th level fire spell is going to have trouble finishing off a 20d10 hp fighter.
Combat is now more deadly (hence faster). D&D next is also deadlier, and from personal experience later levels of pathfinder can become an endurance test sometimes lasting into round 20 or more. Whereas by exploiting a vulnerability you could finish a fight rather quickly. That brings in a tactical aspect as you can alter the vulnerabilities of boss encounters which forces the players to experiment or do research on their enemy beforehand.
Everything else works the same, you gain magic items, class options, and feats to improve your statistics and gain new abilities. But if you don't choose to put every single feat into spell focus, spell specialisation and spell penetration you still have a chance of hitting an enemy (and there is always a chance to hit because you can score a critical).
Dazzlerdal wrote: These are the cliff notes, but not wanting to get sued i cant just go posting the whole documents. Why do you not have legal authority to redistribute your own work?
Dazzlerdal wrote: And i didnt mean to sound arrogant, i'm just posting what i have. I apologize for the accusation. When someone feels so confident about their proposition that they advertise a desire for a company to hire them to rework the game and that they hope the company will "recognise(sic) a good idea when they see it," that leaves a bad impression. Especially when the work hasn't been thoroughly peer reviewed yet, and the person in question has given no credentials to their qualifications and experience as a game designer.
Dazzlerdal wrote: 1)Lower hit points and damage vulnerability means that combat rarely extend beyond 5 or 6 rounds. Making a spell an attack results in the same number of rolls its just that instead of the defender rolling a saving throw, the attack rolls an attack roll (and the defender rolls nothing). And since the defender makes no rolls in general the number of rolls made is halved (no AC or CMB roll). Most combats last 3 to 4 rounds. The problem isn't necessarily how many rounds, but rather how long in actual time it takes to revolve a combat encounter. Your proposition does increase the combat time because characters can easily attack multiple times per turn. You also did not answer my question about what happens if an attack affect multiple targets. 4th Edition required you to make a separate attack roll against each target, which increases time more than saving throws because you're comparing different numbers for each one, requiring the GM to confirm success for each individual roll. Nothing sucks the fun out of a fireball than having to tediously roll 12 times against different target numbers.
Dazzlerdal wrote: 2)Making all spells attack was an attempt to include spells into the same mechanic as ranged and touch attacks. Feats can now be applied to spells as well and it means you dont need an entirely separate set of feats to augment spells. I have feat trees for spells as well and other core abilities. That's a major buff to spellcasters.
Dazzlerdal wrote: One problem with 3.5 and Pathfinder was that you get a list of abilities as long as your arm that can only be used in specific situations. So a feat that allow you to make a special attack that can stun, another feat that allows you to make another attack that deals continuous damage, andother feat that allows you to make another attack that deals fire damage.
By lumping all those feats together so they all augment power attack with that ability, the fighter specialises to enhance his preferred ability. He will choose to use that most often, but in the instance he comes to an encounter that he cannot use his preferred specialised ability, he is less effective. The choice becomes a tradeoff between specialising in one core ability or gaining a number of core abilities that are less effective.
Either way the list of abilities is reduced but the number of options remain the same.
Your suggested feats don't actually implement this. Also, what feats let you stun and such? The problem with combat feats is that they don't do cool things. Most of them only buff numbers or reduce penalties. The ones that do cool things usually have really obnoxious feat taxes, like Shield Slam and the combat style feats. Your feats don't solve the problem you claim they do. Worse is that ranged builds are now overpowered, don't need as many feats, and a wizard can utilize them as easily as a fighter.
Dazzlerdal wrote: 3)With BAB gone, a character survives based on his ability scores. A fighter will be better at fighting because he will invest his ability scores into Strength, Constitution and Dexterity. A wizard will not be as effective because his ability scores will go into Intelligence (and maybe Dexterity and Wisdom). Further the removal of BAB and the lowering of ACs means that armour and equipment is more important so again a fighter is more effective at fighting because they can wear and invest in better equipment (whereas a wizard is more focused upon spells and cannot wear armour). Your logic is backwards here. If all characters rely more heavily on ability scores, then the characters dependent on fewer ability scores are stronger. A more dependent character has to divide their resources into maintaining multiple ability scores. Like you said, a fighter needs Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution to stay competitive. A wizard only needs Intelligence and therefore doesn't need to invest as much wealth. Also keep in mind that Reflex, Fortitude, and Will no longer scale, while monster AC does due to higher CR monsters getting bigger. So it's not only cheaper for wizards to augment their abilities, but also easier for them to succeed. And they can use these abilities without putting themselves in danger.
Also don't forget that Constitution now only gives a hitpoint bonus at first level.
10th level 10 CON Wizard has an average of 37.5 (6 + 3.5*9) hitpoints.
10th level 14 CON Fighter has an average of 61.5 (10 + 5.5*9 + 2) hitpoints when he would normally have 79.5 hitpoints. That's ~22.6% less hitpoints. In addition, he now has only ~39.0% more hitpoints than a wizard when normally he would have ~53.8% more hitpoints than the wizard. So he lost 14.8% hitpoints in comparision to the wizard.
Again, this system buffs spellcasters and nerfs martials. Why would you EVER play a martial, especially a melee one? Combat is lethal. Martials have less hitpoints compared to mages. Combat feats are easily accessible. All characters have a BAB of zero. Monster AC scales with CR, but not saves. Mages can cast multiple spells at once without Quicken Spell. Martials need more wealth to stay competitive.
Dazzlerdal wrote: A fighter can down an opponent with one or two swings at 1st level, a wizard can do the same (which is how it works now). At later levels a fighter does less damage when compared to a spellcaster and again that hasnt changed. What has changed are the amounts of damage. So a spell is limited to 1d6 per spell level. That's a problem. In Pathfinder, martials excel at single target damage. This is the one thing martials have better than spellcasters: strong, reliable, at-will single-target damage. If you changed that, then that's a bad thing.
Dazzlerdal wrote: Classes are not punished for bad choices by them becoming ineffective in combat or indeed anything else, therefore there are no bad choices (or maybe they are less bad choices). Because the numbers are all lower the playing field is more even so to speak, but thats just my experience of playing with the rules. This is a common fallacy. There will always be better options than others, and even ones that players would consider "bad" no matter how well you design a game and balance competitive options. Also, I can't think of a single class in Pathfinder that doesn't have a useful role in combat, even though that role might differ from character to character. Even the bard can make for a good fighter with awesome combat buffs. In my experience, the biggest issue comes from players not sure how to capitalize on their class's strengths. That's a system mastery problem that your preposition very clumsily (if at all) tries to solve.
Dazzlerdal wrote: So yes a 20th level mage could memorise 7 magic missiles and fire them all off in a single round using a full attack action. He would however incur a -12 penalty on all attacks, and since his attack bonus is largely dependant upon his Int bonus (+ other bonuses) chances are he will only be able to hit an unarmoured orc if you are lucky. Or the wizard could spend one of his attacks to cast greater invisibility on himself so the orc is denied his dodge bonuses. Or the wizard could alternate between true strike and enervation. Or the wizard could cast 7 spells that don't require saving throws to be useful. Or cast spells that have delayed saving throws so he doesn't have to take those full-attack penalties. I'm not even thinking very hard to figure out how to break this system. This whole system is broken and completely throws action economy out the window.
Dazzlerdal wrote: 4) And no system is 100% compatible, if it were it would be exactly the same system, but if you had a monster in pathfinder i bet you could convert it to the above rules in a few moments without any difficulty. Try doing the same to 4th edition. 4th Edition is a completely different game than Pathfinder. I don't want to "take a few moments" to convert a monster. I can take a 3.5e monster and run it in Pathfinder as is with a -1 CR. Revised mechanics don't come up often (CMD, Concentration, etc) and can be ad hoc'd with ease. Converting content to your system, I have to recalculate every monster's hitpoints, AC, attack bonuses, and saves, which are the most referred to parts of a creature in combat. If I fail to do this extra prep time, the PCs end up facing a monster way beyond their level.
Overall, I see a lot of problems with your proposed changes. The math and numbers are sketchy. It throws action economy out the window. It deincentivizes players from martial classes. It gives mages much more options. Converting monsters and spells is a lot of work. And it doesn't solve any of the problems as advertised.
Also, why do you use 4th Edition, D&D Next, and hypothetical scenarios to support your design? You said you playtested these rules for 3 years. Can you provide any actual data? How have your players faired with these changes? Did they find them more fun? Did they tend to prefer some classes and options over others?
I admit my criticism is harsh, but you explicitly said you wanted to be taken seriously as a potential hire in professional game design.
Well as before i will just go with an example to show how it works.
First is pathfinder.
So level 20 fighter versus a balor. To make things simple the fighter has no feats, no class abilities, no magic weapons. Just his BAB and save bonuses from his level.
The balor has AC 36. The fighter gets a +20/+15/+10/+5 attack bonus, and lets assume he has 20 Str
The fighter can only hit if he rolls an 11 or more and he can only use one extra attack because any attacks past that require a natural 20 to hit so its not worth the effort.
A level 20 wizard versus the balor. Same setup, no gear, no feats, no abilities and Int 20
The balor has saves of Fort +29, Ref +17, Will +25
The wizard's DC for a 9th level spell is 14 so he cannot hit the balor with any spells unless he has invested heavily in feats and magic items to improve his DC (or the balor rolls a natural 1). This makes the wizard completely unusable against high level monsters unless he makes very specific choices. Furthermore his lower level spells will be even further hindered forcing him to use his most powerful resources all the time (or he has to memorise ranged touch attack spells).
Once a wizard runs out of spells of the appropriate level to hit the monster they are facint the wizard is completely useless unless he has buffing spells (and the player might not want to have buffing spells so he shouldnt be forced).
The wizard also needs to overcome his spell resistance which is essentially a second save for some spells.
A level 20 rogue versus the balor. Same setup, Dex 20.
The rogue has a BAB of +15/+10/+5. She can only hit on a roll of a 16 or better and cannot use any extra attacks or use dual wielding because they will never hit.
Now my rules.
A balor has a stats as follows Str 35, Dex 25, Con 36, Int 24, Wis 24, Cha 27.
So his AC 20 (+7 from Dex, +3 from Natural Armour) his Fort save is 23, his Reflex save is 17, his Willpower save is 17
A fighter needs to roll a 15 to hit, a rogue with Dex 20 needs to roll a 15 to hit, a ranger needs to roll a 15 to hit, a wizard needs to roll a 15 to hit his AC with a targeted spell.
A wizard casting an area effect spell needs to roll a 12 to hit, a wizard casting a mind affecting spell needs to roll a 12 to hit.
The wizard can use any spell from any level to hit the balor.
If the wizard runs out of spells he can still pick up his staff and try and hit him.
The wizard now hits more often than before but he does less damage than before (max 9d6), and because he has less spells he is forced to be more savvy with his spells rather than just fire off everything he has in the combat and then the party have to rest for him to recharge.
Furthermore in pathfinder rules the balor has 370 hit points. If you havent got a cold iron weapon or a wizard that took all the spell focus type feats then you will be spending a long time taking down this monster.
In my rules the balor will have about 120 hit points so if you dont have a cold iron weapon or a wizard then you will spend 2/3 less time taking it down. If you do have a cold iron weapon then it will be much much quicker.
Of course in all the scenarios above the lone character will get destroyed by the balor, but at least in my rules all characters have an equal chance of at least hitting the balor. So throughout their progression the characters can choose to completely ignore the combat development of their character and they will still be able to contribute no matter their class and the choices they made.
As for the play testing. Most of the players still prefer martial classes because there is less resource management. The wizard has chosen to focus on pretending not to be a wizard so he has taken feats that boost his archery, and he quite often joins the ranger in sniping foes when he runs out of spells.
The barbarian and fighter are both enjoying the ability to hack down multitudes of low level orcs and other monsters, but they recognise the danger in being surrounded by hordes of monsters and so are not completely reckless (although the barbarian is less reserved and sometimes ends up unconscious because of it). All the characters treasure their equipment and despite approaching level 10, the barbarians favourite weapon is still his first magical greatsword (+1).
I feel under no pressure to continously award them certain treasures in order to keep them alive. The treasure system is now a reward for great deeds and good roleplaying rather than a drip feed of buoyancy aids.
The lower numbers for stats and secondary stats mean that i can still use low level monsters as viable opponents even though the party are approaching level 10. When clearing out an evil mastermind's fortress the party are still wary of charging in through the front door because they know they are not invulnerable. The wizard prefers to use his mid level area effect spells to wipe out large groups, and the fighter and barbarian often kill 5 or more opponents in a full attack action, but they still take some damage from each group. And even that +2 buff to Strength from a level one spell is still appreciated so the wizard values all his spells rather than just the high level ones.
Rather than focusing on combat i have encouraged them all to thematically develop their characters towards the vision they have of their character rather than towards combat effectiveness. The rogue focuses on two weapon fighting and wielding a sword and dagger allows her to overcome most creatures because she has access to weapons with two different damage types (slashing and piercing) and so can exploit more vulnerabilities.
The dwarf fighter deliberately chose to have a low dexterity score and plays with a damaged leg, but wearing heavy armour overcomes his disadvantage and he feels no more in danger than any other character(and still uses a repeating crossbow for ranged combat with some effectiveness).
With the class options allowing them to choose abilities from all archtypes none of the characters have yet felt the need to delve into any prestige classes.
And none of the players notice a difference in the rules, they all still perform combat manoeuvres, make attack rolls, take full and standard attack actions and use skills. Even the spells were an easy adjustment once i explained they worked the same way as attacks. Everything else in the rules is up to me as the DM to understand.
And if i want to add class levels to my monster i dont have to worry about his saves and defence exceeding the capabilities of the party because class levels do not now increase BAB and saves.
Okay, your scenario:
In Pathfinder, an non-geared fighter has a 55% chance to hit a balor? That's actually pretty good, especially for a class that relies on good gear to stay competitive.
This scenario ignores a very crucial fact concerning the wizard. Yes, a wizard would struggle to affect the balor with some spells because outsiders are naturally resistant to magic and have great Fort/Will saves. However, you fail to mention that a wizard only needs a 5 or higher to hit the balor with a ranged touch attack. A non-geared wizard has a +15 and the balor has a 20 touch AC. He needs an 11 to beat the balor's SR -- not ideal but doable. And if he doesn't want to mess with SR and saving throws, he's got buffs and control spells that don't require saving throws. I don't care that a wizard might "not want to use buffs." Versatility is the wizard's chief strength, and the best spells in the game don't require saving throws. Even a blasting specialist knows this.
Onto your system, now the fighter only has a 30% chance to hit the balor. So does the wizard with his attack and saving throw spells, unlike the fighter, the wizard still has more options to deal with the threat and has the action economy to pull it off. Also, saving throw spells usually still have some effect on the targets.
You perfectly illustrated that your system cripples martials by trying to homogenize every class's ability to attack things. Despite you arguing that the removal of BAB wouldn't affect characters' to-hit, you nearly halved everyone's chance to hit the balor and reduced their options to confront it. The wizard still has plenty of ways to contribute to the fight whereas the fighter's only ways to contribute to the fight have been crippled. Overall, the party is much less capable of confronting this otherwise level appropriate threat.
I can even see that with your playtest observations. It sounds like the martials are less capable of taking on threats normally appropriate for their level whereas the wizard goes largely unhindered and has the option to fight just as well as the fighting specialists.
I'm still not convinced that your system does what it advertises. You haven't addressed most of my concerns, and your example only further proves my assertions.
Well you might like the inconsistencies in pathfinder but to me inconsistencies cause problems.
I like simple.
Its a one rule for everything. You make an attack you roll an attack roll.
You beat your enemies defence value and your attack is successful.
Having martial classes roll an attack roll but wizards not is inconsistent (one swings a sword the other hurls a magic missile). Having BAB improve with level but nothing for spellcasters is inconsistent. Having two defence scores against spells (saves and SR) is inconsistent. Having to come up with a special spell type of attack (ranged touch attack) to allow wizards to operate is inconsistent. Having BAB improve at different rates for different martial classes is inconsistent.
Now that the inconsistencies have gone the system is simpler. Now that the numbers are smaller the system is simpler.
And as always the martial characters are still useful because they have unlimited attacks and higher hit points. Whereas a spellcaster has less spells and does less damage than in pathfinder.
That it balances with pathfinder was not my objective. That it balances against itself was (and to simplify it). Every class has the same chance to hit as everything else of the same level. Martial classes (and that includes the rogue) are there to hit things in melee (which disrupts spellcasting and ranged attacks). Ranged classes are there to hit things at range (and thereby whittle down the martial classes and take out the spellcasters), and spellcasting classes are there as artillery to deal the real damage (and support the other members of the party). These roles are a staple of all the d20 games and it starts to break down at higher level for most systems because of the inconsistencies. At level 20 everyone still gets to play their role with the same level of efficiency as everyone else.
Uniform mechanics help system mastery and rule memorization, but homogenization has a nasty trade off of making everything feel samey. It's a trait in 4th Edition that even its fans hated. It's okay if mechanics differ slightly to reflect the flavor differences -- I am a strong supporter of having elegant mechanics reflect flavor. Saving throws aren't all that different -- they're specialized ability checks just as an attack roll is a specialized Strength/Dexterity check. In addition, I already pointed out they're faster to roll with effects that target multiple creatures.
On top of it, many D&D players would completely disagree with your assumption about the roles between melee fighters, ranged fighters, and spellcasters. In Pathfinder and in all editions of D&D except 4th Edition, classes had roles with more depth than how they dealt damage in combat. Even classes that fulfilled the same role did so in ways that someone cannot numerically compare. And when you homogenize how classes fulfill these roles, you remove tactical options, reduce depth, and make each class less unique.
Even if I agreed with you about class roles, your system still has very significant problems. I already illustrated from your example that your system isn't balanced, even with itself. It cripples characters that rely on weapon attacks and makes classes that don't rely on weapon attacks better by comparison, especially when they're just as effective at weapons as weapon specialists.
Oh I didn't homogenise the classes. Merely the framework in which they operate.
All the classes now are freed from the need to balance abilities with BAB and saving throw gains. So every class gains at least one ability per level (wizards, and clerics gain only 1 per level, fighters and barbarians gain 1.5 per level, rogues and monks gain 2 per level). These abilities are drawn from the pool of basic core abilities and also include every archtype ability you can find. So the variation is much greater. You can have a fighter that wields a crossbow and a tower shield, or rides a horse and uses a sword and shield, or one that likes unarmed combat, or another that wears no armour but has oodles of hit points or any variation of the above. You can even have a fighter that excels in diplomacy and intimidation skills and has plenty of hired goons to work for him (20 level 3-4 hired goons are very effective).
All the classes have the same depth because all the abilities from pathfinder are still there and so in their specialised field they are still as awesome as in normal pathfinder (tailored to exactly how they want), but they can also function in other roles just at reduced effectiveness (as opposed to complete ineffectiveness).
That variety also works for me as a DM, I can have a boss monster with levels of classes and he can still be hurt by the players, he can still be killed, but he can also be spectacularly dangerous, and his hundreds of level 1 minions still pose some threat to the players.
And no one is entirely crippled. The wizard with Dex 14 and a dagger may still be able to stab that balor that gets too close with a roll of 18. Give him a dagger +5 and he needs to roll a 13 to hit.
Whereas in pathfinder a wizard with a dagger can only stab that balor on a roll of 20. Even if that dagger was +5 the wizard still needs to roll a 19 to hit.
Now if the 20th level fighter with 20 Str used just a few of his 30 class abilities to improve his weapon ability (weapon training 5 times for instance) then he is at +10 to hit. That means he only needs to roll a 10 to hit and he deals +10 damage with his weapon. If it is cold iron that's a minimum of 16 damage a hit (11 +50%). Ten hits and you have one dead balor. Give him a magic weapon and the balor is in serious trouble. Now that crippled fighter is immensely more powerful and he still has 25 abilities to choose from to give wondrous variety to his character. Does that make him super power - no because he still has his own vulnerabilities and weaknesses and the lower hit points mean that death is only 10 rounds away.
Even the healers are still effective. A 20th level fighter with 120 hit points is still going to be grateful for the level 1 healing spell cast on him.
The way I look at it is given an average highest stat role of 16. All characters no matter their class start out at 50% effectiveness in combat. If they completely ignore combat and focus on gathering a wide variety of eclectic abilities and improvements from their feats and class abilities then they will drop 5% in effectiveness every 2 levels to a minimum of 25% at 20th level. Whereas in pathfinder some classes experience a much steeper drop in combat effectiveness, sometimes to the point of zero.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
