Nothing will be broken for everyone. But every single high level campaign I've participated in, heard about, or watched has suffered significantly at high level because of the systemic weaknesses described here and the problems with monster design.
I have read plenty of testimonials from people that 3.5 breaks down at high levels, the math is wrong, etc. But there are so many complex variables in how the game plays out that it can be hard to generalize.
I have been lucky that, particularly for the SCAP campaign, my players have been extremely cooperative and not very competitive with each other. So it seems that I've managed to avoid one of the common threads that seems to pervade those testimonials-competition among players when one or more characters are highly optimized and others are not. It leads me to the hypothesis that the problem is less with the rules in general and more with how the game is not very accommodating of opposed play styles at the same time. But I'm not sure how to fix that without severely constraining really meaningful choices and differences in character development.In 3.5 Power attack really fixed the problem with BaB. I didn't see the see saw with attack because most monsters meant to be meleeable ( a vanishing breed at high level, admitedly) at high level met the medium BaB level - and the fighters leveraged their higher BaB for greater damage. The removal of that tool from the fighter's arsenal means their greater attack bonus is wasted on enemies not worthy of their attack bonus - or the monsters are changed to have ACs relevent for their attack and renders non casters without full BaB and the ability to concentrate almost solely on strength at a severe disadvantage.
I agree that the 3.5 Power Attack is better than the PF playtest version, same with Combat Expertise. They both seem perfect uses for surplus BAB.
But I wouldn't really describe excess attack bonus as a major waste since it does increase the likelihood of iterative attacks hitting, even while using PA for even more damage (which, coupled with improved crit, has kept the 13th level long sword-wielding fighter having a lot of fun and dealing tons of damage in one of my campaigns).It's true that you still have some interesting challenges if you throw a very high AC opponent at a party for the sole purpose of making the fighter roll high to get a hit. But then, that's what the myriad buffs in the game are for, same with help another actions (which even low BAB characters tend to find trivial to accomplish).
I did see the problem with saves - classes without spells and with poor saves (rogues, fighters) suffered especially badly here - in 3.5 high level games, though.
Maybe it's because I've had a lot of experience with 1e and 2e, but I still see the 3.x saves as a substantial improvement. I like that most PCs have an achilles heel, whereas in previous editions, high level fighters were virtually invulnerable. I'll certainly allow that the difference between high and low saves might not be the right mix, particularly since the low save may well be too low.
Maybe you are one of those excellent DMs that has a good strategy for making high level play enjoyable. If so, congratulations! Share your knowledge! If you've run high level 3.5 or PRPG campaigns, share you experiences. Maybe my campaigns differed enough from yours that you see different systemic problems.
Oh, I think I do see different systematic problems. The primary one for me was lack of incentive to stay in a base class when some prestige classes (mainly ones for cleric and sorcerer) had 90% or more of the benefits plus more. Same with the expansion of sneak attack. The biggest problem I ever noticed was the fact that magic items were too easy to make, leading to the dominant 6 strategy. But for the most part, math issues with the BAB and ACs haven't really tracked.
Hello, everyone.
I've posted several times now that if Pathfinder wishes to repair 3.5, it needs to look at the big picture (the core of the system) rather than the small picture (individual classes, for example) and solve it from there.
I'd like to contribute an explanation of a core problem with 3.5, one which really should be considered along with other, smaller issues.
Reposted from a tangent of the 3-buff limit thread:
A major, and core, problem with 3.5 is that it simply fails to account for all values of X in d20+X.
At the end of the day, the issue of a too high difference in between the BAB of a T20 (+ equipment & all) and the one of a F20 (and the consequences given by the OP) is IMHO of the very same kind that the F1’s BAB compare to F20’s BAB. But nobody complains about that (or only a few).
Why ?Because D&D is a level based game and every body comply with it.
One obvious solution to fix the OP issue is not only to run groups of PC of same (equivalent) level but also with only one same class. :-p
If you follow me, you see that the next step is to run only one PC and staying in front of a computer as millions of other players which are enjoying the only (auto claimed) RPG they have ever heard from.
Quite a long introduction to explain that the “True Problem” is not in the system but in the human factor i.e: the players and the DM.
First, our game has been built to be cooperative (thanks GG – we miss you all) or it comes to be stupid. As a consequence, the most the PCs are specializing (read also leveling in the same class) the most they create holes in their own future interactions with some of the game events. As a counterpart, they become over-efficient in few of the possible situations. But, usually, the other players are patching that thanks to a good balance in classes.
Now the problem is coming because most of the awaited events – especially by the new generation of MMORPG brain washed PC – are combat ones. At that point, I can agree with you that if we have BABs in a wide range because of very different bonuses then the DM fall in trouble.
So the problem here is not bonuses but combat rules in the game!
Rather to first try to fix BAB bonuses, my experience led me to corner the AC definition first. I have cut the AC in two pieces – a lot of such house / alternate rules can be found – one is reflecting the active defensive ability and the other the passive one (this last one is armour).
I will not explain in details that system – we are using it for years now starting with old 1E D&D – but it works fine if:
1 – Classes & Monsters have not only a BAB but also a BDB (D as defence)
2 – Beings have Armour Points
3 – Critics system is built so that it allows us to negate armour points
That rule (with its implementation done by changing the BAB current tables) allows a decrease in the differences in between the bonuses that are at the root of the concern raised by the PO and is still very compatible and easy to implement. If I find some time in the future I will try to come back with the details.
Be creative
|
My first post on this topic was only 3 or 4 lines long, and it seems to have gotten overlooked among the (very interesting) longer posts around it, so I think I'll try it again, with more verbiage to make it more noticeable. :)
Any thoughts?
I wasn't aware of this variant, and I like it quite a bit! I don't know if Paizo would be willing to adopt it as a core rule or not - but at first blush it looks quite promising! thanks so much for pointing it out, I'll try to get a look at it tonight!
I like the variable modifier rules, but I worry that maybe they won't exactly be conducive to simple game play.
For example, I'm having enough trouble convincing one of my players to total up his attack bonus on the character sheet -- every time he attacks, he rolls 1d20, adds his BAB, adds his Str mod, adds his Weapon Focus bonus, and adds his masterwork bonus. Drives me batty. Trying to get him to convert to and/or track variable modifiers would be an exercise in futility.
Also, this system makes situational modifiers a REAL pain:
DM: "Roll Perception."
Player: "2d20... 13."
DM: "Ok, you hear..."
Player: "Oh, I'm an elf. That's +2; it's a 15."
DM: "No, actually, the +2 makes it 2d20+1d6."
Player: "Huh?"
[Everyone furiously consults tables)
|
I like the variable modifier rules, but I worry that maybe they won't exactly be conducive to simple game play.
For example, I'm having enough trouble convincing one of my players to total up his attack bonus on the character sheet -- every time he attacks, he rolls 1d20, adds his BAB, adds his Str mod, adds his Weapon Focus bonus, and adds his masterwork bonus. Drives me batty. Trying to get him to convert to and/or track variable modifiers would be an exercise in futility.
Also, this system makes situational modifiers a REAL pain:
DM: "Roll Perception."
Player: "2d20... 13."
DM: "Ok, you hear..."
Player: "Oh, I'm an elf. That's +2; it's a 15."
DM: "No, actually, the +2 makes it 2d20+1d6."
Player: "Huh?"
[Everyone furiously consults tables)
Hehehehehehehe...
Yeah, "batty" about sums it up. It was kinda fun calling him on the phantom "+1" on Sunday, though...
I like the variable modifier rules, but I worry that maybe they won't exactly be conducive to simple game play.
For example, I'm having enough trouble convincing one of my players to total up his attack bonus on the character sheet -- every time he attacks, he rolls 1d20, adds his BAB, adds his Str mod, adds his Weapon Focus bonus, and adds his masterwork bonus. Drives me batty. Trying to get him to convert to and/or track variable modifiers would be an exercise in futility.
Also, this system makes situational modifiers a REAL pain:
DM: "Roll Perception."
Player: "2d20... 13."
DM: "Ok, you hear..."
Player: "Oh, I'm an elf. That's +2; it's a 15."
DM: "No, actually, the +2 makes it 2d20+1d6."
Player: "Huh?"
[Everyone furiously consults tables)
I agree, I'm not exactly a fan of this particular suggestion, having to check a separate table every time I make a roll, you know... like thac0... but for *every* roll...
I've played under the Battlestar Galactica RPG, which does the exact same thing, except...
your minimum result increases by a crawl. It really sucked to roll bad and blow normally-effortless FTL-plotting rolls. In D&D, I can imagine it'd really stink to be 16th level and totally blow a DC 12 saving throw.
Also, damage rolls, especially criticals, would become awfully swingy. Then there's the situational modifiers, which suddenly can't be remembered after the dice are cast.
Take a look at my initial post to this thread; it actually puts forth something very similar, and a bit more effective, than that method. I put forth the concept of diminishing returns, or, a method of achieving more consistently desirable results with large modifiers, without dramatically increasing the minimum or maximum results as what happens now.
I've also posted an alternate suggestion a few posts down, which converts very high values of X in d20+X into rerolls.
So we're thinking in the same ballpark, but a little more streamlining would be needed.
-Matt
Okay, so I don't have the mathematical chops to completely break down the d20 system and tell you why I can't seem to keep a reasonably balanced game beyond, around, 12th level. But I have played a fair amount of role playing games and every one that I have been able to play, over the two year mark, uses multiple dice in one roll (Deadlands and 7th Sea). These games upped the number of dice that are rolled as your skill increases and later adds +X if the number of dice gets high enough (7th Sea) or makes +X harder to attain (Deadlands). I realize that this isn't within the scope of Jason and company to fix, but if we keep running into these game breaking problems that derail our high level games, what is the point of fixing the game at all?
Perhaps something a little simpler -- like, say, you get half of your bonus as a fixed bonus, and half as an additional die? For example, +20 would become 1d20+10+1d20. That way, you'd still get a minimum result of 12 (rather than a minimum result of 3), but there would still be enough of a random element to make the roll more interesting than auto-success or auto-failure.
Well, what we don't want to do is raise the maximum result farther than what it would be normally. Then, you'd be assigning a 50% chance to make the problem even worse.
Diminishing returns is what we're after, to reduce the spread.
The one I'm starting to like more and more is the reroll method I put forth. Roll multiple checks, use the best result. It also acts to end high-level Russian Roulette, and is very backwards compatible, might I add.
-Matt
I decided way back in 1e days that adding to damage was far too narrow, instead it added to the size of the damage die. 1d8 + 3 [STR] +1 [magic sword] became 1d12. You have to decide on a standard way to handle damage die sizes that don't match physical die sizes.
My best hope is to make a point-buy system, with a la carte purchase of saves, BAB, etc., and diminishing returns built into the price schedule. That'll fix multiclassing and prestige classes AND address the problems in this thread.
To keep playing a class- and level-based-progression system seems like it will require fixes that are potentially as bad as the problems they're fixing.
|
|
My best hope is to make a point-buy system, with a la carte purchase of saves, BAB, etc., and diminishing returns built into the price schedule. That'll fix multiclassing and prestige classes AND address the problems in this thread.
To keep playing a class- and level-based-progression system seems like it will require fixes that are potentially as bad as the problems they're fixing.
Sounds like, I dunno, Shadowrun to me ;)
Sounds like, I dunno, Shadowrun to me ;)
And as soon as Nick Logue and Richard Pett and James Jacobs start writing Shadowrun adventures, we'll switch. Until then, something Pathfinder-compatible is what I want!
|
Seems to me that some of the problems in higher level play between magic-users and combat characters is a difference in mechanics to accomplish their abilities.
I would suggest the following fixes:
1) BAB- Classes that are martial in nature get the full BAB progression. So Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue all gain the full BAB progression. Casters use the 3/4 BAB progression. So Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer and Wizard use 3.4 Progression.
This has two benefits. First it keeps modifiers for all martial oriented classes the same so there is no large separation between modifiers. It also allows casters to be able to contribute to combat outside spells.
2) Saves- All classes get two good saves and one poor save to be allocated as the player wishes. Each character should have a weakness, but it does not always have to be the cliche weakness. There is no reason a player can not choose his character's weakness.
There is a second part to changing saves. Instead of these becoming defensive rolls made to resist an effect, they become target numbers to achieve an effect, similar to AC. The new formula would be 15 + Save + Ability modifier + Misc. To achieve a spell effect, for example Baleful Polymorph- the caster must roll to overcome the victim's Fort Defense. An additional Will Defense roll is required to make the victim loose its memories, etc after 24 hours.
3) Caster checks- The mechanics for spell casters to achieve their spells should work the same way as martial combat. Casters gain a new Base Spell Bonus. Full casters, such as Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer and Wizard gain a BSB equal to a full BAB. Partial Casters such as Bard, Paladin, and Ranger gain a BSB equal to a 3/4 BAB. Thus a 10th level Wizard casts spells with d20 + 10 BSB + Int Modifier + Misc.
Combined with the Saves above, the 10th level Wizard casts Baleful Polymorph and rolls d20 + 10 BSB + (4)Int Modifier + (4)Misc d20+18 against a Fighter's target of 15 + 7 Fort + (3)Con Modifier + (4)Misc. total 29 requiring a caster roll of 11 to succeed.
4) Spells- casting time adjusted to represent the effects of the spell. Quick damaging spells only require a standard action to cast. Spells that have a battlefield-wide effect or are particularly devastating require a full round action.
5) Modifiers- To any die roll, only three special or situational modifiers can be applied. For an attack roll, for example, the definition is d20 + BAB + Str modifier + Size modifier. These are part of the formula and thus no parts are special modifiers. However, a weapons enchantment modifier is a modifier, as is charge and Power Attack. Spells that directly affect Str would not be restricted as Strength is part of the formula.
The purpose of this limitation is twofold. First it reduces the X in d20+X. Secondly it reduces the number of variables used in combat which can result in long times calculating modifiers and the mistakes of forgetting all the myriad modifiers that can be applied.
Note that this does not limit the number of buffs that can be put on someone, just the number that can be used. Consider it a diminishing returns for too many spells or abilities being used.
These 5 changes combined will reduce the gulf that separates PCs at higher end play. An AC that is a challenge for a Rogue to hit is still a challenge for a Fighter to hit. Spells are no longer uber-powerful, and do not require excessive die rolls to resolve. Combat should become faster with less rolling and less math.
|
|
Sounds like, I dunno, Shadowrun to me ;)And as soon as Nick Logue and Richard Pett and James Jacobs start writing Shadowrun adventures, we'll switch. Until then, something Pathfinder-compatible is what I want!
I guess we could use the gestalt rules, they seem to be in the ballpark of what you want.
One of the things I have been considered is removing the need for the fighter to claim before he strikes the penalty he is taking to his attack roll with Power Attack. He simply makes the attack and whatever his attack roll exceeds the target AC by rolls over to damage. This also stops penalizing the fighter's successive attacks - he can let his successive attacks concentrate on hitting.
For example, a fighter with a +20/+15/+10 attack routine makes his first attack against an AC 25 target. With a roll of 13, the first attack hits with a grand total of 33. So, 8 points of that attack rolls over to damage. On the next attack, the fighter rolls a 12, grand total 27. he hits, and 2 points roll over to damage. On the final attack, he rolls an 11, grand total 21. A miss. However, the fighter didn't have to declare his power attack, it just worked automatically.
Conceivably, something similar could be done with Wizard attack spells - however much he exceeds the target's save would roll over to damage dealt to the target. However, it would work a lot better if more spells dealt damage rather than have pass/fail save or suck mechanics.
-----------------
In the arena of increasing disparity of bonuses, I think one thing that needs to be done is to dramatically decrease the type of bonuses that stack. Reduce it to something like Magic bonuses, Item bonuses, Feat bonuses and maybe Class bonuses. If each is still capped to a +5 bonus, that can still generate a disparity of +20 right there, more than enough not counting skill ranks, base saves, BAB and the like. While it doesn't directly address the disparity of d20+X, it does help to decrease the upper limits of the variance. Likewise, since a great many bonuses step on each other toes, it becomes much harder to get the high disparity and the hunt for taking everything to optimize bonuses is somewhat lessened. Instead, spells, feats and class abilities that let you do entirely new things (like skill tricks), may become more desirable than seeking out stuff that grants you a flat bonus.
I'm also in agreement with increasing the casting time for spells, at least the higher level ones. Having spellcasters being staggered after casting, say 4th level or higher spells with the duration depending on spell level might help some. However, it would be more beneficial if the character has to build up the actions to cast the spell in the first place, since many are encounter enders once they go off.
On a tangent, however, one thing I would really like to see go away is instant iterative attacks for all the classes. Giving all the classes iterative attacks was, I think a bad idea - similar in thought to giving all classes access to spells at some level, regardless of class. Only fighter-types should be able to get iterative attacks, just as only clerics/druids get divine spells, wizards/bards/sorcerers get arcane spells and rogues get sneak attack.
In the arena of increasing disparity of bonuses, I think one thing that needs to be done is to dramatically decrease the type of bonuses that stack. Reduce it to something like Magic bonuses, Item bonuses, Feat bonuses and maybe Class bonuses. If each is still capped to a +5 bonus, that can still generate a disparity of +20 right there, more than enough not counting skill ranks, base saves, BAB and the like. While it doesn't directly address the disparity of d20+X, it does help to decrease the upper limits of the variance.
My solution (posted somewhere else, can't find it atm) is to allow only a limited number of bonuses to stack fully. All others only count half, rounded down. That eliminates the wasted time of trying to wring every last +1, they are rounded down to +0.
I use what I call the "Best N+1" formula, meaning that the best N bonuses count in full, and one +1 bonus counts in full. I like N=2.
The GM can allow role-play to stretch things, similar to take 10/20. If the character is preparing for a particularly difficult action and the player describes the steps taken to make sure this and that go correctly, etc, then more bonuses count in full. In combat, a full-round action to ready an attack of some sort could then raise N by 1, provided the bonus being promoted to count in full has some relation to the role-played preparatory action.
One of the things I have been considered is removing the need for the fighter to claim before he strikes the penalty he is taking to his attack roll with Power Attack. He simply makes the attack and whatever his attack roll exceeds the target AC by rolls over to damage. This also stops penalizing the fighter's successive attacks - he can let his successive attacks concentrate on hitting.
For example, a fighter with a +20/+15/+10 attack routine makes his first attack against an AC 25 target. With a roll of 13, the first attack hits with a grand total of 33. So, 8 points of that attack rolls over to damage...
For an automatic power, make it half as effective. So in this example, he has to declare he's using full attack to allow the free-form Power Attack to apply. His first attack exceeds to-hit by 8, so he gets +4 damage. If his second attack exceeds to-hit by 2, only +1 damage.
Suppose he declares a Power Attack at -4/+4. His first roll exceeds to-hit by 4, so he gets +6 to damage. He can revert to "free-form" Power Attack after the initial swing.
|
IMHO, the "True Problem" is a social/inter-personal/communal issue that 1) stemmed from corporate greed in publishing all rules for players to rule lawyer and judge (in an obvious attempt to make everyone the type of consumer that would buy the 6x-as-much that the DM was buying and 2) the result of years of manipulative "forgetting" about the art of dungeonmastering (and the lack of senior DMs teaching younger ones this art). DMing has become characatured as a series of "handwaives" and "rule-breaks" instead of what it is/what it was designed to be.
Restore the skill of DMing/GMing and you will have addressed the "True Problem" for a great GM can make any system work incredibly, more miraculously than ever imagined.
Just my two cents.... I return you now to your regularly scheduled thread, and will...
Pax,
You are truly on point with your assessment of the current state of DMing. I would like to take this a step further however, and make the same argument of the player. Being a purveyor of D&D since 1st edition (one of my original group members had the PHB w/ the thieves carving the jeweled eye from the demon statue), my early gaming decisions were made in a manner that helped bring my mental view of my PC into clearer focus and drive character development rather than character building. In my experience with 3.0 and 3.5, this is really not a driving factor anymore. Much character building discussion now revolves around min/maxing and character optimization which has turned the D&D game into one of pure mathematics. I think the OP does have a valid point regarding the breakdown of the game due to the 1d20+X issue but I also agree with you that the mechanical flaws of the game would not be as evident if both the DM and players made more decisions based on the campaign storyline and character development rather than maxing skill ranks, attack bonus, or AC.
1) Drop low BAB entirely from the game (or save it for NPC classes). Everyone either has full BAB (Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers) or medium BAB (everybody else).
This is what I'm doing. Full BAB for any fighter-type class, 9/10 BAB progression for Monks and Rogues (1 behind through 11th level, and 2 behind thereafter), and 3/4 progression for all spellcasters.
We're also looking at capping iterative attacks to no more than 2 for any character class that doesn't start with "fig" and end with "hter".
This doesn't solve the issue fully, but it's a couple of steps in the right direction without adding further complexity to the rule-set (which is already mortally cumbersome after level 15 or so). Less rolls = better high level play.
I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays at levels 15-20 (ask me in a year or so, ha).
If I could figure out how to pull it off without my players feeling shafted, I'd 86 stat-boosting items altogether and significantly scale back the role of magic treasure in the game. It fits my sense of flavor both as a DM and a player, and it puts the spotlight back on the character build, which appeals to me, as well as helping the various class archetypes to stay within spitting distance of one another in terms of attacks and saves at higher levels.
I personally don't need the wizard and fighter to be equivalent in the same way, but I do need the ranger/pally to be only *slightly* less useful in a brawl than the fighter -- the ranger and paladin get other toys, so the fighter should be the meanest all-round combatant, but they should all be able to meet the same challenges and contribute meaningfully. The balance between the combative classes at about 7th level is excellent, but the disparity between them at 18th is not. One of the very few things about PRPG Beta that made be balk was adding another +4/+4 untyped combat bonuses to the fighter progression!
|
One of the things I have been considered is removing the need for the fighter to claim before he strikes the penalty he is taking to his attack roll with Power Attack. He simply makes the attack and whatever his attack roll exceeds the target AC by rolls over to damage. This also stops penalizing the fighter's successive attacks - he can let his successive attacks concentrate on hitting.
Did you play Rolemaster?
That's effectively what they did; the attack and damage were combined into one roll. The better your attack, the more damage you did.
|
The problem was with DMs who didnt know how to play the game.
If you want to talk game balance, it ended when they Abandoned the slightly undernourished D&D for an overfed AD&D 2.0.
I'd have to say it went wrong when they lifted core game engine components from the videogame Fallout (Skills and Feats - including the concept of cross class skills) which went into 3.0.
They plundered further to add other aspects of that Macintosh RPG to 3.5 and now 4.0 with Action Points.
Skills and Feats should have had nothing to do with level advancement, rather what you commit to exercising them. If they had paid attention to what was being ripped off from Fallout they would have noticed that cross class skills advance because you allocate your points of training to them. Training through use is extra points seperate to basic advancement due to level. Every successful use of a skill should give you 0.1 skill point to that skill.
If a ranger winds up with a grosely high perception it should be purely because he has committed all his training and discipline to the skill, not because all his skills get a rank point each level.
|
|
Skills and Feats should have had nothing to do with level advancement, rather what you commit to exercising them. If they had paid attention to what was being ripped off from Fallout they would have noticed that cross class skills advance because you allocate your points of training to them. Training through use is extra points seperate to basic advancement due to level. Every successful use of a skill should give you 0.1 skill point to that skill.
If a ranger winds up with a grosely high perception it should be purely because he has committed all his training and discipline to the skill, not because all his skills get a rank point each level.
Once again, I find myself asking someone, did you play Rolemaster?
That game required you to allocate your development points, one level in advance, after which, you had to prove that you had practiced those skills before you next levelled up, or else, not get the benefit.
It made players make sensible, characterful choices, or at least learn skills they knew they could train with their travelling companions or friendly NPCs.
Nothing stopped you picking a rank in some exotic skill, but you had to make the effort to find a trainer, or else you just daydreamed your points away.
Admittedly after the first page I only skimmed through posts instead of read them one by one. So if this has been suggested before, sorry to that poster in advanced.
Why not just make it simple why not have it that any character may give up one of his/her extra attacks to gain a unnamed +5 bonus to hit. No feat or anything you can just do it anytime. That would mean a rogue can give up his lowest attack and have a much greater chance of hitting a target. Wouldn’t this be far simpler?
|
|
One of the things I have been considered is removing the need for the fighter to claim before he strikes the penalty he is taking to his attack roll with Power Attack. He simply makes the attack and whatever his attack roll exceeds the target AC by rolls over to damage. This also stops penalizing the fighter's successive attacks - he can let his successive attacks concentrate on hitting.Did you play Rolemaster?
That's effectively what they did; the attack and damage were combined into one roll. The better your attack, the more damage you did.
You can also dedicate some of your attack bonus to parrying, so Combat Expertise and Power Attack were both rolled into the same standard combat mechanic.
Although with regard to your later point about Development Points being designated in advance, most groups didn't play it quite so strictly as that, in my experience. You did have to find someone to help you learn weird stuff, though (just not dedicate the points in advance and lose them if you couldn't find someone).
Another thing that's changed between 1E/2E and 3E that somewhat gets my goat is character wealth - and using it to buy magic items. You see the capstone of the absurdity in 4E with Astral Diamonds and characters handing over millions of GP for "level appropriate" items. And ultimately, characters turning in wish lists of magic items.
Prior to 3E, I don't remember characters planning magic items purchases like it is done in 3E (and certainly not in 4E). In previous editions, you couldn't foresee what magic items you would end up with so you didn't talk in terms of builds based on having certain combinations of magic items. Sure, you could set on a quest for a particular item or two, but it was both dependent on whether your DM was willing to let you get the item, and the acquisition of the item was the capstone to the whole adventure - a whole lot more dangerous than simply plunking down some GP in some NPC's store.
That mindset changed significantly in 3E, and several of 3E's problems stem from the assumption "I can buy this and this and create this annoying combo".
I don't think much can be done about this, and I doubt there's many who care; it is partly the nature the times as much as having Wealth by Level tables and prices for magic items. However, to me, I dislike the feelings of entitlement many players have come to have over magic items and their acquisition, not to mention the absurd amounts of monetary treasure that accumulates in adventures. I really wish there were both better way to do things with "common" items and reduce the dependence on watching treasure hoards spiral out of control. For example, I'd like to see characters spend a huge hunk of money on a party when they come back from a dungeon rather than save it for a magic item, or be impressed at 15th level when you hand them a masterwork suit of plate inscribed with a war in the heavens instead of going "It's just masterwork?"
One of the things I have been considered is removing the need for the fighter to claim before he strikes the penalty he is taking to his attack roll with Power Attack. He simply makes the attack and whatever his attack roll exceeds the target AC by rolls over to damage. This also stops penalizing the fighter's successive attacks - he can let his successive attacks concentrate on hitting.Did you play Rolemaster?
That's effectively what they did; the attack and damage were combined into one roll. The better your attack, the more damage you did.
Actually, more MERP than Rolemaster.
Really, there's only one good solution to this and that's to go with the 4E model of things where everyone gets a fixed bonus from level to stuff like skills, Base attack and saves.
once you start having formulas like Saves = X/2 for some people and X/3 for others. You're screwed. Base attack can't be X and 3X/4 and X/2. It has to all be one constant.
AHAHAHAHA! For a moment I thought this guy was being serious. Whew! =P
|
|
For example, I'd like to see characters spend a huge hunk of money on a party when they come back from a dungeon rather than save it for a magic item, or be impressed at 15th level when you hand them a masterwork suit of plate inscribed with a war in the heavens instead of going "It's just masterwork?"
Then you'd love the player of the Half Orc ranger in my first 3.x campaign. Whenever we came across an item that had no immediate use, he'd say "What are we going to do with this?"
My Elf sorcerer, in all innocence, would reply "Its going into party treasure."
"Cool," came the reply. Later, "What about this then?"
"That's party treasure as well."
When we'd finally cleaned out the dungeon and arrived back at the town tavern, the Half Orc slammed down all the party treasure onto the bar, and said "Now, we party!"
Five years later, I can just about see the funny side.
However, the party then ventured into the Temple of Elemental Evil and found it a slow, tedious, dangerous, impossible struggle because (admittedly, among other things) we were way behind the expected wealth for a party of our level.
For example, I'd like to see characters spend a huge hunk of money on a party when they come back from a dungeon rather than save it for a magic item, or be impressed at 15th level when you hand them a masterwork suit of plate inscribed with a war in the heavens instead of going "It's just masterwork?"
Then you'd love the player of the Half Orc ranger in my first 3.x campaign. Whenever we came across an item that had no immediate use, he'd say "What are we going to do with this?"
My Elf sorcerer, in all innocence, would reply "Its going into party treasure."
"Cool," came the reply. Later, "What about this then?"
"That's party treasure as well."
When we'd finally cleaned out the dungeon and arrived back at the town tavern, the Half Orc slammed down all the party treasure onto the bar, and said "Now, we party!"
Five years later, I can just about see the funny side.
However, the party then ventured into the Temple of Elemental Evil and found it a slow, tedious, dangerous, impossible struggle because (admittedly, among other things) we were way behind the expected wealth for a party of our level.
:grin: Great story about the barbarian.
I'd love it if in some way a group could get away with the above without gimping themselves in the process. Unfortunately, nothing comes to mind short of having the "partying" grant some sort of off-screen magic item-like bonuses at a later date. But that doesn't really sound like much a good answer; it'd probably be better and easier if the party just went ahead and bought the items in the first place...
But that spread of X in d20+X starts becoming a problem at higher-levels.
To solve this issue I can only think of compressing the class levels. ie
1) Your BAB and hit points and caster level are half what they are now.
So a 20th Fighter gets 10d10+10xCon Hitpoints, +10/+5 BAB, a 20th Wizard does 10/5d6 Chainlightnings, 5d6 Fireballs, 8d6 Cones of Cold etc etc but DC's do not change.
2) Magic Weapons and Armour are limited to +3 as well as other buff spell bonuses being reviewed.
3) The game gets rid of the majority of buffing spells AND Stat bonus items (Circlet of Int, Girdle of Str)
4) Rogue Sneak Attack doesn't change BUT can only be used for one strike a round. Enables then to tumble in and attack.
5) Deflection bonuses not stackable with Shield Bonus. Monster Natural Armour and Fullplate etc Armour not stackable with Bracers and Amulets of Natural Armour. AC 59 Wyrm Red Dragons with +8 Bracers, +5 Ring and +5 Amulet of Natural Armour no more.
PCs with filled slots of magic items make the game untenable. The level of enhancing magic needs to be reduced to improve play.
Anybody thought of other ways?
It looks to me that Pathfinder will not address high level play - as it really is in the too hard basket.
Further, I would really like to find a way to move characters away from y = x progression to y = mx+b. If 1st level hp were say raw CON+die/2+Con Bonus/2 (as above) then this would go some way to toughening up the 1st level characters.
Cheers
Sean
|
|
Mattastrophic,
In response to your OP, I wanted to point out that there is an "official" sort of response to the problem you target in 3.5 by its designers, Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker, in their book "Dungeon Master for Dummies".
They label the problem the "widening attack gap" problem, and say that it arises for both attack rolls and skill checks at high level play, with the interesting proviso that they "believe that [3rd edition] D&D fully blossoms into high level play somewhere between 12th and 13th level". The problem is described pretty much in your terms. What is a decent roll for a wizard (i.e. roll a 10 or higher on a d20) is a trivial roll for a rogue (if skill checks are concerned) or a fighter (where attack rolls are concerned). Conversely, to put out an AC or DC that is a challenge for the fighter or rogue means the wizard need not try.
So what's there proposed solution? In a nutshell, it boils down to encounter design. The idea is to vary the monsters you hit at a party in the bandwith of a single encounter or across a series of encounters. The idea is that, as a DM, you start to pair off monsters with PCs in the most disadvantageous ways for the PCs, and they have to work round to re-match these so that the figther kills off the high-AC monster (e.g.) and the wizard clears off the low-AC monsters equipped with (e.g.) special magic abilities which only he (the wizard) can "shut down". And yes, that's 4th edition design thinking occuring right in 2005.
I have never seen that solution followed through in reality, it'd be interesting to see. However, I think Baker and Slavicsek's take on the issue is dead on. You can't re-crunch the maths of d20 to make the problem about PC abilities widening across classes at higher level play go away. You can't do that without making d20 into something else. What you can do, on the other hand, is to re-think encounter design to address these issues. So, thinking ahead, what we need from Pathfinder RPG is a solid tome for the DM to address such issues. Encounter design is still one of the most poorly understood concepts in 3rd edition play - Dungeonscape barely scraped the surface there. Jason Bulmahn should know - he wrote it. Good for us that he and the other Paizo team members will expand on that in the future. Or so I hope.
|
|
There are a lot of problems in the 3E/PF math, although Jason has done his best to patch up things without losing all backwards compatibility.
Having DMed and played in many, many high-level campaigns (both in AD&D and D&D), I agree with a lot of posters here. As I've posted on several threads (and therefore I try to keep it short here) I personally think the biggest problem comes from the bonuses not scaling in balance to spell DCs and Armor Class. The problem with high ACs can be dealt with by merging different bonus types into a more "compact" list.
However, 'save-or-die'/'save-or-suck'-effects and spells which effectively remove your fighter, rogue, ranger or barbarian from combat unless he succeeds in a DC 30+ saving throw (hard even with your best save). Considering that it would be a silly "baseline assumption" that *each* group has spellcasters constantly concentrating their efforts on trying to ease this "handicap" with "buffs" or that said "melee types" spend their first rounds downing potions in rapid succession (e.g. Potion of Owl's Wisdom to raise Will Save), something should be done about hits. Because at the moment combats become so "swingy" at level 11+, that in my opinion only spellcaster PCs are fun to play (and they're also "self-sufficient" enough to deal with most problems even without a rogue or a fighter). And, too often it comes down to the Initiative Roll.
Maybe Saving Throw bonuses should be boosted? Maybe DCs should be calculated in a different manner? Maybe Action Points could be implemented into PF RPG?
Those "tweaks" would probably help a lot with high-level play.
I liked the Original Star Wars RPG method. Everything was based of d6. You had (I believe) 18d6 to distribute among your 6 attributes. Attack rolls were based on the number of d6 you had in that skill/weapon + the number of d6 you had in Strength. Skills were the same.
You added bonuses +1 at a time to each skill/attribute/etc, until you reached +3. The next point you added turned that +3 into another d6 instead.
Smooth progressions, smooth bell curves. More reasonable DC's relative to skill die/boni.
I was quite disappointed when they switched over to d20 in later iterations.
Of course, switching D&D to a d6 system would totally destroy any backwards compatability...
*bump*, so links to this thread will keep working.
-Matt
I think that Pathfinder should use dice instead of bonuses only for bonuses from Base Attack. That means at 20th level, a fighter get an extra 2d20 from Base Attack and all other values are numbers. This makes the game less variable than using all dice and removes the problem of converting changing bonuses into dice. It also makes it so the fighters sometimes will miss and the rogues with an extra d20 and an extra d10 can sometimes hit high AC targets.
I think that Pathfinder should use dice instead of bonuses only for bonuses from Base Attack. That means at 20th level, a fighter get an extra 2d20 from Base Attack and all other values are numbers. This makes the game less variable than using all dice and removes the problem of converting changing bonuses into dice. It also makes it so the fighters sometimes will miss and the rogues with an extra d20 and an extra d10 can sometimes hit high AC targets.
All of the above proposed solutions would offer some benefit in shrinking the gap, but not necessarily without costs.
The fundamental problem is the ever-shrinking d20 which at higher levels doesn't have enough "play" to cover the increasing difference between numbers.
Fundamentally as you get higher in level you have to give each class more tricks in order for it to get around the increasing discrepancies between the classes. Mages get touch attacks, rogues get feint, but ultimately it makes some classes and class combinations untenable since they don't have enough tricks or the right kind of tricks. A monk gets more attacks, but ultimately they just don't have a high enough BAB or strength to compensate for the rate at which enemies increase in AC.
Part of the problem is that fixing this problem fundamentally rather than ad hoc as 3.5e does leaves the game feeling vanilla. WotC stated that they knew that the math just didn't work at higher levels and if 4e has an accomplishment it's that the math does work out better at higher levels than 3.5e, but unfortunately it's at the cost of reducing the number of systems involved down to just a handful. 3.53 and Pathfinder have a much richer number of systems that allows for a greater variety of play, but it does make it harder to balance.
Solutions may come in form of other tricks to close the gap. If fighters get bonuses to hit in all forms, perhaps rogues could give up sneak attack dice for armor penetration, and mages could get bonuses on their ray attacks above and beyond what Weapon Focus (Ray) does. Perhaps rays shouldn't take into account cover or target in melee penalties. There are lots of ways to get around some of these issues, but it's going to take a lot of work likely.