Abraham spalding wrote:
Oh noes, one would have to think and plan ahead as a spellcaster! The horror!
Some solutions, on top of my mind, just to give you an idea of multiple things you can do:
1. Use a lower level spell that will relieve a fighter a bit, but still provide tension because he knows he's not full on HP, but that he will last a round more.
2. Use Channel Energy instead.
3. Use item instead.
4. Have fighter make a small sacrifice, and drop out of combat so that he could be healed. Which is, well, a classic fantasy scene.
Does it change dynamics a bit? Sure it does. Is it really as bad as you suggest? Not at all.
I'd like to warn that changing both the melle options AND the casting options is not good. That's a double hit to a problem that really only needs one end looked at. I think you run the risk of swinging the pendulum too far the other way if casters get a hit and meleers get a boost.
The thing is, you have to keep in mind how the game changes due to mechanical changes. If you only change one factor in this example, you get two completely different ends of spectrum:
1. If you allow melees to make multiple attacks while moving, you get a highly mobile game, where everyone is running around like a headless chicken doing their stuff. Mind you, it is still not a problem for a wizard to evade the fighter.
2. If on the other hand, you make spells take a full-round action to cast, you get a very stationary game which penalizes any form of movement. Mind you, under this system, a fighter still loses much more for moving than a wizard does.
By combining the two ideas, you change the complete mobility aspect of the game. It also reflects in the game as well. Spellcasters finally become the glass cannons they were meant to be, while warriors do what they were meant to do - lock opponents from moving, make them unable to engage the casters, and protect their teammates while they unleash their powerful spells to change the tide of battle.
Yeah, it brings an added risk to playing a spellcaster. But if you take a look at how many people felt there was little to no risk to playing one before, I'd say this is a welcome change.
The concept I'm currently toying with is:
1. Make standard attack an attack with all iterative attacks, as given by your BAB.
2. Make full attack an attack where you use ALL attacks you have (including off-hand weapons and other natural weapons for monsters)
3. Actually, I don't think I really need characters with bows running around shooting things that will never catch up to them. Make standard attack for ranged weapons = one attack and full attack = all attacks.
4. Add different full-round "attack modes" such as charge (double move, single attack), fighting defensively, all-out attack etc.
5. After reading this thread, highest level or 2 spells should be cast as a full-round action. Originally I was actually thinking of going through the spells and making most of battlefield control, defensive and SoD (with the exception of FoD and Power Words, of course) spells take a full round action to be cast.
6. I also like the idea of eliminating casting defensively and relying on concentration checks to ignore spell failiure chance due to damage.
As far as I've seen, every single thing in PHB exists in PRPG or is going to be in. There's no need for new people to buy original PHB.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Oh good that means you'll have no problem running characters with save or dies from the spell compendium? Because if BC is in effect you can't complain when I pull stuff out of these sources.
I think you and I have a different definition of the word "can". I prefer to think of it as a "I am able to do it, but I don't have to do it".
Again my point regard people's need to pick up these disappearing books to continue to use old modules... or converting them themselves which defeats the purpose of having published adventure in the first place.
Dude. As far as I know, published modules have statblocks for every encounter in it. You can just run it with that statblock. If you really really care about it you can convert it. It makes no difference in the long run.
Skills changed? Who cares. Modifiers are the same even if ranks are not. A monster won't have athletics, but will have jump. Big deal.
Where exactly did I state that PRPG is a fix to 3e? It's extremely ignorant of you to claim I said something I never said. Please don't do it again.
Ok, look. You asked questions, I gave you an honest answer. If your hobby is being snide to people or if you just like to go around and insult people on the internet, please go away. I don't really have patience to deal with people like that.
Sure I might be able to use some things from the old splats after carefully examining each but so many mechanics, spell and feats will have been changed, including the balance point of them (as soon as SoDs where nerfed the who balance threshold shifted) but the reality is I will have to assume most of it doesn't fix like the 3.0 to 3.5 shift, rather than assuming that it does.
I can't help you there. I am one of the people who doesn't pay much attention to the number crunching and doesn't concern himself with too much balance. My view on conversion stuff is totally different.
Backwards compatibility - you can use old stuff with PRPG.
I really don't see the need why Bob, the NPC Fighter that needs to die in encounter #4 should be fully converted to all new feats/skills/abilities of PRPG. You can simply run his 3.5 statblock and players probably won't notice the difference. Yeah, they will kill him a bit easier, but then again, the point of the game in a way is for them to win anyway.
Any old spells, feats, or magic items will likely need the same treatment as they will either be over or underpowered to the new power curve.
Like everything ever before. The point is that you can use them. You can take magical item from The Uninspirationally Named Book of Magical Items and use it with the PRPG if you want.
Now we are told (if we hadn't figured it out already) that the monsters of 3e will also need a rewrite to truly fit with pathfinder.
Unsurprising. Paizo needs a PRPG monster book anyway, since D&D MM is eventually going to disappear off the shelves.
Yes, you are. It is extremely naive to think that PRPG is simply some fix to 3E D&D. It is a system for itself. It will have its own monster books, splatbooks and campaign setting(s). However, being similar to 3E D&D it will enable you to use your old d20 material. Yes, the XYZ feat from Complete Warrior will probably be less desirable for your players. That doesn't mean that they can't take it if it somehow fits their character concept.
Epic Meepo wrote:
Okay, so I just looked at the table of contents for the Tome of Horrors for the first time, and all I have to say is this: Paizo needs to drop every single monster that made its debut in 3rd edition and replace each of them with as many updated AD&D monsters as possible. Period.
Patrick Walsh wrote:
In PRPG it certainly seems that the idea was that paladins follow a specific deity. In 3E it was not.
It has become apparent throughout the discussions on these boards that people have different assumptions of what statistics the character will realistically have at different level. Personally, I feel it is the cause of many misunderstandings and disagreements here as to what is and what is not a problem, or what is and what is not broken and so on.
To that end, I certainly think it would be smart for people to share their standard assumptions of what important statistics they think a character should have by a level - stuff like ability bonuses, attack bonuses/AC, saves and DCs for full casters...
I think it would certainly help everyone understand the other's point of view.
(2) Wealth cannot be transformed into arbitrary items.
This. The easiest solution would be adding a sidebar at the beginning of the magic items chapter, along the lines of:
"Design Intent: Magical Items Pricing
The prices of the magical items found in PFRPG represent relative costs such items would have when bought and sold. While the prices are used in several ways througoht the system, it is not an assumption that magical items are freely bought and sold. While they may certainly be bought, sold, traded and bargained for, such cases are an exception rather than the norm, and the system assumes PCs would gain magical items through various other means through the course of an adventure."
My few thoughts:
1. Good vs Evil conflict has always been a major part of D&D experience for me. Alignment helps emphasize this, as the mechanics treat those who are good and those who are evil differently.
2. Quite a common complaint is that "different people see alignment in a different way". I honestly couldn't care at all if someone here, or anywhere else, disagrees with my take on it. I'm playing with my group, and that what others think about it doesn't influence me one bit.
So, the main "problem" is defining alignment among players of a single group, and honestly, this can be achieved with a minimum of trust and good will on all sides.
3. Alignment does not limit character personalities. Alignment is a label that gets applied onto a character personality when made. Of course a player has a desired alignment in mind when deciding how his character will be played, but it is severely less limiting than people actually think. Alignment deals with the core, the inner layer of character's being, while his behaviour on the outside remains somewhat unaffected.
Therefore, it is quite possible to make, for example, a Chaotic character who is follows strictly his personal code of honour, as long as, for example, he thinks that every person has a right to choose their own path and develop themselves in their own way.
In this example, his behaviour, his personal code and whatnot represents his outward behaviour, while his beliefs form the core of his being - which are reflected in his Alignment.
4. It is true, although a bit unfair, to say alignment limits roleplaying. For example, a choice of lesser or greater evil for a paladin is something that cannot, and should not be played out in D&D.
However, alignment does emphasize other elements for roleplaying. I like to say here that D&D is not a game of hard moral choices, it is a game of hard choices in the name of morals. D&D characters know what is a good thing to do - the questions a good story should put forward is how hard is that deed? What is the personal price they will pay to do it? And finally, do they have the courage to do it?
Thus, it is unfair to say alignment limits roleplaying. It is far better to say alignment encourages a certain style of roleplaying over the other. Of course, different people prefer different things, and someone might prefer a game without alignments for roleplaying reasons, which leads to another point...
5. It is far easier to ignore/remove alignment than to put it right in. That's common sense. So, it should be in, and people who do not like the kind of roleplaying it encourages should feel free to remove/ignore it. Personally, I did it on several occasions, it took literally no time at all, and it was certainly far easier and had far less potential for some imbalance than if I introduced it in the system.
6. Finally, alignment should have mechanical implications. Otherwise, what is the point to it? It is the system's way of saying that Champion of Good can smite his Evil Foe with a grand blow. Mechanical impact of alignment is vital to it being a useful addition to the game.
What I did when I wanted a better control over character's advancement was to focus more on story advancement. Not the "story awards" suggestions in the DMG but more of a "character develops as he advances through the story" philosophy:
1. The campaign is divided into individual adventures. According to your personal preferences they can be related, build up on each other, or completely unrelated and episodic. Doesn't matter.
2. Each adventure is a rounded whole. Sure, the villain might not be defeated, the players might even lose, but must give a definite sense of conclusion. It must be clear to everyone that chapter of the story is finished.
3. Upon passing through such well-rounded experience, the character advances a level and feels ready to face greater challenges up ahead.
4. Now, the trick is that each "adventure" is of arbitrary length and scope. This is where the fine control part comes. Defeating the bandits plaguing the village at level 1 might take a session. Gathering allies among the Senators of the Republic in order to pass a law might be composed of a multitude of adventures, each with its own advancement opportunity. Going into the depths of the Underworld to retrieve the soul of the deceased Princess might be a single adventure, despite it consisting of finding the entrance to the Underworld, passing through the caves where the lost souls roam, gaining favor in the City of Evermourn in order to approach the palace of Death God, and finally convincing the said Death God to release the soul, and lasting dozen sessions.
The approach always worked for us, especially for the low-combat parts of the campaigns.
if it helps anyone, I've recently started describing Law as somewhat of a Conservative - respect for traditions, belief in society, etc. Chaotic, on the other hand, is like Liberalism - free will, self-development, being unfettered etc.
It started out as a joke, but then we figured out it works and is quite simple and understandable to anyone.
As for Good and Evil, if there is any need to determine what the action is, there is always a golden rule: "If you feel a need to explain how is it Good, its Evil".
I'd go a different route and completely change the concept of traps altogether.
As portrayed now, traps have a very low, or absolutely no dramatic value. They are very simple - you either detect it (trap bypassed) or you don't (trap suddenly appears and causes damage). Both solutions are ultimately unsatisfying to the players.
Compare it to how the traps are done in adventure movies - a trap is triggered, the characters find themselves in a tough situation, and then they pull out of it through their own individual skills/luck/whatever.
D&D traps should follow this pattern as well - walls that are moving closer to each other, only to be held by the Barbarian's superhuman strength long enough for everyone to escape; Monk that jumps through a series of wall-blades; Rogue that disables the mechanism while the rest of the party is counting their last seconds; a Fighter that shoots an arrow, disabling the trap; a Wizard that dispels a magical trap or a Sorcerer that blows the wall and creates an exit for the party.
I mentioned this before, but will also add this, for the shake of think tank topic:
Add CHA bonus to damage when smiting.
It really helps at first level, when paladin needs it the most. In a way, class level + cha bonus addition to damage is better than adding additional dice, and most certainly easier.
1. Have damage-dealing spells of all energy types (except, perhaps, sonic, because resistance to it much, much rarer that the others)
2. Make feats such as Elemental Mastery that increase damage of corresponding spells, increase save DCs and maybe even enable them to avoid immunity/reduce resistance.
3. Perhaps make those feats metamagic, to make Wizard's access to them easier, and make them a part of Sorcerer's bloodlines.
1. You increase spell damage.
2. People who feel that its too much are able to house-rule the feats away.
3. The rules help portray archetypal elemental wizards with their own favorite style (ice wizards, fire wizards, etc.)
Although, I still feel that main offenders here are SoD spells, while damage spells are all nice.
Acrobatics (Dex) [combination of Balance, Tumble, Jump]
27 skills in total.
Fitness - Mainly done for the sake of Fighters. Condensing all physical skills into one or two really frees up the skill points from this class. Add to that that all skills are highly situational and largely depend on placing elements that require these skills when creating adventures, and Ride skill is only really useful to a single type of adventurer, while, imho, should be something had by all characters.
Perhaps even putting Fitness and Perception ranks = character levels for everyone and be done with it. These two are really something everyone should have, but rarely do.
I would only suggest a minor twink to Paladin:
Have Smite Evil add CHA bonus to damage in addition to class levels.
Doesn't mean a lot overall, adds absolutely no conversion difficulities, and yet provides a decent bonus at low levels where smite is a somewhat bland class feature while still being non-abuseable at high levels.
On the other hand, my personal view of the Paladin has always been a champion of Good, not a holy warrior of some God. So I'd quite enjoy if he'd lose references to his patron God in class features (such as the mentioned favored weapon thing). Then again, you may see it differently.
I prefer a semi-mystical Ranger as well. My homebrew variant (more based on 3e than on 3.5 version) had a ranger who can chose between favored enemy (for a more mundane stalker/hunter type) or favored terrain (for a magical forester variant). Rangers that picked favored terrain could use a per day feature that enabled them to connect to the surrounding spirits while in their favored terrain, gaining an insight bonus to AC, attack and damage.
People have to be able to do level-appropriate things. The most interesting 3rd level spell in the world is still something an 11th level character is going to ignore.
3rd level Ranger spell does not need to be equal in effectiveness to 3rd level Wizard spell.
And I quite enjoy Rangers, Paladins and Bards as magic dabblers.
1. Copy iconic elemental spells into generic elemental spells of the same level that a Wizard applies an element upon memorization.
2. Make feats that improve efficiancy of spells with a chosen element.
3. Give different bonus to iconic spells so there is still incentive to take them.
It is far easier to bolster the power of damage spells than it is to, say, nerf haste or finger of death into the ground and thus anger a number of players.
Boy, I'm glad I'm not the designer here.
But seriouslt, every single complaint about Arcane spellcaster I heard has been about overpowerdness of his spells. Cast SoD, creature down. Cast Fly, creature can't hurt you. Cast Invisibility, creature can't hurt you. I think if you want to seriously knock power level of a Wizard down a bit, you need to address individual spells.
And yeah, I know how many spells there are. And I know there are deadlines as to when it must be finished. But frankly, if Wizard suddenly found that his best combat option is to prepare damage spells as they are now, his performance would be pretty much equal to the rest of the party.
Devil of Roses wrote:
This would provide some level of flexibility while not infringing as much on the Sorcerers territory. So rather than memorizing four separate spells and being to cast any combination of them a total of four times the mechanic limits them while providing a little flexibility.
Here's a different idea. Accept the fact that flexibility on the fly is not something Wizard has. Instead, he is flexible in that he can prepare for any upcomming encounter.
So have your Wizards be the ones who will try to know what they are getting themselves into before they go. People unwilling to show their face unless they are prepared. They will try to research a place they are going to, or creatures they are going to face, so they know in what way to prepare. They will try to find out what style of spellcasting is the opponent Wizard's favorite, and what spells he uses so they can counter him.
It is not the problem if on-the-fly flexibility is game-breaking in mechanical sense and if if it is, it is on high levels, not on "mage armor vs magic missile" decision level. Giving more on-the-fly flexibility changes the flavour of the Wizard class significantly. It removes the whole aspect of playing a role of a Wizard that people who want to turn Wizard into a walking spell catalogue.
Frankly, I have never heard a complaint about why current spellcasting model should be removed that
To me it always made sense that they'd have to memorize magic missile three times in order to cast it three times, it just seemed logical.
Honestly, I think current D&D spell system is more flavourful, affects the style of wizards in a good way, and provides many more interesting roleplaying decisions than most other systems, especially spell point systems I've seen proposed again and again.
Monk - Give them martial attacks which go for Touch AC through feats which have some of the monk abilities as prerequisites. Add a number of feats that have improved unarmed attack as a prerequisite that raise attack bonus and add additional effect to the attack, but have a situational prerequisite (triggered when charging, grappling, bullrushing) will help alleviate complaints about combat capability of this class.
Ranger - This is personal preference, but please, bring magic back into Ranger! Make him to a Druid what a Paladin is to a Cleric. Or at least give an option to do so.
Here are some of my initial thoughts upon reading the PDF: