| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before starting, I gotta say that I really like not having two billion different types of bonuses like Pathfinder 1. However, the current way things are working is very frustrating for a lot of people, specially for those who like playing support of buff-focused characters. I, too, think that stacking a ton of buffs shouldn't be possible, but the Bard in our group got very frustrated that his buffs from songs and spells didn't stack with... the natural abilities of the other characters. Things like Barbarian Rage, some Feats, etc. And I've seen some other people here in the forums sharing similar experiences.
Proposal: Add a new type of bonus called... supernatural... power...? I'm very bad with names, but the final result would be something like this:
Item bonus: Bonuses from magic and high-quality items (unchanged).
Circumstance bonus: Result of tactics and specific situations (unchanged).
Conditional bonus: A supernatural or extraodinary ability that is innate to your character's capacities. Things like Rage, most Monk Stances, Dangerous Sorcery, etc. (change: remove Spells and other similar buffs from this category).
New bonus type: Things like buff Spells, bardic Compositions and other similar effects would go here. Bonus from alchemical items would also go here, which solves another problem, Alchemists having their elixirs and mutagens being rendered useless by the magical bonuses of armor and other worn items, without making them stackable with Spells for some really munchkin-y stuff.
Of course a change like that couldn't be just done in a vacuum, it would need some balancing in other areas. I also know that this is just a speculational change from a player that probably isn't going to happen, but I'll leave the suggestion here. What do you guys think about a change like that or something similar?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
My solution: give us spell bonuses and feat bonuses, which come from spells and feats. Simple and intuitive. You can then leave the occasional conditional (or some other thing) to cover stuff like Barbarian rage.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
My proposal:
Embrace untyped bonuses. Barbarian rage bonuses are super core and should stack with everything. Untyped. Bards Inspire is core to it and shouldn't invalidate half the game's buffs. Untyped. Specific items, feats, and spells aren't that core to everything. Typed.
My proposal:
Embrace untyped bonuses. Barbarian rage bonuses are super core and should stack with everything. Untyped. Bards Inspire is ore to it and shouldn't invalidate half the game's buffs. Untyped. Specific items, feats, and spells aren't that core to everything. Typed.
That's a pretty cool and simple solution as well, the only thing that may be worrisome is that in the future when they add a lot of new classes, archetypes, etc., people could be able to get one untyped bonus from here, one from there, and number bloating start being a thing again...
Also, I'm not 100% sure if untyped bonuses can go well with the tight math Paizo is trying to have for the system, because, at core, they are POTENTIALLY infinite.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that non-stacking bonuses can lead to frustrating situations, where one feels like one’s main class features aren’t very useful.
Adding more bonus types creates a headache, math-wise. But I wonder if certain key class abilities (rage, inspire courage) might be given a “robust” feature that ensures (say) that they always add at least +1 to the relevant rolls.
Ex: A +2 conditional bonus to attacks with a robust +2 conditional bonus to attacks would yield a net +3 bonus.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic bonus - from spells & items
Class bonus - from classes, always self only
Circumstance bonus - comes from feats & the bard.
Situational bonus - from flanking/other battlefield conditions only.
I do like the idea of a "Class" bonus type, that insures that everyone's class features do what they're meant to! I also think they need to change the name of "Conditional" and "Circumstantial" to make them for obvious is their source. Alchemy item bonuses do confuse me, since... Are they "items" or their own thing? My lesser Quicksilver Mutagen doesn't change my attack bonus for my +2 Longbow, that makes me sad, isn't the point of Quicksilver to making ranged attacks better? Why do I have to used a Mutagen that's SEVERAL levels higher than my weapon to make any difference? That's my only real complaint so far apart from what OP has said, and I like ideas that Porridge and Garretmander have put forth so far. Keep up the idea farms guys, and hopefully Paizo will listen!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about... every creature can benefit from up to four bonuses, period.
That way a PC can buff themselves, and benefit from any bonus their three party-mates might provide.
Larger parties? NPC bad guy with a swarm of buff-mooks? Doesn't matter. The math was designed for a standard party, and part of adjusting difficulty for oversized parties is eliminated by limiting simultaneous buffs.
No more worry about bonus types. Just count 'em.
I'd like a higher number than 4, but it's a good start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally would love to see an alchemical bonus separate from an item bonus, considering how much magical armor and skill boosting items seen needed at the moment many of the alchemist elixirs don't seem to have much of an affect when yo ui r armor already gives you an item bonus ro saves and other items will do the same to skills.
Would also not mind a return of sacred/profane bonus coming back, but maybe just call it divine. Which could then lead to one bonus type for each of the 4 spell lists to some degree. (Have an arcane bonus, a primal bonus,an occult bonus and a divine bonus)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe some effects that now grant mathematical bonuses should be turned into more mechanical gains, so to speak. Let the inspired target act one more time, have two reactions, get a surge on his proficiency with a specific skill or check, step away from danger one more time for free, redo a whole turn that was poorly conceptualized, etc.
I mean, there is several other axis a character can be changed beyond simples pluses or minuses. For me this specially true for class features that make the backbone of the archetype.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great thread, like-wise Debuffing is almost non-existent at this point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they should as stated before make more bonuses untyped. But I also agree that they should just make less simple flat bonuses. I think rage should either be an untyped bonus or hell give them a bonus d6 or something that goes up to d8 then d10 and finally d12 to damage. Bard inspire can be the same thing. Once per turn inspired ppl are allowed to add a d6 to any d20 roll. Sure it sounds a little like 5e but that's one system I like about 5e.
I think they should as stated before make more bonuses untyped. But I also agree that they should just make less simple flat bonuses. I think rage should either be an untyped bonus or hell give them a bonus d6 or something that goes up to d8 then d10 and finally d12 to damage. Bard inspire can be the same thing. Once per turn inspired ppl are allowed to add a d6 to any d20 roll. Sure it sounds a little like 5e but that's one system I like about 5e.
Ehhh, I really hate variable bonuses. I prefer to keep them as flat numbers, even if they're the low average of the equivalent die roll.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the real issue here isn't about having more bonus types, it's about making sure key class features are always usable by the players. A bard invalidating a support cleric, or a Barbarian's rage invalidating a Bard's buff are all non-starter problems that force players to make careful choices or be consistently disappointed when they can't use that cool thing they want to use.
Thus, we need to make sure that classes cannot have their key features shut down by other classes simply because the system's math is so tight that it's prioritized over player enjoyment. Perhaps there's an answer to have it both ways, but honestly with how tight the system's math is I don't really think there is without loosening it up.