- How does the game change if there is a limit to the number of "buff" spells that an individual character can benefit from? How does this affect the game if the limit is 3, 5, or a number equal to 1 per two or four levels.
The subject of buff limits has been brought up several times between the General Discussion board and the Magic and Spells board. The concept being that a being, monster or PC, may have an given amount of "buffs" (which, by the way, would need to be defined in the rulebook) active at one time.
Of course, the concept of buff limits quickly runs into problems with execution:
-How do we execute the limit? What happens when the limit is reached? Does the monster/PC suddenly choose which spells affect him and which don't? How often can the choices be changed out? Or do any buffs beyond the limit simply fail?
-How does the limit apply to spells like Calm Emotions, Enlarge Person, Reduce Person, or Rage, which have both positive and negative effects? Can a character at or beyond the buff limit just shrug off, say, a Calm Emotions, because it can be construed as a buff? Similarly, does Enlarge Person not count against the limit, because it imposes a penalty to Dex and AC, and thus is not a buff? In other words, how is "buff" defined?
-Hurts backwards compatibility. Existing statblocks suddenly have to be converted over to account for a buff limit. For example, an NPC cleric with a spell list full of buff spells would have to be given a new list of spells prepared, to account for the fact that his buffs wouldn't work so well anymore. I would not be able to run that NPC cleric as written.
Easy first-glance examples of a statblock that would have to be converted:
Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, page 36 (only if limit is less than 3), 50, 52, 79, 82, 83, 104, 142, 144, 146, 148 (only if limit is less than 3), 167, 198, 202 (x2), 204, 206, 210, 211, 212, 214.
-Doesn't fix the perceived problem of applying multiple buffs taking too much time and causing confusion. Instead of adding up all the buffs applied to a PC/monster, instead one has to figure out which ones are the best to apply for the situation (and we don't know how often they can be changed out!) and reference those buffs, which essentially requires referencing them all... and we're back at the beginning.
So in essence, buff limits do not fix the perceived problems. Not only would a good amount of new rules have to be written to apply a buff limit, but the math issues that a buff limit means to address are not solved.
-Matt
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Of course, the concept of buff limits quickly runs into problems with execution:
-How do we execute the limit? What happens when the limit is reached? Does the monster/PC suddenly choose which spells affect him and which don't? How often can the choices be changed out? Or do any buffs beyond the limit simply fail?
-How does the limit apply to spells like Calm Emotions, Enlarge Person, Reduce Person, or Rage, which have both positive and negative effects? Can a character at or beyond the buff limit just shrug off, say, a Calm Emotions, because it can be construed as a buff? Similarly, does Enlarge Person not count against the limit, because it imposes a penalty to Dex and AC, and thus is not a buff? In other words, how is "buff" defined?
Half your questions seem to have very common sense answers.
Any spell over and above the limit simply doesn't affect the target. The target chooses which effects they want when a new spell targets them. They choose which effect to keep and discard. Spells not in effect on them don't linger, they were never applied so there's no swapping every so often between active and dormant spells.
Buffs are spells you cast on yourself or your allies. If an enemy casts it on you it's not a buff. If the Party Bbn is going after the enemy cleric and is targeted with a Calm Emotions, it's not a buff even if in some circumstances your party might want to use it. It's who casts the spell.
And it's not a strict limit, it's x number of spells with durations longer than 1 round/level. You can have as many 1r/lvl spells as you want!
--Vrock'em Sock'em Robots!
In other words, how is "buff" defined?
This is actually pretty easy. You just have a separate tag you apply to each buff spell. Similar to how spells have a [death] or [mind-affecting] tag. You just create a new [buff] tag. And you can only have X spells with the buff tag active at a certain time.
As far as casting buffs on someone who has reached their limit, you can do one of two things. Either the new buff simply fails, or the person being buffed gets to choose which buff he wants to keep and which one he wants to end. The ended buff simply ends its duration prematurely, as though it was dispelled.
Thats how I was thinking something along the lines of types of buffs
Physical
mental
Defense
or the like maybe a 4th not sure but that be kinda simple you coul;d even go
Body
Attack
Defensive
Buff limits... yet another way to make all characters even more chronically dependant on magic items (as it's pretty obvious you'll always be able to have more magic items than buffs on your person), guess there's no use wasting breath in even trying to oppose it, and perhaps that might even appease magic haters to a degree, so I guess it still serves a purpose.
I think magic items should cout toward the limit
I agree with Item/Buff issue.
Items should be included if such a system is adopted, which would presumably increase the limit.
"Classic Standards" like Protection from Evil now are sub-optimal since they take the same "buff slot" as a 9th level buff. Players (and Characters, in-game) would be motivated to research/find higher level spells that combine multiple low level buff effects (completely bypassing entire point of buff limit). Having a limit of Total-Spell-Levels would fix this, but seems complicated.
Ultimately, I don't think it needs to be done. The main argument "pro" seems to be for streamlining play re: Dispels, even though there's plenty of unrelated side-effects. Unfortunately, the nature of the D&D Magic system is INHERENTLY complicated with so many spells. Is it OK to acknowledge that, and say Players & DMs are expected to be competent enough with the level of magic they are playing with? Isn't this why new players are often advised to not play spellcasters?
Fortunately, Dispel Magic isn't the sort of thing you often see happen round after round, much less multiple times per round, like melee combat. So you're likely to have to roll for each Spell ONCE. Again, the # of Spells in play should be matching the rules competence of the group, otherwise they're in over their head ANYWAYS.
If the problem is Dispel Magic, not the number of buffs, why not fix Dispel Magic?
Couldn't it function by simply dispelling 1dX+N Total Spell Levels, not rolling for each?
Or using ONE Saving Throw, determine whether each effect is dispelled, based on Spell Level and Stat Bonus?
(i.e. You know the DC, and based on the roll determine what Spell Levels survive and which don't)
Those get rid of individual rolls for each spell, but don't create arbitrary & distorting limits for Buffs themselves. They also make Dispel Magic work more like most all other spells, i.e. Fireball doesn't let you Save for each individual Damage Die, you only save once for all Spell Effects. It just seems preferable to choose a solution that has the fewest (preferably zero) side effects. If the problem is with Dispel Magic, why not start there?
I don't think the problem is dispel magic. The problem is the number of different buff spells, which has considerably increased in 3.x compared to older editions.
Unfortunately, it's sort of a "Cat let out of the Bag" issue there, since if Pathfinder's goal is to be backwards compatable with 3.5 material, that presumes most all 3.5 spells -including the mess of non-Core spells- should exist & work, if not identically, close in spirit.
EDIT: Tycho: :-)
|
Perhaps instead of limiting buff spells Or having to do a roll for each buff. You have a single dispel roll where the dc to dispel is the highest lvl buff +1 for each other buff you have on? and if the dc is beat the person loses one buff plus for every x number of points the buff dc is beaten by one extra buff is stripped off?
If the problem is Dispel Magic, not the number of buffs, why not fix Dispel Magic?
Couldn't it function by simply dispelling 1dX+N Total Spell Levels, not rolling for each?
This has to be the smartest and simplest idea I've heard this century. Implement it. Now.
I dont not want my table top roleplaying game to be Online Video Game (buff limits and magic items slots being the formost examples). I play Online games and get out of them what I like and play table top roleplaying games for completely different reasons.
We'll miss you sorely then, for I seriously doubt Paizo will make up their minds anytime soon regarding their true target audience, and the one-dimensionalization of magic and spells will continue for as long as they keep flirting with both the fantasy market and the MMO gamer market (which is already in 4E's hands... by this I'm not saying 4E is necessarily bad, in fact from a Game Designer's point of view it's flawless, but in my case I'm not the market 4E is aiming at, it's not my thing).
I'm with Pathfinder mainly for three reasons:
1) The beauty of their setting and adventures.
2) The fresh changes they brought to d20 (like the core classes being optimal choices once again)
3) For being an alternative.
However, no product can please everyone fully, and while there are things about PF I don't like (ie all spells and their view on magic), I like the rest enough to support it (using 3.0's magic, that is). I invite you to love Pathfinder for its virtues, and whatever you don't like just houserule it... there's a horde of past d20 material (both 3.0 and 3.5), and one of Pathfinder's premises is backwards compatibility after all.
Ok first off let me start by saying. That if Pathfinder institutes a buff limit system that is not completely option, like a side bar or something, I will not be playing pathfinder.
Agreed.
My players aren't lazy, and they can keep track of the buffs. So can I. The problem isn't the number of buffs that can alter a character sheet (unless you've got a total [way too much] beer & pretzels group). The problem is dispel magic.
I disagree that the number of buffs is not a problem in high-level play. It's quite common to see 15+ buffs per character in the upper reaches of levels. That gets complicated fast, especially when you have to keep track of variable durations.
Unfortunately, limiting the number of concurrent buffs isn't a viable solution if backwards compatibility with adventures is a design goal. I don't think Dragotha in Age of Worms could be defeated by a party limited to 3 or even 5 buffs each, for example.
Think about it. Mage armor, shield, mind blank ... oh, well, hope your wizard doesn't need death ward, protection from evil, resist energy (or similar but more powerful spells), invisibility, blur, mirror image .... the list goes on and on, and those are just Core spells.
In a system that attracts min/max'ers and rule mongering fools, in such great numbers, the thought that you might be able to stop them from doing what they do naturaly, seems silly.
i have one of the biggest rule lawyers on the planet in my group, i tell him no... because i'm the dm. he doesn't like it. i ask him if he wishes to quit. he still hasn't.
The point i'm trying to make is that creating more rules to controll the people who would take advatage of the rules is counter productive. leave it at, bonuses from the same source, ie enhancement, do not stack, and leave it. every rule limits game play for those that don't rape the rules, and only gives more to work with for those that do.
Putting on the rule-lawyer/breaker hat.... (as Eric Stipe is saying, they will find away)
What is the definition of a buff on a character/creature? Does that count spells cast specifically on items or objects like Keen Edge, Magic Weapon, Light, and so. What is the limit on buffing items? Can a sword have all three of the above cast on it and function?
I enjoy a system which is consistent and which backs rules with rationales (express or implied). What would be the rationale for a buff limit? (notwithstanding the meta-game considerations).
Same here - I like it when things have at least some in-game rationale in the ruleset. Now, it is possible to have such a rationale for a buff limit - something along the lines of: spells interact and indeed interfere with one another and there is therefore only a certain capacity for a given number of spells per subject". A rationale is possible, but it is a pretty stupid rationale (plus it does not explain why do deleterious spells still work beyond the limit - explaining that would add yet another level of arbitrary explanation).
Yeah, I must say that I have never played with a buff limit, but I already hate the idea a priori. It is completely arbitrary and in a bad way, plus the question of what is a buff does arise. Is water breathing a buff? Is flight? What if the flight comes from some sort of polymorph that grants wings - is it then a buff? The complexity of multiple buffs can be dealt with in another way. We could instead reduce the numbers of bonus types to get less interaction, or we could simply change the way dispelling effects work, or we could do both, or something else entirely. But for heaven's sake, let's not place an arbitrary limit on the number of buffs.
Potential consolidated bonus system instead of buff limits:
Bonus types in 3.5E:
Alchemical
Armor
Circumstance
Competence
Deflection
Dodge
Enhancement
Inherent
Insight
Luck
Morale
Natural Armor
Profane
Racial
Resistance
Sacred
Shield
Size
Unnamed
Counting them all gives us 18 + 1 bonus types in total.
The +1 refers to the ‘Unnamed’ bonus type, which also includes all natural bonuses.
Combined Bonus Types:
Armor = Armor
Circumstance = Circumstance + Luck
Competence* = Competence + Insight
Deflection* = Deflection + Shield
Divine* = Sacred + Profane
Dodge = Dodge
Enhancement = Enhancement + Resistance + Alchemical
Inherent = Inherent
Morale = Morale
Natural Armor = Natural Armor
Unnamed = Unnamed + Racial** + Size
As is apparent, the above exercise of combining the various bonus types yields 10 + 1 bonus types, which is just over half that in 3.5E D&D. At the same time, the conceptual system of 3.5E gets preserved and I would say that backward compatibility is not overly damaged either. It would be possible to go even further in bonus type consolidation, or to use a conceptually different system altogether, but I would say the above is a reasonable compromise between simplicity and backward compatibility.
*There might be better terms than these. The term ‘competence’ could be replaced with ‘insight’, ‘deflection’ could be replaced with ‘shield’ and ‘divine’ could be replaced with ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ for example.
** Racial bonus might be kept as separate, but I think it is redundant. If a character's race changes he is no longer his old race, so the old bonuses from that race disappear anyway. The only way stacking could even occur is if the character could have multiple races simultaneously (and polymorph avoids that anyway by making the relevant bonuses enhancement bonuses).
I dont not want my table top roleplaying game to be Online Video Game (buff limits and magic items slots being the formost examples). I play Online games and get out of them what I like and play table top roleplaying games for completely different reasons.We'll miss you sorely then, for I seriously doubt Paizo will make up their minds anytime soon regarding their true target audience, and the one-dimensionalization of magic and spells
I also like magic to be interesting and to be able to do wondrous things. There were some balance issues at hand, however, in 3.5E and these got exacerbated by Clerics and Wizards getting massive boosts in power in the Pathfinder RPG (e.g. Wizards got bonus abilities from schools including universal school, bonus spells even when non-specialists, specialists no longer lose access to prohibited schools, 40% more hit points on average [3.5 hit points per level is 40% more than 2.5 hit points per level] and that's not even counting favored class hp bonuses and so on). It was only inevitable that with these boosts, Wizards, Clerics at all would be cut down to size elsewhere - and the only 'elsewhere' left is their spells.
This is not how I would have preferred it - I would have been in favor of keeping these classes weaker (not necessarily weakening them from 3.5E, just not boosting them as much) in terms of hit points especially (this is the best place to economise power, as hit points are useful and powerful, but nothing interesting - they are just numbers) and perhaps in terms of some class abilities (Channel Energy is overpowered), but keep their magic interesting, powerful and wondrous. I am not saying that magic is boring in the Pathfinder RPG (it is VASTLY better than in 4E, for example), but it is less interesting than in 3.5E (for example, death effects now deal hit point damage, just like a myriad of other spells... this is boring - spells like these need to do something special even if it is not automatic insta-kill upon a failed saving throw).
...spells like these need to do something special even if it is not automatic insta-kill upon a failed saving throw
Additional status effects from facing death and not being shuffled off the mortal coil quite yet? Shaken, Frightened, Panic, not mind-effecting based? Stark with Shaken and move to panic. If a character can live through 3 failed former-save-or-die effects I'd say that would be cause for panic. Just a random thought.
There were some balance issues at hand, however, in 3.5E and these got exacerbated by Clerics and Wizards getting massive boosts in power in the Pathfinder RPG
Indeed Roman, a vicious cycle that started in the horde of splatbooks led by Complete Arcane and the super-powered wizard and sorcerer base-class variants; more or less the same as happened to all other classes, which turned core classes into suboptimal choices, which was one of the reasons for Pathfinder's tweak on the classes...
It was only inevitable that with these boosts, Wizards, Clerics at all would be cut down to size elsewhere - and the only 'elsewhere' left is their spells.
Indeed, but the way the one-dimensionalization is being carried on also agrees all too conveniently with 4E's target audience, particularly with all the explainations regarding oversimplification for the sake of the lowest common denominator (also, "Limit on number of buffs is a rule already in use by 4E AFAIK).
(it is VASTLY better than in 4E, for example)
...I'm starting to wonder, really. While I don't even use PF magic, between the spells and the constant, further, unnecessary oversimplification of rules (like that late prohibition on using Combat Maneuvers during AoO) I can't help but starting to think the only reason Paizo hasn't moved to 4E yet is the tyranical terms of WotC's license.
Director of Games
|
Couple of things here... as I am going to avoid being drawn into the argument here.
1. This buff limit, as with all of the rules in the Beta, are just something under consideration. I am leaning against it right now. I see a certain value in it, but it might be a bit too much against backwards compatibility to work.
2. The AoO thing mentioned here with combat maneuvers is being changed based on feedback from the playtests.
3. Contrary to some views, many of the powers added to clerics and wizards only really add versatility and sustainability at low levels and trail off a bit as they increase in levels. Spellcasters as a whole needed a bit of damage control at higher levels, where they quickly begin to outpace other classes. That said, I am approaching this from a wide variety of angles, from increasing the output of some noncaster classes, to nerfing some clearly abused spells, to altering some of the monsters. It is a wide sweeping process, with a number of small changes pushing toward the desired effect (that is, a more balanced high level experience).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Couple of things here... as I am going to avoid being drawn into the argument here.
1. This buff limit, as with all of the rules in the Beta, are just something under consideration. I am leaning against it right now. I see a certain value in it, but it might be a bit too much against backwards compatibility to work.
I am happy to hear that!
2. The AoO thing mentioned here with combat maneuvers is being changed based on feedback from the playtests.
Fair enough - I am neutral on that change. My players have never actually used a combat maneuver with an AoO, not even once, so I have no data points on this. I suppose it could be interesting to trip a Wizard trying to cast a spell or to grapple a Ranger trying to shoot his bow, but it probably would cause too many in-game problems if it happened all the time.
3. Contrary to some views, many of the powers added to clerics and wizards only really add versatility and sustainability at low levels and trail off a bit as they increase in levels.
Well, looking at the Wizard:
The 40% hit point boost to average Wizard hit points (d4->d6 hit dice) does not trail off with levels - it continues right from level 1 to level 20 and perhaps beyond (depending on how epic rules are done). The issue of low level survivability/sustainability is something that could have been solved with one of the starting hit point bonuses that you have devised - that would have been much better than increasing a hit die, since the relative effect of that would indeed trail off with levels.
The extra spell-like abilities also do not trail off with levels - they boost the generalist Wizard's spell capacity by approximately 20-25% for all spell levels. I do understand the rationale of no dead levels and motivation to advance in a class, but still.
Specialists being able to memorize spells from their prohibited schools (in a way essentially rendering prohibited schools non-existent) does not trail off with levels.
The school powers also come in at different levels, but they are flavorful and not so many, so I think they are not a major problem.
The usefulness of 0th level spells that are now at will does trail off with levels, but these are a minor part of the power boost that Wizards have received - though there are some exploits (constant detect magic to notice invisibility, or to see whether any target is not under an enchantment aura, etcetera).
Given all of the above, I would say that, excluding spell changes, Wizards probably got the biggest power boost of any class compared to how they were in 3.5E. Sure, we can house-rule many of the more egregious power boosts away, but still...
In any case, with fewer power boosts to the Wizard, perhaps fewer spells could be nerfed to compensate (or some spells could be less nerfed).
Clerics got a smaller boost, but Channel Energy (and I love the mechanic in principle - it is a beautiful change from the counterintuitive Turn Undead - so good job on that) is too strong (it just needs to do less healing/damage per round even if there are more uses of it per day so that total amount of healing/damage is the same). Otherwise, I think the Cleric is fine.
Spellcasters as a whole needed a bit of damage control at higher levels, where they quickly begin to outpace other classes. That said, I am approaching this from a wide variety of angles, from increasing the output of some noncaster classes, to nerfing some clearly abused spells, to altering some of the monsters. It is a wide sweeping process, with a number of small changes pushing toward the desired effect (that is, a more balanced high level experience).
And I appreciate the difficult job you have there and indeed have no problems whatsoever with the slight power boosts to the Fighter and such (though giving Rogues the ability to sneak attack practically anything for full damage might be going too far - perhaps half damage to the formerly immune creatures or something like that would have been sufficient). You have a very unfortunate dilemma with spells and magic. Some of the spells are indeed abusable and need to be nerfed, but the problem is that part of the 'magic' of D&D (pun intended) is that magic is wondrous. Too much nerfing or homogenization (e.g. everything does hit point damage for the sake of balance) will make it distinctly non-wondrous. To be fair, this is a hypothetical statement, rather than a suggetion that you have gone that far - I think Pathfinder magic is still wondrous. Unlike 4E's approach of dealing with problems (removal of all problematic effects), in Pathfinder characters can still Teleport, Fly, Summon creatures and so on. Sometimes creativity can help nerf the spell in question and yet keep it interesting (I don't know - perhaps instead of doing hit point damage death effects can cause negative levels [maybe d6 + 1/2 caster level] and the target dies if they receive a number of negative levels equal to their level) and perhaps sometimes it cannot and a choice must be made... yes, your task is certainly not easy - best of luck in making the right choices!
There were some balance issues at hand, however, in 3.5E and these got exacerbated by Clerics and Wizards getting massive boosts in power in the Pathfinder RPGIndeed Roman, a vicious cycle that started in the horde of splatbooks led by Complete Arcane and the super-powered wizard and sorcerer base-class variants; more or less the same as happened to all other classes, which turned core classes into suboptimal choices, which was one of the reasons for Pathfinder's tweak on the classes...
Well, they are sub-optimal to various Prestige Classes, I agree, but I don't think they were as sub-optimal as it is made out to be with respect to other base classes. There are some overpowered base classes in the splatbooks (Archivist, for example), but also some underpowered ones (Spellthief, for example). It is true, though, that natural selection will only pick out the overpowered ones for comparison with the Core Classes and the Prestige Class superiority is also an issue.
It was only inevitable that with these boosts, Wizards, Clerics at all would be cut down to size elsewhere - and the only 'elsewhere' left is their spells.Indeed, but the way the one-dimensionalization is being carried on also agrees all too conveniently with 4E's target audience, particularly with all the explainations regarding oversimplification for the sake of the lowest common denominator (also, "Limit on number of buffs is a rule already in use by 4E AFAIK).
4E is right for some and not right for others. I am certainly not part of its target audience. Some ideas it has are not necessarily bad (the notion of rituals is flavorful, for example, though the fact that anybody can do them is not), but the buff limit (I wasn't aware that it exists in 4E) is one of the bad ones.
(it is VASTLY better than in 4E, for example)...I'm starting to wonder, really.
Come on now... speaking of magic, consider that Pathfinder still has spells with actual long term effects, it still has summoning spells, it still has spells like Baleful Polymorph and so on.
Combined Bonus Types:Armor = Armor
Circumstance = Circumstance + Luck
Competence* = Competence + Insight
Deflection* = Deflection + Shield
Divine* = Sacred + Profane
Dodge = Dodge
Enhancement = Enhancement + Resistance + Alchemical
Inherent = Inherent
Morale = Morale
Natural Armor = Natural ArmorUnnamed = Unnamed + Racial** + Size
While 3E could use bonus consolodation, yours won't work.
First, circumstance bonuses actually stack, similar to dodge bonuses. Second, combining deflection and shield pretty much nerfs the shield fighter completely, because he can't even wear a ring of protection and get a shield bonus.
Personally I'd do something like this:
Armor = Natural Armor & Armor
Circumstance
Competence= Competence & Morale & Insight
Mystical= deflection & Luck & Sacred & Profane & alchemical & Resistance
Dodge
Inherent
Enhancement
Shield
Size
RacialThat greatly cuts down on bonus clutter. Since it would lower PC AC quite a bit, I'd also throw in some static bonus to AC based on level to pick up the slack of no longer having enhancement on armor and natural armor enhancement.
Well, we could have rings of protection give a different bonus.
Really, it is the various AC bonuses that make up the bulk of the bonus types left and cause the most problems in combining them.
Nevertheless, decoupling the shield bonus from the deflection bonus and moving some of the other bonuses gives us 9+1 bonus types:
Armor = Armor
Competence = Competence + Insight
Deflection = Deflection
Shield = Shield
Dodge = Dodge
Enhancement = Enhancement + Resistance + Alchemical
Inherent = Inherent
Morale = Morale + Sacred + Profane
Natural Armor = Natural Armor
Unnamed = Unnamed + Circumstance + Luck + Racial + Size
...spells like these need to do something special even if it is not automatic insta-kill upon a failed saving throwAdditional status effects from facing death and not being shuffled off the mortal coil quite yet? Shaken, Frightened, Panic, not mind-effecting based? Stark with Shaken and move to panic. If a character can live through 3 failed former-save-or-die effects I'd say that would be cause for panic. Just a random thought.
That might help. Basically, we need something that would distinguish Death Effects from damage spells.
Perhaps it could be that a Death Effect forces multiple progressive saving throws with increasing effects until the character saves or dies.
Potential solution to death effects:
Death magic sucks life force out of the character, making him physically drained even if it fails to kill him:
Fail 1 saving throw: the target is fatigued by the ordeal
Fail 2 saving throws: the target is exhausted by the ordeal
Fail 3 saving throws: the target falls unconscious from the ordeal
Fail 4 saving throws: the target dies from the ordeal
Or perhaps, if we wanted the spells to have some efect even on successful saving throws:
No failed saving throws: the target is fatigued by the ordeal
1 failed saving throw: the target is exhausted by the ordeal
2 failed saving throws: the target falls unconscious from the ordeal
3 failed saving throws: the target dies from the ordeal
There are numerous ways that death effects other than hit point damage could exist in the game, yet not cause the death of a character on a single failed save.
That looks like a pretty good list.
I would leave Morale distinct, but Sacred/Profane is a good consolidation,
as well as the Enhancement/Resistance/Alchemical and Competence/Insight consolidations.
Dropping Circumstance into Untyped makes enough sense,
though I question if Luck should be dropped, since being it's own category prevents stacking infinite Luck.
That's not quite as "impressive" a change, of course, but it seems a solid IMPROVEMENT on 3.5.
My take:
That looks like a pretty good list.
I would leave Morale distinct, but Sacred/Profane is a good consolidation,
as well as the Enhancement/Resistance/Alchemical and Competence/Insight consolidations.
I agree that there is a case for leaving Morale as a distinct bonus type. Sacred and profane definitely should not stack with one another (yeah, I get a bonus from an angel and a demon alike...). I figured both of these 'Divine' effects could be reinterpreted as 'Inspirational' effects, where Morale could also potentially fall, but it is not a perfect fit.
Dropping Circumstance into Untyped makes enough sense,
though I question if Luck should be dropped, since being it's own category prevents stacking infinite Luck.
I was internally debating whether to drop luck into the unnamned (and thus infinitely stackable) category or not precisely for that reason. In the end, I figured that I don't know of enough luck effects for this to become a serious problem. On the other hand, somebody might indeed come up with a scenario where it could be problematic. Another thing I was considering was combining Luck and Morale into a single bonus type as "Intangible" - it is not thematically perfect but for some reason it feels relatively good and would cut down on bonus types slightly further.
That's not quite as "impressive" a change, of course, but it seems a solid IMPROVEMENT on 3.5.
Certainly - there is really a needless number of bonuses in 3.5E that add unnecessary amounts of complexity. The scale of the cutback that is desirable is, however, unclear. We want to preserve backward compatibility to a great degree and to avoid creating new problems by overconsolidation.
With racial bonuses it is mostly a matter of terminology. Say I am a human and somehow temporarily become an elf using a spell (polymorph). In Pathfinder, this gives enhancement bonuses, so the existence or absence of the racial bonus type is irrelevant in that regard. Now suppose, I don't just polymorph into an elf, but actually turn into an elf on an permanent basis due to some powerful instantaneous magical effect. In such a case my race is no longer human, so obviously I lose all bonuses I had from being a human and gain those that stem from being an elf. There is no stacking issue at hand under this interpretation and therefore no need for a racial bonus type. If we interpret the change as stacking instead of race replacement, the change from a human into an elf would give me elven bonuses to dexterity and intelligence AND enable me to keep my human bonus to wisdom (or constitution or another ability score other than those where the elf has a bonus).
The same logic applies to size effects - there is no need for them to be a different bonus type unless the character can be of two sizes at the same time...
Inherent bonuses might cause problems if they are infinitely stackable unless there is some other mechanism to mitigate [perhaps by making them work like point-buy instead of providing bonuses directly] the possibilities of infinite ability scores from endless books (or wishes if they revert to their previous state as I hope they do). Because of that, they probably need to stay their separate bonus type, but that is OK - they are not really a problem when it comes to buff spells and do not cause much in-game complexity - they only come into play occassionally when PCs/NPCs are raising their ability scores on a permanent basis and cannot be dispelled (and as you correctly pointed out, dispelling bears a lot of responsibility for buff complexity - and your solution to the dispelling issue is good too).
My take:
Trying next iteration:
Armor = Armor
Competence = Competence + Insight
Deflection = Deflection
Dodge = Dodge
Enhancement = Enhancement + Resistance + Alchemical
?Intangible = Luck + Morale?
Natural Armor = Natural Armor
Divine = Sacred + Profane
Shield = Shield
Unnamed = Unnamed + Circumstance + Racial + Size
Note: Although the Dodge bonus could indeed be inserted into the 'Unnamed' category, it is a common bonus that has very specific conditions under which it works and doesn't, so it might actually be a gameplay simplification to keep it as a separate bonus rather than having to enumerate those conditions every time the Unnamed bonus replaces the Dodge bonus.
humm i have not read all this but with this list
Armor = Armor
Competence = Competence + Insight
Deflection = Deflection
Dodge = Dodge
Enhancement = Enhancement + Resistance + Alchemical
?Intangible = Luck + Morale?
Natural Armor = Natural Armor
Divine = Sacred + Profane
Shield = Shield
Are we thinking a limit of one type of buff each?
humm i have not read all this but with this list
Armor = Armor
Competence = Competence + Insight
Deflection = Deflection
Dodge = Dodge
Enhancement = Enhancement + Resistance + Alchemical
?Intangible = Luck + Morale?
Natural Armor = Natural Armor
Divine = Sacred + Profane
Shield = ShieldAre we thinking a limit of one type of buff each?
It is supposed to be a consolidation of bonus types, but, of course, it does in effect act as an implicit limit of one spell per bonus type on buffs, because bonuses of the same type don't stack (with Dodge and Unnamed bonuses as exceptions) [if any spells provide bonuses that fall into the unnamed category these could be changed]. Of course, bonus types also limit equipment and all other bonuses, not just buffs. Plus, unlike with an explicit limit, non-bonus-granting buffs are unaffected, so things like Water Breathing and so on are not limited (and these spells don't cause complexity problems in terms of in game calculations, so that's a good thing).
Buffs cause two main problems:
1) Dispelling effects: These should be dealt with by changing the way dispelling works
2) Excessive calculation problems: These can be dealt with by consolidating bonus types (actually, consolidating spells would work too, but that would unravel as new spells are added in new books, so consolidating bonus types is better)
I agree that there is a case for leaving Morale as a distinct bonus type. Sacred and profane definitely should not stack with one another (yeah, I get a bonus from an angel and a demon alike...). I figured both of these 'Divine' effects could be reinterpreted as 'Inspirational' effects, where Morale could also potentially fall, but it is not a perfect fit.
I guess it could be leaving the door open for a Pathfinder Modern,
you know, Cleric of New Age Psychology Channeling Positive Thinking... ;-)
roman thats not bad at all...each spell could be clearly marked as to its type....thats a good ideal
Being currently a DM running High level play, while the numerous buffs certainly slow down play, they are just a small part of what slows down high level play. They are merely a simptom of the true problem. I think limiting buffs will help only a little in actually speeding the game up.
That might help. Basically, we need something that would distinguish Death Effects from damage spells.
Perhaps it could be that a Death Effect forces multiple progressive saving throws with increasing effects until the character saves or dies.
Potential solution to death effects:
Death magic sucks life force out of the character, making him physically drained even if it fails to kill him:
Fail 1 saving throw: the target is fatigued by the ordeal
Fail 2 saving throws: the target is exhausted by the ordeal
Fail 3 saving throws: the target falls unconscious from the ordeal
Fail 4 saving throws: the target dies from the ordeal
I don't agree with going beyond exhausted. Even though a death effects may not actually kill on a failed save it seems unlikely that a target will survive a second or, even more unlikely, a third failed save. If they are for whatever reason their death shouldn't be forced. Shaken, Panicked, Fatigued, Exhausted, that's about the limit of status effects that should be applied to failed former save or die effects that don't end up killing.
Why even have death effects at that point?
"Hey guys I would love to go on and keep helping, but I burned up all my death spells on that last opponent... you know the one the fighter had to kill? Yeah and my lower level spells, well none of them really work either... *kind of invisibility* doesn't hid me anymore *wall of slow them down force* gets beaten through *dominate if you don't mind* won't keep them off us more than 2 rounds before they aren't save... *a little damage in an area* doesn't do enough to tickle them, OH and don't forget anything nearing my top spells are going to take a full round action to cast!"
Potential solution to death effects:
Death magic sucks life force out of the character, making him physically drained even if it fails to kill him:
Fail 1 saving throw: the target is fatigued by the ordeal
Fail 2 saving throws: the target is exhausted by the ordeal
Fail 3 saving throws: the target falls unconscious from the ordeal
Fail 4 saving throws: the target dies from the ordeal
The only reason I dislike Save-Or-Die spells is because they allow players to kill monsters that fail a single saving throw. The current model for Save-Or-Die spells works just fine - they inflict massive HP damage, and this is usually enough to kill someone stone dead, but just leaves most big boss monsters wounded.
However, the Save-Or-Suck spells would really benefit from Recovery Saves. But that being said, I don't think it should take four rounds for Save-Or-Suck spells to come into play. If you have Dominate Monster cast on you, I fully support being able to resist the spell each round, but I do not support the idea that you have to wait 4 rounds before it "takes hold".
I find that the real trouble with allowing unlimited buffs is that the power difference between a prepared party, and the un-buffed party becomes like night and day.
Pretty soon the party spends 10 rounds casting spells and using items outside every door that could have a monster on the other side. Characters feel naked if they only have half a dozen buff spells going, and once those have worn out, it would be suicidal to try an encounter balanced for their fully-buffed versions. On the other end of the spectrum, if the Uber- buffed party stumbles into an encounter
Limiting the number of buffs keeps the party power level from swinging to widely, and enables the party to face more encounters with a given amount of buff magic.
I would be open to some variations such as spells with durations of 10min/level or more don't apply to the limit, or that it only applies to spells that only target a single creature or something like that.
- How does the game change if there is a limit to the number of "buff" spells that an individual character can benefit from? How does this affect the game if the limit is 3, 5, or a number equal to 1 per two or four levels.The subject of buff limits has been brought up several times between the General Discussion board and the Magic and Spells board. The concept being that a being, monster or PC, may have an given amount of "buffs" (which, by the way, would need to be defined in the rulebook) active at one time.
Of course, the concept of buff limits quickly runs into problems with execution:
-How do we execute the limit? What happens when the limit is reached? Does the monster/PC suddenly choose which spells affect him and which don't? How often can the choices be changed out? Or do any buffs beyond the limit simply fail?
-How does the limit apply to spells like Calm Emotions, Enlarge Person, Reduce Person, or Rage, which have both positive and negative effects? Can a character at or beyond the buff limit just shrug off, say, a Calm Emotions, because it can be construed as a buff? Similarly, does Enlarge Person not count against the limit, because it imposes a penalty to Dex and AC, and thus is not a buff? In other words, how is "buff" defined?
-Hurts backwards compatibility. Existing statblocks suddenly have to be converted over to account for a buff limit. For example, an NPC cleric with a spell list full of buff spells would have to be given a new list of spells prepared, to account for the fact that his buffs wouldn't work so well anymore. I would not be able to run that NPC cleric as written.
Easy first-glance examples of a statblock that would have to be converted:
Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, page 36 (only if limit is less than 3), 50, 52, 79, 82, 83, 104, 142, 144, 146, 148 (only if limit is less than 3), 167, 198, 202 (x2), 204, 206, 210, 211, 212, 214.
-Doesn't fix the perceived problem of applying multiple buffs taking too much time and...
I agree.
I'm not really bothered about a limit on the *number* of buffs an individual puts on, I'm more bothered about the totals that result from those buffs. I'd rather see the types of bonuses one can stack be reduced so. Personally, I'd like to see the max bonus an individual can put together be limited to maxxing out around +20 total.
I'd been considering for my campaign:
Armor (natural armor, worn armor, shield)
Magic (from spells or magic items)
Equipment (mundane "masterwork" bonus from items, such as the +2 to Spot for a magnifying glass or the +1 to hit from a masterwork sword*)
Feature (class and race bonuses, such as the Elf's bonus to spot or the druid's bonus to Nature checks)
Feat (Feats, of course)
If each could have a +5 bonus max, this would top out +25. However, I'd expect Armor at least would go up to +8 or more, especially when you consider natural armor or armor + shield.
* I really think Masterwork should be overhauled, both in pricing and making masterwork items have bonuses that range from +1 to +5 in various areas.
Well the characters I have seen that have pushed to the limits on adding all of those bonus types to something were suffering in many other departments. Well-rounded characters are much more survivable than an extremely specialized characters could hope to be. Specialists can be fun to run though and may ruin a DMs plans on how he wants to run something.