Hi :)
First I will say its your game so what ever you feel is right go for it, by you I mean the whole group really. I will try and give you my thoughts on your problems the best I can as I tend to ramble........see there I go again.
1. I have thought about this before as they say there are alot of nice feats and you do need to specialise in 1 area. I think the number of feats you get in pathfinder is better than past 3.x versions and the feat monkeys fighters get more so they can cover move ground.
2. I sort of agree with them on the whole 'whats good for one' route as I alllow casters to add a d20 roll to spell dc's instead of base 10. But then as for concentration, spells take alittle bit more to get right and the effect is alittle bit more than just the damage or effect from a lump of steel. I think the result pays for the check myself.
3. I would as I do and find a middle ground. I will point out now I insist players roll HP infront of me, but I do miss quite afew low rolls (LOL) Point out if PC's get full hitpoints at every level then so should the things they face.
4. Again more bang for your bucks means having to have a down side, that being said maybe spell points would work better for your groups style of play but I would keep to them being refreshed every day.
But as with most things I tend to go for the 'suck it and see' route after all its the only way to see (the whole group) what it would do to the game. Hope this has helped in some way and you all end up with the game you want :)
If this doesnt help or I have missed the point let me know I tend to work better when bouncing off another person :P
|
1. Jack of all trades, master of none. Allowing mastery of 2+ different styles on the same characters means that a character cannot have just one mastery (they'd run out of feats to take for it).
In short: *Ban Hammer*
2. I have rarely seen this be an issue, and it makes sense, so I've never bothered with it.
3. As Immortalis said, if they get it so do the bad guys.
4. I allow the first, and am working on a system for the second. That said, resting in the middle of a dungeon is a good way to get ambushed by something big and scary (which has already happened in my Kingmaker game. A couple lucky crits by the good guys defused the situation, though.)
A little back ground on my group. Together we have been playing for 20+ years. The newest player who joined us was 12 years ago.
We went from 1st to 4th then back to 3.5 and now to pathfinder. What I have been encountering is 2 of my player keep wanting to change the rules of the game. I will list the things they like to change below.
What I need is some way of countering there points of view. Or a way of proving to them that giving them that option is going to unbalance the game.
1. Feats every level for all character classes
A. Player’s argument is that characters should get something
every level. This is addition to what the character class
all ready has(No skill points and hit points do not count).B. Player's argument is there are a lot of feats and I want to be
good at more than one thing.C. Players argument is this will bring all character classes to
be more balanaced(This one still has me going HUH WTF as they
think the cleric has ben nerfed and the fighter is to powerful)
Seriously? someone who has played 3.x said the fighter is too powerful? I never thought I'd see the day. Pathfinder already increased the number of feats. Over 20 levels even if you dont get bonus feats (though many classes can get them) you can still go deep into more then 1 feat tree. Getting them every level would mean they arent special. Also pathfinder has specifically designed classes so they get stuff at every level that isn't just hit points and skill points. The only exception is casters, but they get new spells which is as good if not better then feats.
2. Casters should not have to make concentration checks when hit in combat
A. Players argument is that the fighter types do not have to make
a concentration check when hit to keep fighting.
This is one of the key balancing points between casters and martial types. To remove this means that unless you kill that high level arcanist he's probably going to kill you. Remember the caster can prevent the fighter from fighting just fine if he succeeds at what he does (cast a hold person spell for instance), no reason the martial guy shouldn't be able to disrupt the caster.
3. Maximum hit point every level (this I may use after the combat I just ran them threw)
A. Player’s argument is that all PC’s should have max hit points.
As it stops you from have low hits points when you are suppose
to be a front line fighter type.
Go with a compromise. My group for instance re-rolls 1/4th the die. So D4/D6 reroll 1s D8/D10 re-roll 1s and 2s, D12 reroll 1s, 2s, and 3s. Max hitpoints is a bit much (though doing something to increase first level HP isnt a bad idea)
4. Wizards being able to regain spells more than once every 24 hours
A. Players argument is they do not want to have to wait and redo
spells every 24 hoursB. Players argument is to use spell points
They can regain spells more then once every 24 hours. They just have to rest for 8. Thus making it possible to regain spells 3 times in 26 hours. Also remind them that a wizard can leave slots open when they prepare the first time, and then prepare them quickly (in around 15 minutes) later in the day if something specific comes up. If you make it relatively easy to change out spells, the wizard becomes an Actual god, and it completely invalidates the sorceror.
For that matter, spell points is a big kick in the pants to sorcerors, giving their principal benefit to the more versatile wizard, so consider that one carefully if you want to have more then one kind of arcane caster ever chosen in your game.
|
1. Feats every level for all character classes2. Casters should not have to make concentration checks when hit in combat
3. Maximum hit point every level (this I may use after the combat I just ran them threw)
4. Wizards being able to regain spells more than once every 24 hours
So any ideas?
Thanks for you help
1) A feat every level puts the PCs into a very powerful position, basically from the the feat combos they can start pulling off they are pretty much going to walk over anything that hasn't been upgraded to match (and upgrading an entire adventure can be a pain).
2) I've never had my players complain about this, but it might be due to the fact that most of them have played MMOs over the years which either delays or cancels a spell cast... The flip side is that it makes the fighter chain of feats about disrupting spells rather useless if it has no effect.
3) If the PCs have Max hp then the monsters might too... this can make for some very long fights. My first recommendation would be go 1/2 hp +1 for each level (plus Con mod).
4) I think most of the Pathfinder casters have other abilities that they can use multiple times per day, which should ease how drained they feel after a combat. The kicker is that if you allow Wizards (or other casters) the ability to memorize multiple times per day (or which ever format you go with), then you are effectively swinging the spotlight on to those characters.
|
|
They can regain spells more then once every 24 hours. They just have to rest for 8. Thus making it possible to regain spells 3 times in 26 hours. Also remind them that a wizard can leave slots open when they prepare the first time, and then prepare them quickly (in around 15 minutes) later in the day if something specific comes up. If you make it relatively easy to change out spells, the wizard becomes an Actual god, and it completely invalidates the sorceror.
Good point, I had forgotten about that, mainly as when my group decides to rest it they generally call it the end of the day. Of course it normally isn't the wizard who has run out of spells but the cleric... :)
A little back ground on my group. Together we have been playing for 20+ years. The newest player who joined us was 12 years ago.
We went from 1st to 4th then back to 3.5 and now to pathfinder. What I have been encountering is 2 of my player keep wanting to change the rules of the game. I will list the things they like to change below.
What I need is some way of countering there points of view. Or a way of proving to them that giving them that option is going to unbalance the game.
1. Feats every level for all character classes
A. Player’s argument is that characters should get something
every level. This is addition to what the character class
all ready has(No skill points and hit points do not count).B. Player's argument is there are a lot of feats and I want to be
good at more than one thing.C. Players argument is this will bring all character classes to
be more balanaced(This one still has me going HUH WTF as they
think the cleric has ben nerfed and the fighter is to powerful)2. Casters should not have to make concentration checks when hit in combat
A. Players argument is that the fighter types do not have to make
a concentration check when hit to keep fighting.3. Maximum hit point every level (this I may use after the combat I just ran them threw)
A. Player’s argument is that all PC’s should have max hit points.
As it stops you from have low hits points when you are suppose
to be a front line fighter type.4. Wizards being able to regain spells more than once every 24 hours
A. Players argument is they do not want to have to wait and redo
spells every 24 hoursB. Players argument is to use spell points
So any ideas?
Thanks for you help
Ok, just for the record if all these changes make your and your players happy go for it, if you think this could reduce you happyness read on:
Feats for everyone and everything: This results in more math, but by all meas go for it. This means:
higher level save dc for spells, since wizards can get spell focus for everyone.
Iron Will and the other save enhancing feats and things like dodge will appear on every char sheet sooner or later ... booring.
And of course, the razorblade in the candyfloss: The NPCs get it too, so your level 5 party can be attacked by half a dozen npcs with way to many feats ...^^.
Oh an since they think the cleric is soo weak... hit them hard with some buffed up clerics and the feats to crack some skulls.
^^
To question 2:
A: Allow it: Hit your players hard with clerics and wizards and see how they like to be dead. Ok this is overdoing it, but still it gives spellcasters a distinct advantage and ruins some combat feats.
B:So no, the casters get plenty of feats so combat casting should not be a problem, and loosing your spell when the barbarian halfs your hp with a single blow.
If you consider, option A is decidedly more nasty.
No. 3: Do it, your noncasters will need all the help they can get, but as alwyas this will apply to monsters too, wait about 2 hours before listening when the players complain that combat takes tooo long.
4. Option A: Draw a line in the sand, letting a caster unload his entire arsenal of spells for buffing and blasting is ok, but having a short breather and do it all again is a no no. It devalues magic items with charges and ruins your magic economy.
B: Allow it within limits, since the players want to use spell points allow them to recharge their spell point pool by 1/24th of their full pool size for each hour of meditation and spell preparation. Require the effect of 8 hours sleep ( less for elfs and characters with a certain ring of annoyance)
So no real game breakers here, and if these changes keep you friends happy go for it, but make shure that there is a line that should not be crossed, like the paragon template.
I play with the same group since about 15 years, so I know what you living through.
Not really related, but have you checked out the book of experimental might? You can find it HERE. Sounds like it has some of what you are looking to add. But the game goes pretty far from Pathfinder at that point into custom world stuff. (I have the book and it is great, but will require a good group willing to play nice together.)
Point 1 - ups the power level. Characters by the RAW already have a slight advantage over NPCs/monsters (this is deliberate design inherent in 3.x/Pathfinder). This further skews the power curve in the characters favor.
Could be allowed under the following conditions:
a) NPCs/Monsters have increased number of feats as well to offset PC advantage or
b) allow a feat for any level in which the character class only gets skill points and hit points only. Since under pathfinder, most classes get something at ever level more so than 3.x, this should be too over balancing.
Point 2 - ask the players if they want to particpate in a little experiment. Have the players take a ruler and hit their books while you give them a several sharp raps to the off hand knuckles. Most of them will be able to do so.
Now have them do a problem of adding, multiplying, subtracting and dividing a set of numbers. Something like take 13 + 39, divide the sum by 3 and then times that product by 5. Make up something they can answer by doing in their head and answer in 6 seconds. Then do it again with another set of numbers while rapping them sharply on the knuckles. Most if not all of them will fail.
Reason - doing a simple mechanical task (like hitting their books with a ruler) will not be disrupted by distractions, like being rapped sharply on the knuckles. Complex mental tasks will be distracted. Spellcasting in like doing math in your head while trying to avoid being hit by a ruler or taking pain to the knuckles or shins. It is comparing apples and oranges.
Point 3 - Not an issue per se. Simply tell them that monsters will have increased hit points as well.
Point 4 - the spell point issue will not fix anything based on their argument. In fact, spell points tend to encourage PC casters to 'nova', meaning they spend more spell point than they will regain in a set day. It fixes nothing in regards to the '15 minute work day' syndrome.
I suggest they play only level 1 characters. That way they get max hit points and they all get a feat every level!
In all seriousness, the others here have summed up my thoughts on the subject pretty well. Although if the group wants to play a high powered game, then maybe they should consider gestalt characters? That can up the power level considerably without going overboard entirely. Good luck!
They can regain spells more then once every 24 hours. They just have to rest for 8. Thus making it possible to regain spells 3 times in 26 hours. Also remind them that a wizard can leave slots open when they prepare the first time, and then prepare them quickly (in around 15 minutes) later in the day if something specific comes up. If you make it relatively easy to change out spells, the wizard becomes an Actual god, and it completely invalidates the sorceror.Good point, I had forgotten about that, mainly as when my group decides to rest it they generally call it the end of the day. Of course it normally isn't the wizard who has run out of spells but the cleric... :)
Thats amusing since it's the cleric that CANT get spells more then once in a 24 hour period (they have to pray at a certain time of day by raw)
A lot of this has already been said, so I'll try to inject a few new ideas:
1. Feats every level. If you do this, your PCs will become more powerful but the monsters won't. Fights will get too easy. Maybe giving every monster a bonus feat every other HD could balance it out, but then you're just escalating the power struggle.
Instead, I suggest making them pay for their extra feats. In my 3.5 houserules, I allowed players to "buy" a feat with XP. Permanently give up some XP to gain a feat. Maximum of once per level. The XP cost was 1/3 the amount of XP they need for their current level, and they are not allowed to lose a level by doing this so they have to announce it, and then the NEXT XP they earn goes toward their new feat. (I tried 1/4 but it seemed too easy to make up, and I tried 1/2 but nobody wanted to spend that much, so I settled on 1/3).
That worked fairly well. Some did, some didn't, and nobody felt too powerful or too weak because of it.
2. I've never heard this one before. Coming from ancient times, the original D&D game had spellcasters losing spells all the time. Nobody had to ready an action or rely on AoO, and there was no such thing as a 5' step, so if an enemy was nearby and you want to cast, you will probably get hit and probably lose a spell. Period.
3.x made it very easy for castes to never lose a spell. Some say they made it too easy. Me, I'm fine with where it is, and I don't think I've heard a 3.x/Pathfinder player say it's too easy to lose spells until now.
You're on your own on this one - I personally would not grant the playes this request for the reasons I've stated.
3. Max HP is a bit much. Escalation of power, blah blah. It's already been said by others. Me, I prefer average HP. The reasons are manyfold:
a. The Bestiary, APs, and other published adventures tend to give monsters and NPCs average HP. Doing the same for PCs keeps the balance.
b. If you roll dice, fairly, without cheating, you tend to come out fairly average most of the time (that's kinda what "average" means, right?).
c. It keeps death just a little closer, just a little more possible, just a little scarier. PCs with 100 HP don't fear a few archers with longbows. They don't fear a 100' cliff. Etc. But the same PCs with just 50 HP are more worried about such things.
4. More than once a day is probably vastly overpowered for spellcasters. The only way it works is if you have a lot more than 4-5 encounters per day. Theoretically, your PCs should run out of resources after 4-5 ordinary encounters, so most published material works from this model. If they want more than 5 encounters, they make all of them weaker, or they give a realistic way for the PCs to leave, camp for a day, and come back. Usually.
So if you give casters the ability to refresh spells like a typical CRPG or MMO, or like 4e, then the encounters/day model gets weird. You can do it if you want, but just make sure you understand that your PCs are likely to go into every battle blasting with everything they have. The wizards won't hold back because they don't have to save some good firepower for future encounters. It's vastly unbalancing and you need to be prepared for the fallout.
You mentioned spellpoints, but doesn't that usually assume a daily limit of spellpoints? So won't they have a set number of spells each day even if you go with spellpoints? Or was it their wish to not have to worry about preparing spells in advance?
If all they want is to not prepare spells in advance, have them play sorcerers, bards, or favored souls (from Complete Divine).
I personally do give PCs more than average hit points per level.
They roll their d6, d8, d10, d12.
Under half, they round up to one point above half. Anything above that they keep.
So, or they would keep, but a 5 on a d12 would become a 7 and a 4 on a d8 would become a 5.
It keeps players on the power curve. I know that low hp really sucks and nobody really likes to be "Steve, the level 12 guy with 10 Con and 12 hp."
I once played a level 9 Swordsage (d8 hit die) with 14 Con with 35 hp. For reference, I'm now playing a level 3 Rogue (d8 hit die) with 14 Con with 30 hp.
Battles simply were not fun when a single hit from a CR9 creature (in this case, a bebilith) had the average potential to do 24-- about 80% of my hit points and the max of 29 damage to me-- almost 90% of my hit points. A single crit could kill me. Everyone in the entire party could kill me in one solid hit. It was just plain irritating, and I had to end up taking a lot of defensive maneuvers and then engaging one target at a time, which didn't work because the DM was fond of massive group battles.
They can regain spells more then once every 24 hours. They just have to rest for 8. Thus making it possible to regain spells 3 times in 26 hours. Also remind them that a wizard can leave slots open when they prepare the first time, and then prepare them quickly (in around 15 minutes) later in the day if something specific comes up. If you make it relatively easy to change out spells, the wizard becomes an Actual god, and it completely invalidates the sorceror.Good point, I had forgotten about that, mainly as when my group decides to rest it they generally call it the end of the day. Of course it normally isn't the wizard who has run out of spells but the cleric... :)
Go ahead and forget about it, because it's not true.
The book says "A wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day". It does not say "per 8 hours" or "per rest cycle". It says "per day". Period. The big table in the Wizard class tells you how many spells he gets "per day". That table also uses the phrase "per day".
Yes, sure, it says that a wizard must rest 8 hours before preparing his spells, but it does not say that he must "only" rest 8 hours - all other limitations still apply because nowhere in the rules about resting 8 hours does it tell you that you can ignore any other restrictions.
So since he gets "a certain number of spells of each spell level per day", and he must rest for 8 hours to prepare them, both rules apply: once per day after resting 8 hours the wizard can prepare his daily alotment of spells.
|
|
If all they want is to not prepare spells in advance, have them play sorcerers, bards, or oracle.
FTFY ;)
My deal with recovering spells more than once/24 hours is that it seems logical to do so. I (personally) allow all casters to do this, but it *always* takes 8 hours of rest to do so. A character that doesn't need to sleep still needs to read a book or something for 8 hours. This rest can be interrupted, but they aren't ready for their spells until they hit a total of 8 hours (possibly more if the interruption is often).
This actually hasn't ever been an issue since my players know that enemies don't wait for them to wake up (and in fact were woken up once by an enemy busting through a stone-shaped door and smashing the guy on watch).
I think people have suggested some good things here. A few things not mentioned:
1) argument b) In my game, I allow players (as well as NPCs) to retrain. In 3.5, I allowed a character to spend XP and training downtime to swap out feats. I also let NPCs swap out levels of NPC classes for PC classes for a similar amount of XP. (So, that level 2 expert could spend 300 XP and become a level 2 rogue with proper training.)
Since Pathfinder removed XP expenditures for item creation and in other places, I'd likely change this to downtime with proper training. YMMV though. If the argument is based on "I just want to try a bunch of different styles without retiring my existing character." it should work fine.
This does make a few other changes in the game, for example, a Paladin who has lost his powers could retrain as a Fighter or Cavalier with enough time.
2) When I heard this argument, it was because of how difficult the concentration checks were. My response: Stop fighting in melee if you're a sorcerer.
As a specific counter to the argument, when was the last time your fighter was tripped? Or held, or charmed?
3) I'm a math nerd, and don't mind a little extra bookkeeping, so I use this rule:
First, you have to keep track of hit points rolled for each level. (So, a 5th level fighter would note his rolled hit points as 9 + 8 + 8 + 5 + 7 = 37)
Second, for every level, you roll your hit points for the new level, then you get to reroll any level taking the higher result of the original or the reroll. (So, siad 5th level fighter gets to 6th level. He rolls for his hit points and gets a 6. This gives him 9 + 8 + 8 + 5 + 7 + 6 = 43 hit points. Then he chooses to reroll the 5. He gets a 3, so he keeps the 5 and his hit points remain the same. If he rolled a 7, his hit points would become 9 + 8 + 8 + 7 + 7 + 6 = 45 hit points.)
It's a bit more complicated than most people want, but I find it gives people above average hit points without just giving max at each level.
4) Chances are they want to nova, as described by Black Moria above. If not, they really need to learn how to ration spells and figure out ways for the wizards to be useful in weaker encounters where spells are not needed. Using spell points will not help with that rationing. It just lets them hit every encounter with high level spells, not just the endgame monsters.
They can regain spells more then once every 24 hours. They just have to rest for 8. Thus making it possible to regain spells 3 times in 26 hours. Also remind them that a wizard can leave slots open when they prepare the first time, and then prepare them quickly (in around 15 minutes) later in the day if something specific comes up. If you make it relatively easy to change out spells, the wizard becomes an Actual god, and it completely invalidates the sorceror.Good point, I had forgotten about that, mainly as when my group decides to rest it they generally call it the end of the day. Of course it normally isn't the wizard who has run out of spells but the cleric... :)Go ahead and forget about it, because it's not true.
The book says "A wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day". It does not say "per 8 hours" or "per rest cycle". It says "per day". Period. The big table in the Wizard class tells you how many spells he gets "per day". That table also uses the phrase "per day".
Yes, sure, it says that a wizard must rest 8 hours before preparing his spells, but it does not say that he must "only" rest 8 hours - all other limitations still apply because nowhere in the rules about resting 8 hours does it tell you that you can ignore any other restrictions.
So since he gets "a certain number of spells of each spell level per day", and he must rest for 8 hours to prepare them, both rules apply: once per day after resting 8 hours the wizard can prepare his daily alotment of spells.
hmmm intersting. I guess you are right, this is just how my group has always played it, but certainly you are right. Either way I have always hated the whole 24 hour thing. When does it reset? Midnight? 7AM? I always considered resting when the switch over happens, it's just easier that way. I guess it's just rare that we try to presume that there is more then one rest period within the 24 hour day so it hasnt really come up.
Goodbye challenge rating. Or at least, hello massive GM workload. Massive GM workload = less game. I can think of lots of things in life that would be great if you got them more often, but Pathfinder already ramped up the number of feats for each character. What's next? Two feats per level?
Oh man. So they want to take careful positioning out of playing a full caster? This, when the full caster is already up a HD from 3.5? I must restrain my urge to snark. This would not be allowed at my table.
A wizard, played halfway competently, is clearly one of the best classes in the game. Any full caster is very good. Why remove the one chance for the melee classes to perform against them?
I do use a houserule that discards any roll below 1/2 — but this also applies to NPCs. I like that rule because it includes some variation, but it also creates discrete "bands" so you never have an unfortunate fighter with lower HP than a rogue. I wouldn't cave on full HP though, and I definitely wouldn't allow it for PCs only. Any benefit to PCs will go to the opposition as well. Furthermore, all there HP jacking rules just make combat drag out longer. That matters, especially at high levels.
I will say this: of all the rules, this one creates the least additional workload for the GM, and is therefore sort of acceptable. It almost certainly has unintended consequences, and will screw with CR, but at least you won't find yourself arguing mid-game about how it works this week.
I don't see how spell points will spare them from having to wait to re-prepare spells. Vancian casting isn't for everyone, it took me years to learn to love it (which I now do). This is probably the issue on the list I would most be willing to address at my table, but I find that adding context to the existing magic system is the best solution. It is still the most balanced system and requires the least additional work on the part of the GM.
In the end, every house rule adds to the GM workload, and thereby reduces the amount of game time. Most players are willing to recognize this: if they really want to play the game a lot and help you to make that possible, they should try to be satisfied with the RAW unless it drives them completely nuts.
The only time I consider making a house rule* these days is if something bad and unfun happens to a player repeatedly, and all the other players are cringing out of sympathy. Then, I consider it. Otherwise, it's a matter of diminishing returns: more effort for less gaming.
* this statement excludes cool new inventions like new rage powers, feats, and other chunky little bits that my players (or I) cook up. That kind of house ruling is constructive, as long as the rule is balanced and settled early. "Corrective" house ruling is what I am addressing in this post.
hmmm intersting. I guess you are right, this is just how my group has always played it, but certainly you are right. Either way I have always hated the whole 24 hour thing. When does it reset? Midnight? 7AM? I always considered resting when the switch over happens, it's just easier that way. I guess it's just rare that we try to presume that there is more then one rest period...
You're not alone. There have been multiple threads on it, some devolving into arguments, with a significant number of defenders believing, and fighting for their belief, that wizards can replenish spells whenever they rest.
Sorry if my response seemed a bit terse; it felt like the beginnings of one of those arguments/derailments.
I agree with lazarus I have implimented the re-training rules even if I have changed them to my liking, but the point is some feats are more usefull at lower levels and point less at higher levels. I cant say how this has affected my game yet as no-one has taken it up but I think it will help stop the other problem I was having which was players retiring characters to then play a new version as they found new feats or PrC that fit better. This goes some way to eleviate both problems I think and I am hoping that it will also help with players not having to plan the whole character through to level 20 (or what ever) as they can change with training.
One other think that grabs me after re-reading your post was you went from 1 ed to 4ed and now pathfinder/3.x, where the players you have like this in 1 ed? I know my style of play has changed since then to 3.x/PF but then it has had to as feats and stuff wernt invented LOL. Remind them of past games you played and see if they still get that glint in their eye and then remind them non of this mattered to them then, it might help.
As for the wizard spell 24hrs or 8hrs think we have always played it as 8hrs as such but as W. John Hare said thats because we tend to make that the end of the day. We dont keep track of time that well so when the casters are out of spells the group rests and then when they regain their spells its the next day so still only once in 24hrs. The only time I have had to keep track of time was in 'city of the spider queen' and things pretty much stayed the same, rest for spells = end of day.
Good for you stand your ground :) I think you have given them quite enough bonuses. As you say its your game and if they dont like it let someone else GM and then use everything they change to the max and see how they like it LOL.
Yes I'm a militant b@$tard at heart :P
Just as a bit of a cheeky response to the feat every level request, consider the following compromise:
Any class, except for the full casters (who get extra spells, which IS their primary class feature), that don't get a class feature/class feature improvement at every level get a bonus feat.
This sounds like a nice deal for the players, right? Total change to the Core classes with this ruling is that Bards get a bonus feat at 4th, 13th, and 16th levels. And really, if anybody ought to be a jack of a all trades, its the Bard anyway.
C. Players argument is this will bring all character classes to
be more balanaced(This one still has me going HUH WTF as they
think the cleric has ben nerfed and the fighter is to powerful)
They are actually right about the Cleric getting nerfed and the fighter getting buffed compared to 3.5. This is because somewhere around level 7-10, Clerics started outfighting the Fighters and Barbarians while keeping all their spell casting abilities. Now things are quite a bit more balanced with Clerics having a much harder time walking all over the full BAB classes smashing heads spotlight time.
|
Well, I haven't gone through the Thread, just the OP, but here's my take on this kind of stuff:
1) Keep the PCs equal to each other. The individual PCs should be as close as possible to ability and function. If one is waaay cooler than another the problem needs to be fixed . . . . In your case, would max HP or extra Feats for everyone give one class an advantage? My gut says a Fighter doesn't really need more Feats; he won't be much better than he was. Meanwhile, a Wizard with more Feats could get considerably stronger. And a Ranger or Paladin with more Feats is like a Gestalt Fighter -- WAAAAY better than a Fighter with some more Feats.
2) CR for monsters is based on RAW PCs. If the PCs are Gestalt -- if they have max HP -- if they have more magic items, whatever -- it's gonna be harder, maybe much harder, for the DM to design appropriate encounters. A CR 17 Marilith is a reasonable encounter for four 17th level PCs with appropriate gear. If the PCs have max HP -- or they're Gestalt -- or they have cooler gear, whatever, then the encounter is gonna be lame!
Sure, my monsters all have max HP. They ALL get Improved Init and Combat Reflexes and sometimes some other neato stuff. Also, PCs in my games have max HP, a 42 point buy for Ability Scores, a little extra gold -- and my slightly better monsters' EL is about the same as my PCs' APL.
And yeah, sometimes I design an encounter badly and it's too tough or too weak for the PCs than I was targeting. Sure, it's often relative to the amount of time I have to prep -- but it certainly also is because the PCs and my monsters ain't exactly RAW.
--------------
If you guys go with any of these changes, keep in mind that the PCs should be balanced AND that the further from RAW you go, the harder it is for the DM to manage the Monster Manual.
1. Feats every level for all character classes
2. Casters should not have to make concentration checks when hit in combat
3. Maximum hit point every level (this I may use after the combat I just ran them threw)
4. Wizards being able to regain spells more than once every 24 hours
So any ideas?
Thanks for you help
1. No. Players do get something every level. There are class abilities, feats, skill points, hit points, etc. Giving them more feats takes away what makes feats special and adds an undo level of power to the PCs. Again, no.
2. This has been covered but if casters can't be interupted then they can become overpowered. So again, no.
3. Sure, then all of the NPCs will have the same or do extra damage.
4. The wizards should be more conservative with their spells. No.
Basically it sounds like these players are trying to munchkin their way around the rules. I would consider finding new players.
|
|
Basically it sounds like these players are trying to munchkin their way around the rules.
See, I think the Players' requests, though unreasonable, are more a result of all their experience in the d20 system coupled with a newer version of it that shows them the system can be changed almost at whim and still be awesome. Pathfinder gives their revisions credibility, permission to be designers.
Just like it does for the rest of us.
.
.
.
I would consider finding new players.
WHAT!?
Are you kidding?!Did you miss the part where the group has been together for decades?!
Basically it sounds like these players are trying to munchkin their way around the rules.See, I think the Players' requests, though unreasonable, are more a result of all their experience in the d20 system coupled with a newer version of it that shows them the system can be changed almost at whim and still be awesome. Pathfinder gives their revisions credibility, permission to be designers.
Just like it does for the rest of us.
.
.
.I would consider finding new players.WHAT!?
Are you kidding?!Did you miss the part where the group has been together for decades?!
Well, changes can be good but they should play the game system for a bit before deciding to change it. Many people think they won't enjoy a game unless their characters are gods. I believe that the most interesting games happen when your character is overcoming adversity despite all odds.
I once gamed with a guy for 5+ years and he was a royal pain in the ass. He got uppity about something and quit the group. Looking back on it I wish I would have asked him to leave sooner because of how much of a pain in the ass he was. So just because they have gamed together for decades doesn't mean they're the best of friends and it also doesn't mean that these guys may not be trying to take advantage of the fact that they have been together for so long. I don't know the whole story but if was me, I would consider talking to these guys discussing how if they don't like how I run the game they should consider a different game. I'm not trying to sound like a hard-@$$ but it is the truth. If they wanted to play in that kind of game they were describing they would either run it themselves or find someone who was willing to run it that way.
Here's my thoughts about these
"1. Feats every level for all character classes
A. Player’s argument is that characters should get something
every level. This is addition to what the character class
all ready has(No skill points and hit points do not count)."
Well, no. You can't just ignore everything and say that everyone should get something every level, in addition to all the things they get every level.
PF classes get something from their class every level. Even without skill points and HP, you get something new to play every level.
There's things that should not come every level, at least not for everyone. This includes BAB, saves, feats, ability boosts.
B. Player's argument is there are a lot of feats and I want to be
good at more than one thing.
Tell them that if they feel there are too many feats for one every other level, you can cut the number of feats available ;-P
Plus, you can be good at more than one thing. You just can't be the very best at several things at once.
Having to make a choice between generalisation and specialisation is an important part of the game I think.
C. Players argument is this will bring all character classes to
be more balanaced(This one still has me going HUH WTF as they
think the cleric has ben nerfed and the fighter is to powerful)
I consider the classes to be balanced.
Note that if you grant lots of extra feats, PCs become overpowered compared to monsters and pre-made NPCs, since they don't have that many feats.
But offer him a feat every level if he is willing to lose 10 points for his purchase to even things out...
2. Casters should not have to make concentration checks when hit in combat
A. Players argument is that the fighter types do not have to make
a concentration check when hit to keep fighting.
Then get rid of concentration checks. Go back to the good old days when spells were automatically disrupted. }>
The extra hoops casters have to jump through are there for a reason: They can do quote insane stuff with their magic, and not reining them in a bit would make things insane.
3. Maximum hit point every level (this I may use after the combat I just ran them threw)
A. Player’s argument is that all PC’s should have max hit points.
As it stops you from have low hits points when you are suppose
to be a front line fighter type.
I don't roll for HP, but I don't go max, either. I use average rounded up (i.e. a d8 becomes 5). Beyond that, if they want many HP, they must play characters with high constitution.
4. Wizards being able to regain spells more than once every 24 hours
A. Players argument is they do not want to have to wait and redo
spells every 24 hours
Well, technically, you can get spells twice a day as a wizard, maybe more often if you can cut resting time short. But many GMs limit it to once per day.
The spell limit is there for a reason: Balance. Casters have limited spell power. Another of those balancing factors to avoid them becoming too powerful.
All of these rules point to one thing: They're power hungry. Actually, they're power ravenous. They want to turn their characters not to 11, but to 101. Extra Feats, Max HP, casters without limits.... If you granted them all their wishes, they'd be significantly stronger than they are meant to be. That shatters the whole CR system.
Plus, as nice as it might sound, what fun is there if you are basically invincible?
I don't think the game is meant to be played that way, and thus I cannot tell you exactly how much trouble you'd get into, but as a GM who is quite generous to his players already, I have a vague sense of what would happen if I overdid it.
You would probably have to subtract something like 2 or 3 from all CRs to arrive at a number that would be fitting.
For some reason I feel like repeating myself:
There is nothing wrong with conceding to all their wishes. You could do each of these things, and still play the game. As a GM, it is possible for you to calibrate a rollicking good time for such an omnipotent party. Possible, but time consuming.
Oh, BTW, have they ever considered just playing Exhalted instead? It seems like it would be less work for the GM with a similar campaign as a result.
But this is the key point: it's "okay" to do all of these things if you want to, if you have the time to do it as GM. But as players, it really is their job to help you get the game moving and keep it moving, otherwise they are freeloading jerks who don't deserve to play, aren't really your friends, and don't understand the hobby or basic human decency. (also, it is quite possible they smell funny)
So, just make sure that your players know you aren't denying them for the sheer schadenfreude of it. They need to understand the concept that deviating from the RAW makes it harder to run games. That doesn't mean "never house rule". It just means that all new house rules need to be weighed against the additional workload they cause the GM. Because if the GM burns out, that's it! Game over, man. Game over.
1. Feats every level for all character classes
A. Player’s argument is that characters should get something
every level. This is addition to what the character class
all ready has(No skill points and hit points do not count).
Most classes already do. Spells for 5 classes, plus other class abilities as well.
Suggestion instead: fill blank levels with a bonus trait.
B. Player's argument is there are a lot of feats and I want to be
good at more than one thing.
Umm, to be blunt, tough? The system rewards specialization.
C. Players argument is this will bring all character classes to
be more balanaced(This one still has me going HUH WTF as they
think the cleric has ben nerfed and the fighter is to powerful)
Clerics have arguably been nerfed depending on your frame of reference. Point out that most of what a fighter gets is feats, so if the fighter is too powerful, giving it more feats yet should then result in what exactly?
Overall, not particularly logical reasons. I'd deny this one.
2. Casters should not have to make concentration checks when hit in combat
A. Players argument is that the fighter types do not have to make
a concentration check when hit to keep fighting.
If a fighter initiates an attack and is hit, sheer momentum (laws of physics thing) can finish what he started. If a wizard is hit while chanting and waving his hands, well...spellcasters are doing the equivalent of Showchoir (singing plus choreography), albeit not usually as strenuous. Ask them if they think they could continue chanting and specific choreography if you hit them in the head.
Are the casters being forced to make concentration checks frequently? If so, is it because they walk right up to enemies and then cast a spell? That's just poor tactics. Are enemies moving up and threatening them? Again, poor tactics, but on the part of the group, as that means the fighters aren't protecting the squishy casters.
3. Maximum hit point every level (this I may use after the combat I just ran them threw)
A. Player’s argument is that all PC’s should have max hit points.
As it stops you from have low hits points when you are suppose
to be a front line fighter type.
And it also stops backline archers and casters from having low hit points too. Poor logic. Other things that help with fighters and low hp include higher Constitution scores, favored class bonuses, the Toughness feat, and just plain rolling better. Also, it doesn't matter how many hp you have if your defenses are good enough to avoid damage and if you do a good job as a group supporting one another (y'know, things like healing the wounded fighter, good tactics like ambushes, etc.).
4. Wizards being able to regain spells more than once every 24 hours
A. Players argument is they do not want to have to wait and redo
spells every 24 hours
Already permissible by the rules. Is the problem that the wizard never seems to prep the right spells, or is he going nova? The former is something learned with time and can be overcome with creativity. The latter is part of the 15-minute workday problem.
B. Players argument is to use spell points
Doesn't solve the problem necessarily. Depends on the rules you use for spell points.
Conclusions: Each of these things makes the players more powerful. More feats, prep spells more often, no concentration checks, more hp... might as well ask for everyone to have full BAB, d12 hd (maxed, of course), and 60 skill points per level. I'm amazed that skill points didn't come up as it is.
What precisely provoked these requests?
|
|
Tell them that if they feel there are too many feats for one every other level, you can cut the number of feats available
Awesome.
This reminds me of funny story:Back when I was working on my PhD I was asked to direct a summer school program for a private elementary school. At one of our Friday field trips (zoo & park), I grilled 20 hot dogs and 20 hamburgers for the kids' lunch.
We ran out of hamburgers real fast and the kids complained about the hot dogs.
One of the parents said that next time, instead of 20 each, we should just grill 40 hot dogs!
----------
One of the things we learned as Undergrads was that giving little kids choices like that often is bad -- never, for example, let your 1st graders pick what piece of candy they get -- just give them a piece.
Hearing the parent's solution to the hot dog complaint reminded me of that lesson -- great fun.
|
I think it may come down to telling them to make there own system if they do not like what I plan on running.
If your goal is to put them on the spot and generally create an uncomfortable / confrontational feel to this game, you can go this route. I would take other peoples' suggestions, however, and go about it in a less defensive/confrontational way.
Explain that changes can be made, but it makes YOUR job harder. DMing is already a time consuming and often stressful activity. Adding to the work necessary for you to run your game will burn you out more quickly, and the changes could be quite unbalanced, which again leads to more work for you.
Maybe some other rules system (someone mentioned Exalted) would be more to their liking? Maybe they'd be willing to play a little longer with the rules as is and see how things shape up?
If they want a heavily house-ruled system, I would suggest that you're planning to run it mostly with Rules as Written, but that you'd be happy to turn over the DM chair to one of them for a house-ruled game to test their ideas. Maybe you even could offer to switch sessions - they run theirs one week, you run yours the next. You can offer that your game could be the "control" group of their rules experiments. :)
It sounds like those two players would actually enjoy 4th Edition a lot more than Pathfinder as it has a lot of the rules that they are asking for (maximum hit points, no concentration checks, regaining spells/powers more than once per day, etc.).
A lot of good points have been made already, but from personal experience I can say that granting maximum hit points per level is not that big a deal if you also give monsters maximum hit points. It can prolong fights a little bit, but it keeps fights equally challenging while giving players the illusion that their characters are more kick-ass by having maximum hit points :-)
The other changes they ask for are all workable, but create extra work for the GM as every encounter will have to be adapted to the new power level of the characters.