|
None of which help a low level party, which will be completely dependent on magic items....And how does that invalidate the point? What will the cleric bring to the table in that level band more than 'pop pop fizz fizz okay I'm out'? The low level party is just as dependent on magic items to prolong the adventuring day regardless of if they have a cleric or druid or just a bard.
More healing, less items. Bard isnt very useful till they get spells. You seem to exculde that in your haste.
|
Again, he gets his handful of d6s from channel, whatever d8s he doesn't use on other spells, and he is out. He's back to relying on magic items to do any more adventuring, just like any other low level spellcaster. The bard has fewer spell slots before he has to go to the wand. What are you talking about with 'till they get spells' anyway? Bard can have Cure Light at 1st level if he wants.
Is a cleric needed? No, but they do make things a lot easier, and not just for healing - they've got some really great spells, too.
Whether a healer is needed or not depends mostly on your DM, group composition, and party tactics. If you've got a really heavily offensive party geared toward mostly ranged (archers, casters focusing on battlefield control and shutting down enemy casters, etc.), you can often get through encounters without even getting touched if you play right. You'd be basically the special forces of the Pathfinder world.
If you're playing low magic though, it's a lot harder. You probably want to pick up ways to get some good temp HP so that you can kinda "heal" that, focus on a lot of stealth, be ready to sunder/disarm/disable enemies that you can't drop very quickly, etc.
best form of healing is pre healing
damage mitigated is damage you don't need to heal
DR, resistance and temporary hit points for example.
rediculouly high AC are also good.
If you aprty as designed to work as a group at not taking damage then you don't need a cleric and you won't waste money on cure spells too often either.
of course you have to decide as a group to choose classes which will make this possible
a group based around stealth and ranged and pin point attacks could accomplish this, group of rogues and mages could do this
Considering a healing kit is 50 gp and has 10 uses with 2 uses being used to heal damage you still get 5 uses for 50 gp -- not a bad deal at all. Even the cleric can make good use of this to prolong the day for a party (in fact he can do it better than most with a +9~10 being fairly easy for him).5 gp per use, 1 hour, and a DC 20 check to heal (level) hp once per day (which means, at low level, 1-4 hp); if you use it many times (on different peoples), with 1 hour per use, you don't prolong the day for a party (4 hours is half the duration of a day of adventuring). A wand of CLW cost 15 gp per use, a standard action, no check at all (or a DC 20 UMD check), and 2-9 hp per use. Heal deadly wound is a very bad deal.
edit : 10 gp to heal deadly wounds, not 5...
Not denying but as an option it's not the worse and having those 1~4 hp (which is about what a cure light wounds will return at level 1 anyways) before going to bed, and possibly getting full treatment with the rest can save a lot of spells and such for the whole party (for treatment while resting I recommend a ring of sustanence for the healer since he's going to get less rest than the rest of the party).
I'm pointing out that the humble heal skill can remain extremely useful for a lot longer than most people realize.
if you can find a way to get fast healing 1 for the whole party you'd never need to worry about healing outside of combat
I actually would prefer to balance the game per encounter. As long as you get a breather between encounters, your HP comes back, your limited abilities come back, etc. Thus you can have as many encounters in a day as the story demands.
sounds similar to 4e healing surges
sounds similar to 4e healing surgesHeavens no. I mean if you have to fight a hundred battles, your HP is maxed at the start of each one. Maybe have a mechanic for prolonged fights and battle damage. But no, no limit at all, and certainly not 'healing surges'.
mmm still problematic if you GM wants to run an escalating encounter with multiple stages designed to slowly wear you down. and if your going to have separate rules for that then its getting a little close to ruling on the fly for my liking
I mean there nothing wrong with houseruling away the need for healing but your not just removing the need for healing, you altering everything which comes with that.
consider that if a group knows it will get max HP at the end of encounter what to stop them doing things recklessly and taking more damage than they would if they had to heal it all later, and where that could end up.
or
making a tough choice, we found the enemy camp and we could surprise them before they march tommorow but we're very low on healing, do we fall back and rest and heal risking they will ahve gone by the time we come back or do we fight with existing damage and maybe not enough healing to survive
TOZ, just give your party either an item or a special ability or something that casts Heal on them at will, but with a 5 minute "casting time" or something.
As far as replenishing other stuff, that's easy enough, just make it also count as if they've had a full night's rest. But keep in mind that casters will be able to go for their top-level spells every round most likely.
EDIT: Bah, apparently alt-codes don't work in posts. -_-
best solution party of half-trolls with regen 2 hehehe
|
|
Heh, you want something to represent wearing the character down?
Ability damage. Or even just a growing penalty.
Easiest way to reduce a character's ability to fight is to give them a -4 to Str and Dex. Maybe Wis.
Saves are reduced, attack rolls, the whole shebang. Leave Con alone to avoid crippling them in the HP department.
Edit: Add Int and Cha to the list. The more tired you are, the fewer big spells you can fire off.
Heh, you want something to represent wearing the character down?
Ability damage. Or even just a growing penalty.
Easiest way to reduce a character's ability to fight is to give them a -4 to Str and Dex. Maybe Wis.
Saves are reduced, attack rolls, the whole shebang. Leave Con alone to avoid crippling them in the HP department.
Edit: Add Int and Cha to the list. The more tired you are, the fewer big spells you can fire off.
Even easier: temporary negative levels. ^_-
Even easier: temporary negative levels. ^_-Easier than saying 'take a -X to all rolls except Fort saves'?
Well, easier than an attribute penalty. But just a flat -X doesn't hurt casters all that much if they pick their spells right - they only roll for blast spells (damage) and rays (attack and possibly damage), after all. And level checks to beat SR, if the spell allows it.
If it's a big enough X to drop their casting score lower than 10+spell level they'll notice. :)
I may be thinking 3.5 rules tho.
Edit: Apparently it would have to be ability drain in PF, as even ability damage does not actually reduce the score, but only applies penalties to the relevant rolls.
Yeah. negative levels do the same, though - -1 per neg level for basically everything, plus lose spells and the ability to cast those levels as you get more of them.
Only problem with either is that either enough damage or neg levels will kill the PCs eventually - shouldn't be a problem with levels once you get to mid levels, but attribute reductions can cause some serious trouble if anyone has a low score or two. Of course, that'd also give incentive not to dump any. ^_-
If it's a big enough X to drop their casting score lower than 10+spell level they'll notice. :)
I may be thinking 3.5 rules tho.
Edit: Apparently it would have to be ability drain in PF, as even ability damage does not actually reduce the score, but only applies penalties to the relevant rolls.
Off-topic: What does it matter if the score is actually reduced or not if you get the same penalties. Does this mean if the penalty equals their con score they don't die, or if the penalty equals their wisdom score they dont go unconscious?
I have known about the rule for a while, but I don't see why it really matters.
Off-topic: What does it matter if the score is actually reduced or not if you get the same penalties. Does this mean if the penalty equals their con score they don't die, or if the penalty equals their wisdom score they dont go unconscious?
I have known about the rule for a while, but I don't see why it really matters.
Penalty vs. damage or drain basically goes like this - penalties are annoying, but usually shorter term or easier to get rid of. Damage is the middle ground, easier to get rid of than drain but harder than penalties. Drain is permanent until you get restorations or whatnot.
Penalties can't take you below 1. Damage and drain can, and depending on the score, you either go helpless or die when you get to 0. Also, penalties don't stack with themselves (generally), but damage and drain do, even from the same source - it's damage, just like HP damage, rather than an effect that causes problems for you.
I think that's about the extent of it, but there may be
|
|
Off-topic: What does it matter if the score is actually reduced or not if you get the same penalties. Does this mean if the penalty equals their con score they don't die, or if the penalty equals their wisdom score they dont go unconscious?
I have known about the rule for a while, but I don't see why it really matters.
A penalty does not actually reduce the score. It just makes it 'effectively reduced'. And can never decrease the score to 0. So no, they do not die or go unconscious.
It basically just makes you calculate all your stats as if you had a lower ability score. But your score still remains the same. Like how Power Attack doesn't actually reduce your BAB or something.
Off-topic: What does it matter if the score is actually reduced or not if you get the same penalties. Does this mean if the penalty equals their con score they don't die, or if the penalty equals their wisdom score they dont go unconscious?
I have known about the rule for a while, but I don't see why it really matters.
A penalty does not actually reduce the score. It just makes it 'effectively reduced'. And can never decrease the score to 0. So no, they do not die or go unconscious.
It basically just makes you calculate all your stats as if you had a lower ability score. But your score still remains the same. Like how Power Attack doesn't actually reduce your BAB or something.
ability damage in pathfinder also doesn't actually reduce your score.
Also:
"For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies."
Duly noted! I figured you already had noticed it or possibly considered it such a given that you simply forgot to mention it as being too obvious, but I did want to be sure for any lurkers that were following the thread.
Huh...I was thinking negative levels still hit casting...thanks for the clarification Abraham.
|
|
Duly noted! I figured you already had noticed it or possibly considered it such a given that you simply forgot to mention it as being too obvious, but I did want to be sure for any lurkers that were following the thread.
Indeed, 'tis so hard to keep the systems separate in my mind. They just keep bleeding over. In any event, something like this, where penalties reduce the characters effectiveness over time could be a handy way to show the effect of fatigue and such. Maybe a -2 per four encounters? Hard to say, and moving to a per encounter balance would require more rewriting of the system than I care to do before I retire. :)
I think I will just use the 3.5 versions of ability damage and drain. It seems easier than the new ability damage. I still dont see the point in calling it damage if its only a penalty
/threadjack
do negative level decreased your effective Hit Dice as well thus making you susceptible to spell that e.g. effect creatures of 8HD or lower when your normally a 10HD creature
|
turned into lengthy casting time rituals.
Slight threadjack.
Though I, personally, have no problem with the power-distribution in PFRPG thus far, I would love to see more of these. Really, when I think of "high powered magic", I think of a Wizard toiling away with magical energies for a few hours... not "Glad that Fireball killed all those *enemies*. Hey, I can cast *high powered spell* now. Cool!"
-2cp
I think I will just use the 3.5 versions of ability damage and drain. It seems easier than the new ability damage. I still dont see the point in calling it damage if its only a penalty
/threadjack
The damage can still kill/ drop you. The penalty can't, and the damage lasts longer.
The big change for damage and E.drain is that you no longer have to refigure everything (including meeting feat prereqs) everytime you get hit for it.
Given the recent swing in the thread, it seems a good time to relink The Ten-Minute Rest Period. The core idea comes from Bad Axe's excellent Trailblazer. I modified it slightly after some playtesting.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Get rid of healing spells completely. The game will be better off for it.
Now, remember that hit points primarily represent things like near misses, not actual damage. That's why you can get critted with a bastard sword and not have to start rolling up a new character.
If one permits that a character's *core* hit points (I mean viscera) are the hit points gained at first level, there is no conceptual reason why a character couldn't heal back all other hit points with a full night's sleep.
I'd make one change, though. A crit is damage directly to those core hit points regardless of how many hit points a character has.
And core hit points take longer to heal.
The cons with this are that even a 20th level Wizard is going to have few core hit points, so they really have to worry about getting critted and even a 20th level Barbarian at full hit points who is critted twice in combat is potentially dead. So, core hit points could be equal to the hit points at first level plus one for each level of the character beyond that. A pro to this is that it gives Fighter types a boost since they are the ones most likely to commit criticals.
I think you may be underestimating how much damage a critical hit can do. Let's take a look at your barbarian. 12 hp at 1st level, let's give him a 20 Con for another +5, add favored class bonus for +1, that's 18 hp. Let's say his Con reaches 30 by 20th level. That bumps him up another +5. Add his extra 19 levels. So 18 +5 +19= 42. A good solid critical at that level would go way over that from any melee combatant worth his name; some monsters can handle that easily with non-critical hits. Makes for a grittier game though, I gotta say. Also gives you back a bit of that flavor from previous editions where save-or-die could happen at any time, which I admit I like.
In 4E, a healer isn't needed per se. In PF, a healer is needed, maybe not a cleric, but a healer.
You can get around this by having a Bard or someone with Use Magic Device, using wands of Cure Light Wounds to restore everyone. At higher levels there is definitely an issue with ability damage, but you'd need a large town for Restoration spells.
One of my friends recently told me he had a campaign with no healer and the DM just made cure light/serious wound potions cost 20% of the price as normal, and this fixed the issue. I guess to each their own.
I think that's one of the things I like best about 4E, the healing surges. I know a lot don't, but I really like the concept. Clerics don't have to waste every last spell on healing and you can have parties without healers. Sounds good to me.
Yeah, I know crits can be lethal under this system. I like that.
Fighter types aren't going to rush brainlessly into combat as if everyone was welding nerf bats.
However, while a good solid crit is lethal, it isn't common.
You don't have crit builds then? I find that interesting.
You don't have crit builds then? I find that interesting.
Yeah, I know crits can be lethal under this system. I like that.
Fighter types aren't going to rush brainlessly into combat as if everyone was welding nerf bats.
However, while a good solid crit is lethal, it isn't common.You can do a crit build. A keen falchion in the hands of someone with improved crit gives you about 7 points of damage on a crit. Assuming 20th level, add in +5 for magic, +10 for strength, and +5 for miscellaneous and you're doing about 27 points of damage on a crit. Let's assume you need a 17 or higher to hit, so, if you hit, you automatically crit, but you still have to confirm. You also need a 17 or higher to confirm. That means you'll be criting once every 25 rounds.
Using your earlier stats for how many core hit points a 20th level Barbarian would have, you'd need to crit him twice in combat in order to drop him. On average, you'll need 50 rounds to do that.Please feel free to adjust the assumed numbers above around a bit to what you think is more realistic. I don't intend to stack the deck, rather to get a realistic model.
Your build is fair. I was thinking of dual-wielded kukris, I admit. Also, you assume a hit on a 17+, whereas in our game it's more like a hit on a 7+, which makes a big difference on confirmation rolls, shifting the results a bit.
With a 7+ to hit, you'd have a .315 chance of critting-confirming. Let's round that up and call it a 1 in 3. On average, you'd need 6 rounds to crit the 20th level Barbarian to death.
Six rounds seems quite realistic and fair. Have you ever played high level combat and found yourself falling into the grind from round to round slowly wearing down each other's hit points? It's boring and sucks. This contributes to stopping that grind.
I think your idea does a good job on dealing with the grind. I've seen that grind happen from time to time. I trust you've been playing like this for a while?
unlimited healing surges? ;-)
unlimited healing surges? ;-)
If you're gonna go that way, how about removing all hit points? You can't lose what you don't have;p
unlimited healing surges? ;-)If you're gonna go that way, how about removing all hit points? You can't lose what you don't have;p
i like the way you think, elf-maiden. ;-)
Thrall, that sounds very much like the vitality/wounds system from the Star Wars d20 game (I think Unearthed Arcana had it too, but it may have been different). If I recall, though, HP would translate directly to vitality, and your con score is your wounds, and crits do normal, not multiplied damage, but it goes straight to wounds. You might look into it.
As far as grind, though, my experience has been completely different (admittedly in 3.5 as I haven't yet played a high level PF game). Past level 14 or so, all of my games have been rocket tag even for the non-casters. Barbarians and rogues can do such a huge amount of damage at those levels that it's rare to even last 2 rounds, from what I've seen, and of course casters can just shut down anything they feel like (almost).
You don't have crit builds then? I find that interesting.
Yeah, I know crits can be lethal under this system. I like that.
Fighter types aren't going to rush brainlessly into combat as if everyone was welding nerf bats.
However, while a good solid crit is lethal, it isn't common.You can do a crit build. A keen falchion in the hands of someone with improved crit gives you about 7 points of damage on a crit. Assuming 20th level, add in +5 for magic, +10 for strength, and +5 for miscellaneous and you're doing about 27 points of damage on a crit. Let's assume you need a 17 or higher to hit, so, if you hit, you automatically crit, but you still have to confirm. You also need a 17 or higher to confirm. That means you'll be criting once every 25 rounds.
Using your earlier stats for how many core hit points a 20th level Barbarian would have, you'd need to crit him twice in combat in order to drop him. On average, you'll need 50 rounds to do that.Please feel free to adjust the assumed numbers above around a bit to what you think is more realistic. I don't intend to stack the deck, rather to get a realistic model.
20th level fighter wielding a +5 holy falchion... Let's assume he's got 20th level wealth. So, 18 str+4 for 22, +6 for 28, +4 for 32 strength. He swings at a bonus of 20+11+4+5+2 for +42/+42/+37/+32/+27 on his first swing. +37/+37/+32/+27/+22 with power attack. Improved critical for 15-20 crit. Some critical feats.
I don't know what fighter should still need a 17 or higher to hit someone with a +42 or higher bonus to hit-- since the highest AC I can muster up on quick math is 61, and that's with some extreme cases, let's assume the fighter hits most targets on the 15. With power attack, that's still a 52, one above most creatures who can buff their own AC up.
Weapon mastery instantly confirms it if it hits. The fighter does 2d6 bleed and stuns the opponent (fort save = DC30). The damage would be something like...
6d4+48+15+12+45+2d6+2d6+12.
So the fighter has a 25% chance to hit and if he hits, he crits. If he crits, he does minimum 142~ damage, average 151~.
A non-fighter, such as a paladin or barbarian, have the same general to-hit minus 6. A barbarian with a greataxe still does 3d12+48+15+45, instantly killing anyone he crit confirms on. A paladin smiting who crits does 2d8+32+15+30+40, instantly killing anyone he crit confirms on (+40 more damage if it's the first swing on a dragon/undead/evil outsider!).
So this quote...
Yeah, I know crits can be lethal under this system. I like that.
Fighter types aren't going to rush brainlessly into combat as if everyone was welding nerf bats.
However, while a good solid crit is lethal, it isn't common.
Can be untrue as soon as level 11, when Critical Focus and Improved Critical are common for most fighter builds. Now fighters can fight without any thought at all-- a good dice roll means their opponent instantly dies with no save, and for a dual-wielding kukri fighter, he has to roll a 15 to critical and a 11 to confirm if the 15 hits on the dot, making his critical hits rather common.
That's also not taking into account things like the spell bless weapon that instantly confirm critical hits as soon as level 4. A paladin with bless weapon active rolls a 20 on the first hit against a devil/demon/dragon he's smiting and they instantly die no save at all levels. Talk about anticlimactic. Heck, at level, 4, if he has bless weapon up and rolls a 20 on a bad guy and isn't smiting they likely die no save. 1d8+11 versus, say, an ogre. 9 core hit points. The ogre instantly dies no matter what number lands on that damage die.
Also, it tends to screw monsters completely. Anyone without class levels goes down in one critical no matter how good they are, judging by the curve trend I'm seeing. A pit fiend's core hit points equal out to 42-- which we just proved a level 20 character can instantly destroy.
Not sure if it's a good thing. It just means that character and villain death is going to be sudden and instant with no way to prevent or defer damage, which some people like. Even if you have an AC of 50, SR100 and DR 15/vorpal, two nat 20s from an equal CR target kill you no matter what level you're at. Even at mid levels, when your character is considered legendary, a commoner with a kukri with no crit feats and a 14 strength can kill you in one shot if he rolls high on damage die.
Maybe if critical hits didn't multiply damage? Even so, 2d4+16+15+5+4+4 still kills almost anyone in one blow. I'm unsure if that was already insinuated.
YMMV