I mentioned this in the other thread, but I think turning Extra Music into a Toughness-style feat will help. Suggested:
Extra Music
Requires: Bardic Performance class ability
Benefit: You may use your bardic performances for 6 more rounds per day, plus an additional 2 rounds for every level.It's still weaker than 3.5 Extra Music at level 1. It breaks approximately even at anywhere from level 3 (12 rounds/day ie 4 combats at 3 rounds per -- I doubt anybody's group averages LESS than that at level 3) to level 11+ (28+ rounds/day ie 4 combats at 7 rounds per) depending on how long your average combats are.
This also works for me. There have been a lot of good suggestions as to how to handle the rounds per day issue. This combined with the semi-official ruling that you only have to expend a single round per skill check is good. Though one use also used to work for taking 20 on most skills and now is that one use or 20?
My proposed house rule: Anything that requires continued concentration (fascinate, inspire competence, song of freedom) only costs to start, not to maintain. Anything that doesn't require concentration (inspire courage, etc.) is still measured in rounds.
That would make me happy, anyways.
Question: does anything still require concentration anymore? (as far as I can tell, everything is maintained as a free action, therefore no concentration required... you just pay the rounds cost for everything you maintain each round (i.e. a high level bard can drain 3 rounds' worth in the first round, and maintain all three effects in the next round for a continued 3 rounds cost for every round... more if he keeps activating new bardic music powers...)
Edit: here's the quote from the preview, which suggests that there's no concentration required for any of the bardic music effects... you just pay the rounds cost and you keep doing other things. Beautiful.
"Regardless of the action needed to start a performance, maintaining a performance is a free action, meaning that the bard can keep up a performance and still cast spells, move, and make attacks."
Good point. Maybe a better way to state it is "non-combat songs" vs. "combat songs".
The more comments I read in this thread, however, the less I like the change to "rounds of bard song". :-(
That feat doesn't make any reference to Inspire Competence, Fascinate or Song of Freedom -- those are the three I'm mainly concerned about because they're not used in combat. Expending 10 rounds of bard song to give a +2 on a Diplomacy check = ridiculous, IMO.
From the main bard thread, here's the best solution I've seen yet:
From Complete Adventurer(pg. 111): Lingering Song
Your inspiration bardic music stays with the listeners long after the last note has died away.
Prerequisite: Bardic Music
Benefit: If you use bardic music to inspire courage, inspire greatness, or inspire heroics, the effects last for 1 minute after an inspired ally stops hearing you play.
Normal: Inspire courage, inspire greatness, and inspire heroics last as long as an ally can hears the bard sing plus an additional 5 rounds thereafter.
-----------The only part of this feat that requires change for the Pathfinder Bard is the "normal" section (and that's a maybe). Nothing in the feat requires bardic music to naturally linger for 5 rounds - the feat gives the ability for the music to linger for 1 minute on its own.
Assuming your game allows the use of Complete Adventurer, your limited rounds per day problem is solved with a single feat. Even better, you probably won't need the Extra Music feat now (at least not initially), minimizing the impact to your feat selection.
Barring book restrictions, problem solved.
Expending 10 rounds of bard song to give a +2 on a Diplomacy check = ridiculous, IMO.
Fortunately, Jason Bulmahn has already said that there will be an official amdendment specifically for this situation tht will allow 1 round of bardic music to inspire competence on a check no matter how long that check takes to perform.
So if the diplomacy check takes 10 rounds and is culminted with a single roll, and bard can grant +2 to that roll by playing just one round of Inspire Competence any time during those 10 rounds.
Jason even said he'll make sure to get this into the FAQ to make it official.
Expending 10 rounds of bard song to give a +2 on a Diplomacy check = ridiculous, IMO.Fortunately, Jason Bulmahn has already said that there will be an official amdendment specifically for this situation tht will allow 1 round of bardic music to inspire competence on a check no matter how long that check takes to perform.
So if the diplomacy check takes 10 rounds and is culminted with a single roll, and bard can grant +2 to that roll by playing just one round of Inspire Competence any time during those 10 rounds.
Jason even said he'll make sure to get this into the FAQ to make it official.
This is something I wish had gone into the original preview as it would have probably removed about 50-60 posts on the subject.
I would suggest that folks play the core bard for a bit before declaring the existing setup 'not enough'
Why?
This is something I wish had gone into the original preview as it would have probably removed about 50-60 posts on the subject.Expending 10 rounds of bard song to give a +2 on a Diplomacy check = ridiculous, IMO.Fortunately, Jason Bulmahn has already said that there will be an official amdendment specifically for this situation tht will allow 1 round of bardic music to inspire competence on a check no matter how long that check takes to perform.
So if the diplomacy check takes 10 rounds and is culminted with a single roll, and bard can grant +2 to that roll by playing just one round of Inspire Competence any time during those 10 rounds.
Jason even said he'll make sure to get this into the FAQ to make it official.
Me too.
More, I wish it had gone into the Final versin of the rules that went to printer. this would have prevented us from relying on a FAQ for the scoop.
My guess is it didn't go in either place since the folks at Paizo didn't fully grok the implications. But hey, nobody can think of everything all the time without fail. Something was bound to be overlooked, and this was a prime candidate since it was changed after the Beta ended.
This is something I wish had gone into the original preview as it would have probably removed about 50-60 posts on the subject.Expending 10 rounds of bard song to give a +2 on a Diplomacy check = ridiculous, IMO.Fortunately, Jason Bulmahn has already said that there will be an official amdendment specifically for this situation tht will allow 1 round of bardic music to inspire competence on a check no matter how long that check takes to perform.
So if the diplomacy check takes 10 rounds and is culminted with a single roll, and bard can grant +2 to that roll by playing just one round of Inspire Competence any time during those 10 rounds.
Jason even said he'll make sure to get this into the FAQ to make it official.
Me too.
More, I wish it had gone into the Final versin of the rules that went to printer. this would have prevented us from relying on a FAQ for the scoop.
My guess is it didn't go in either place since the folks at Paizo didn't fully grok the implications. But hey, nobody can think of everything all the time without fail. Something was bound to be overlooked, and this was a prime candidate since it was changed after the Beta ended.
Agreed. They were bound to leave something out. I hope they also add handling "Take 20" in the FAQ as well.
I hope they also add handling "Take 20" in the FAQ as well.
Me too.
But I'm curious, does it really come up all that often?
If the rogue is taking 20 on a lock, how often is it that a 20 fails but a 22 succeeds? How often does a bard really need to enhance anyone taking 20 to ensure success?
I mean, if the rogue can pick that lock on a 20, then enhancing him to need an 18 doesn't change anything. It still succeeds, and it still takes 2 full minutes, so why expend a (3.5)daily use or a (PF)1-round use of bardic music?
I truly cannot remember any time, DMing or playing, when anyone in any group tried a skill that would fail on a take-20 without gaining a bonus to make it possible.
So while it would be nice to know how to resolve it, I'm not sure that I will ever need the resolution.
I hope they also add handling "Take 20" in the FAQ as well.Me too.
But I'm curious, does it really come up all that often?
If the rogue is taking 20 on a lock, how often is it that a 20 fails but a 22 succeeds? How often does a bard really need to enhance anyone taking 20 to ensure success?
I mean, if the rogue can pick that lock on a 20, then enhancing him to need an 18 doesn't change anything. It still succeeds, and it still takes 2 full minutes, so why expend a (3.5)daily use or a (PF)1-round use of bardic music?
I truly cannot remember any time, DMing or playing, when anyone in any group tried a skill that would fail on a take-20 without gaining a bonus to make it possible.
So while it would be nice to know how to resolve it, I'm not sure that I will ever need the resolution.
Sometimes we have need of something where either the primary isn't available or we don't have a primary at all. For example, we have a monk/rogue who's rogue skills are about 5 points behind the full-time rogue. If the full-time rogue is incapacitated then we may need those last few points.
Having a bard that can inspire competence also opens up other classes to be less than all they can be and still get the job done. It allows for some more interesting possibilities from the roleplaying side.
So here's a thread to discuss not the bard as previewed, but rather, the bard as we wish them to be.
My main problem with the bard, since 3.0, is that Bardic Performance effects are easily duplicated by spells. Those spells are in the Bard's list, so I don't see any sense in having two different mechanics to achieve the same effect.
Suggestion, Mass Suggestion, Song of Freedom (=Break Enchantment), Inspire Courage (=Heroism), Dirge of Doom (=Crushing Despair), Soothing Perfomance (= Mass Cure Light), etc.So, what I would like to see is one of these:
1) Dont use Bardic Performance. Increase number of spells per day and spells known. Or maybe add fixed uses per day of some spells (eg. Heroism 1/day every 4 levels).
2) Use only Bardic Performance. Use a spell point system for Bard spells(spending Bardic Performance uses), instead a given number of spells of each level.
The main reason behind any of these changes are increasing the main strength of the class, this is, its versatility.
The same thing goes with Paladin spells / abilities
So here's a thread to discuss not the bard as previewed, but rather, the bard as we wish them to be.
My main problem with the bard, since 3.0, is that Bardic Performance effects are easily duplicated by spells. Those spells are in the Bard's list, so I don't see any sense in having two different mechanics to achieve the same effect.
Suggestion, Mass Suggestion, Song of Freedom (=Break Enchantment), Inspire Courage (=Heroism), Dirge of Doom (=Crushing Despair), Soothing Perfomance (= Mass Cure Light), etc.
So, what I would like to see is one of these:
1) Dont use Bardic Performance. Increase number of spells per day and spells known. Or maybe add fixed uses per day of some spells (eg. Heroism 1/day every 4 levels).
2) Use only Bardic Performance. Use a spell point system for Bard spells(spending Bardic Performance uses), instead a given number of spells of each level.
The main reason behind any of these changes are increasing the main strength of the class, this is, its versatility.The same thing goes with Paladin spells / abilities
Whew, when you go for houserules, you really go All-In...
Dropping Bardic Music would probably undermine the idea of the class entirely. If all he does is quietly walk around and cast some spells, fight with a rapier, and know some stuff, then he's a sorcerer or wizard with a couple levels of rogue. Not too special, and hardly worth being his own class.
Rewriting the entire bardic spell system, dropping vancian magic and going with a new mechanic not seen anywhere else in core is a sizeable undertaking and very far removed from Paizo's idea of maintaining a semblence of backward compatibility. And I'm not sure how bumping them to spell points prevents them from casting Suggestion or Heroism anyway.
Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but I'm struggling to find justifcation for such sweeping changes.
I do get your point that some bard spells overlap with their musical abilities. But rather than seeing this as a weakness, I see it as a strength. Bards who use those abilities a lot can make sure to learn the spells so they can do it even more. Other bards will forego learning those spells in light of learning stuff they cannot do with magic. It's all about versatility, and as is, the bard has options. Options are always a strength, never a weakness.
Whew, when you go for houserules, you really go All-In...
Well maybe I'm a bit off topic here.
Dropping Bardic Music would probably undermine the idea of the class entirely. If all he does is quietly walk around and cast some spells, fight with a rapier, and know some stuff, then he's a sorcerer or wizard with a couple levels of rogue. Not too special, and hardly worth being his own class.
That's exactly what I think about the Bard now. If you take away the "atmosphere" ("No, Im not casting a spell of Heroism, you know, Im inspiring you with this beatiful song") and look at the effects alone, you see the bard is not doing anything that a sorc/wiz could not do. Except buffs are usually group.
Rewriting the entire bardic spell system, dropping vancian magic and going with a new mechanic not seen anywhere else in core is a sizeable undertaking and very far removed from Paizo's idea of maintaining a semblence of backward compatibility.
Well, thats why I dont write this in the thread about the iconic bard, but here. Again, perhaps I have gone too far as this thread is mostly about little changes.
And I'm not sure how bumping them to spell points prevents them from casting Suggestion or Heroism anyway.
The idea (I surely didnt explain right), is using the Bardic Performance points to cast spells, so the Bard dont have the ability to use Inspiring Music, just to cast Heroism.
Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but I'm struggling to find justifcation for such sweeping changes.
No, there's no justification, dont take me wrong. I see chances of new bard being a good class. This is my favorite class always, and having played a Bard in early 3.0 I am very satisfied of the changes. My next character will be a bard (something like a war leader, a bard who think he is a warrior). And and we'll be using "canon" Pathfinder, as we are 3/4 DMs in my group and it's difficult we agree on any changes.
But I have thought many times about how I would like bard to be, so when I read this thread I just wanted to write something about it.
My main problem with the bard, since 3.0, is that Bardic Performance effects are easily duplicated by spells. Those spells are in the Bard's list, so I don't see any sense in having two different mechanics to achieve the same effect. The same thing goes with Paladin spells / abilities
YES!!! I argued that same thing for the paladin and for the monk as well (ki pool?!), and was told that I was wrong/bad/unfun.
Yes, it makes 100% perfect sense to me to make all of the bardic music effects spells, and just give them more spells known and spells/day to cover the extra... and then make some form of performance necessary for their spellcasting (singing and/or instrument instead of V/DF components). But people insist on a separate mechanic (even if the end result is exactly the same), so we can pretend they're a separate class, and there you have it.
Kind of like barbarians; give them "rage points" expended at the rate of 1 per round, and people cry bloody murder; give them rounds/day of rage, and people are fine with it... even though it's the exact same thing.
YES!!! I argued that same thing for the paladin and for the monk as well (ki pool?!), and was told that I was wrong/bad/unfun.
Ugh. The paladin is even worse. "I want to damage some undead. Should I smite, or should I use lay on hands, or should I channel energy, or should I cast Cure Light Wounds? Or all of the above?"
Likewise for monks and ki points/Stunning Fist uses/quivering palm uses. One resource is plenty to micro-manage, thanks. :-P
Likewise for monks and ki points/Stunning Fist uses/quivering palm uses. One resource is plenty to micro-manage, thanks.
Yeah; I kind of figured on taking 3/4 BAB and 3/4 sorcerer spellcasting as a base, then setting the spells lists to include things like swift dimension door, feather fall, remove disease (self-only), slay living by touch (aka "quivering plam"), etc. Monks would be very customizable and it would be easy to track their resources... I was told that it "just isn't D&D" to do it that way.
|
Likewise for monks and ki points/Stunning Fist uses/quivering palm uses. One resource is plenty to micro-manage, thanks.Yeah; I kind of figured on taking 3/4 BAB and 3/4 sorcerer spellcasting as a base, then setting the spells lists to include things like swift dimension door, feather fall, remove disease (self-only), slay living by touch (aka "quivering plam"), etc. Monks would be very customizable and it would be easy to track their resources... I was told that it "just isn't D&D" to do it that way.
Of course it isn't D&D. It's too close to 1e, so it's AD&D. Get it right!
Yeah; I kind of figured on taking 3/4 BAB and 3/4 sorcerer spellcasting as a base, then setting the spells lists to include things like swift dimension door, feather fall, remove disease (self-only), slay living by touch (aka "quivering plam"), etc. Monks would be very customizable and it would be easy to track their resources... I was told that it "just isn't D&D" to do it that way.
Given the monk fluff, giving them psionics rather than spells might go down better (After all, just look at the Psychic warrior fluff and compare).
Yeah; I kind of figured on taking 3/4 BAB and 3/4 sorcerer spellcasting as a base, then setting the spells lists to include things like swift dimension door, feather fall, remove disease (self-only), slay living by touch (aka "quivering plam"), etc. Monks would be very customizable and it would be easy to track their resources... I was told that it "just isn't D&D" to do it that way.Of course it isn't D&D. It's too close to 1e, so it's AD&D. Get it right!
WHAT?!? Are you completely high? Did you ever play an AD&D monk?
Given the monk fluff, giving them psionics rather than spells might go down better (After all, just look at the Psychic warrior fluff and compare).
Yes, that'd be cool too.
Had a crazy idea for those of you who think the bard may be underpowered: make all bardic music ability extraordinary as opposed to supernatural or spell-like. Suggestions that ignore SR and anti-magic, anyone?
A nice little boost, that requires a minimum of class rewrite.
Just a thought.
Interesting thought.
As for me, even in fairly high level games, I could probably count the number of times on one or two hands that this ability would have been useful enough to matter.
I don't think that such a rare change that only affects a few high level encounters will really balance bards, or do them any good at all for the first 2/3 of their career.
Further, it seems to me that whether you call it magic or call it music, if it can control something's mind, it must be magic, and SR should apply. Not doing so would feel strange.
WHAT?!? Are you completely high? Did you ever play an AD&D monk?
Derek usually likes my ideas. And he likes 1e. Hence... (Don't argue; no one expects him to make sense.)
|
|
Yeah; I kind of figured on taking 3/4 BAB and 3/4 sorcerer spellcasting as a base, then setting the spells lists to include things like swift dimension door, feather fall, remove disease (self-only), slay living by touch (aka "quivering plam"), etc. Monks would be very customizable and it would be easy to track their resources... I was told that it "just isn't D&D" to do it that way.Of course it isn't D&D. It's too close to 1e, so it's AD&D. Get it right!WHAT?!? Are you completely high? Did you ever play an AD&D monk?
Given the monk fluff, giving them psionics rather than spells might go down better (After all, just look at the Psychic warrior fluff and compare).Yes, that'd be cool too.
My point was 1e monks had all kinds of crazy abilities going on. They weren't locked in to the "Kung Fu" crap 3x imposed on them. Shoot, 1e monks were better bards than 3x bards are, in some ways, as far as the "dabbler" role is concerned. They could perform several thief functions just as well as a thief could, they had some goofy druid stuff thrown in, and all kinds of immunities and resistances to stuff.
The 3x monk was just a watered down character from some bad Kung Fu Theater movie. And they sucked on top of that.
|
Had a crazy idea for those of you who think the bard may be underpowered: make all bardic music ability extraordinary as opposed to supernatural or spell-like. Suggestions that ignore SR and anti-magic, anyone?
A nice little boost, that requires a minimum of class rewrite.
Just a thought.
Interesting thought.
As for me, even in fairly high level games, I could probably count the number of times on one or two hands that this ability would have been useful enough to matter.
I don't think that such a rare change that only affects a few high level encounters will really balance bards, or do them any good at all for the first 2/3 of their career.
Further, it seems to me that whether you call it magic or call it music, if it can control something's mind, it must be magic, and SR should apply. Not doing so would feel strange.
Had the situation pop up several times in a low/mid level Forgotten Realms campaign where we were encountering a lot of Drow. The problems I encountered there were dredged up while running through this thread. As always, YMMV.
Given the monk fluff, giving them psionics rather than spells might go down better (After all, just look at the Psychic warrior fluff and compare).
The psionic mechanics are simply spells in disguise -- the powers even have 9 levels. My basic point is to keep the spells mechanic for everything, but just rename it to suit the class:
But using a standardized mechanic, renamed for different classes, verges perilously close to 4e... for which I can be burned at the stake.
But using a standardized mechanic, renamed for different classes, verges perilously close to 4e... for which I can be burned at the stake.
Or chomped repeatedly until you are naught but a pulpy red paste...
Why use a Vancian magic system if you aren't going to exploit the one thing the Vancian magic system is really good at doing? The ability to seamlessly incorporate per diem magical abilities into a single unified progression is one of the few areas where the Vancian magic system actually has a clear advantage over a mana point system, and yet no one wants to use it that way! [/rant]
Meepo, I begin to suspect you have a better grasp of the game than Monte himself does at this point. Or maybe you're his sock puppet. Either way!
Yes, it makes 100% perfect sense to me to make all of the bardic music effects spells, and just give them more spells known and spells/day to cover the extra... and then make some form of performance necessary for their spellcasting (singing and/or instrument instead of V/DF components). But people insist on a separate mechanic (even if the end result is exactly the same), so we can pretend they're a separate class, and there you have it.
I've taken that route as well when I made my house rules (which are probably too far from vanilla 3.5 and PFRPG to worth discussing here).
Besides, having a list of spells provides an easy template for spell/bardic ability substitution - which I called bardic colleges and work similarly to a cleric's domain - in order to change the flavour of the bard (1ed druid flavour or 2ed wizard dabbler for example).
'findel
If I'd know I'd get such flattering praise for vehemently agreeing with you, I'd have done it earlier and more often. :P
Well, naturally I assume that my personal opinion is always the ultimate yardstick of truth...
Seriously, though, I was impressed with your analysis, isasfar as you clearly put into words what was only dimly percolating somewhere at the edge of my mind.
YES!!! I argued that same thing for the paladin and for the monk as well (ki pool?!), and was told that I was wrong/bad/unfun.You, too? And here I thought I was the only one.
I mean, seriously...
Bardic performance? Spell by another name.
Channel energy? Spell by another name.
Lay on hands? Spell by another name.
Mercy? Metamagic applied to a spell by another name.
Wild shape? Spell by another name. (It even references existing spells.)
Wholeness of body? Spell/psionic power by another name.
Quivering palm? Spell/psionic power by another name.
Why stop there?
Climbing a wall? Spell by another name.
Disabling a device? Spell by another name.
Swim? Spell by another name.
Ride a horse? Spell by another name.
Grappling? Spell by another name, with a hefty somatic component.
Hitting someone with a sword? Spell by another name, requires a focus.
Buying something with gold? Spell by another name with a material component.
Putting something in your backpack? Spell by another name.
Getting it back out of your backpack? Spell by another name.
Eating rations? Spell by another name.
Talking to your buddy? Spell by another name, at will, but it shouldn't be for some classes.
Walking? Spell by another name, at will.
Breathing? Spell by another name, enhanced with the Persistent feat (I hope).
Somewhere, a decision needs to be made. Do we want one big all-encompassing mechanic for everything, and only the details matter? Or would we prefer to have some different mechanics for different things?
I like the second way. It lets us add flavor to the game that isn't the same as everything else we do, and everythign else everyone else does.
Blake, I admit your logic totally eludes me here. Almost all bardic performances are directly analogous to existing spells. Most of your examples are not even tangentially related. Meepo and I suggest that, if you introduce an ability that (a) exactly emulates an existing spell, and (b) is useable some number of times per day, then maybe retaining the existing spell mechanic makes sense. On the other hand, your argument seems to be that (a) everything is a spell, and therefore (b) nothing should be a spell except things that already are so listed. Please show me the "riding a horse" spell, and then show me where the Ride skill is useable X times per day, so that I can make the connection.
YES!!! I argued that same thing for the paladin and for the monk as well (ki pool?!), and was told that I was wrong/bad/unfun.You, too? And here I thought I was the only one.
I mean, seriously...
Bardic performance? Spell by another name.
Channel energy? Spell by another name.
Lay on hands? Spell by another name.
Mercy? Metamagic applied to a spell by another name.
Wild shape? Spell by another name. (It even references existing spells.)
Wholeness of body? Spell/psionic power by another name.
Quivering palm? Spell/psionic power by another name.Why stop there?
Climbing a wall? Spell by another name.
Disabling a device? Spell by another name.
Swim? Spell by another name.
Ride a horse? Spell by another name.
Grappling? Spell by another name, with a hefty somatic component.
Hitting someone with a sword? Spell by another name, requires a focus.
Buying something with gold? Spell by another name with a material component.
Putting something in your backpack? Spell by another name.
Getting it back out of your backpack? Spell by another name.
Eating rations? Spell by another name.
Talking to your buddy? Spell by another name, at will, but it shouldn't be for some classes.
Walking? Spell by another name, at will.
Breathing? Spell by another name, enhanced with the Persistent feat (I hope).Somewhere, a decision needs to be made. Do we want one big all-encompassing mechanic for everything, and only the details matter? Or would we prefer to have some different mechanics for different things?
I like the second way. It lets us add flavor to the game that isn't the same as everything else we do, and everythign else everyone else does.
I have to agree with DM_Blake here; not everything in the game needs to be a spell just because a spell can accomplish the same goal.
Besides, most abilities can't be interrupted, unlike spells which should be difficult to cast and frequently subject to interruption... oh... wait... they don't really work that way anymore. I guess I am back to my usual role vis a vis DM_Blake. Anyway, that was fun while it lasted :)
Blake, I admit your logic eludes me. All bardic performances are directly analogous to existing spells. Most of your examples are not even tangentially related. Meepo and I suggest that, if you introduce an ability that (a) exactly emulates an existing spell, and (b) is useable some number of times per day, then maybe retaining the existing spell mechanic makes sense. On the other hand, your argument seems to be that (a) everything is a spell, and therefore (b) nothing should be a spell except things that already are so listed.
Or, my post suggests that it's nice that bardic music has its own flavor. It's not a wave of a hand, a wiggling of fingers, a pinch of cricket vomit, and a quick word or two. It cannot be scribed onto a scroll or turned into a wand or magic ring for anyone to use. It requires poetry, verse, song, musical accompaniment, or some other performance, far and widely different than spellcasting.
That makes it fun, interesting, and a wholly different flavor than just lumping it all together into spellcasting.
Me, when I go to a restaurant, I like my salad before my dinner. I like my steak on one part of my plate, my vegetables on another, and the mashed potato elswhere on the plate. And the tiramisu comes after all that is finished.
Salad? Food of antoher name.
Steak? Food of another name.
Vegetables? Food of another name.
Potato? Food of another name.
Tiramisu? Food of another name.
Now, you could grind up the steak and then mix the steak, vegetables, potato, and tiramisu all into your salad, stir it all up together, and have one big pile of goo.
But no thanks. Just because they are all foods with different names doesn't mean they all need to be lumped into the same slushy pile. I like to enjoy the separate flavors separatetly.
Same with my D&D.
I like the second way. It lets us add flavor to the game that isn't the same as everything else we do, and everythign else everyone else does.
I agree to a certain extent, although I think it's elegant to unify a given class's abilities to one master pool of abilities rather than having three or four separate pools of N/day abilities (e.g. smite, lay on hands, turn undead, remove disease). YMMV, of course.
Personally, I would prefer to see everything based on psionic-style "points" rather than Vancian "spell slots", but I can see the appeal of what Meepo and Kirth are saying.
I have to agree with DM_Blake here...
... I guess I am back to my usual role vis a vis DM_Blake. Anyway, that was fun while it lasted :)
D'oh!
Soooo close...
My point is that descriptive fluff is not in any way dictated by underlying mechanics. Just about everything in 3.5 uses the D20 mechanic, but that doesn't mean that influencing an NPC's attitude is exactly the same thing as hitting him with a sword. By your logic, melee attacks should roll 3d6, ranged attacks should use d%, and spells maybe 2d12? Otherwise, you know, everything is a mishmash, and all alike.
Just as 3.X uses the unified d20 mechanic for resolving tasks with an element of failure, I feel that maybe using the unified Vancian mechanic for X/day magic or pseudo-magic powers makes sense.
If you are saying just about every class ability can be made into a spell and used as such, you are teetering dangerously close to a "Powers" system.
What I'm saying is that X/day class features that exactly duplicate existing spells should just be made spells, especially for classes that already have spells lists! For example: the paladin gets a spells list, but gets remove disease separately, for reasons I don't really understand. Paizo made a step in the right direction by at least making remove disease a part of the whole "lay on hands" mechanic -- for which I thank them. The 3.5 version made no sense at all.
Now, the druid's woodland stride doesn't really duplicate a spell, it isn't an x/day deal (it's always active), and it makes perfect sense as a class feature. But the bard's suggestion music ability is really just a suggestion spell, and should be treated as such. Ditto for most of the rest of the bardic performances, and for quite a number of the monk's "class features."
What I'm saying is that X/day class features that exactly duplicate existing spells should just be made spells, especially for classes that already have spells lists! For example: the paladin gets a spells list, but gets remove disease separately, for reasons I don't really understand.
Simple.
So that paladins can do both things. Cast spells and cure disease.
Make it a spell, and then when a paladin walks into town and a poor woman holds up her leprous child and asks the paladin to help, he probably has to say "Sorry, m'am, I'd like to, but I prepared Bull's Strength and Zone of Truth today. If I'm still here tomorrow, we'll see about it then."
By putting it into a separate ability, the only way the paladin has to refuse this poor mother is if he already used up his allotment for the day.
Even better, the dutiful paladin doesn't need to give up useful spell slots to have remove disease on his list every day just in case.
Is it as beneficial as, say, giving him Evasion or Uncanny Dodge or a bonus feat? No, probably not. But it is a nice class ability that lets him be more of a healer, more of a savior, without having to plan ahead, wait a day, or be constantly sacrificing his spell slots just in case.
Make it a spell, and then when a paladin walks into town and a poor woman holds up her leprous child and asks the paladin to help, he probably has to say "Sorry, m'am, I'd like to, but I prepared Bull's Strength and Zone of Truth today. If I'm still here tomorrow, we'll see about it then."Who said every class ability should be turned into a prepared spell?
If you give the paladin a slightly better spell progression to compensate, you could easily replace lay on hands with the ability to spontaneously cast cure and remove spells (or whatever other list of spells best mimics lay on hands).
Not even close to the same.
Are you proposing giving paladins their level 1 spells at 2nd level instead of 4th? And then giving them something like 8 1st level spells? Because if you don't, they lose a lot of healing. And if you do, the clerics and wizards, etc., will be crying out in anguish that paladins get 4x as many spells as they do.
And then when the paladin chooses all offense instead of prepping a bunch of Cure Light Wounds, suddenly you've created an offense powerhouse disporportionate to what a 2nd level character should be. I don't think anyone would suggest giving a wizard 8 Color Sprays at level 2.
By leaving it as is, you create two mechanics and separate them. The paladin gets some spells as and when he does, and he can use them all for offense if he chooses, or all for defense, healing, or whatever - the dialy allotment is small enough it won't change his life much either way.
And he still will have a good amount of healing, starting at level 2, with a mechanic that he cannot dump into offense, cannot turn into scrolls or potions or wands, cannot alter with metamagic, cannot be counterspelled or disrupted, and carries extra side effects (in Pathfinder) that can cure additional ailments above and beyond HP damage.
Me, I like them separated. The paladin knows what's what. "This is my rifle, this is my gun. One is for fighting, one is for fun." OK, well, maybe not quite like that, but clearly, as two separate mechanics, they each have their own niche in the paladin's life.
Much more interesting.
So that paladins can do both things. Cast spells and cure disease. Make it a spell, and then when a paladin walks into town and a poor woman holds up her leprous child and asks the paladin to help, he probably has to say "Sorry, m'am, I'd like to, but I prepared Bull's Strength and Zone of Truth today. If I'm still here tomorrow, we'll see about it then."
I had more in mind treating it as a bonus spell when he reached the appropriate level break. So he could do both. As you describe. Without the need to pretend that remove disease is sometimes a spell, and sometimes a class feature, and sometimes maybe a giraffe.
I think the Paladin's lay on hands ability is just fine the way it is. It adds flavor to the class, makes them very distinct from just a fighter/cleric combo (which is what has been described above, spells = 1/2 as many as a full cleric, add on practiced spellcaster to boost the caster level up again).
I would, however, add a new feat called Spontaneous Remover. Similar to the Spontaneous Healer feat (which allows the person to spontaneously convert spells to cure spells), which instead allows the caster to spontaneously convert to Remove spells (Remove Poison, Remove Disease). I know not all the spells are 'remove' spells, but you get the idea. Then a Paladin could take that feat (if not give it to them as a class feature).
Spontaneous Healer is probably one of the best feats I've seen in a splatbook. In my game, the Druid is the team healer, and she took Spontaneous Healer so she didn't have to take healing spells every day.