|
1. One of the points that I'm having to wrestle with is the bleed I have between d20 Modern and D&D. IMO, using the Ref Sv with AC for D&D helps equate the playing field between D&D and d20 Modern, but only if D&D isn't a high magic setting. So, if I go ahead with this, I may have to consider lessening the amount of magical enhancements my players come across.
2. Occupation is a similar bleed. It's also an easy thing to paste onto a game. There really isn't much concern with backwards compatibility here, and it gives a character a bit of a historical foundation to play with. Haven't implemented it in my own game, but don't see an issue of imbalance if I do.
3. The +1/2 CL, Instant Criticals, and Condition Tracking have worked beautifully in my games. The length of a bout of combat is shortened and becomes much more deadly. The players like how their more experienced characters can dish out more damage and accept that they can receive more damage, too.
4. I haven't imposed anything with metamagic yet. I'm still playing with it. I don't like the current way metamagic works, and am trying to find an alternative that reflects (1) wear and tear on the caster that comes with metamagic and (2) a system that allows metamagic to be used multiple times per day.
5. Darkvision and Low-light vision have been altered for my game. Honestly, we haven't really noticed a difference in game play. There was an interesting point about how low-light works in a darkened cavern with a torch. I agree that didn't reach my conception. We haven't had that happen yet. I would have to say that a person with low-light could not see as well as a creature with darkvision in the underdark. But the concept of a underdark predator spying on a group of passing adventures hundreds of feet below makes sense and has worked.
6. As for carrying capacity, because it comes up a lot in my games, and it does get to be a bear at times, I've taken to borrowing from 4e and see how it plays. However, drag and push are different: Str x40, not Str x50. Still, this carrying capacity seems a bit uber-ized. But we'll see. (Note that this also defeats the need to add special enhancements to strength with a backpack, because essentially light and medium loads have become normal loads.)
7. As for skills, I still have my version of condensed skills that I've yet to implement. (From another post, but worth throwing in here.) I'm waiting to see what Paizo does. I'd like to follow Paizo's lead here, but I really wish Paizo would share with us some discussion as to why their version makes more sense than some of our arguments. (Not saying that I'll end up agreeing . . . I just want to see Paizo's logic.)
8. Heal Check = Revivify. I like how this functions. It's time-restricted and skill-restricted, but allows for a mundane means to bring somewhat back from death's door without magic. Still, it has yet to come up in my game.
9. Regarding my various feat suggestions (Skill Focus, lose +2/+2, Weapon Finesse, Arcane Foci), they've yet to be implemented. I agree that weapon finesse may really be a pointless endeavor. Arcane foci may seem imbalanced, but it's a bear to track material components and this is a way that the rules could help ease this burden. Most likely, I'll house rule a dump of +2/+2 skills and have only Skill Focus, if only to simplify things.
10. Spell recharge has been house ruled in, but we've yet to see it tested. I like it, because it gives a magic user some flexibility, but not a free reign. That said, there could be ways to make it more restrictive. Not sure how, just yet.
11. Regarding rules on Diagonal Movement, this seems to be an issue of preference. Personally, I like hexagon maps over square maps because they seem more realistic for movement. That said, we normally aren't that anal about following squares on a map. So, 1:1 diagonal movement isn't too much of a leap for my group.
12. I've already implemented the simplification to spells like detect alignment and protection from alignment. They really haven't come up often, but as a matter of simplification for tracking purposes, they've worked well thus far.
What I've dumped - with thanks to much of your comments:
1. Advanced Rogue Talent: Full Sneak Attack. No need.
2. Item Familiar (Wizard). After additional study, I agree that arcane bond is simply easier to track.
3. Acrobatics Check = Initiative Roll. Leaving this alone for now. I really like SWSE's Initiative Skill Check, but I'll leave that concept in limbo with no. 7 above.
Please, keep comments coming. Even if Paizo doesn't bat an eye to these possible rule changes, you all could help me improve my own game.
<snip>what I started doing was allowing a +1 Dexterity Modifier bonus to AC for every 5 ranks in the Jump and Tumble skills. Now why did I phrase it "Dexterity Modifier bonus to AC" instead of "Dodge bonus to AC"? Because all armors have a Maximum Dexterity Bonus already built in. In this way, I save on the head-ache and shattered-immersion factors.I'm leery of getting into synergies, which is what you are proposing. But to play ball, I think perhaps an easier way to do this would be to have an Acrobatics synergy to AC. I.e., for every 5 ranks in Acrobatics, you get +1 Synergy bonus to AC whenever you are not flat-footed. How's that?
Well, what You described is pretty much the exact same thing I did with one exception:
* Using Your suggestion, someone with armor that allows only a Max Dex bonus of +1 can still hop around like a bunny if they have enough ranks in Acrobatics. Therefore someone who already has a high AC will have an even higher AC.
* Using my suggestion, a player's "bunny hopping" is constrained by their armor's Max Dex rating. That way, players who have a low AC can get boosted without allowing the tanks to suddenly have insane ACs (thus ensuring compatability with existing adventure designs). This is why under the U Defense Bonus rules the Armor bonus and the Class defense bonus do not stack.
As a simplified revision to combine our ideas...
Acrobatic Bonus to AC: For every 5 ranks in the Acrobatic skill, a creature gains a +1 Acrobatic bonus to AC. The Acrobatic bonus to AC may not exceed the Max Dexterity Bonus of any armor being worn by that creature.
In this way, the heavy armor guy could get maybe another +1 or +2 boost but nothing over-the-top. Meanwhile, the Bard and Rogue would get a nice boost every few levels. The would also get it sooner than those classes that do not get Acrobatics as a class skill.
Alternatively...
Since You originally mentioned a level-based bonus (Yours based on the Reflex save), here's a streamlined version of a UA-style Defense bonus that just came to me.
Defense Bonus to AC: Add one-half of a creature's BAB as a Defense bonus to AC. The Max Dex Bonus of any armor worn indicates the maximum Defense bonus that type of armor allows.
Example 1: A level 11 fighter would have +5 Defense bonus (BAB 11/2 = 5), but their chainmail armor (Max Dex +2) would allow only a +2 Defense bonus to be added.
Example 2: A level 11 bard would have a +4 Defense bonus (BAB 8/2 = 4). Their chain shirt (Max Dex +4) allows them to add all of that +4 Defense bonus to their AC.
In this way, it can still be useful for a player to want and need armor rather than always going unarmored at higher levels — which is one of the things I dislike about the Defense bonus as-written in UA.
|
|
On the idea of 4+ INT skill ranks for every class, I recieved the following response...
No difference between classes? This really punishes rogues and the like.
Not necessarily.
The Rogue presently recieves the bloated number of skill ranks it does because of the number of skills that are considered important for a Rogue. Consolidation fixs some of that.
For example, if Listen and Spot are replaced by one skill (i.e. Perception), that is one less skill rank needed for that class. A single rank in Perception is equal to the one spend for the same yield as both Listen AND Spot. Add to the mix Sneak (Move Silently + Hide), Disable Device (Disable Device + Open Lock), Deception (Bluff + Disguise), and Acrobatics (Balance + Tumble) to name a few and suddenly the Rogue requires less ranks, but can perform the same tasks as before. Even with adding in the SWSE Initiative skill.
|
|
On the idea of 4+ INT skill ranks for every class, I recieved the following response...
No difference between classes? This really punishes rogues and the like.Not necessarily.
The Rogue presently recieves the bloated number of skill ranks it does because of the number of skills that are considered important for a Rogue. Consolidation fixs some of that.
For example, if Listen and Spot are replaced by one skill (i.e. Perception), that is one less skill rank needed for that class. A single rank in Perception is equal to the one spend for the same yield as both Listen AND Spot. Add to the mix Sneak (Move Silently + Hide), Disable Device (Disable Device + Open Lock), Deception (Bluff + Disguise), and Acrobatics (Balance + Tumble) to name a few and suddenly the Rogue requires less ranks, but can perform the same tasks as before. Even with adding in the SWSE Initiative skill.
I'm uncomfortable with making it the same across the classes, particularly since different classes train differently. The one problem I have with the way skills are is the 2 + Int Mod for wizards. I would think that because a wizard's skills are all intelligence-based, and a wizard is constantly entrenched in study (stereotype - I know), then a wizard's skills should be higher.
Alternatively, if Paizo were more aggressive on condensing skills, it would not likely be such an issue.
|
|
Defense Bonus to AC: Add one-half of a creature's BAB as a Defense bonus to AC. The Max Dex Bonus of any armor worn indicates the maximum Defense bonus that type of armor allows.
Example 1: A level 11 fighter would have +5 Defense bonus (BAB 11/2 = 5), but their chainmail armor (Max Dex +2) would allow only a +2 Defense bonus to be added.
Example 2: A level 11 bard would have a +4 Defense bonus (BAB 8/2 = 4). Their chain shirt (Max Dex +4) allows them to add all of that +4 Defense bonus to their AC.In this way, it can still be useful for a player to want and need armor rather than always going unarmored at higher levels — which is one of the things I dislike about the Defense bonus as-written in UA.
I like this. It's easy to remember. Base Defense Bonus = 1/2 BAB. I also like the max dex limit. That said, I sat down and compared the d20 Modern core class defense bonuses with comparable D&D core classes.
Not a clean match-up. (And many of you are likely shaking your head, shouting, "NOT D20 MODERN!" That said, I trudge forward.
What I don't like about BDB = 1/2 BAB, is that it seems counter to the concept that a bard/rogue/etc. may not be the best attacker, like a fighter, and so, to compensate, they move to more defensive strategies, hence the high Reflex Save.
Moreover, what would stop a Fighter from discarding chainmail for a chainshirt, just to up the defense? (Of course, that may also seem a logical counterpoint for a fighter with a high dexterity.)
I guess it comes down to this:
1. BDB = 1/2 BAB, limited by Max Dex or Armor (or Encumbrance) or
2. BDB = Reflex Base, limited by Max Dex or Armor (or Encumbrance).
Let's say it has to be one or the other. I need all your thinking heads here on which it should be (or alternatively, 3 = an alternative unnamed). What's critical for me is the ease of plug and play. Both 1 and 2 are easy - 1 being likely a bit easier, b/c BAB is usually mentioned clearly, whereas Reflex Base often needs to be deduced.
What I don't like about BDB = 1/2 BAB, is that it seems counter to the concept that a bard/rogue/etc. may not be the best attacker, like a fighter, and so, to compensate, they move to more defensive strategies, hence the high Reflex Save.
Moreover, what would stop a Fighter from discarding chainmail for a chainshirt, just to up the defense? (Of course, that may also seem a logical counterpoint for a fighter with a high dexterity.)
I guess it comes down to this:
1. BDB = 1/2 BAB, limited by Max Dex or Armor (or Encumbrance) or
2. BDB = Reflex Base, limited by Max Dex or Armor (or Encumbrance).Let's say it has to be one or the other. I need all your thinking heads here on which it should be (or alternatively, 3 = an alternative unnamed). What's critical for me is the ease of plug and play. Both 1 and 2 are easy - 1 being likely a bit easier, b/c BAB is usually mentioned clearly, whereas Reflex Base often needs...
When I clicked Submit, I was thinking that You'd bring up the Reflex vs. BAB issue and so I've been thinking on it a bit...
In terms of fighters vs. rogues, I guess it comes down to a question of this: Given equal dexterity, when unarmored, who does it make sense would be harder to touch?
One could make the argument that the more fragile classes place a great deal of emphasis on not placing themselves in harm's way to begin with. i.e. The rogue sticks to the shadows while the fighter typically isn't as... evasive... about their encounters. I think that's a good reason why we see bards and rogues getting the good reflex save and not the fighter.
However, in a pit-fighter situation, I think an equally agile fighter would have the edge not just in taking physical hits but in avoiding them as well. Why? Because their training is wholly focused on martial combat whereas the rogue and bard are more diversified. (Remember, evasion is effective against spells, not axes, maces and swords.)
The problem we run into then is that fighters are already good at wearing heavy armor. This is why I recommended the Max Dex bonus mechanism. AC is still effective when a character is helpless — knowing how to bob and weave isn't. There are also a good number of handy effects to be had from wearing certain types of armor such as damage reduction (adamantine) or even simply making use of that item slot. So in order to gain the biggest benefit from both BDB and Armor, Your high-level characters would probably have to relegate themselves to wearing only a mithril shirt — somehow I think the high-level fighters might still want something a bit heavier for those situations when physical armor matters.
In otherwords, I see the BAB method as self-limiting where the fighters are concerned. Now if Reflex was used instead, suddenly an unarmored fighter is no more capable at evading an axe to the face than an unarmored wizard of equal dexterity. That just seems completely wrong to me.
|
|
You make some good points. I appreciate that. To be honest, I waffle between Ref and BAB. In part, I look to your reasoning. But in part, Ref seems a reasonable fit. That said, I must admit that I'm leaning more to the 1/2 BAB rule. One reason behind this is the new CMB mechanic, which involves not only making a hit, but avoiding the hit as well.
I'm reluctant to simply say add BAB to Dex for purposes of BDB, because I think that'd be over the top. But 1/2 BAB seems reasonable.
Brit O, Saurstalk: In what issue of Dragon did the Imbued Staff appear? I've used UA's Item Familiars before (omg the book-keeping horrors!) but I don't recall seeing the article You're both referencing. It sounds intriguing.
|
|
Brit O, Saurstalk: In what issue of Dragon did the Imbued Staff appear? I've used UA's Item Familiars before (omg the book-keeping horrors!) but I don't recall seeing the article You're both referencing. It sounds intriguing.
Dragon 338, Page 55.
As an aside, I actually expanded it to be Imbued Weapon, to allow for more variety.
It isn't as simple as Arcane Bond, but is more on par with the complexity involved with Familiar advancement. (Of course, this isn't to say that Familiars couldn't be simplified further.)