I forgot about charming a PC I'll add that to tmy mental list. I'll also add using enemies that the PCs might want to keep alive, either because they are under the influence or because the party wants to take them captive.
HWalsh dropped out of this conversation a while back. At the cost of repeating myself.
- encounters with multiple groups of enemies that arrive in waves such as responding to the sound of combat
- encounters with flying enemies or otherwise remote where ranged weapons are a secondary form of damage
- encounters where enemies have methods of replenishing/increasing numbers with either magic, or abilities
- encounters where the enemy can limit manouverability and prevent primary attacks getting through.
- encounters where the enemy has a defensive ability that needs to be overcome DR, invisibility, Ethereal etc
- encounters where a PC or two falls to magic or crits that reduces the ability of the party to deal damage
- encounters when the boss transforms from one state to another.
- encounters where there are multiple foes of multiple types that require very different solutions.
- encounters where X has to occur to enable success (open the door, wind the winch, fire the cannon etc etc)All these can be used in one form or another to extend combats. I've grouped some areas together because there are so many options (like defensive abilities) that defy a quick list.
Playing monsters/npcs as bags of hit points will no doubt result in them dropping in two rounds.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that all encounters last 7+ Rounds. I'm saying they can do though of course there will be a mix of long, short and for me the average is about 6
If the multiple groups of enemies are multiple encounters than you understand you average per encounter yes? If Encounter 2 joins with Encounter 1 and takes 9 rounds, that's an average of 4.5 rounds for encounter 1 and 2. Please tell me you understand that.
If all PCs ranged options are secondary, lightly optimized caveat is probably not being met. Even a Fighter who carries a composite longbow as a back-up weapon should be able to resolve an equal CR encounter in under 7 rounds. And again, its the average of all encounters, even if the party is lightly optimized and struggles with this, they would need to have more 7+ round encounters than the more likely 4+ round encounters, which makes this suspect at best.
Give me an example of this kind of encounter as healing or summoning are irrelevant.
The enemies being able to successfully control movement to the extent that it would impact the average number of rounds significantly indicates that the PCs have no tools to deal with this and thus probably fail to be lightly optimized. Even if an enemy has good battlefield control and the PCs are lightly optimized, assuming the PCs all fail, the encounter is likely to resolve itself in an average of 4 rounds where the enemies win.
Overcoming DR/Invisibility/etc. do not really add much in the way of rounds to an encounter. Ethereal might depending on the level encountered, but is unlikely to significantly impact the average.
If a PC or two falls, this is likely going to swing the other way. Either the party must defeat the enemy quickly, or the enemy defeats them in the next few rounds.
Provide an example of what you mean by a "boss transforming from one stage to another." Because this sounds like houseruling.
Multiple foes of multiple types is taken into account with CR. Even if there are multiple types of enemies similar leveled players should defeat them in an average of 4 turns.
Provide an example. Most of those things succeeding take only a standard action and seem unlikely to significantly increase average rounds per encounter if at all.
To be clear, your examples confuse me as they do not seem to be the hurdles you seem to believe them to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are several of your opinions. You're entitled to them. That may be how it plays at your table I think we disagree strongly about what light optimisation means. You're assuming quick solutions to all obstacles forgetting that the DM knows what resources the players have available and can plan encounters appropriately.
Your point blank refusal to acknowledge that encounters can be extended is vexing. It doesn't support your 'maths' it just demonstrates a lack of imagination in thinking of solutions to the problem.
Anyway, so what else do we have with regard to limiting spellcasters besides encounters?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The social contract?
By which I mean we recognise that it is a cooperative game where the idea is for everyone to have fun. Peer pressure therefore prevents every wizard picking simulacrum or chain summoning lantern archons. The social stigma of being a douche and the fact that people get choose who they play with. Or don't rather. Lol
They are several of your opinions. You're entitled to them. That may be how it plays at your table I think we disagree strongly about what light optimisation means. You're assuming quick solutions to all obstacles forgetting that the DM knows what resources the players have available and can plan encounters appropriately.
Your point blank refusal to acknowledge that encounters can be extended is vexing. It doesn't support your 'maths' it just demonstrates a lack of imagination in thinking of solutions to the problem.
In Pathfinder, HP does not keep with up damage and AC does not keep up with hit bonus, thus mandating short fights just by the math of attacks will hit more than miss and damage will eat away HP faster. The simple fact is that a lightly optimized character should be able to defeat a CR appropriate opponent in 3-4 successful hits. Do you disagree with these statements. If so why? And if not why do not accept that an average of 7+ rounds is impossible?
You're just repeating your mantra without acknowledging that the game moves outside it. That's why your maths doesn't relate to real world. HP is not the only variable. The number of hits the PCs get, the actions of the PCs, the number of enemies, and the likelihood of being successful and the type of hit that is successful all change. Not to mention the examples above that you so casually dismiss. You're being reductionist. Some times that is good. Not in this case.
It's also not very pleasant Anzyr because your not interested in a discussion just repeating yourself despite the fact that pages of people disagree with your assertion. I've tried to give you categories by which combats can be extended. You're not interested.
So good day sir.
Then you were either fudging, houseruling, had less than 4 people, or were playing characters that were less than even lightly optimized. You will note my declaration of impossibility came with several caveats. Said caveats are there exactly because I know what the word "impossible" means and have eliminated all scenarios via caveats that would produce a different mathematical result other than impossible.
6 players, all but one highly optimized. No significant houserules. Only allowed the 4 hardcover books, and the RotRL local stuff.
Sorry guy, but there are many play styles. In any one that you are having fun, it's the right playstyle.
But as many have shown here, such a thing is not, by any means "impossible". Go to my thread, you will see the designers themselves often have 6 or so rounds per combat.
Consider Spheres of Power, which reduces a caster's game-breaking versatility (which is what truly makes spellcasters OP) while giving them other boons to compensate, like no native issues with casting in armor.
Note that some Advanced Talents exist that give Spherecasters access to abilities that are arguably stronger than what can be found in standard Vancian casting, but these often require serious character investment and, like all Advanced Talents, can be disallowed.
I'm getting tired of your "impossible" claim. I've been doing this for longer than you've likely been alive. A well set up encounter hits 7 pretty easily.
How long in real-world time do your 7+ round encounters tend to last?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth Walsh, that sounds more like a 6 round encounter to a tactical well-optimized team. At the first sign of Channel Energy [or with a successful Knowledge Religion check, since you allow enemies to identify the PC's classes by Knowledge checks or similar] I'd have dogpiled to take down one support clerics one at a time.
The change to Channel Energy should also be noticed, since the dhampir is targeted as an undead rather than a living creature, preventing the clerics from harming the PCs at the same time.
Uh combats usually go 7-10 rounds each with how I structure them.This is mathematically impossible without fudging dice, or houseruling. The math of the game indicates that even a much higher CR enemy should not survive 2 rounds of concentrated attacks from even *very* lightly optimized players. 3 rounds is possible if you have spread out enemies. 4 if the PCs luck is bad. 5+? That requires either really bad luck or GM fudging/houserules. 7+ is impossible without Touma's luck or GM fudging/houserules. 9+ is impossible without GM fudging/houserules even with Touma's luck.
Even if you use multiple high CR opponents to reduce player's accuracy/increase save percentages and hit points to deplete, this instead goes the other way and the players should be defeated in 4 rounds or so.
You're really underestimating how encounters can go. Enemies don't just stand there and slug it out. Positioning, movement, use of LOS can all draw encounters out.
Sure 4 on 1 encounters go down fast but well trained opponents can do all kinds of things.
There was a poll taken on the boards to show an average of about 3 to 4 rounds, but closer to 3. If the group is optimized, and the GM doesn't optimized the monsters it is closer to 2 rounds.
Many fights are in rooms without a lot of things to hide behind, but of course YMMV depending on the GM.
edit:That is also my real life experience, and I think once players adapt to you always using cover they should be able to shorten the fights unless they just like longer fights.
I dunno, when you tell people what they are saying is impossible and/or that they MUST be fudging, it sounds like you are saying they are playing wrong. You don't agree with how long some people's encounters take. That is your take on it. Your experiences aren't everyone's.Bit more "wrongbadfun" going than I like. Just because the math says something or because you play a certain way, that doesn't mean it is right or the only way. And what does any of it have to do with the resistance to limiting spellcasters?I haven't seen any "badwrongfun" in this thread at all. Perhaps you are misusing the term? If someone is fudging to make encounters last longer or to reduce casters effectiveness or houseruling they are essentially committing the Oberoni Fallacy ie. arguing it's not broken because you can fix it. This becomes an issue regarding a discussion of limiting spellcasters because their method almost certainly does not take into account the underlying math of the system.
That is clearly not the same thing.
"You are crazy for not liking chocolate cake" is not the same as "I dont believe you don't like chocolate cake".One is saying only unworthy people don't like chocolate cake. The other is more like "you would like chocolate cake if you stopped making changes to the recipe".
Joe - no you can I've done it, you just do X, Y, Z
************
Where is this. Because I don't see it anywhere. And I would love to crunch to the math on it because I am very confident in the outcome.
So let's rephrase what is really going on:
"My encounters last 7+ rounds."
"The math does not support that. One of several things must be going on."
"No, no they aren't. They just do last 7 rounds."
"The math disagrees with you outside one of the caveats."
"No it doesn't they just last 7+ rounds."
I think it is possible if we assume turtling on both sides (PCS and enemies).
Example, everyone behind partial cover and shooting arrows like old western.Everyone is to worried about getting hurt to end the battles too quick. No one id charging solo in melee not caring about counterattacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the multiple groups of enemies are multiple encounters...
To me, a combat encounter only ends when you come out of initiative.
Ten groups of enemies within earshot of one another would still be one encounter if you don't get to rest at at any point while fighting them. I guess if some people interpret that as multiple encounters, that's one possible explanation for the difference in average round count.
I find a lot of "how many fights and how long they take" is dictated by verisimilitude more than anything. If the PCs are engaged in piracy, and they fight to take a prize, after that they're not going to look to take 4 more today, they're probably going to crack open the rum and celebrate. You can have Sahaugin sneak up on deck or a sea monster attack, but if this starts happening several times every day the players are going to get suspicious that you're just wasting their time.
If the PCs are breaking into a smallish building at night in order to get something, unless you make, say, a tailor's shop much bigger than it has any good reason to be, there's only so many things to fight that can fit inside of it. If it's just wall to wall golems in there, the players will then be, again, suspicious.
I've seen games that insert a gamey contrivance about rests, that you can only get one after every 5 fights, but I fear that leads to PCs trying to start fights they wouldn't otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, when you tell people what they are saying is impossible and/or that they MUST be fudging, it sounds like you are saying they are playing wrong. You don't agree with how long some people's encounters take. That is your take on it. Your experiences aren't everyone's.Bit more "wrongbadfun" going than I like. Just because the math says something or because you play a certain way, that doesn't mean it is right or the only way. And what does any of it have to do with the resistance to limiting spellcasters?I haven't seen any "badwrongfun" in this thread at all. Perhaps you are misusing the term? If someone is fudging to make encounters last longer or to reduce casters effectiveness or houseruling they are essentially committing the Oberoni Fallacy ie. arguing it's not broken because you can fix it. This becomes an issue regarding a discussion of limiting spellcasters because their method almost certainly does not take into account the underlying math of the system.That is clearly not the same thing.
"You are crazy for not liking chocolate cake" is not the same as "I dont believe you don't like chocolate cake".One is saying only unworthy people don't like chocolate cake. The other is more like "you would like chocolate cake if you stopped making changes to the recipe".
To follow your cake analogy, I would say it is more akin to saying "You didn't make the cake like my recipe, therefore you didn't make chocolate cake."
In any case, who cares how long combat takes? It doesn't particularly address the thread itself and has turned into a little mini battle. Which, btw, has taken more than 3 rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the original question- People don't like to have things they enjoy taken away. It is one thing to not have something, it is another to get accustomed and expect something, and not get it.
Many aspects of the casting classes date back to the days of AD&D. The idea back then was that caster suck really badly at low levels, then become capable of a few awesome spells per day. It should be noted that spells back then often had brutal side effects (haste aged you a year, fireball and lightning bolt could bounce back and really kill you, and you don't even want to know what would happen if you tried to use a wish spell without consulting a team of linguists and lawyers...) Basically, all the things that made casters weaker were removed over the decades and editions, and that leaves us with the current situation.
Back in ye olden times, it was completely understood that the DM was in total control of the game world. Everything the players did required consulting a sage, and literally most of the information was in books the players didn't even own.
In current times, the players have access to everything, including optimization guides, and everyone at the table knows how most interactions are going to go down. The players know the approximate DC's and AC's and how everything is supposed to work.
Finally, there is a sense of knowing and taking the most powerful options and pushing the game from roleplaying to arena combat. (Yes, you roleplay your "build" like a greatest of thespians!) The rules were just not built for that kind of experience, and sense casters have more options and movable parts, they are better able to take advantage.
My solution... is fairly straightforward, but will have to wait a couple of hours as I have some firewood to cut...
|
|
It can be annoying if the DM plays hit and fade with it.
Yes, but it takes a standard action that provokes to restore the invisibility, and the quasit must be in the creatures square to attack, removing the invisibility. So it can be effective, but AoOs and good tactics can handle a quasit fairly easily.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can be annoying if the DM plays hit and fade with it.Yes, but it takes a standard action that provokes to restore the invisibility, and the quasit must be in the creatures square to attack, removing the invisibility. So it can be effective, but AoOs and good tactics can handle a quasit fairly easily.
She's armed with a throwing/returning dagger though, isn't she?
She's armed with a throwing/returning dagger though, isn't she?It can be annoying if the DM plays hit and fade with it.Yes, but it takes a standard action that provokes to restore the invisibility, and the quasit must be in the creatures square to attack, removing the invisibility. So it can be effective, but AoOs and good tactics can handle a quasit fairly easily.
Yup.That encounter can murder you if you don't have the cold iron weapons and or a way to deal with invisibility and/or a few tangle-foot bags
For what it's worth Walsh, that sounds more like a 6 round encounter to a tactical well-optimized team. At the first sign of Channel Energy [or with a successful Knowledge Religion check, since you allow enemies to identify the PC's classes by Knowledge checks or similar] I'd have dogpiled to take down one support clerics one at a time.The change to Channel Energy should also be noticed, since the dhampir is targeted as an undead rather than a living creature, preventing the clerics from harming the PCs at the same time.
Sorry to slightly detail - I thought channeling energy (regardless of + or - energy) can either harm or heal, not both, at the same time.
Am I wrong?
|
|
You are correct, but the example becomes tricky with Negative Energy Affinity. Most people thought that you could target such a creature as living, when in actuality you have to target it as undead, and thus cannot heal it while damaging other living creatures.
She's armed with a throwing/returning dagger though, isn't she?It can be annoying if the DM plays hit and fade with it.Yes, but it takes a standard action that provokes to restore the invisibility, and the quasit must be in the creatures square to attack, removing the invisibility. So it can be effective, but AoOs and good tactics can handle a quasit fairly easily.
I wouldn't know, haven't read the AP. Still, that gives a round between attacks for the PCs to take action.
Yup.That encounter can murder you if you don't have the cold iron weapons and or a way to deal with invisibility and/or a few tangle-foot bagsShe's armed with a throwing/returning dagger though, isn't she?It can be annoying if the DM plays hit and fade with it.Yes, but it takes a standard action that provokes to restore the invisibility, and the quasit must be in the creatures square to attack, removing the invisibility. So it can be effective, but AoOs and good tactics can handle a quasit fairly easily.
Only if you fail to tactical retreat and come back prepared. But then that wastes time in game.
What I'm curious about is what do we mean by "lowering spellcasters"?
Could it be:
- Simply not allowing 9 level casters in the game.
- Not allowing casters access to certain problem spells.
- The GM designing scenarios specifically to make the lives of spellcasters difficult.
- Changing some spells to make them more manageable.
etc.
Things like "simply reducing spells/day or spells known aren't good solutions, because they quickly render the sorcerer/wizard/arcanist/psychic borderline unplayable.
The "Raise Martials" bit is simpler, we can all imagine the fighter & co. getting archetypes, feats, items, etc. that are better than the ones they already have and that makes them better. Perhaps by introducing optional systems like stamina.
I'm just unclear on how I would go about "lowering spellcasters" without making it seem like I'm singling out one player or unreasonably limiting what sort of characters are allowed in my game. I'm probably lucky, because nobody in my group really likes playing 9th level arcane casters very much, so they are almost nonexistent in games we run save for the occasional witch.
The question is genuinely meant to be general. Specific implementations are "Suggestions/Home Rules/Homebrew" material.What I'm curious about is what do we mean by "lowering spellcasters"?
The problem is that without an idea of what form this takes, it's hard to imagine whether it's good or bad.
The basic issue is that if I lower spellcasters by taking away those things that made people want to play them to begin with, what benefit does this approach take that "banning wizards entirely" doesn't have?
It's always seemed like the two workable solutions to prevent rocket tag are:
- Everybody agrees not to play rocket tag.
- You use a system of rules that heads that off before it starts.
There was a poll taken on the boards to show an average of about 3 to 4 rounds, but closer to 3. If the group is optimized, and the GM doesn't optimized the monsters it is closer to 2 rounds.
I did that poll, linked to it here. The average for posters was 5 rounds, for devs, 6 rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To follow your cake analogy, I would say it is more akin to saying "You didn't make the cake like my recipe, therefore you didn't make chocolate cake."
Can I get in on the cake analogy too? Because I've been arguing that the cake recipe, though you can certainly change it to suit your taste, should work well as-is without any need for an experienced baker to fix it. But I'm told I should set aside my "preconceived notion" that a good cookbook shouldn't require major editing by someone who already knows how to cook.
As for the superheroes analogy, when Batman has to fight Superman he's given some power armor, or Kryptonite, or something that brings Batman up or Superman down. One of the biggest complaints about the Suicide Squad movie goes right back to its premise: While it makes a lot of sense to have a contingency plan in case the next Superman turns out to be a bad guy, what is Harley Quinn going to do in that situation? Hit him with her baseball bat?
Stories (comics, movies, etc.) are not quite analogous to TTRPGs because the author can easily have the characters of wildly varying power levels go off and do different things to suit their level of ability, in fact switching to scenes with lower stakes can serve the story's pacing. At the RPG table, the PCs really shouldn't be doing that: Again, when the A-team is fighting the BBEG and the B-team is fighting some minions in some other location, the GM can only deal with one fight or the other, so some players are playing the game and the others aren't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Self restraint in home games is a perfectly reasonable solution, that I suspect works for most people.
For instance our group doesn't play with a rapier magus... Ever. We've looked at it, and determined that it just won't be fun for the other players so the social contract between our group is that we don't go there. It's not banned. We'd just never use it - a bit like MAD nuclear weapons.
If a player at our table tried to summon 15 lantern archons everyone else at the table would roll their eyes and then you can guarantee there would be a discussion about the impact it had on the game afterwards.
Just because you could create an army of simulacrum doesn't mean you should or would do that. Outside your dreams/the forums.
I think there is a risk that we look at classes, all classes in the context of corner cases. The type that show up in PFS and in theory craft, and games where everyone around the table likes that stuff. I have a pretty big hunch that most people go about their daily games playing the fun options and not necessarily the best options. These guys aren't particularly active on the forums but still love the game and play regularly. It's just a hunch but there you are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Self restraint in home games is a perfectly reasonable solution, that I suspect works for most people.
For instance our group doesn't play with a rapier magus... Ever. We've looked at it, and determined that it just won't be fun for the other players so the social contract between our group is that we don't go there. It's not banned. We'd just never use it - a bit like MAD nuclear weapons.
If a player at our table tried to summon 15 lantern archons everyone else at the table would roll their eyes and then you can guarantee there would be a discussion about the impact it had on the game afterwards.
Just because you could create an army of simulacrum doesn't mean you should or would do that. Outside your dreams/the forums.
I think there is a risk that we look at classes, all classes in the context of corner cases. The type that show up in PFS and in theory craft, and games where everyone around the table likes that stuff. I have a pretty big hunch that most people go about their daily games playing the fun options and not necessarily the best options. These guys aren't particularly active on the forums but still love the game and play regularly. It's just a hunch but there you are.
i'd support that hunch. you see the same thing in ccgs.
Can I get in on the cake analogy too? Because I've been arguing that the cake recipe, though you can certainly change it to suit your taste, should work well as-is without any need for an experienced baker to fix it. But I'm told I should set aside my "preconceived notion" that a good cookbook shouldn't require major editing by someone who already knows how to cook.
The recipe doesn't need an experienced baker to fix it. Plenty of people like the cake with that recipe. However it says here's the basic cake and here is a list of 1,500 different toppings that can be combined in an endless number of ways - pick the ones you like. Then people are complaining that the butter cream topping they chose doesn't go with the spinach and marmite they also chose.
If you really don't like the base recipe you should buy a different cookbook. There are hundreds out there. Or change the recipe if it doesn't suit your taste.
Can I get in on the cake analogy too? Because I've been arguing that the cake recipe, though you can certainly change it to suit your taste, should work well as-is without any need for an experienced baker to fix it. But I'm told I should set aside my "preconceived notion" that a good cookbook shouldn't require major editing by someone who already knows how to cook.The recipe doesn't need an experienced baker to fix it. Plenty of people like the cake with that recipe. However it says here's the basic cake and here is a list of 1,500 different toppings that can be combined in an endless number of ways - pick the ones you like. Then people are complaining that the butter cream topping they chose doesn't go with the spinach and marmite they also chose.
If you really don't like the base recipe you should buy a different cookbook. There are hundreds out there. Or change the recipe if it doesn't suit your taste.
Right you are: I don't play RIFTS. I just get peeved when people defend the attitude that balance doesn't matter.
The question is genuinely meant to be general. Specific implementations are "Suggestions/Home Rules/Homebrew" material.What I'm curious about is what do we mean by "lowering spellcasters"?
You can achieve a very significant effect simply by lowering maximum starting scores. For example, a wizard that starts with a 15 intelligence score is going to be significantly reduced in power over the life of the character, compared to a starting score of 20. It doesn't have to be 15, but any reduction is going to have fairly little effect at lower levels, but become relevant as the caster levels.
Also, there are a few spells where the GM must step in and exert some control. For example, simulacrum, and the planar binding/ally spells are notoriously open to abuse.
But as someone else mentioned, simply agreeing as a table to not choose to play rocket tag or abuse spells is vitally important to any game.
One of the biggest complaints about the Suicide Squad movie goes right back to its premise: While it makes a lot of sense to have a contingency plan in case the next Superman turns out to be a bad guy, what is Harley Quinn going to do in that situation? Hit him with her baseball bat?Clearly she's there for eye candy.
The real anti-superman weapon planned for that team was the Witch [as Magic is one of Superman's weaknesses] followed by Deadshot with Kryptonite-tipped bullets as the backup.
Well, the point of using condemned criminals to be your special task force is that these people are expendable. It's not like "the person who is likely to die" is going to be more use to you in prison than in the field.
If anything, having the person who is woefully unequipped to deal with Superman in your anti-superman task force is that it gives you plausible deniability- "Obviously, they just broke out of prison, no one in their right mind would send people without super powers to fight Superman in hand to hand combat."
For what it's worth Walsh, that sounds more like a 6 round encounter to a tactical well-optimized team. At the first sign of Channel Energy [or with a successful Knowledge Religion check, since you allow enemies to identify the PC's classes by Knowledge checks or similar] I'd have dogpiled to take down one support clerics one at a time.
Still exceeds Anzyr's proclaimed 4 round maximum.
I never said that. I said the average is rounds per encounter is 4, which is a very different thing. I have in fact explicitly said that 7 rounds combats are possible. What I have said is impossible without one of the caveats being in play is an average encounter length of 7+ rounds.
So, after a decent number of pages, the conclusion that I've come to is that there is simply a segment of people that are quick to label badwrongfun. There's a huge difference between "I don't think I'd enjoy this" and "It's a problem to do this"/"This will never work".
"Game of Thrones is LOW LEVEL FANTASY" is an absolute. In a game where the GM gets to make up anything (and I'm sorry, PFS folks, but PFS is not the based game), absolutes are dangerous. That is saying that no amount of modification works, or that somehow the fact that Jamie Lannister can theorhetically grapple an animal that we don't even know exists in this game world is saying the idea is WRONG, and that is something that I think is problematic.
No one is saying it's wrong, we're saying that you are fighting the system to do so and that if you make a sufficient number of modifications and you are not really playing Pathfinder anymore. Which makes it difficult to provide advice, since you are now talking about new system. I mean no one calls Pathfinder D&D 3.5 you know?