Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6216043" data-attributes="member: 1165">I like these ideas, and I think the last party is key. However, you'd risk changing the game so much it couldn't be called Pathfinder (talking about the last one specifically).I agree. Ironically the changes to buffing (eg specifically naming bonuses) were probably designed to keep buffs under control. Alas, there are too many ways of buffing numbers. You can buff your attack and damage bonuses with Bull's Strength, Greater Magic Weapon and Righteous Might (if you're a cleric).To go along with this (less of an issue in Pathfinder) there needs to be more feats with BAB requirements, and not (just) numerical bonuses. Instead, feats such as Step Up that give you choices in combat are needed.I like the idea of capping (or at least rewriting how you calculate) save DCs. Ability scores don't need to be capped if you eliminate stat-boosting items and spells. You could potentially start with a 20 and get a 25 (just like in AD&D) if you only got level-based stat boosts.Fighters (and barbarians in 4e) have frequently been crippled when it comes to skills. But do you need to cap DCs? It wouldn't work. There's a lot of ways of making a skill check hard (such as tracking a single goblin ranger, hiding its tracks, who passed over hard ground a week ago and it snowed yesterday, you're looking at 5 modifiers [goblin size, hiding tracks, hard ground, long time, snow] which would effectively boost the DC anyway).Capping DCs wouldn't do anything about rolling off skills (eg Stealth versus Perception) either.I am in full agreement with this. Of course, at this point you've changed so much you have a new OSR game rather than Pathfinder. (Just think of what this would do to monster math.)Because D&D PCs have never (until 4th Edition) gained defensive bonuses to go with offensive bonuses, 3.x/PF "covered" for this with magic items. If you remove reliable items, you need to fill in these bonuses. And you need something better than Unearthed Arcana's inherent bonus system. (Inherent bonuses work in 4e only because PCs are already not very reliant on items, and offensive versus defensive items are balanced with each other.)I'm not seeing much of a need for this. I don't think wide threat ranges are a problem as long as you don't have ridiculous crit effects.Obviously, but you're not talking mere tweaks here. I'm not sure what changes to Weapon Specialization are needed. Fighters, having the highest BAB and therefore the most attacks (and the ability to move and full attack) are getting everything but the "bog standard" and boring numerical bonuses of Weapon Specialization anyway... and they can take a feat for that.Yes. 4e not only made figuring out grappling easy, it also made it not crippling when done to a PC. (Or, thankfully from a DM's PoV, to a monster.)</blockquote>

Verification