1. Cleric Knowledge Domain feats - A cleric or archivist with access to the Knowledge domain can select the Student of War and Battle Leader feats.
2. Favoured soul - extra spell class feature (instead of +1hp etc) is not in [synch] with wizard / sorcerer equivalent
2b)in the spells section it mentions you begin with two first level spells of your choice - this is not true, it is one spell of your choice and one mystery spell :P
2c)The Mercy Mystery - final revelation does not make sense - it grants AOE regeneration (awesome) and then mentions something non sequitor about damage types... did it use[d] to grant damage reduction?3)In the sorcerer document the description of the 17th level power (Impromoptu spell) is described before the 16th level power (Greater eldritch blast)
3b) Incanatrix must be fema[le] - err why? It's a bit like the paladin being LG, shouldn't be tied to the bloodline, just suggested as how you would use it in "world x"... not that I mind :P
3c) The starsoul has various powers that cause suffocation... it should be clarified if this is the "three save then dead" type (which i assume, but quite powerful) or the "hold breath for Con rounds" then 3 save = dead variety (which would make it seem very weak (as under the powers a save every round is allowed)...4)The Conjurer's wand "Eldritch Blast" ability does not improve at 14th (or is it 12th?) level - all the other's do. if this is intentional it should be mentioned :)
5)Could it be clarified when you get grit back
6)Spell Focus + greater spell focus (and spell penetration to a lesser extent...) -> you've done true awesomeness making fighter feats scale with level - but this notable caster feat does not. It would be nice if it did (with caster level - probably simply +1DC/10 caster levels, maybe +1/6 at the other end). More feats for cool things rather than standard "power" (2x spell focus, 2x spell penetration) would be good :)
7)Some thoughts on combined spellcasting - some classes with reduced casting progression (eg bard) get spells at an earlier caster level than full casters(eg hideous laughter): With the proposed combined spell casting changes this could allow a sorcerer to take a 1 level dip into bard simply to open up more powerful spells to put into lower level spell slots.
1. Christopher Hauschild found that erratum earlier; it's been corrected. Delete that reference.
2. That's intentional, as the Favored Soul is kind of a weak class.2(b) Corrected.
2(c) Those deal lethal damage that isn't regenerated (text clarified).
3. Corrected.
3(b) I agree in principle; you've got to read the source material (Clive Barker's Weaveworld) for it to make sense. Still, I think having exactly equivalent male mechanics with slightly altered fluff would be a good idea.
3(c) Yeah. In fact, suffocation should be streamlined overall.
4. It already scales with level (summon monster X effect), and shouldn't scale twice.
5. Will work on the wording when I get a chance.
6. Hmmm... will consider this.
7. I'll definitely need to include a clause about lower-level access somewhere in the Theurgy description (see draft above), maybe something along the lines of, "If a spell appears on both lists, use the spell level assigned in the full casting class' list."
1. It already scales with level (summon monster X effect), and shouldn't scale twice
2. Will work on the wording when I get a chance.
3. Hmmm... will consider this.
4. I'll definitely need to include a clause about lower-level access somewhere in the Theurgy description (see draft above), maybe something along the lines of, "If a spell appears on both lists, use the spell level assigned in the full casting class' list."
1)Cool - It just stood out that nothing was gained where the intro indicates something should be :) [perhaps (for the sake of the sanity of the conjurer)stopping the summons being random at 14th level :P.."Agh stop summoning dolphins! We are in the desert!""mumble, blasted wand!"]
2)I'll get back to you in about three weeks if you don't - we'll be trying out your system then and our dwarf will need it :-P
3) Awesome - I'm a wizard lover who really wanted to see them balanced with other classes somehow bringing the other classes up to scratch! love what you are doing so much! Our group had previously identified that feats scaling would do loads to improve the martial classes and coolness in the game (feats are awesome, but it's naff the levels you are getting prerequisite feats (slogging up to spring attack), and very sad when you have to grind up the bread and butter feats, that are needed but not so cool (like spell focus/weapon focus) - if you want coolness you tend to sacrifice the strengths the basic feats give you) - But we realized it would take an age and we no one would have the time etc to do it right? We're so amazed we were wrong!
4)That seems the most straight forward way of doing it. Oddly that may penalize the Bard dipping sorcerer (who's bard/sorcerer crossover spells could be a higher spell level)
STANDARDIZED SPELLCASTING RULES (DRAFT)
Basics and Definition of Terms: ** spoiler omitted **...
If a character has levels in an arcane-casting class and a divine-casting class, is theurgy somehow applied, or are two separate spell lists kept?
If a character has levels in an arcane-casting class and a divine-casting class, is theurgy somehow applied, or are two separate spell lists kept?
Where and how theurgy applies would be spelled out in the class documents. It has pretty much been in place since sometime in the Alpha playtest -- the only difference is that now it has a name and standardized mechanics, instead of being described separately all over the place.
In general, I don't see a problem with mixing arcane and divine casting -- rangers, for example, can take the Ranger Mage lore and get Weak theurgy from ranger levels towards their arcane casting, even though their spells are divine by default. Hell, monks' ki powers are technically psionic, not arcane or divine, but I have no problem with them applying it, either.
Here's a fun one: For clerics and archivists, those with the Arcanist domain might be able to choose: strong theurgy if you simply combine casting, or weak theurgy both ways if you keep both casting progressions separate (thus mimicking the Mystic Theurge PrC, which is sort of what it does now).
I do need some help though, everyone: I need a new game term. Currently there are two separate meanings for "caster level":
The latter is already generally what is meant by "caster level," so I propose to keep that.
The former I put in the draft language above as "Spellcasting Progression Level," but that's really long and annoying, and there has to be a better game term we could coin for it. "Casting puissance"? "Total casting power"? Other?
Preparation level, which can be shortened to prep level, or PL (vs CL) as I tend to write it on my character sheets.
Given your system name Theurgic Level seems most appropriate :)
Power: ability, competence, aptitude, bent, capability, capacity, competency, dynamism, effectiveness, efficacy, endowment, faculty, function, gift, influence, potential, potentiality, qualification, skill, talent, turn, virtue
Also Power: ascendancy, authority, authorization, birthright, clout, command, connection, diadem, direction, domination, dominion, hegemony, imperium, influence, inside track, jurisdiction, law, leadership, license, management, might, moxie*, omnipotence, paramountcy, predominance, prerogative, prestige, privilege, regency, right, rule, say-so, sovereignty, steam, strength, strings, superiority, supremacy, sway, warrant, weight*, wire
Although I like Theurgic Status... Also (for the wizards out there, thus wouldn't work) Arcane Concordance!
Preparation level, which can be shortened to prep level, or PL (vs CL) as I tend to write it on my character sheets.
Sadly, I have to veto this because "preparation" already is a type or mode of casting (as distinct from "spontaneous"), and the whole point is to not have game terms that mean different things.
Likewise, "theurgic level" is out because all casters have a [spellcasting progression level] or whatever we call it, but most casters don't have any theurgy.
Knowledge level? "Knowledge" is a subset of related Skills.
Arcana level? "Arcana" are perks that arcane casters get; see sorcerer bloodline arcana, wizard high arcana.
Sorcery level? "Sorcerer" is a specific class.
Skill level? Skills are defined in Ch 3, and casting isn't one of them.
Mystic level? Maybe... that's not too bad.
Alice's "magic level," while a bit boring, is straightforward and very unlikely to be confused for something else.
"Spell capacity level," or maybe just "spell capacity."
"Spell capacity level," or maybe just "spell capacity."
Ooh... because the epic feat in 3.5 that gave you 10th and higher-level spell slots was "Improved Spell Capacity," IIRC, so there's already existing precedence for the name. And "spell capacity" is a fairly brief term. This is my favorite so far... but keep 'em coming!
If a character has levels in an arcane-casting class and a divine-casting class, is theurgy somehow applied, or are two separate spell lists kept?Where and how theurgy applies would be spelled out in the class documents. It has pretty much been in place since sometime in the Alpha playtest -- the only difference is that now it has a name and standardized mechanics, instead of being described separately all over the place.
I guess I just don't understand (I know, shocker) how a character can mix their arcane and divine spells into one progression table. The way I understand Theurgy is that multiclass spellcasters will have one table that encompasses all of their classes' spell slots and spells known into one universal table. To illustrate my confusion, let's say you have a wizard 1/cleric 1 who wants to prepare Protection From Evil (which is an arcane and divine spell). Under the Theurgy concept, he just puts the spell into his list of 1st level spells for the day, makes a note of whether or not it's arcane or divine, and goes adventuring? There's no limit to how many arcane vs. divine spells he can prepare in one day so long as the total number of prepared spells matches what is on the... ahem... spell capacity chart?
To illustrate my confusion, let's say you have a wizard 1/cleric 1 who wants to prepare Protection From Evil (which is an arcane and divine spell). Under the Theurgy concept, he just puts the spell into his list of 1st level spells for the day, makes a note of whether or not it's arcane or divine, and goes adventuring? There's no limit to how many arcane vs. divine spells he can prepare in one day so long as the total number of prepared spells matches what is on the... ahem... spell capacity chart?
If he gained Theurgy from a class feature that provides access to both spell lists, he prepares protection from evil. Maybe it's in his spell book (arcane), or maybe his deity grants it (divine), but past that, he doesn't really care whether it's arcane or divine.
So, sure, Mister Theurge, a cleric 5/wizard 5 (with Spell Capacity 8th) might prepare all divine spells one day, and all arcane spells the next day, but more likely he'll prepare a mix. That's nice versatility, which somewhat makes up for the fact that his friend Wizzo the Wizard 10 (Spell Capacity 10th) has a couple of 5th level spell slots that Mr. Theurge would give his left kidney for.
Oh, ok. I was thinking that Theurgy was just the concept of streamlining spell progression tables. I didn't realize that it was a class feature.
I gotcha now -- and, yeah, there's really TWO things I'm doing here -- I should have been more clear about the distinction:
1. Standardizing tables. They're almost the same all over anyway, so no big deal there, except now a monk doesn't see any progression every other level, instead of having some sort of minute incremental gain. And if we like the minute incremental gain, I can put in (for example) a "1.5th level" spell capacity row, instead of just 1st, 2nd, etc.
2. Putting the concept of Theurgy -- with clearly-defined terms -- right in the Introduction so it doesn't need to be re-defined in each talent/class feature as if it's something unique.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it was probably me not paying attention.In your defense, that jerkwad Kirth keeps changing the rules when he finds problems with the old ones. Look at this thread -- it's 8 pages of him saying "Boo-hoo, this doesn't work quite right, I need to fix it, woe is me." The whole thing is sickening.
Um, you're dead. And I didn't cast "Speak With Dead Goofballs". So shush.
I think I get is now- all the talk of strong and weak theurgy! I sort of assumed full casters had an even stronger +1/level theurgy -
but they would have simple strong thurgy, which isn't always +1/level and opens up multiclassing - I get it that's brilliant!
(I kept reading strong thurgy when multiclassing with bard, so assumed the "2/3rd casters got strong theurgy etc")
But why would the above character be a Wizard 5/Cleric 5... woulden't he be just better being a wizard 1/cleric 9... giving him all the fun of the arcane while having better bab and hp - and a better spell capacity (9th at least) <i guess this is linked with the wizard 1=only level 1 wizard spells thoughts.>
And if we like the minute incremental gain, I can put in (for example) a "1.5th level" spell capacity row, instead of just 1st, 2nd, etc.
Hum you could make spell capacity go from 0 to 40 and have monks be +1 spell capacity while wizards being +2 spell capacity (which is essentially what 1.5 levels would do)...Although this may be to pointlessly confusing
Edit: It would be possible simply to implement a 1/2 level rule; something along the line of gaining one spell capacity slot (be it to cast or to know) that the next level of spell capacity grants you, providing it is lower than the highest spell capacity slot you currently have)
In essence this would give the extra tabular row for GM's who want it without having to make one
|
But why would the above character be a Wizard 5/Cleric 5... woulden't he be just better being a wizard 1/cleric 9... giving him all the fun of the arcane while having better bab and hp - and a better spell capacity (9th at least) <i guess this is linked with the wizard 1=only level 1 wizard spells thoughts.>
Depends on which class features he wants. A mix of lower level wizard and cleric powers (school and domain powers) or more higher level abilities of one class over the other. I haven't reviewed the new rules, but I know in Trailblazer, the highest spell level you can add to your list is the class level, so yes, one level of wizard would only allow you to add 1st level wizard spells to your list.
I know in Trailblazer, the highest spell level you can add to your list is the class level, so yes, one level of wizard would only allow you to add 1st level wizard spells to your list.
Just added that, like ~5 min. before I read your post!
I know in Trailblazer, the highest spell level you can add to your list is the class level, so yes, one level of wizard would only allow you to add 1st level wizard spells to your list.
Which ties in nicely to dealing with the same spells from different classes - I just hadn't realized the more general (& important) application :)
1. Under the bull rush, improved: Under the benefit section near the end of the 1st paragraph did you mean CMD rather than CMB? This also happens under the improved overrun feat.
2. Under the Critical, improved feat: delete the reference to a fighter bonus feat.
3. Under power throw: The +11 and +16 abilities seem to be the same.
1. CMB is correct in that sentence ("-5 penalty to attack rolls and CMB").
2. Why? I kind of like that as a synergy effect with fighter levels.3. "If your base attack bonus is +11 or higher, you can apply your full Dexterity bonus (if any), as well as your Strength bonus, to damage with thrown weapons.
"If your base attack bonus is +16 or higher, you can apply both your Strength bonus and your Dexterity bonus (if any) to attacks with thrown weapons.
Other corrections made. Thanks again!
|
I think that there is a danger in overcomplicating things. It would be easier if you dismiss with the Vancian casting and use Mana or spell points or whatever. That way each class would have a certain amount of mana/spell points and multiclassing would be easier.
Perhaps you could look up how it was done in Midnight?
|
|
I don't think spell points make anything less complicated, they just make you do more math for how many spells you have and allow you to cast nothing but your highest level of spells until you're empty. Not at all something that I think Kirthfinder should have.
As I have said before, 'Vancian' magic (still need to read the Dying Earth so I can compare 3.x magic to real Vancian magic) is simply a spell point system with each spell costing one point (slot).
I know in Trailblazer, the highest spell level you can add to your list is the class level, so yes, one level of wizard would only allow you to add 1st level wizard spells to your list.Just added that, like ~5 min. before I read your post!
Am I misunderstanding or would this mean that in spite of a wizard 5/cleric 5 having access to 5th level spell slots, they'd only be able to prepare 3rd level spells of either class?
On the topic of spell points/mana, the points system in psionics was imo far superior to the slots system, simply because it kept resources at a manageable level. The "automatic" scaling of magic in PF tends to lead to an overload of viable resources at higher levels in contrast to the lack of them at lower levels. But the implementation of a system like that would basically call for a rework of the entire magic system to be more streamlined and scale in various ways...
I know in Trailblazer, the highest spell level you can add to your list is the class level, so yes, one level of wizard would only allow you to add 1st level wizard spells to your list.Am I misunderstanding or would this mean that in spite of a wizard 5/cleric 5 having access to 5th level spell slots, they'd only be able to prepare 3rd level spells of either class?
You're misunderstanding. Spell level 5, class level 5 = good to go.
However, a cleric 4/wizard 5 would have a 5th level spell slot that could only be filled with a wizard spell, not a cleric spell (4 < 5).However, this rule plays havoc with the intent of the Prestige Paladin; it also royally screws over characters like Seraviel early on (Diviner 1/Fighter (eldritch knight) 4). It will therefore have to be revised.
still need to read the Dying Earth so I can compare 3.x magic to real Vancian magic
Spells known:
(later) "Mazirian made a selection from his books and with great effort forced five spells upon his brain: Phandaal's Gyrator, Felojun's Second Hypnotic Spell, The Excellent Prismatic Spray, The Charm of Untiring Nourishment, and the Spell of the Omnipotent Sphere."
So I was not wrong in comparing 3.5 spellcasting and actual Vancian being as close as Taco Bell is to real Mexican food?
Pretty much. Five spells are just enough to provide narrative drive, but also a sense of desperate limitations, for an 18-page story... and that doesn't work so well for a dungeon crawl. Also, Mazirian appears and is gone in that many pages; he doesn't need to start off as an apprentice, or advance to become an archmage like Rhialto and those guys in the later stories (whose "spells," we learn in Madouc, are merely coded instructions to their genie-like "Sandestins").
With regret, I rearranged the rogue's progression slightly to smooth things out a bit (i.e., not have access to a new spell level, plus improved sneak attack, plus rogue's luck at the same level). Existing rogue characters can be "grandfathered" and played according to the progression TOZ posted (i.e., no need to redo Cadogan again). New progession:
1 (1st): Opportune strike, sixth sense, sneak attack +1d6, weapon finesse
2 (2nd): Evasion, skill talent
3 (2nd): Combat talent, skill focus, sneak attack +2d6
4 (3rd): Surprise attacks, uncanny dodge
5 (3rd): Rogue’s luck (1/day), skill talent, sneak attack +3d6
6 (4th): Combat talent
7 (5th): Jack of all trades, sneak attack +4d6
8 (6th): Skill focus, skill talent
9 (6th): Combat talent, improved sneak attack +5d6
10 (7th): Improved evasion, network of contacts
11 (7th): Advanced skill talent, rogue’s luck (2/day), sneak attack +6d6
12 (8th): Advanced combat talent
13 (9th): Skill focus, sneak attack +7d6
14 (10th): Advanced skill talent
15 (10th): Advanced combat talent, sneak attack +8d6
16 (11th): Jack of all trades
17 (11th): Advanced skill talent, rogue’s luck (3/day), sneak attack +9d6
18 (12th): Advanced combat talent, greater evasion, skill focus
19 (13th): Greater sneak attack +10d6
20 (14th): Advanced skill talent
Warning: I'll also have to redo the paladin so that spellcasting improvement comes at even levels (i.e., Poor theurgy), rather than at odd levels. Sorry!
On the topic of spell points/mana, the points system in psionics was imo far superior to the slots system, simply because it kept resources at a manageable level.
I agree -- mechanically-speaking, psionics was a better system. But vancian level-based casting is so sacred a cow that not even I want to make burgers out of it quite yet. It's one of those lines -- like class-based vs. skill-based progression -- that once you cross, you're better off starting with a different game system entirely (e.g., Hero or GURPS) and going from there.
I know in Trailblazer, the highest spell level you can add to your list is the class level, so yes, one level of wizard would only allow you to add 1st level wizard spells to your list.Am I misunderstanding or would this mean that in spite of a wizard 5/cleric 5 having access to 5th level spell slots, they'd only be able to prepare 3rd level spells of either class?You're misunderstanding. Spell level 5, class level 5 = good to go.
However, a cleric 4/wizard 5 would have a 5th level spell slot that could only be filled with a wizard spell, not a cleric spell (4 < 5).However, this rule plays havoc with the intent of the Prestige Paladin; it also royally screws over characters like Seraviel early on (Diviner 1/Fighter (eldritch knight) 4). It will therefore have to be revised.
I think that was one too many levels for my brain to process, but that makes SO much more sense now. Quite a streamlined way to create a MT actually, all the variety without all the spells/day bloat.
Do you guys have a website? Perhaps a link to the most recent version of Kirthfinder? I just wanna make sure I'm grabbing an up-to-date copy.
Sadly, no, because we're technically still in the Beta playtesting stage. The documents linked by TOZ on page 1, plus the discussion here and comments under the Egg of Coot avatar, are the closest thing to "up to date" available at present.
However, I've set myself a tentative goal of April 1st of this year to finalize the rules as "good enough, unless we find something that's totally broken." (Spells and magic might become a separate set of rules sometime in the future.)
Kirth, something is brewing.
The value in "healing surges" was sort of anticipated by the "Take a Breather" mechanic that we ended up adopting for Kirthfinder: once per encounter, you can take a full-round action to heal (level + Con bonus) hp. That amount means you might ameliorate battle fatigue, but aren't going to get restored to full unless you were barely scratched. Regarding healing spells, yeah, they could be ramped up quite a bit -- but so could the Heal skill for that matter.
The trick is to avoid the eventuality -- sooner or later you reach a point where, if full healing is always going to be automatic after every encounter, you just abandon all healing spells, skills, and abilities, and flat-out declare that hp damage lasts only 10 minutes.
|
|
I would also say that blasting spells could stand to be ramped up quite a bit.
My estimations put a bonus of 50% to 100% spell damage as being quite balance, in comparison to melee and ranged attackers, and would bring the utility of a blasting spell up closer to the utility of a summon, but without all the bookkeeping.
But vancian level-based casting is so sacred a cow that not even I want to make burgers out of it quite yet.I've used the HypertextD20 system for years now with no real problems...other than players getting to nurse those precious spells along. It's more versatile and does away with the silly 'fire and forget' reasoning. The major trade off is the spell points allow only half the Vancian spells per day, a problem that only came up once (In truth, that Sorcerer would have expended all the spells of a college of wizards and still begged for more.
Ever considered merging spellcasting cost with HP? Something like Shadowrun's drain system?
I'm playing around with the idea and my hp variant, but I always like to check and see how Kirthfinder does things.
Sorry, I was refering to the sentence: You gain a like bonus to your CMB (CMD) for defending against these maneuvers as well.
For a "fighter bonus feat", I was hoping to rephrase it to state "a character with fighter levels that has selected this feat". It is hard to remember if one took the feat with their bonus feat, before or after they multiclassed, etc.
Finally, were you able to look over the edits to the sorcerer and wizard at the bottom of page 5. I figure you did but you did not post anything.
Thanks
1. I was refering to the sentence: "You gain a like bonus to your CMB (CMD) for defending against these maneuvers as well."
2. For a "fighter bonus feat", I was hoping to rephrase it to state "a character with fighter levels that has selected this feat". It is hard to remember if one took the feat with their bonus feat, before or after they multiclassed, etc.
3. Finally, were you able to look over the edits to the sorcerer and wizard at the bottom of page 5. I figure you did but you did not post anything.
1. I'll go back and re-check. Thanks!
2. Ah... I see what you mean. Yeah, that's a good idea.3. Now I know what was nagging me at the back of my head for the last 4 pages! Yes, I did let that one slip past. Thanks!
I would also say that blasting spells could stand to be ramped up quite a bit.
1. The way metamagic stacking works in Kirthfinder is disproportionately good for blasting spells, by design -- add status effects and also increase damage cap automatically, and you even get a discount on more than one effect.
3. The fact that cone of cold is nothing more than ray of frost + Shape Spell means that learning blasting spells is extremely efficient -- learn one 0-level spell and a feat, and you have what in 3.5/PF is an entire chain of spells.2. Evokers get some nice perks, too!
I've used the HypertextD20 system for years now with no real problems...other than players getting to nurse those precious spells along. It's more versatile and does away with the silly 'fire and forget' reasoning.
I'd rather give the casters a set number of slots for their entire progression, and just have better spells available as they level.
Ever considered merging spellcasting cost with HP? Something like Shadowrun's drain system?
... and here's where we get into everyone's pet preference. And there's nothing at all wrong with any of the options listed here, except that I've been working for 2 years under the assumption of 1e/2e/3e/PF Vancian casters as the fixed paradigm, and balancing around that. Drastically altering that one constant now would mean, more or less, bulldozong what I've done and starting over -- and that's a project I'll leave to someone else, thanks.
|
|
here's where we get into everyone's pet preference. And there's nothing at all wrong with any of the options listed here, except that I've been working for 2 years under the assumption of 1e/2e/3e/PF Vancian casters as the fixed paradigm, and balancing around that. Drastically altering that one constant now would mean, more or less, bulldozong what I've done and starting over -- and that's a project I'll leave to someone else, thanks.
I strongly disagree, and here's why.
Many of the things you (and everyone else) has built, does not rely on the Vancian system. If those things are at the power level you want them to be, then introducing a different magic system doesn't require changing anything other than the magic system. Instead of balancing against the old magic system, you'll balance your new magic system against all the other stuff that you already consider to be balanced.
You've already calibrated everything else to where you want it. Now you just need to calibrate the new variable to fit in with the pieces that are already there.
If one were to "Stick with Vancian" while doing an overhaul, I wouldn't mind seeing TOZ's system, with new spells coming in, and maybe even making all spells scale with level, all the way up. In that sense, "Spell Level" would only determine the minimum level required to learn the spell. I would consider that to be an improvement, and it still retains the flavor of 'fire and forget'.
I'm not a big fan of the Mana Pool system, but its functional.
And as for *MY* preference: No hard limits on Spells/Day. Spellcasters would make a spellcasting roll with a difficulty determined by spell level. Failure means the spell is not cast, and perhaps even that it backfires. Success means the spell works as intended. Casting powerful spells gives you penalties to future spellcasting rolls when done in succession. Penalties can be removed with an action point or rest.
I would like my solution or TOZ's. As mentioned, none of these systems has to invalidate anything other than vancian casting. All of them, however, require calibrating of the numbers to put them within acceptable balance ranges of the rest of the system, which you are not changing.
I would like my solution or TOZ's.
Of course you would -- and you can have it; all you need to do is implement it! I've tried to be clear that I am not willing to do so for my own home game, however (at least not without a unanimous request from the players).