All of these can work; I'm just suggesting that Bravery shouldn't be a weak bonus against fear effects, especially when your Will Save's a joke :P
Hey, Bravery has five upgrades, so... Horrified, Terrified, Panicked, Frightened and Scared, or make it 3 upgrades to make it Panicked, Frightened and Shaken, if the alternate fear horror rules aren't used.
Bravery has two main upgrades available to almost all fighters, [shameless plug]check out the guide[/shameless plug].
Maybe epic level
I've said my five, but giving non casting fighters a full attack, a standard move, and possibly a free action(such as a catch phrase) in one round might even things out.
The feat tax could be best relieved by folding in the more advanced feats. Power attack fits in the same slot as Cleave. Then if you want improved bull rush, you need a separate feat slot, because Cleave already took the second tier of that slot.
If anyone would like to adopt either of these as one of their five, that would be appreciated.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like 5th Edition already read this thread. :-P
But if I had to fix Pathfinder....
1. Built-in Archetype options. Archetype shouldn't replace baseline abilities, but help refine character options and concepts.
2. Make the d20 king of all rolls. No more 20% miss chance or 35% arcane armor fail rate (or whatever it's called). For a miss chance, just roll twice and take the worst result. For arcane spell failure (that's what it's called!!!), make it a Concentration check.
3. More Constitution skill checks: Concentration, Endurance (replace the feat!), and maybe Labor? Constitution should be used for more than just hit points and Fortitude saves. Maybe as DR?
4. Scalable feats, less feat taxes, more requirement-less combat options, and the ability to make iterative attacks as a standard action. Pretty much anything to make combat more dynamic--but hopefully with not a bunch of extra rolls. Consolidate a bunch of feats, and maybe introduce some demi-feats or traits for levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18 to round out character concepts in primarily non-combat ways.
5. SAD attacks. Strength to attack and damage, Dex to attack and damage, spellcasters using their spell casting ability modifiers to make attack and damage rolls--this would also make cantrips a little bit better, which would be nice.
1. Decompress spells, especially the higher level ones, so that the awesome stuff is still available, but doesn't increase so steeply in the later levels. So 9/9 casters would become (for instance) 12/12 casters, but the 12th level spells would be equivalent to today's best 9th level spells except for having higher Save DC, and so on. Similarly, 6/9 casters would become 8/12 casters. (This goes with +1 on not feat-taxing martials to death.)
2. Offer side-by-side Vancian and Spell Point casting in a transitional period so that the latter can be balanced properly.
3. Make spellcasting progression more consistent, so that prestige classes can have a fixed rate of spellcasting progression that doesn't hose slower-advancing casters that get into them. On the other hand, also make it more consistently MAD (like in the Vancian model, start with Arcanist-style casting with highest level of spell you can learn normally depending upon Intelligence, highest number of spells you can prepare at once normally depending upon Wisdom, and spells per day normally depending upon Charisma, and then classic base classes become archetypes of this that may shave off a bit of MADness at the cost of losing flexibility).
3. Compress partially redundant feats, spells, and archetypes into a much smaller number of things that have various options you can pick. This would also save a lot of space and give a chance to clean up a lot of messy stuff that has accumulated over the years (including a lot of stuff that just doesn't work right, especially with new material, such as Fighter archetypes that sort of have Weapon Training, but different enough so that you can't use it to qualify for Advanced Weapon Training).
5. Make VMC an integral part of the system, but with more flexibility -- when every class and archetype is designed, a set of Class Feats is built into it, that can be taken to get the equivalent of today's Variant Multiclassing, but properly play-tested to get more consistent quality. Also provide the option to VMC into your own class to get more benefits (such as effectively combining archetypes that could not normally be combined).
I could go on, but the specification was just top 5 . . . .
|
It sounds like 5th Edition already read this thread. :-P5e does do a lot of things to improve on the core problems with the 3.X model.
But then it unfortunately also takes a machete to customization and build choice at the same time, which renders all those improvements sadly moot for people who are fans of moving parts.
Yeap, 5E is the "I want to run this system, but play another" edition.
5e is a fantastic low level game, but it lacks the scalinf necessaey to create the necessary gap in prowess between high level characters and low level encounters.
An army is meant to stop being a threat at level 9.
What is "meant" is highly contested. Some folks want zero to supers and others want fantasy Vietnam. Given 5E direction and design philosophy you are probably going to be much more happy with PF 2.0 then I will. IMHO of course.
|
4-Improve stat balance. Everyone loves con and dex, most people love wisdom, int and strength are okayish and no one cares about charisma unless it's fueling their build. It's too easy to dump certain stats and too hard to justify dumping others. The decisions shouldn't be so obvious and characters should be able to get more out of nonstandard stat distributions.
Im not sure I agree with this. Generally I see Cha as one of the stronger stats in the game, but it depends a lot on what Im playing. Similarly with Con and Dex, although with Con, (and Wis), I do not want to go below 12. Dex I generally do without without, simply cant afford it generally.
However, I favor divine classes, so it really depends character to character.
|
1) Combat Expertise: The combination of ho-hum function, a stat tax that takes a serrated knife to martial stats in a moderate to low point buy game, and BEING THE GATEWAY TO HALF OF THE COMBAT MANEUVERS IN THE GAME all combine to make this feat a tough pill to swallow. In my unprofessional opinion, the worst in the game. Gentle house rule changes the requirement of CE and its kin to 13 Dex, since making it baseline just adds another side rule that we'll all forget about.
2) Synthesist Summoner: It gets a rewrite. As it stands, it's paradoxically weaker than the base Summoner while also being far more broken. Change the stat mods to something more like Wild Shape, change the Temp HP to be less exploitative, and modify the class to be compatible with Unchained Summoner. This is my favorite archetype of my favorite class, and I want to see it PFS compatible.
3) 2+Int Skills: Again, unprofessional opinion, but 2+Int skills on a non int-based class (that don't also get Eidolons) feels like a weakness on par with an Oracle's Curse without any of the side benefits. Having a 4 feels like a "baseline" for someone who legitimately calls them self an adventurer. This benefit also goes out to any caster that swaps out their primary casting stat out of Int, as well as Summoners who give up the Eidolon.
4) Mounted Combat rules: Needs a dedicated subsystem, if only to clarify things such as what can and cannot be mounted. Perhaps a mount based Player Companion or a mount section of a major hardcover that clarifies and adds to the rules in the way that Ultimate Intrigue did for social rolls and spells. Paizo could even add that Unchained Cavalier that was next on their fix-list. And while we're at it, modify the Mount evolution to work for any subtype. Or better yet, nix it entirely, since it exists without explanation and it leaves a gaping hole in logic when someone sits on an Eidolon's back. What, is it covered in butter or something?
5) Valeros gets Power Attack: Seriously, man. Get your life together. People are giving us funny looks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd switch all the races to ponies and loosely base it on My Little Pony, just enough to not get sued.
Surely, no one's thought of that yet.
Design Manager
|
Yeap, 5E is the "I want to run this system, but play another" edition.
I used almost those exact same words to describe 5E to someone just yesterday.
I'd switch all the races to ponies and loosely base it on My Little Pony, just enough to not get sued.
Surely, no one's thought of that yet.
I assume you're aware of this, and that's the joke. Another company did the same thing with Pokemon.
1) Combat Expertise: The combination of ho-hum function, a stat tax that takes a serrated knife to martial stats in a moderate to low point buy game, and BEING THE GATEWAY TO HALF OF THE COMBAT MANEUVERS IN THE GAME all combine to make this feat a tough pill to swallow. In my unprofessional opinion, the worst in the game. Gentle house rule changes the requirement of CE and its kin to 13 Dex, since making it baseline just adds another side rule that we'll all forget about.
Word. I'm glad they've opened up some alternatives, but the fact that the replacement feat has to pretend to be so much to actually work as a replacement shows how unnecessarily restrictive Combat Expertise was to begin with.
4) Mounted Combat rules: Needs a dedicated subsystem, if only to clarify things such as what can and cannot be mounted. Perhaps a mount based Player Companion or a mount section of a major hardcover that clarifies and adds to the rules in the way that Ultimate Intrigue did for social rolls and spells. Paizo could even add that Unchained Cavalier that was next on their fix-list. And while we're at it, modify the Mount evolution to work for any subtype. Or better yet, nix it entirely, since it exists without explanation and it leaves a gaping hole in logic when someone sits on an Eidolon's back. What, is it covered in butter or something?
Totes. The mounted combat rules in general are a hot mess that require you to ignore several existing core rules, infer a couple others, check a few FAQs that provide rulings not based on anything that's actually written in an official book, and then still pretend not to look too closely at what someone's actually doing to make their actions happen as long as it doesn't seem too crazy. And that's before factoring in corner cases like the summoner who apparently needs to make its eidolon evolve a saddle area.
1) Combat Expertise: The combination of ho-hum function, a stat tax that takes a serrated knife to martial stats in a moderate to low point buy game, and BEING THE GATEWAY TO HALF OF THE COMBAT MANEUVERS IN THE GAME all combine to make this feat a tough pill to swallow. In my unprofessional opinion, the worst in the game. Gentle house rule changes the requirement of CE and its kin to 13 Dex, since making it baseline just adds another side rule that we'll all forget about.
{. . .}
Actually, Combat Expertise shouldn't be a feat, just something that you can do (like Fighting Defensively) if you meet the prerequisites. Same deal for Power Attack, Piranha Strike, Deadly Aim, Vital Strike, and any others like this that I might have missed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that on top of combat expertise being a useless feat tax that everybody should get by default, you'd also improve the system by reducing the improved combat maneuvers from 10 feats to 2-4.
I mean, Bull Rush and Overrun have to have different rules since they have different effects, but if you're good at one you're probably good at the other one too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Combat Expertise: The combination of ho-hum function, a stat tax that takes a serrated knife to martial stats in a moderate to low point buy game, and BEING THE GATEWAY TO HALF OF THE COMBAT MANEUVERS IN THE GAME all combine to make this feat a tough pill to swallow. In my unprofessional opinion, the worst in the game. Gentle house rule changes the requirement of CE and its kin to 13 Dex, since making it baseline just adds another side rule that we'll all forget about.
{. . .}Actually, Combat Expertise shouldn't be a feat, just something that you can do (like Fighting Defensively) if you meet the prerequisites. Same deal for Power Attack, Piranha Strike, Deadly Aim, Vital Strike, and any others like this that I might have missed.
I by contrast disagree. I think all that you labeled (except vital strike) should be removed in its entirety. I'm curious, can you think of situations where you play a character with power attack (or one of the similar), and there's a situation where you do not use it? How common are such situations? Do you know whether you should be using power attack or not before hand?
I don't have the play experience to back up this opinion, but it seems to me that all these abilities are just always on because they usually add to your average dpr. At which point, are they any more flavorful than just the flat +2 from weapon specialization? They have the same effect.
^Not sure where you're disagreeing, unless you mean that you want them to be always on. Always on would be bad for somebody (especially if not full BAB) who was up against something with a really high Armor Class. You figure out whether you should be using Power Attack or not by experience with similar enemies.
I think he is saying that he doesn't want them as options at all that they are not necessary. just balance the system so you don't need a feat that gives a penalty to hit for a damage bonus.
There could be a Combat Maneuver Mastery feat that gives you +2 to your CMB, +2 more for each +4 or +6 of BAB you have or something.
Then you don't have to mess around with coming up with a different system for CMB/CMD. And it would help solve the problem of CMB not scaling well with CMD. And it would just cost 1 feat.
|
|
Word. I'm glad they've opened up some alternatives, but the fact that the replacement feat has to pretend to be so much to actually work as a replacement shows how unnecessarily restrictive Combat Expertise was to begin with.
Yeah, it's one of the reasons why I really like the Brawler. It's as if Paizo realized just how troublesome needing 13 Int would be, so they just nixed that. Hell, I'll even give a respectful nod to the Swashbuckler for doing that, and that's a class I strongly dislike. So much so that it would have been in my 5 list of things that got to change if it weren't for the fact that they're pretty popular in my area.
Totes. The mounted combat rules in general are a hot mess that require you to ignore several existing core rules, infer a couple others, check a few FAQs that provide rulings not based on anything that's actually written in an official book, and then still pretend not to look too closely at what someone's actually doing to make their actions happen as long as it doesn't seem too crazy. And that's before factoring in corner cases like the summoner who apparently needs to make its eidolon evolve a saddle area.
Does Ride-By-Attack even allow you to ride by your opponent as you charge? That's how I've seen DMs run it. Otherwise you need to either kill the target in the first blow (not entirely out of the question for some classes) or have your mount succeed at an Overrun maneuver to keep going.
Actually, Combat Expertise shouldn't be a feat, just something that you can do (like Fighting Defensively) if you meet the prerequisites. Same deal for Power Attack, Piranha Strike, Deadly Aim, Vital Strike, and any others like this that I might have missed.
Ehhh. I used to think that way, but I still feel like the normal combat rules have enough detail as is. I'm fine with CE as a feat tax, just loosen up those prereqs.
But honestly? I wouldn't mind all that much. I mean, it's bad enough that the combat maneuvers require it, but CE sneaks its way into other feat chains uninvited. Like Whirlwind Attack. Go home, Combat Expertise, no one invited you.
Word. I'm glad they've opened up some alternatives, but the fact that the replacement feat has to pretend to be so much to actually work as a replacement shows how unnecessarily restrictive Combat Expertise was to begin with.
Yeah, it's one of the reasons why I really like the Brawler. It's as if Paizo realized just how troublesome needing 13 Int would be, so they just nixed that. Hell, I'll even give a respectful nod to the Swashbuckler for doing that, and that's a class I strongly dislike. So much so that it would have been in my 5 list of things that got to change if it weren't for the fact that they're pretty popular in my area.
Totes. The mounted combat rules in general are a hot mess that require you to ignore several existing core rules, infer a couple others, check a few FAQs that provide rulings not based on anything that's actually written in an official book, and then still pretend not to look too closely at what someone's actually doing to make their actions happen as long as it doesn't seem too crazy. And that's before factoring in corner cases like the summoner who apparently needs to make its eidolon evolve a saddle area.
snip
Mental inventory. Just wave the int requirement, and make it a mental inventory item. A first level fighter could take that as their minimum one thing and be a rock in all other areas.
As for mounted combat, isn't it already about the ride skill? You already heard the arguments about how a dog isn't a riding animal. Wrong universe! You can ride an animated sawhorse. Removing that is a minor errata.
###
XP, I have a problem with xp, but unlike others, my problem isn't with xp existing, in fact I like it. No, my problem is with how xp is earned. XP should not be earned by kills, rather xp should be earned by achieving goals.
For example, a goal might be to get past a guard. If xp is the same for getting past the guard, regardless of how you do it, then it opens the wah for players to choose how they want to bypass the guard. They might sneak past, fight their way through, or talk their way in, and each method is equally viable as far as xp is concerned.
###
Classes, I hate classes with a passion.
###
Rules as guidelines. 3.x constantly reiterated how the rules were mere guidelines that should be bent to suit whatever situation was encountered, and while the rules weren't perfect, they did often seem designed with being mere guidelines in mind.
Unfortunately, no amount of encouragement from the books seemed to get the idea into player's minds that the mechanics were not solid rules to be followed to the letter the way they would be in chess. This is mostly a player mindset problem.
But pathfinder seems to have in some ways have gotten worse about it, making it harder to bend the rules and designing new rules as though they are true rules and not guidelines, and yet they also removed a lot of the rules support for things like npcs and such in the name of making it more flexible in those areas, which completely removes the benefit of having those guidelines in the first place.
^Not sure where you're disagreeing, unless you mean that you want them to be always on. Always on would be bad for somebody (especially if not full BAB) who was up against something with a really high Armor Class. You figure out whether you should be using Power Attack or not by experience with similar enemies.
As Vidmaster7 said. I don't think power attack & friends even need to be options (and then balance the bestiary against the lower dpr, or add new dpr enhancing feats). It always seems like a false choice where a full bab class (or druid or magus) that took power attack will always be using it because it (almost) always adds to average dpr. And if those who take power attack do always use it, it's no longer a "choice" and becomes no different than weapon specialization.
|
Design Manager
|
As for mounted combat, isn't it already about the ride skill? You already heard the arguments about how a dog isn't a riding animal. Wrong universe! You can ride an animated sawhorse. Removing that is a minor errata.
It's a lot to get into here, but the basics are: Nothing in the Ride skill says it overrides the Handle Animal skill, so it's not even possible to charge without a Handle Animal check RAW (since charging is a type of attack), which means right out the gate that the only people capable of performing a mounted charge are those with animal companions. Then there's the fact that the stipulation on needing to charge to the nearest square from which you can attack an opponent is at best confusing and at worst means that things like Ride-by Attack don't actually work the way they seem intended to. There are many more issues regarding mounted combat, but this isn't really the place to discuss them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Posted this in the Other Forum where same question came up in Subject..
Worth repeating here
My top 5+1 to change about Pathfinder
1. Need Digital 1"=5' Scaled maps for Adventures for Digital Display. 2 versions...grid and No grid
2. Needs printed 1"=5' Scaled maps for encounters in adventures.
3. Need a Digital Atlas. Which is zoomable World to encounter (Think Forgotten Realms Interactive Atlas..
4. City Directories....With Details like Leaders and Notable Citizens and of Portraits of those people, and of Cource Maps of those cities and Key locations get a 1"5' scale battle map. History of the city. History of People there (Such as in The Dragon's Demand story of Belhaim)
5. Histories and Legends.. people and places.
6. 3d printables of all monsters and personalities
Didn't realize those were requirements. I must've been playing wrong this whole time. :)
Didn't realize those were requirements. I must've been playing wrong this whole time. :)
You can talk about it here. :)
Wish I could list more than 5 things. Mind you, I'm happy with PF the way it is, but if I were to change things there are some options I'd like to see implemented.
Hey, I'd like to see them all. I'm working on something myself, and I'd like to see as much as ypu're willing jot down.
Of course, not everyone wants the same thing, but useful none-the-less.
If you're curious, I'm trying to make a d20 that can grow in versatility with 20-40 levels while staying in the same tier (such as gritty [which will be default], superheroic, high fantasy, etc). Though I might be including some other tweaks, like using the bell curve variant, etc.
Yeah, extensible advancement generally works better in systems where you "spend" accumulated XP to buy things, the price of which goes up as you buy more and more ranks in whatever. That keeps people from mastering everything they'd find useful to master, but still progressively improving.
The "you gain a level, so now you're better at everything" model is precisely the wrong sort of system for sorts of games that are capable of scaling appropriately for as long as the game happens to go.
Levels don't have to be like that. All a level is, is a mark of advancement. There is no law of the universe that says levels must advance a character deeply.
That said, the point is to allow the use of existing classes and d20 material. The trick is keeping the numbers within a narrower range.
I'm making it as a simpler to create system that I intend to publish for the experience.
I have a deeper system that I'm creating from scratch that does away with things like classes. I may or may not include a form of levels, but if I do have them, they won't be levels like d20 where lots of things are improved at once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I'd like to see them all. I'm working on something myself, and I'd like to see as much as ypu're willing jot down.
I don't hate classes, but I'd prefer just a 2e Skills and Powers approach to building a PC. Just have a really large book containing all feats, skills, spells, abilities, etc to date and a point system to buy them with, with each type of ability costing a certain amount of points. You could start your campaign by allowing characters to have set amounts of points (like Mutants and Masterminds) and then use those points to build whatever you want. Yeah, that's the biggest change I'd make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Coming in late...
The trick with Pathfinder and changing things within it is finding the balance that improves play, but still keeps it feeling like Pathfinder. Too much change and the various publications and adventures become as much (or more) work to convert to the system as to a different system.
More seriously; I don't find 5th Edition a replacement for Pathfinder. It is good (or even great) for a one-shot, but for a lasting campaign the oversimplification and lack of support/options feels stifling and cramped - especially as a GM.
For me, the top five are as follows:
1) Streamlined and Expanded Skills
Remove "Take-20" and "Take-10", implement a "Take-5" that you can always use (i.e. if you can succeed 80% of the time, you can always succeed, rather than 55%), and minimize retries, akin to the "let it ride" mechanics of Burning Wheel; Simplify skill use with regard to modifiers/movement (e.g. no run up needed to jump); Lower overall DCs to permit characters with high skills to achieve things that would otherwise require low level magic; Overhaul the social skills to all be opposed checks, rather than flat target numbers.
The skill system of Pathfinder is good, but not great. Part of that is baggage and overcomplication from earlier editions, and part of that is the assumption that without (a limited definition of) magic a character cannot be a fantasy hero.
There's a few things wrong with the concept that a martial character - i.e. one without magical class abilities- should not be able to do things that a 1st or 2nd level can, no matter how many skill ranks they possess.
One is that of balance; As the game progresses and magical escalates, having skills be shackled to "what you could do in real life... sort of" is not going to encourage everyone to have the same amount of fun at the table.
The other is in terms of fluff; by 5th level a fighter will have had dozens, possibly hundreds of spells cast on them, drank several pints of magically-charged potions, burned, chilled, zapped, half-dissolved and put back together again. Arguing "there's nothing remotely super natural about this character because they can't cast spells" is a disingenuous at best :P. So I like my characters able to do incredible things just with skills, and not needing to have a spell to trump them, or 'permit them' to use their skill.
2) Overhaul Feats
Cull the number of feats down to 1-2 hundred at most. Make all feats self-contained and not dependant on taking other feats. Make feats inherently more powerful, and grant more immediate benefits. Things everyone has, such as Power Attack, Combat Expertise and Dex to damage, should just be baseline abilities*. Add in some martial feats whose prereqs are a number of levels of martial (i.e. non-casting) classes (adding together for multiclass characters), whose effects are more potent and specialised than the general feats.
*Actually, Dex to damage works best as a feat that most PC classes gain as a bonus feat at first level. Reason being is that if you apply it automatically, all the small, Dexy monsters suddenly turn into killing machines, which is one of the issues with 5th Edition in particular - everything brutally maims you.
3) Overhaul Spells and Magic
The magic system is... well, it is what it is. But it doesn't need to be. The trick here is to keep the same core spell concepts as CRB Pathfinder and to rewrite what they do to bring the system into balance with the removal of the 5-minute work day (discussed later). And then nerf the spells-that-trump-skills to the ground (e.g. spider climb makes it easier to climb, but doesn't negate the need for actually putting ranks in the skill - your wizard can't do everything). And lastly... nerf buff-stacking. Hard.
4) Obliterate the Five-Minute Work Day
Increase the amount of hit points received by resting and implement a method of recovering hit points and class abilities (such as spells) during periods of nonactivity other than resting for the day. I.e. You can bunker up or retreat for half an hour to patch up wounds before continuing the dungeon, rather than having to go 24 hours.
The 5-minute work day is, for me, the greatest impediment to good narrative in this game, and most of it comes from the fact that classes have an inbuilt limit on how much fun and awesome they can have per day. I don't think everything should just be at-will, but certainly, a shorter break than 24 hours is needed.
5) Avoid the Magic Item Christmas Tree
The Automatic Bonus Progression touches on this, but it is also built around trying to fill the current niches that are the different bonus types. In my house rules I basically slap down the rule that almost all spells grant the same type of bonus (mage armor and shield being notable exceptions), and thus am running with a much simpler version of the ABP.
Furthermore, rather than including spells and items that boost ability scores directly (e.g. bull's strength) or including such in the ABP... it is easier to simply give a more generous ability score adjustment, but apply an ability score cap based on level to avoid things getting too silly, and push people to spread their stats around (and incidentally mitigate the SAD advantage a bit).
Those are my 5, anyway :)
|
|
If you're curious, I'm trying to make a d20 that can grow in versatility with 20-40 levels while staying in the same tier (such as gritty [which will be default], superheroic, high fantasy, etc).
Why?
I honestly do not understand the desire to have a huge amount of levels within the same tier. If you want a game that feels the same throughout, levels aren't the way to do it.
I tend to agree. Not to bash 4E, but this was essentially one of the core themes behind the redesign of the game, trying to stretch out the "peek" levels of play for a 3.5 1st-5thish range across 30 levels, and I think, and this is obviously very subjective, that is likely the single aspect of the game design I loathed the most for that system. In the sense that that was absolutely not the "peek" levels of play for me, and the entire idea was not for me. I'm honestly sick to death of playing below around 5th level, where everything is just too wishy-washy, there is very little actual importance to anything outside of unsupported flavor, and you tend to encounter the absolute most common fantasy game elements repeatedly. Again, subjective, and that's just my opinion, but around 5th level is finally when things start to be come interesting, and you actually have a decent amount of options to actually start customizing and building to support the fluff.
To answer DM Beckett's question of why I'm doing that,
First, everyone likes particular tiers of play, me I like gritty, others superheroic demigods. But the problem with d20 is either you have to have less fun slogging through lower tiers, or you spend to little time in the tier you like before the ever increasing numbers pulls you into the next tier.
Second, d20 ties the number of options available to specific tiers, meaning that at lower tiers you just can't have a lot of versatility compared to higher tiers. Basically d20 raises both tier and breadth of abilities together instead of separately. Also, in d20, at the gritty tier you will never have a caster with a broad and interesting spell selection.
Thirdly, monsters and items are designed for particular tiers even when they shouldn't be. For example, why can't you have epic kobalds to handle in high tier play, or why can't you face an adult dragon in the gritty tier? Also, why can't your gritty game still be laden with all kinds of neat magical gear?
Fourth, advancement is awesome. But it is a mistake to think that advancement must come in the form of higher numbers. Let fighters advance by increasing their combat options. I.E. as they advance they gain the ability to perform a wider variety of attacks and tactics, such as forcing movement, using combat maneuvers more easily, etc.
Thus, the point is to make so the tier is selected for the game before chargen. Then characters can start at lvl 1 and still feel like whatever tier was selected, and then characters can advance and grow within that tier of play.
Further, by keeping the tier the same, all monsters and items available remain equally viable for use. You don't have to stop using a monster because players outgrew it, nor do you have to wait to use your favorite monster because players haven't gotten there yet.
The point to making it all work though, is that characters learning new abilities and new ways to use their existing abilities can be just as satisfying, if not more so, than adding a +1.
My goal then is to separate gaining new abilities from gaining numerical power, then making levels add new abilities without increasing numerical power. That isn't to say there will be no number increases, but the number increases will be smaller and more spread out so the focus is one growing more abilities instead of simply adding more numbers to swinging the same old shtick.
It is also a chance to implement certain varients I prefer, such as the bell curve and eliminating prepared casting, and to adjust the system to my setting which has very different magic effects.
Perhaps the better question is, what are levels?
The best answer I can give for what levels are,
Levels are when some form of advancement has been attained with a universal or general scheme of tracking advancement is used, such as xp. For example, I consider Savage Worlds to have levels even though the system doesn't actually say levels.
How much advancement and the form it takes is a separate issue and defined by each sytem.
Also, since this is a more simple d20 mod, levels comes with the territory. To remove them completely would be so much work that it would be better to just work on my other from scratch system instead at that point.
Perhaps I should also point out, that the gain of class abilities would be unchanged, only things like bab, hp, saves, dcs, skill ranks cap, etc would be altered.
Ahh, but not entirely. Sure some abilities really can't work in lower tiers, but most of them are fine. Some may require adjusting the numbers a bit (for example, spell damage) but mostly what makes high level superpowered is the numbers, most of which are things like dcs.
As for save-or-die effects, I'll be using something akin to The Alexandrian, the effects slowly manifest and thus several saves can be made.
Other problematic abilities can be fit in by changing how they are handled rather than outright banning them. I still think most abilities will fit as is.
What is the low level feel? What aspects of that are desirable?
While I like the grittiness of low level, I don't like just how limited it is in terms of how many abilities I get. Take casters, I find that 2-3 first level spells in a day feel far too few, more like a 1st year student than an adult that makes a living from it. And rogues have a trick or two and that is it.
This "tiny selection of abilities" is not something I want to keep.
If low level to you means "being starved of abilities" then I'm not looking to maintain that.
You get rid of too much structure, you are left with rules mush.
While some call it magical story time, I don't like how that casts magic and storytelling in a bad light.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't hate classes, but I'd prefer just a 2e Skills and Powers approach to building a PC. Just have a really large book containing all feats, skills, spells, abilities, etc to date and a point system to buy them with, with each type of ability costing a certain amount of points. You could start your campaign by allowing characters to have set amounts of points (like Mutants and Masterminds) and then use those points to build whatever you want. Yeah, that's the biggest change I'd make.
Right on. I want to see an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds.