We want to houserule the stupidity that is "martial abilities have per day limits", and we're wondering if changing all feats and abiliies that are /day to instead be /encounter would break anything.
probably a case by case scenario. I'd say just go with it until you find an ability that is breaking the fun for your group.
probably not there may be like one or two things that may become overpowered but im not aware of them as the majority of martial abilities that are limited have nothing on say a 2nd or 3rd level spell
I personally don't recommend it as some of those abilities (like challenge and smite) can be really strong. Some of those abilities essentially last an entire encounter, so it essentially turns a daily ability into an at-will ability.
In some cases, it might actually be a nerf for abilities that a martial might feel inclined to attempt multiple times during a crucial encounter. Stunning Fist is an example.
Just to be clear, I mean ALL feats and abilities, not just those of martial classes.
Cyrad wrote: In some cases, it might actually be a nerf for abilities that a martial might feel inclined to attempt multiple times during a crucial encounter. Stunning Fist is an example. What do you mean? I don't see how my houserule would nerf Stunning Fist.
Inquisitors would get a huge boost, since they can use judgement for every fight, and bane almost constantly.
You'd also really unbalance things that are given a per day limit versus things keyed off a metacurrency (ki, grit, etc.)
Ki, grit, etc. are per day, are they not? So they're included in the houserule.
as long as the abilities are limited to only classes that cant cast spells would be better balenced
Cyrad wrote: I personally don't recommend it as some of those abilities (like challenge and smite) can be really strong. Some of those abilities essentially last an entire encounter, so it essentially turns a daily ability into an at-will ability. Missed this.
That might be true, but IME knowing that your abilities will be usable again in the next fight encourages players to use them more often, which means that they do sometimes run out.
Lady-J wrote: as long as the abilities are limited to only classes that cant cast spells would be better balenced We'd like to avoid arbitrarily excluding classes from beneficial general houserules.
I forgot to clarify that, as an exception, spellcasting is excluded, for obvious reasons.
We're also considering applying this houserule to racial and monster abilities (Spell-like abilities, most notably).
Some classes and class abilities are balanced based on their per-day usage. Some could be fine as a per-encounter while others would be too strong so you'd have to look at each individual case. Or allow all but then caveat it that you reserve the right to pull back on specific abilities to go back to per-day. Also how would you address out of combat abilities that have per-day usage?
Texas Snyper wrote: Some classes and class abilities are balanced based on their per-day usage. Some could be fine as a per-encounter while others would be too strong so you'd have to look at each individual case. Examples?
Quote: Also how would you address out of combat abilities that have per-day usage? I'd first need to know them to address them. Some examples?
I cannot think of any trouble rules off the top of my head. I would just make the rule that any power like this needs to be cleared by the GM or the group, but generally it is allowed unless it's truly abusive. But particularly for spellcasters I can't think of any (unless you mean to permit X + casting modifier school, domain, and bloodline per day powers to operate per encounter. That could give you some trouble in the long run, but still not a huge deal, usually those powers are already useable 7-10 times by a caster per day anyhow.*
Shift school power would be even more awesome but it's barely limited anyway.
Another question, how would you handle a kineticist's burn here? It sort of works the opposite of normal metacurrencies (a magus's arcane pool starts at max and dwindles to 0, but a kineticist's burn starts at 0 and accumulates to max). Would you return to 0 burn after every fight?
This would be a very different way to play the class, that's for sure.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote: But particularly for spellcasters I can't think of any (unless you mean to permit X + casting modifier school, domain, and bloodline per day powers to operate per encounter. That could give you some trouble in the long run, but still not a huge deal, usually those powers are already useable 7-10 times by a caster per day anyhow.*
Shift school power would be even more awesome but it's barely limited anyway.
Yes, they're included.
PossibleCabbage wrote: Another question, how would you handle a kineticist's burn here? It sort of works the opposite of normal metacurrencies (a magus's arcane pool starts at max and dwindles to 0, but a kineticist's burn starts at 0 and accumulates to max). Would you return to 0 burn after every fight?
This would be a very different way to play the class, that's for sure.
I'd say the Burn is removed, but not the nonlethal damage, unless you rest. That's an opinion after just one glance at the ability. I might change my mind when I'll know more about the class.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: Lady-J wrote: as long as the abilities are limited to only classes that cant cast spells would be better balenced We'd like to avoid arbitrarily excluding classes from beneficial general houserules.
I forgot to clarify that, as an exception, spellcasting is excluded, for obvious reasons.
We're also considering applying this houserule to racial and monster abilities (Spell-like abilities, most notably). casters are alredy powerful enough as is they dont need any more power the classes you will need to boost would be the t5 and t4 classes maybe a couple t3 but should exclude any t1 and t2 classes
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: I'd say the Burn is removed, but not the nonlethal damage, unless you rest. That's an opinion after just one glance at the ability. I might change my mind when I'll know more about the class. That's actively worse than the way the class works by default, since you do get bonuses for having accumulated burn (from elemental overflow), so you'd lose those bonuses after each fight and have to take even more nonlethal damage to get them back.
PossibleCabbage wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: I'd say the Burn is removed, but not the nonlethal damage, unless you rest. That's an opinion after just one glance at the ability. I might change my mind when I'll know more about the class. That's actively worse than the way the class works by default, since you do get bonuses for having accumulated burn (from elemental overflow), so you'd lose those bonuses after each fight and have to take even more nonlethal damage to get them back. ya the proper way to do it for them would be remove burn and remove the non lethal
Limit yourselves to 1 encounter per day? Such a change to a huge number of abilities seems like a recipe for disaster. Or at least headaches.
Lady-J wrote: casters are alredy powerful enough You don't have to explain it to me, I'm aware. I just consider this to be just a drop in the bucket that won't make a difference for them, but a big difference for martials.
PossibleCabbage wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: I'd say the Burn is removed, but not the nonlethal damage, unless you rest. That's an opinion after just one glance at the ability. I might change my mind when I'll know more about the class. That's actively worse than the way the class works by default, since you do get bonuses for having accumulated burn (from elemental overflow), so you'd lose those bonuses after each fight and have to take even more nonlethal damage to get them back. Sorry, I didn't look very deep into the class when answering you. I had a feeling I was missing something.
In this case I would just base Elemental Overflow from the nonlethal damage instead of Burn. Or just leave the class as is, I guess.
Goblin_Priest wrote: Limit yourselves to 1 encounter per day? What do you mean "limit"?
This houserule would also create a lot of problems with healing abilities. Now you got at-will healing to deal with, which creates its own set of problems. Overall, you're turning your campaign into more of a skirmish game.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: Cyrad wrote: In some cases, it might actually be a nerf for abilities that a martial might feel inclined to attempt multiple times during a crucial encounter. Stunning Fist is an example. What do you mean? I don't see how my houserule would nerf Stunning Fist. It's a nerf to stunning fist because a monk can't attempt it multiple times during an encounter if he can only attempt it once per encounter.
Cyrad wrote: This houserule would also create a lot of problems with healing abilities. So players will be full hp most combats. That's a good thing.
Quote: It's a nerf to stunning fist because a monk can't attempt it multiple times during an encounter if he can only attempt it once per encounter. Uhh... but he can attempt it multiple times per encounter...
The entire CR system is based around this.
If you change per day to per encounter, also change wizards spell slots to per encounter and only use one encounter that is epic per day and possibly epic+1.
James Risner wrote: also change wizards spell slots to per encounter Even I can see that that's a bad idea.
And why would I only make one encounter per day when the point of this houserule is to allow characters to have most of their power in every encounter?
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: Cyrad wrote: This houserule would also create a lot of problems with healing abilities. So players will be full hp most combats. That's a good thing. From the perspective of a player, free at-will healing is a good thing.
From the perspective of game design and gamemastering, it's a bad thing.
I discussed the consequences of free at-will healing in many, many, many threads. To summarize, it takes away tools from the gamemaster for pacing and controlling tension in an adventure. It also makes combat have less depth. Players might have fun at first, but eventually combat will get very dull and samey.
And with the houserule to change daily abilities to encounter abilities, that will definitely be the end result. It will feel exciting at first, but eventually the game will become very boring. You aren't doing your players any favors by removing tools from your GM toolbox.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: And why would I only make one encounter per day when the point of this houserule is to allow characters to have most of their power in every encounter? Because if they only ever fight one encounter a day, they have all their powers for every encounter.
Cyrad wrote: From the perspective of a player, free at-will healing is a good thing.
From the perspective of game design and gamemastering, it's a bad thing.
I discussed the consequences of free at-will healing in many, many, many threads. To summarize, it takes away tools from the gamemaster for pacing and controlling tension in an adventure. It also makes combat have less depth. Players might have fun at first, but eventually combat will get very dull and samey.
And with the houserule to change daily abilities to encounter abilities, that will definitely be the end result. It will feel exciting at first, but eventually the game will become very boring. You aren't doing your players any favors by removing tools from your GM toolbox.
There's more to combat than hp damage.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: And why would I only make one encounter per day when the point of this houserule is to allow characters to have most of their power in every encounter? Because if they only ever fight one encounter a day, they have all their powers for every encounter. That's a backwards way of dealing with the issue and not a way we want to play our games.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: Cyrad wrote: From the perspective of a player, free at-will healing is a good thing.
From the perspective of game design and gamemastering, it's a bad thing.
I discussed the consequences of free at-will healing in many, many, many threads. To summarize, it takes away tools from the gamemaster for pacing and controlling tension in an adventure. It also makes combat have less depth. Players might have fun at first, but eventually combat will get very dull and samey.
And with the houserule to change daily abilities to encounter abilities, that will definitely be the end result. It will feel exciting at first, but eventually the game will become very boring. You aren't doing your players any favors by removing tools from your GM toolbox.
There's more to combat than hp damage. Hit points and healing play a huge role in adventures and combat. The entire game's internal adventure structure and the CR system revolves around attrition of resources like hit points, magical healing, and daily abilities over the course of an adventure. Taking them away removes a significant amount of depth from the game. In addition, in order for combats to have any weight on an adventuring party, you have to heavily resort to mechanics like ability drain and negative levels that most players find very unfun. Ultimately, you will make the game less fun to play.
You're not doing your players any favors by making the game less fun.
Free at-will HP healing in inconsequential. All it does save the cost of the CLW wands. I think, in the end, that not much breaks beyond what is already broken. I haven't seen an example, beyond the burn mechanism-which is a single, class-specific, issue that has me particularly concerned.
Druid wild shape is another consideration. Maybe the rule is that this shouldn't apply to core class features.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: That's a backwards way of dealing with the issue and not a way we want to play our games. It's exactly what you are asking for without changing any rules.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Create Mr. Pitt wrote: Free at-will HP healing in inconsequential. All it does save the cost of the CLW wands. I think, in the end, that not much breaks beyond what is already broken. I haven't seen an example, beyond the burn mechanism-which is a single, class-specific, issue that has me particularly concerned. I debunked this common fallacy several times and explained why free at-will healing has significant consequences. As long as there's a preparation cost and a gold cost associated with losing hit points, cure items have an effect on the game.
Cyrad wrote: You're not doing your players any favors by making the game less fun. I disagree that it will make the game less fun. Quite the opposite actually.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: That's a backwards way of dealing with the issue and not a way we want to play our games. It's exactly what you are asking for without changing any rules. It's interesting that you know what I'm asking for better than me. Please, enlighten me, what AM I asking for?
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: That's a backwards way of dealing with the issue and not a way we want to play our games. It's exactly what you are asking for without changing any rules. It's interesting that you know what I'm asking for better than me. Please, enlighten me, what AM I asking for? What are you asking for?
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: It's interesting that you know what I'm asking for better than me. Please, enlighten me, what AM I asking for? Anarchy_Kanya wrote: ...we're wondering if changing all feats and abiliies that are /day to instead be /encounter would break anything. You want abilities to be per encounter. If there is only one encounter before they refresh, then they are per encounter.
Also, if you don't like the advice, feel free to just ignore it.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: That's a backwards way of dealing with the issue and not a way we want to play our games. It's exactly what you are asking for without changing any rules. If everyone has all of their class abilities every encounter, it's functionally identical to taking a full rest after every encounter. If you don't enjoy playing that way, then why do you want to play that way?
Gulthor wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: That's a backwards way of dealing with the issue and not a way we want to play our games. It's exactly what you are asking for without changing any rules. If everyone has all of their class abilities every encounter, it's functionally identical to taking a full rest after every encounter. If you don't enjoy playing that way, then why do you want to play that way? Who is this question meant for? Me or TOZ?
TriOmegaZero wrote: You want abilities to be per encounter. Yes.
Quote: If there is only one encounter before they refresh, then they are per encounter. See, that's the thing. They aren't. You simply had just one encounter that day. And as I said, that's not how we want to play.
Quote: Also, if you don't like the advice, feel free to just ignore it. So I'm not allowed to adress your post? Okay.
Rysky wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: That's a backwards way of dealing with the issue and not a way we want to play our games. It's exactly what you are asking for without changing any rules. It's interesting that you know what I'm asking for better than me. Please, enlighten me, what AM I asking for? What are you asking for? If the houserule will break anything too much.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: If the houserule will break anything too much. It will change the way the game plays, just as only having one encounter per day will change it. Naturally, these will be different changes, and some of these changes could be considered 'breaking' the game to some.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: If the houserule will break anything too much. It will change the way the game plays, just as only having one encounter per day will change it. Naturally, these will be different changes, and some of these changes could be considered 'breaking' the game to some. Okay.
I feel like "you get full up on everything at the start of every fight" is at least worth plumbing the failings of empirically. Just tell your players "okay, this is what we're doing, but it's an experiment and whatever we find is broken about it we'll fix."
The real problem I think is that this will get old after a while (you just lead with your best stuff every fight and win) so is better for a one-shot or a short campaign than a long one.
Cyrad wrote: Create Mr. Pitt wrote: Free at-will HP healing in inconsequential. All it does save the cost of the CLW wands. I think, in the end, that not much breaks beyond what is already broken. I haven't seen an example, beyond the burn mechanism-which is a single, class-specific, issue that has me particularly concerned. I debunked this common fallacy several times and explained why free at-will healing has significant consequences. As long as there's a preparation cost and a gold cost associated with losing hit points, cure items have an effect on the game. I've read your analysis on this and found your "debunking" very unpersuasive. But this isn't the place for this.
I think that, OP, your most problematic classes so far are inquisitor and druid. Otherwise the cap on these daily powers is usually high enough that permitting their use per encounter pretty much only substantially benefits martial-oriented classes.
PossibleCabbage wrote: I feel like "you get full up on everything at the start of every fight" is at least worth plumbing the failings of empirically. Just tell your players "okay, this is what we're doing, but it's an experiment and whatever we find is broken about it we'll fix." I think that goes without saying.
Quote: The real problem I think is that this will get old after a while (you just lead with your best stuff every fight and win) so is better for a one-shot or a short campaign than a long one. Sure, but your best stuff has limited uses per encounter, so when you don't win with them, you're screwed, or at least worse off.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote: I think that, OP, your most problematic classes so far are inquisitor and druid. Otherwise the cap on these daily powers is usually high enough that permitting their use per encounter pretty much only substantially benefits martial-oriented classes. I'm not familiar with the Inquisitor. Can I get an example on how he's problematic?
|
