|
I would have to agree with you that the static defense values make for a far smoother gaming experience.
Pathfinder has already made a step in the right direction with the CMB replacing opposed rolls for sunder and grapple.
Saving throws and spells have caused a number of issues with the increasing power levels of 3rd edition, it’s one of the reasons they made a change to spell focus back when they did the 3.5 update.
The general problem is that as creatures improve, the ability to resist their spells and abilities doesn’t improve on the same axis. By introducing a base saving throw of say 10 + the existing modifier and making that an attack roll for the caster does provide the game with a little more control. It also removes the dependency of wizards spells requiring both an attack roll and a saving throw.
However the implementation could be a lot more complicated and could hinder the backwards compatibility Pathfinder is trying to maintain.
I would suggest the following...
Spellcasters have a BSAB (base spell attack bonus) equal to their caster levels.
Saves become static and are calculated in a similar fashion to AC (10 + save modifier + ability modifier).
Touch and flat footed ACs are removed. Touch attacks are replaced with an attack against the targets reflex save. Flat footed attacks simply offer the attacker a bonus to the attack.
Touch spells and ranged touch spells would attack a creature’s reflex score while weapon-like spells would target a creatures AC.
The feats Iron will, Great Fortitude, and Lightning Reflexes improve as you advance in level instead of providing a fixed benefit (providing a similar bonus to that of armor).
All dodge effects that improve your AC now improve your reflex save.
Deflection bonuses improve your AC and all saves.
A paladin’s divine grace improves his AC as well as saves.
Spell resistance becomes a new special bonus (like dodge, defection, etc) that grants a bonus to AC and saves from a spell source. Spells that do not allow spell resistance ignore this bonus to AC.
Thoughts?
|
I don't like the idea of defenses as core just for compatibility issues. I want a 3.5 statblock and a PF one to have the same numbers and words. If those numbers and words don't mean exactly the same (as in the rewriting of some feats), I don't mind. But when I'm DMing a 3.5 module, I want to keep the maths at a minimum.
|
For me there's just something about having my own chance to beat the attack vs. the attacker's chance to "hit" one of my saves. Part of the fun of playing is rolling your own dice and, while there are many areas of 3.x that could be streamlined or otherwise improved, this wouldn't be one of my favorites.
|
|
For me there's just something about having my own chance to beat the attack vs. the attacker's chance to "hit" one of my saves. Part of the fun of playing is rolling your own dice and, while there are many areas of 3.x that could be streamlined or otherwise improved, this wouldn't be one of my favorites.
You could always reverse the rules if its your wish, Would you feel so happy if you rolled a d20 instead of taking 10 as your base AC? the rules are in the SRD if you wish to try it out, I did once and the number of near TPKs rose dramatically. It also made combats really long winded, especially when dealing with multiple attacks. a 7 headed hydra got really messy when trying to pair up which head affected which AC roll!
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.
I have come in on the dissenting side. I don't like the 4E method of changing saves to a magical defense. Yes, I've played several games of 4E (at DDXP) and I don't like it. I personally have never seen saving throws slow down the game. Seriously, when I hear discussion of streamlining the game I think about how to reduce player indecision or how to get people to look up their spell effect before their turn...
Also, spell defense is a big change that would have signficant ramifications for backwards compatibility.
|
|
Also, spell defense is a big change that would have signficant ramifications for backwards compatibility.
The system is already 90% in place if you consider how AC currently works.
The basic system is that AC is 10 + mods while saves are d20 + mods.
under the above system AC and saves are both 10 + mods. with a slight rewording on spell casting almost all spells would self update. only a handful would require more significant changes.
Please No thats one of the things i didnt like about 4thed they took away my chance to stop (or save from) an effect, This is 3.5 not 4.0
|
|
You could always reverse the rules if its your wish, Would you feel so happy if you rolled a d20 instead of taking 10 as your base AC? the rules are in the SRD if you wish to try it out, I did once and the number of near TPKs rose dramatically. It also made combats really long winded, especially when dealing with multiple attacks. a 7 headed hydra got really messy when trying to pair up which head affected which AC roll!
Yeah, and I think that's the distinction (however small) between AC and Saving Throws. You'd be rolling defense rolls vs every attack (lots of extra rolling! (and math!)), whereas saves don't tend to occur as often. If you were making saves as often as you had to use AC for defense, then I might lean more toward making the attacker "hit" a DC for saves.
|
This is one thing I've been trying to house rule for my players for some time. Actually, I'm trying to take it a step farther than 4e. I'm trying to get my players to embrace the Star Wars Saga Edition approach where Reflex Defense also serves as armor class. Player has 3 defenses. Period.
For some reason, this is also the house rule that my players are the most in opposition of.
Consolidating skills comes a close second.
We need to keep saving throws. /SNIP/ Personally I like saving throws. I know enough that in combat, giving my players something to due is important /SNIP/ ... few more rolls.
My words...
Saving Throws have always been a fun and exciting part of the action in the game. Keep them we must. At least around my table, no one wants to give up their chance to roll the save.
|
|
Saving Throws have always been a fun and exciting part of the action in the game. Keep them we must. At least around my table, no one wants to give up their chance to roll the save.
My groups quite the opposite and its not from the defenders point of view. having your big new spells entirely resisted by an opponent due to a good saving throw is one of the reasons arcane casters are so rarely played. and saving throws at low levels are easy to resist when it matters most. spells also aren't a reusable asset like swinging a sword, if you miss, so what you get another swing next round, if a spell is resisted are you likely to burn another spell on the same encounter or wait for the party fighter to finish it off while you stand back and do nothing?.
At least with static saves it becomes more viable to consider specialist feats that improve your chances of getting spells to hit rather than relying on spells that don't allow saves.
Also, spell defense is a big change that would have signficant ramifications for backwards compatibility.The system is already 90% in place if you consider how AC currently works.
The basic system is that AC is 10 + mods while saves are d20 + mods.
under the above system AC and saves are both 10 + mods. with a slight rewording on spell casting almost all spells would self update. only a handful would require more significant changes.
Then keep 3.5 saving throws and those who prefer the 4E method can implement as a house rule. Change for change sake isn't the way to go for Pathfinder IMHO. Change should be reserved for areas like Polymorph, where there's objective evidence it was messed up in 3.5.
I don't think the change is necessary. For those who like it, it's easy to house rule in.
Personally, while I don't think it makes a huge difference, I think there's a lot to be said for the current save system. If a PC gets poisoned, for example, I'd rather have the player roll a save than make an attack roll against his Fortitude Defense. Even though the result is ultimately determined by a random die roll, it gives the player an extra feeling of control, even if that feeling is an illusion.