Tweaks I'm considering

While I haven't had much chance yet to play Pathfinder itself (only about 5 sessions or so), I don't feel like the game has gone far enough with some of the changes it has made, and have been considering some additional tweaks, as outlined below.

1) Make the fighter (and other full BAB classes) schtick being that they get more than 1 action a round. Thus, only fighters, rangers and barbarians get additional attacks for high BAB (at 6th, 11th and 16th level - considering for fighter subtypes to delay this one level ala wizard vs. sorcerer progression to make fighter slightly more attractive). Monks would get additional attacks with flurry automatically. For all other classes, it would be a feat (Second attack, Third attack). Contemplating making this a rogue talent.

2) Clerics and Druids don't get 8th and 9th level spells. I think this is one of the biggest mistakes made in the transition between 2e to 3e. Looking at the spell lists for both classes, there is 1 or 2 spells I'd like to pull back to 7th (such as Earthquake), but for the most part, I'm content to let the higher level spells go.

3) Returning class HD back to 3e values. I'm even further contemplating dropping extra HD past 9th ala 1e/2e to drop the hp bloat. I'm sure I'll have to consider the same thing for monsters attack damage if I do this, but the "suggested sack-o-hp" for monsters in the Core book disturbs me.

So far, the only thing I'm doing is giving a 20 hp kicker at level one like Hackmaster (only 3 characters so I'd rather do that than adjust encounters) and giving the +1 to TWO stats at 4th/8th/12th/etc. level like 4E. Also letting them "heal up" with a full night's rest. I'm also thinking of doing a variation of healing surges. I want to avoid the whole "okay, out of healing, let's call it a day at noon".



Chris

Stormonu said:

While I haven't had much chance yet to play Pathfinder itself (only about 5 sessions or so), I don't feel like the game has gone far enough with some of the changes it has made, and have been considering some additional tweaks, as outlined below.

1) Make the fighter (and other full BAB classes) schtick being that they get more than 1 action a round. Thus, only fighters, rangers and barbarians get additional attacks for high BAB (at 6th, 11th and 16th level - considering for fighter subtypes to delay this one level ala wizard vs. sorcerer progression to make fighter slightly more attractive). Monks would get additional attacks with flurry automatically. For all other classes, it would be a feat (Second attack, Third attack). Contemplating making this a rogue talent.

2) Clerics and Druids don't get 8th and 9th level spells. I think this is one of the biggest mistakes made in the transition between 2e to 3e. Looking at the spell lists for both classes, there is 1 or 2 spells I'd like to pull back to 7th (such as Earthquake), but for the most part, I'm content to let the higher level spells go.

3) Returning class HD back to 3e values. I'm even further contemplating dropping extra HD past 9th ala 1e/2e to drop the hp bloat. I'm sure I'll have to consider the same thing for monsters attack damage if I do this, but the "suggested sack-o-hp" for monsters in the Core book disturbs me.

Click to expand...

1) You may want to look at Trailblazer to see what it does with iteritive attacks. It may be the solution you are looking for.

2) That would certainly be a dis-incentive for players to play those classes at higher level. It may encourage multi-classing, so you would have more vaied characters.

3) The first part of this would adjust some PC hit points by an average of 1 hit point/level. Not sure it accomplishes much in the long run. As to limiting it after level 9, well, using creatures from the Bestiary of CR 10+ will then have a huge advantage over the PCs.


Of course, the changes your propose make it seem like you'd rather play 1E.

I dont think 1 and 3 are nececary and do not personally have an opinion on 2. Other than to say clerics got lvl 9 spells before they just were not labeled level 9. they got destruction or Miracle etc they were just level 7 instead of 9.

I'll specifically address issue 1 however. First This completely horribly destroys what little Mid-Bab classes have going for them utterly. Example i would never play /any/ class that did not have full spellcasting or full Bab under this rule.

Secondly it is completely un-needed, You need to understand that at the tiers of play Most players play at (lvl 1 to 10?) fighters utterly destroy any and all competition in PF when it comes to single target melee damage. No one stepps ont heir toes unless it is specific situational (a paladin vs Team Evil or a ranger Vs Favoured enemy)

in Regards to 3 its un-nececary to reset the hit dice and stoping it at lvl 9 would require re-designing the HP and damage design of every spell in the game.

you need tor ealize that in 1st/2nd ed lvl 9 was high level, in the modern 3.x pf games it is mid-level

Stormonu said:

2) Clerics and Druids don't get 8th and 9th level spells. I think this is one of the biggest mistakes made in the transition between 2e to 3e. Looking at the spell lists for both classes, there is 1 or 2 spells I'd like to pull back to 7th (such as Earthquake), but for the most part, I'm content to let the higher level spells go.

Click to expand...

What about Wzards and Sorcerers, do they get 8/9?

The phrase "economy of actions" keeps dinging in the back of my mind as a warning against your proposal to give iterative attacks only to classes with full BAB. Either get rid of iterative attacks entirely (with exceptions for things like TWF or flurry of blows), or don't change it at all.

1Mac said:

The phrase "economy of actions" keeps dinging in the back of my mind as a warning against your proposal to give iterative attacks only to classes with full BAB. Either get rid of iterative attacks entirely (with exceptions for things like TWF or flurry of blows), or don't change it at all.

Click to expand...

economy of actions? Not familiar with this term.

Sorcerers and Wizards would still get 8th & 9th level spells, but overall, I don't play much past about 12th, so I'd really only need rules past that for NPCs.

It's a way of thinking about actions per turn in a game as a resource. The clearest example I can think of is in the board game Agricola. Each player starts with two family members, each of whom can do a limited number of things per turn. As soon as you have a kid, the stuff you can do per turn increases dramatically, such that if you are the only player on the board with a kid for several turns, you've pretty much won. Having a greater economy of actions makes you a more powerful player.

Restricting iterative attacks to a few classes makes those classes much more powerful in combat, for similar reasons, to the point of tedium for other classes.

Stormonu said:

1) Make the fighter (and other full BAB classes) schtick being that they get more than 1 action a round.

snip

Click to expand...

I would recommend against this in the way that you propose. Anytime you take something away from a player as part of your house rule design, you tend to upset them. You make the player feel as if you are tilting the game, as designed, against them.

I would, instead, give the GOOD BAB classes something else. At 6th level, given them an extra move per round, but in no cases more than 2 moves, that will not count against their ability to make 2 attacks as part of a full attack action.

Increase this to permit 3 attacks per round, and at 16th, four.

Effect: this makes your combats more dynamic. The problem with 3.xx combat is that it favors a rush to the middle and then a relatively static battle as the fighters don't want to move as they sacrifice their iterative attacks.

Give this maneuverability back to them. This achieves a significant benefit for the overall feel of your game play, favors their class in terms of multiple attacks (without actually dealing out more damage) and does not take away anything from other classes (so the Rogue does not feel cheated).

And yes, this will allow a fighter of sufficient level to charge and do a full attack.

You will see a gameplay benefit from this at your table, imo.

2) Clerics and Druids don't get 8th and 9th level spells.

Click to expand...

I don't let my PCs get that high, generally. Stripping NPCs of these spells is inconvenient. -- if you have NPCs this level. You can use all kinds of other concerns to deal with these concerns.

If, otoh, you have PCs get this high in level and they are denied these spells? You will have those players quit your game.

3) Returning class HD back to 3e values. I'm even further contemplating dropping extra HD past 9th ala 1e/2e to drop the hp bloat. I'm sure I'll have to consider the same thing for monsters attack damage if I do this, but the "suggested sack-o-hp" for monsters in the Core book disturbs me.

Click to expand...

This messes with the underlying balance of the crunch in the game. It is a flat out mistake, imo. Don't do it.