CharlesBrown's page

As you probably know WOTC is introducing a new edition of D&D called D&D Next which is designed to accommodate a design philosophy called Bounded Accuracy (BA). I'll let you google BA.

BA should interest Paizo too, as a module developer and publisher, because there are three implications:

1. BA ensures that the "sweet spot" of gaming is spread across the entire career of character, not just within a narrow band of levels. This feature helps to keep players interested in playing Pathfinder(, or any RPG.)

2. BA increases the feasibility of playing modules outside the appropriate level range. This can potentially mean more revenue because the market of each module is widened.

3. BA eases the development of modules because the effect of inflation in Difficulty Checks (DC) due to gaining levels is depressed. This can potentially mean reduced cost of module development and more robust module designs.

BA can be implemented by making changes to the design of the game, which for Pathfinder is D&D 3.5. If that is unappealing to you, then there is a much easier way that also preserves the game design. Simply use a die that is larger than d20 when making roll checks, like d100 or 2d20. That's it. Get your mathematicians to investigate this implementation of BA.

For example, a requirement of BA is to increase the chance that low level monsters can hit high Armor Class (AC). As you know, AC is a type of DC. Suppose that a goblin with Attack Bonus of 0 is trying to hit AC 19. He would need to roll 19 or 20 on a d20 to succeed, which means his success rate is 10%. Rolling a d100, the goblin would need to roll 59 to 100 to hit the same AC which is now 50+9 (the 50 is based on the mid point of d100). This means that his success rate is now 41% > 10%.

I can make similar examples for Saving Throw and Skill Checks. Check out this implementation of BA. The optimum die to use seem to be 2d20.

If a spell cast 30 seconds to cast, about 80% of combats would be done by the time the spell was finished. Not to mention the fact that no one would play casters because they would say "Ok, I start casting fireball", then the player can walk out of the room for 5 minutes, come back and 3 rounds later when he's ready to trigger the spell half of the enemy is dead and the party is completely entangled with the remnants, the spell is worthless. For enemy casters it's even worse.

30 sec to cast a 9th level spell. That's 9th level spell. If you have to cast a 9th level spell to take down a group of goblins, or if it takes you 3 rounds to cast a fireball then may be 3.5e is too challenging for you. Perhaps a dumbed down version like 4e is more proper for you.

30 sec is probably the longest casting time for a competent player. It may be long in combat but with proper planning it can be executed. Ever heard of invisibility? I would not recommend that you cast a 9th level spell when being ambushed for example. And not every situation require you to cast a 9th level spell. In most situations, a few "at will" spells would be all that you need. Sheesh.

Changing a spell so that it requires 2 or more full rounds of casting effectively means that spell will never be used in combat given the length and variably of the average combat as well as the increased chance of disruption. One full round, however, is still quite usable...if sometimes risky.

IIRC, 1 round is only 6 seconds right? So the longest casting time according to my proposal is 54 seconds or about a minute. With haste and quicken casting, a level 9 spell can be casted in well under a 30 seconds. Considering what some of those level 9 spells can do, the cost in time is not that considerable.

I'm all in favor of rewriting and toning down all spells though, its long over due IMO, and its just fine that Paizo prefers to do it. The only concern is that the amount of work is huge, and if the nerfing is not just right, that's a lot of work for little benefit. My guess is the process will be iterative before the final product. Well it remains to be seen what Paizo will produce.

I agree. It's simple and it's easly to convert from 3.5 rules for the most part.

I too, like the idea of adding the "1/2 level" to the armor class. It keeps an honest challage to an AC at higher levels, rather than automatic hits.

I'm not a fan of 4e after playing it but it does have a few useful ideas. The using and adding of "1/2 Level" to Saving throws and AC is one of them.

I like this idea.

Just to add my $0.02:

1/2 Level for good saves.
1/4 Level for bad saves.

To help maintain class differences.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I can sympathize with the large segment of gamers who intensely dislike Vancian magic, but in this case, rather than most things remaining the same, the proposal unfortunately creates a fair number of trickle-down effects that all need to be fixed in turn.

The reason vancian magic has stuck around for so long is because it works and it's fairly simple. Sure there are other systems that are more accurate, for example the spell point system is a better model but it's also a little more complicated. Vancian magic is simple and it works. There are people who complain loudly and bitterly about it but in general they are a minority, if it were a more prevalent attitude then the UA spell point system would be more commonly used.

The biggest flaw isn't with the vancian system, it's with the power of the spells themselves. Spells that take even 4 rounds to cast? No one would play casters. People already complain about casters running out of spells and doing nothing. They would be stuck standing around doing nothing every time they cast a spell higher than 1st level... even more frustrating. Kirth pointed out some other problems with multi round spellcasting.

Ultimately if spell casters and martial characters are going to be brought into 'balance' it's going to come from either reducing the impact of higher level spells, reducing the number of higher level spells available, or possible increasing the level which they become available (9th level spells at CL 19?) or some combination of those things. The other big issue is quicken spells and swift spells which gives casters 2 actions per round (or 3 with time stop).

I agree that toning down the effects of the spells is another solution to nerfing casters. I am for this, especially with invisibility, raise dead, and ressurection. Those are powerful spells, and they are not even 9th level. However, changing the way spells work and changing the accessibility to spells would constitute a major change, considering that spells take up a large part of the printed text. I'm not even convinced that such changes could keep Pathfinder consistent with 3.5, as some of these spells have been around since 1e. We are talking about a new edition here.

I don't think we're actually expecting any of this to get into Pathfinder, we're just musing about the possibilities of DR armour.

As we are already in Beta stage, I have the same thought as well. What you read from me was just my wishful thoughts out loud. Too bad really. The fact that many changes would have to made throughout D20 to accommodate DR could be the leverage upon which Pathfinder deviates from 3.5, for the better IMO.

PS. I have always thought that its odd that 3.5 has AC based armors and yet has non-armor based DR rules like silver, magical, bludgeon, etc. There is a sense of inconsistency here. IMO, the rule should either commit to including DR or get rid of it, no on-the-fence solution. Oh well, I'll start dreaming of 2nd edition Pathfinder for more streamlining.

This would obviously not apply to all spells, either; otherwise, feather fall becomes totally useless, and wall of force fails to offer any defense against a cave-in. And if sorcerer villains needed 5 rounds to teleport away from a combat, none of them would ever escape alive. Etc.

What can I say. I admit to being fallible. Nowhere near as fallible as the average bloke to be sure, but fallible nevertheless. I also admit that there can be some exceptions to the rule I proposed, but isn't there a saying "there's always at least one exception to every rule". Even Magic the Gathering, a very popular game that is the flagship of WOTC, has a rule that allows for exceptions to overide the general rule.

In the end, though, it might be too far from 3.5 for Paizo's tastes

I believe this thread is categorized under "New Rules Suggestions". Whether or not my suggestion is too far from 3.5 is irrelevant. Despite that, I hope that Paizo's Pathfinder would deviate significantly from 3.5 or what's the point of all of this.

OR divide 1st and 2nd level spells as "at-will"; 3rd through 5th level spells as "encounter" and higher ones as dailies :)

Actually I like this suggestion more than I like my own. Obviously the two converge, but this is more neatly stated.

If I was on the D&D 4e design team, I would recommend this idea without hesitation. The simplicity and functionality would definitely fit with the goal of the project. However, with 4e already out there, I'm guessing that lawyers at WOTC would have something to say if Paizo ends up using this idea.

CharlesBrown wrote:

Introduce speed factor in casting of a spell where Speed Factor = the number of rounds it takes to cast = the level of the spell. eg., magic missile has a speed factor of 1 while fireball has a speed factor of 3. This assumes that wizards have unlimited usage of all spells in their spell book.

So, I can take Extended Spell and Persistent Spell, and then start the day by casting every buff spell I have on every member of the party? And they'll last all day? And I have unlimited high-level slots to do it with? I don't think I like that.

I did say in my original post that "this may need some restriction". So you don't like unlimited buffs? No problem. There are many ways to fix this:

1. Introduce the rule that spells usage may attract unwanted attentions as I mentioned originally.

2. Instead of having slots of spells memorized as per day, have slots of buffs per day per person.

3. Caster fatigue. ie., Caster may cast only X lvls worth of spells per day before needing rest.

And that's just off the top of my head at the moment. What's important is that with my suggestion, wizards are not wimps and low levels but they are nerfed at high levels and everything else remain the same.

7. This rule will help make D&D 4e redundant.

I have another suggestion:

Introduce speed factor in casting of a spell where Speed Factor = the number of rounds it takes to cast = the level of the spell. eg., magic missile has a speed factor of 1 while fireball has a speed factor of 3.

This assumes that wizards have unlimited usage of all spells in their spell book. ie., they do not need to memorize their spells per day (good bye Vancian system at last), and they can cast any spell any number of times (this may need some restriction like magic usage may attract unwanted attentions, as in those of Cowl Wizards in Balder's Gate II).

Analysis:

1. If there are feats to reduce speed factor, low level spells can become "at will" as in 4th edition D&D.

2. Because wizards have at will spells, they are not wimps at low levels, and they are easier to play.

3. Because high level spells have long casting time,
- they effectively become short "rituals" as in 4th edition D&D.
- there is higher chance of disruption.
- wizards need fighters to help prevent disruption.
- wizards have lower rate of spell casting.
- high level wizards are nerfed.

4. Spell effects are not nerfed.

5. Wizards don't lose their spells repertoire, as is the case in 4th edition D&D.

6. This rule can be applied with little change to the D20 rule.

DR in armors will not just add to book keeping in the sense that extra dices will have to be rolled and more numbers will have to be tallied. It will have impacts throughout the rest of the D20 rule set as well. People in this forum have already mentioned the consequences to Power Attack and Expertise. Think about how DR in armors can affect the monster manual.

If AC is to be transferred to DR, then AB would not be as important in differentiating fighters from other classes as it is in D20. ie. if AB is not critical in combat, then a wizard can simply buff his dagger and fight as fighters, and fighters would become redundant. In effect, DR in armor would kill one of the pillars of D20.

My point is that this natural DR rule will not simply be a supplement to D20 as it can lobotomize much of the rules. If Paizo is to include DR into armors, it should be fully committed to making changes throughout D20, and not simply make the DR as an optional rule. Having said that, I am still in favor including DR and I hope that Paizo would make such a commitment.

The Candlekeep admin moved my post to a different location. Here is the
the new link:

http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11264

This is my idea of a way to include 4e type powers in D&D 3e rules. Interested in making actions combos like precise powered cleave attacks? Check out my idea in the above link.

Included is also my idea on how to fix the Vancian spell system if you are interested.

RE: stealing ideas from 4e.

As I mentioned above that I like 4e powers. I posted an idea for applying them in 3e. Check here: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11265

There is also a my fix for the Vancian spell system if you are interested.

I actually like some of the ideas in 4E, like:
- the implications that all durations are now per encounter. No more worrying about a buff running out too early. No more having to keep track of a duration of a buff.
- the idea of powers which are really actions combos.

There are some of the stuff in 4e that I think are just awful, like:
- goofy powers. Cleric and Paladins have powers heal allies by wacking someone. Buff? Wack. Or how about this: rogues are able to pick pocket once per encounter. No kidding.
- healing surges. PHB: "You can dig into your resolve and endurance to find an extra burst of vitality. In game terms, you spend a healing
surge to regain some of your lost hit points, and you focus on defending yourself." What? How?
- all minions have 1 hit point each. Its the rule. huh?
- monsters have no powers the way characters have powers. They have special abilities, but they have no flashy combination attacks like characters.
- more goofy powers. Fighters have at will powers that deal automatic damage. Cleave: you hit a target and an adjacent target takes STR mod damage. Sure Strike: you deal at least STR mod in damage, hit or miss.
- rangers are now superstars. Level 1 rangers have twin strikes which allow them 2 attacks melee or ranged. They get no damage modifier but they have hunter quarry which add +1d6 to damage, which can be improved to 1d8 with a feat. Firing squad anyone?
- wizzards are over nerfed. Enuf said about this elsewhere.

I'm wondering what they are smoking at WOTC.