Hey folks,
My group and I have been talking about Pathfinder for some time now. We've finally got a couple games going to test and support the rule set. For the most part, we love all the changes, as they are good upgrades, balanced revisions and just plain smart thinking.
However, the changes are conservative and don't really help balance the core system. It's still 3.5. Granted, Paizo never promised they were going to fix the system of it's flaws, and instead vowed to help balance the core system at it's heart: It's classes and races, plus some additional goodies like skills, etc. This got us to thinking, and me writing.
I'm not a writer. I give you a fair disclaimer that what you see below has not been edited to much any great extent, and I have a chaotic mind. It's hard for me to put my thoughts down on paper.
Below you'll find some revisions to the core 3.5 system, which Pathfinder is base upon. These changes, so far as I notice, do not remove backwards compatibility. There may be instances where you will have to alter some aspects to fit it better with these new rules. For instance, monsters may need to be altered to fit. Then again, add a couple more hitpoints to each monster and call it good.
1. Save DCs
Any attack that opposes a saving throw is now calculated thus, including powers, spells and abilities: 10 + Half Caster level + Ability bonus.
2. Armor Class
Characters now gain half their Character Level as an unnamed bonus to their armor class.
3. Magic Items
- Enhancement bonus to armor class may only be applied to armor, and not to rings, bracers, etc. Cloth (Robes, shirts) may be enchanted like normal armor, but must fulfill all other requirements per normal (must be masterwork, etc).
- Miscellaneous magic items that provide a bonus to AC now provide a maximum +1 to AC (ie, ring of protection cannot exceed +1).
- Implements may be enchanted to benefit casters in their spell save DCs and bonuses to hit when using spells. These foci must be enchanted using the same rules for enchanting weapons, with the same enhancement bonuses applying to the attacks and damages of the user's spells. Example: A wizard enchants a staff with a +2 enhancement. His or her staff now gives an additional +2 item bonus to all his or her spell save dcs. This staff costs 8,000 gold, as is normal for a +2 weapon. Enhancements may apply to only one of either save dcs or bonus to attack with spells, but not both.
4. Death Effects
All spells and abilities that have an instant death effect (save or die) are removed. In exchange, those abilities may stun or deal damage depending on a case by case circumstance.
Alternatively, someone suggested that death effects be replaced with rules similar to the Death Domain, from 3.5 PHB special ability.
5. Caster Levels (Manifester Levels)
Caster level, spells know, and spells per level for spell casting classes are given a multiclass bonus equal to half the value of all classes not already giving you caster levels for that particular class. This multiclass bonus may not exceed the class level providing the original caster level. This bonus works in the same way a "+1 arcane/divine caster level" would work from prestige classes. This bonus does not give you any other benefits that you might aquire from leveling in your normal caster level class, including class abilities, only spells, spells known and caster levels. Below are examples.
- 4 Wizard / 10 Fighter: Wizard gains +4 to caster level from Fighter class. The Fighter actually gives a +5, but this bonus is limited because it may not exceed the Wizard class level of 4.
- 5 Cleric / 4 Druid: Gain +2 bonus for both the druid and cleric caster levels from the opposite classes. Druid now has a CL or 6, and Cleric has a 7, on a 9th level character.
6. Saving Throws
All saving throws calculated as follows: half character level + ability bonus. Classes who previously had "good saves" (a +2 bonus at level 1) give a one time class bonus of +2 to that saving throw. You may gain the class bonus to saving throws only once at first level, thus multiclassing into a different class will not benefit your saving throws.
If anyone has additional thoughts, or corrections please don't hesitate. However, if you disagree I'd love a friendly response in your reasoning. :)
|
1 - this removes the spell level factor from the saves DC. So a 5° level wizard casting fireball, ghoul touch or chill touch would have the same DC for each of these spells, despite the fact that they are from three different power levels. Sorry, not for me.
A tasty class feature that improves DCs for lower power levels maybe (even in iterations), but this kind of change is a bit too heavy handed to me.
2 - big time no. A melee class such as a fighter or barbarian gets the same bonus as a wizard or a bard? While I support the concept of a class/level related bonus to AC, I would make it class-dependant and somehow capped by other factors (equipment worn, feats, class features, etc.).
For example I'd use the class bonus to AC proposed in the Advanced Gamemaster's Manual and make it capped by the armor worn (adding the bonus to the usual Dex modifier). The PF fighter with its armor training class feature could really become the armored king of the battlefield, while other classes should be less dependant on the Dex mod for defense only.
3 - I'd boost a bit the cost for the enchantments of DC boosting foci. Nice concept.
Could you please explain the motivation behind the AC/item changes?
4 - I prefer keeping save or die effects, even if that means translating the spells into HUGE (and I mean HUGE) damage dealing spells. You are high level, you face bigger risks, that's my base line.
While a mid-high level character can survive "trivial" dangers that could have killed a less powerful individual, he has to face a new kind of lethal dangers, a kind that he would not have even considered before. Successful save, minor damage and slightly debilitating effects, failed save, you're toast.
5 - I like. Maybe also some limitations on arcane/divine combo casters (I see power players salivating).
6 - no, for the same logic behind points 1 and 2. I understand the basic idea of simplification/standardization that kinda cancels the class dipping problem, but I find that these changes flatten too much the barriers between different classes.
Thanks for replying!
My reasoning behind these changes is to supplement and balance multiclassing. Third is a great edition, but the math fails after level 12 or so. This method ensures that the math doesn't fail so quickly.
If everyone is getting AC from their innate power, supplemented by armor naturally, then the story can continue into epic without forcing each opponent to 1-2 round combats, which drastically changing consequences depending on dumb luck.
Fighters will still be king of the battlefield -- especially in Pathfinder.
Consider this. A level 10 fighter will have an AC of 10 + half level 10 + armor 8 + dex 1 + enhancement + 3 + ring of protection 1 = 33. A wizard will have an AC of 10 + 10 + mage armor? 4 + dex 2 = 26. That 7 point difference is astounding, in reality.
This system has the benefit of utilizing 4e's basic concept (a concept that could have had supreme beneficial factors, had they taken the system into a better field. That's another post, however) of balanced equations, without taking away the flavor or 3.5 and the multitudes of options.
I believe 3.5 is a great system, but it's core is flawed and quickly fails. Pathfinder alleviates some issues with power, now it's someone's turn to help it on it's math. I don't mean to say my methods are perfect, I'm no designer (yet), but they are a good step toward that path.
Let me explain the saves a bit more.
Saving throws and save dcs are torn from some variable that is invisible to me. They don't make sense. It may not seem like a lot, but the difference in a couple points is enough to make or break the save, as with attacks and defenses.
Example time. A 20th level wizard who casts a spell has a save DC (Not regarding any feats, specialties or miscellaneous bonuses) of 24, assuming a stat of 18 in int. Of course, it would be vastly higher, probably a 24 or more by then. Targeting someone's poor save, they would get a bonus to their roll of 12 (Give or take, depending on their ability modifier, but it's almost sure to be below the wizard's ability, plus the wizard has more ways to increase his or her save dc). The defender would have to roll a 12 to succeed.
This level of math increases continually from level 1 to ... endless. Three factors would change it.
Ability: This factor should usually be in the favor of the caster, if done right. However, this is an even consideration.
Enhancement: With implements that add to Save DCs, and weapons that add to attack, this is also an even consideration.
Feats: This one can vary, but generally spell focus, greater spell focus, ability focus, etc. There are ways to increase both the value of the attacker and defender in both circumstances.
The question, then, is to consider who should get the advantage. As it stands, it is an even 50% chance of both sides succeeding if the defender has a good save. Should the caster have a little bit more chance to succeed then the defender, due to the fact that spells are used even if they fail? The caster generally has a limited supply of their shtick. I Say no because multiple variables go into this consideration, and it seems to even out.
I'm done rambling. Please give me your thoughts.
|
|
Consider this. A level 10 fighter will have an AC of 10 + half level 10 + armor 8 + dex 1 + enhancement + 3 + ring of protection 1 = 33. A wizard will have an AC of 10 + 10 + mage armor? 4 + dex 2 = 26. That 7 point difference is astounding, in reality.
Ehrm, seems to me that the math is a bit off.
Fighter with full plate +2 and heavy shield +1 has an AC of basic 10 + half level 5 + armor/shield 13 + Dex 1 + item bonus 1 = totalling 30.Wizard with adequate equipment (ioun stones, bracers, whatever) has an AC of basic 10 + half level 5 + Dex 2 + item bonus 4 + conditional spell 4 = totalling 25 (or 21).
Problem is that this applies to character classes and has to be "retooled" for other creatures, unless you propose a different mechanic for PCs/NPCs and creatures/monsters.
Do each and every being gain an AC bonus equal to half their HDs? A Fire Giant would have and average AC of 30, an impressive boost from 23, as you've justly noted that's a hefty 7 points difference for a CR 10!
A Colossal Monstrous Spider should get to an incredible AC value of 48, that's just insane for a CR 11 vermin!
Obviously you could work out a different progression for aberrations, fey, dragons, monstrous humanoids, giants, vermins, undeads (corporeal variety!), etc. but it's something that defies a relatively simple adjustement - and thusly the retrocompatibility idea.
So, there's the "hero vs world" paradox. 3rd edition - with all its flaws - works with universal rules shared both by heroes and villains/adversaries. You pump up one side, the other one gets the same boost, like a mathematical arms race to bigger numbers.
Regarding the saving throws vs spell DCs problem, in my experience as a DM the problem shows in mid-high level play (let's just say starting at around level 12).
Due to feats, equipment, conditional enhancements due to potions/spells, and whatnots a character has to roll really poorly even on its worst save to suffer badly from a single spell. A very specific caster build focusing on DC-enhancing feats may be more effective, but that's not the solution.
My biggest gripe with your proposal is not the raising of the DC values, but the fact that the mechanic flattens out the difference between a fireball and a wail of the banshee in terms of efficiency.
I'm fine with a 20° level wizard casting fireballs with higher-than-usual DCs, but they should be nonetheless lower than the DC for his most powerful spells.
|
The "enchanting items for save DC or spell attack" is probably the best bit in here. Although, to be honest quite frequently spellcasters don't usually need help hitting touch ACs, it is a neat concept anyway. You might even allow the attack version to add +2 damage to any touch spells delivered through the focus (and clarify, can they attack with the focus to deliver a spell? Does the enhancement still add to normal attack and damage?). Might want to make it a bonus to certain spell schools. Heck, even allow a character to enchant a wand/staff so it adds to it's abilities.
I'm going to try out this foci concept - it is one of the things I thought was neat about 4th Edition, but they ended up making it generic. I'd use foci as a new item category to avoid confusion with weapons (although you could enchant a weapon as a foci, or as both).
In my theory monsters aren't touched. Only creatures out of the player handbooks are given these upgrades.
I've always thought that monsters can be arbitrarily upgraded on the fly to help incorporate adaptation. If the DM wants to use this system for monsters, it will work fine. Less Natural armor and insane stats than normal, and use this AC system and it should work out.
|
I'd ditch the half level AC bonus. The game works fine without cranking up the ACs. However... (I love that word) you could impliment something like this:
Touch AC could be 1/2 level + DEX (limited by armor) + dodge bonuses
Regular AC could be Armor + Shield + DEX (limited by armor) + dodge bonuses
Additionally, you can use your Touch AC if it is higher than you regular AC. I like that a lot as a rule because it allows the touch AC to scale up higher, which can be a problem with the system at the upper levels when you have really high BAB and only roll a "1" touch attacks.
Changing AC in this way wouldn't be adding AC to the end total. All we're doing is making some of the power come directly from the character in lieu of items. This ensure more room for useful magic items, which feels better in the long run when you can use things that you've always wanted to buy, but never got around to it because you had a Ring of Protection instead.
I also use different +stat boosting items, more like those in 4e then in 3.5. Instead, I issue more ability points through leveling up.
We started to add 1/2 BAB to AC... works fine IMO.
Some classes are simply better fighting than the others.
We started to add 1/2 BAB to AC... works fine IMO.
Some classes are simply better fighting than the others.
This is one path I was considering, as well. I agree that fighters and barbarians should be better at fighting than those devoted to other causes.
No one has anything else to say on this? :)
If we make the save dc be based on spell level and not ability score then the wizard has no way of altering the score whatsoever, without expending precious feats that other characters don't have to spend on defending.
It's a balance issue. At the moment, it's ability versus ability.
10 + 1/2 level + ability - vs
d20 + 1/2 level + ability
|
|
If we make the save dc be based on spell level and not ability score then the wizard has no way of altering the score whatsoever, without expending precious feats that other characters don't have to spend on defending.
It's a balance issue. At the moment, it's ability versus ability.
10 + 1/2 level + ability - vs
d20 + 1/2 level + ability
10 + 1/2 level + ability + spell focus
d20 + 1/2 level + ability + resistance bonus + iron will etc + class bonus + misc save bonusesThe ability will be generally high for the caster and generally low for the defender. I think the caster is under gunned with his spell.
10 + 1/2 level + ability + spell focus
d20 + 1/2 level + ability + resistance bonus + iron will etc + class bonus + misc save bonuses
10 + 1/2 level + ability + implements + spell focus
d20 + 1/2 level + ability + resistance bonus + iron willCan't find any class bonus to saves or misc bonuses, personally. Plus, there are some odd ones out there who have extra CL from no where, like Illumin-somethings.
|
ipassthis on a friend and he read it while i was atwork (stillam)
please the idea ofjust erfing mages is not right
we should not just nerf spellcasters (which iswhat happens by cutting their DCs to half) already toomany creatures haves incredible saving throws that makes a coin's toss tosee if they will save or not... and a few times even lless
i think weneed to revaluate both BAB and AC, DCs and spells resistance, and no no to the idea of magic items depenant characters!
i character should be more than just the sum of his magic items!
|
|
Can't find any class bonus to saves or misc bonuses, personally.
6. Saving Throws
All saving throws calculated as follows: half character level + ability bonus. Classes who previously had "good saves" (a +2 bonus at level 1) give a one time class bonus of +2 to that saving throw. You may gain the class bonus to saving throws only once at first level, thus multiclassing into a different class will not benefit your saving throws.
Also, dwarves, elves and halflings give a save bonus
And what are these implements that you mention, this isn't 4e.Final:
DC - 10 + 1/2 caster level + ability + feat bonus
Save - d20 + 1/2 level + ability + resistance bonus + feat bonus + class bonus + race bonus + misc stackable spell or magic item bonus (luck, morale)
For this to work it has to have a pretty good variance between the caster's primary stat and the defender's stat - and there generally is.
10th level wizard vs 10th level dwarf fighter w/+2 cloak.
22 INT wizard casts charm person DC 21
12 WIS fighter WILL save +10 so an 11+ on the die. This seems appropriate.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but 3.5 model is:
DC = 10 + ability + spell level (which is 1/2 caster level for sorcerer, 1/2 level-1 for wiz, clr and drd)
save = d20 + ability + 1/2 level+2 (if good save) or 1/3 level (if poor save) + various other bonuses
This doesn't seem very far from what the OP is suggesting. The alternate method suggested here is very close and much more simple. I'd consider it.
ipassthis on a friend and he read it while i was atwork (stillam)
please the idea ofjust erfing mages is not right
we should not just nerf spellcasters (which iswhat happens by cutting their DCs to half) already toomany creatures haves incredible saving throws that makes a coin's toss tosee if they will save or not... and a few times even llessi think weneed to revaluate both BAB and AC, DCs and spells resistance, and no no to the idea of magic items depenant characters!
i character should be more than just the sum of his magic items!
I think you misread it :)
Making the spell save DC equal to half level is exactly the same as it is now, just the spells aren't static. A level one spell's dc will never be above 1 (Plus 10, and ability bonus, yata) In this version, the magic user grows in levels, and his DCs all level up with him.
I would concur that the mages need some other way to increase their spell save DCs. They are just too untouchable, most of the time. I believe Spell Focus and Greater should be +2, +4 as it used to be.
It's just so hard to increase DCs. This is why I am starting implements. Love it or not, 4e has a surreal balance in it's system. That is another thread, but for the most part implements is entirely a good idea on all fronts. Allowing characters to buy things in all categories just makes sense: Why can't a wizard buy an item to help him boost his power? A fighter can.
We need to get rid of these sacred concepts that hold no virtue anymore simply because 'thats how it was!'
Sure... feats he's going to take anyway. It lets them spends their precious magic item slots on things besides headbands of intellect and cloaks of charisma - the mage can get a helm of telepathy, frex, or the sorcerer a cloak of the manta ray. Isn't one of the stated goals of PF to reduce the reliance on stat-boosting items?
I'm sorry, what? I believe PF wants to reduce the use of magic items, as I do, but only to the point where we don't feel like we have to use them, Ability score increasers, AC increasers: These are the big ones.
Honestly, DC 29 for a L20 wizard casting a L9 spell is pretty impressive, considering the base save bonus (for a GOOD save) is +12. An optimized high save will be ~+20, which means he's only saving 55% of the time. An optimized low save will be ~+10 - that PC has little to no chance of saving. Seems like it's little different than before...
How'd you get a 29 Save DC? 10 + 10 + Ability... which would be a +7 on average, actually probably a bit lower, but we'll save +7. That's 27. I've never once seen a spell caster take spell focus because a +1 is, well, diddly compared to people's saving throws today. Wasn't worth it back then.
So, a 29 if the wizard is casting a spell from his school and he has Spell Focus and greater spell focus. One feat could counter spell focus: Lightning Reflex, or whatever.
So yes, while I do believe that we need balance a Wizard has his spells and that's it. I see no reason that the person who devotes himself to magic has a slight edge over the person who doesn't have a high defense stat. If the defender had a high ability score versus the appropriate save, then it would be evenly matched.
I'd switch to a different save, if I were that wizard.
Say huh? You don't see why the person who's totally devoted to magic should have an advantage over someone without a high defense stat? Am I missing something here?
No, the other way. I believe a wizard should be better at spells then some random guy who happens to have a 12 in Wisdom, or whatever.
1. Save DCs
Yep, I'm using this, too. The main benefit is that it keeps lower level spells more useful. Plus, probably every other session, one of our players asks why you don't get any better at casting lower level spells (he gets it mechanically, he's talking theoretically and in-game). It just doesn't make sense to him that unless you get smarter a low level wizard and high level wizard have the same DC for their spells.
2. Armor Class
I haven't seen this as a problem in my games. What does this address?
3. Magic Items
Maybe. I'd have to digest it before getting into it. Personally, for me, I don't really see the appeal unless someone wants a character concept around an implement. Plus the limitations on AC bonuses has never really been a problem for us. Yeah, the "Christmas tree" factor can get a bit silly, but my groups haven't had any real problems with it.
4. Death Effects
I really like the concept from 4e (sold my 4e books, so I didn't see what the specific final details were) but having save-or-die be more save-or-dying sounded more fun. Actually extend it out to all or most save-or-out-of-the-game spells. So rather than being turned to stone instantly, you are turned to stone over 2-3 rounds. Keeps the players in the game and can even increase the drama. I might have to start digging through the SRD to figure out which spells fall into that camp and could use some modification.
5. Caster Levels (Manifester Levels)
I was sold on this a long time ago. Even posted my own version (basically the same thing you and others have posted, but as a feat so it's easier to retrofit). But this is my #1 problem with multiclassing (well, that and the XP penalty, but we house ruled that out back when we were playtesting 3.0 and never looked back).
6. Saving Throws
This could work. I'll have to ponder and play with numbers to see if it's my preferred solution or not. For most campaigns, I don't have a problem with saving throws at all. But in our last one that got pretty high level and had a brutal DM (a "DM vs. the players" type rather than a "DM to maximize every one's fun" type that I try to be). It got the point where if a spell hit your good save, you had a decent chance, and if it was your bad save, you had no chance. When you realize that there's really no point in you rolling a save at all, that decreases the fun.
I think I prefer some variation, however more than just a one time +2 bonus. Fighters should have a significantly lower Will save than a Wizard, but it just seems that the low saves fall behind too much. But I'll run some numbers and see what feels right to me (for my groups, of course, since opinions will vary).
2. In later levels to hit bonuses continue on, I'll be it at a lower rate once you hit epic, but they continue to grow. AC bonuses never increase. They stay static. Therefore, anywhere after level 14 it's simply too random to determine if a character will be able to succeed or not. This makes encounters troublesome, planning difficult, and winnable situations flux.
This fixes that. However, in return AC bonuses from outside sources must be flattened. AC should come from your armor, your classes and your personal abilities. Rings should not have to make you harder to hit; you should not have to devote your bracers to armor entirely when there's a many choice in Magic Item Compendium; Natural armor should be delegated to monsters and doesn't make sense when it's in amulet form, etc. It's just more intuitive.
3. In concurrence, fighters have a method to increase their to-hits, but wizards do not. Even the warlock can buy a scepter that gives her a plus to hit with her Eldritch Blast, but wizards, sorcerers, clerics, etc, do not. Implements is designed to change that. The idea, obviously, is drawn from 4e, and works fairly well. I've been using it in my groups so far and it's been splendid.
It uses the idea that 4e had -- and idea that was at it's heart actually worth while -- and makes it usable in a system that doesn't restrict you: Pathfinder, or 3.5. This way you'll be able to use all your books and sources that you've already had, use your old ideas, familiar stories with the newer system.
It's not perfect, but it's working. I'm still fleshing it all out.
These rules seem to be working in our play tests. Can't find anything new to add.
Quick bump, since there seems to be a lot of posts regarding fixing Pathfinder.