It sounds like the ideal character in that system would actually be a mage. If you’re solid at dealing damage to everyone, all you need is invisibility and quick initiative to pop enemies that can see you. Once you've taken care of those that could see you, stay mobile and burn down the metal enemies that just want to get in touch with their inner oven.
Sounds like a system that would devolve into mage rocket tag.
It'd need testing, but I'd probably tone down magic a bit as well. It would take a while to cast on level spells, 2e style, and things like flight and invisibility would get bumped to higher levels.
Of course, there would also be magic gear that reduces magical damage, amulets, armor runes, etc. They would just come online at later levels so the few real spells casters get to cast at lower levels feel good.
I'm not interested in making mages OP, I don't want to cut options if I can avoid it, but I'd reshape things to make them fit into the powered-down game I'd be building.
|
The issue is that, if magic scales up (in 'level'), and HP doesn't scale as fast (or barely at all), there will be a point where a single spell can one-shot a character.
Also, if there are things that reduce magic damage, then what is the point of being a mage? You've already hindered them defensively. At that point, why not just make a tin can and play the game of watching paint dry.
The issue is that, if magic scales up (in 'level'), and HP doesn't scale as fast (or barely at all), there will be a point where a single spell can one-shot a character.
Yes. I don't see high lethality as a problem as I prefer combat as war-style games. The party should aim to get the drop on things.
Also, if a spell takes two actions per spell level to cast they need to have an impact. That fireball that deals 5d6 non-scaling damage just cost you two entire rounds to get off, things should feel it.
Also, did you not play D&D 2e? HP scaled almost as you'd expect until level 10 and then stopped scaling much at all for most classes. A mage was getting d4 HP per level and likely didn't have a con bonus. In our game we'd keep stats as they are and give mages d6 HD but characters would only gain a new HD on odd character levels and would only gain their con bonus on even levels. So things would scale, just not such that everybody is a walking slab of HP that can swim in broken glass naked and barely feel it.
Also, if there are things that reduce magic damage, then what is the point of being a mage? You've already hindered them defensively. At that point, why not just make a tin can and play the game of watching paint dry.
Not everything will have that. A dragon may well shrug off magic but ogres won't. The Holy Order of Knights Militant will have wards on their plate, but the Duke's Order of the Iron Cross may not have the resources to afford such luxuries for any but their highest ranking knights.
Just because a counter exists doesn't mean it will be universal or evenlt spread among all combatants in a fight.
|
|
Also, if a spell takes two actions per spell level to cast they need to have an impact. That fireball that deals 5d6 non-scaling damage just cost you two entire rounds to get off, things should feel it.
While I'd be interested in casting spells that take 2+ rounds for every spell, I think you'd be hard pressed to get other people to.
Also, did you not play D&D 2e? HP scaled almost as you'd expect until level 10 and then stopped scaling much at all for most classes. A mage was getting d4 HP per level and likely didn't have a con bonus. In our game we'd keep stats as they are and give mages d6 HD but characters would only gain a new HD on odd character levels and would only gain their con bonus on even levels. So things would scale, just not such that everybody is a walking slab of HP that can swim in broken glass naked and barely feel it.
I did play AD&D.
Also, if a spell takes two actions per spell level to cast they need to have an impact. That fireball that deals 5d6 non-scaling damage just cost you two entire rounds to get off, things should feel it.While I'd be interested in casting spells that take 2+ rounds for every spell, I think you'd be hard pressed to get other people to.
Yeah, but I'm not designing something for everybody. Paizo and WotC will already write a bland safe product to satisfy them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but I'm not designing something for everybody. Paizo and WotC will already write a bland safe product to satisfy them.Also, if a spell takes two actions per spell level to cast they need to have an impact. That fireball that deals 5d6 non-scaling damage just cost you two entire rounds to get off, things should feel it.While I'd be interested in casting spells that take 2+ rounds for every spell, I think you'd be hard pressed to get other people to.
That is a curious standpoint. So if you don't like PF2, I admit to being curious why you are on the boards.
That is a curious standpoint. So if you don't like PF2, I admit to being curious why you are on the boards.
PF2 is fine. It's more interesting than 5e for sure, but it's lost a lot of the raw old-school feel that I enjoy in a game. I'll play PF2 happily enough and would run it for a group that wanted it, but it wouldn't ever be my first choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the idea. Heavy Armor should be attractive by mechanics not just aesthetics (like previous games) with costs that balance out the benefits.
The appeal of medium armor is "you do not need to invest heavily in dex or str, just a little, to max out your AC, which seems like enough to me". You can max out the AC for medium armor just by taking one boost in dex and living with a -5 speed penalty, or four boosts if you can't live with the penalty. If I wanted to buff medium armor I would make it easier to get the armor specialization (since "you can't get that" is the tradeoff for light armors.)
This sounds pretty reasonable to me too. I legitimately forgot that armor specialization was even a thing until you mentioned it because it's so uncommon to see.I don't like the idea. Heavy Armor should be attractive by mechanics not just aesthetics (like previous games) with costs that balance out the benefits.
The appeal of medium armor is "you do not need to invest heavily in dex or str, just a little, to max out your AC, which seems like enough to me". You can max out the AC for medium armor just by taking one boost in dex and living with a -5 speed penalty, or four boosts if you can't live with the penalty. If I wanted to buff medium armor I would make it easier to get the armor specialization (since "you can't get that" is the tradeoff for light armors.)
Considering that only Fighters, Champions, and Sentinel Dedication characters get access to it, most all of which are Heavy Armor users, it really doesn't make sense for a Medium armor to have a specialization benefit, since the design benefits of Armor Specialization could really boil down to Full Plate, and that's it, and everything else can just, you know, not be there.
Then again, the same could be said of everything that is Heavy Armor besides Full Plate, instead of offering unique benefits to each armor to make them have valuable consequences between the choices. Where's my Piecemeal trait, which lets me craft and benefit from two Special Materials at once, creating truly unique and powerful items from scratch? Where's my more-mobile Heavy Armor that has only a -5 penalty baseline? Where's a Chain Heavy Armor for different specialization preferences? What about Spiked Armor? If we can have Shield Bosses and Shield Spikes be used and enchanted as weapons, why not become both in the same item?
The Armor category in general in this game took such a major nosedive compared to PF1 that it's literally just an afterthought simply to make the underlying math "work," and that's it. There's no Leaf or Wood Armor for those vegan adventurers, or a Stoneplate for a more natural heavy-armored Druid, or anything. Armor from PF1, while niche, did indeed serve a purpose in its categories. The fact that this game's edition predecessor did Armor better than the current implementation did really says something about the lack of design priority put into it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's not about overtuned adventures in this case. A level 15 NPC spellcaster with High DC has a spell DC of 36. And this is not even that high for the game's standards, because the monster building rules suggest you start using Extreme DCs for main casters at that point. But let's be generous and go with High. If you leave a save stat at 10 by that point, you're likely to have 15 + 4 (Expert) + 2 (Item), for +21. That means you need a 15 to pass, and most importantly, you critically fail on a 5.
This is not a boss, this is a level+0 creature, and isn't even one with that high of a DC, according to the game (look at the Demilich for example, a level 15 creature with a spell DC of forty). It's not about adventures being overtuned or people setting DCs too high, it's that the DCs the game sets up as recommendations and uses as a baseline are balanced around a super maxed character, and you'll critically fail and be deleted from a fight very often if you don't invest. No wonder why people are paranoid about defenses.
But level 15 isn't level 1. If you were this hypothetical medium armor user and couldn't get bulwark and settled for a breastplate, you'd be starting at Dex 12 probably. By level 15 that could be Dex 18 from ability boosts, so you only need an 11 to pass. Which seems decent, against the best thing an enemy has to throw at you? It's better odds than you get with AC against a melee enemy's strikes. It's also better than you could have gotten with Bulwark, although that's only by level 15.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's not about overtuned adventures in this case. A level 15 NPC spellcaster with High DC has a spell DC of 36. And this is not even that high for the game's standards, because the monster building rules suggest you start using Extreme DCs for main casters at that point. But let's be generous and go with High. If you leave a save stat at 10 by that point, you're likely to have 15 + 4 (Expert) + 2 (Item), for +21. That means you need a 15 to pass, and most importantly, you critically fail on a 5.
This is not a boss, this is a level+0 creature, and isn't even one with that high of a DC, according to the game (look at the Demilich for example, a level 15 creature with a spell DC of forty). It's not about adventures being overtuned or people setting DCs too high, it's that the DCs the game sets up as recommendations and uses as a baseline are balanced around a super maxed character, and you'll critically fail and be deleted from a fight very often if you don't invest. No wonder why people are paranoid about defenses.
But level 15 isn't level 1. If you were this hypothetical medium armor user and couldn't get bulwark and settled for a breastplate, you'd be starting at Dex 12 probably. By level 15 that could be Dex 18 from ability boosts, so you only need an 11 to pass. Which seems decent, against the best thing an enemy has to throw at you? It's better odds than you get with AC against a melee enemy's strikes. It's also better than you could have gotten with Bulwark, although that's only by level 15.
And if you're playing an inventor, or a magus, or any other medium armour class that needs another stat? You can't really afford to boost that dex along with wis, con, str, and your other stat.
So one of those saves is going to be abysmally bad for level 15.