Robotron666's page

This is a valid concern. I am truly considering increasing the number of times per day you can use your weapon bond ability, or possibly allowing you to split up the total duration.

Two Questions: Does this aleviate the problem? Which option adds more utility without turning it into a situation where you basically always have the bonus?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Why not tie this directly to the number of "turn" attempts a Paladin gets?

And on the weapon training bonuses. In reality you just need maybe 2 weapon bonuses instead of you ending up with 4 different weapon groups being upped.

...

It's the idea of increasing your specialization in a weapon vs. maybe some exciting abilities or "maneuvers" like the ones you gave to the rogue, that was really spiffy.

What about feats that are somewhat maneuver like, but that are weapon group dependant? The idea being that say... I dunno, axes might have some unique avenues of expression that are different than swords. These specialized feats for weapon groups could give a figher player important choices for character differentiation and make specialization and weapon group choices more meaningful.

I'm not talking ToB quality martial magic here, more like meat and potatoes Conan the Cimmerian style maneuvers.

Sword sweeps, special hammer or spear techniques that cause bleeding, knock shields down, or create advantages when fighting in a formation. Something akin to the fighter powers from 4e, but in feat format. Making these feat choices does not build complexity into the class, it just creates more choice. It's also easier to balance than sweeping changes to the core character class.

Thoughts?

The Wizard's new abilities extend the 15 minute day by a lot and I think that most of the people in the threads you mentioned haven't even played the Alpha rules yet to realize that.

Oh? Um, well I've read through, and (not trying to be intentionally obtuse here) I fail to see how. Can you explain this to me?

This is called Recharge Magic and is an "official" variant rule. You can learn all about it here.

As an aside, Eric Mona mentioned in another thread that Vancian magic was here to stay, so variant systems of the kind proposed by Recharge Magic and alternate systems proposed by other posters are moot.

Cool, thanks, I wasn't aware that UA had this type of mechanic detailed in it. This makes it a viable homebrew solution for my own games which is good.

Heya,

Just read a few threads about 15 minute adventuring days and power points for the barbarian, and it occurred to me that we're still looking at the old "resources tapped, must take rest now that may take several hours."

After looking at the Barbarian's "rage pool" I was struck by the idea of a mechanic that uses a token economy for powers and that makes big expenditures a serious investment of power but still allows for a constant stream of adventuring.

The basic idea is that you can make massive expenditures of power by spending points from a pool and then recharge over time. Recovery would occur at a rate depending on the characters current level of activity. Exert yourself, and you recover slowly, rest and you recover very quickly. This isn't like at will / per encounter / per day because you can recover your power pool quickly through rest, or slowly as you adventure onward.

Now bear with me for a second, because I can already hear the cries of "But Robotron666, this might work with barbarian rage powers, but what about spellcasters?"

The problem being that normally Vancian memorizing mechanics dictate the number of spells and castings that Wizards get per day - Potentially, if you use spell points wizards will just cast the highest level spells they have as often as possible.

I figure the way that memorization tables work is that they dictate the spells you have prepared, you have a number of points for each level of spell available to you (6 0-level, 4 1st-level, 2 2nd-level, etc as an example) those are just points you allocate to each spell level tier. Each spell level slot recharges at a pay out rate from your power pool.

It might take 5 minutes of rest to recover a 1st level spell point, but it might take 20 minutes of rest to recover a 4th level spell point.

You retain the spirit of Vancian memorization, but you get a more flexible system. You also lose the Sorcerer, but hey, sacrifices must be made.

Does any of this make sense? It's late. Ah maybe I should just shut my moth, but I'd really like to see the death of the 15 minute adventuring day.

DrMcCoy1693 wrote:

Except for the extra metamagic feat that generalist wizards get as well as the faster magic item creation.

Right, thats where the 'more like a generalist' part comes in. If there was no drawback at all for acting against your specialist nature then everyone would specialize.

-Tarlane

And this is bad how?

If you look at the new system, it seems to encourage specialization much more then the 3.x system does.

Agreed there, this school focus system is superior in many regards.

The vancian magic system(The prepared spell system D&D uses) was built this way, probably primarily for mechanical balance reasons. You can play a generalist wizard and be equally capable in all schools, essentially having divided your time up among them, or you focus in one school and are better at that then others can be, at the cost of giving up access to other schools.

Why? A fighter is equally proficient with all weapons, until he chooses to specialize. This does not force him to abandon or eschew the use of other weapons at a detriment. He'll always be great with his specialized weapon, just normal with his others.

Its more power for a penalty essentially, specializing in any way, magic or otherwise, makes you more powerful when dealing with what you specialized and less so when you aren't.

I understand the design rationale, I just thing it's outright wrong. Allowing a character to specialize inherently pushes him away from being a generalist. It makes one path more attractive and more optimal than another. Why penalize at all if this is the case? It's an arbitrary Gygaxism, restrict in one area when an advantage is given in another.

The new system has adapted it so that you can be a specialist mage and gain bonus powers from it, but you can temporarily give up those powers to make use of even your weaker schools. This essentially means that for a day you can act more like a generalist if you need those powers. That adds a lot more flexibility to specialist wizards then they ever had before.

And what I'm saying is that is a fix-it approach to a problem that doesn't actually exist. If you could offer me a concrete system specific example as to why this type of restriction is necessary. Hell, I'd be more inclined to believe your argument. Why shouldn't a specialist be able to use all magic equally? Sacrifice of time spent learning in one area? That's a fluff reason for a system design decision that is an arbitrary restriction. A fighter doesn't sacrifice bows if he chooses blades, not a great example, but I think it parallels things.

To use your example further, a fighter who specializes in a weapon -does- give up power with other weapons. Rather then focusing on feats that give him strengths for all weapon groups(imp trip, power attack, whatever) he has made himself considerably stronger when using the weapon he has developed with. However, should he ever find himself without that weapon, then he is less skilled in general combat then a fighter who isn't so focused. Its all a mechanics balancing act.
-Tarlane

Actually you're proving my point. By specializing in one weapon, he chooses not to be superior in another. The choice however is his entirely, and not forced on to him by the rules set. In fact, he probably has equal skill in the weapon in comparison to fighters of equal level since he will most likely have the same BAB and modifiers as they do. The variance is minimized at that point, but give him his weapon of specialization, and watch the hell out.

A Fighter that specializes in ranged weapons doesn't get penalized when he swings a dagger. Why should a wizard that focuses on a specific school of magic be penalized when he decides to cast from other, arbitrarily chosen, opposing schools?

He's simply better at casting one type of school? Why the hell should he be worse at another? Lost study time? Opposing magical energies?

Magic is magic.

If anything, school focus should encourage the use of the chosen school rather than discourage the use of other spells.

Give Players an enhanced effect so that they are more likely to spend spell slots on their specialty school. That is the economy that rules where a Wizard is most likely to make decisions surrounding their prepared spells.

Make it more attractive to use a school, rather than other schools look less attractive. Don't slap players for making choices. If they need that spell from necromancy, but they know they'll also have to rely on their transmutation focus, why should they pay for making a choice at 1st level?

Last, but not least, I have been toying with something in my home campaigns since last summer too, and that is gauging how long a spell or condition affects someone based on how bad they botch their saving throw. -omitted text- At the moment I just rule the # of rounds they are out is by how many points they fail their save. Thoughts?

-DM Jeff

Y'know here's another thing that would make playing faster. Flat effect durations. If a player fails a save, they fail a save, it's pretty binary, and I can buy into that. So to your point DM Jeff, I disagree with the "how much you fail is a gradient" idea. You fail, you fail, period.

But to build on that what I hate are the arbitrary dice defining the lengths of those effects. If a spell or ability is going to stun, it shouldn't stun for dn + modifier rounds, it should just be a variable based on the spells power, and perhaps modified by the level of the origin of the power. Consistency in duration, scaled by level, less diceiness = faster resolution.

My two cents regarding this.

Hey,

I've run a few games of 4e using the rules out there, and I have to say, one thing that really streamlines combat is the across the board use of defense scores. This mechanic is open content in the OGL, and there are distinct benefits to using it - one is faster resolution time for magical attacks since the number of rolls to resolve effects are usually cut in half.

I really think it would be in the best interest of the Pathfinder design to embrace using defense scores as laid out in the Unearthed Arcana open content. It speeds resolution along significantly. This might lead to some pervasive changes in spell design, but overall I think the use of defense scores making play faster is a good thing.