Rejecting a rebuild of the game on the grounds that 4e failed is like rejecting all jet airliners ever because the De Havilland Comet was originally unsafe.Everybody play 4th edition!
Or we could just reject a rebuild of the game because. . . we like the game.
rejecting a rebuild of the game is more like rejecting New Coke because we already had Coke and it was good.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he can manage to get them to work together, has a reason to do so in the first place and if they remember once all the fighting starts. Absolutely.
You can make goblins as flavorful as you want, please do, but don't make it sound like this - "Because magic exists everything knows how to fight against it."
Not your exact words but that's more or less what it felt like. VERY meta-gamey.
MOST goblins are dumb and crazy. IF you can give them a reason and a means to fight off magic then go for it. But if they don't then every 4th person in your campaign world better be a damn mage.
----
@Atarlost I wasn't rejecting anything, his post just made references to powers by the encounter or the hour and giving martial classes mage-like abilities. Both are very 4e sounding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he can manage to get them to work together, has a reason to do so in the first place and if they remember once all the fighting starts. Absolutely.
You can make goblins as flavorful as you want, please do, but don't make it sound like this - "Because magic exists everything knows how to fight against it."
Not your exact words but that's more or less what it felt like. VERY meta-gamey.
MOST goblins are dumb and crazy. IF you can give them a reason and a means to fight off magic then go for it. But if they don't then every 4th person in your campaign world better be a damn mage.
----
Maybe its just my experience from the absolute ingenuity that comes up in wars and the fact that everybody wants to survive. . .
If magic exists then yes, people will adapt to being able to fight it.
Look at the history of the IED in the Iraq war if you don't believe that when a new method/equipment/technology is introduced to a society that no matter how limited, over-matched, ect the enemies may be they will find a way to develop new tactics/equipment/technology of their own to combat it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If magic exists then yes, people will adapt to being able to fight it.Look at the history of the IED in the Iraq war if you don't believe that when a new method/equipment/technology is introduced to a society that no matter how limited, over-matched, ect the enemies may be they will find a way to develop new tactics/equipment/technology of their own to combat it.
If magic exists, everyone will learn to be casters so they don't have to worry about mundane stuff AAAAND it's Eberron.
You're talking about humans who are at war, as opposed to goblins not at war. Goblins who are chaotic by nature, don't form civilizations, are fundamentally opposed to writing things down, and have short, violent lives.
But by all means, have goblins be as organized and regimented as the Roman legion in your world. Heck, maybe goblins are great scholars and playwrights.
What you do in your home game isn't really germane to a conversation about the game in general, or about goblins as they're written to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you're also assuming that advanced magical use in combat is everywhere and everyone is routinely and frequently exposed to it, which is highly unlikely. Nobody uses magic to the extent we use advanced military tech. Nobody. And goblins aren't good at passing down what they learn to those behind them...the whole 'no books' thing and 'poor planning' conspire to keep them primitive and stupid.
Now, you can make a case for hobgoblins, as has been done in many places,including both Golarion and Eberron, but rote goblins? You aren't going to get much out of them.
==Aelryinth
If magic exists then yes, people will adapt to being able to fight it.Look at the history of the IED in the Iraq war if you don't believe that when a new method/equipment/technology is introduced to a society that no matter how limited, over-matched, ect the enemies may be they will find a way to develop new tactics/equipment/technology of their own to combat it.
If magic exists, everyone will learn to be casters so they don't have to worry about mundane stuff AAAAND it's Eberron.
You're talking about humans who are at war, as opposed to goblins not at war. Goblins who are chaotic by nature, don't form civilizations, are fundamentally opposed to writing things down, and have short, violent lives.
But by all means, have goblins be as organized and regimented as the Roman legion in your world. Heck, maybe goblins are great scholars and playwrights.
What you do in your home game isn't really germane to a conversation about the game in general, or about goblins as they're written to be.
And the racial stereotypes and demi-humans existing as basically veiled mockeries of real world cultures that are irredeemably evil, stupid, and worthy of nothing but slaughter is a much more problematic legacy carried over from the deep origins of this game than any game play disparity between casters and non-casters that has been passed down through editions.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So then, Goblins are in fact being besieged by magic on a regular basis? Enough to be equated to a war and at least enough that every single one of them has seen a 15ft cone and then ADAPTED to the experience? Then that's fine. Sure.
But that's not Golarion or any campaign setting I've read. As interesting as that would be.
Guns and Nukes exist but I don't have a to walk around in a vest or build a fallout shelter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember when this topic was about Quadratic Wizards and Linear Warriors? I am getting tired of seeing that this thread "has 11 new responses" and being excited, only to see that you guys are still talking about goblin tactics.
I love 4th edition since I prefer it when narrative power is hard to attain, and caster/martial disparities are drastically lower. Crises like "2 places are under attack, and multiple days travel from one to the other" aren't easily solved by teleporting.
Now, as a call back to what this thread was originally about, this is a suggestion I have for lowering a spellcaster's power, while still allowing them a lot of potency.
• All spells past 5th level are removed
• All spell casters gain Heighten Spell as a bonus feat when they would gain access to 6th level spells. If given as a bonus feat, select any other metamagic spell feat instead.
• All 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level slots are meant to be filled with metamagicked spells
• Dazing spell and echoing spell are removed. If given as a bonus feat, select any other metamagic spell feat instead.
• Domain Spells, Bloodline Spells, Wizard School Spells, Oracle Mystery Spells, and Witch Patron Spells of 6th level and higher can be traded in for spells of similar theme from spell levels 1-5. Talk to the DM about what spells you want. Some exceptions may be made for some spells of 6th level or above, but those will be rare.
• Gaining access to certain 6th level and above spells will be plot points, or rewards to players for certain challenges. Players will not get input on which spells these are. If a spell is gained in this way, it does not count against spells learned for that level.
It requires some work from the GM, but I think its worth it.
Also, increasing the DC of concentration checks to cast defensively to something like
15 + spell level + Highest threatening BaB would be ideal.
This way, the threatening foe's actual skill is factored in, instead of having these checks be only reliant on the caster's skill. Around level 10, against a 10 BaB foe, this leads to spells (5th level spells) going off less than 50% of the time, and requires the Combat Casting feat to bring it to 50%. Feats that boost caster level, such as spell specialization, and tattoo focus will also help.
A change to concentration checks won't weaken a spellcaster, but it will definitely give them a weakness that actually makes sense. It should never be easy to use your strongest spells when a skilled fighter is in your face.
DC 15+ spell level + BaB of enemy for Concentration checks just boils down to DC 15+ spell level on a d20 with no bonus since your caster level and the full BaB foe directly offset.
I'd say having to roll 15+ natural on a die isn't a fun option.
This is the exact same problem with scaling ACs directly with level-- cancelling bonuses that leave every level of character with the same chance of success aren't good game design.
DC 15+ spell level + BaB of enemy for Concentration checks just boils down to DC 15+ spell level on a d20 with no bonus since your caster level and the full BaB foe directly offset.
I'd say having to roll 15+ natural on a die isn't a fun option.
This is the exact same problem with scaling ACs directly with level-- cancelling bonuses that leave every level of character with the same chance of success aren't good game design.
Yeah man, it becomes a hard check instead of one you just begin to auto pass. Maybe having it start at 10+ or 12+ would be better, but I think you understand my meaning.
On the exact opposite side of your argument: Me not mattering is not a fun option.
Dude I am a 15th level master of the blade with Disruptive. That 9th level sorcerer completely ignored me and easily passed his check to cast defensively (DC 27 for 4th level spells, vs his concentration check of 18). The fact that I had 6 levels on him did not matter. In fact, if he was 15th level, his check would be 24. In other words, my skill with fighting did not matter. He can just cast with impunity.
At least with hard concentration checks, the caster is encouraged to be smart with positioning, and gains an actual weakness.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Adam. Stopping now.
--
I like having concentration based on your opponents skill as well as the spell level. Maybe you have to beat their attack roll against you?
--
But I don't know about removing all 6th ,7th ,8th and 9th level spells.
Perhaps adding the 3.5 way of prohibited schools. You don't get to cast them, at all. No wands, staves or scrolls either.
I did like the idea of removing the spells that overlap with some class abilities of other characters.
Sorry Adam. Stopping now.
--
I like having concentration based on your opponents skill as well as the spell level. Maybe you have to beat their attack roll against you?
--
But I don't know about removing all 6th ,7th ,8th and 9th level spells.
Perhaps adding the 3.5 way of prohibited schools. You don't get to cast them, at all. No wands, staves or scrolls either.
I did like the idea of removing the spells that overlap with some class abilities of other characters.
Yeahm the removing spells above 6th level is very controversial. I wanna try it at least once to see what happens, but I don't think I've ever heard of someone trying it.
Also the prohibited school thing could be cool, but it would need to be enforced on all full casters I think. It is already enforced on most 6/9 caster's spell lists.
DC 15+ spell level + BaB of enemy for Concentration checks just boils down to DC 15+ spell level on a d20 with no bonus since your caster level and the full BaB foe directly offset.
I'd say having to roll 15+ natural on a die isn't a fun option.
This is the exact same problem with scaling ACs directly with level-- cancelling bonuses that leave every level of character with the same chance of success aren't good game design.
Yeah man, it becomes a hard check instead of one you just begin to auto pass. Maybe having it start at 10+ or 12+ would be better, but I think you understand my meaning.
On the exact opposite side of your argument: Me not mattering is not a fun option.
Dude I am a 15th level master of the blade with Disruptive. That 9th level sorcerer completely ignored me and easily passed his check to cast defensively (DC 27 for 4th level spells, vs his concentration check of 18). The fact that I had 6 levels on him did not matter. In fact, if he was 15th level, his check would be 24. In other words, my skill with fighting did not matter. He can just cast with impunity.
At least with hard concentration checks, the caster is encouraged to be smart with positioning, and gains an actual weakness.
I get the desire to make it more difficult, but the mechanic you described does boil down to "roll a d4, only 4 is a success" regardless of your abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not exactly. Concentration is still Caster Level + Casting Stat Bonus + 1d20 +Miscellaneous.
You aren't just going for 15+ natural on a die, your odds are better than that, likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%
Not only that, but large animals actually have low BaBs. Random enemy trash mobs will have lower BaB. Also, the check becomes much easier if you don't try to cast your highest level spell, or take combat casting.
It is incorrect to say "regardless of your abilities" since Your concentration check modifier is based off more than just level. Kyrt is right.
I do understand if you think its too hard. Try to focus more on the spirit of my suggestion than its numbers, and try to incorporate that into your games.
Also keep in mind this gives the class a "deadzone." Something many classes have. Sometimes many more than one deadzone. Barbarians hate flying foes. Archers hate windwall, and fickle winds. Invisibility screws over almost everyone. Concealment turns off sneak attack.
As an example, a 12th level sorcerer without combat casting might have a +21 concentration modifier. If the party fights three hezrous (a CR 14 encounter) and the sorcerer gets caught in melee, casting the highest level spell would have a DC of 15+10+6=31, or a 55% chance of success.
That said I think 10 + BAB + 2 * spell level is preferable, as that makes the casters a bit more linear; a full caster would get +2 concentration and +2 DC during the same time. It also means casting lower level spells would actually be worth it in those cases; the sorcerer mentioned above is unlikely to cast a 4th level spell just to have 65% chance of success, but if every level lower increases the chance by 10% its a much more relevant choice.
By lowering it to 10+ BAB + 2* spell level, that sorcerer has to roll a 5 on the dice, aka he has a 80% chance of success in that encounter. I can't help but feel that 10+BAB+2*spell level is too easy. Perhaps 12 or 13 should be the base?
By lowering it to 10+ BAB + 2* spell level, that sorcerer has to roll a 5 on the dice, aka he has a 80% chance of success in that encounter. I can't help but feel that 10+BAB+2*spell level is too easy. Perhaps 12 or 13 should be the base?
Huh? It would increase the DC by one. Instead of 15 (base) + 10 (bab) + 6 (level) it's 10 (base) + 10 (bab) +12 (level).
That said, I realized that the evening out I was looking for is already in your system, since BAB increases the DC. Sorry about that; your system does increase at a decent pace.
By lowering it to 10+ BAB + 2* spell level, that sorcerer has to roll a 5 on the dice, aka he has a 80% chance of success in that encounter. I can't help but feel that 10+BAB+2*spell level is too easy. Perhaps 12 or 13 should be the base?Huh? It would increase the DC by one. Instead of 15 (base) + 10 (bab) + 6 (level) it's 10 (base) + 10 (bab) +12 (level).
That said, I realized that the evening out I was looking for is already in your system, since BAB increases the DC. Sorry about that; your system does increase at a decent pace.
Oh wow wow wow. I am sorry for misreading. I just realized what I was doing wrong. I thought you just took my formula and lowered it from 15 to 10.
Not exactly. Concentration is still Caster Level + Casting Stat Bonus + 1d20 +Miscellaneous.
You aren't just going for 15+ natural on a die, your odds are better than that, likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%
Not only that, but large animals actually have low BaBs. Random enemy trash mobs will have lower BaB. Also, the check becomes much easier if you don't try to cast your highest level spell, or take combat casting.
It is incorrect to say "regardless of your abilities" since Your concentration check modifier is based off more than just level. Kyrt is right.
I do understand if you think its too hard. Try to focus more on the spirit of my suggestion than its numbers, and try to incorporate that into your games.
Also keep in mind this gives the class a "deadzone." Something many classes have. Sometimes many more than one deadzone. Barbarians hate flying foes. Archers hate windwall, and fickle winds. Invisibility screws over almost everyone. Concealment turns off sneak attack.
Because under your system to cast a 1st level spell against someone of BabB=your level you are needing to roll 11+, and you make it harder from there. . .
Simply having 3/4s of your actions fail is not a fun mechanic.
This just reinforces the fact that casters already are really good against weak opponents and really not good against powerful ones.
If I have to roll a ridiculous CL to check to cast my spell, then roll a ridiculous CL check to by-pass SR, then have them fail an save where they have to roll something like a 4+ to succeed there;s not really any point in playing a caster.
Like I said, it would be the same if all enemies just got +1 AC/ hit die on top of everything they already have. . . you might as well make it a flat ability check with no bonus for level. Cancelling bonuses are not a good mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply having 3/4s of your actions fail is not a fun mechanic.
Taking a 5-ft. step back and then casting will generally solve this problem -- the only time this it's even an impediment is if you're completely surrounded, immobilized, or otherwise in an unusual situation. And by the time battlefield control and immobilization become widespread, you're likely to be flying, have mirror images up, etc.
Having 3/4 of your casting fail if a guy is shoving a piece of metal through your head is still a very impressive success rate.
That said, I'd like for martials to have the ability to actually intercept attacks made against the squishy casters. If it's almost impossible to cast while threatened, but you can pull off combat-changing effects if protected, then the casters and martials become more interdependent, which IMHO is a good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand you don't feel they go far enough, but they aren't somehow unworthy of being called rules because they are simple rather than sweeping.
Sorry for the belated reply to this.
I should clarify that if your minor changes are written up and presented to the players in advance, they are house rules. The quantity or impact of them isn't important in that case -- what matters is that there are clear guidelines that are known to all participants in advance. Personally, I feel that's good for the DM, good for the players, and good for the game as a whole. Yeah, we can quibble about how far to go with them, but the basic setup is the same.
What I'm strongly against is the "DM fixes everything during play" and the "players are supposed to adhere to secret unspoken agreements not to use their own abilities" attitudes, in which there are no clear houserules or guidelines, just plot miracles and stealth nerfs and self-shackling being ad libbed all over the place. In those cases, the larger the quantity or effects, the more egregiously I'm offended, as a player or as a DM equally.
I would love to see playtested system that let skills be SU after a while.
I created a skill perk system for this type of thing, modeled after Skyrim's skill system and based on skill tricks from 3.5.
Sorry Adam. Stopping now.
--
I like having concentration based on your opponents skill as well as the spell level. Maybe you have to beat their attack roll against you?
--
But I don't know about removing all 6th ,7th ,8th and 9th level spells.
Perhaps adding the 3.5 way of prohibited schools. You don't get to cast them, at all. No wands, staves or scrolls either.
I did like the idea of removing the spells that overlap with some class abilities of other characters.
Yeahm the removing spells above 6th level is very controversial. I wanna try it at least once to see what happens, but I don't think I've ever heard of someone trying it.
Also the prohibited school thing could be cool, but it would need to be enforced on all full casters I think. It is already enforced on most 6/9 caster's spell lists.
Um, d20 Modern. Big thick rulebook. Restricted casters to level 5 spells. Only rare monsters with spell likes had more powerful stuff (an efreet was the richest person in the world).
Anyone else get Bill Webb's book of Dirty Tricks? ONe 'a-duh' situation was one a lot of people used to use.
1) Actions get declared before initiative.
2) You roll initiative every round.
Now, yeah, casters can get high Init mods if the DM lets them have their Greensting scorps and they start stacking stuff, but when you declare you are casting and end up going after the enemy melee moves and winds up next to you...no 5' stepping out of what's coming for you, and it is probably going to torch your casting.
Granted, his home campaign is hugely house ruled, AND is base AD&D, but it's another idea to throw on the fire.
He also restricts hit points more severely, and if he uses the 1E system, save or suck is less effective by level, not moreso. With fewer hit points, blaster magic is always viable.
===Aelryinth
|
Anyone else get Bill Webb's book of Dirty Tricks? ONe 'a-duh' situation was one a lot of people used to use.
1) Actions get declared before initiative.
2) You roll initiative every round.
Yeah, most 3.0/3.5/PF games I've seen work it exactly the opposite. Initiative is rolled once at the beginning of combat, and nobody declares their actions until their turn in the initiative order rolls around. Which essentially results in the spellcasters not ever being in any danger of having a spell disrupted.
Just the house rules section of Bill Webb's Book of Dirty Tricks is worth the price, in my opinion (admittedly, I got mine included in with the Sword of Air Kickstarter). A few of them I'll need to see in action before deciding if they are right for me (specifically the static THAC0 rule), but most of them are things I've been doing for quite a while, things I've thought about doing, or things that once I read, I wonder why the hell it never occurred to me. The section on XP and advancement is great.
I understand you don't feel they go far enough, but they aren't somehow unworthy of being called rules because they are simple rather than sweeping.
Sorry for the belated reply to this.
I should clarify that if your minor changes are written up and presented to the players in advance, they are house rules. The quantity or impact of them isn't important in that case -- what matters is that there are clear guidelines that are known to all participants in advance. Personally, I feel that's good for the DM, good for the players, and good for the game as a whole. Yeah, we can quibble about how far to go with them, but the basic setup is the same.
What I'm strongly against is the "DM fixes everything during play" and the "players are supposed to adhere to secret unspoken agreements not to use their own abilities" attitudes, in which there are no clear houserules or guidelines, just plot miracles and stealth nerfs and self-shackling being ad libbed all over the place. In those cases, the larger the quantity or effects, the more egregiously I'm offended, as a player or as a DM equally.
I tell my players what I am updating for our house rules at the start of a new campaign.
The DM still has a responsibility to create encounters that can challenge players regardless of what rules or however many options they are using-- and I don't see choosing enemies or tactics that have capabilities to counter the player's strengths to be plot miracles either-- if I ever actually have problems with Wizards being too powerful, sooner or later the party will face opponents that Wizards have difficulty against.
This has never been the case in my games though. Usually its martial characters who chew through encounters and require the most house rules to keep in check.
Then again, I've never let a 7th level spell generate infinite 9th level spells or let a player take half blooded sorcerer for one level then go full wizard, and traits have never existed in my games so idk what the real problem is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not exactly. Concentration is still Caster Level + Casting Stat Bonus + 1d20 +Miscellaneous.
You aren't just going for 15+ natural on a die, your odds are better than that, likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%
Not only that, but large animals actually have low BaBs. Random enemy trash mobs will have lower BaB. Also, the check becomes much easier if you don't try to cast your highest level spell, or take combat casting.
It is incorrect to say "regardless of your abilities" since Your concentration check modifier is based off more than just level. Kyrt is right.
I do understand if you think its too hard. Try to focus more on the spirit of my suggestion than its numbers, and try to incorporate that into your games.
Also keep in mind this gives the class a "deadzone." Something many classes have. Sometimes many more than one deadzone. Barbarians hate flying foes. Archers hate windwall, and fickle winds. Invisibility screws over almost everyone. Concealment turns off sneak attack.
Because under your system to cast a 1st level spell against someone of BabB=your level you are needing to roll 11+, and you make it harder from there. . .
Simply having 3/4s of your actions fail is not a fun mechanic.
This just reinforces the fact that casters already are really good against weak opponents and really not good against powerful ones.
If I have to roll a ridiculous CL to check to cast my spell, then roll a ridiculous CL check to by-pass SR, then have them fail an save where they have to roll something like a 4+ to succeed there;s not really any point in playing a caster.
Like I said, it would be the same if all enemies just got +1 AC/ hit die on top of everything they already have. . . you might as well make it a flat ability check with no bonus for level. Cancelling bonuses are not a good mechanic.
I think you are blowing this out of proportions. The point is to make the spellcaster have a deadzone. Every class has one. The Barbarian has a hard time if he cannot get into melee. The Gunslinger has a hard time shooting when some dude is in his face. How is making it hard for a spellcaster to cast spells when he is in melee any less balanced and unfun than a monster flying out of a fighter's sword range? And yes, it should be a hard check. The goal was to make it a 50% chance against an evenly matched foe.
The Spellcaster has ways to sway it in his favor (Taking combat casting, warpriest, tattoo focus, spell specialization, spell perfection, casting a lower level spell, Getting an ioun stone for +1 CL, buying a headband of your casting stat) Just like how a barbarian can take archery feats to be better at fighting outside melee. Except that these feats will actually help the caster cast spells in melee better than it will help a barbarian be an archer. Not only that, but the wizard can 5 foot step, or even use a normal move, to take 1 attack, and cast a spell.
I think you are blowing this out of proportions. The point is to make the spellcaster have a deadzone. Every class has one. The Barbarian has a hard time if he cannot get into melee. The Gunslinger has a hard time shooting when some dude is in his face. How is making it hard for a spellcaster to cast spells when he is in melee any less balanced and unfun than a monster flying out of a fighter's sword range? And yes, it should be a hard check. The goal was to make it a 50% chance against an evenly matched foe.The Spellcaster has ways to sway it in his favor (Taking combat casting, warpriest, tattoo focus, spell specialization, spell perfection, casting a lower level spell, Getting an ioun stone for +1 CL, buying a headband of your casting stat) Just like how a barbarian can take archery feats to be better at fighting outside melee. Except that these feats will actually help the caster cast spells in melee better than it will help a barbarian be an archer. Not only that, but the wizard can 5 foot step, or even use a normal move, to take 1 attack, and cast a spell.
I'm not saying that a moderate increase to the difficulty isn't an ok idea if you feel its necessary. . .
But what I am saying is that categorically cancelling bonuses are bad game design regardless of what they are used for.
Guy 1 gets +1/level to action A; guy 2 gets +1/level to stop action A.
This is bad design regardless of what the actions are. Against appropriate challenges the bonuses always cancel themselves out to zero and you have an effectively non-scaling mechanic.
If Caster gets +1/level to his check but Fighter gets +1/level to counter the check then the check is just an Intelligence check with a few feats for bonuses.
The fact that against non-appropriate foes (i.e. animals with fewer hit dice than you, other casters instead of martial characters, lower level and thus much lower CR foes) there are a few points bonus is arbitrary.
Effectively you're just putting in superfluous and useless math to add a bonus then take it all away. The fact that a five foot step can negate this makes the whole process of giving it then countering it even more extraneous.
This "illusion of improvement" is highly frustrating for players on both sides of the equation. All characters should continue to improve as they level and having abilities that pretend to improve but are hidden non-scaling mechanics with cancelling bonuses are incredibly unfun as you gain them.
"All right my level check went up" to then realize that your DCs have all gone up by the same level is a really disheartening paradigm that breeds overall dissatisfaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are blowing this out of proportions. The point is to make the spellcaster have a deadzone. Every class has one. The Barbarian has a hard time if he cannot get into melee. The Gunslinger has a hard time shooting when some dude is in his face. How is making it hard for a spellcaster to cast spells when he is in melee any less balanced and unfun than a monster flying out of a fighter's sword range? And yes, it should be a hard check. The goal was to make it a 50% chance against an evenly matched foe.The Spellcaster has ways to sway it in his favor (Taking combat casting, warpriest, tattoo focus, spell specialization, spell perfection, casting a lower level spell, Getting an ioun stone for +1 CL, buying a headband of your casting stat) Just like how a barbarian can take archery feats to be better at fighting outside melee. Except that these feats will actually help the caster cast spells in melee better than it will help a barbarian be an archer. Not only that, but the wizard can 5 foot step, or even use a normal move, to take 1 attack, and cast a spell.
I'm not saying that a moderate increase to the difficulty isn't an ok idea if you feel its necessary. . .
But what I am saying is that categorically cancelling bonuses are bad game design regardless of what they are used for.
Guy 1 gets +1/level to action A; guy 2 gets +1/level to stop action A.
This is bad design regardless of what the actions are. Against appropriate challenges the bonuses always cancel themselves out to zero and you have an effectively non-scaling mechanic.
If Caster gets +1/level to his check but Fighter gets +1/level to counter the check then the check is just an Intelligence check with a few feats for bonuses.
The fact that against non-appropriate foes (i.e. animals with fewer hit dice than you, other casters instead of martial characters, lower level and thus much lower CR foes) there are a few points bonus is arbitrary.
Effectively you're just putting in superfluous...
But it is not actually perfectly scaling. Not every foe threatening you will be the same level as you and also be full BaB. An animal that is higher HD than the caster will have a lower check than a same level full BaB character more often than not.
Also, literally for flavor, the check should actually be harder against someone skilled at combat. Currently, the check to cast defensively is the same DC vs a 1st level commoner and a 20th level fighter. Also, the checks become so easy that they might as well not even exist. The checks need to scale with something, otherwise they basically have no point in being in the game except at lower levels.
5th level sorcerer
Concentration check: +11 (5 from level, 5 from stat, 1 from tattoo)
DC to cast 3rd level spells: 21
10th level sorcerer
Concentration check: +18 (10 from level, 7 from stat, 1 from tattoo)
DC to cast 5th level spells: 25
This is before combat casting is taken. Between 5th and 10th level, the check went from a 50% chance to succeed to a 70% chance to succeed. And this is before taking good options such as spell specialization, spell perfection, war priest, and such.
5th level fighter
Attack check: +11 (5 from level, 5 from stat, 1 from weapon group)
Average AC of CR5 creature 18
10th level fighter
Attack check: +18 (5 from level, 7 from stat, 1 from weapon group)
Acerage AC of CR10 creature 23
You went from 61% chance to succeed to a 78% chance to succeed. And this is before taking good options such as Weapon focus, magic weapons, and such.
Notice the similarities in the math?
5th level fighter
Attack check: +11 (5 from level, 5 from stat, 1 from weapon group)
Average AC of CR5 creature 1810th level fighter
Attack check: +18 (5 from level, 7 from stat, 1 from weapon group)
Acerage AC of CR10 creature 23You went from 61% chance to succeed to a 78% chance to succeed. And this is before taking good options such as Weapon focus, magic weapons, and such.
Notice the similarities in the math?
Here is where it gets weird.
Attack check: +11 (5 from level, 5 from stat, 1 from weapon group)
Average AC of CR5 creature 18
10th level fighter
Attack check: +18 (5 from level, 7 from stat, 1 from weapon group)
Acerage AC of CR10 creature 23
Now give the CR 5 and 10 creatures a flight speed, or make them invisible. Now the fighter went from a chance to hit them, to either no chance or a small chance. You gotta ask the question: Did you take bow feats? Blind fight? Can you even make the perception check (move action) to determine the invisible opponents square? Can you jump high enough to attack the flying dude? Did you spend money on a potion of fly (move action to draw assuming haver sack, standard action to drink).
Not only that, concentrating to cast defensively is not about attacking, so this comparison is wrong to begin with. Its about being affected by the environment. Currently, concentration checks are in a vacuum, while attack rolls are not. Attack rolls can be affected by many many more things than AC. Unless the GM is constantly throwing super fowl weather at the PCs at all times (screws over everyone) concentration checks are basically unopposed.
Like I said earlier, this gives spellcasting a "deadzone" exactly like every other class. It also gives them the easiest deadzone to escape of every class, since both 5-foot stepping and retreating cost no feats and cost no gold, while potions of fly, see invisibility, and so on cost actions and provoke attacks of opportunity. A Barbarian can spend 4 feats on archery to be okay at it, while a spellcaster can spend 1 feat (combat casting) and be great. Additional spells such as warpriest, tattoo focus, spell specialization, and spell specialization also boost concentration checks while all being powerful feats outside of concentration checks.
You're typical fighter is going to go from +11 down to +7-8 not down to +5 at 5th level.
At 10th level they would go from +17 down to +12-13 not all the way down to a mere +10.
You're right, casting defensively is not directly an attack-- but its another layer to having a spell take effect.
Fighters don't have to roll a Fighter level check to get to attempt to attack their opponents. Their opponents also then do not get a dodge/parry attempt to negate their attacks after the fact. Spellcasters have multiple break points on their effects that if any one of them is failed the entire round is wasted.
Fighters do not-- they hit or they do not, and they get multiple attempts to hit.
None of which changes the fact that cancelling bonuses are still not a good mechanical feature to the game.
Either make it a static check where neither parties level plays any factor, take out the check, or take out the option to cast defensively altogether.
Any of those are a better option than an awkward set of cancelling bonuses.
You're typical fighter is going to go from +11 down to +7-8 not down to +5 at 5th level.
At 10th level they would go from +17 down to +12-13 not all the way down to a mere +10.
You're right, casting defensively is not directly an attack-- but its another layer to having a spell take effect.
Fighters don't have to roll a Fighter level check to get to attempt to attack their opponents. Their opponents also then do not get a dodge/parry attempt to negate their attacks after the fact. Spellcasters have multiple break points on their effects that if any one of them is failed the entire round is wasted.
Fighters do not-- they hit or they do not, and they get multiple attempts to hit.
None of which changes the fact that cancelling bonuses are still not a good mechanical feature to the game.
Either make it a static check where neither parties level plays any factor, take out the check, or take out the option to cast defensively altogether.
Any of those are a better option than an awkward set of cancelling bonuses.
You're right. When the fighter can't target an enemy he simply can't attack them at all.
Clearly the solution is to remove casting defensively from the game. If the caster wants to cast without getting attacked he's going to need to move, if he needs more than a 5 foot step he may end up eating AoO's along the way
I'd rather have that than a series of cancelling bonuses on either side. If nothing else, its clean.
But to suggest that fighters often can't attack at all I disagree with; its not very often that there is no means of attacking either melee or ranged.
You're typical fighter is going to go from +11 down to +7-8 not down to +5 at 5th level.
At 10th level they would go from +17 down to +12-13 not all the way down to a mere +10.
You're right, casting defensively is not directly an attack-- but its another layer to having a spell take effect.
Fighters don't have to roll a Fighter level check to get to attempt to attack their opponents. Their opponents also then do not get a dodge/parry attempt to negate their attacks after the fact. Spellcasters have multiple break points on their effects that if any one of them is failed the entire round is wasted.
Fighters do not-- they hit or they do not, and they get multiple attempts to hit.
None of which changes the fact that cancelling bonuses are still not a good mechanical feature to the game.
Either make it a static check where neither parties level plays any factor, take out the check, or take out the option to cast defensively altogether.
Any of those are a better option than an awkward set of cancelling bonuses.
You're right. When the fighter can't target an enemy he simply can't attack them at all.
Clearly the solution is to remove casting defensively from the game. If the caster wants to cast without getting attacked he's going to need to move, if he needs more than a 5 foot step he may end up eating AoO's along the way
I'd rather have that than a series of cancelling bonuses on either side. If nothing else, its clean.
But to suggest that fighters often can't attack at all I disagree with; its not very often that there is no means of attacking either melee or ranged.
Earlier you said you would rather let casters have fun, and that a 25% chance at not doing anything in a turn is not fun. Now you would rather have it be a 100% chance of not doing anything.
This is why I said I was disregarding your opinion earlier. Because you changed it.
This is why I said I was disregarding your opinion earlier. Because you changed it.
An effective flat 75% chance of doing nothing isn't fun.
You aren't understanding my opinion.
What you described is a bad mechanic mechanically.
This is separate from and completely disconnected from what the mechanic is used for.
Giving a bonus and then raising the DC for the check that bonus relates to by effectively the same amount is not fun.
Yes, I would rather simply not be able to cast defensively than have it tied to a cancelled bonus because bonus cancellation is a bad game mechanic.
So then don't cast spells in melee with dangerous opponents. Or take combat casting and an ioun stone.
Should a melee-focused barbarian automatically get a "throw my weapon as a returning weapon" attack so that they're not reduced to 25% effectiveness by enemies they can't reach?
Or should they have to make an investment, either in being able to get to the enemies (or as a wizard to get away from the threateners) or be better at fighting ranged (or as a wizard take combat casting)?
If magic exists then yes, people will adapt to being able to fight it.Look at the history of the IED in the Iraq war if you don't believe that when a new method/equipment/technology is introduced to a society that no matter how limited, over-matched, ect the enemies may be they will find a way to develop new tactics/equipment/technology of their own to combat it.
If magic exists, everyone will learn to be casters so they don't have to worry about mundane stuff AAAAND it's Eberron.
You're talking about humans who are at war, as opposed to goblins not at war. Goblins who are chaotic by nature, don't form civilizations, are fundamentally opposed to writing things down, and have short, violent lives.
But by all means, have goblins be as organized and regimented as the Roman legion in your world. Heck, maybe goblins are great scholars and playwrights.
What you do in your home game isn't really germane to a conversation about the game in general, or about goblins as they're written to be.
That's actually sounds pretty cool.
One thing I do that helps give martial a better chance is skills. I assume that a skill over 25 can ignore physics. Want to walk on a thread across chasm take a -30 to your check. No thread but there are dust motes then take a -50.
Knowledge skill reach a point where the ask a question and get an answer even if no one notices it.
Perception will let you map a room with a whistle and -30 penalty or find a secret door two rooms away with a -70.
Social skills need to be watched but it can be great to let them do near mass dominate effects. Got to get cultist from somewhere.
Climb can grant a climb speed on surface if you take -30.
I would love to see playtested system that let skills be SU after a while.
Respectfully, this is not for me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Respectfully, this is not for me.One thing I do that helps give martial a better chance is skills. I assume that a skill over 25 can ignore physics. Want to walk on a thread across chasm take a -30 to your check. No thread but there are dust motes then take a -50.
Knowledge skill reach a point where the ask a question and get an answer even if no one notices it.
Perception will let you map a room with a whistle and -30 penalty or find a secret door two rooms away with a -70.
Social skills need to be watched but it can be great to let them do near mass dominate effects. Got to get cultist from somewhere.
Climb can grant a climb speed on surface if you take -30.
I would love to see playtested system that let skills be SU after a while.
I have been writing my own system for skills to grant abilities, though not as crazy as this. Just simple stuff like 10 ranks in climb granting you a climb speed at 1/4th your speed, and 15 ranks upgrading it to half your speed. Same with Swim. Acrobatics and Climb ranks together eventually start letting you ignore 5 feat of rough terrain.
Here is what I have so far. Maybe it can help Martials a little?
• Fast Climber: A character with 10 ranks in Climb gains a Climb speed equal to 1/4th of their land speed. This climb speed does not grant the usual +8 bonus to Climb checks, but a +4 bonus instead.
• Fast Climber, Greater: When the character reaches 15 ranks of the Climb skill, his climb speed increases to ½ of the character’s land speed and their +4 bonus to Climb checks increases to +8.
• Fast Swimmer: A character with 10 ranks in Swim gains a swim speed equal to 1/4th of their land speed. This swim speed does not grant the usual +8 bonus to Swim checks, but a +4 bonus instead.
• Fast Swimmer, Greater: When the character reaches 15 ranks of the Swim skill, his swim speed increases to ½ of the character’s land speed and their +4 bonus to Swim checks increases to +8.
• Giant Dodger: A Character with 5 ranks in Acrobatics ignores a foe’s bonus to CMD for being Large sized or larger when making Acrobatics checks to avoid attacks of opportunity.
• Haggler: A character with 5 ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, 5 ranks in Appraise, and 5 ranks in Sense Motive, or a character with 5 ranks in Profession (Merchant) may purchase mundane items at a 5% gold cost discount.
• Haggler, Greater: A character with 10 ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, 10 ranks in Appraise, and 10 ranks in Sense Motive, or a character with 10 ranks in Profession (Merchant) may purchase magic items at a 5% gold cost discount.
• Hiker: A character with 5 ranks in Climb, Acrobatics, and Survival may move through 5 feet of difficult terrain each round as if it were normal terrain. This does not allow them to 5 foot step through rough terrain. This 5 feet stacks with the 5 feet provided by the Nimble Moves feat and the 15 feet provided by the Acrobatic Steps feet.
• Hiker, Greater: A character with 10 ranks in Climb, Acrobatics, and Survival may move through an additional 5 feet of difficult terrain each round as if it were normal terrain. This does not allow them to 5 foot step through rough terrain. This 10 feet stacks with the 5 feet provided by the Nimble Moves feat and the 15 feet provided by the Acrobatic Steps feet.
• Narrow Body: A character with 5 ranks in Escape Artist halves penalties for squeezing through tight spaces.
• Nimble Climber: A character with 5 ranks in Climb and 5 ranks in Acrobatics may use their Dexterity bonus in place of their Strength bonus when making Climb skill checks. Additionally, they are not denied their dexterity bonus to AC while climbing.
• Nimble Climber, Greater: A character with 10 ranks in Climb and 10 ranks in Acrobatics may use both their Dexterity and Strength bonuses when making Climb skill checks.
• Mighty Jumper: A character with 5 ranks in Acrobatics may use their Strength modifier instead of their Dexterity modifier when determining jump distance and jump height.
• Mighty Jumper, Greater: A character with 10 ranks in Acrobatics may add their strength and dexterity modifiers together for the purposes of determining jump distance and jump height. Additionally, the DC for high jumping becomes height (feet) x 3 instead of height (feet) x 4.
• Quick Crafting: A character with 5 ranks in a craft skill creates items related to his craft in 50% of the normal time.
• Quick Magical Crafting (Bows): A character with 5 ranks in Craft (Bows) creates magical bows and crossbows 25% faster.
• Quick Magical Crafting (Cloth): A character with 5 ranks in Craft (Cloth) creates magical cloaks, gloves, robes, vests, and shirts 25% faster.
• Quick Magical Crafting (Armor): A character with 5 ranks in Craft (Armor) creates magical armor, gauntlets, and helmets 25% faster.
• Quick Magical Crafting (Weapons): A character with 5 ranks in Craft (Weapons) creates magical weapons 25% faster.
• Quick Stand: a character with 10 ranks in Acrobatics can stand up from being prone without provoking attacks of opportunity.
I have been writing my own system for skills to grant abilities, though not as crazy as this. Just simple stuff like 10 ranks in climb granting you a climb speed at 1/4th your speed, and 15 ranks upgrading it to half your speed. Same with Swim. Acrobatics and Climb ranks together eventually start letting you ignore 5 feat of rough terrain.
Here is what I have so far. Maybe it can help Martials a little?
• Fast Climber: A character with 10 ranks in Climb gains a Climb speed equal to 1/4th of their land speed. This climb speed does not grant the usual +8 bonus to Climb checks, but a +4 bonus instead.
• Fast Climber, Greater: When the character reaches 15 ranks of the Climb skill, his climb speed increases to ½ of the character’s land speed and their +4 bonus to Climb checks increases to +8.
• Fast Swimmer: A character with 10 ranks in Swim gains a swim speed equal to 1/4th of their land speed. This swim speed does not grant the usual +8 bonus to Swim checks, but a +4 bonus instead.
• Fast Swimmer, Greater: When the character reaches 15 ranks of the Swim skill, his swim speed increases to ½ of the character’s land speed and their +4 bonus to Swim checks increases to +8.
• Giant Dodger: A Character...
I actually really like a lot of this. I think it's on the right track. Though perhaps some of the bonuses could be a little lower in level such as the climb and swim stuff. Them having a minor swim or climb speed at level 5 wouldn't exactly break the game considering the party wizard can hold his fist up in the air and take off like Superman at that level.
So then don't cast spells in melee with dangerous opponents. Or take combat casting and an ioun stone.
Also missing the point. I'd support any of these options in reference to Casting Defensively:
1. Leave it as is
2. Remove the need for the check altogether
3. Remove the option to attempt altogether
4. Any variety of flat DC increase you want
5. Setting at lower DCs and making them a flat Ability check rather than caster level check
The only thing I am arguing against is a system of cancelling bonuses which is a bad game design.
I've argued against the same kind of system when its been suggested for armor class for the same reason.