Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Yeah, that's got it.Henry said:
I tried {code}, and {html}, and pasting the html directly in, but it didn't work out. I could still see all the <> brackets from the html code-- it didn't seem to resolve any code.
[D&D Design Discussion] Preserving the "Sweet Spot"
- Thread starter Wulf Ratbane
- Start date
I tried {code}, and {html}, and pasting the html directly in, but it didn't work out. I could still see all the <> brackets from the html code-- it didn't seem to resolve any code.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Eric Anondson said:Why add the caster levels if they cast spells from different selections? Why consider caster levels like bonuses? I'm assuming one wouldn't add bard caster level with wizard caster level to get the result. Or add cleric with wizard... I'm a little
Two part question.
First, I wanted to add caster levels, because RAW aren't very friendly to multiclassing. That's a whole other discussion that's been had many times, culminating in the Mystic Theurge, etc.
Second part answer-- what I've presented doesn't matter. It's as much of a problem with BAB as with caster level. Ftr 7 / Bbn 7 / Rgr 6 would have a better BAB additively than a Ftr 20.
... back to the drawing board...
That'll teach me to think out loud!
Seriously, it's ugly in here under the hood.
jmucchiello
Hero
Pretend I'm someone else....
On the othe hand, the ftr-8 or takes a level of sorcerer will only gain .25 BAB by going from level 8 to level 9 on the poor chart.
The flaw with this method of course is that ftr-1..ftr5/sor1..sor5 has a different bab than sor1..sor5/ftr1..ftr5. Or maybe it's not a flaw. Order of learning combat could affect total combat ability. (or you make the rule that you recalculate BAB every level using the most favorable progressions first regardless of the order they were gained. So the sor5 taking a level of ftr1 would reset bab to +1 for ftr1, +2 for level 2-5 on ht poor chart at levels 2-5 and +.25 for character level 6, yielding +3.25.)
Now my head hurts. Can't wait to see how this progression change affects Monsters.
Actually the answer is on your chart. It says character level, not class level. So when the ftr-3/bbn-2 with the +5 BAB goes to ftr-3/brb-3, he consults the good column increase from character level 5 to character level 6 and becomes BAB +5.5. so by ftr-7/brb-7/rgr-6 he will be no different than the ftr-20.Wulf Ratbane said:
On the othe hand, the ftr-8 or takes a level of sorcerer will only gain .25 BAB by going from level 8 to level 9 on the poor chart.
The flaw with this method of course is that ftr-1..ftr5/sor1..sor5 has a different bab than sor1..sor5/ftr1..ftr5. Or maybe it's not a flaw. Order of learning combat could affect total combat ability. (or you make the rule that you recalculate BAB every level using the most favorable progressions first regardless of the order they were gained. So the sor5 taking a level of ftr1 would reset bab to +1 for ftr1, +2 for level 2-5 on ht poor chart at levels 2-5 and +.25 for character level 6, yielding +3.25.)
Now my head hurts. Can't wait to see how this progression change affects Monsters.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
jmucchiello said:
I wouldn't change the monsters at all.
DeadlyUematsu
Explorer
Wow, maggot's insight was really on the spot.
Victim
First Post
One major reason for 4 ranks at first level is to even out the effect of other mods. If a character has 18 Dex, then the 4 ranks make the skill equal in importance to the stat. Otherwise skill ranks are pretty worthless in comparison to stat mods and such. It's like high level 3.0; who cares how many ranks a character has when +skill items are so cheap. I think making skill ranks less important in the context of other modifiers makes the problem worse.
The only disconnect is the lack of context in your post.
Evaluting Heal by comparing the amount it cures compared with other lower level spells is totally worthless. Put the spells in their proper place. How much a spell heals is irrelevant without considering how much damage enemies do and how many HP people have. There's also opportunity costs: what else can a high level priest do with a 6th level spell and what else can he do with his turn. Basically, healing spells have been losing ground on a character's HP since level 1: the cure progression goes up 1d8 per two levels and +1 per level. Most characters gain way more than 1d4+1 HP per level, and by 11th level many will be gaining Con items to further increase their rate of HP gain. Not to mention that damage has gone up quite a bit as well. In the context of the game, those smoothly scaling Cure X wounds become increasingly ineffective since damage and HP outpace them. Heal needs to have a big jump to catch up. Also, an 11th+ cleric can be doing a number of interesting and powerful things with his spells and time. As the value of his other actions increase, the value of his healing options must increase in order for that choice to remain attractive. If Heal was like 6d8+CL, it would suck unless everything else completely changed as well.
The problem with Teleport is that it's context is highly variable. We can look at how tough the monsters are, how many HP people are likely to have, and what other stuff high level clerics can do to see where Heal fits. But Teleport offers strategic movement, and there's no universal way to value that. In Eberron, a 9th level 'port can take a character from Sharn to Wroat instantly. But traveling from say Qbarra to the nearest city big enough to have a train station will take several days of teleporting. And PCs have transport options that are much faster than walking and riding anyway. So 100 mile/level might be required in a game of internation scope. And, in that game, a 1 mile/level would be a cruel joke, like Drawji's Instant Summons. But if your game takes place inside a small region, then Teleport might let your cross multiple countries in single jump. If there's no other fast transit, then it becomes even more important. And if the game is about going into the Dungeon from the Town, then going back to sell and heal, then a Teleport that goes a mile per level might be awesome since you can escape the Dungeon instantly while a 900 mile port might be campaign blowing. Whether or not 900 miles is too much depends heavily on the campaign and setting.
Similarly, there's plenty of room of to go after raise dead. Raise is expensive, both in money and since it costs a level. It's slow to cast, and is subject to some restrictions. The high level spells ease up on the restrictions and eventually the level cost. Revivify has some harsh restrictions, but is fast and cheap. And it's generally better not to die in the first, so there's plenty of room to work on preventing death. Is the problem with Raise Dead that it allows the party to recover its combat losses, or that it can ressurect the dead which can have far reaching consequences. The truth is probably some of both. But being able to save people who are say mostly dead is much less a change in scope than being able to pull people from the afterlife.
In one sense, there's very little room to go with most spells. It's just a matter of making it easier, affecting more people/things, increasing the cap, or adding side benefits.
Broadly competent characters need teams to adventure just as much as specialized ones, IMHO.
The only disconnect is the lack of context in your post.
Evaluting Heal by comparing the amount it cures compared with other lower level spells is totally worthless. Put the spells in their proper place. How much a spell heals is irrelevant without considering how much damage enemies do and how many HP people have. There's also opportunity costs: what else can a high level priest do with a 6th level spell and what else can he do with his turn. Basically, healing spells have been losing ground on a character's HP since level 1: the cure progression goes up 1d8 per two levels and +1 per level. Most characters gain way more than 1d4+1 HP per level, and by 11th level many will be gaining Con items to further increase their rate of HP gain. Not to mention that damage has gone up quite a bit as well. In the context of the game, those smoothly scaling Cure X wounds become increasingly ineffective since damage and HP outpace them. Heal needs to have a big jump to catch up. Also, an 11th+ cleric can be doing a number of interesting and powerful things with his spells and time. As the value of his other actions increase, the value of his healing options must increase in order for that choice to remain attractive. If Heal was like 6d8+CL, it would suck unless everything else completely changed as well.
The problem with Teleport is that it's context is highly variable. We can look at how tough the monsters are, how many HP people are likely to have, and what other stuff high level clerics can do to see where Heal fits. But Teleport offers strategic movement, and there's no universal way to value that. In Eberron, a 9th level 'port can take a character from Sharn to Wroat instantly. But traveling from say Qbarra to the nearest city big enough to have a train station will take several days of teleporting. And PCs have transport options that are much faster than walking and riding anyway. So 100 mile/level might be required in a game of internation scope. And, in that game, a 1 mile/level would be a cruel joke, like Drawji's Instant Summons. But if your game takes place inside a small region, then Teleport might let your cross multiple countries in single jump. If there's no other fast transit, then it becomes even more important. And if the game is about going into the Dungeon from the Town, then going back to sell and heal, then a Teleport that goes a mile per level might be awesome since you can escape the Dungeon instantly while a 900 mile port might be campaign blowing. Whether or not 900 miles is too much depends heavily on the campaign and setting.
Similarly, there's plenty of room of to go after raise dead. Raise is expensive, both in money and since it costs a level. It's slow to cast, and is subject to some restrictions. The high level spells ease up on the restrictions and eventually the level cost. Revivify has some harsh restrictions, but is fast and cheap. And it's generally better not to die in the first, so there's plenty of room to work on preventing death. Is the problem with Raise Dead that it allows the party to recover its combat losses, or that it can ressurect the dead which can have far reaching consequences. The truth is probably some of both. But being able to save people who are say mostly dead is much less a change in scope than being able to pull people from the afterlife.
In one sense, there's very little room to go with most spells. It's just a matter of making it easier, affecting more people/things, increasing the cap, or adding side benefits.
Broadly competent characters need teams to adventure just as much as specialized ones, IMHO.
My take on the 4x was that it provided the character with the ability to round out the character by purchasing some skills related to culture/background.
As for players just maxing out a limited number skills and not rounding out the character,I never had that problem. Then again, I require players to some spend points on background and cultural skills not related directly to adventuring.
However, if eliminating the skill point modifier at first level, I would love to see the implementaton of something similar to the adolescene skills of RMSS and HARP.
Edit: Actually, I would like to see the adolescene skills implemented, but I wouldn't eliminate the skill point multiplier completely- maybe just reduce it to x2 or x3. I would still keep the skill cap as it is in the phb rather than limiting it to level- in my opinion, limiting the cap to level- I prefer more variance at first level than you have a rank or you don't.
As for players just maxing out a limited number skills and not rounding out the character,I never had that problem. Then again, I require players to some spend points on background and cultural skills not related directly to adventuring.
However, if eliminating the skill point modifier at first level, I would love to see the implementaton of something similar to the adolescene skills of RMSS and HARP.
Edit: Actually, I would like to see the adolescene skills implemented, but I wouldn't eliminate the skill point multiplier completely- maybe just reduce it to x2 or x3. I would still keep the skill cap as it is in the phb rather than limiting it to level- in my opinion, limiting the cap to level- I prefer more variance at first level than you have a rank or you don't.
Last edited:
Wulf Ratbane said:
Why not just have a base class that combines divine and arcane casting? Caster level = class level. As for spellcasting progression, use 3.0 0-level multiclassing as a basis.
1st level 0/0 level spells as per 3.0 mutliclassnig
2nd level 1st level arcane and divine spells
6th level 2nd level arcane and divine spells
10th level 3rd level arcane and divine spells
14th level 4th level arcane and divine spells
18th level 5th level level arcane and divine spells
The result is that caster level improves, but the new spell levels are gained much slower.
The caster rule would seem to be as follows:
Divine and Arcane Caster Level must be equal to or less than Character Level divided by 2.
Caster Level grows as follows:
Primary Caster: +1 Caster Level per Class Level (ie, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Arcane Trickster, Archmage, Heirophant, Eldritch Knight, Loremaster, Thaumaturgist)
Hybrid Caster: +.66 Caster Level per Class Level (ie, Bard, Assassin, Blackguard)
Partial Caster: +.40 Caster Level per Class Level (ie, Ranger, Paladin)
The decimal caster level progression charts could look like this:
0/1/2/2/3/4/4/5/6/6/7/8/8/9/10/10
0/1/1/2/2/2/3/3/4/4/4/5/5/6/6/6/7/7/8/8
The key to this rule would be that the player simply has to find "something else to do" if he can't improve his caster level, and meet the rules for character level divided by 2. Either add a non-caster level/hybrid caster level/partial caster level or switch caster level classes between arcane and divine.
The only other game element change that would be required to facilitate this would be the impact of spell resistance. Lowered caster levels would become unfairly harst at higher levels. SR is meant in most instances to give a 50/50 chance for failure (ie, concealment), I think either implementing a flat rule such as this, or reducing the SR by 5 would also have about the same desired effect, and leave the "high end" SR still very challenging.
For example, 14th level party is fighting a CR14 creature. The best caster in the party is 7th level and can cast 4th level spells. The creature has SR 24 (14+10=24), for the 7th level caster to break through it, they have to roll a 17 or higher. Using the suggested modifier, of -5 from all SR in the book, the new roll required to overcome SR is a moderate 12 or higher. At the high end, a 20th level party is fighting a CR 22 creature, with SR 32 (22+10), the party is CL 10. They would need a 22 or higher (modified on their SR check). Using the modified roll method, they would still need a 17 or higher, however, there is now a significant incentive to have Greater Penetration and/or use other spells that may help to lower the creature's resistance, or avoid using SR spells against them at all. The way higher level plays, having solid defenses you can count on, such as SR would be of great benefit.
Divine and Arcane Caster Level must be equal to or less than Character Level divided by 2.
Caster Level grows as follows:
Primary Caster: +1 Caster Level per Class Level (ie, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Arcane Trickster, Archmage, Heirophant, Eldritch Knight, Loremaster, Thaumaturgist)
Hybrid Caster: +.66 Caster Level per Class Level (ie, Bard, Assassin, Blackguard)
Partial Caster: +.40 Caster Level per Class Level (ie, Ranger, Paladin)
The decimal caster level progression charts could look like this:
0/1/2/2/3/4/4/5/6/6/7/8/8/9/10/10
0/1/1/2/2/2/3/3/4/4/4/5/5/6/6/6/7/7/8/8
The key to this rule would be that the player simply has to find "something else to do" if he can't improve his caster level, and meet the rules for character level divided by 2. Either add a non-caster level/hybrid caster level/partial caster level or switch caster level classes between arcane and divine.
The only other game element change that would be required to facilitate this would be the impact of spell resistance. Lowered caster levels would become unfairly harst at higher levels. SR is meant in most instances to give a 50/50 chance for failure (ie, concealment), I think either implementing a flat rule such as this, or reducing the SR by 5 would also have about the same desired effect, and leave the "high end" SR still very challenging.
For example, 14th level party is fighting a CR14 creature. The best caster in the party is 7th level and can cast 4th level spells. The creature has SR 24 (14+10=24), for the 7th level caster to break through it, they have to roll a 17 or higher. Using the suggested modifier, of -5 from all SR in the book, the new roll required to overcome SR is a moderate 12 or higher. At the high end, a 20th level party is fighting a CR 22 creature, with SR 32 (22+10), the party is CL 10. They would need a 22 or higher (modified on their SR check). Using the modified roll method, they would still need a 17 or higher, however, there is now a significant incentive to have Greater Penetration and/or use other spells that may help to lower the creature's resistance, or avoid using SR spells against them at all. The way higher level plays, having solid defenses you can count on, such as SR would be of great benefit.
Similar Threads
Split the Hoard
Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!
A competitive card game for 2-5 players