PD's page

Can I just answer with one word: Magic.

I'll explain in a few more. If magic is rife in your world, you don't have to explain things in terms of lunar cycles, progressions etc. Look at George R. R. Martin's Westeros, with random lengthed seasons that are never explained. It doesn't detract from the setting - if anything, the unexplained magical mystery adds to it. Resist the need to explain everything with modern science, because in a world where magic is real, science may be wrong.

Personally I wouldn't link it to caster level at all. The spell level determines the nature, duration, number of targets, difficulty to resist an effect. But a 6th level Exhaustion is still just an Exhaustion.

However, also note that some status effects are active ongoing: burning HP to escape from Web, for example, shouldn't stop you from having to make another save if you're still in the web at the end of the round.

I think I disagree with the majority here. I'd have bleeding and natural regeneration going on concurrently. Obviously, if Bleed damage < Regeneration rate, then the effect is zero and I wouldn't track the two separately. But it's relevant if later bleeds increase the amount of bleeding that takes place so that it becomes > regen rate.

So, if cloudkill auto-kills swarms due to each creature in it having 1HD or less, does that mean that that it also automatically removes lingering diseases or contagions from areas, providing the bacteria have <1HD?

Who says bacteria even exist? Everyone knows diseases are caused by malign spirits.

thaX wrote:

Vancian magic needs updated, going away from the fire and forget parigam and using the Spontanious casting mechanic, much like the Arcanist without the severly limited spell slots. Point pools, like Ki and such, should be with every class in the next version of PF. Not Mana, mind, but pools to tweak spells and use extrodinary powers.

Like everyone else who makes this "forward statement", you haven't posted a single "why" that goes beyond personal distaste. You don't see Hasbro changing the rules of Monopoly every 10 years, why insist that Pathfinder must reinvent itself every five?

I have to say, I totally agree. For me, Vancian magic is D&D. If I want a different magic system, I go to Rolemaster, or Ars Magica, or Mage, or Torg, or etc.etc. It may not be the perfect system, but it's one perfectly valid representation of how magic could work in a fantasy world (it's also trivially easy to replace Vancian magic with a power point system, as a quick google search will reveal)

Also, blaming Vancian magic on linear martial quadratic mage is nonsense. The reason for spell-casters escalating power is simple to see, and is purely down to spell progression charts. 1st level = 3(ish) spell levels, 20th level = 315(ish) spell levels (plus scrolls, staves, wands, etc). You'd have the same issue if 1st level casters had 3 mana and 20th level casters had 315 mana. The problem is the number and potency of spells that can be cast, not the method by which the number and potency is codified.

How is cloudkill different from a fireball in this respect? Or any other area attack?

It's not totally realistic, but I guess the +50% damage from area effects swarm property helps here.

It's different simply because Fireball is a direct damage spell, which works sensibly against a the swarm as a pseudo-gestalt. For the purposes of taking damage, the swarm is one big creature and any damage brings the swarm nearer to destruction, as it would with single creatures, so the game logic is consistent.

Cloudkill is a HD-based conditional effect spell, and the game logic of this effect doesn't match with the game logic of a pseudo-gestalt. Although as you say, I guess it will take 1d4x1.5 Con damage per round, so if you can keep the cloud over the swarm for 4 or 5 rounds it will take it down. Maybe that's not so bad.

AoO's were in 1e AD&D, just not called that. Still, I get your point.

Off-topic, but methinks "citation needed".

I think you can happily remove feats, if you're prepared to rebuild the classes. Alternatively, you might find it easier just to find a copy of AD&D2 or wait 4 weeks for D&D5.

I think Cloudkill is a definate swarm destroyer. It seems tailor made to destroy swarms. I would house(over)rule that any day if the official answer was no.....

I agree. This is one where I'd overall RAW in favour of common sense. Always a dangerous approach, I know...

This is an excellent idea. If it works out, I'd be in favour of it applying to PCs too. It's a really good way to represent the hero gritting his teeth and pushing himself to break out of the sorcerous glamor that the evil necromancer has invoked on him.

Although perhaps only for gritty Fighters and slippery Rogues. Goodness knows they need the help :)

Going back to the original title, I do think classes should be balanced. But balanced doesn't have to mean equally powerful at every levels. The old paradigm of Fighters>Wizards at low level, and Wizards>Fighters at high level is a solid one. I also like the idea of building weaknesses into classes that other classes can balance out: e.g., make high level Wizards more vulnerable to melee, so that although they're more powerful than fighters per se, they really need a meat shield if they're going to exercise that power.

The problem tends to be in specialisation: it makes sense that a specialised class (e.g. swashbuckler) is slightly better at being a swashbuckler than a generic flexible class (e.g. fighter). But as the number of specialist classes increases, eventually the generic class becomes redundant. Personally, I'd love to see a flexible pool of core classes with feats and multi-classing used to build everything else (ranger is a druid/fighter/rogue; paladin is a cleric/fighter; swashbuckler is a rogue/fighter; bard is a rogue/wizard, etc.). That way the core classes never become redundant, because new classes are just multi-classed archetypes and not actually "new" classes at all.

You also need to define balance. Balance as "equally effective in combat at all levels" seems like a lofty goal, but it leads logically to 4E. 4E is neat, extremely clever, very well made... and lots of people hated it. Balance as "everyone can make an equal contribution to the game" is more abstract, but that's the sort I think we should be looking towards.

PD wrote:

It slightly amazes me that people discussing the merits of AC / armour as DR / HP seem not to have played any other RPGs.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I've played a lot of other systems that lacked AC/hp.

Ummm, yeah.

people = plural of person =/= everyone :)

It slightly amazes me that people discussing the merits of AC / armour as DR / HP seem not to have played any other RPGs. Runequest introduced this back in 1978. There have been numerous variants since. D&D combat is heavily abstracted, and this stems from its roots where 1 combat round = 1 minute, so a single attack didn't represent one swing of a weapon but a single opportunity to inflict damage.

Similarly, the idea of HP being more than just physical harm might not be explicitly stated in Pathfinder, but PF is built on a foundation where this explicitly was the case. Yes, you can argue it's not RAW, but conceptually that's the background that led us to where we are today. It is designed to reflect the fact that a hero dives away from the giant's club at the last minute, apparently not taking any harm: the alternative, that the hero takes the club square in the face and just laughs doesn't match any kind of physical reality let alone the genre that the game is intended to simulate. HP represent a limit resource whereby eventually a hero will get hit, and so he needs to bring the giant down before he gets squished. Used in this way, HP are a far superior mechanic to a more "realistic" low Hit chance, high Dmg model: if the giant has a low chance to hit but when he does, you're toast. This makes the roll of the die much more significant, with a lucky DM roll = death. By abstracting through the HP mechanic, the average number of strikes to kill may remain the same, but you minimise the impact of dumb luck.

If I was to get rid of any mechanic, I'd get rid of DR for any purpose other than requires special weapon to hit (e.g. lycanthrope). In all other cases, it doesn't fit the abstracted AC / HP model. For tough hides, increase AC. For ignores lesser blows, give more HP and/or regen. After all, all characters ignore lesser blows by default - until that very last one.

I can't remember off the top of my head, but you might be able to Flurry using Sai?

One thing you could consider is informally differentiating between Hit Points as wounds and Hit Points as abstracted mechanism representing fighting ability, stamina, luck, or whatever. (the variant Wounds / Vitality system does this more formally).

If the PC has <10HP, they heal at the 1hp per night rate. (these represent real wounds)
Otherwise, the PC heals at Level+CON per night's rest.

This is obviously House Rule rather than Rules clarification, but if you're having an issue with TPK and don't have enough healers in the party, this is a middle-ground.

I always put ranks into Swim, no matter what character I am making. Can't get over bad experience from 1st ever game of 3rd Ed when 3 characters died from drowning. In the first hour of play.

There is no sexual reproduction. When mummy and daddy love each other very much, sometimes a Magical Rea delivers a little baby to them. Real problem if mummy and daddy happen to be in the lower levels of the Ruined Tower of N'Gargz at the time.

We just do max HP at 1st level, and D(x/2)+x/2 (i.e. d5+5, d4+4, etc.)

There's enough random danger in the game without crippling low level characters from the start. And it's not an area that is improved by complexity imho. Roll once. Now get on and game :)

And the evil GM gleefully starts throwing colossal creatures that can 30 ft shift into the game and the real trouble starts.

That's easily fixed. Large+ creatures can't take a 5' step: their size means it's not possible for them to effectively defend against an AoO triggered by movement.

Logical extension: taking a 5' step only prevents AoO against opponents of your size or greater.

Ah, sod it. Just get rid of 5' steps altogether.

Something you could consider is giving an AC penalty (or bonus to hit) in melee if one of the combatants isn't in a position to effectively parry. Let's face it - if you have a sword and I'm standing there waving my hands and mumbling arcane words, there is virtually nothing I can do to stop you chopping my arms off. Similarly with ranged weapons: anyone who tries to parry a mace with a longbow is going to be looking for a new bow pretty soon.

+4 situational bonus to hit in melee if opponent isn't actively defending with melee weapon or shield

This isn't such a problem for spells with <1 round casting times, as a spell caster can easily be holding a dagger or a staff. For spells with full round casting times, it's a real issue. For ranged users, it's going to lead them to question whether it's worth risking a Full Round attack.

I like the idea, but it can be implemented much more simply: Rogue gets +1 BAB per 2 Rogue levels to all sneak attacks.

I toyed with the issue of elves being uber-powerful in a Middle Earth game I ran myself with a home brew system, and then realised that actually it isn't an issue. Yes, elves are much more potent than average people, but they are actually on a par with Tolkien's heroic humans. Give Elves a Level-4 penalty and make all other starting characters Level 5, and you're sorted. Middle Earth doesn't tell stories about 1st level characters (except for Halflings, and they have 9th level Plot Armour, so they only *look* like they're 1st level)

You can keep some magic in - healing spells, Detect Traps, and basically anything that you could treat as a super skill or herbalism. There are some magic practitioners who aren't Istari - Elves commonly exhibit traits that ignorant humans might call magic, though they wouldn't recognise it as such. There is also mention of black magic being undertaken by the numenoreans, so it does exist. But it's not generally of the spell-casting type and definitely not flashy Fly, Fireball type effects. Probably 0-2nd level only.

Dunedain are very much like the Azlanti of Golarian - perfect humans. Again, this could easily be hand-waved away if the starting level is above L1.

In terms of hero points, one way I distinguished humans and Halflings from the Elves and Dwarves is with these. Tolkien writes of the elves being "bound by fate", whereas it's implied humans have the ability to create their own destinies. I felt this was easily reflect in giving humans the ability to occasionally counteract the dice rolls, whereas Elves are always stuck with whatever comes up. Tolkien doesn't say where Dwarves fit on the scale, but then they were almost an accidental addition that don't fit neatly into his cosmology.

However, ultimately a lot depends on when you want to set the game. The parameters of play are very different in 1st age, 2nd age, early-mid 3rd age, etc. etc.

I think the rules are kinda ok, it's just the detail that gets muddled. For me, I follow two basic principles:
1) Passive values are Skill +10
2) Only the "Actor" rolls

So if your PC is sneaking past a guard, they roll Stealth vs. Perception +10. On the other hand, if the PC is hunkered down waiting for an NPC contact to give him a sign, a passing guard might roll Perception vs. Stealth +10. (You could even extend the "Actor rolling" principle and make it "PC rolls", and just assume that NPCs always take 10.)

That creates a basic system that works neatly and solves any concerns about who is rolling and when they do it. I'd also raise things to a macro level, so you roll for each significant action not for every round - if it takes 5 rounds to cross a patch of ground to get past the guards, if you insist of 5 rolls, you're just massively increasing the chance of failure and slowing the action down. Better to drop in a -5 penalty, roll once and keep the focus on the action not just on never-ending random d20 rolls.

Try exercising your acting muscles. I'm a reserved Brit, which means my natural instincts are to make every NPC bland and uninteresting as I am genetically predisposed to being polite, quite and not making a scene.

However, once in a while, I give an NPC a unique voice, take on some physical mannerisms while talking and manage to really get into a character. I find this is particularly invaluable if you have a very heavily NPC-focused scene (like a murder mystery, where you want to establish multiple NPCs as real individuals). And yes, I go over the top, and am a complete melodramatic over-acting ham when I do so. But it seems to work. Last time I did this, the group commented that I should model my next PC on one of the NPCs I set up (we swap between different games and different GMs every couple of months).

Try this, make your NPCs really individual, and you might get the results you want. If not, at least you'll make it memorable when the PCs kill 'em.

What's notable is the terror aspect that you emphasise. What are dragons scared of? Surely not just death, it needs to be something more than that, and not a physical threat because while it can be scary, it's the unknown that's truly terrifying.

Some force or entity that literally rips their souls out of them. They don't know how it works or when it strikes. Perhaps it doesn't just kill them but sunders them from all time, meaning that all of their children completely cease to be as well. And it's specifically dragons, nothing else...

At the end of the campaign, it turns out that the thing the dragons were fleeing from was the 20th level PCs who pursued the last remaining dragons back through time to prevent them ever being a threat again :)

If you've got RotRL already, just start your characters at 2nd level, use the Fast experience track and drop some free healing items (potions, wand of CLW / CSW) into the rewards that the various NPCs award at different times. And if you're worried about Total Party Kill events, and it's not a group who will handle it well, just go easy on them if they declare that they are fleeing and /or in some encounters maybe they'll be captured rather than killed.

It also makes multiclassing weeeeeeeird.

Nah, it's easy. You just have to decide in advance what your next level is going to be* , and then you gain it when you've earned a number of XP equal to New Class XP Total (Current Character Level +1) minus New Class XP Total (Current Character Level).

* as an aside, this is something I've considered house-ruling anyway - if a Rogue wants to suddenly pick up a level of Bard, they better have spent some time in recent adventures singing songs or playing an instrument or generally getting in touch with their creative side.

insaneogeddon wrote:

Well 0 HP if its anything like real death means they dump their bowels. So its wise to drop them.

Actually, 0 hp doesn't mean "death". It means "unconsciousness prior to death." (Otherwise, this is a great and funny point.)

Actually, nope.

Something I was toying with was the idea of letting Fighters automatically damage a targeted opponent. This way, no matter what defences your pesky Wizard has up, your experience means you can always find a way to hurt them somehow and invoke Concentration checks.

Something along the lines of starting at 5th level, full attack action, attack as usual to inflicts minimum of 1 damage regardless of defences, invulnerabilities, etc. Increases by 1 every 5 full levels. Cannot reduce opponent to below 1hp.

If ranged, must make an attack and expend ammunition, etc. as usual. If melee, can be used even if PC is pinned, grappled, etc.

At 10th level, damage can be applied to all targets threatened by the Fighter (as long as Fighter not prone, paralyzed, immobile, etc.).

Would need a lot more detail, but that's the rough idea.

1. Don't boost Fighters, nerf Rangers and Paladins! And all spell-casters. But not Rogues. They're ok :)

2. Ok, Bravery and Skill Points could use a boost. But otherwise, see Point 1 :)

Personally I'd prefer removing classes instead of nerfing classes. Playing a nerfed class is often not all that much fun.

I can understand that view point, but it's a massive generalisation. If Wizards vastly over-power linear classes at high levels, something like reducing access to high level spells still allows those characters to do everything they could before - just not as often. I don't really see how that becomes less fun? I'd argue it becomes more fun, certainly for the group as a whole, but also for the individual who has to manage spell casting resources a little more strategically. (NB: to do this properly, might have to look at other things like metamagic rods and scrolls as well).

In any adjustment, you've got two directions you can go. You can boost weak classes, or you can scale back strong classes. Each is equally valid. PF in general has taken the former approach, but hasn't really solved the problems inherent in D&D3.5. This is why I'm starting to think the second option is probably worth a try.

I think a wizard that can cast 2x7th level spells instead of 5x7th level spells is still pretty powerful and pretty fun. If a player's definition of fun is playing a class that dominates the game and makes the players around him feel like they're unable to contribute effectively, I think that's a bit of a shame really.

Something I'm toying with is simply reducing the number of spells casters can memorise, especially at higher levels: something along the lines of full casters get (character level / 2) spell levels each time they level up. In addition, casters must expend a Feat to gain 5th, 7th & 9th level spells, meaning that they have a choice between more flexibility (crafting, metamagic, general feats) and raw power.

I think you're spot on. I've often thought the impact of relatively cheap and easy magic has been dramatically under-estimated in the typical PF / D&Desque setting. The entire agrarian economic basis of quasi-medieval society could be radically changed by simple magic items, Create Food, Purify Water and similar low level magic. It would be the equivalent of introducing Tractors, industrial weed-killers and plant foods - suddenly huge numbers of people would be freed from producing food, meaning there would be a much stronger consumer and leisure economy. Expect to see Pratchettian cinemas harnessing the power of illusion magic to entertain the masses. At 1sp per person for a 2 hour show, I can think of worse ways for a retired illusionist to spend his evenings...

Crossbows main advantage was they were the first "point n' shoot" weapon. You could do worse than simply give them a +2 to hit.

The RAI seem straightforward. People attacking someone that can't se them get a +2 bonus when trying to hit him.
As it is easier to remember a modifier when it is applied to only 1 character, if only the attacker get the bonus (i.e. only the attacker is invisible) you give him a +2.
If the defender is unable to see all of his opponents instead of giving each one of them a +2 to hit it become easier to apply a -2 modifier to the blind character AC.

You get a +2 to hit someone who can't see you. That's clear enough.

Having said, I can see now that what I'm actually doing is arguing a slightly different thing. It doesn't really make sense to stack them, given that there is virtually no circumstances when a character can be Blinded and yet also see their opponent. What I'm really arguing is that the penalty for Blinded should be -4, not -2, to reflect the fact that being blind is much worse than just not seeing your attacker. So that's House Rule, not RAI.

I'll shut up now :)

Both should definitely stack.

Fighting an invisible opponent, you can't seem them, but you can see the environment in which you are fighting: so no penalties for you, but a bonus to your opponent because of their ability to maneuver around your guard unseen.

Fighting blind, you can't see the opponent(s) OR the environment.

Having said, I can see that the "sighted" qualifier means they probably don't, in which case the penalty for being blind should probably be -4 to AC imho.

One of my worlds tends to have it so many(not all) items, weapons etcetera "bond" with their owners and tend to grow in power as the bond with their life-force grows stronger and the item becomes more identified with THEM; if another person picked up that sword however it might be almost nothing to them. Often the properties it picks up will have something to do with how it's used. But in that I've had someone retire with that same rusty but slightly glowing magic sword they picked up in their first adventure, which had grown with them and was almost as recognized as they were by that point.

I love this idea. After all, a lot of fictional magic weapons gain legendary status in large part because of who used them. This sort of thing could be a particularly interesting add on for mundane Fighter/Rogue classes who are particularly equipment dependent: you don't need to worry about finding a magic sword, just slay enough enemies and let the stories of your prowess spread, and the magic will come to you!

Yes. Next :)

PD wrote:

Ellis Mirari wrote:

If you wanted some kind of "hulking" trait, give them +/- on other size-related modifiers (CMB, AC, stealth, etc.). Something small.

I like that. Something like this then?

Trait: Hulking
Although you are still medium-sized, you are unusually large and bulky. Gain +1 Size bonus to either CMB & CMD or Melee Damage rolls. However, take -2 Size Penalty to Stealth checks. When squeezing, you take a -6 Size penalty to AC and Attack Rolls.

I like this, but I would also kick in that they reduce the penalties for using over sized weapons by one as well.

And maybe give them a feat that will reduce it by another point.

Perhaps rules-wise it's not quite right, because size doesn't actually increase melee damage, it increases Strength (but I was trying to avoid directly doing that). So having +1 to CMB, CMD and reducing penalty on over-sized weapons is probably enough. Could perhaps increase carrying capacity by 10%, but now this is looking TOO good :)

I mean characters in novels never end up with the kinds of weapons they want. This is why we alawys see Conan getting Wands of Fireball and wishing he had a good ax and why we always see Harry Potter swinging the Elder Axe, wishing he just a wand.

If you want to compare with novels, you don't find fictional characters constantly picking up new equipment and swapping it around. Gandalf finds a magic sword at the start of the Hobbit. 1500 pages later at the conclusion of LotR he's still using it. At no point does he find a handy wand lying around, a set of bracers or a headband that makes him smarter.

I think you've misread what I said. My issue isn't with someone requiring a particular item, it's using the justification "because my build needs it". Just do a bit more work and give me as GM a bit more reason than that, but if your reason is purely metagame, forget it.

I appreciate that you acknowledge that this is an oversimplified tool, capable of making monks seem way more powerful than they've seemed to be in play testing.

So I guess my next question is, would Paladins be powerful enough just not having spells?

In my view, yes.

I have to ask, am I the only one who finds all the talk of builds a little distasteful? Maybe it's just a sematantic thing, but if a player in front of me needs a +X Lucern Hammer because that's what his optimised build needs... he hasn't got a hope in hell. There simply aint that many people wandering around with Lucern Hammers. You should've chosen a more common weapon. On the other hand, if he's a well-rounded character with a bit of back story and a strong explanation for why he is on a life long quest to become the High Lord Lucern Hammerer of Hammerland... well, I can work with that.

I must admit, I don't like some of the fundamental economic assumptions about availability and cost of magic: that PF seems to rely on optimised characters to balance high level encounters; that magical items are easily made and easily sold; and Sandpoint, a small town of 1200 people has multiple shops that can buy and sell magic items.

I think it's inevitable if you're going to have Magic Item proliferation in this way, you're going to have players creating "builds" that lean on the expectation of freely available items. If you want to change that, you need to change quite a lot about how PF has been constructed. Not necessarily difficult, but a bit of a chore.

If you wanted some kind of "hulking" trait, give them +/- on other size-related modifiers (CMB, AC, stealth, etc.). Something small.

I like that. Something like this then?

Trait: Hulking
Although you are still medium-sized, you are unusually large and bulky. Gain +1 Size bonus to either CMB & CMD or Melee Damage rolls. However, take -2 Size Penalty to Stealth checks. When squeezing, you take a -6 Size penalty to AC and Attack Rolls.

For what it's worth, we always use the old 4d6 method, rolled together as a group. No need to worry that way :)

Out of curiosity PD, where do Fighters fall on the Feat-Equivalent analysis?

Where do you think? hehehe

Ok, I'll be serious. Here are all the core classes, at 1st, 10th & 20th level:
Barbarian: 24/127/246
Bard: 32/133/261
Cleric: 27/129/270
Druid: 28/142/297 (Domain, not Animal Companion)
Fighter: 21/110/208
Monk: 24/125/237
Paladin: 22/129/244 (275 w. Spell casting)
Ranger: 25/123/231 (262 w. Spell Casting)
Rogue: 23/106/201
Sorcerer: 20/102/249 (Arcane bloodline w. Bonded Object)
Wizard: 17/94/245 (Specialist, w. Bonded Object)

Bards, Clerics & Druids get 33% reduction on Spell Cost to reflect fact that they're less blastery than arcane magic
Sorcerers get 20% reduction on Spell Cost to reflect limited Known spells.

Big caveat: I'm quite happy with this analysis as a starting point for review because it seems to produce largely sensible results. With a few exceptions. However, it is a clumsy and rather blunt tool. Bards have a lot of abilities but sometimes the total is less than the sum of the parts. Similarly, Monks get loads of Feat equivalents, but with a lot of "utility" feats (immunity to disease, slow fall, etc.) that maybe don't balance out their weaknesses. And spell-casting is a difficult one: I decided +1 Caster Level was worth a Feat (it improves the power of every single spell), +1 Spell Level was worth a Feat and then each spell was worth Spell Level/2 in Feats. I think it might under-value high level spells, but its a decent starting point for comparison.

Of course, there are lots of judgement calls in these numbers. E.g. I considered Weapon Training to be worth 3 Feats, making it roughly 3x better than Weapon Focus. Similarly with Rage, which gives 5 positive things (Str x2, Con x2, Will) and 2 negative (AC, Fatigue). Paladin's Aura of Courage I treated as 2 Feats: the bit that helps the Paladin and the bit that helps the party. I also treated Class Skills as being worth 0.5 Feat per skill: +3 contingent on 1 SP being spent on it felt like it was roughly half a Skill Focus. This subjectivity means the analysis is pretty much worthless in any scientific sense!

Small caveat: It's not just about the total, it's also the spread. Fighters are quite optimised at 1st level: their feats all help them in melee, and being good in melee is critical at that level.

The nature of any bonus like this is that it's always worth a lot more than it appears. You'd only select +2 STR / -2 DEX if Strength was more important to you than Dexterity, which means that although it looks balanced, in effect it isn't.

Compare the cost of different attribute scores:
STR 18, DEX 8 (15 points)
STR 17, DEX 9 (12 points)
STR 16, DEX 10 (10 points)
STR 15, DEX 11 (8 points)
STR 14, DEX 12 (7 points)
STR 13, DEX 13 (6 points)

Any character that would actually want this trait would gain between 2 and 5 attribute points from it (the higher your base STR, the more you gain).

You could make it +1 STR, -2 DEX, but even then it's pretty advantageous simply because -2 DEX will usually gain you 2 attribute points, whereas +1 STR costs 2 attribute points for any score above 13. Given that a trait is half of a feat, I think +1 STR, -3 DEX might be closer to the mark. (any character with STR 16+ will receive a net benefit)

If you really do want to increase spell DCs linked to caster level, I would suggest you balancing it by increasing Save DCs linked to caster level too. That way a 20th level can more easily Charm a 1st level commoner, but it's no easier when it comes to a 20th level Fighter.

Why complicate things and give yourself more work to do? Play a reduced point buy and then you don't need to modify anything.

You have to add 2 or 3 to every DC - can be done on the fly, without anyone knowing

I know which is easiest imho.

I've done a quick "feat equivalent" analysis of all of the core classes. Interestingly, if you don't count Spell Casting, a 20th level Paladin has 244 Feat-equivalent abilities, which is almost exactly the same as a Barbarian, Monk or Wizard. So I'm all for removing it - they can take a few cleric levels if they want to cast spells so badly ;-)

* Counting +1 BAB = 3F, D10 HP = 4F, 3 Skill Points = 1F, and similar.

Why not allow them to bank up to 3 (as per standard rules), and increase these options a bit:

1. Heroic Effort: Spend hero points to boost a roll: 1 point, Take 10; 2 points, d20+10; 3 points, Natural 20

2. Heroic Results: Spend hero points in increase results: 1 point, counts 1s as Average; 2 points; count 1s as Maximum; 3 points Maximum

3. Heroic Recovery: 1 point, stabilise but unconscious; 2 points, Stabilise and 0hp (disabled but conscious); 3 points, Stabilise and number of HP equal to maximum roll of 1 Hit Die.

Gives a bit more nuance to them, and although players can have a powerful effect they do it less often whilst still having a bit of narrative control.