|
2. Named Bonuses
- Rather than the she-bang of Enhancement/Magic/Luck/Morale/Sacred/Deflection/Competence/Whatever crap;
- reduce it to just, say, Competence/Magic/Luck. Reclassify everything into those categories. Allows less things to stack, which is good IMO as it allows for better balancing.
I will spend my first post in this forums just to say:
"YES PLEASE".
This is a big needed simplification, alleviates the Christmas tree problem, is easy backwards compatible and tones down the power level (that way we can up it again with class and races features).
Javier.
I am totally "YES" to this.
I would further suggest to classify racial abilities as primary, secondary (and maybe tertiary)
Reason:
Instead of making the Half-Elf and Half-Ork the core races (and for no reason the only half-races),
make a simple rule on how-to create Mix-Races.
F.E: I wanne play a Mul (Half-Dwarf/Human).
First: I choose one of the ability modifiers, or with approvement to the GM apply both if they cancel each other out, resulting in a +2 net for maximum.
Second: I choose which race/parent is the "home"-race of my character.
Meaning which races blood flows stronger in my veins or in which culture I was raised.
Upon this choice, I will get the Primary ability of my primary race and the secondary ability of my... well, secondary race.
Wether to give all remaining tertiary abilities or let the player choose, well I don't know.
I believe a pet peeve of mine for D&D 3.5, is that players can never keep an accurate count of the modifers in combat with all the buffs / magical effects / racial bonuses etc.
I would suggest to keep the number of stacking named bonuses and things like damage types down.
1. Dmg types
Just 8 will do pls - Holy, Unholy, Fire, Acid, Lightning, Cold, Physical, Force, and re-classify everything else into those types.2. Named Bonuses
- Rather than the she-bang of Enhancement/Magic/Luck/Morale/Sacred/Deflection/Competence/Whatever crap;
- reduce it to just, say, Competence/Magic/Luck. Reclassify everything into those categories. Allows less things to stack, which is good IMO as it allows for better balancing.3. Racial Modifiers
- Do we really need to keep track of so many racial abilities?
- Can we keep it to, say, 4 abilities max per race? Make them significant, but reduce the number. I really don't think bonuses vs. racial enemies are neccessary, esp. if the characters are a non-martial type anyway.
- Would like to see something clean like
e.g. Dwarf
Bonus 1: +2 CON, +2 WIS -2 DEX
Bonus 2: Darkvision 60'
Bonus 3: Hardy; +2 to all saving throws vs. Magic and Poison
Bonus 4: Can pick 1 dwarf racial feat at lvls 1, 5, 10(which allows proficiencies in axes, etc, dwarf-like things the player actually wants his dwarf to have)But ya, imo book-keeping must go down if possible. Having less mods flying around would be a good place to start.
I'll add another YES! to the list of modifiers. The current list is:
Alchemical
Armor
Circumstance
Competence
Deflection
Dodge
Enhancement
Inherent
Insight
Luck
Morale
Natural Armor
Profane
Racial
Resitance
Sacred
Shield
Size
I'd pare it down to:
Armor (includes Shield; armor bonus from different items stack... yes, you can wield two shields, if you want)
Circumstance (includes Alchemical; circumstance bonus from different circumstances stack)
Competence (includes Inherent, Insight, Luck, Morale and Racial)
Deflection
Divine (includes Profane and Sacred, and they don't stack)
Dodge
Magic
Natural Armor
Size
Enhancement modifier simply alters an existing bonus.
Resistance depends on the source. It can be Magic, Competence, etc.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
While I disagree with the specifics of the post, I'd be open to some simplification of bonus types, but wouldn't want to see them decrease dramatically, say to 3 or 5.
Instead, what I would like to see is the Pathfinder RPG character sheet have a spot for all of the bonus types near the appropriate number - so AC would have a set of spaces that could be used to track all of the different AC affecting bonus types, etc. I've partially done this on my homemade excel character sheet, but haven't figured out a great way to make all of the detail I want fit into a nice single sheet. I think this step would go a long way to ease tracking the different bonus types, and avoid situations where someone suddenly realises that they have been counting two deflection bonuses for the past 2 game sessions as stacking, when they shouldn't.
I disagree with just about everything in this thread, but a few points to be made:
I believe a pet peeve of mine for D&D 3.5, is that players can never keep an accurate count of the modifers in combat with all the buffs / magical effects / racial bonuses etc.
I would suggest to keep the number of stacking named bonuses and things like damage types down.
1. Dmg types
Just 8 will do pls - Holy, Unholy, Fire, Acid, Lightning, Cold, Physical, Force, and re-classify everything else into those types.Uhm, the only damage types you've excluded are bashing, piercing, and slashing, and axiomatic and anarchic (Law/Chaos). And I want those.
I'd pare it down to:(snipped by the server)Firstly, lumping racial bonuses in with all those other bonuses is a guarantee that race will become an irrelevant characteristic after level 6.
Secondly, while I'm with you on the "Divine" bonuses (I've actually seen somebody stack sacred and profane bonuses - it was disgusting), the diversity of modifiers is a useful one. Typically, the reason why a new modifier name is used is so that the bonuses from one source will stack with others but not with itself (take alchemical bonuses for instance). Simply mindlessly declaring that there can be no other forms of modifier limits the system in ways that it should not be limited.
Re: Racial: make them "scale" up with level, or have magical effects increase the racial bonus.
Re: Divine vs. Profane/Sacred: that was precisely my point. You can use a Divine bonus from one source, not two (let alone use Sacred AND Profane... those two should cancel each other out).
I would suggest to keep the number of stacking named bonuses and things like damage types down.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Seriously, this is probably one of the best ideas I've seen on these playtest forums. Pare down the number of bonus types and you go a long way toward eliminating both the complexity and power issues of v.3.5.
Good stuff.
I would really like there to be some movement in this area, because it's too complex and too powerful.
(round about now Snorter will be having a cardiac arrest)
Back in 1st/2nd edition there were no types and everything stacked pretty much, which led to huge negative ACs and massive bonuses to hit and damage.
3rd edition, with it's stacking rules was imo trying to get rid of that by disallowing everything to count on top of one another, but adding types so that logical stacking works (if you're fast and heavily armoured, they should work together right?). But what we've ended up with is variations on a theme where you can get practically any type of bonus/mod if you look long and hard enough for it. So the power issue remains, but is just increased in complexity (trust me, I know - I play a buffing cleric at the moment).
What I reckon is that we should have the law of diminishing returns: only 3 bonuses can be applied to any one attribute (the three biggest), but beyond that the net result is indistinguishable from before.
I don't know if this increases complexity though. Which means that we need a bit more: they don't need to be of different type, and the maximum individual bonus should be +3, not what it currently is.
What do you think?
I'm no game-balance expert or anything, but the OP makes a lot of sense to me.
A lot of good ideas there.
|
I would really like there to be some movement in this area, because it's too complex and too powerful.
(round about now Snorter will be having a cardiac arrest)
!?!?!?!?!?!?!
<ker-thump>
3rd edition, with it's stacking rules was imo trying to get rid of that by disallowing everything to count on top of one another, but adding types so that logical stacking works (if you're fast and heavily armoured, they should work together right?). But what we've ended up with is variations on a theme where you can get practically any type of bonus/mod if you look long and hard enough for it. So the power issue remains, but is just increased in complexity (trust me, I know - I play a buffing cleric at the moment).
Can't say I'd noticed...:)
What I reckon is that we should have the law of diminishing returns: only 3 bonuses can be applied to any one attribute (the three biggest), but beyond that the net result is indistinguishable from before. What do you think?
I wondered about the fact that some characters maybe shouldn't be eligible for some bonuses. Especially the sacred/profane/axiomatic/anarchic. I see a lot of Neutral (or Neutral X) characters getting the benefits from divine powers that they don't even acknowledge or believe in. I'm guilty of this, before anyone think this is a rant about a specific player.
The example of stacking sacred and profane is ridiculous. The two should either cancel out, or, the act of accepting a sacred bonus temporarily causes alignment shift, so the subsequent application of a profane bonus either fails to work, or maybe even harms the character, with divine backlash.
And there may be fewer Neutral PCs willing to accept a sacred buff, if they know that the blackguard's unholy sword will deliver an extra 2d6 damage to them...
I want to disagree this is one of the cool things i like about 3.5 is that there are alot of differnt types of Damages and Bonuses and it makes for a good game so as players you have to deal with multiple types of damage so you dont just get a few resistances then you dont take damage
And all the difernt types of bonuses make sense
I agree with lowering the sheer amount of types of damage, bonuses, but ts a game that needs to be a little complex, so at least five of each is good! just have a sidebar etc, detailing exactly which is which and what stacks and doesn't.
|
|
Dmg Types:
1. bludgeoning, piercing and slashing
- Um, I only remember about once or twice in my playing of 3rd ed. D&D where this matters. It's either skeletons, zombies, or underwater. All are low-level concerns that are completely bypassed later on.
Lich, anyone?
These only encourge the 'golf-bag of weapons' syndrome, which imo is something I do not like.
I quite like the idea of picking the best tool for the job; I started D&D with the 1st Edition Weapon vs Armour modifiers, and so I guess I'm used to it.
It was always a laugh to see some swashbuckling fool completely fail to hit an enemy in full plate, since his razor-sharp rapier simply slides off.I then pull out my trusty hammer and ring his helmet like a bell.
When these rules fell out of use, then disappeared in 2nd Edition, the whole party just had longsword, longsword, longsword, yawn, shortsword, shortsword, yawn, cleric has a mace, maybe? oh no, he doesn't because he's an elf, he's got a longsword, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me when it's over....
I always took a dagger, a hammer and an axe, for use as tools, if not specifically for combat. I always expected to have a knock-down, drag-out fight, where we would disarm each other, and be rolling round on the floor with daggers at each other's throats, like in the movies.
But it hardly ever happened.
Most combats were so utterly boring, since no-one wanted the hassle of winging rules for this sort of thing, so we just lined up with the enemy and took turns to deliver 1d8 damage to each other.
Making diferent weapons more applicable to different situations forces players to think about what they're taking, and also to split their funds. Otherwise, if every weapon performed the same, or one weapon became the no-brainer choice, there's no reason not to plow all one's funds into a +10 Sword of Super-Freaking Awesome, and we go back to being bored to death.
If the stacking rules are complicated, rarely tracked accurately, and just "bad" - why not get rid of them altogether? Nothing stacks, you get the bonus of your one biggest.
If the stacking rules are bad at 13, changing it to 8/6/5/4/SomeMagicNumber isn't much of an improvement.
|
I like the idea of the 3 top bonuses stacking best. Rather than trying to remember (or decide in the first place!) which old "types" are in which new "types", why not just say "Only the biggest 3 types count!" That simplifies the character sheet even further, encourages quick buffing, and doesn't screw bards over as much as I worry the loss of sonic damage and morale bonuses would.
Hey! I like bards! Some of us exist! :D
I agree with the OP. I also like the idea of your top three (or whatever number you want to go with) stacking. For that matter, I like the idea of only being able to use X number of magic items, negating the need for magic item slots.
I don't agree with all the details, but I'm also highly in favor of the general idea.
I didn't even know there was something like an alchemical bonus?
I think 1/3 of the bonus types are redundant. No need to have both Sacred and Profan, and have them stack on top of that.
|
|
Well I agree with minimizing bonuses I think I have to disagree with the types you've limited it to.
First lets look at damage types, I don't really see a reason to limit the # of different damage types, more likely just say that certain types can't be used together, Fire/cold, holy/unholy are examples I've seen players try that I've had to nix.
Now bonus types here I think we can find some colusion, but you want to get rid of morale bonuses which basically says "hey bard, up yours"
I think they should be
Armor
Shield
Magic
Feat
Morale (Spells should not grant morale bonuses, only magic. Morale bonuses should only come from non-magical, or circumstancial situations)
Class (in the instance of wis mods to armor etc. This way if you had to classes that gave different mods to AC you could only apply the better mod, this will prevent level dipping just for certain stacking boosts, I can't remember the non-AC example, but I have seen one)
Seems like it is important to clarify what number the bonuses are applying to, and to then limit the number of possible bonuses:
AC:
- Armor (highest Armor/Natural Armor and highest Shield stack)
- Enhancement (highest Armor and highest Shield stack)
- Competence
- Luck (Dodge and Luck bonuses)
- Magic (Sacred/Profane, Deflection, Morale, others)
Attack:
- Enhancement
- Competence
- Luck
- Magic
Saves:
- None (resistance causes all kinds of game balance issues in my opinion)
Skills:
- Competence
- Magic
- Luck
I've probably missed some, but that's a quick list.
I'm all for paring down the difference bonuses that can stack, but perhaps rather than cut down the types of bonuses, perhaps a stacking limit should be made instead? It might be done in one of two ways:
1) Limit stacking by level - modifier bonuses can't stack greater than 5 + level, or some other maximum. Or a flat maximum, say +20.
con: Spells like Jump and other modifiers that start at +10 or more can't be fully utilized until higher levels.
2) Limit stacking to a certain number of types. For example, perhaps you can only apply stacking bonuses from three sources - say a Racial bonus, a circumstance bonus and an Enhancement bonus.
con: You still have to decide what bonuses you're going to stack.
Also, how would you handle carry-over bonuses - for example, the bonus to damage from Bull's Strength vs. a +1 morale bonus to damage. Would the "enhancement" bonus to damage from the spell count against the stacking limit? If it doesn't, it just becomes a loophole to allow extra stacking.