On specialist vs generalist wizards, extra short version;
Again if I had to redo it...
I'd make some spells exclusive to specialists, but make the generalists able to cast more spells per day.
I find that the approach where everyone starts from the same base and then get something extra that is different for each specialty (in this model the generalist would be a specialty, so to speak) works better than the model of "give some, get some" that has been around since AD&D 2E.
'findel
|
Can I direct the last three posters to the title, and first post of the thread?I would like to point out to the esteemded Bull of smashiness, that none of us invoked rule zero and all politely implied that maybe one of these was not like the others...that is all.
Because most often, whenever such a topic appears, throngs of people quoting Rule 0 or some variant thereof drown out any constructive tinkering ("A good DM would fix that!" "It's fine!" "It's not a problem in my game," etc.).
Unfortunately your post was still in conflict with the requests of the original poster.
Mortuum,
2) Why does everything have to be about who is the best?
...
5) "Hard to use" actually does "make it worse".
2) Because a good deal of us have to deal with players who have this mindset, and don't have the easy choice of dumping them for another, more well-adjusted player. It's also a mindset encouraged by the vast and overwhelming majority of mainstream hobbies that are, by nature, competitive- so it's only getting more common, not less. Making at least some concessions to this mindset while still doing nothing to encourage competition amongst party members doesn't hurt anyone. It might even make some people happy.
5) Yes, but your investment doesn't actually net you a worthwhile benefit in our opinion. We want to change that. Is that really so bad?
On the disparity between casters and martials: getting the most out of attack actions requires the whole turn/giving up mobility. Why not do the same to spells?
Proposition: Concentration costs an action. The action is only needed if a Concentration check is required. For simple spells (0-3rd level), a swift action will suffice. For moderate spells (4-6th level), a move action would be needed. For complex spells (7+), you'd better have something special, because a Standard action would be needed.
To lessen the sting, a feat would be introduced that would let you rob an action from your next turn to Concentrate anyway, but the action type is one level higher than is normally required.
Since the action is only required if a Concentration check is forced for whatever reason, if a spellcaster is in a good position, they don't feel any effects. If they are forced to where they shouldn't be... then things can get ugly.
EDIT: Existential Threadjack Compression
Can I direct the last three posters to the title, and first post of the thread?I would like to point out to the esteemded Bull of smashiness, that none of us invoked rule zero and all politely implied that maybe one of these was not like the others...that is all.Because most often, whenever such a topic appears, throngs of people quoting Rule 0 or some variant thereof drown out any constructive tinkering ("A good DM would fix that!" "It's fine!" "It's not a problem in my game," etc.).Unfortunately your post was still in conflict with the requests of the original poster.
I take issue with the idea that we can't express "it's fine" opinions in a thread that tackles a number of decent rules piecemeal. Some things I think are fine.
Let's not make this a clubhouse thread where you have have to be *this* unsatisfied with rules x, y and z to contribute.
For my part, I'll stick to: "It's fine, but here is a relevant insight."
It's going to keep coming up, because nobody can design a good solution without a full grasp of the problem. I could troll this thread by claiming that anything was a problem, even if it wasn't, and people should shut up because that's imposing rule 0. Let's not go there.
Our opinions may differ, we can discuss where they overlap.
|
Unfortunately your post was still in conflict with the requests of the original poster.
First of all, I will say that I like the idea of Charisma applying to Will saves. Or possibly making said ability into a trait. I think it wouldn't really unbalance the game at all, and is nice and flavorful.
When it comes to Monk, I would think that they should apply Dexterity to attack and damage rolls with Monk weapons instead of Wisdom. Wisdom, again, is nice and flavorful, but knowing how to swing a sword well, or where to swing it, doesn't give you the ability do physically do so accurately or effectively.
All that said, I did find the OP a little insulting, especially giving the subject matter of the Charisma is a Dump Stat thread. I especially dislike the negativity surrounding the use of the word "Fanboy", as if people arguing that aspects of the game work well are blinding themselves to reason, and only the smart, free-thinking people are contributing at all.
It's possible to find some middle ground between both schools of thought, ya know.
I agree with Spes...I have never played in a campaign in 20 years with the precieved caster disparity that everyone raves about on these boards. Maybe I have been fortunate that over that span I have had only 4 different core groups of players who usually have a hive mind level of agreement on the power level we want to play at. Or maybe is the fact most of my games as a player and DM have ended around level 16. But I have to say, in almost every instance it is a melee beater who shines in combat, a caster who shines as a problem solver, bards and clerics as buff machines, and Rogues as skill monkeys. Dont get me wrong people can and do build against type often, but they are seldom better than the class designed for that purpose.
The Disparity did not show up in a real game for me until I got to about 15th-17th level. The issue was not with the party, but with my NPC's casters vs the fighter types. As far as an in game issue I think it could be an issue based on playstyle, but I have never seen it actually happen. When it has come up on the boards from an actual game it has always been due to a houserule or playstyle. An example is having one encounter a day, and the entire group knows it so the caster novas, goes to sleep, rinse-repeat.
My addition to the list is to give people a reason to take the rogue, other than trapfinding. I think that in the same way the ranger has different weapon paths the rogue should have different specialization it can follow, and I don't mean archetypes. The specializations would add on to what the rogue has now without taking away.How about rogue talents that mean they are approximately as good as an equivalent spell at approximately the same level. e.g. Improved stealth the rogue can effectively become invisible (+20 or +40 stealth) for 1 minute/level.
I think something like that would be nice as an example.
Continuing existential threadjack:
It's possible to find some middle ground between both schools of thought, ya know.
+1.
I don't begrudge y'all thinking stuff is broken if it doesn't work for you, but assuming the extreme stance that anything that doesn't work for you is broken...
The danger is that designing with those criteria could lead to bad rules. A lot of them, because "everything is broken".
Can we middle-of-the-road folks have a seat at this table, too?
Continuing existential threadjack: ** spoiler omitted **
Of course, and I think that since not all of the problems exist at all tables I think we should start somewhere and work our way down so that those of us having the issues can benefit. My only big issue is the monk. I am not saying a monk can't work, but you have to be a good player to make it work, while a decent player can get away with making the other classes work. I think that EWP feats and charisma being ignored are the most generally agreed upon things, even if they are not big problems. The cha dump is to some DM's so I guess that one will vary from table to table.
...
I think we fix it by making the Rogue's sneak attack a force effect.
OR
People can say which things they think are fine.
Your choice.
--- let's get back to the creative part, pls
Reductio ad absurdium FTW
I yield! I yield! Don't bring the warlock into this!
On the contrary, lets do!
Some invocations can be powerful but situational and most importantly, not necessarily usable in combat.
I wouldn't mind some spells to be bending that way - some already are - to diminish the "caster's superiority on the battlefield" without stripping them of their ability to defy the laws of the universe (once in a while, you know...)
A character may take a full round action to make an additional save against any non-damage spell or spell-like effect using their CHA mod in place of the regular saving throw mod. The character may only make one such save attempt per effect.
Wow. That's thinking outside the box. Nice.
Sorcers, bards, and paladins all cannot use Charisma as a dump stat.
For figters and barbarians, wisdom and int. are sometimes a dump stat.
If you give characters a social save (Based on charisma) against being kept out of bars and parties. Maybe they should have to make a social save to rise in the ranks of churches or such.
Charisma-based feats
Luck of Heroes (Pathfinder version)
Prerequisite : 13+ Cha
You gain +1 luck bonus to AC and all saving throws
Luck of Paragons
Prerequisite : Luck of Heroes, BAB +6, 13+ Cha
As an immediate action, you can reroll any d20 roll you just made, you must take the result of the second roll. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to your Charisma modifier.
Luck of Kings
Prerequisite : Luck of Heroes, Luck of Paragons, BAB +11, 13+ Cha
As an immediate action, you can force another creature (friend or foe) within 30 feet of you to reroll any d20 roll that he just made, and he must take the result of the second roll. You cannot use this ability on yourself. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to your Charisma modifier.
Charisma-based feats
The term "Pathfinder Version" implies that these are converted from some existing 3.5e source?
Charisma-based featsThe term "Pathfinder Version" implies that these are converted from some existing 3.5e source?
Source = my brain. :)
Those feats don't exist, except for Luck of Heroes, a 3.X feat that can be found in the Forgotten Realms campaing setting rule book (sadly, it comes without a 13+ Cha prerequisite).
Source = my brain. :)
Cool! I like them. In my homebrew game I'd collapse them into a single scaling feat (as I've done with most feat chains), but other than that I would allow them unhesitatingly.
Source = my brain. :)Cool! I like them. In my homebrew game I'd collapse them into a single scaling feat (as I've done with most feat chains), but other than that I would allow them unhesitatingly.
They're all yours my friend. ;)
For my part, I'll stick to: "It's fine, but here is a relevant insight."
That's very useful input when it comes to tinkering: "watch out for doing X, because it may screw up Y." That sort of thing is, in fact, legitimate, valuable input, for which I'm thankful.
What I specifically wanted to avoid was the usual deluge of: "Here's why it's fine/you're not playing right/shut up." None of that stuff is helpful, in contrast to most of the comments you've provided so far.
IMHO, the problem with maneuvers at the moment is the size limit. Otherwise, they do fine in my games - so that's the first thing I would change. rise the limit of 1 size, a feat for a third.
To nerf casters, I agree on changing the casting time of most spells to 1 round action, 1 full round or 3-5 rounds.. without going too far. I would keep the casting time of the "wild" evocation blasting spells to 1 standard action.
Another thing, concentration is still too easy at high levels.
As for martials in general, the problem lies in the structure of the classes. Stuff like rage powers, rogue talents and similar stuff is great, but it can be done better.
Each class at each level should take a defensive (Stalwart, evasion, uncanny dodge), an offensive (favored enemy, sneak attack) or an utility (HiPS, trapfinding, posion use) ability, choosing from a list (each class a different list, stuff can overlap).
Say, an offensive each even level, a defensive at level 3, 7, 11, an utility at level 1, 5, 9 ...
Then, those stuff should scale (bonus based on level, times/day based on levels).
In this way, you can manage effectiveness and defense without stuff going out of control.
ADDENDUM: I strongly oppose, generally speaking, to "alternate uses" of stats (say, int to initiative), for balance and sense both. said this, I totally endorse Charisma to will saves (this should be tested for sorcerers and oracles, 'though).
|
How to make it so that every single wizard is not automatically a specialist; The problem is with Universalist. The reasons to take it are pretty slim. Add to the Universalist.
Universalists gain three spells for their spellbook per level. Each spell must be from a different select school. At 4th level, Universalists may take a standard action to recall any spell that has been cast previously that day. This provokes attacks of opportunity. The spell must be at least 1 level lower than the maximum spell level that can be cast. The Universalist may do this one additional time for every four levels beyond 4th (maximum 5 times at 20th level).
That's hot. I like the extra spells in the spellbook thing (and the restriction of different schools is a nice touch!).
The pearl of power-y ability is interesting as well.
Universalist
Change Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, so that they affect every specialization schools at once when you're an Universalist.
That would be badass... :)
|
|
Not ready to add too much to this thread at this point (not too much time right now - and I got PLENTY TO ADD) but I appreciate the effort put forth by Kirth and everyone else adhering to the premise of the opening post.
As far as Cha is concerned here is another idea - treat the mod as a luck bonus, every player gets to add it to one save category of their choice (this includes the pally) at character creation, scales with any CHA improvement temp/perm.
Can I direct the last three posters to the title, and first post of the thread?I would like to point out to the esteemded Bull of smashiness, that none of us invoked rule zero and all politely implied that maybe one of these was not like the others...that is all.Because most often, whenever such a topic appears, throngs of people quoting Rule 0 or some variant thereof drown out any constructive tinkering ("A good DM would fix that!" "It's fine!" "It's not a problem in my game," etc.).Unfortunately your post was still in conflict with the requests of the original poster.
Yeah, but the request of the OP is not a sound one. If a person can rightfully argue that a change is not necessary because of X, it should not disqualify X as a valid point simply because the person can ALSO say that the rule in question has never presented a problem in his experience.
Essentially, the OP started the thread with the condition that anybody who might challenge his changes, even if their challenge was sound, should get lost.
Most spells in the books tend to take a standard action. For some spells, this seems to be a reasonable cast time. For other spells it seems more like a default value that has been copy/pasted in rather than fitting with what the spell does and how it does it.
My thought exactly. Except for Summon spells and some other, very rare, spells, it seems that every spells take a standard action to cast, even if they are game breaker spells.
Essentially, the OP started the thread with the condition that anybody who might challenge his changes, even if their challenge was sound, should get lost.
1. I am on your side. 2. We dealt with that upthread a bit. I think people should relax and speak their minds. Let's not all go overboard on threadrules, and adhere to the spirit of the OP . Even though I think some things are "fine", I can agree with that premise.
PS — I am loving the new rhetorical payload we've attached to the words "it's fine" in the past day or two...
PPS — I just discovered you can relabel spoilers! Sweet!
|
|
IMHO, the problem with maneuvers at the moment is the size limit. Otherwise, they do fine in my games - so that's the first thing I would change. rise the limit of 1 size, a feat for a third.
IMO, the change from 3.X's +4 / size difference to PF's +1 / size difference *may* have been a bit too large a swing in the other direction. +2 sounds like a useful compromise number.
+4 was too much, I think, but +1 feels like too little.
|
|
Essentially, the OP started the thread with the condition that anybody who might challenge his changes, even if their challenge was sound, should get lost.
No, he started the thread with the intention of not having to deal with people who disagree without an argument. "It's fine in my game." is not welcome here. "This rule works because..." is welcome.
Martial-caster disparity is a matter of playstyle. I've been playing D&D and its spinoffs since the beginning, and I've never encountered the problems others have in this regard.
Charisma is not "an auto-dump stat." Again, this is a playstyle issue.
This is not fine.
Combat maneuvers not getting used is partially a playstyle issue. A single AoO isn't that big a deal. Just take it. If that doesn't work, do what I did for a mini-campaign: Get rid of AoO entirely.
For EWPs, get rid of the feat, and make EWs martial weapons instead.
This is fine.
I'm amazed that much of this is still perceived as such a problem.
1) I've never really had a problem with this. Maybe I've been lucky.
2) What's wrong with specialist wizards?
I don't think generic wizards should be more common than any specialist wizard, and since there's 8 specialist wizards before we get to the APG, specialist wizards are going to be more common. I also happen to think they're more flavorful.
3) So what if it is a dump stat? How does that hurt the game? Is it somehow more realistic that people who spend all their time out fighting and putting their lives on the line should be well adjusted socially?
4) You noticed brass knuckles in the APG, right?
5) If exotic weapons were worth a feat they'd get a lot of use and become martial weapons.
IMO your list of things you want to see is making everything more balanced when handled by people who want nothing more than to eek every possible mechanical advantage out of their characters.
This is not fine.
Let's not all go overboard on threadrules, and adhere to the spirit of the OP . If you think something is "fine" say so and suggest something relevant.
So here are some ideas that I had.
How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica;
First I would give every martial class either two good saves (fighters get to pick what the extra save is while the other martial classes have it assigned) or they get one good save (+12 total), one medium save (+9 save) and one bad save (+6 total). If clerics get two good saves why not martial characters.
Second, instead of the standard iterative attacks I would implement something more like the primary and secondary attack system that monsters use. That way as martial characters get additional attacks they are all at the same penalty instead of increasing penalties.
Third, I think martial characters should be able to move and make a full attack or higher level spell casting needs to take a full round action. I'm not 100% sure about the full move and full attack option since that heavily favors monsters over players but one of the major advantages fighters had in prior editions was being able to move and still take all of their attacks. Something similar needs to be added.
How to make it so that every single wizard is not automatically a specialist;
I have a slightly different take on this. I would convert the wizard back to its 3.5 version, get rid of specialists, and instead provide a feat tree for specializing. That way if you want to specialize in Evocation, you just start with the standard wizard and take the feats for specializing in Evocation. That way you can get the flavor of specializing, some benefit for specializing, and still force the wizard to make sacrifices for the extra stuff. Imagine you took the improved summoning feats and turned them into a feat tree of say 6 or 7 feats and then do the same for each school.
How to make Charisma something other than an auto-dump stat;
This one I am not so sure about. I think running one of the saves, like WILL, off of it might work but I will have to think some more about it.
Why monks still suck fat wax candles, and how to fix them;
First, I would give Monks a full base attack bonus.
Second, I would get rid of all the specialized monk weapons and just make the monk proficient in all simple weapons.Third, I would allow the monk to apply his monk abilities to any weapon he is proficient in using. That way if he takes a martial weapon proficiency it won't be as much of a waste and you can pull off things like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon style sword masters.
Fourth, I would roll the WIS bonus to AC and level based bonus to AC into one bonus that they get starting at level 1. So instead of a WIS bonus to AC they just get a flat +3 or +4 to AC that increases by +1 every two levels after that. That would help to reduce their MAD dependency.
Fifth, I like the suggestion of adding a feat or ability that would allow them to act like a size category larger for the purpose of calculating CMD and CMB.
Sixth, I like the idea of running all of their abilities, bonus to attack, and bonus to damage off of Wisdom.
How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use;
I would just remove the AoO for using combat maneuvers and instead add a feat that allows a character to take an AoO when someone tries to use combat maneuvers on them. So a rogue can try to disarm Fighter A (who doesn't have the feat) without drawing an AoO but if he/she tries to disarm Fighter B (who does have the feat) he/she draws an AoO.
Why the mystic theurge punishes his teammates, and how to lighten their burden;
Honestly don't have much experience with this class so I can't really say.
The other thing I would like to say is that every class that gets 2 skills per level should get 4 per level and several of the classes should have their Class Skill list expanded.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but the only 2 combat maneuvers I found a size limit for are Bull Rush and Overrun, and that limit is exactly the same as it was in 3.x (the target cannot be more than one size category larger).
You are missing limitations to Trip, Drag and Reposition. And "was that way in 3.5" is not necessarily a good thing i guess ;) (sometimes is)
@Set: to hit, increased size and a lot of stuff manage quite well maneuvers IME. This is the only thing which bugs me. One could even say that the "size affected" increase can trigger after a certain BAB.
About this, and Monks: insert the "greater" versions of the maneuvers in the bonus feats list.
Other random stuff: Giants now are subtype. This leads to minor troubles with spells, and no gain with favored enemy rules.
In 3.5 you could trip flying opponents using mechanical means to fly (wings, as an example, opposed to a fly spell). Compare it to flying skill.
Essentially, the OP started the thread with the condition that anybody who might challenge his changes, even if their challenge was sound, should get lost.
You'll notice that I, personally, in this thread have refrained from making ANY suggestions whatsoever for how to change things -- I only listed examples of things that many people have in the past expressed a need to change. Therefore there are none of "his changes" here to challenge, because I haven't proposed any specific changes here. And quite intentionally so.
What I did was to state up front that "it works in my game, therefore no one else should be allowed to change it in their home game" is not in any way a sound challenge.
If someone proposes a houserule/fix that won't work, PLEASE point out why it won't work. That's called constructive criticism, and it's highly valuable. On the other hand, hanging around here only to say, "You guys are wrong for changing anything" is NOT helpful; it's snide, arrogant, presumptuous, and ignorant.
If the distinction above is comprehensible to you, and if you're able to abide by it (as Evil Lincoln obviously is, and with very good effect and excellent manners, I might add), then please do stick around; your input could be helpful. Otherwise, if you just want to tell us all that we're wrongbadnofun for wanting to change anything at all -- regardless of the specific changes -- then I would indeed like to see you get lost.
Oops! I looked at Trip and forgot to include it when I was writing. I didn't look at the new maneuvers from APG.That makes 5 out of 11 that have the size limit. Yet oddly enough, there is none for Grapple (a Fine creature can grapple a Colossal creature).
The limit is the same for maneuvers that were in 3.x, my point being that this was not a change introduced by Pathfinder.
Should it be removed? It seems odd to me to do so, but then I look at Grapple...
I won't say I like it, but it does achieve the desired effect.
Limits should be put by CMD. If abuse (say, through strenght surge or true strike) is feared, put limits, but greater than 1 size.
I agree on the fact that is trip is limited, so should be grapple.
It seems like removing the aoo on maneuvers nerfs the feats for those maneuvers a bit. I think if you do they need to be buffed up a bit, or why take them.
|
Essentially, the OP started the thread with the condition that anybody who might challenge his changes, even if their challenge was sound, should get lost.You'll notice that I, personally, in this thread have refrained from making ANY suggestions whatsoever for how to change things -- I only listed examples of things that many people have in the past expressed a need to change. Therefore there are none of "his changes" here to challenge, because I haven't proposed any specific changes here. And quite intentionally so.
What I did was to state up front that "it works in my game, therefore no one else should be allowed to change it in their home game" is not in any way a sound challenge.
If someone proposes a houserule/fix that won't work, PLEASE point out why it won't work. That's called constructive criticism, and it's highly valuable. On the other hand, hanging around here only to say, "You guys are wrong for changing anything" is NOT helpful; it's snide, arrogant, presumptuous, and ignorant.
If the distinction above is comprehensible to you, and if you're able to abide by it (as Evil Lincoln obviously is, and with very good effect and excellent manners, I might add), then please do stick around; your input could be helpful. Otherwise, if you just want to tell us all that we're wrongbadnofun for wanting to change anything at all -- regardless of the specific changes -- then I would indeed like to see you get lost.
I think this is a good point.
People play different ways, and people have different styles they want to achieve.
Personally, I think most of the changes aren't needed in the games I have played in. I respect that others have different preferences for style of game.
Where I worry is when the house rules try to get put into "the" rules. This is a house rules thread, with a future planning bend to it.
Criticizing the intent of the OP misses the point of the intent of the OP.
It isn't for all games, it is a place to discuss ideas for some games.
I wish more threads took this approach.
This tread was so promising, and now it's dangerously derailing...
I'm always amazed by the fact that when you start a tread in this forum, you have to spend more energy motivating the legitimacy of the tread itself rather than the ideas proposed in its subject...
I hope this will pick-up again and that Kirth (and other posters) get to answer/comment some posts rather than fight for the very existence of the tread.
'findel
Martial vs Caster
Martial characters tend to be very gear related. As a martial character it would be nice if my gear could have "feats" that are not enchantments.
For example, in the last few dragons before it went 4e, there was an article on new equipment modifications.
For example, a mod that increase the weight of your armor by 20% and gave you a +1 ac for some gold cost. Or another one that gave a bladed weapon the ability to inflict bleed on criticals.
We can take this a step further.
Copper armor (has to be metal based armor) gives you a good amount of electrical resistance, and converts even more of it into fire based damage.
Then there is blacksmiths armor, a suit of padded/leather equivalent armor (But has more ASF and counts as medium armor) that can be worn under most metals that gives you fire resistance and some other penalties due to it being a rather stuffy.
Orihalcum armor that gives spell resistance, has to be metal based armor. Heavy armor gains the largest portion of this.
Follow up with alchemical items and ways for martial based characters to use them more effectively. Like an attack that requires a certain amount of base attack bonus that allows a fighter to slam a thunder stone into his foes head.
I just got out of bed and came back to the computer for this one...
Maybe you guys can all stupidcheck this for me, please.
I was thinking about Kirth's original inquiry about maneuvers, and my own response to it on page 1 of this thread. I think I was right, there. People will not choose manuevers unless there's a clear benefit over just doing HP damage.
Then it hit me: why are maneuvers not doing damage? Have you ever been tripped or otherwise knocked off your feat? It hurts! Ever been really grappled, like in a fight? That really sucks too! So, suggestion 1: All maneuvers should do damage. Then they are worth doing.
But... I kept thinking. If maneuvers all did damage, what is a "standard attack" then? This brought me to my own perennial complaint about the Pathfinder system (I'll bet you were starting to think this fanboy didn't have any!) the fact that HP damage is static and meaningless, and at high levels it routinely creates combat encounters that are difficult for GMs to imagine let alone describe. It pains me every time I hit a player with a stone giant's club for 50 damage or so — enough to kill several low level guys — and the PC is fixed to the same spot, as though nothing happened, because the giant doesn't have awesome blow.
So...
What if every attack was a combat maneuver?
You roll your standard attack and choose the maneuver. If you beat their AC, you deal damage, if you beat their CMD, you execute the maneuver, if you beat both you get both. You disarm people by slashing their wielding arm... giants will be sending people flying a lot even if they don't breach your armor... combat would be much more dynamic.
The only real loss in the system is that CMB doesn't get used anymore.... but it was basically a vanilla attack roll anyway, right?
Anyway, this seemed like a cool thread to drop this idea into. I'm gonna test it out, I think.
PS — I'm calling it "Brutal Maneuvers".