Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder overhaul suggestions, pt. 2

[BryonD]

Listen, if I were going to rewrite the system entirely, I'd go and do a lot of things 4e has done, and pare stuff down a ton.

Please, don't. Seriously.

 

[Nifft]

Cite?

I'll happily counter any cite for "too strong" with "Not really..." and I'll have Monte Cook in my corner.

Nope, not going to dig through the CharOp archives to find the 3.0e stuff. If you never noticed that the most desirable items in the game could be replaced with 2nd level spells (except for the fact that those spells were vulnerable to dispel), there's probably not much I can do to convince you.

PCs running rough-shod over your campaign with their gauntlets of ogre power?

Is this how we attempt personal digs on the OGL board?

But I can definitely see an argument for drawing a bright line across permanent effects.

Essentially, that means drawing a line between spells and magic items.

There's hope. Maybe you did notice.

Cheers, -- N

 

[GlassJaw]

Is this how we attempt personal digs on the OGL board?

That's not a dig, it's just Wulf.

Seriously though, the point Wulf was trying to make is that there isn't much difference between a +4 stat item and Bull's Strength that last "a day".

Back to Ryan's point, I like the concept of reducing the number of bonus "buckets" - right now there are too many sources of modifiers.

I shudder at the thought of what would be involved to make all the necessary changes though. *shudder*

It would probably be easier to go the Pathfinder route: keep all the modifier types exactly the way they are but reduce the number you can have active at any one time. Currently, the Pathfinder system seems a bit arbitrary so I think some work still needs to be done on classifying them.

Perhaps the magic item slot list could be modified or expanded to include temporary buffs. Or classify buffs as "stat", "offensive", "defensive", "physical", "mental", etc and limit the number of each type a character can have at any one time.

 

[Nifft]

That's not a dig, it's just Wulf.

Seriously though, the point Wulf was trying to make is that there isn't much difference between a +4 stat item and Bull's Strength that last "a day".

That's my point. Those items are the foundation of the "big six". Allowing spells to do what those items do (in a way that can't be dispelled) is ... well, it's not my idea of good design.

Back to Ryan's point, I like the concept of reducing the number of bonus "buckets" - right now there are too many sources of modifiers.

I shudder at the thought of what would be involved to make all the necessary changes though.

Yeah. But I don't think stacking can be eliminated unless you also do away with stat buffs entirely. A Barbarian who can't benefit from Bull's Strength is going to be outclassed by a Fighter who can... and anyone being outclassed by a Fighter is just sad. :\

It would probably be easier to go the Pathfinder route: keep all the modifier types exactly the way they are but reduce the number you can have active at any one time. Currently, the Pathfinder system seems a bit arbitrary so I think some work still needs to be done on classifying them.

I will be impressed if they can pull this off without a lot of changes.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nellisir]

Nope, not going to dig through the CharOp archives to find the 3.0e stuff. If you never noticed that the most desirable items in the game could be replaced with 2nd level spells (except for the fact that those spells were vulnerable to dispel), there's probably not much I can do to convince you.

I have to say, I'm not a big fan of ability buffs. I'd be OK if they jumped to 4th or 5th level spells, or went away altogether. As it is, the party somewhere between 3rd and 5th level the party is suddenly flirting with Strs and Dexs between 22 and 24. I think I prefer the 1st/2nd edition approach (and this be about the only time you hear that!) where ability scores were very hard to affect magically.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That's my point. Those items are the foundation of the "big six". Allowing spells to do what those items do (in a way that can't be dispelled) is ...

Spells are the foundation of all magic items. You can find a spell to do anything a magic item can do-- that's a feature of 3e.

If we accept your underlying premise, then one of the following must be true:

1) Magic items are too powerful. (Because spells you can't dispel are too good.)

2) Spells are too powerful. (Because if you can't/don't dispel them, they're too good.)

3) Dispel is too powerful. (It is a required equalizer to spell buffs.)

Spells are balanced first and foremost against each other. The "cost" of Bull's Strength (even one that lasts all day, which I'll reiterate: I never suggested) is that slot is not available for Invisibility, or Scorching Ray, or Glitterdust, or Mirror Image, or Alter Self, or Hideous Laughter, or Web.

By the time a spellcaster has spell slots to burn for the sole purpose of buffing the fighters, the fighters already have magic items that can do the job. The fact that the Big Six are not vulnerable to dispel is a key attractor.

It's simply not the case that spells are balanced on the assumption that they can (or will) be dispelled. If that was the case, then dispel magic would be broken, because every spellcaster would be required to carry dispel magic, and to make sure that it is available for every combat.

Clearly, that's not the case.

I lean towards #3. Dispel magic is too good. It invalidates a broad range of interesting spells, which in turn over-values "un-dispellable spells" in the form of magic items.

well, it's not my idea of good design.

Don't be too hard on yourself.

 

[VanRichten]

Okay it sounds to me on the stat effect that what you are wanting to do is rather than have the people using the system to do the math you want the effects of such to be laid out directly.

Lets say you lose 10 points of STR. Right now that means your STR Mod takes a -5 Hit. All effects take place from that. And that is all that reads. Basically it is understood.

What it sounds like is you are wanting to have that change to the following:

-5 to Melee Attack
-5 to Melee Weapon Damage
-5 to Thrown Weapon Damage
-5 to Disarm
-5 to Trip
-5 to Grapple
-5 to Bull Rush
-5 to Climb
-5 to Jump
-5 to Climb
-5 to Swim
Check PHB pg XYZ for Encumbrance values.

Seems to me this is unnecessary levels of print when you could just say the first effect. In essence both are being stated.

As for the bonuses. Well lets cosider all that are currently there:

Bonuses: Sacred, Deflection, Dodge, Unnamed, Enhancement, Circumstance, Equipment, Alchemical, Resistance, Armor, Shield, Inherent, Natural, Luck, Profane, Morale, Synergy, Haste

Under your system there are 3:

Power, Circumstance, Morale.

Now without completely rewriting the system how do we convert the existing buffs to the ones you have proposed? Not saying it is impossible, but can you do it without getting rid of many that are there?

Lets break down what we can possibly make them look like:

Power: Enhancement, Natural, Resistance, Deflection, Haste
Circumstance: Dodge, Luck, Synergy, Circumstance
Morale: Morale, Sacred, Profane

Do we just lose now Alchemical, Unnamed, Equipment, Armor, Shield, Inherent?

Ultimately I see the reason for such is that we must understand that the more broad a term we use the more easily we can lose such effects to interpretation. And the more easily it can be manipulated.

I think you have a good idea going here, I just think it needs some testing to truly see its effects.

 

[Nifft]

Spells are the foundation of all magic items. You can find a spell to do anything a magic item can do-- that's a feature of 3e.

Off the top of my head: Ring of X-Ray Vision. Ring of Shooting Stars. Dust of Sneezing and Choking. Rod of Lordly Might.

What spells are those?

If we accept your underlying premise, then one of the following must be true:

Incorrect. You simply misunderstand my underlying premise.

Some effects are simply too good to be made into magic items. Honestly, they probably shouldn't even be spells, since they remain too good as spells, but with a short enough duration they'll only break individual fights (but see below).

The fact that the Big Six [magic items] are not vulnerable to dispel is a key attractor.

It's simply not the case that spells are balanced on the assumption that they can (or will) be dispelled.

This is sad, man. I'm not even deleting anything between these two sentences. Pick just one position, would you please?

Anyway, there are two ways to handle the Big Six:

1/ All items are Big Six items (this is what 4e did); or

2/ No items are Big Six items (this is what I'd prefer).

If that was the case, then dispel magic would be broken, because every spellcaster would be required to carry dispel magic, and to make sure that it is available for every combat.

This is indeed the case. Buffs are indeed what decide many a battle -- thus the quest for counter-measures against the (overpowered) strategy Scry-Buff-Teleport, which as a strategy negates short duration as a balancing point.

Magic items are also vulnerable to negation (aka disjunction). Guess which spell causes more campaign problems than gate?

Don't be too hard on yourself.

It's cute how you try.

Cheers, -- N

 

[sophist]

Maybe it's me, but the groups I've played with have never had this issue.
{snip}
But usually, the PCs watch their stuff, the DM keeps track of his peeps. As a DM, I've rarely kept track of effects that the PCs use that boost their own abilities, like Bull's Str or the like. I assume they will mind their own Ps and Qs and be honest. So all I need to worry about is my NPCs.

I've even played in groups with 6 players including me and a seventh, the DM. Never been an issue.

So, from my point of view, I've never seen this as an issue.
Pathfinder ought to fix the dependence on magic items and nerf stick spellcasters.

I second Kheti sa-Menik on this issue. The simple fix is to make a cheat sheet for people having difficulties to do some math.

Let's not make Pathfinder into a simpleton game like 4E. While there is nothing wrong with simplicity, some of us like and even endorse complexity. It's like with the game GO, you don't want to play 9x9 Boards forever.

Hmm, I might need to head over to the PAzio Boards and raise a voice of opposition to too much simplicity.

 

[clearstream]

The idea of modifying only external numbers is spot on. The rationalisation of bonuses is good, but I feel the game is mechanically more interesting to include a wider range of bonus types, including item bonuses. Players would enjoy being both magically buffed and wieldling Excalibur, surely?