I've been theorycrafting over some significant changes to how PCs, NPCs and monsters level up. It started with Commoners and Experts not getting HP or BAB increases when they level, just feats and skills. This means your average journeyman basket weaver can't outfight the young hero fighter who has been practicing with all manner of weapons since boyhood. But said basket weaver has far more skill at his craft than said fighter.
I then wondered about extending this idea to Wizards and Sorcerers. Why would a level 6 wizard be better with a dagger than a seasoned level 2 veteran fighter, and be able to take about the same amount of punishment?
The answer of course is because all the stats scale with level. But what about if the monsters BAB didn't scale either. A giant would have a lot of hit points because they were big and could take a lot of damage, but a young adult hill giant shouldn't be as good at fighting as a 10th level fighter who has killed hundreds of foes just because he is bigger.
I have done any serious number crunching yet but I'm wondering about giving full BAB classes full BAB. 3/4 BAB classes, 1/2 BAB instead and 1/2 BAB no advancement. Hit points would remain as they are for the full and new 1/2 BAB classes but the 0 BAB classes would only get 1HP per level.
Monsters do not get racial levels but instead class levels but they keep their default HD. AC for the higher DC creatures should probably drop (I read a previous thread questioning why fur on a high DC creature gives better natural armour than steel for example). It would also seem prudent to use the wounds and vigour rules and the damage absorbing armour rules as HP and BAB bonuses have been reduced.
These changes may also mean that the need for the magical Christmas tree is diminished. Has anyone already tinkered with this or had similar ideas?
Cheers
Uh. 3/4 BAB to 1/2 BAB? No thank you. As if people needed more of a reason to complain about rogue and monk. As well, you'd be seriously gimping every 3/4 BAB class that wanted to do anything other than cast spells (i.e. Magus, battle-Cleric, Bards that do more than sing).
And then the HP changes. No. Just no. Do you want to have to play a character that has to play the stereotype of the wimpy wizard? Do you want to have to do that for every character of that class? Do you want to die to a fireball that just happened to include you in the AoE? Or any number of other effects? You will end up dying just because of things that simply look at you (in some cases, quite literally). No. Thank. You.
And quite honestly, I don't see the problem with a more experienced character being better at something they aren't really focused on than a less experienced character focused on it. It's just different levels of experience.
And well, needless to say, the balancing of your monsters would likely be more effort than it's worth. You'd get a lot of variance.
I presume that by "DC" you mean "CR", yes?
I find your icon actually quite hilarious. I can't say that I know the exact stats, but you would more than likely seriously gimp someone like Karzoug to the point of "that was the BBEG?"
It kind of sounds like you're interested in bounding numbers to a lower range, which 5e sorta does. Have you looked at that system's approach?
I see the resoning but what you talk about is another system where only full bab guys can go adventuering. If you forget that HP and all that other stuff is an abstraction then the game makes very little sense. If high hit points on a wizard is a problem. Then call all hitpoints gained after level 1 Fate points.
If you want the system to make sense in a simulation kind of way i think you are in the wrong system. Some furry monster have high natural armor because it have sense bone think fur and Lots of grease under that. And because the game wouldent really work if nobody could have AC above 21.
TLDR: the system is a abstraction.
You're messing with the internal math that drives the game. One should not approach this lightly. There exist many problems with BAB progression beyond the first level. Your proposal does not really solve any of them. If one were to change BAB in a way that requires restatting every class and monster, you better try to fix all problems with it rather than one or two of them. An easier solution to your preference would simply involve running a game where characters don't level up beyond 1st to 3rd level.
Sean K Reynolds switched up attack bonuses by having classes grant a flat bonus at first level with martials receiving a +5. This doesn't work in a game with multiclassing though...
|
The game approach you describe is very reasonable, but it won't work well with Pathfinder. Rather than try to tweak the base math in a system that wasn't designed for what you want, just use a more appropriate system.
For example, GURPS provides a play environment somewhat like what you describe. I routinely play and GM both GURPS and Pathfinder. You may find this sort of system more to your liking. Changing Pathfinder as you suggest probably won't work out well.
Thanks for the feedback so far. I realise it's seriously messing with the maths and the end result is probably a different D20 based system and it most likely won't progress past the theorycraft stage. I prefer lower level play where players feel mortal and a lower magic system where magic items are a boon rather than a necessity and prefer simulationist play to high fantasy. I will have a look at GURPS and 5e to see what they've done. I've also been inspired by the Monster Codex and wondered whether there is more mileage in adding class levels to monsters rather than replacing weaker monsters with stronger ones as the party increases in level
As I understand the Pathfinder system, the basic idea is that a full BAB character can hit a level equivalent monster 50% of the time and vice versa and both will have approximately the same number of hit points and damage potential making a 1 on 1 fight basically 50/50 . There are four factors at play here, the BAB, the Damage potential, the HP and the AC. To keep the odds at roughly 50/50 if one of those is factors is higher another needs to be lowered to bring the equivalence back.
Looking at the 3/4 BAB classes, it would seem that they have roughly 3/4 the HP (d8 instead of d10), do roughly 3/4 the damage and tend to have higher armour classes. Overall they are probably 1/2 to 2/3 as effective in straight combat (two 3/4 BAB class characters could probably beat one full BAB class).
What I am pondering is the impact of radically altering the make up of the four attributes and then trying to maintain equivalency. I like the feel of the mid-level fighter being better in combat than a hill giant but still at risk of the big hit. Far from gimping the 3/4 BAB characters, they should hit more often with the monster's reduced natural armour AC.
There are of course consequences, the first one I spotted was that lower HP means that a single lucky blow can have far more serious consequences but that can be mitigated to a degree using the armour as DR and the wounds and vigour system. It probably needs more work but it's a start
Archive's comment on the impact of AoE spells is well made. The evoker suddenly gets to be a lot more powerful if there are less hit points going around and the spells may need some form of nerfing. With regard to the increased vulnerability of the wizard (often regarded as the most powerful class in the game) the easy answer is to say that they should spend more of their resources on self-protection and/or counterspelling but I suspect the reality is a lot more complicated.
The ideal would be a system that boosts martials and lessens casters without gimping the 3/4 BAB classes and allows adventurer's to adventure for a day and not just for an average of four encounters. From a campaign story perspective, being able to keep the same creatures from beginning to end, rather than swapping out weaker creatures for stronger ones would be the goal.
The problem regarding the full-casters with these rules is that all you're doing is extending the vulnerability of first level to the entire game. No one likes being downed and dead in one lucky critical (or depending on the level, just a normal attack).
The evoker overall does not get more powerful. They get more effective against one particular group: other full-casters. You haven't reduced HP across the board, you've reduced it for full-casters.
Far from gimping the 3/4 BAB characters, they should hit more often with the monster's reduced natural armour AC.
Recall that you've reduced them to 1/2 BAB. They are gimped. Natural Armor or not.
And again, replacing racial hit dice with class levels will have extreme amounts of variance. You're putting stronger hit dice on some creatures, and weaker hit dice on others. Things like dragons will be weaker. Things like ogres or orcs will be horrifying with fighter class features; more feats, more to-hit, more damage.