I've mostly switched over to 5th Edition, which actively encourages you to customize things.
3.x encourages this as well. Does this mean you actually have gms changing things to your character concepts?
When I played PF, one of the big challenges was making sure everything was official. When I GMed, I always had to make sure the monster and NPC math was correct, even though the players never got to examine the monster and NPC character sheets.
I never understood this mindset, especially in 3.x where the books practically scream for customization.
5E is the game I want to run, but PF is the game I want to play. No idea what 5 things would reconcile those positions the best tho.
What makes 5e any different to run?
I run most everything built on the fly with zero prep and nothing premade, so I don't know much about the various things that other gms worry about in their game preparations, thus it is a serious and literal question. The answer might even help in designing my system.
In 3.PF, there are lots and lots of little bonuses that add up and interact with each other. Also, monsters follow the same rules as PCs: They have different BABs based on HD, different types get certain types of good saving throws and numbers of skill points her hit die, etc. etc.
In 5E, monsters are much more streamlined. Some get no proficiencies in skills or saving throws. They don't get feats. The Advantage/Disadvantage system really streamlines monster stats, condition bonuses and penalties, etc. You don't have to remember apply a litany of bonuses and penalties; there is either Advantage, Disadvantage, or usually, neither.
Initially, this bothered me. I liked knowing that aberrations had 3/4 BAB, 1d8 HD, Good Will saves, and 4 skill points per HD. I liked knowing all (or at least most) demons were immune to electricity damage. I liked that monsters got the same number of feats as PCs. I found it to be a fun challenge to fill out the templates when creating or altering existent monsters.
But it is so much easier to run and design 5e monsters. There are a lot less moving parts. They're still tactically complex, but not hard to run. Almost all rolls are based on the monster's ability scores, with some getting a bonus equal to its proficiency bonus (which ranges from 2 (for CR 1/8 to 4) to 6 or so (for nigh-epic monsters)). So you don't have to worry about different BABs, Saving Throw tracking, class skill checks, etc.
Because monsters are so simple to run, it's easy to add carrier effects to them. Very few monsters are just a bag of hit points that can also do hit point damage. It's very easy to run the mechanics of them tripping, grappling, throwing, poisoning, cursing, pushing, dodging, etc. The Advantage/Disadvantage system also keeps the math under control--you're never going to have such a huge bonus that automatically succeed or such a huge penalty you cannot possibly succeed. This makes it a lot easier to keep encounters balanced.
lol
Given all the spots for variability, since every individual is supposedly unique, I'd just drop ballpark final numbers that fit the needs of the encounter. Worked just fine.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5E is the game I want to run, but PF is the game I want to play. No idea what 5 things would reconcile those positions the best tho.What makes 5e any different to run?
I run most everything built on the fly with zero prep and nothing premade, so I don't know much about the various things that other gms worry about in their game preparations, thus it is a serious and literal question. The answer might even help in designing my system.
5E bounded accuracy essentially stretches what I feel is the sweet spot to 20 levels. Fights are quick and easy due to the simplified system. I can run a PF game on the fly up until about level 9. Then monster design gets a bit long in the tooth. Also, player options get out of control and hard to challenge. As a player, I like the gonzo player options its easy for me to keep in line, though I struggle as GM to keep up at higher levels; it just becomes a real chore. I don't really enjoy combat at length and with greater and greater complexity. I'd rather get past that and move onto the role playing and story telling. I need a good mix between combat, exploration, role play, etc.
Problem with 5E has been an absolute bore for me as a player. Crowd control is an absolute waste of time. (De)Buffing has been reduced greatly by concentration (I don't mind this in theory, but practice has reduced a lot of enjoyment out of playing a caster IMO). Damage is king and anything short is just prolonging a boring battle. On the plus side, making up stunts and getting creative as a player is fairly easy to do and run as a GM. Though due to damage being everything, its often a waste of time anyways.
I guess I need a goldilocks edition that is more complex and tactical than 5E, but not as gonzo as 3.5/PF. Right now the compromise is just running PF until about level 14 and calling it quits. YMMV
In a homebrew 5th Edition game, I've altered Concentration to being able to Concentrate on a number of spells equal to half your proficiency bonus (2 at 9th, 3 at 17th), but my campaign is still only 5th level.
Dump CMD and CMB. Just use the classic To Hit and Armor Class, making all special maneuvers opposed rolls. The "Improved" versions of the feats add +2 to the effort.
More skill points for martial characters. 2+Int is a bit harsh when several skills are already essential.
I increase skill points by +2 unless the class already relies on Intelligence (Like Wizard). Though I am considering making it a universal +2, just dont know how that would effect balance.
I guess I need a goldilocks edition that is more complex and tactical than 5E, but not as gonzo as 3.5/PF. Right now the compromise is just running PF until about level 14 and calling it quits. YMMV
I'm really hoping Starfinder manages to hit this spot. I'm not a huge fan of science fantasy (no doubt partly due to lack of experience with the genre), but with luck it will be flexible enough to also run both Sci-Fi and Fantasy.
|
It sounds like you're saying "I want to play a druid but use the game mechanics of the magus class" or "I want to play a monk that uses the game mechanics of the gunslinger class." You're talking flavor and themes here -- not game mechanics. You don't need to have levels in druid to play a druid character. You can just play a magus and reflavor them as a druid.
If thats how it sounds, then I am explaining it poorly. Instead, I would rather see a lot less things be unique class features, and instead see a lot more build options, such as Feat chains that are much more open to multiple classes to take that path. Id rather see some concepts be feasable in multiple different ways, like a divine magus.
|
|
I guess I need a goldilocks edition that is more complex and tactical than 5E, but not as gonzo as 3.5/PF. Right now the compromise is just running PF until about level 14 and calling it quits. YMMVI'm really hoping Starfinder manages to hit this spot. I'm not a huge fan of science fantasy (no doubt partly due to lack of experience with the genre), but with luck it will be flexible enough to also run both Sci-Fi and Fantasy.
Yeap, we shall see. I already have a solidly locked in Sci-fi game in Traveller, so my interest will be purely mechanical with Starfinder.
Vancian
D20 never had true vancian, but arcanist is the closest. Not sure about 5e as I don't know it.Captain America
An ability score of 20 is barely supernatural, like 110% of normal human maximum. Level 20 is like 400% of normal human maximum.Classes
Why have classes? These are my biggest complaint about d20. I really don't like classes. The sole purpose of a class is to limit players for the sake of "balance" and "niche protection," but they are an excellent example of how seeking balance stifles certain types of creativity.If you want freedom in character creation, get rid of classes.
The only other benefit I've ever actually heard for classes was that they provided inspiration and made creation of npcs faster, both of which can be done with premade "kits" of choices in a classless system with equal ability and none of the drawbacks.
Cap's base is 20. Then he took levels in vigilante and whatever else.
So you want to put a cap on number of classes? You can even say core only. I don't agree. I would like each book that adds classes to have new monster and treasure item encounter tables included.
Captain America
So what? I didn't deny that. I simply said that Captain America is 110% of what the Einstein of individual combat would be, while a character level 20 character is nearly 400% of Captain America.
Classes, a separate issue from Captain America
I didn't say cap classes, I said the entire structure of selecting classes (as opposed to simply picking skills and feats) is inherently limiting and serves no other purpose than to deny all options except those the devs explicitly allow.
Classes = can not mix abilities unless dev says otherwise.
Classless = can mix abilities unless dev says otherwise.
It sounds like you're saying "I want to play a druid but use the game mechanics of the magus class" or "I want to play a monk that uses the game mechanics of the gunslinger class." You're talking flavor and themes here -- not game mechanics. You don't need to have levels in druid to play a druid character. You can just play a magus and reflavor them as a druid.If thats how it sounds, then I am explaining it poorly. Instead, I would rather see a lot less things be unique class features, and instead see a lot more build options, such as Feat chains that are much more open to multiple classes to take that path. Id rather see some concepts be feasable in multiple different ways, like a divine magus.
Something like Ashiel's d20 Legends? You choose your BAB (with it are linked HD, skills, number of good saves and level of spellcasting), then you choose a focus which is basically a fighting shtick (rage, or smites or wild shape), and the rest are talents.
By uncoupling the number of attacks from BAB.
A wizard and Fighter both attack as the same base bonus, a 20th level Wizard makes 1 attack at the bonus, a 20th level fighter makes 4.
In other words martial skill isn't really the bonus you make to attacks, martial skill is being able to attack 4 times in the amount of time it takes the other guy to attack once.
I fail to see how a wizard could ever attack with the same proficiency as a warrior could do.... it just doesnt make any thematic sense.
It doesnt matter whether the wiz gets 1 attack and the fighter gets 4.
By the same logic all classes should get some kind of magical ability.
One of my huge beefs with Paizo at the mo is that in the never ending quest for options..... classes are beginning to lose their meaning. Too many classes treading on too many toes....
I present to you 2 characters, when using the attack action Character 1 deals 8d6+30 damage, Character 2 deals 1d4+2 damage, which one is better at attacking?
Can't tell, you only gave damage info, not attack info. If the first one actually manages to land a blow it'll hurt more, but they might suck at hitting anything.
Also, don't forget opportunity cost and how often the attack is made. If the second character lands a dozen attacks for each attack the first character lands, then they even out.
A major part of the caster/martial disparity is that casters are designed to cause damage only rarely by making slots few and thus requiring players to ne skimpy with spellcasting. No one plays like that, instead using 15-min workday or similar work-arounds so that they can cast often, because anyone with spells wants to actually cast them, rather than cast only one followed by standing in the back plincking away with a xbow.
Hence my suggestion to design around unlimited number of spells instead.
Also, by making slots few, is supposed to encourage casters to play like the God wizard, buffing teammates and using control, and dealing damage only to groups of minions. Think about it, if have one spell for an encounter, which is better trying for damage, or making things easier for the rest of the party? The latter is usually more tactically sound, but that doesn't make it more fun.
In 5th Edition, BAB is replaced by the Proficiency bonus, which only varies from +2 to +6 over 20 levels (well, 17 levels). A 20th level fighter with a 20 Strength is going to make 4 attacks at +11 for 2d6+5 if wielding a greatsword. A 20th level wizard with a 20 Intelligence is going to make 1 attack with a cantrip at +11 for 4d8 or 1 attack with a dagger (assuming 19 Dex from an item) at +10 for 1d4+4.
PF 2.0 could do something similar. Give full BAB to everyone, nlock iterative attacks from BAB, and fighters will get 4 attacks at +30 for 2d6+15 and wizards would get 1 attack with a dagger at +24 for 1d4+4. If they let mages use their spellcasting modifier to make attack rolls, cantrips might be +30 to attack for 4d10 or something.
I would like a game in the middle between the high complexity/craziness of pathfinder and the disappointing bounded accuracy at high level of 5E.
Can't tell, you only gave damage info, not attack info. If the first one actually manages to land a blow it'll hurt more, but they might suck at hitting anything.
I thought that the preceding line of discussion would make it clear that they both had roughly the same chance of actually scoring a hit.
More skill points for martial characters. 2+Int is a bit harsh when several skills are already essential.
I increase skill points by +2 unless the class already relies on Intelligence (Like Wizard). Though I am considering making it a universal +2, just dont know how that would effect balance.
Just give Intelligence-based classes +2 skills too. Why not? They can branch out into non-Knowledge skills for zest. :-)
I thought that the preceding line of discussion would make it clear that they both had roughly the same chance of actually scoring a hit.Can't tell, you only gave damage info, not attack info. If the first one actually manages to land a blow it'll hurt more, but they might suck at hitting anything.
It did...
To be fair they would be equal with each other about attacking, but as far as skill in combat well that's a different story
I thought that the preceding line of discussion would make it clear that they both had roughly the same chance of actually scoring a hit.Can't tell, you only gave damage info, not attack info. If the first one actually manages to land a blow it'll hurt more, but they might suck at hitting anything.
I don't see it myself, but okay. That still leaves my point about number of attacks and opportunity costs.
Granted, damage needs to be set accordingly, but fewer attacks should have higher damage.
It should also be noted that martials usually have feats that can fiddle with atk vs dmg vs ac to fit each fight, while a caster is usually more static.
Another thing is that martials need to account for more tactical use of spells, such as being loaded up with buffs. The designer needs to look at a caster's choice between buffing the fighter and dealing dmg directly, then the designer needs to decide how to balance that choice (make it about equal, or favor one or the other?).
Also, saves. Martial dmg doesn't get a save for half dmg, but magic usually does, meaning they often deal only half dmg except to minions (not just any minions either, low level minions since save dcs don't go up very much), and with evasion or imp evasion, some characters take always half dmg to no dmg. Thus martial dmg is more reliable.
I decided to put up, eventually and as time permits, a set of alternate rules for things I'd change about pathfinder, then perhaps someone will look them over and tell me what an idiot I am instead of trying them out (or I might be wrong about that. Fingers crossed. I just hoped it isn't ignored completely).
These will include,
-Changing hp/health. I have a save system, but I also recently got inspired by Super Smash Bros, for an interesting if highly unrealistic method. Fun hopefully.
-Changing magic. Instead of magic being some strong force but of supposedly limited resource, it will be weak, yet versatile, and built with the idea of casting every round. Mainly makes magic more skillful and and thus less reliable especially at highler spell levels.
-Splitting levels into class level and tier. Tier affecting overall power level, such as whether things are gritty and dangerous or superheroic, while classes can be leveled separately to advance character options, but without the increasing numbers.
-A unique variation on bell curve rolls.
Also, below is an interesting response to the topic of martials vs casters. Not my best stuff, but I didn't feel like deleting it, so read if you dare, or ignore it.
The following is based on what numbers I could find. As I not only never optimize, but I only ever played two characters over level 10, one of which was literally a god (not one of those "build the world" campaigns, but rather a campaign about gods avoiding their destruction. An absolute blast it was.), the other was a multiclass lycanthrope built on character with options that were about things other than combat. So I'm sure someone will come along and describe specific options that "everyone" knows about or some such nonsense, but until then, this is what I garner from a quick overview of what level 20 martials and casters can dish out damage-wise.
A level 20, a martial with an average damage weapon does a d8 plus about 4 (on the conservative side), four times a round, so 4d8+16 per round. If they have a +5 weapon, then it becomes 4d8+36. If they also have a 1d6 energy damage enchantment then they do 4d8+4d6+36 per round. This doesn't even include a multitude of extraneous options that could be taken to boost damage, such as power attack.
So a martial is dealing 44-92, avg 64.
A damage spell generally deals cl in D6s, so 20d6, has 20-120, avg of 70.
A caster therefore has only a minor advantage in average damage, while the martial has significant advantages in reliability, four to twelve times the chance of landing a critical hit, and even if a martial misses, they still will likely deal partial damage (as opposed to the caster which has all their damage in one go, if the spell fizzles for any reason, such as counterspell, they do no damage.), and martial damage doesn't come with a reflex save for half.
Personally, I'd say all the advantages a martial has in reliability, crit chance, and lack of reflex save seems to balance out a mere +6 on average damage.
Besides, martials are going to have lots of additional things to boost damage even more, such as power attack (which will add a flat +10, overshadowing the caster's minor advantage in average damage all by itself), dual wielding (+25% to +100%, a full dual wielder doubling this damage leaving a caster in the dust), stat enhancers (another +12 per round), haste, and other things.
There isn't a lot a caster can do to improve their damage. The right class and class options might add +1 per die for particular damage types, which is a +20 (still under the martial's average with power attack and stat enhancement).
Further, the highest spells can only be cast a few times a day, while the martial is dealing damage every round, while the wizard is deciding if spending one of the highest levels slots is worth it, or if they need to save the slots for something else, such as buffing, escaping, making a safe resting place, bypassing traps/obstacles, counterspelling the bbeg, etc.
The thing that really makes martial-caster disparity even a thing at all in my eyes is the degrading attack bonus on iterative attacks by the martials. Without that, a caster is a gamble, while the martial would be far more reliable.
Al, the 8d one was supposed to be the martial in 5e getting multiple attacks per round, the 1d4 was the caster in 5e getting one attack per round. They were providing that example to explain that even if the classes had the same base attack bonus (as they do in 5e) the result would still favour the martial if only martial classes get extra attacks. The whole thing followed from a post suggesting that all classes could have the same BAB (similar to 5e).
LOL, I took as the reverse for 3.x/PF. That is kinda funny. :)
Still, kinda plays to my point, though I think cantrips can have a d10 damage, but still only once per round. I might be mistaken though, I only read the playtests and haven't seen much of the real game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alicorn, you don't actually seem to understand the martial-caster disparity that's built into the game rules. For starters, damage dice have essentially nothing to do with it. Then again, your posts indicate that you tend to prefer to play Magical Tea Party, where DM fiat rather than class features determine narrative power, so in your games it probably isn't much of a thing.
Alicorn, you don't actually seem to understand the martial-caster disparity that's built into the game rules. For starters, damage dice have essentially nothing to do with it. Then again, your posts indicate that you tend to prefer to play Magical Tea Party, where DM fiat rather than class features determine narrative power, so in your games it probably isn't much of a thing.
That's because a lot of gamers do not believe in it. It does not take into account that wizards and sorcerers are very vulnerable. If they wear armor, they have spell failure. Their protective spells have to be cast to be of any use, and they never know when combat is about to happen. They get the weakest hit dice. Anyone who makes a wizard as a frontline combatant is trying to get their character killed so their friends will stop asking them to play.
And Magical Tea Party sounds like a Ponyfinder module. I don't know what your point was by that comment, but you should better use your time by creating that module and bringing it to conventions. Both Pathfinder and MLP conventions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective on the boards and looking at scenarios (unfortunately limited in real world high level play due to my location), the Caster Martial disparity is NOT about damage; you can optimize however you like and push damage past the point where it matters. Instead, the disparity is that the wizard/cleric/druid can be completely focused on once concept or trick, and 24 hours later almost completely change focus to something else with a new set of spells. A sorcerer/oracle is more limited in spells known, but good selection of spells still gives a large variety of approaches. Whereas the martial tends to be stuck as a one-trick damage pony, maybe being able to branch out and trip/bull rush/other CMB if they really focus. With feats. Which mostly cannot be changed. Further, damage can progress a scene but does not progress the story; doing 1d8+1000 damage is useless for moving the group across an ocean, but teleportation can do that, and move them back again the next day.
My 2 cents:
1. Change Teleportation magics to local area/line of sight and long-distance is only possible via "gates" - physical nonmoving structures.
2. Remove a LOT of feats. Specifically the ones that really only allow you to do something you should already be able to do. If it makes sense to throw your cloak into someone's face, why do you need a feat to do it? There is no harm in adding some flavor. (and it goes both ways - the GM can catch the cloak in a doorway without a feat, too!)
3. 4+Int minimum skills.
4. More support for higher level mounts. Not necessarily higher power, but for convenience, my horse shouldn't die on me from AoE just because I didn't spend a significant class feature (Animal Companion) on my mount. What if I want a wolf AC but want to be able to use Ride to keep up with her?
5. Give martials/none magic classes some flexibility. At a minimum, a high level fighter/barbarian should be well rounded enough to recognize what will and won't work, and given a day (8 hours rest) or so, be able to re-emphasize different aspects of their skills to better deal with something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alicorn, you don't actually seem to understand the martial-caster disparity that's built into the game rules. For starters, damage dice have essentially nothing to do with it. Then again, your posts indicate that you tend to prefer to play Magical Tea Party, where DM fiat rather than class features determine narrative power, so in your games it probably isn't much of a thing.That's because a lot of gamers do not believe in it. It does not take into account that wizards and sorcerers are very vulnerable. If they wear armor, they have spell failure. Their protective spells have to be cast to be of any use, and they never know when combat is about to happen. They get the weakest hit dice. Anyone who makes a wizard as a frontline combatant is trying to get their character killed so their friends will stop asking them to play.
And Magical Tea Party sounds like a Ponyfinder module. I don't know what your point was by that comment, but you should better use your time by creating that module and bringing it to conventions. Both Pathfinder and MLP conventions.
It's not about combat but a factor of Caster level in relation to reality. The higher it is the less reality matters.
That's because a lot of gamers do not believe in it. It does not take into account that wizards and sorcerers are very vulnerable. If they wear armor, they have spell failure. Their protective spells have to be cast to be of any use, and they never know when combat is about to happen. They get the weakest hit dice. Anyone who makes a wizard as a frontline combatant is trying to get their character killed so their friends will stop asking them to play.
If your games are a progression of staged combats, then, sure. Except even then... why not planar bind a bunch of outsiders and let them do the fighting for you? Pathfinder imposes no hard limits on minions except through HD (inexplicably, rather than by CR -- which means you can have minions who are more powerful than you are). And since you've got them doing your fighting for you, have them do the fighter's, too, while you're at it. And you hang back, invisible and flying, and occasionally remove entire sections of the adventure that you find inconvenient.
In the AD&D days, Robilar -- the fighter -- could do that, too; he had armies and henchmen (the latter including Otto, and a trio of green dragons) who were arguably more powerful than he was. Now he has the Leadership feat, but only if the DM allows it. Meanwhile, the casters have whole sections of the rulebooks devoted to making sure they can overcome every challenge in the game without ever getting their hands dirty.
Magical Tea Party is an old nickname for what happens when you're playing without rules (either total freeform, or doing something your game's ruleset doesn't cover) and therefore everything goes by DM fiat.
From what I've read, TheAlicornSage isn't after that. Just the opposite: As far as I can tell, he wants a 'toolbox' ruleset that covers everything and doesn't care about balance, so I suggested GURPS.
Interestingly, till now, the only arguements I've ever heard for martial-caster disparity is that casters can out-damage the fighter. With counter-arguements being that casters deal spike damage, and are supposed to be limited to prevent their damage output from becoming normal damage (which then doesn't work when the 15-minute workday is allowed). You guys are the absolute first I've seen to present the idea that it might be something else entirely.
That said, my preference is for magic's advantage to be versatility but not power, that success in using magic should come from creative and intelligent use instead of rolling high, such that choosing a fighter would be choosing to give up versatility to be a better combatant that can simply rely on high numbers. Not saying that d20 does a good job though.
Magical Tea Party is an old nickname for what happens when you're playing without rules (either total freeform, or doing something your game's ruleset doesn't cover) and therefore everything goes by DM fiat.
From what I've read, TheAlicornSage isn't after that. Just the opposite: As far as I can tell, he wants a 'toolbox' ruleset that covers everything and doesn't care about balance, so I suggested GURPS.
Not quite, but close.
What I am looking for (and trying to design into my system) is that if the GM keeps the system to herself and the players have no concept of the system, then the GM should be able to take whatever the players attempt, put it through the system and get a decently reasonable and mostly accurate result, and tbe only time they should hear "no, you can't do that" should be if they try to break the physics of the setting, and never purely due to abstract mechanical limits that don't reflect the setting.
Such play benefits from simulationism in the rules, to model a natural world, which is by nature contradictory to the requirements of mechanical game-like balance. It is also, still beneficial to simplify (as long as it doesn't become too abstract) and unify the mechanics to be easy to use and understand.
There are other things a system can help with, such as aiding description and communucation.
Designing a system to explicitly handle every possibility is stupid and doomed to failure. If instead you design a foundation however, with the common and core situations covered, then add tools so the GM can easily hack something together on-the-spot should the players attempt something not covered, yet still produce reasonable results, then that would be a better design, and is my goal for my system.
It is also my impression that d20 was attempting to hit that goal. I think it got a lot closer than anything else I've seen, but certainly still has flaws, flaws which have not been addressed and when players (and supplement designers) try to use the rules in a different way (such as focusing on mechanical, chess-like balance), produces odd results.
Very interesting. Seems to me most of that is dependant on playstyle, with some styles suffering more than others.
Also, Tucker's Kobalds. (if someone has a link, that'd be nice)
Personally, I think this is the best introduction to the Caster/Martial Disparity issue.
I should also point out that this isn't new, it's been recognized from the beginning of 3e.
For some, but I have yet to actually this become an issue myself and I've been mostly active since 3e.
CM Disparity is basically.
Caster has anywhere from a toolbox to an full manufacturing plant while the Martial has a hammer or a bigger hammer. (Level depending)
Caster/Martial Disparity: I would grant all martial classes the option of selecting at least some (Su) abilities above level 10, to help them deal with the commonly recognized problems they have keeping up with casters. They may gain a 90 feet flight speed, permanent “see invisibility” or blanket immunities to some especially debilitating SoD/SoS effects (domination, petrification, death and such). At lower levels I would grant all Martial classes substantial boosts to saves. I would give Fighter all good saves for example. And no Martial class should less than 4+Int skill points per level. Fighter should have access to a way to gain Pounce at level 6. Other Martials should gain the same option at around level 12. Finally Martial should gain access to some downtime/utility effects to match the world-breaking power of high level spells. This could include the ability to attract especially powerful cohorts, the ability to create and improve some magic items without resorting to magic themselves and the ability to generate a substantial amount of passive income.
To tone down Casters I would make expensive spell components nearly universal for spells above level 6 and make Full Round casting times much more prevalent. Some especially problematic spells might also always require the Caster to succeed a fairly difficult Concentration check to cast.
Economy: I would LOVE to see an overhaul of the entire economy which the system assumes. Some items seem insanely expensive, when compared to other items in the system and similar items in the real world. If you use the rule of thumb that 1gp = 100 USD a lot of items seems reasonably prized (Clothing, basic weapons, horses, inn stays and such all seem to exist on roughly the same sane scale), but other items are off-the-rocks bonkers expensive (poison, firearms, many alchemical items, most recreational drugs).
Skills: I would rewrite several skills to make some of the more marginal skills more flavorful and useful. The most grievous offender is obviously the Profession skill, where I would write in a clause that the skill can be used in place of another skill, if such a skill seems integral to the profession, but with a +5 DC. So Profession (Merchant) can sub in for Appraise, Profession (Brewer) can sub in for some applications of Craft (Alchemy) and Profession(Courtier) may be used in place of Knowledge (Nobles).
Weather, wilderness, travel, encumbrance, disease and starvation: I would like a more robust and consolidates system of making dangerous non-combat challenges more interesting. Something along the lines of the Skill Challenge system from D&D4e, but with a better integration of non-skill abilities and some interesting conditions to impose in the case of failures.
Mythic Rules: A full replacement of the Mythic system, build around the feel of creating super heroes in a Fantasy setting. Instead of mythic paths and ranks I would create a system of point buy powers.
The profession skill.
My favorite handling of this, was a gm took craft, profession, and perform, and grouped them into a single skill called Trade (like a tradesman kind of trade).
I also use appraise for any kind of item examination, not just finding money value.
I allow knowledge skills for pure knowing things, but I also allow other skills to roll keyed to int for related knowledge, such as Craft(blacksmithing) for metallurgy. Additionally, feats and other abilities that allow new options (such as feats for crafting magic) open up the skills used even further. For example, a swordmaker with craft magic weapons could make a craft(blacksmithing) check for knowledge about magic of the sort that gets imbued into weapons and, of course, the imbuing process.
Economy
The problem here is wealth by level. Expected wealth is built into the balance of other things, thus the cost of some things has to be set to balance.
I'd suggest first adapting the classes and such to be balanced itemless, then balance item options for all classes, then set better costs.
Critical confirmations
I use these only for when a potential crit doesn't actually hit the target's AC, thus the crit boosts a non-hit to a hit at least, but still might become a critical, but if it was a hit already, then it's automatically crit damage.
I allow them as optional rolls though since I usually allow three 20s in a row to be a kill shot. Though I've learned to keep this sort of rule (along with it's fumble counterpart) away from new-to-rpgs players.
I would like to see an XP system where you get XP equal to the CR. So 15 XP to go from level 1 to level 2, etc.
And maybe a way to spend XP in emergencies.
Point of fact, most Hellknights aren't evil.
They just dig Hell's rules. A lot.
I would like to see an XP system where you get XP equal to the CR. So 15 XP to go from level 1 to level 2, etc.
And maybe a way to spend XP in emergencies.
Shouldn't that be 13 xp?
DnD 3 was designed for approximately 13 equal level encounters per level, of course, it was also expected that PCs would face a variety of different level encounters.
In any case, for a system that were to split tier (raw power and number climbing) from levels (gaining of options and and versatility), how would you relate the two in advancement?
Also, I have posted threads fpr asymmetrical bell curve (with advantage varient) and an alternate health system. If anyone cares.
Interestingly, till now, the only arguements I've ever heard for martial-caster disparity is that casters can out-damage the fighter.
Damage has nothing to do with it. In fact, from my experience, high level martials tend to do more damage than full casters. The problem is that martials become extremely limited in their ability to handle situations as the game approaches high levels while full casters gain abilities that completely change the dynamics of the game.
It's a multifaceted problem that can't be fixed by making simple houserules because the issue was created by extreme double standards and overvaluing at-will statistical bonuses when designing martials versus casters.
Alicorn, you don't actually seem to understand the martial-caster disparity that's built into the game rules.That's because a lot of gamers do not believe in it.
The people who created Pathfinder acknowledge that the martial-caster disparity exists. Heck, one of them tried to create a new RPG deliberately to remove it, and Starfinder removes full-casters entirely from the game.
Another thing that can be done is to have spells be skill expanders, opening up new possibilities for using skills in new ways, but then requiring checks of using those skills.
For example, Jump. Instead of just saying the spell makes jumping easier, you could say that the spell allows jumping really high/far, but also exaggerates inaccuracies in the jump, then require two checks, one with a bonus from the spell to jump high/far, the other with a penalty to land where you want, with lower results leaving you further from where you wanted.
Something like makes magic a force multiplier, but still requires one to be good at various skills outside of casting magic. In essence, magic makes the rogue a better rogue, but doesn't let someone untrained in stealth to beat someone who is.