RangerWickett
Legend
I was interested in finding a way to take the best of 4th editions streamlining and apply it to the 3rd edition-derived Pathfinder, without requiring much changing in monsters. This is a little long. :-D
Also, I edited this because I just realized I hadn't looked in the Pathfinder Alpha glossary to see that my thoughts on 'cascading ability score changes' had already been implemented.
Well, the rest still apply.
The biggest challenge of the Pathfinder RPG is to offer backwards compatibility while reducing the head-aches of running some of rougher rules elements of 3e. I have a lot of experience reworking complex game elements into a streamlined system -- I wrote E.N. Publishing's Elements of Magic - Revised and its sequels, and was one of the main designers of our early point-buy superhero system Four-Color to Fantasy -- so I offer these suggestions on how to resolve the dilemma.
Three Points of Philosophy
I propose to polish many of the perceived problems with 3e with these three main efforts. First, a quick overview.
.
Now let me present some examples. Please understand that all these examples are basically 'alpha rule' suggestions. The specifics would need to be tweaked. Also understand that while I do propose some serious changes to core aspects of the game, I do so in a way that existing 3e rules expansions can have their effects grandfathered into these new categories with limited trouble.
.
Detail - Remove cascading ability score changes
Say you get hit with ray of enfeeblement, granting a -10 penalty to Strength. You get a -5 penalty to melee attack rolls, -5 to on-hand melee damage, -2 or -3 to off-hand melee damage, and a -7 or -8 to two-handed melee damage. Also your carrying capacity goes down, which can affect your movement and your armor check.
Or worse, you're entangled, and you're an archer. You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dexterity. So you take a -2 to attack with a sword, but a -4 with a crossbow. And you might lose your Rapid Shot and Dodge feats. Oh, and your Reflex save goes down. And AC, unless you were wearing certain types of armor.
I suggest that for Pathfinder, ability score modifiers affect all rolls modified by that stat, and if it affects any static numbers (like AC or hit points), we just state a specific number, instead of requiring calculation. The stat itself, however, never changes.
In this system, a 10-point ray of enfeeblement just grants a -5 penalty to all Strength-based effects. This means you take a -5 penalty to melee attack rolls, a -5 penalty to melee damage rolls, and a -5 penalty on Str-based skills. (We'd also make some sort of rule that explains that when your Strength has a penalty of X, your lifting capacity is affected by Y, but that's a minor issue.)
If you would take a -4 Dex penalty, instead you take a -2 penalty to ranged attacks, Reflex saves, AC, and Dex skills. (I personally would simplify 'entangled' a bit more, so that it just gives a -2 penalty to attack rolls, Reflex saves, and AC, no penalty to skills; the only Dex skill you use when entangled is Escape Artist anyway, and we want people to do that).
.
Detail - Reduce and mechanically rearrange the number of bonus types
Right now there's still, what, 8 types of bonuses, and all of these things can change during combat?
Enhancement (which can apply to ability scores, skill checks, attack, damage, armor bonus, shield bonus, and natural armor bonus)
Morale
Sacred
Profane
Deflection
Dodge
Resistance
Circumstance
Luck
(Racial? Synergy? Inherent?)
And then you have penalties from different sources.
At low level you seldom have all of them in play, but at high level you often have multiple different bonus types applying for different durations. As just a quick example of how ridiculous this can get, a pit fiend attacks the party. First we have the devil's fear aura which applies a penalty to a few stats. The devil uses unholy aura to grant itself a resistance and a deflection bonus. The PCs attack and cast a few spells. The devil dispels a whole suite of spell effects on one PC, and then in its next round it uses blasphemy, which (assuming it doesn't just end the encounter right there) reduces the PCs' Strengths by a random amount for a random number of rounds. Terribly complicated.
The problem is that these types are defined by how they're created, not how they affect play. We need to consolidate these bonus types and divide effects based on how often they crop up and how long they last.
I suggest we break it down to four main groups -- Character bonus, Circumstance bonus, Enhancement bonuses, and Morale bonuses. Enhancement and Morale bonuses each have the subcategories of Enduring bonuses, Standard bonuses, and Brief bonuses.
Bonuses and penalties use the same categories of definitions. Bonuses of the same type don't stack, and if you have both a bonus and a penalty, you apply the largest penalty to the largest bonus to see the final result.
.
Note that Enhancement and Morale bonuses work the same way, but a morale bonus can stack with an enhancement bonus. This is so that someone with a magic sword doesn't lose out when his cleric buddy blesses him. However, only use the best Enhancement bonus, regardless of if it is enduring, standard, or brief bonuses. Likewise, only use the best Morale bonus.
For instance, if you have a magic sword (enduring +1 attack and damage) and you use the cleric Strength domain 'feat of strength' power (brief +4 melee damage, +4 Str skills), you end up with +1 attack, +4 damage, and +4 Str skills.
Now, since we've consolidated a lot of bonus types, there's no need for decking out every character with the same set of ring of protection, amulet of natural armor, and that ioun stone that give a luck bonus to AC. I personally think that these items really lack interesting flavor, and could be done away with. Since monsters never use them, we don't have to worry about changing any monster stats; all we have to do is change character stats, which Pathfinder is already doing in spades.
It's an easy change to give PCs a small boost to AC every few levels to make up for them not having these items. This still leaves room for
.
Detail - Rule of 3, Limit of 7
This is not so much a mechanical change as a design guideline for redesigning monsters and magic items. You can always go simple by making, like, a dretch that just attacks and does nothing else, or a magic sword that just grants a bonus to attack and damage. But if you want an interesting, dynamic foe or item, give it at least 3 things that stand out. But don't give it more than 7, because then it's just too complicated.
(As with any guideline, exceptions can be made for specific important items, but you don't want a fight with a half-dozen monsters each with 10 powers it can use.)
The same guideline can work for classes. Sure, spellcasters get tons of spells, but even at high level, I think a good mix might be four different attack spells, two helpful spells, and one useful thing to do other than casting spells.
When designing Elements of Magic (a build-your-own-spells system), I found a great balancing effect by letting casters get a modest number of signature spells (pre-designed spells that they could cast as standard actions), while requiring all other spells take two full rounds to cast. That way the game wouldn't slow down if he wanted to build a new spell in the middle of combat. He had to take two rounds, so that he'd be busy designing the specifics of his spell while everyone else took their turn.
I think 4th edition went too far by simplifying creature and monster powers. They wanted to make combat easier to run, but they didn't have to completely excise non-combat powers. They just needed to make them take a bit longer, so you could usually ignore them in combat. And if you find a way to use them in combat, you feel extra clever, because you take a risk devoting a lot of time to do something different.
.
.
How does all this work with 'grandfathering' existing rules into this more streamlined design? Well, my hope is that the full Pathfinder rules will rewrite monsters and spells so that they don't use tons of modifiers anymore, and so that they have their powers streamlined. Also, if we adopt this system for core terms like "shaken" and "entangled" -- terms that a lot of monsters mention in their abilities -- it will be easy for someone to grab, say, a Caller in Darkness from the XPH, and figure out that ego whip grants an enduring enhancement penalty to Charisma-based skills and Charisma-based spellcasting save DCs.
What do you think?
Also, I edited this because I just realized I hadn't looked in the Pathfinder Alpha glossary to see that my thoughts on 'cascading ability score changes' had already been implemented.
Well, the rest still apply.
The biggest challenge of the Pathfinder RPG is to offer backwards compatibility while reducing the head-aches of running some of rougher rules elements of 3e. I have a lot of experience reworking complex game elements into a streamlined system -- I wrote E.N. Publishing's Elements of Magic - Revised and its sequels, and was one of the main designers of our early point-buy superhero system Four-Color to Fantasy -- so I offer these suggestions on how to resolve the dilemma.
Three Points of Philosophy
I propose to polish many of the perceived problems with 3e with these three main efforts. First, a quick overview.
- Remove cascading ability score changes
In 3e, poison damage, ray of enfeeblement, or becoming fatigued lead to many fiddly calculations, and may deactivate certain abilities, which lead to more changes. For Pathfinder, ability scores should not change; rather, effects provide bonuses or penalties just to those numbers modified by the appropriate stat. - Reduce and mechanically rearrange the number of bonus types
In 3e there are at least 8 types of bonuses that crop up, and they are divided thematically rather than mechanically. For Pathfinder, reduce that to 4 types, divided so that they make play easier. - Rule of three, limit of seven
When you want to create something with dynamic options, give it at least 3 things it can do. But don't give it more than 7, because at that point the options become too complicated to easily keep track of. This guideline applies most often to monsters.
.
Now let me present some examples. Please understand that all these examples are basically 'alpha rule' suggestions. The specifics would need to be tweaked. Also understand that while I do propose some serious changes to core aspects of the game, I do so in a way that existing 3e rules expansions can have their effects grandfathered into these new categories with limited trouble.
.
Detail - Remove cascading ability score changes
Say you get hit with ray of enfeeblement, granting a -10 penalty to Strength. You get a -5 penalty to melee attack rolls, -5 to on-hand melee damage, -2 or -3 to off-hand melee damage, and a -7 or -8 to two-handed melee damage. Also your carrying capacity goes down, which can affect your movement and your armor check.
Or worse, you're entangled, and you're an archer. You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dexterity. So you take a -2 to attack with a sword, but a -4 with a crossbow. And you might lose your Rapid Shot and Dodge feats. Oh, and your Reflex save goes down. And AC, unless you were wearing certain types of armor.
I suggest that for Pathfinder, ability score modifiers affect all rolls modified by that stat, and if it affects any static numbers (like AC or hit points), we just state a specific number, instead of requiring calculation. The stat itself, however, never changes.
In this system, a 10-point ray of enfeeblement just grants a -5 penalty to all Strength-based effects. This means you take a -5 penalty to melee attack rolls, a -5 penalty to melee damage rolls, and a -5 penalty on Str-based skills. (We'd also make some sort of rule that explains that when your Strength has a penalty of X, your lifting capacity is affected by Y, but that's a minor issue.)
If you would take a -4 Dex penalty, instead you take a -2 penalty to ranged attacks, Reflex saves, AC, and Dex skills. (I personally would simplify 'entangled' a bit more, so that it just gives a -2 penalty to attack rolls, Reflex saves, and AC, no penalty to skills; the only Dex skill you use when entangled is Escape Artist anyway, and we want people to do that).
.
Detail - Reduce and mechanically rearrange the number of bonus types
Right now there's still, what, 8 types of bonuses, and all of these things can change during combat?
Enhancement (which can apply to ability scores, skill checks, attack, damage, armor bonus, shield bonus, and natural armor bonus)
Morale
Sacred
Profane
Deflection
Dodge
Resistance
Circumstance
Luck
(Racial? Synergy? Inherent?)
And then you have penalties from different sources.
At low level you seldom have all of them in play, but at high level you often have multiple different bonus types applying for different durations. As just a quick example of how ridiculous this can get, a pit fiend attacks the party. First we have the devil's fear aura which applies a penalty to a few stats. The devil uses unholy aura to grant itself a resistance and a deflection bonus. The PCs attack and cast a few spells. The devil dispels a whole suite of spell effects on one PC, and then in its next round it uses blasphemy, which (assuming it doesn't just end the encounter right there) reduces the PCs' Strengths by a random amount for a random number of rounds. Terribly complicated.
The problem is that these types are defined by how they're created, not how they affect play. We need to consolidate these bonus types and divide effects based on how often they crop up and how long they last.
I suggest we break it down to four main groups -- Character bonus, Circumstance bonus, Enhancement bonuses, and Morale bonuses. Enhancement and Morale bonuses each have the subcategories of Enduring bonuses, Standard bonuses, and Brief bonuses.
Bonuses and penalties use the same categories of definitions. Bonuses of the same type don't stack, and if you have both a bonus and a penalty, you apply the largest penalty to the largest bonus to see the final result.
- Character Bonuses are the flattest things, gained by race, class, and (some) feat choices. Once you gain them, you always have them. You factor the bonus into your stats, and it never changes. Because these never have to be worried about, we can let them apply to any number, no matter how rare. +1 to damage with daggers? +2 on Craft (stonemasonry)? +1 on off-hand attacks with magic longswords? The key is that these always apply in the course of a session, and never crop up for just a short period of time.
- Circumstance Bonuses result from a specific circumstance that can change in the course of a round based on a characters actions. Where character bonuses are the longest lasting, circumstance bonuses are the most fleeting. Therefore, they must be the easiest to remember and implement.
Most circumstance bonuses should be very straightforward in what they affect. You're in a hallowed area and you're good? Okay, you get a +2 bonus to all d20 rolls. You're entangled? Okay, you take a -2 penalty to attack rolls, AC, and Reflex saves.
The other option are those circumstances that provide very specific modifiers, but which are significant enough that you wouldn't forget. These ones should be +4 or +5 modifiers, so people can more easily remember them.
- Enhancement Bonuses come from effects that directly improve your prowess, while Morale Bonuses come from effects that encourage your will. Morale bonuses don't affect mindless creatures.
- - Enduring Bonuses are provided by something fairly long-lasting, usually from magic items -- things that you seldom swap out during combat. Some buff spells could also grant an enduring bonus lasting for a few hours or a day. Because they usually don't have to be worried about during combat, they (much like character bonuses) can apply to very specific things in small numbers.
Side note: Armor and weapons fall into this category. Armor and shields are the exception to the limit of what stacks; because you can stack them when applying an enhancement bonus to AC. - - Standard Bonuses are short-term boosts like bardic music or buff spells. I would like them if they lasted until the end of an encounter because that's easy, but there might be some resistance to that. Anyway, because they turn on and off more easily, they should only modify relatively broad numbers. Like bardic music might grant +2 to attacks and damage and Will saves. Barbarian rage would grant +2 to attacks, damage, Will and Fort saves, plus 2 hit points per level, but a -2 AC. We don't want too specific, though, like '+2 damage on critical hits.'
- - Brief Bonuses last a very short period of time, and so (much like circumstance bonuses) their effects should be very broad or very substantial so they're hard to forget.
.
Note that Enhancement and Morale bonuses work the same way, but a morale bonus can stack with an enhancement bonus. This is so that someone with a magic sword doesn't lose out when his cleric buddy blesses him. However, only use the best Enhancement bonus, regardless of if it is enduring, standard, or brief bonuses. Likewise, only use the best Morale bonus.
For instance, if you have a magic sword (enduring +1 attack and damage) and you use the cleric Strength domain 'feat of strength' power (brief +4 melee damage, +4 Str skills), you end up with +1 attack, +4 damage, and +4 Str skills.
Now, since we've consolidated a lot of bonus types, there's no need for decking out every character with the same set of ring of protection, amulet of natural armor, and that ioun stone that give a luck bonus to AC. I personally think that these items really lack interesting flavor, and could be done away with. Since monsters never use them, we don't have to worry about changing any monster stats; all we have to do is change character stats, which Pathfinder is already doing in spades.
It's an easy change to give PCs a small boost to AC every few levels to make up for them not having these items. This still leaves room for
.
Detail - Rule of 3, Limit of 7
This is not so much a mechanical change as a design guideline for redesigning monsters and magic items. You can always go simple by making, like, a dretch that just attacks and does nothing else, or a magic sword that just grants a bonus to attack and damage. But if you want an interesting, dynamic foe or item, give it at least 3 things that stand out. But don't give it more than 7, because then it's just too complicated.
(As with any guideline, exceptions can be made for specific important items, but you don't want a fight with a half-dozen monsters each with 10 powers it can use.)
The same guideline can work for classes. Sure, spellcasters get tons of spells, but even at high level, I think a good mix might be four different attack spells, two helpful spells, and one useful thing to do other than casting spells.
When designing Elements of Magic (a build-your-own-spells system), I found a great balancing effect by letting casters get a modest number of signature spells (pre-designed spells that they could cast as standard actions), while requiring all other spells take two full rounds to cast. That way the game wouldn't slow down if he wanted to build a new spell in the middle of combat. He had to take two rounds, so that he'd be busy designing the specifics of his spell while everyone else took their turn.
I think 4th edition went too far by simplifying creature and monster powers. They wanted to make combat easier to run, but they didn't have to completely excise non-combat powers. They just needed to make them take a bit longer, so you could usually ignore them in combat. And if you find a way to use them in combat, you feel extra clever, because you take a risk devoting a lot of time to do something different.
.
.
How does all this work with 'grandfathering' existing rules into this more streamlined design? Well, my hope is that the full Pathfinder rules will rewrite monsters and spells so that they don't use tons of modifiers anymore, and so that they have their powers streamlined. Also, if we adopt this system for core terms like "shaken" and "entangled" -- terms that a lot of monsters mention in their abilities -- it will be easy for someone to grab, say, a Caller in Darkness from the XPH, and figure out that ego whip grants an enduring enhancement penalty to Charisma-based skills and Charisma-based spellcasting save DCs.
What do you think?
Last edited:
