|
Add: this to the top post.
7: Remove the ability modifiers from all DCs and all saving throws and leave them at flat rates.
This was suggested by one of my more cynical friends stating that if modifiers are gone then the core of the mechanic will be exposed, and will be therefore hard to manipulate short of taking specific feats.
Woot, top of the page!
Just to clarify, I think it should be possible to have a rogue with an awesome Will save (I'll use a rogue as my example because I think fighters have too many separate issues). I just don't think it should be painless; less painless than it is now, maybe, but not painless altogether.
So I'd be happy allowing Iron Will to be taken multiple times, so that our rogue can sacrifice some feat power for a good Will save.
I'd be happy with a "Slippery Pete" roguish prestige class that has a good Will save and some Will save associated abilities (but gives up some rogue class abilities).
I would be less enthusiastic with changing the rules so that a rogue's Will save is two less than a cleric's Will save at every level.
And as far as superior resistance spells go, caveat emptor with any spell from the Spell Compendium.
You said it, brother. That's the second spell to ban from that source (after the divinely broken bolt of glory).
I feel that spells need to be re-worked a bit so that the SoDs allow 2 or 3 saves, sorta like phantasmal killer but with some penalties.
e.g. Flesh to Stone, 1st failed save = slowed for 1 rd, round 2, fail save = stunned, round 3 fail save = petrified.
or say Finger of Death, 1st failed save = -1 hp, round 2, 2nd failed save = death.
There could be death on the same round too, like Death Ray, 1st touch AC to inflict a big penalty, then a save to avoid death.
I'd usually consider stuff like Dominate / Hold to be SoDs, could use something like the above.
This allows:
1. Deaths to be less likely, but SoDs to still be quite effective in battle. (in terms of actions at least)2. PCs understand that they need to get their saves enough that they have a reasonable chance of passing 1 of the 2 saves, or high enough to have a decent chance to make the 2nd save when allies buff them with contingency +save spells.
3. Less anti-climax situations where BBEGs drop dead in 1 spell or PCs drop dead in 1 spell.
This way you solve the 'I need him to stop', and still allow PCs a chance
This is all great stuff.
The only real concern I have is that if we make SoD (and SoS) spells unreliable, nobody will want to use them.
As it is, I can realistically know, for a fact, that my sorcerer can kill just about anything with magic missiles - if my enemy hasn't popped some kind of Shield spell or other neutralizing effect. Want to kill a dragon? Fine, 30 or so rounds of magic missiles should wipe him out.
Now, will I live long enough to cast enough magic missiles to win the fight? Probably not.
That's why I bring along my friends. They smack the enemy around and chop him up and grind him down. Between them, and my magic missiles, eventually that enemy reaches 0 HP and we win.
---OR---
I could load up on SoD/SoS spells and fire them off, round after round, while my enemy makes save after save.
In the first case, I know that each round I contribute positively toward killing our enemy. Every magic missile that lands brings him closer to 0 HP and our victory.
In the second case, I know that each round that my enemy saves against my SoD spells has been a wasted round. The enemy is no closer to death, and we are no closer to victory.
The simple fact is that saves happen. If you want to rely on SoD/SoS effects, you know some foes will make their saves.
In return, you expect that your spells will work some of the time, and when they do, you are MUCH closer to winning the fight.
This is the important part:
You balance this out in your mind. Direct damage spells are guaranteed to shorten the fight a little. SoD spells are not guaranteed to work at all, but when they do, they shorten the fight a lot.
So you balance the risk.
As long as you can pick spells your enemies are likely to fail, SoDs are excellent.
But when you are faced with wasting your time, bouncing harmless SoDs against enemies who routinely succeed at easy saves, SoDs are worthless.
We need to balance them so they are right in the middle. Excellent enough of the time that we are willing to employ them in battle, worthless just enough of the time to keep things interesting, both for us when we use SoDs and for us when SoDs are used against us.
BTW In the exact same vein, I hope to see Neutralise Poison granting a large save bonus (like +5 to your saving throw) instead of auto-removing poison. Makes it more fun and gives people reasons why assassins can still kill with poison at high levels fairly well.
Now here I disagree. This feels more like "Slow Poison". If you're going to use the word "Neutralize" then it should neutralize, especially since it's a 4th level spell.
|
Ahh, the old "SOD spells kill us too easily" argument.
So what is the answer?
Consider the other side of the coin.
Imagine for a moment, since we're already doing thought exercises, that we give the best save progression to all three saves for every class - we just do away with the low progression entirely.
Imagine if when a mage throws a SOD spell, he assumes his target will make his save. He expects it.
Then there is no reason to prepare them.
My mages (players and NPCs) don't even tough Phantasmal Killer. Ever.
Let's face it. That big guy with the axe over there wants to take your head off. And he can do it too, very easily, if he can reach you.
You can do nothing, but 6 seconds from now, your head will be lying in the dirt.
You can run away, or teleport away, or gate to another plane, which is all fine, but really, that guy is in your home. He's going to rob you blind. You can't allow that!
You can nuke him, but he is big and tough and the nuke will probably hurt him but certainly not kill him - and then 6 seconds later it's head-in-the-dirt time.
So, you decide to blind him, hold him, stun him, slay him, slow him, sleep him, or use some other SOD spells (or SOS spells).
As it is currently, there is a good chance you can stop him. There is also a chance he may resist your spell and you know what will happen in 6 seconds if he does.
So you risk it. The alternatives suck.
But change the system so that the big guy with the axe will certainly save, and you would never try to SOD him. Why bother if he will automatically resist?
Even if you change it so that the big guy will (only) probably save, you still won't risk it. No wizard would. Life hanging on a spell that will probably fail? No way, cast something else, anything else.
No, in order for these spells to be worth preparing, to even be worth the page in the spellbook, they need to be reliable enough that the guys who prepare them won't just prefer something else that works.
The downside is, that now they...
We won't need to "break" the spells -- Action Points, Feats that grant re-rolls to saves (preferably with bonuses), improved saving throw progression, 'Save Ends'-type of mechanic (i.e. save per round).. these won't break the game or "ruin" high-level magic. It (about 50% save chance against everything) worked just fine in AD&D, didn't it?
The problem with expecting every PC in every situation relying on "buffs" and magic items encourages way too much "powergaming" and "min-maxing" to my taste. Not only that, but in my experience it leads to PCs retreating to rest after one or two encounters, because the cleric and/or the wizard runs out of Bull's Strength and Bear's Endurance. And, I have yet to meet the DM/GM who actually runs the game as per the 'Wealth by Level'-tables, letting the PCs shop for everything, everywhere (i.e. for items that he doesn't give as treasure). Potions and scrolls? Maybe, but not Wondrous Items.
At the moment, the "gap" between "min-maxed" DCs and "min-maxed" saving throws is too wide. Against a Will Save DC 30+ it's hopeless, unless it's one of your good saves or if you're a paladin. How about the fighter? Abraham's example of Will Save Modifier +18 is actually nigh-impossible to get, even with Feats and Magic Items (Base Save +6, Resistance Bonus +5, Iron Will +2 = +13), unless your Wisdom is 20+.
My point is that it *is* possible to "tweak" the math behind saving throws, without ending up on either end of the spectrum.
At the moment, the "gap" between "min-maxed" DCs and "min-maxed" saving throws is too wide. Against a Will Save DC 30+ it's hopeless, unless it's one of your good saves or if you're a paladin. How about the fighter? Abraham's example of Will Save Modifier +18 is actually nigh-impossible to get, even with Feats and Magic Items (Base Save +6, Resistance Bonus +5, Iron Will +2 = +13), unless your Wisdom is 20+.
My point is that it *is* possible to "tweak" the math behind saving throws, without ending up on either end of the spectrum.
I never disagreed with either of these points.
All I advocated was a word of caution.
Some people on the forum are raising the hue and cry to make it so fighters can "shrug off" SoD/SoS spells. That would be going too far.
Other hues and other cries abound, many of which seem to want the whole SoD/SoS system tossed in the tank, with multiple saves, improved chances, lowered DCs, etc., all of which leads to ruining these spells.
I mentioned the careful balance a mage must examine. Will he be wasting the majority of his rounds watching foes repeatedly save against his SoD spells, accomplishing nothing to help his friends win the fight? Will he be better off blasting away with evocations, certain to at least bring the fight to a victorious reolution a round or two faster?
Or will we swing the balance the other way, making it so evocation is a waste of time - the mage should just wipe out the encounter with irresistable SoD spells in the first round so everyone can get back home in time to divide up the booty and share a round of ale?
Balance is key.
But then we talk about Will Saves, which fighters are notoriously bad at making, and clerics are notoriously good at making, and the no-man's land in between.
Balancing the no-man's land against the worthiness of keeping the spells in the book, and the worthiness of using the spells in combat, is a huge effort, and one that is not to be easily resolved with a hue and cry.
Statistics.
Math.
Accumulation of data.
Followed by meaningful playtesting.
Anything else is just firing blanks in the dark.
|
I could load up on SoD/SoS spells and fire them off, round after round, while my enemy makes save after save.
In the first case, I know that each round I contribute positively toward killing our enemy. Every magic missile that lands brings him closer to 0 HP and our victory.
In the second case, I know that each round that my enemy saves against my SoD spells has been a wasted round. The enemy is no closer to death, and we are no closer to victory.
A random idea ocurred, which I dislike because it adds book-keeping, but I'll float it. High-level SoD spells give a 3 round cumulative penalty to the specific save used if sucessful i.e. save against Disintegrate and take a -2 to Fortitude. In game rational : no mortal should be able to withstand the magical forces that can dissolve the bonds between molecules but (somehow) heroes can, albeit for a short period of time and not against repeated exposure. Mechanical rational : it makes SoD spells more useful because, even though we know the first may not work, if we keep pounding then they will fall. I think a maximum of -6 is about right.
As above DM_Blake says above, most people who play this game know that independant samples from a random distribution are not correlated - a SoD saved against doesn't make the next one more likely to work. Therefore we weight it so that SoD's don't feel like a waste.
Edit: @DM_Blake - just spotted your post about 'balance' and 'statistics' and agree strongly. I wasn't quite sure where your thought were on this with your 'wasted round' comment quoted above; now I understand. I want to be able to play an effective, but not overpowered, mage with a signature disintegrate.
Abraham's example of Will Save Modifier +18 is actually nigh-impossible to get, even with Feats and Magic Items (Base Save +6, Resistance Bonus +5, Iron Will +2 = +13), unless your Wisdom is 20+.
That was me actually. And two things, I consider a +18 to +20 the realistic "max" of a Fighters Will save, not the average.
It would be unfair to compare the max save DC to anything less to judge the saving throw mechanic. If it is too difficult to get the Fighter to that level, that isn't a problem with the Saving Throw mechanics.
And, a +18 isn't too hard for the Fighter to get as a Will Save.
Base +6, Resistance +5 (or +6 if you allow Superior Resistance and the spellcaster isn't being foolishly selfish), Iron Will +2, +6 Wisdom Headband for another +3, and a 14 Wisdom. Thats +18 (or +19)
If the Fighter's player isn't shooting for that by 17th level, they are abusing the GM's good nature and/or asking to get hosed by their Will Save.
And I would point out that I said +18 as the high water mark for poor save throws, not the "average" poor save throw. I was going Highest DC save verses highest save throw bonuses off of poor saves.
We also haven't covered any competence bonuses the poor save throw might have due to buffing... spells like good hope, prayer, aid, heroism, greater heroism and the like.
All I'm saying is "poor" saves are just that -- not a good chance, and that they shouldn't be. Anyone with a poor save should have to rely on their team to see them through, just like a wizard doesn't want to be on the front line of a fight, and rogues want someone to flank with.
Base +6, Resistance +5 (or +6 if you allow Superior Resistance and the spellcaster isn't being foolishly selfish), Iron Will +2, +6 Wisdom Headband for another +3, and a 14 Wisdom. Thats +18 (or +19) If the Fighter's player isn't shooting for that by 17th level, they are abusing the GM's good nature and/or asking to get hosed by their Will Save.
So, if all these things are essentially required, rather than options (as you aver, and as I'd agree), then why not make them class features? I know that some people think it's "cool" to include a lot of "traps" in the game mechanics -- forget to take a certain feat or item, and one day your character collapses. "Ha! Ha! You're too dumb to play this game! I'm so much better than you!" Maybe it's because of the sterotypical geek demographic -- people who never excelled in sports, and feel like they have to show people up in another area -- I don't know. (Note: I'm most certainly NOT saying this of all people who argue against higher Will saves; only to the small subgroup of people who sadistically enjoy watching lesser-experienced players suffer for their lack of geek cred). To me, though, it's just plain bad design. If, as you expect, all viable fighters should have Wis 14+, then we should go ahead and list that requirement right in the class description, like they did in 1e -- rather than hiding it in the mechanics in order to "show up" the "dumb" players.
I know that a great many people think it's "cool" to include a lot of "traps" in the game mechanics -- forget to take a certain feat or item, and one day your character collapses. "Ha! Ha! You're too dumb to play this game! I'm so much better than you!" Maybe it's because of the sterotypical geek demographic -- people who never excelled in sports, and feel like they have to show people up in another area -- I don't know. To me, though, it's just plain bad design.
I guess it's just a matter of taste. I don't want to end up with a system where you can choose options at random and end up with basically the same character (e.g. all level 7 characters do 3d6+5 damage, plus or minus 2; all level 7 characters have a 60% chance to hit, plus or minus 10%; all level 7 characters have a 50% chance to save vs. anything, plus or minus 5%). In my opinion, more options == better, even if not every option is right for every character. That means that a character might be highly specialized in one area and weak in another area and could still be fun to play.
(I wish people would avoid loaded words like "trap" or "fail"; I find it doesn't add much to discussions.)
At any rate, I there are some assumptions I don't quite agree with. For instance, I don't have any problem with a cleric whose Will save is so high that he only fails CR-appropriate Will saves on a "1" -- I don't think that it's necessary to crank up DCs so that the cleric fails 50% of the time and the rest of the party fails 100% of the time. We should let someone reap the benefits of being a specialist instead of a generalist.
So, if all these things are essentially required, rather than options (as you aver, and as I'd agree), then why not make them class features? I know that some people think it's "cool" to include a lot of "traps" in the game mechanics -- forget to take a certain feat or item, and one day your character collapses. "Ha! Ha! You're too dumb to play this game! I'm so much better than you!" Maybe it's because of the sterotypical geek demographic -- people who never excelled in sports, and feel like they have to show people up in another area -- I don't know. (Note: I'm most certainly NOT saying this of all people who argue against higher Will saves; only to the small subgroup of people who sadistically enjoy watching lesser-experienced players suffer for their lack of geek cred). To me, though, it's just plain bad design. If, as you expect, all viable fighters should have Wis 14+, then we should go ahead and list that requirement right in the class description, like they did in 1e -- rather than hiding it in the mechanics in order to "show up" the "dumb" players.
Yuck!
Consider if a DM wants to play a low-magic game? Maybe vikings or some such, fighting niebelung and ljosalfar and frozen giants from the north - but not by whipping around vorpal swords and staffs of the arch-magi?
Or ancient greece, where harpies, ogres, and the occasional cyclops or minotaur are fierce and deadly creatures to be feared. A sorceress with a polymorph spell can turn an entire ship's crew into animals for all time.
No room for high-magic in campaigns like these. No room for automatic class features that turn ordinary heroes into demigods just because they level up.
On the other hand:
Some DMs might wnat to get right into a high-magic campaign. Start off with a bang. One of my favorite campaigns in recent years had the level 1 PCs stumble into a dragon's lair - where they found a dead dragon. Apparently died of natural causes (old age). He had a huge hoard. They had to leave almost all of it (no wagons, no bags of holding, etc.). But they did get some nice magic items, and were way overpowered for level 1 characters. Which was OK, since they weren't going to level 1 dungeons. And the world had treasure hunters who quickly found out that some low-level mooks were carrying around a dragon's hoard worth of magic, ripe for the taking.
Sure, that can be done with magic items that aren't "Big Six", but sending a group of level 1 characters into a level 4 dungeon, counting on them to put their magical hoard to use, but without having the many +3 "Big Six" items these guys had, would not have worked.
Or consider a different concern:
Your fighter might be all about strength and power attack. You might wear a girdle of +6 STR. My fighter might be about DEX and weapon finesse and wears gloves of +6 DEX. Our friend's fighter might be willing to dish out less damage, but wears an item of +6 CON so he can survive anything. Which bonus would you give to the automatic level progression for fighters?
Or another consideration:
Even if the campaign is straight-forwrd D&D / Pathfinder fare, a DM might want to withhold +2 weapons for a couple levels. Maybe he likes the fact that battles are a little harder, a little scarier. Maybe he wants the players to feel relieved when those +2 weapons finally trickle into a few monster hoards. But if everyone automagically gets +2 attack bonus for reaching 7th level, this DM has no option to delay these items or build the suspense.
Yet another consideration:
As it is, there are plenty of options to remove these bonuses from players. Anti-magic fields, Beholder's central eye, robbery, imprisonment, alternate planes where magic works differently, sundering, failed saves against some AE attacks like acid, etc. Some DMs enjoy using these kinds of things from time to time, to change the playing field, challenge the players, and introduce an atmosphere of risk and danger to the game. But if you make these into simple inherent bonuses that everyone gets just because they leveled up, these options vanish too.
No, I fear that making the big six into automagic class fetures, or worse, automagic leveling features, would stifle creativity, limit options, and make these bonuses even more boring than they already are.
Besides, one final consideration.
If you rewrite the rules to give everyone automagic bonuses in these areas, think of the extra work for every DM in the world who dusts off a Rise of the Runelords, or a Curse of the Crimson Throne, Age of Worms, Shackled City, Night Below, or any of the literally thousands of published adventures out there going back to first edition. Every one of those had magic weapons, magic armor, rings of protection, etc., in monster hoards. Every DM who wants to use backwards-compatible published (or homemade) adventures will have to devote time to replacing those items in the hoards.
Wait, but then, the players will have their bonuses (from leveling) AND they will have new items that the DM substituted in these hoards. Instead of a +3 sword, they will have an inherent +3 and a pair of Boots of the North. They will have extra power. More than the adventure requires.
So, no Mr. DM, don't replace those items with something else or your players will quickly out-power the campaign. Better just delete them from the hoards.
And now the players, used to years, or decades, of looting treasure hoards, finding magic, identifying, dividing the loot, selling the excess, and powring up, suddenly start to feel like treasure hoards are not what they used to be.
All in all, removing the big six is more hassle than it's worth.
At any rate, I there are some assumptions I don't quite agree with. For instance, I don't have any problem with a cleric whose Will save is so high that he only fails CR-appropriate Will saves on a "1" -- I don't think that it's necessary to crank up DCs so that the cleric fails 50% of the time and the rest of the party fails 100% of the time. We should let someone reap the benefits of being a specialist instead of a generalist.
Truer words have rarely been spoken.
I have gamed with DMs who scale DCs so that players are fairly challenged at any level.
This doesn't work.
A level 1 rogue searches for a trap in some room in a dungeon. He needs to roll a 12 to find it. Years later, when that rogue is 15th level and decides to return to that dungeon and make it into a lair and start his own guild there, he goes back and searches the same room for the same trap, but now he needs to roll a 12 to find it, because the DM doesn't want to let him find it on a natural 1.
The DM feels there is no suspense, so he sets the DC to create suspense.
Which means DCs are always going to challenge the heroes at all levels, and the heroes never feel heroic.
I'm with you on this one. If a cleric with high WIS and a good Will save can automatically succeed against certain effects, I call that a class feature. Let him laugh and tease the silly rogues and fighters who blow their Will saves - you know they laugh at him when he can't climb a simple tree, or jump over a narrow ravine, or evade/survive a dragon's breath weapon.
I have no problem with character success.
Let 'em be heroes, for pete's sake!
I don't think that it's necessary to crank up DCs so that the cleric fails 50% of the time and the rest of the party fails 100% of the time. We should let someone reap the benefits of being a specialist instead of a generalist.
By all means; I agree 100%. I am NOT in favor of the split you describe. What I'm against is the current Will save situation, which is closer to "fighter fails 95% of the time (*** unless properly optimized ***) / everyone else fails 5% of the time (with no particular optimization needed, because of their class features). There's only one specialist there: the fighter class in Pathfinder is the "bad Will save specialist."
I don't think that it's necessary to crank up DCs so that the cleric fails 50% of the time and the rest of the party fails 100% of the time. We should let someone reap the benefits of being a specialist instead of a generalist.By all means; I agree 100%. I am NOT in favor of the split you describe. What I'm against is the current Will save situation, which is closer to "fighter fails 95% of the time (*** unless properly optimized ***) / everyone else fails 5% of the time (with no particular optimization needed, because of their class features). There's only one specialist there: the fighter class in Pathfinder is the "bad Will save specialist."
But I still don't believe that this is an artifact of the Poor/Good base save system; that only accounts for a 30% variation (at maximum), not a 90% variation. I'd rather fix the other 60% variation that you're seeing (whatever it is; it's still not clear to me what's causing such a discrepancy other than (a) high Wis clerics and high Dex rogues and (b) certain spells like Protection from Spells).
But I still don't believe that this is an artifact of the Poor/Good base save system; that only accounts for a 30% variation (at maximum), not a 90% variation. I'd rather fix the other 60% variation that you're seeing (whatever it is; it's still not clear to me what's causing such a discrepancy other than (a) high Wis clerics and high Dex rogues and (b) certain spells like Protection from Spells).
Right, it's not strictly the save progression, but that's the easiest equalizer I see (giving fighters the good will save progression). See, clerics, druids, and monks already almost certainly have high Wis, and also get good Will save progression -- they get unbeatable Will saves, and I have no problem with that. Paladins get good Will saves, plus Divine Grace (at least another +6 at higher levels, for a 60% gap, plus they're immune to all kinds of stuff like charms, complusions, etc.) -- I'm still OK. Wizards, bards, and sorcerers have high Will saves (the one kind that counts the most), and can craft magic items for half price, and can self-buff, so they'll always have good resistance (+5) and stat boosts. That leaves fighters, rogues, and barbarians. Of those, the designers saw the weakness, and gave rogues slippery mind at 10th level, and barbarians got a scaling rage bonus (and better, if there's a rage power that emulates slippery mind -- not sure). That left one (1) class totally deficient in the Will save department. Why not fix that? Then if the cleric with a +20 Will save is saving 90% of the time, and the wizard with +17 is saving 75%, the fighter with his +12 would still save 50%, rather than 20% with a +6. It's at the low end that the 30% gap hurts the most. ANd saving 50% doesn't make him invincible; it just gives him even odds, instead of near-hopeless ones.
Wizards, bards, and sorcerers have high WIll saves, and can craft magic items for half price, and can self-buff, so they'll always have good resistance (+5) and stat boosts.
I agree with your assessment up to this point. I just don't see what you're seeing -- namely that wizards, bards and sorcerers are somehow getting a +12 bonus on Will saves that fighters aren't (the total difference is supposedly +18 and we have +6 from base saves). I can only chalk it up to variation between campaigns, in which case it's going to be hard to "fix" with a rules change.
I just don't see what you're seeing -- namely that wizards, bards and sorcerers are somehow getting a +12 bonus on Will saves that fighters aren't (the total difference is supposedly +18 and we have +6 from base saves). I can only chalk it up to variation between campaigns, in which case it's going to be hard to "fix" with a rules change.
Use of spells and cheap magic item construction -- neither of which is available to fighters without their friends' say-so. Say the DM at the end of the session says, "assume you're in town for awhile, you have 21,000 gp each to spend; just tell me next session how you spent it." Then that means the guys I mentioned can make a 25,000 gp cloak +5 and a 16,000 gp periapt +4 and still have 500 gp left over. The best the fighter can do is a cloak +4: a 25% difference, not including the difference in base saves. That assumes the DM has banned spells like superior resistance (6th level, personal, 24 hrs duration, +6 to all saves) and conviction -- but we know that many DMs will allow those as well.
I just don't see what you're seeing -- namely that wizards, bards and sorcerers are somehow getting a +12 bonus on Will saves that fighters aren't (the total difference is supposedly +18 and we have +6 from base saves). I can only chalk it up to variation between campaigns, in which case it's going to be hard to "fix" with a rules change.Use of spells and cheap magic item construction -- neither of which is available to fighters without their friends' say-so. Say the DM at the end of the session says, "assume you're in town for awhile, you have 21,000 gp each to spend; just tell me next session how you spent it." Then that means the guys I mentioned can make a 25,000 gp cloak +5 and a 16,000 gp periapt +4 and still have 500 gp left over. The best the fighter can do is a cloak +4: a 25% difference, not including the difference in base saves.
Note: There aren't periapts of Wis any more; just headbands. So your wizard/bard/sorcerer would actually be paying a lot more for a bonus to Wisdom, in theory.
But at any rate, I just don't see a huge difference in wealth-by-level between wizards/sorcerers and other characters, in my experience. So if you're proposing a global rule to "fix" this in your game, that'll throw my game out of whack.
Steadfast Determination Feat PHB2 (counts con for wis and does not fail fortitude on a natural 1).
Just to mention, your whole example depends on a non-open-content feat that can't be cited in the Pathfinder rules. I might write a fighter-only feat, "invincible will," that gives +100 to the fighter's will saves, and publish it online, but that doesn't fix the Pathfinder rules, either.
For a comparison, look at a human fighter vs. a human sorcerer, PFRPG 15 point purchase, as they advance*:
Human Fighter 1
16 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Fort +4, Ref +1, Will +1
vs.
Human Sorcerer 1
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 16 Cha; Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +2
Human Fighter 4
17 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +2
vs.
Human Sorcerer 4
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 17 Cha; Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +4
Human Fighter 8
18 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Iron Will; Fort +8, Ref +3, Will +5
vs.
Human Sorcerer 8
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 18 Cha; Belt of +2 Dex/+2 Con; Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +6
Human Fighter 12
19 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Belt of +4 Str/+4 Dex, Iron Will; Fort +10, Ref +7, Will +7
vs.
Human Sorcerer 12
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 19 Cha; Belt of +4 Dex/+4 Con; Fort +8, Ref +8, Will +8
Human Fighter 16
20 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Belt of +4 Str/+4 Dex/+4 Con, Headband of +4 Wis, Iron Will; Fort +14, Ref +8, Will +10
vs.
Human Sorcerer 16
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 20 Cha; Belt of +6 Dex/+6 Con; Fort +10, Ref +10, Will +10
Human Fighter 20
21 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Belt of +6 Str/+6 Dex/+6 Con, Headband of +4 Wis, Iron Will; Fort +17, Ref +10, Will +11
vs.
Human Sorcerer 20
8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 21 Cha; Belt of +6 Dex/+6 Con; Fort +11, Ref +11, Will +12
For their entire careers, 1st-20th level, a fighter who makes some smart choices has a chance of succeeding on a Will save (assuming equal resistance bonus items/effects) about 0-10% less than the sorcerer at any given level. Creating the fighter with 12 Wis, taking Iron Will at 7th level, and acquiring a +4 Wis booster (a 16,000 gp item) around 15th level is hardly an extreme level of optimizing, either.
Even comparing a fighter and sorcerer with the same Wis, a difference of 5-15% for the "cost" of one feat at 7th level and one item worth less than 7% of the Wealth by Level total at 15th level is, IMO, not a huge price to pay (or that difficult to "figure out" during play). It's not as if these are an obscure feat and item from a supplement, after all. These are part of the core rules.
*- Note, I am only considering stat boosters relevant to saving throws; items that only boost Str or Cha are not included.
Action points are a really good option on this one. Or luck points. Or some other expendable resource.
That's actually overwhelmingly my personal preference, but given the extreme bias many people seem to have against them ("OMG! You'll take all the challenge out of the game and turn it into My Little Ponies!!!"), I was looking for an alternative means to the same end.
Use of spells and cheap magic item construction -- neither of which is available to fighters without their friends' say-so.
That could be changing. It isn't an official change yet, but for now Fighters can craft magic items - they just have to focus a bit at it.
|
|
Use of spells and cheap magic item construction -- neither of which is available to fighters without their friends' say-so.That could be changing. It isn't an official change yet, but for now Fighters can craft magic items - they just have to focus a bit at it.
I saw that too, but it kind of pigeon holes them into using their few skill points on crafting. I hope if they do that then fighters end up with a few more skill points.
:crosses fingers:
:p
To get back on topic: I agree with Mr. Gersen - action points of some stripe are a great way to "fix" saving throws. I fail to see how introducing them makes the game easier or more simplistic - if anything, it adds another level of strategy to the game.
Indeed. And it's one fix that can be easily ignored for the gaming groups that choose not to use the hero points system.
|
|
Indeed. And it's one fix that can be easily ignored for the gaming groups that choose not to use the hero points system.
To get back on topic: I agree with Mr. Gersen - action points of some stripe are a great way to "fix" saving throws. I fail to see how introducing them makes the game easier or more simplistic - if anything, it adds another level of strategy to the game.
Also agreed. They add another little bit of resource management and add tension when deciding whether to use a valuable action dice if you rolled low.
They are also a fantastic way of encouraging shy players to come out of themselves with good roleplaying in character or to try daring and heroic things - I award a bonus action dice for either of these.
The only problem I can see is people complaining that the spellcaster can augment his magic with metamagic feats "for free", again.
|
|
Is there anything wrong with the SRD version of action points? It seems to solve the saving throw problem rather well, and offers a lot of other possible (and fun) things to do with points. Note that using an action point might be a dandy way to "fix" the nerfed versions of Power Attack and Combat Expertise in Pathfinder...
Not bad - I'd not read that section before.
There are a couple of 'per encounter' effects which need changing to something reasonable. And I dislike the non-Vancian mechanic of instantly recalling a spell you just cast. Apart from that, pretty good.
There are a couple of 'per encounter' effects which need changing to something reasonable. And I dislike the non-Vancian mechanic of instantly recalling a spell you just cast. Apart from that, pretty good.
My players use the recalling spell option a lot in my Shackled City campaign, particularly the paladin/bard who has a limited number of spells.
The only problem I can see is people complaining that the spellcaster can augment his magic with metamagic feats "for free", again.Eh. I can live with that personally, seeing as the caster can't do it consistently - 5 or so times a level. I think that consistent "free" metamagic is a much bigger issue. And action points have a lot of uses that are more tempting than metamagic.
I noticed that the Divine Metamagic/uber-cleric proponents got much quieter when I pointed out that channel energy is a much more valuable resource in Pathfinder than 3.5. Throwing away something on the order of 18d6 worth of healing for a 24 hour spell suddenly doesn't look like a very good deal. Likewise, an action point has so many other good uses (like a chance to beat SR, for example) that I doubt we'll see it used for metamagic too often. It's a choice, but upon close examination I think it's a suboptimal one under average conditions.
I don't disagree, but it's not what people are going to see (typo in the link you provided, they give an example of a 7th level wizard casting a 1st level spell heightened to 4th level *as his highest spell level possible). Personally I think people make a lot more out of metamagic than is really there, and just try and scape-goat it. That's a different issue though.
Back on track: I wouldn't mind seeing something where people got a (much) reduced number of action points, but they refreshed daily.
Personally I think the main problem with the save throw system is people want to look at the worse of the worse saves compare them to the best of the best DCs then complain when it doesn't work out in favor of the worse of the worse. The +6 poor save throw isn't meant to be taken by itself. It is supposed to be stacked on top of and offers the "minimum-that-you-really-really-should-be-much-above-at-this-point" If you take the minimum DC for a ninth level spell (DC 23) and compare it to the same low end save throw (+6) you get about a 20% save chance. If you top them both out (reasonably) you get a +18~20 save, against a DC 34 tops (complete tops too in core) you get a 25~35% save rate. Results in between those two points are possible, and should be close to each other.
My feelings are that if all the players aren't maxing out their characters then the DM shouldn't max out their opponents: That's just proper behavior. If your players are running around topping out their saves and maxing their characters out, go ahead and top off your villians.
My final contention is that many people don't like the effects of failing a will save becuase it is "unheroic". This I would suggest is a player expectations issue, and can only be really handled by the DM and player at the table.
|
|
I noticed that the Divine Metamagic/uber-cleric proponents got much quieter when I pointed out that channel energy is a much more valuable resource in Pathfinder than 3.5. Throwing away something on the order of 18d6 worth of healing for a 24 hour spell suddenly doesn't look like a very good deal. Likewise, an action point has so many other good uses (like a chance to beat SR, for example) that I doubt we'll see it used for metamagic too often. It's a choice, but upon close examination I think it's a suboptimal one under average conditions.
That was a different thread and part of a larger brow beating. ;)
|
|
Back on track: I wouldn't mind seeing something where people got a (much) reduced number of action points, but they refreshed daily.
What works well in Spycraft is a set number, say about 4, per session. During a very tense, combat-heavy evening this is usually just enough to avoid the most unlucky of dice without spoiling things. They don't roll-over to the next session.
|
|
I would be more apt to using "luck points" that only allow players to cause any die result to be re-rolled, as an immediate action, before the result of the roll is known. I would then avoid some of the "problems" with action points as they stand now.
5 per level is too many as well IMO. Maybe 1 or 2 per level plus "rewards" via DM fiat for outstanding play on the part of the player.
A feat could also be created that added additional luck points per level. Or you could include such a feat within PfRPG in general that allows the "luck" re-roll mechanic irregardless of using the overall luck/action points system in your game.
Of course this is only a band aid solution. It doesn't fix the underlying issues. It is a pretty decent band aid though.
Cheers
My only problem with "re-rolls" is that people are complaining the DC's are too high. If that is the case most (95%) of the rerolling in the world isn't going to do you any good, however a bonus to the save might get it back into the range where the save is achievable.
I don't see the system as "broken" or "non-functioning", I see people overly complaining becuase bad things happened to them once upon a time, or they don't want to take steps to protect themselves (as that would be metagaming... stormwind here, how is it metagaming to ensure your own survival? There's an instinct that I think would have a problem with that argument).
I'm not saying they are wrong for not wanting to do this, however they need to realise the consequence of their choice, or talk to their DM about everyones expectations from the game, and plan the campaign accordingly (if the PC's aren't grabbing every means to uber up, the DM shouldn't uber up the villians either).
|
|
What works well in Spycraft is a set number, say about 4, per session. During a very tense, combat-heavy evening this is usually just enough to avoid the most unlucky of dice without spoiling things. They don't roll-over to the next session.
Back on track: I wouldn't mind seeing something where people got a (much) reduced number of action points, but they refreshed daily.
Yeah. I could get behind this type of mechanic as well. 1 or 2 points per day, replenished daily with no carrying over of points. Maybe you could scale them with level? 1/day + 1/X levels kind of thing? Maybe with a max of Y per day?
|
|
My only problem with "re-rolls" is that people are complaining the DC's are too high. If that is the case most (95%) of the rerolling in the world isn't going to do you any good, however a bonus to the save might get it back into the range where the save is achievable.
I don't see the system as "broken" or "non-functioning", I see people overly complaining becuase bad things happened to them once upon a time, or they don't want to take steps to protect themselves (as that would be metagaming... stormwind here, how is it metagaming to ensure your own survival? There's an instinct that I think would have a problem with that argument).
I'm not saying they are wrong for not wanting to do this, however they need to realise the consequence of their choice, or talk to their DM about everyones expectations from the game, and plan the campaign accordingly (if the PC's aren't grabbing every means to uber up, the DM shouldn't uber up the villians either).
That was what my band aid comment was alluding to. You and I seem to see eye to eye on most things.
OK. Scrap the re-roll and how about the luck point functioning like Truestrike but for any roll? A +20 should help make those saves a little easier. Maybe multiple points could stack? For those really tough spots.
Yeah. I could get behind this type of mechanic as well. 1 or 2 points per day, replenished daily with no carrying over of points. Maybe you could scale them with level? 1/day + 1/X levels kind of thing? Maybe with a max of Y per day?What works well in Spycraft is a set number, say about 4, per session. During a very tense, combat-heavy evening this is usually just enough to avoid the most unlucky of dice without spoiling things. They don't roll-over to the next session.
Back on track: I wouldn't mind seeing something where people got a (much) reduced number of action points, but they refreshed daily.
I was thinking along the same lines:
1 per day + 1 per 5 levels. Just enough to get through a tight spot you don't want to fail, but not so much you can always just spend a point and have the equivalent to a good save.
|
|
I agree that a bonus of +1 to +6 is what we need for the saving throw issue, and 1d6 or a few d6 pick highest is ideal for that.
Per-session seems to have morphed into per-day - I think that per session works better in some ways. I feel that this kind of mechanism needs to be spread out over wall-clock time more than over in-game time, but I'm having a hard time articulating why I feel that way, other than having experienced it that way in Spycraft / SG-1 games.
Some opinions about this:
1 Action Points: at my table it works and everyone have fun!!! i like the idea of 2 + 1/4levels Action points per day.
2 I would like to see spells DC tied to caster level(or some percent of) as someone mentioned. This make low level spells still usefull at higher levels and it's more predictable.
3 I agree that all kind of spells should remain an option for casters. If suddenly SoD only do damage and SoS don't win the saves we are reduced to Direct Damage spellcasting and the now poor Evocation school is an example of how that hurts.
4 Please no recovery saves every round.
% What do you think about SoD spells casting time increased to 2 rounds?? This make then less abused and add some flavor as the enemy (or the players) have the tension of trying to stop that spell that they know will be a powerfull one.
Regarding Action Points,
Frequency: Trying the SRD version, I've found that 5 + 1/2 lvl is WAY too many; most players didn't use half of them before levelling up again. I prefer to start each session with 1, and award others when the entire table agrees that something really heroic that was done would merit another one. For that reason, I like to use the old Victory Games nomenclature of "hero points."
Scope: I like to expand the usefulness a bit (bonus to roll OR total reroll, player's choice), and also allow things like "Ooh! I sure wish I had some silversheen right about now! Will a hero point help?" and I might say, "Silly, you bought some last time you were in town, but forgot to write it down and mark off the gold. Oh, and you have one less hero point now."
Flavor: I prefer to have each player come up with some outrageous coincidence or act of bravado that the use of the hero point represents. Use of the same one twice in a session negates the effects of the hero point.
|
|
I've played a lot of Saga edition, which uses Force Points that are almost exactly the same as action points, and they almost never get used at higher level except to aid attack rolls or skill checks. Even then, players usually had around 6-10 left when they leveled up even spending liberally at higher levels.
I'd also suggest cutting down on 5 +1/2 level.
Black Company CG gives the fighter-type classes more Action Points per level than mages. Perhaps this should be the case as well..?
I've played a lot of Saga edition, which uses Force Points that are almost exactly the same as action points, and they almost never get used at higher level except to aid attack rolls or skill checks. Even then, players usually had around 6-10 left when they leveled up even spending liberally at higher levels.
I've found that to be that case in Eberron games, too (although Eberron action points are more limited in usefulness than UA action points). I'm the exception, though; I learned quickly that if I have action points, I might as well use them as fast as humanly possible!
The problem with a d20 system is when the spread in bonuses approaches 20. The gap is less important for Ref saves (usually more damage on a failed save; most classes with poor Ref saves all got hp boosts in Pathfinder) and Fort saves (in Pathfinder, save or take lots of damage; same deal). Will saves are the specific remaining problem (still save or lose instantly). Of the classes with poor Will saves, two have built-in class features as fixes (scaling +2 to +6 for barbarians, slippery mind for rogues). Propose assisting the last class affected (fighters), though, and there are three arguments preventing it:
Your analysis is fine, but your histrionics below are quite over the top.
1. "Fighters have weak Will saves for a reason. They're SUPPOSED to fail them all!"
Nobody says they're suppose to fail them all. Well, I guess you said it. But I don't think anyone else did.
Fighters dish out tons of damage, round after round, all day long. A never-ending resource. They only bed down to spend the night resting when their non-renewable spellcaster companions decide it's time to replenish spells.
Fighters are the masters of melee. They hit better and do more damage, while taking less damage, much better than any other class.
In short, they are awesome at what they do.
But they have a huge achilles heel with their weak Will saves.
Mages have a huge achilles heel: Low AC, Low HP, bad Fort/Ref saves, easy to kill with raw damage, easy to disrupt their only main class ability (spells), they run out of their only main class ability (spells). Oh wait, that's lots of achilles heels.
Clerics have a huge achilles heel: Mediocre BAB, Mediocre HP, bad Ref save, easy to disrupt their only main class ability (spells), they run out of their only main class ability (spells). Oh wait, that's lots of achilles heels.
Rogues have a huge achilles heel: Mediocre BAB, Mediocre AC, Mediocre HP, bad fort save, bad Will save (hey, even with Slippery Mind, your contention is that low Will saves means always failing, so failing two saving throws isn't much of an advantage). Oh wait, that's lots of achilles heels.
Bards, well, bards are bards and they suck all over.
Druids have been nerfed into uselessness and are now NPC classes in my Pathfinder RPG until I figure out the houserules to make them useful agin.
The other melee classes pale in comparison to fighter's mastery of martial combat.
So every class has its achilles heels. So do fighters. I don't understand your complaint.
Are you trying to make fighters into the uber class? The only class that is all strength with no weakensses? The class that no monster or enemy NPC can stop?
Is that what we need for fighters?
2. "Players who aren't dumb will allocate their best stat as Wisdom, spend all their gold on +5 cloaks and +6 periapts, and spend a feat on Iron Will at the very least. Never mind if that means they have a much lower Str, and not enough gold for things like armor and weapons!"
Again, over the top.
Nobody is saying fighters should put their best stat on WIS. Even those people who suggest a 14 natural WIS for fighters must surely know they're being unreasonable - particularly in a point buy system.
Cloaks/vests of resistance are critical for all classes.
+6 periapts are unlikely for fighters, but it might not be a bad idea to invest a little gold here.
Iron Will is meant for fighters. They get a million feats, and they know what their achilles heel is, so they better consider this feats. Feats are not only there to give your fighters cool new combat abiliteis - some of them are meant to save your life.
That should leave plenty of gold for armor and weapons.
3. "Fighters' teammates aren't supposed to fight monsters. They're supposed to buff the fighter, make free items for him, and dispel mind-affecting spells for him. Otherwise they're selfish and bad."
No, the fighters' teammates should kill the bad guys who want to SOD/SOS their fighter allies. They should also recognize danger when they seee it and be prepared to react to it, or prophylactively neutralize the problem before it occurs.
Your contention here is that the army shouldn't fight the enemy, they're suposed to aid the supply units, give their supply units free weapons, and defend their supply units against enemy incursions.
Uh, no.
Eliminating the enemy is a full-time job, whether you're in the army or standing next to a D&D fighter.
But, some of the wise decisions you can make along the way is to recognize your strengths and play to them, and recognize your weaknesses and make sure your enemies don't exploit them.
That's true of all combat, real-world or D&D.
And those three arguments have clearly won the day here.
They've won the day, such as it were, because the game designers don't want 10 classes and 1 Superman.
Everyone would play the Superman role.
Nobody would have any weaknesses.
Heck, even Superman had kryptonite, but I'm thinking you want your fighter Superman to not have to worry about Kryptonite.
I'm glad the game designers know more about balance than many of the posters on these forums.
Fighters are balanced.
Everything you want to do for fighters makes them overpowered. Everything you want to do against SoD/SoS spells ruins those spells and makes them immediate candidates for the recycle bin - my wizard's spellbook won't have pages to spare for the crappy versions that some people want SoD spells turned into.
So please, all of you, think about balance before you cry wolf.