I was interested in finding a way to take the best of 4th editions streamlining and apply it to the 3rd edition-derived Pathfinder, without requiring much changing in monsters. This is a little long. :-D
Also, I edited this because I just realized I hadn't looked in the Pathfinder Alpha glossary to see that my thoughts on 'cascading ability score changes' had already been implemented.
Well, the rest still apply.
The biggest challenge of the Pathfinder RPG is to offer backwards compatibility while reducing the head-aches of running some of rougher rules elements of 3e. I have a lot of experience reworking complex game elements into a streamlined system -- I wrote E.N. Publishing's Elements of Magic - Revised and its sequels, and was one of the main designers of our early point-buy superhero system Four-Color to Fantasy -- so I offer these suggestions on how to resolve the dilemma.
I propose to polish many of the perceived problems with 3e with these three main efforts. First, a quick overview.
- Remove cascading ability score changes
In 3e, poison damage, ray of enfeeblement, or becoming fatigued lead to many fiddly calculations, and may deactivate certain abilities, which lead to more changes. For Pathfinder, ability scores should not change; rather, effects provide bonuses or penalties just to those numbers modified by the appropriate stat.
- Reduce and mechanically rearrange the number of bonus types
In 3e there are at least 8 types of bonuses that crop up, and they are divided thematically rather than mechanically. For Pathfinder, reduce that to 4 types, divided so that they make play easier.
- Rule of three, limit of seven
When you want to create something with dynamic options, give it at least 3 things it can do. But don't give it more than 7, because at that point the options become too complicated to easily keep track of. This guideline applies most often to monsters.
.
Now let me present some examples. Please understand that all these examples are basically 'alpha rule' suggestions. The specifics would need to be tweaked. Also understand that while I do propose some serious changes to core aspects of the game, I do so in a way that existing 3e rules expansions can have their effects grandfathered into these new categories with limited trouble.
.
Say you get hit with ray of enfeeblement, granting a -10 penalty to Strength. You get a -5 penalty to melee attack rolls, -5 to on-hand melee damage, -2 or -3 to off-hand melee damage, and a -7 or -8 to two-handed melee damage. Also your carrying capacity goes down, which can affect your movement and your armor check.
Or worse, you're entangled, and you're an archer. You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dexterity. So you take a -2 to attack with a sword, but a -4 with a crossbow. And you might lose your Rapid Shot and Dodge feats. Oh, and your Reflex save goes down. And AC, unless you were wearing certain types of armor.
I suggest that for Pathfinder, ability score modifiers affect all rolls modified by that stat, and if it affects any static numbers (like AC or hit points), we just state a specific number, instead of requiring calculation. The stat itself, however, never changes.
In this system, a 10-point ray of enfeeblement just grants a -5 penalty to all Strength-based effects. This means you take a -5 penalty to melee attack rolls, a -5 penalty to melee damage rolls, and a -5 penalty on Str-based skills. (We'd also make some sort of rule that explains that when your Strength has a penalty of X, your lifting capacity is affected by Y, but that's a minor issue.)
If you would take a -4 Dex penalty, instead you take a -2 penalty to ranged attacks, Reflex saves, AC, and Dex skills. (I personally would simplify 'entangled' a bit more, so that it just gives a -2 penalty to attack rolls, Reflex saves, and AC, no penalty to skills; the only Dex skill you use when entangled is Escape Artist anyway, and we want people to do that).
.
Right now there's still, what, 8 types of bonuses, and all of these things can change during combat?
Enhancement (which can apply to ability scores, skill checks, attack, damage, armor bonus, shield bonus, and natural armor bonus)
Morale
Sacred
Profane
Deflection
Dodge
Resistance
Circumstance
Luck
(Racial? Synergy? Inherent?)
And then you have penalties from different sources.
At low level you seldom have all of them in play, but at high level you often have multiple different bonus types applying for different durations. As just a quick example of how ridiculous this can get, a pit fiend attacks the party. First we have the devil's fear aura which applies a penalty to a few stats. The devil uses unholy aura to grant itself a resistance and a deflection bonus. The PCs attack and cast a few spells. The devil dispels a whole suite of spell effects on one PC, and then in its next round it uses blasphemy, which (assuming it doesn't just end the encounter right there) reduces the PCs' Strengths by a random amount for a random number of rounds. Terribly complicated.
The problem is that these types are defined by how they're created, not how they affect play. We need to consolidate these bonus types and divide effects based on how often they crop up and how long they last.
I suggest we break it down to four main groups -- Character bonus, Circumstance bonus, Enhancement bonuses, and Morale bonuses. Enhancement and Morale bonuses each have the subcategories of Enduring bonuses, Standard bonuses, and Brief bonuses.
Bonuses and penalties use the same categories of definitions. Bonuses of the same type don't stack, and if you have both a bonus and a penalty, you apply the largest penalty to the largest bonus to see the final result.
- Character Bonuses are the flattest things, gained by race, class, and (some) feat choices. Once you gain them, you always have them. You factor the bonus into your stats, and it never changes. Because these never have to be worried about, we can let them apply to any number, no matter how rare. +1 to damage with daggers? +2 on Craft (stonemasonry)? +1 on off-hand attacks with magic longswords? The key is that these always apply in the course of a session, and never crop up for just a short period of time.
- Circumstance Bonuses result from a specific circumstance that can change in the course of a round based on a characters actions. Where character bonuses are the longest lasting, circumstance bonuses are the most fleeting. Therefore, they must be the easiest to remember and implement.
Most circumstance bonuses should be very straightforward in what they affect. You're in a hallowed area and you're good? Okay, you get a +2 bonus to all d20 rolls. You're entangled? Okay, you take a -2 penalty to attack rolls, AC, and Reflex saves.
The other option are those circumstances that provide very specific modifiers, but which are significant enough that you wouldn't forget. These ones should be +4 or +5 modifiers, so people can more easily remember them.
- Enhancement Bonuses come from effects that directly improve your prowess, while Morale Bonuses come from effects that encourage your will. Morale bonuses don't affect mindless creatures.
- - Enduring Bonuses are provided by something fairly long-lasting, usually from magic items -- things that you seldom swap out during combat. Some buff spells could also grant an enduring bonus lasting for a few hours or a day. Because they usually don't have to be worried about during combat, they (much like character bonuses) can apply to very specific things in small numbers.
Side note: Armor and weapons fall into this category. Armor and shields are the exception to the limit of what stacks; because you can stack them when applying an enhancement bonus to AC.
- - Standard Bonuses are short-term boosts like bardic music or buff spells. I would like them if they lasted until the end of an encounter because that's easy, but there might be some resistance to that. Anyway, because they turn on and off more easily, they should only modify relatively broad numbers. Like bardic music might grant +2 to attacks and damage and Will saves. Barbarian rage would grant +2 to attacks, damage, Will and Fort saves, plus 2 hit points per level, but a -2 AC. We don't want too specific, though, like '+2 damage on critical hits.'
- - Brief Bonuses last a very short period of time, and so (much like circumstance bonuses) their effects should be very broad or very substantial so they're hard to forget.
.
Note that Enhancement and Morale bonuses work the same way, but a morale bonus can stack with an enhancement bonus. This is so that someone with a magic sword doesn't lose out when his cleric buddy blesses him. However, only use the best Enhancement bonus, regardless of if it is enduring, standard, or brief bonuses. Likewise, only use the best Morale bonus.
For instance, if you have a magic sword (enduring +1 attack and damage) and you use the cleric Strength domain 'feat of strength' power (brief +4 melee damage, +4 Str skills), you end up with +1 attack, +4 damage, and +4 Str skills.
Now, since we've consolidated a lot of bonus types, there's no need for decking out every character with the same set of ring of protection, amulet of natural armor, and that ioun stone that give a luck bonus to AC. I personally think that these items really lack interesting flavor, and could be done away with. Since monsters never use them, we don't have to worry about changing any monster stats; all we have to do is change character stats, which Pathfinder is already doing in spades.
It's an easy change to give PCs a small boost to AC every few levels to make up for them not having these items. This still leaves room for
.
This is not so much a mechanical change as a design guideline for redesigning monsters and magic items. You can always go simple by making, like, a dretch that just attacks and does nothing else, or a magic sword that just grants a bonus to attack and damage. But if you want an interesting, dynamic foe or item, give it at least 3 things that stand out. But don't give it more than 7, because then it's just too complicated.
(As with any guideline, exceptions can be made for specific important items, but you don't want a fight with a half-dozen monsters each with 10 powers it can use.)
The same guideline can work for classes. Sure, spellcasters get tons of spells, but even at high level, I think a good mix might be four different attack spells, two helpful spells, and one useful thing to do other than casting spells.
When designing Elements of Magic (a build-your-own-spells system), I found a great balancing effect by letting casters get a modest number of signature spells (pre-designed spells that they could cast as standard actions), while requiring all other spells take two full rounds to cast. That way the game wouldn't slow down if he wanted to build a new spell in the middle of combat. He had to take two rounds, so that he'd be busy designing the specifics of his spell while everyone else took their turn.
I think 4th edition went too far by simplifying creature and monster powers. They wanted to make combat easier to run, but they didn't have to completely excise non-combat powers. They just needed to make them take a bit longer, so you could usually ignore them in combat. And if you find a way to use them in combat, you feel extra clever, because you take a risk devoting a lot of time to do something different.
.
.
How does all this work with 'grandfathering' existing rules into this more streamlined design? Well, my hope is that the full Pathfinder rules will rewrite monsters and spells so that they don't use tons of modifiers anymore, and so that they have their powers streamlined. Also, if we adopt this system for core terms like "shaken" and "entangled" -- terms that a lot of monsters mention in their abilities -- it will be easy for someone to grab, say, a Caller in Darkness from the XPH, and figure out that ego whip grants an enduring enhancement penalty to Charisma-based skills and Charisma-based spellcasting save DCs.
What do you think?
|
* Remove cascading ability score changes
In 3e, poison damage, ray of enfeeblement, or becoming fatigued lead to many fiddly calculations, and may deactivate certain abilities, which lead to more changes. For Pathfinder, ability scores should not change; rather, effects provide bonuses or penalties just to those numbers modified by the appropriate stat.
[...]
Detail - Remove cascading ability score changes
Say you get hit with ray of enfeeblement, granting a -10 penalty to Strength. You get a -5 penalty to melee attack rolls, -5 to on-hand melee damage, -2 or -3 to off-hand melee damage, and a -7 or -8 to two-handed melee damage. Also your carrying capacity goes down, which can affect your movement and your armor check.
[...]
I suggest that for Pathfinder, ability score modifiers affect all rolls modified by that stat, and if it affects any static numbers (like AC or hit points), we just state a specific number, instead of requiring calculation. The stat itself, however, never changes.
[...]
In this system, a 10-point ray of enfeeblement just grants a -5 penalty to all Strength-based effects. This means you take a -5 penalty to melee attack rolls, a -5 penalty to melee damage rolls, and a -5 penalty on Str-based skills. (We'd also make some sort of rule that explains that when your Strength has a penalty of X, your lifting capacity is affected by Y, but that's a minor issue.)
Two notes on the ability scores:
1. The suggestion breaks the relation between an ability score and the derived values. Currently, if the ability score receives a penalty, that penalty propagates to the ability modifier and then on to the relevant skills and actions. The cascading effect is the normal application of the core rules and I find it easier to implement than listing the effects of a penalty on the ability-derived effects.
Your proposal, (granting a penalties to all ability-based effects without modifying the ability itself), leads to odd results:
Example 1
Joe the Fighter
Level 1
STR: 20 (+5)
Melee attack bonus: +6
Damage: 2d6 + 7 (greatsword)
a. Ray of enfeeblement affecting STR for 10 pips
STR: 10 (+0)
Melee attack bonus: +1
Damage: 2d6 +0 (greatsword)
b. Ray of enfeeblement giving -5 penalty to all Strength-based effects
STR: 20 (+5)
Melee attack bonus: 1 (6-5)
Damage: 2d6 + 2 (7-5) (greatsword)
Example 2
Bill the Commoner
Level 1
STR: 10 (+0)
Melee attack bonus: +0
Damage: 1d3 + 0 (fist)
Ray of enfeeblement affecting STR for 10 pips
STR: 1 (-5)
Melee attack bonus: -5
[b]Damage: 1d3 - 5
Ray of enfeeblement giving -5 penalty to all Strength-based effects
STR: 10 (+0)
Melee attack bonus: -5
Damage: 1d3 - 5
Now what happens when Joe and Bill are given a potion of Bull's Strength?
Should we rewrite the spell so that it gives a bonus to all Strength-based effects? I find it much easier to work at the level of the ability and let the changes affecting the ability cascade down to the derived values.
2. Recalculating the effects of the STR modifier going down by 5 points is a very simple calculations. I also don't see anyone calculating at the same time the -5 to one-hand melee damage, -2 or -3 to off-hand melee damage, and a -7 or -8 to two-handed melee damage. The characters use one weapon set and usually don't swap it out every round. If the player has problems applying modifiers to his character's powers, that may not be the system's fault.
I think the Design Philosophy of Enduring/Standard/Brief Bonuses is brilliant. Having a Barbarians rage, Bards music and so on be a Standard Bonus that lasts until the end of the encounter is easy to keep track of and still as useful.
|
|
I'm not sure of the benefits of eliminating half of the bonus/penalty types and introducing subtypes based on duration. Their interplay can become more complicated at higher levels, but playing at lower levels is a great learning opportunity and prepares for the complexity of higher-level play.
For complex encounters, I and probably many GMs make notes and stat out the monsters depending on the monster's tactics and gear. Combat trackers and initiative cards let you write down or erase the various bonuses and penalties.
Sounds like some neat ideas. It's unfortunate that they were presented this late in the game though, since I think Beta has already been sent to the printers... maybe something for the final product?
@Locworks
I'm getting the impression that what you are trying to say is that this complications he's talking about are necessary to keep the game the same level of fun it was before?
Basically, these are needed complications to the game?
.
I'm not sure I agree with that. You say that it would be more difficult to have each spell clearly say what it all affects, as opposed to the cascade effect? (You said that the cascade would be "easier" to implement).
I don't see this.
When an event occurs, the old way works requires this:
The person must remember what things the original stat affected. Whether they have to remember now and apply it to their character sheet, or remember when they come across it 20 minutes later and they happen to need to do a skill check or something.
Then the person must remember how those stats are affected by the change. You have a Charisma penalty... does that mean you lose Turning attempts? Etc.
In the proposed way:
The person is told immediately everything it affects.
They apply it how they've been told in the spell.
.
Sure, this means it may not have the same level of affect as before (reducing 2handed damage by less than before). This does mean that the spell is more linear in what it does, which means it's easier to understand the power level of the spell as it's not being multiplied by the same amount of things.
This is the same concept as the "negative level" penalty. It mimics losing a level, however it doesn't match it completely (-1 ALL skill checks? But you don't put a point into every skill every level), and yet we accept this as okay.
You can't deny that this will streamline gameplay. Hit with Ray of Enfeeblement? You don't have to look any further than the spell description to know how much you are affected by it. There's no added level of thinking, so play is sped up a little, and there aren't opportunities to forget or misunderstand some rules.
And even though it might be "just" a small amount of speed up in play, when it happens repeatedly throughout a fight with dozens of creatures, it can be a noticeable difference.
.
Now, you can say you don't like the feel of the change, or that it's taking too much complication away in the name of streamlining the rules. However, you can't say that it's more complicated than having the extra level of thought process in the cascade version.
At most, it's more "text" in the spell description. That's not more complicated, just more reading.
Regarding the discussion of 'cascading ability score changes,' actually, if you look in the Pathfinder alpha 3 glossary, they already implemented this design. I only noticed it after posting my thread, though.
As another poster pointed out, we accept the simplified solution of negative levels granting flat penalties, not requiring actual recalculation. Why not do the same for stat penalties?
|
|
I'm getting the impression that what you are trying to say is that this complications he's talking about are necessary to keep the game the same level of fun it was before?
Basically, these are needed complications to the game?
Fun? I can't find any reference to fun in my post.
These are not "complications". The cascading effect is a logical application of the rules. Your STR goes down, your STR modifier goes down, the secondary values powered by STR go down.
Suggesting that an effect (enfeeblement) doesn't affect STR or the STR modifier, but affects secondary abilities powered by STR introduces an illogical and counter-intuitive situation in the game. "I'm not weaker, but I don't hit hard."
Taking the suggestion to the extreme, should we rewrite all ability influencing spells, items and effects so that each of them lists the secondary values affected by the spell?
|
|
Regarding the discussion of 'cascading ability score changes,' actually, if you look in the Pathfinder alpha 3 glossary, they already implemented this design. I only noticed it after posting my thread, though.
As another poster pointed out, we accept the simplified solution of negative levels granting flat penalties, not requiring actual recalculation. Why not do the same for stat penalties?
Because that breaks the basic link between an ability score and the attributes that depend on it.
Which is the point of this change. Linking them slows combat and can create moments of confusion. If you don't link them, it's more clear what is being changed and is easier to track.
The point wasn't that it wasn't logical, it's that it was adding a level of thought process that could cause the problems listed.
Modifying only that which needs to be modified to get the effect that you want makes the game easier. Yes, your "Strength score" isn't changed. Neither are your muscles reduced in size, etc. A magical effect is inhibiting your normal strength capability for a short period, so certain effects are limited by a certain amount. Or a poison makes them not work properly, etc... the point being that your normal capacity isn't change, and that's reflected in the Strength score remaining the same.
.
Now if there were to be a permanent loss to a stat, it would make the most sense to readjust fully at that point. Since it's permanent, and will be like this from now on. However a temporary change should be easier to track and apply.
.
If the end result is pretty much the same (2-hand strength modifier being an exception here), then the only problem someone should have with this is if it ruins their verisimilitude. In a game where you have hitpoints... this shouldn't be that big an issue.
I am on par with the OP.
I actually came up with a similar idea, since I always felt that adjusting ability scores and their bonuses in mid-fight was a pain in the ass.
Permanent ability changes are something completely different, as everybody agrees I guess.
The 3/7 idea is fine.
the
"Reduce and mechanically rearrange the number of bonus types"
I understand but doesn't actually seem to change anything.
You want to exchange one system that can at times be complicated, but a system that everyone knows- to an equally complicated system that no one knows.
When faced with two complicated systems, I'd just as soon keep the one we already know.
It is just as easy to keep track of what you already have, than it is to keep track of 3 main bonus types with sub types and categorized by duration. It's just a different type of record keeping but the ball really hasn't been moved toward "easier".
(not that i'm convinced it should- complexity isn't always something to be avoided.)
Ability score:
If you tell me
"You take -10 to strength" then I know exactly what that means and everything it entails.
You seem to want to change that to say "You take a -5 penalty to all strength matters".
Either: THe two mean the same thing and you are just swapping word choice.
Or:
the two mean different things and you are changing the power level of the mechanic.
If they are identical- then I say leave it be.
If they are different, and I believe you mean them to be such- then I still think you should leave it be. What you are actually suggesting is that ability score penalizing effects should have less of an effect on the character. In fact- you stated it out right in your example. A dex effecting penalty wouldn't effect dex based skills.
Not to be offensive- but that is just silly.
You are more clumsy now but not when using skills.
Or you are physically weaker now but not when using skills.
wha? Why?
If your players can't do the basic addition/subtraction needed to handle skills based on on-the-fly effects then the rules aren't what you need to fix. And even if you feel the need to do so- it's by Far easier to just say that temporary attribute loss doesn't impact skill use.
Much easier than redesigning the system.
As the rules stand you know exactly what you gain and lose when you are hit with an attribute effecting mechanic. I see no reason to alter that. Your solution doesn't stream line anything it just changes what numbers get bumped up and down. Simpler solution: Edit the definition to achieve your desired goal. If you don't want skill points and weight limits adjusted then just say they don't. It's alot less ink and explanation.
If I have misunderstood your post, please let me know. I've not meant to insult or to misquote you- i've merely posted on what my understanding is on what you've said.
Alright, allow me to clarify.
First off, let me briefly address simplifying what changes to ability scores should do:
I want the rules to be easy to implement in the middle of a game. That wins out over accurate simulation of 'reality.' And it is easier to remember "Entangled means -2 to attacks, AC, and Reflex" than it is to process "Entangled means -2 to attacks, and -4 to Dex, which means another -2 to ranged attacks, -2 to AC and Reflex . . . oh wait, my Dex is 14 and I'm in full plate, so that's just -1 AC."
One is just simpler to hold in your head while you're dealing with all the complications of combat. Plus, it's what Paizo already seems to want to do. See the current Alpha 3 rules glossary.
.
Second, the main thrust of my post, consolidating bonus types. Let me give a second go at the same idea. I admit my first suggestion was a little rough:
What I want is to streamline the play experience of 3rd edition so that people have to keep track of fewer numbers. More importantly, I want to make sure that players and the GM do not have to recalculate stats in the middle of combat.
If we take a step back for a bit, we can see that all characters and monsters have internal numbers and external numbers. You use the internal numbers in various calculations to determine the external numbers, and players generally don’t like having to change the internal numbers, because then they require cascading changes to the external numbers.
For example, to determine AC, you’ve got Dexterity, armor, maybe shield, maybe feats, maybe size, maybe some other class abilities (monk Wisdom), and various magic items. But most of the time during the game, all you care about is what your final AC is.
Similarly, a monster’s attack bonus is modified by hit dice, creature type, possibly class levels, size, strength, feats, and occasionally gear, but all that the players usually care about is what the final attack bonus is.
In both instances, the internal numbers help you determine the specific flavor of a monster or character – is he nimble or encased in metal; is it a skilled warrior, or a brute with massive strength. This, I think, is actually a strength of 3e over 4e, which seems to white-wash a lot of that nuance. But as far as balancing combat, only the external numbers really matter.
Character creation can stay as complicated as it is now, but my suggestion is that we limit ourselves to only three types of bonuses that abilities can create during combat.
Circumstance bonuses result from favorable or unfavorable circumstances and tactics. If you know 4e’s combat advantage, I could see us doing something very similar to that.
Power bonuses are provided by magic, and they represent a direct increase (or decrease) to your prowess.
Morale bonuses represent you being motivated into pulling out all the stops, or being frightened into working at less than full.
I’ll get into specifics in a bit, but let’s talk about what we don’t want to happen in combat: We do not want you to have to recalculate your internal numbers during combat. We don’t want to modify ability scores directly (like with ray of enfeeblement). We don’t want to strip away bonuses that you have factored into your character (like with dispel magic targeting a magic item). These effects should be revised so they affect the external numbers, or keep the same flavor without requiring rules head-ache.
Now, it’s okay if things that do this crop up as rare, special occurences – if someone puts a lot of effort into messing you up, it’s okay for you to have to modify one or two stats – but we need to reduce the number of things that require recalculation.
Thankfully, we can achieve the bulk of this by just altering the definitions of some key terms. If you look at the Pathfinder rules glossary, effects that did deal ability damage now translate directly into penalties to just the necessary external numbers. We can do the same with conditions like fatigued, exhausted, and entangled. I’d also like to see morale and fear effects moved to the same continuum, so that a bard’s inspiration is like the mirror image of what cause fear does.
Okay, so what do we want changing during combat?
It’s okay to modify:
- Attack rolls.
- Damage rolls.
- AC.
- Saving throws.
- Speed.
- Skill checks.
Whenever an effect tries to modify an internal number during combat, the rules tell us how to easily convert that change so we only have to worry about the external number.
Now, the final part of this, these modifications can be granted by the three different types of bonuses (or penalties) - circumstance, power, or morale. Even if you're using a monster out of the book, it should be pretty easy in the middle of gameplay to see which heading an ability should fall under.
Likewise, you only benefit from the one best morale bonus, the one best circumstance bonus, and the one best power bonus. If you have multiple penalties of the same type applied to you, you just use the greatest penalty. And if you have both a penalty and a bonus of the same type, you take the largest penalty and the largest bonus, and you let them balance each other. +2 bonus from greater magic weapon vs. -3 penalty from ray of enfeeblement results in a -1 penalty overall.
These two main changes -- making sure effects in combat only modify 'external numbers,' and reducing bonus types so there's no motivation to cast a half-dozen buffs on yourself -- should greatly streamline high level play.
I at least support the idea of changing the number of bonus types. The OP even forgot to mention some boni, for example size boni.
A lot of players on thiese boards stated thyt at high.lvl play one dispel magic on a PC took ages to resolve. That´s partly because of the many boni thyt seriously undermine the stacking rules. 4 different boni from different sources and maybe one non.source bonus type which can be stacked and your PC are not gonna need five pages of paper to list all theitr boni.
Interesting ideas. Re-calculation in combat can be a pain. More so with DEX than any other stat.