RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 833 posts (838 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters.
For length, are you interested in adventures that take players up:
1 level or less,
2-3 levels, and/or
4+ levels?
Multiple, short, 1 level or less adventures are better. If they can tie together that's great, but mostly I just need small bits to plug and play into a bigger campaign.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
As far as scope goes, do you want an adventure that
is a 1-2 session break from the main story
you can make part of the main story by changing the names, or
a campaign that start up high
I'm usually looking for a piece to drop into a homebrew game when the creative juices/effort just aren't there that week, so I'd say a 1-2 session break from the main story. Little one-off self-contained stories.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
While we're at it, lets talk campaign setting. I can't use Paizo Campaign Setting (obviously). Would you rather have:
JBE's own campaign setting, allowing us to delve into our own lore, making the world flavorful and unique, or
More generic, allowing it for easier working into your own campaign setting or Paizo's campaign setting?
As others have stated, using your own setting can give inspiration, and removing setting flavor is easier than adding some that was never there.
If you give the archer Inquisitor 5 more feats over normal they're just going to pick up more feats that make them better at archery, and while at first you might see a little diversity in builds it only exists until everyone comes on here and start optimizing what to do with those extra feats that now have.
The problem is one of optimization vs options.
You want build diversity. This doesn't exist if you want an optimized character. What exactly is optimal may vary a little depending on who you ask, but it's still going to be pretty narrow. [...]
As long as a player wants to optimize their character, there is not build diversity.
This is where I come in, asking for a specific list of feats that would be options for the "extras." Feats that would lead to the next -- put the first on the list, but not the second (or third). Mostly, I'd like to see feats that add color rather than optimization on this list. But what feats?
And since no one answered me, I'll ask again: Why give some classes (and humans, of all things) an extra bennie to "balance" them when the variant applies to all classes & races equally?
Regarding your question, it's because "10 more feats for everyone" is not an equal application. The fighter's bonus feats now only increase his total feats by 50% instead of 100%. A human doesn't have 10% more feats, he has 5% more. by doubling the total number of feats everyone else gets, you have lowered the overall value of bonus feats by half. The reduction may even be more if the bonus feats were needed to make a build work, and now they are just extra bells and whistles.
In terms of proportional increase and effective power boost, it is not equal. At risk of being tangential, here's an example:
Everyone makes $50 a week. A certain number of people make an extra $50 a week in addition. So while some people make $50, some others make $100, double the amount. If everyone then is given another $50 a week, some will make $100, while some others make $150, which is less of an overall wealth divide than it was before. By increasing the total currency available the value of each unit of currency is reduced, making any single currency increase less valuable by comparison.
I think it comes down to number of viable options. When I look at making a character for 5e, and let's say a guy who is in the front and fights with an axe and a shield, I start to feel like there are really only 2 or 3 ways to do that effectively in 5e. Pretty much every axe+shield character looks very same-y, at least mechanically. In pathfinder I can make that character with a third of the classes out there, many of which have an archetype or two that support the idea, and that's before feats and magical gear selection.
Basically, character sheet for "Dwarf fighter with weapon and shield" is going to be pretty universal in 5e, but in PF there are enough extra fiddly-bits to make them all at least a little different.
A bit of a tangent, but it's a bit similar to what has happened in World of Warcraft over the years. They've slowly stripped away all of the odd, gimmicky, and mostly useless abilities from the classes, and only kept combat abilities. So every class functions very smoothly, but there has been some loss of that unique spark for each class that actually made them different. Yeah dampen magic wasn't really that good of a buff/debuff, but it was a fun and quirky tool to have that made you, as a mage, feel more in control of magic.
Basically, efficiency of play for the loss of weird quirky bits.
1) Do something with spellcasting. Fix trouble spells, remove prepared casting, or change away from vancian completely, etc. Not sure exactly what change to make, but the current casting system is probably the #1 source of trouble for the system.
2) Bound and diversify. Heresy, I know. I hear your cries of "that's just 4e/5e". I mean this in a very light-handed way. Hyper-specialization causes many balance issues, such that the game can turn into a binary "always succeed or always fail", depending on the character. Reduce the rate of bonus gain from ability scores as the score gets higher, and reduce how many different bonuses can stack.
3) Remove +X items. Every magic item should have an effect that isn't based on making numbers bigger.
There are still some cool "high-concept" threads coming out. I'm a big fan of "The Aeons Sigh", for instance.
I've just started following that one, and it's been pretty interesting so far. I'm really hoping it doesn't get derailed too soon. Might be nice to make a "high-concept" index? Something like a "greatest hits" for the Paizo messageboards would be cool.
I know for myself a lot of the "lost luster" seems to come from what I perceive as a shortage of homebrew topics and/or high-concept "how a game system works" conversations. I don't get much out of another "how do I stack the most bonus to hit with a scorching ray" type conversations, but something that steps outside the details is always fun. Alternate systems, unique campaign ideas, what the goal of a piece of game design is... those sorts of things. They seem to be lacking these days, possibly tied to the reduction of rehashed topics like C/MD and "does the paladin fall".
Jill knew what the truth was. Her flaw was that she would rather accept an easy lie than a difficult to explain truth. This flaw was what let the witch influence her and made her agree that the sun did not exist. The witch cannot simply dominate Jill with a spell and control her like a puppet. Jill had to be convinced. Jill had to give in. The magic helps but at some level Jill has to agree, she can't be forced against her will.
I prefer magic that is more subtle, individual and intricate like that, it literally bursts with RP material.
While subtle magic like that is really cool, and yes I agree full of RP material, Pathfinder magic is not built that way. Magic in DnD/PF is the overt "control her like a puppet" kind, and it's pretty baked into the system. You don't commune with the fire spirit of a nearby candle and bargain with it to produce a fireball; you yell loudly and flail your arms about and s#*! explodes.
The other side of that is, like the typical less-than-lethal fireball, the effects of your failed will saves are also short-term. Sure, you may betray your friends this time, but it isn't a permanent personality drift towards being a traitor. The type of magic that DnD/PF has used is a more "concentrated" kind, where effects are stronger but short-lived in all but the most extreme cases. Overall I think it makes the game feel more "action" instead of "drama".
Can this be changed? Definitely, it's just that you'd probably be better off using a different system that encouraged that type of magic to start with, and there is no shortage of them. Usually the benefit of homebrewing for PF players is system familiarity and published adventure availability, but in this case those are both lost due to the drastic changes that need to happen across the system.
1) Give every mythic creature Dual Initiative, Fortification, and Second Save
2) Multiply mythic creature HP by their MR
That's a good start, but there are many further steps as needed, including adding MR to AC and all D20 rolls.
Another option is to remove mythic paths, and only let the PCs use the base mythic tier abilities (surge, attribute increases, mythic feats, etc.).
I've also heard of replacing mythic with hero points or a similar system.
For the game I've been playing our GM is massively multiplying enemy HP and completely rewrites every major encounter. Minor encounters typically get roleplayed through or simply described.
1) Paladin
Mostly I love the amazing saves, especially on an archer. The focus on charisma is nice if for nothing else than picking up diplomacy. Like MrCharisma, I feel like their spellcasting is one of their weakest features, and with things like Paladin's Sacrifice and Shield Other it's still pretty good. I've had no RP issues with them as I typically like to play LG types anyway, and I haven't had a GM be a jerk about slight variances. I like to play big hero, and paladin fits the bill perfectly.
2) Wizard
I love the versatility. I love the feeling that you can always do better, and not just with better luck, but through your own system mastery. I love knowing that I can have a solution to anything. The only downside is I do occasionally just want to zone out and deal some damage.
3) It's hard to pick here. Probably Bard.
Also Inquisitor, Ranger, and Cleric.
I love the strong team-player aspects of all of these, but especially the bard. Bard, inquisitor, and ranger are sort of do-it-all classes that can use weapons, skills, and magic all fairly well. Cleric makes the cut for similar reasons as wizard made my #2, but in general I feel like they're a bit bland as a class since they basically have no features but spells and channel energy. Wizard at least gets a few bonus feats in there and multiple skills from high intelligence.
As a point of disclosure, I haven't played much of the ACG classes, though even of the one's I've played and having looked at the rest, none stand out. I've also not really looked over OA at all except for kineticist, which didn't turn out to be quite the class I'd hoped it would be. I feel it lacks depth, like it's too focused and missing oddball utility abilities. The class ability list looks long, but it's really all just "blast better and different".
I'd do a huge protection from energy. Break the normal CL limit if you have to. Make sure they can figure out that this buff is active and that they are reducing it with damage. That way the sorcerer can still "win" with their mechanic, they just have to go through some HP first like most other characters.
Some resist energy along side that is also a good idea, but unlikely to really do much in the grand scheme. Being incorporeal gives a flat 50% reduction to damage, which could help resist energy matter. It will also make the prot energy go farther. Imp evasion with only a moderate save will reduce damage by another 50% without shutting them down. Shield other lets you take 50% less by sending the other 50% to some chump minion. Stack enough of these 50% reductions and a resist 30 might be good enough (effective 240).
My issue with globe of invulnerability and counterspelling is that it shuts the sorcerer down instead of challenging them. Same with "huge ref save + evasion".
Could always go a misdirection route and use lots of illusions, summons, teleports, and contingencies. This frustrates many players in an un-fun way though.
For BESM, you definitely need a concept first. The beginning of the book has a more structured build process you should at least look at (like x% stats, y% attributes, etc.), and also has a benchmark table to help give yourself some idea of what power levels are appropriate for the points level of your game. On that note, you will need to get the points level from the GM, and in general will have to keep a dialog with the GM regarding your attributes, what levels they are, what your character goals are, etc. It's alot more back-and-forth than most games like PF and DnD.
Can't give you much help with NWOD, sorry.
@captain yesterday
NWOD = new world of darkness (the more plug-n-play version between supplements)
BESM = big eyes, small mouth (though this game is almost exclusively referred to with it's acronym, even on the cover of the rule book)
EDIT: added URL to wikipedia pages
EDIT2: If you want help with sifting through the MASSIVE number of BESM attributes feel free to send me a PM and I'll do what I can. I'll try to keep the "ask your GM" responses to a minimum ;D
He's got a good will save and not much else. He can only cast 0th level spells, and even those fail 90% of the time. He needs a 20 to hit, and only ever does 1 non-lethal damage, even on a crit. Sneak attack is the only source of actual damage. Due to his -34 armor check penalty to all dex and str skills, he isn't contributing much there either. His only decent skills are perception and sense motive, and those are frequently opposed checks vs. stealth and bluff.
A CR1 wolf or 2 CR1/3 orcs (a CR1 fight) will kill Nabisco on average. These CR1 traps will not. And he used every CR1 trap the book had to offer. If I made Nabisco fight every CR1 creature in Bestiary 1, even 1 at a time at full HP, he would lose plenty of those encounters.
What you're saying is that a CR3 trap is what's required to be the equivalent of a CR1 monster, and that was OQ's point.
The issue between a lvl20/MR10 character and a deity is that they aren't even playing the same game. The character still references rules and (usually) rolls dice to determine what happens. The deity is playing a narrative game that is entirely a conversation with the GM of "may I do X?", to which the answer is always "yes".
Deity: Can I perfectly and proactively react to this character's actions and counter all of them?
GM: Yes.
Character: Hey! That's not fair!
GM: Quiet, it's still deity's turn.
Character: But it's always deity's turn!
GM: And your point is...?
I just assumed that since the max power level of a demon lord/archdevil/empyreal lord is 30, a pathfinder deity would be CR31+. I already consider creatures/PCs that are about CR 18+ to already be godlike. When there are creatures that are relatively invulnerable to most physical/energy attacks, that can fly, change weather, resurrect others, teleport, lift giant objects, able to regenerate from dust, and live forever, I think it's pretty easy to use them as a stand-in for a deity. Especially creatures with miracle/wish, as the power level of these spells is only limited by the GM, because if the GM wanted to those spells can literally do anything, according to RAW.
While largely true, Pathfinder makes a distinction between "god-like" and true deities. This shows with the wording of several effects that reference wish and miracle. Often there is a line to the effect of "Not even wish or miracle can restore a victim..." or "Nothing short of the direct intervention of a deity can...". There is a clear separation of "mortal magic", including wish and miracle, and the power of a true deity. Some effects even reference being unaffected by mortal magic.
Most mortals in the setting are just so far below those power levels that the difference is moot. Either way, these are powers beyond even their hope of commanding. In effect, it doesn't matter if one thing can kill you three times over, but this other can kill you ten times over; either way you are most certainly dead.
The major character in Golarion of Razmir plays on this. I believe I've seen him statted as a 19th level wizard, which is good enough to convince most people that he is a deity. He is still a (quite) killable mortal, even for all of his power and influence.
It almost seems like feats should be awarded in a more front-loaded manner. Like, you get 3 base at level 1, then 1 per level until 5, then one every other until 11, then every 3 until 20. Besides, having a bunch of low requirement feats can't really break the game, can it? Especially given how much we complain about these "feat tax" feats.
Also, all classes should be awarded feats base on their other class features. Fighters get OMFGsomany; wizards get scribe scroll, then one at 5, then one at 10...
I hope they don't do another Carrion Crown with a "tour of sci-fi". A different flavor for each book, only barely connected, would not be awesome. Example:
Book 1: Blade Runner
Book 2: Aliens
Book 3: Star Trek
Book 4: Star Wars
Book 5: Mass Effect
Book 6: Warhammer 40K
That's sort of what I'm getting at. Realistically there are only so many stat-lines you need to define the mechanics of different weapons. Beyond that it's best to just use the stats for something similar. That's how "shortsword" and "longsword" are now. They're realistically just a generic set of mechanics for a broad range of similar weapons, many of which vary by quite a bit with regards to length/width/weight/shape etc.
So I guess my wishlist is for a shorter, more simplified weapon list as the standard.
Firstly, I rarely see characters resting in the dungeon. It is usually understood to be dangerous, so they will leave before resting when possible. If they do rest in the dungeon, they typically fortify their position heavily and keep watches. The dungeon inhabitants will reset traps and shuffle guards in response.
Assuming they do leave the dungeon, it usually isn't in the villain's interest to pursue. After all, when an enemy is attacking your stronghold, the best use of resources is typically to repel them where you are fortified instead of extending your forces in an attack. This pattern can be shown true in the basic strategies for multiple MOBA-style competitive video games.
Apart from that, you're going to find yourself displeased with the aesthetics of resting in a dungeon because it doesn't seem to make sense, when if you step back and look at the entire situation as a whole, a large dungeon such as you would need to make a multiple day foray into doesn't really make sense to start with. So really, if you're already accepting the game construct of that type of dungeon, it's best to also accept the game constructs that allow those other elements of the game to function.
EDIT: Also, if the inhabitants know you're coming, and you're not sneaking, they should realistically attack you with everything they have in one massive fight. The dungeon will be short, one way or the other.
Once again, all of your argument is centered on "but they need the other stuff more!" That is a direct result of the games you run. In most games I've run, played in, seen run, or even heard about, dropping a fighter's str from 20 to 18 to get 7 more points of point-buy is not crippling. That is enough to get your int from 7 to 12, with another to spare.
RE: lore warden, the difference from heavy armor to light is not typically a big deal, unless the attack bonuses were already higher than expected for opponents. It is an option to increase skill points. You take these options when you are "trying" to get more skill points.
You complain that they don't have enough skill points, then degrade skill points to "why would you trade anything else for them?" If skills are so bad as to be literally the last thing you consider when making a character, maybe they aren't all that necessary after all. It's hard to complain that "that guy has more skill points than me!" when you place no value in them.
TLDR:
"I'm mad that guy has more useless widgets than I do!"
"But they're not worthless."
"I think they are."
"They why do you care that he has more?"
"Because I want more!"
So it might be early for this, but I really want to start throwing around ideas for what we might see for the first AP in Starfinder.
I would personally like if it started with an exploration/colonization game of a recently discovered world. Something with different factions each having their own reasons for interest, and the PCs are caught in the middle. This one planet is the focus, but others are also visited to track down leads and gather support. Great chance to showcase a fair bit of the setting, without overblowing the scope right away.
What would other folks like to see? Can we get another as iconic to the system and setting as Rise of the Runelords?
I really feel the problem comes down to one of perception (the skill perception is even an example!). Things in the game that are viewed as overpowered are usually only just outside the first standard deviation for power, largely because talented and dedicated developers designed them start with. These things don't just appear from a 6-year-old's imagination; they are conceptualized and refined before even the first printing. The issue then, is that there is an overreaction to how outside the norm they are, and the nerf is likewise too extreme.
My suggestion is to make the changes milder. Even if something remains one of the better options after its change, even a minor decrease in usefulness will bring it back in line with other established (and non-nerfed) options, like power attack, wizards, and big-6 items. I really believe the shock and rage over nerfs is mostly due to a large swing in power from one of the best options to near uselessness. The crane wing change specifically comes to mind.
You keep mentioning revolvers. Advanced firearms are kind of their own thing, and assume a setting built around these weapons (see "Emerging Guns" setting for the standard). Also, it's 4000gp for the mundane weapon, and as others have stated, you're shooting gold, namely 15gp per shot for metal cartridges. Early firearms (pistol, musket, etc.) are far less potent and far more unreliable.
I miss a lot of the old "transformative" PrCs from 3.5; Dragon Disciple's the only one that seems to have survived, on account of legacy reasons. I really liked the Prestige classes that slowly transformed your character into something else, whether it's turning you into a half-dragon, a fiend, giving you lots of golem traits, or whatever.
I'd like to second this and not just like what the sorcerer does, gaining similar traits, but an actual creature type change.
Examples:
Prestige Classes - Like the Dragon Disciple was originally (Dragon), Acolyte of the Skin (Outsider), Elemental Savant (Outsider[Elemental), Green Star Adept (Construct), Fleshwarper (Aberration), Ooze Master (Ooze), More than one Undead prestige class, etc.
Base Classes - Dread Necromancer (Undead), Mountebank (Out and out Half-Fiend),
I've been thinking it'd be cool to do this sort of idea as an overlay type of advancement, similar to mythic. You could have werewolf, fiend, angel, vampire, dragon, etc. advancement paths that slowly made you more and more like that creature. This would work in tandem with your class advancement. I'd probably add a "paragon" path or something. Basically a path for the character that doesn't want to be something else, but the game is using these rules. You instead become a true paragon of your race, gaining more of whatever your initial racial bonuses were. I'd really like this as a subsystem in a hardback book.
To the topic of classes, I direly want an artificer class from Paizo. I'd also say I want a d6 priest, but that desire comes with a want to completely scrap cleric and do it all over.
Creatures that are bigger than you might move you if they hit you. Slam or Bludgeoning attacks from a creature one size category larger than their target (or any melee attack from a creature two or more size categories larger) initiate a Bull Rush as a free action after a successful hit (regardless of damage dealt). This bull rush is not automatically directed by the attacker. Uses the Grenade scatter rules to determine which direction the target is moved. Any result that would indicate the target is moved toward the attacking creature instead moves the target straight back away from them.
If you get hit by something four or more times your mass, expect to go flying.
Isn't this going to tend to work against martials and promote more reliance on spellcasters to deal with these creatures? I'd be more of a mind to reduce how much size matters - particularly in the rise in monster strength because of the way it skews CMDs so high.
My quick-n-dirty solution has been to simply remove size modifiers from CMB/CMD, as well as any restrictions on which maneuvers you can use based on size. So really, it's more of a "size doesn't matter". Except that it does, since strength is usually related to size anyway.
I'm disappointed this comment was in your post, because all the other ideas were pretty good, but I can't look past how wrong this statement is. Monk is usually one of the bottom 3, along with fighter and rogue.
IMO monk should get it at 10 instead of ranger. Also, is there any compensation if you took it as a regular feat before you got it as a bonus feat? Something like choosing any combat feat instead, or counting your BAB as 6 higher for determining how many AoOs you have.
Skylancer4, he's already stated that he has the gold and the construct, so that's not an issue. Let's ignore the actual construct here and focus on the modification.
There is no check associated, you simply need to meet the requirements. CL isn't listed in the modification requirements. I don't think you can bypass the requirements, since as you can see "the construct modified must be the same size as the creator" is also a requirement, and bypassing that seems entirely unintended.
Now, assuming you have the craft construct and craft magic arms and armor feats, you have a couple of options to meet the animate objects requirement. You can use a scroll, making a CL check against DC 12. You could also hire spellcasting, paying for your crafting period and the spell.
Other than producing the required spell, nothing else is stopping you from adding the modification. BTW, I recommend getting a pair of Ring of Friend Shield to protect your investment.
Pick up a sling, then a bow when you can afford it.
I did not bother with adding slings in my last post. As while cheap. good luck hitting anything past 50 ft. Mind you many ranged weapons in Pathfinder lack range. Their also something underwhelming about a Fighter using a sling versus a bow. A bow looks cool. A guy in full plate or at least chainmail using a sling simply does not look heroic to me at least.
Maybe you'd look more heroic in general if you weren't so poor as to be unable to afford a bow with a decent str mod. This is called living within your means. If you can't afford full plate, you buy chainmail. If you can't buy a composite longbow built for a +4 str mod, you pick up a sling. It's better than complaining that bows are too expensive when a flying enemy shows up.
Are you set on using the "as is" tarrasque, or are you looking to make any changes?
For a game I ran I made a variant - the Annihilation Tarrasque. Basically, it had a Sphere of Annihilation inside its stomach. Its regeneration was just enough to survive in this situation, but effectively it had no regeneration on its stat block. In exchange, being swallowed whole caused contact with the sphere (ouch), and it had a breath weapon it could use every 1d4 rounds for 30d6 damage (Ref DC27 half, Fort DC27 half; disintegrated if killed). In addition, the ages of being in a perpetual state of destruction caused it to be greatly toughened (double HP). Overall, it made it much more dangerous, but a foe that could be fought and killed (annihilated in fact).
Basically what I'm saying, is that you could tweak your tarrasque to be a challenge at whatever CR/APL you want. Additionally, you can tool it to whatever classes and items your players use. As far as how to foreshadow it, smashed paths and destroyed cities works pretty well ;D
I would be interested to know how people cope with making/preparing high level NPCs without their heads exploding every week. Are there some resources I am missing?
Paizo released an NPC book that has things all the way to level 20. Just add names.
This NPC codex? It is a good help, indeed. I would hope for one including all core books and a couple with more advanced tactics (i.e. use of style feats).
I would also really enjoy a book that has all the NPC stat blocks from all the APs collected.
D20PFSRD has quite an extensive collection, including those from APs. You won't get names or personality write ups due to copyright though. They will cite where the NPC comes from, so if you wanted to reference the AP book for the name, personality, and artwork you could.
The second one made a choice to change his schedule to Sundays, even though that was known at the time to be the only remaining day that could work. I'd say he's the one SOL. Also, are time-of-day shifts not able to fix this? Like, morning vs. afternoon vs. evening...
This seems odd to me, as I generally feel like I win when my players beat all the monsters/NPCs. My goal is to challenge the players without defeating them. That is how the GM wins.
I have seen several other similar systems presented, and after having looked at them there's still one thing that keeps me stuck to the initial concept: simplicity.
RE - Complete Control: The point-buy class system is a static, level 1 implementation. There is no tie to the XP system, which myself and many others have completely done away with.
RE- Rynjin's Freeform Class Selection: This is actually pretty close to what I'm aiming for, but once again, requires revisiting at every level-up. If I had found it before I worked on mine I probably would have just used it with some tweaks.
RE - Gurps: A game using the point-buy class system will still be a Pathfinder game. If you want to use this system to make classes for an AP, it will work. There is no investment in other materials, and is an easy sell to folks used to playing Pathfinder.
RE - Eclipse: Once again, I'm specifically trying to avoid a pay-as-you-go type system. Similar to the Race Builder, this is a one-time use system that gives you a complete product for your character to use throughout their career.
There are definitely some great ideas in these other systems. At its core, I'd like to keep the point-buy "build a 1-20 class" style of system. Something where, if I had a new player, and they described a character concept that didn't quite fit existing classes, I could build one with them. It would have a complete level 1-20 progression, and we would immediately move on to playing the game as if nothing strange happened.
TL;DR - I'd like help refining this system, as opposed to being offered other systems. If you bring up another system, please describe what ideas could be incorporated, and what the positive/negative effects would be.
This is a simple system which replaces the standard class system in the Pathfinder game. For each campaign, the DM sets the class points available (typically 30), then each player constructs a custom class for their character using the point buy system. Each option is broken out to be purchased separately to help players make the exact character they envision. Most class abilities are still purchased as a thematic "package" to minimize min-max abuse.
Please note that if you were to reconstruct existing classes with this system they would have very different point values. I have not attempted to force the system to pretend the classes are equal (see Race Builder), but have instead accepted that some classes and options are, as a whole, better than others. If using the standard 30 point build, some classes will be quite improved, while others may not be build-able in their entirety.
I'd love to hear any feedback people may have, but would especially appreciate a playtest. It would be fun to hear what sort of characters your players make with this system.
If you are set on having a single monster that gets mauled by the players turn after turn and exchanges blows with them, then of the two options you presented, higher HP is generally preferable.
High AC can be swingy. Sometimes, the PCs will hit every time anyway, and the boss will die like a chump. Other times, they will miss for rounds on end and be frustrated. Making so that damage (read: progress) is applied ever round makes the fight more enjoyable... generally. Either way, you've only slowed down PCs targeting their HP, and with the prior, their HP via their AC. A hold monster spell will still end it, and jacking up saves is even less enjoyable than raising AC.
a) Saying things like "the only way" is a bit too absolute. Plenty of other ways have been presented.
b) Your martials are supposed to deal tons of damage. Most casters can get a chance to auto-win against an enemy, even from range. If a martial gets to full attack, that's the equivalent of their finger of death spell. A full attack against an appropriate CR enemy being likely to kill is part of the game design.
c) Get more creative. RegUs PatOff gave some great examples of how you can compensate for the PC "win strategy". The #1 solution really is to have the boss fight the PCs on his terms, when he's fully buffed and gets a surprise round.
I frequently double, triple, and even sometimes quadruple boss-type monster HP. I usually accompany this with lowering the monster's damage (around 2/3 of normal). Given that, I still advise you take steps to delay the PCs ability to apply their action to the monster. Use terrain, use other tasks that take priority, or just use minions. Simply making the PCs use their actions on anything but attacking the monster will help tremendously.
The Catholic church is probably the closest to the game definition of a LG group. It's highly structured, has more laws than is probably reasonable, and for all its failings, its goals and ideals are altruistic. Also, many LG D&D religions over the years have been modeled on various points in the Catholic church's history. It's why the stereotypical LG D&D religion has churches, cathedrals, clerics, priests, hierarchies, relics, etc.
Importantly, I don't think the Catholic church necessarily matches a personal definition of LG, but it does seem to be the basis for the game definition.
I think really what you're looking at is a spontaneous caster that learns lightning bolt vs. a prepared caster who prepared 1 lightning bolt, 1 daylight, and 1 blink. Lightning bolt may not be that good, but with only one spell to chose most players will at least pick something moderately useful for a spontaneous caster. A prepared caster compounds the risk of picking bad spells with the risk of using the wrong spell at the wrong time and picking the wrong amount of each spell.
Spontaneous caster uses lightning bolt at the wrong time, doesn't care, tries again later, overall it averages out to passable.
Prepared caster uses lighting bolt at the wrong time, now has to use a different spell, probably also at the wrong time, and averages out to near ineffectiveness.
EDIT: I really think the overall trend will end up being an inverse relationship between the number of options/choices to be made and the level of the floor. That is, more choices lead to lower floors.
