PDA

View Full Version : AVM: Magic Vrs Mundane



Blightedmarsh
2013-05-03, 05:45 AM
Adventurers! Villains! Monsters!

The purpose of this exercise is to identify and redress the base underlying problems of 3.5/pathfinder and create a “Fixed” and rebalanced D20 system where pathfinder failed.


Magic Vrs Mundane:

The following rant is aimed at the inherent imbalance in DnD 3.5/pathfinder and its spellcaster bias.

Can’t touch this
Doodududodun doondeeerr.

There are many things that muggles are utterly powerless against.

Invisibility:
The prevalence and power of invisibility make true seeing or its equivalent essential for all builds and classes. If a character does not have access to this then it becomes irrelevant after a certain point.

Total Immunity to X:
Makes X worthless in a given scenario. A prevalent TItX makes an X based build utterly pointless.

Flight:
Makes pure melee characters pointless. Also invalidates all kinds of traps and barriers.

True seeing:
Making stealth based build irrelevant.

I propose that certain spell get absolutely clobbered by the nerf bat or axed altogether.


“Anything you can do I can do better,
I can do everything better than you”

Various spells and powers can make a spell caster easily able to things that mundanes have to specialize to achieve. Worse they can usually do it better.

As stealth characters: Flight, invisibility, teleport, polymorph….ectra.
As Fighters: Wildshape, polymorph, enlarge, summon, animal companion…ectra.
As Diplomancers: Charm, dominate, suggest, mindrape.

We are the action economy preservation society
Breaking the action economy is the big I WIN D&D button. Ways of doing it include:
- Familiars
- Summon monsters
- Time stop shenanigans


The spellcaster question
The final solution

The biggest problem with the game is that is essentially 2 games. Full progression spell casters are on an entirely different league to mundane or 1/2 progression casters.

Between their ability to make themselves invulnerable to harm, rocket tag, the ability to warp reality as they please or render all other classes irrelevant classes any heroic level Tier 1 or tier 2 character with even a modicum of optimisation dominate any encounter or scenario they find themselves in.

The Big offenders:
- Wizard
- Sorcerer
- Cleric
- Druid
- Psion
- Artificer (Because often craft/UMD>Spellcasting)

I propose taking the base full casting classes out of the equation. Remove them from the base game as player classes; they become NPC classes in the main. Alternatively the GM can run a high power all tier ½ campaigns, a base for ½ progression gishes or make them prestige classes.

I believe that this will help validate mundane and ½ progression builds, be they combat gishes or specialist casters.


Anything else I might have missed? Any way that the balance between mundane and magic can be further redressed.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-05-03, 07:25 AM
Binary verses gradual defenses (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1533.0). Most mundanes can only effectively target HP, meaning that they're stuck whittling a foe down. Meanwhile, casters can use save-or-suck and save-or-die spells, which are binary effects-- either you're affected or you're not, with no middle ground. Using such attacks is far, far more effective than just doing damage, and it's something mundanes really can't do.

Blightedmarsh
2013-05-03, 08:37 AM
That would be the rocket tag.

I have a number of possible solutions for that.


Degrees of success

The more a save is beaten by the worse the status effect becomes. This is cumulative when the target fails multiple saves or when it is inflicted with further attacks. In this case a 1 degree of success is relatively minor whereas multiple degrees of success is crippling. These effects reduce in severity degree by degree after X number of rounds every Y round rather than persist until they just vanish. Status resistance effectively increases the DC of inflicting a status. The additional effect of this that it reduces the degrees of failures of the saves.



This root also means that I can consolidate multiple kinds of status effect into a few. By this I mean that "dazed" would just be a lesser degree of "stunned" which leads on to K.O.

I also like the idea of creating a mirror mechanic for buffs.



Higher lethality

Make combat more lethal by reducing HP or increasing damage. This makes blasting or melee more viable by making it comparatively easier to take targets down.

Vadskye
2013-05-03, 08:54 AM
I addressed the combat problem with spells in my system by introducing a "bloodied" mechanic. Essentially, many spells have reduced effect on healthy targets, then switch to their full effect when the target is bloodied. For example. let's look at glitterdust, a classic "I win" button that is also an AOE. In my system, glitterdust dazzles targets who fail their saving throws. Any bloodied targets are blinded instead. If a creature dazzled by glitterdust becomes bloodied before the end of the spell duration, they immediately become blinded. Other effects are similar: stinking cloud sickens before it nauseates, hold person slows before it paralyzes, and so on.

This forces integration with HP, which really helps - now fighters and casters work cooperatively: the fighters trying to hurt the enemies enough that the casters' spells can finish the job, and the casters try to debuff the enemies so the fighters can bring them down more easily (without ending the fight altogether)

You can combine this with a threshold mechanic as well: if you fail a save by 10 or more, you are affected as if you are bloodied. I have noticed this being particularly helpful to have on monsters' abilities.

This system works best when combined with a slight buff to conditions, making them all penalize AC as well, and a debuff to damage. The average combat in the system is intended to take 5 rounds, which is the time I think you need to make debuff conditions relevant.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-05-03, 09:03 AM
Degrees of failure for conditions is a good option-- Mutants and Masterminds (http://www.d20herosrd.com/6-powers/effects/effect-descriptions/affliction-attack) did it, as did the now-dead Gaols and Giants (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257689)3.5 rewrite project I worked on for a while.

Blightedmarsh
2013-05-03, 09:17 AM
[Swordsaged]


I addressed the combat problem with spells in my system by introducing a "bloodied" mechanic. Essentially, many spells have reduced effect on healthy targets, then switch to their full effect when the target is bloodied. For example. let's look at glitterdust, a classic "I win" button that is also an AOE. In my system, glitterdust dazzles targets who fail their saving throws. Any bloodied targets are blinded instead. If a creature dazzled by glitterdust becomes bloodied before the end of the spell duration, they immediately become blinded. Other effects are similar: stinking cloud sickens before it nauseates, hold person slows before it paralyzes, and so on.

I like this concept. Particularly since I was planning on a kind of "bloodied" mechanic anyway.

What about

75%> HP Hale: Degrees of success are halved
75%< HP<50% Winded: As normal
50%> HP>25% Bloodied: -2 Status resistance
25%< HP <00% Critical: Degrees of success are doubled
00%< HP<-25% Shock:
-25%<HP Dead


****************

That G&G conditions seems interesting, I will look into it if you don't mind.

Vadskye
2013-05-03, 12:37 PM
What about

75%> HP Hale: Degrees of success are halved
75%< HP<50% Winded: As normal
50%> HP>25% Bloodied: -2 Status resistance
25%< HP <00% Critical: Degrees of success are doubled
00%< HP<-25% Shock:
-25%<HP Dead

This is the kind of table which would work perfectly fine in a video game, but which isn't worth the trouble in a PnP RPG. Half HP is simple, and even the most mathematically illiterate player can work it out. Same with a -10 threshold. Spells are already the most complicated part of D&D, and I would advise great caution in making them even more complicated. That's why I didn't like the G&G solution; having both a -5 and a -10 threshold, as well as using three possible effects for every single spell, was too much for me and my players. If you have more patience for complexity, though, it could work.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-05-03, 12:57 PM
On the other hand, I've played plenty of M&M, which uses 5-point thresholds all over the place, and they worked out OK for my group. If you have organized players, it really doesn't have to add any time:

For degrees of failure on saving throws, just record the thresholds for failing by 5, 10, and 15. Thus, a wizard with 18 Int might record his 3rd level DCs as (17, 12, 7, 2).
For health... you should be doing the subtraction every time you get hit for a significant amount anyway. You should have time, since you're not usually taking damage on your turn.


(I might not use quite that many health benchmarks, mind)

Blightedmarsh
2013-05-03, 01:30 PM
How about:

HP=100% Hale. Bonus to saves, dodge AC and to hit.
HP<50%: As normal
HP>50%: Bloodied. Penalties to hit and save.

Hale exists to counter the alpha strike. I only wanted the 25% threshold to key a finisher mechanic off of so it does not matter for this.

Most status effects are a negative penalty to X. The higher the degree of status the worse the penalty. As standard there would be a maximum five degrees of status effect with a capstone save or suck/die effect which might be layered over the top of that.

The only way to get that capstone on a single cast is with a critical failure on the save.

Negative levels>>Death
Dazed>>Sleep
Slow>>Petrify

General Patton
2013-05-03, 01:49 PM
You keep using those inequality symbols. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. "<" means the thing on the left is less than the thing on the right. ">" means the thing on the left is greater than the thing on the right. Remember, it's an alligator mouth or Pac-Man, and it wants to eat the bigger one.

Back on topic, I think having a few degrees of severity based on how bad your saving throw is, combined with a limited daily resource similar to HP that you can expend to boost your save, would drastically reduce the binary defense problem. Ziegander's Rewriting Reality project looks like it's going to resolve things quite well.

Yitzi
2013-05-03, 02:13 PM
Invisibility:
The prevalence and power of invisibility make true seeing or its equivalent essential for all builds and classes. If a character does not have access to this then it becomes irrelevant after a certain point.

Actually, See Invisibility would be sufficient for that purpose, and potions of see invisibility would not be all that expensive (certainly not for the levels where improved invisibility is relevant) if See Invis were a touch-range spell rather than personal and thus able to be put in potions.


Total Immunity to X:
Makes X worthless in a given scenario. A prevalent TItX makes an X based build utterly pointless.

Total immunity (against nonmagical effects) spells are quite rare, though, AFAIK; perhaps they should just be removed or nerfed on a case-by-case basis.


Makes pure melee characters pointless. Also invalidates all kinds of traps and barriers.

It should have a disadvantage. Food for thought. (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2011-05-28) (Actually, giving ranged attacks a hefty bonus against flyers could help discourage it, especially if fighters are reworked to make "pure melee" fairly rare.)


True seeing:
Making stealth based build irrelevant.

Not true. True Seeing will do nothing to help you against a good Hide skill. (The psionic power Touchsight could be an issue, though.)


Various spells and powers can make a spell caster easily able to things that mundanes have to specialize to achieve. Worse they can usually do it better.

Indeed; many such spells need to be nerfed, and nerfed heavily. To use your examples:
-Flight, invisbility, teleport: Nerf heavily/create counters.
-Polymorph, Enlarge: No change is actually needed except for Shapechange, as the caster using them on the stealth/fighter character (as appropriate) is an even bigger advantage than the caster using them on himself. Hence, teamwork, solving the problem.
-Wildshape, animal companion: Nerf heavily.
-Diplomacy replacement spells: Using those things on law-abiding citizens (and most of the time when you want diplomacy, that's the situation) is against the law and will be prosecuted extremely severely.


We are the action economy preservation society
Breaking the action economy is the big I WIN D&D button. Ways of doing it include:
- Familiars
- Summon monsters
- Time stop shenanigans


Familiars just need to be made next-to-useless in combat. Summons also should be fairly weak (actually, they already are), whereas called allies should be a substantial investment. Time stop may need a bit of nerfing, though its limitations mean that blocking a few abuses may be enough. (It's really only good for buffing, barring shenanigans.)


I propose taking the base full casting classes out of the equation. Remove them from the base game as player classes; they become NPC classes in the main. Alternatively the GM can run a high power all tier ½ campaigns, a base for ½ progression gishes or make them prestige classes.

I believe that this will help validate mundane and ½ progression builds, be they combat gishes or specialist casters.

I don't really like the style of that approach; some people may prefer casters, while others prefer martial or skill-based characters. An alternative that might work well, though, is to have each character gestalt a tier 1-or-2 class with a 3-or-lower class; that way, someone who wants to be a fighter can play a CoDzilla/fighter, while someone who'd rather take a more conventional caster role can play a wizard or sorcerer and gestalt it with whatever they think would work best.

Blightedmarsh
2013-05-03, 03:56 PM
I don't really like the style of that approach; some people may prefer casters, while others prefer martial or skill-based characters. An alternative that might work well, though, is to have each character gestalt a tier 1-or-2 class with a 3-or-lower class; that way, someone who wants to be a fighter can play a CoDzilla/fighter, while someone who'd rather take a more conventional caster role can play a wizard or sorcerer and gestalt it with whatever they think would work best.

The theory is I hive the top level Vatican casters off to a high magic spat and instead, (however I for one have absolutely no problem with the concept of gestalt campaigns):

Develop a fully accessible ritual system. This will allow 1/2 progression casters access to high level spells in exchange for a high level of resources. For example a level 1 bard with the right ritual, scrolls, implements and aid could conceivably get off fimblewinter; with enough time, sacrifices, cultist assist and a Nat 20 could get it off as though she where a level 30 full progression caster.

The potential for a decent showing of spell casting from paladins and rangers.

Most of the heavy lifting in spell casing terms would be done by an invoker; a blend of warlock and psionocist specializing in versatile on the fly meta-magic; limited by a spell power system adapted from psyonics.



Familiars just need to be made next-to-useless in combat.

Make using their abilities require your character to use a standard action to do so.


Summons also should be fairly weak (actually, they already are), whereas called allies should be a substantial investment.

I thought make summoned monsters require a binding contract with the specific summon (potentially with agreed upon limitations) and make the act of summoning require some sort of a price. For example If you want to summon the daemon Guzunderael you have to make a humanoid sacrifice with your ritual dagger.

I think that they should be powerful, cinematic but very much a double edged sword.

Yitzi
2013-05-03, 05:37 PM
The theory is I hive the top level Vatican casters off to a high magic spat

Huh? I don't understand what you mean here...


Develop a fully accessible ritual system. This will allow 1/2 progression casters access to high level spells in exchange for a high level of resources. For example a level 1 bard with the right ritual, scrolls, implements and aid could conceivably get off fimblewinter; with enough time, sacrifices, cultist assist and a Nat 20 could get it off as though she where a level 30 full progression caster.

I think rituals will definitely help...even so, how do you feel about the idea of allowing 3/4 progression casters with the wizard chassis and no special abilities (or half-casters or even lower with limited special abilities in exchange for getting 3/4 progression with a small collection of spells; e.g. a healer who has between 1/4 and 1/2 casting progression in general, 3/4 progression for healing spells, and gets max ranks in the Heal skill plus a +3 bonus)?


Most of the heavy lifting in spell casing terms would be done by an invoker; a blend of warlock and psionocist specializing in versatile on the fly meta-magic; limited by a spell power system adapted from psyonics.

Seems like that might work.


Make using their abilities require your character to use a standard action to do so.

Nah, that just looks too awkward. I'd rather just remove all their notable abilities entirely. Which abilities in particular are you concerned about?


I thought make summoned monsters require a binding contract with the specific summon (potentially with agreed upon limitations) and make the act of summoning require some sort of a price. For example If you want to summon the daemon Guzunderael you have to make a humanoid sacrifice with your ritual dagger.

That seems good for calling spells (stuff like planar binding/planar ally/gate), though you might also want a nice long casting time. But for something like the Summon Monster series, where you're summoning something with around half your CR, that seems a bit much. (Well, unless you want to get rid of those entirely.)

Blightedmarsh
2013-05-03, 11:44 PM
Huh? I don't understand what you mean here...

You make the rules, classes and level 7+ spells for top tier casters (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard) a supplement rather than core.

You put the power of these classes primarily in the hands of the DM rather than the players. If the players want to all out mage crazy than that's fine however such a game should feel differently, flow differently and be balanced differently by supplementary rules built specifically for the purpose. D&D does not handle high level top tier casters well as it stands.



I think rituals will definitely help...even so, how do you feel about the idea of allowing 3/4 progression casters with the wizard chassis and no special abilities (or half-casters or even lower with limited special abilities in exchange for getting 3/4 progression with a small collection of spells; e.g. a healer who has between 1/4 and 1/2 casting progression in general, 3/4 progression for healing spells, and gets max ranks in the Heal skill plus a +3 bonus)?

I was thinking a "Magisterial" base class. You pick a power source (arcane, primal, divine), a specialist school and a suit of ACFs that allow your character to excel in his or her chosen area of expertize. Its like how rangers get to chose archery or duel wield but with things like necromancy, summoning, spell swording, blasting or crafting. I think that spell casters should start out a little more versatile but their growth should be less exponential. Magically speaking the invoker would be the jack of all trades where as the magister is the master of one.



Nah, that just looks too awkward. I'd rather just remove all their notable abilities entirely. Which abilities in particular are you concerned about?

Primarily? Wand abuse. The rest is on a case by case basis.



That seems good for calling spells (stuff like planar binding/planar ally/gate), though you might also want a nice long casting time. But for something like the Summon Monster series, where you're summoning something with around half your CR, that seems a bit much. (Well, unless you want to get rid of those entirely.)

For them at least I was thinking something more along the lines of Narutos shadow cloning. Something you get the best use of tactically, can hold its own against mooks and swarms but generally can't stand up for long against serious opponents.


Seems like that might work.

Make higher level essences and shapes use more powerpoints. Make elderich blast scale naturally with level but allow the player to invest more PP for more damage.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-05-04, 09:22 AM
Primarily? Wand abuse. The rest is on a case by case basis.
Make UMD a class feature instead of a skill?

Blightedmarsh
2013-05-04, 12:43 PM
I mant familiars using wands to break the action economy. I have no problem with character using wands

Yitzi
2013-05-04, 09:21 PM
You make the rules, classes and level 7+ spells for top tier casters (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard) a supplement rather than core.

Yeah, that could work, as long as it's clearly not meant to balance against the rest.


I was thinking a "Magisterial" base class. You pick a power source (arcane, primal, divine), a specialist school and a suit of ACFs that allow your character to excel in his or her chosen area of expertize. Its like how rangers get to chose archery or duel wield but with things like necromancy, summoning, spell swording, blasting or crafting. I think that spell casters should start out a little more versatile but their growth should be less exponential. Magically speaking the invoker would be the jack of all trades where as the magister is the master of one.

And what would be the magister's progression, in comparison to a D&D wizard?


Primarily? Wand abuse. The rest is on a case by case basis.

Personally, I like the idea of redoing wands entirely, but even as is, just remove anything that gives familiars spellcasting, and as for UMD, say that it takes a standard action for you to let a familiar to use your skill ranks, but it can do stuff like move or use its skill ranks without you spending a standard action.


For them at least I was thinking something more along the lines of Narutos shadow cloning. Something you get the best use of tactically, can hold its own against mooks and swarms but generally can't stand up for long against serious opponents.

I think that might work well. The Summon Monster series already seems to fit that fairly well.

Blightedmarsh
2013-05-04, 11:12 PM
And what would be the magister's progression, in comparison to a D&D wizard?

It starts with more spells known and more uses but as for spell level progression I would say 7/10. Missing progressions in the second, fifth and ninth levels.



Personally, I like the idea of redoing wands entirely, but even as is, just remove anything that gives familiars spellcasting, and as for UMD, say that it takes a standard action for you to let a familiar to use your skill ranks, but it can do stuff like move or use its skill ranks without you spending a standard action.

Ideal, I can run with that.

Yitzi
2013-05-05, 01:34 AM
It starts with more spells known and more uses but as for spell level progression I would say 7/10. Missing progressions in the second, fifth and ninth levels.

Seems ok, though a few spells might be worth lowering a level (or two, in extreme cases) so that they can be attained even without rituals. Something like Instant Summons is probably ok for a high-level wizard, even though it isn't attainable with 7/10 casting.

Deepbluediver
2013-05-05, 11:14 AM
Adventurers! Villains! Monsters!

The purpose of this exercise is to identify and redress the base underlying problems of 3.5/pathfinder and create a “Fixed” and rebalanced D20 system where pathfinder failed.

*snip* *snip* *paste*

I propose taking the base full casting classes out of the equation. Remove them from the base game as player classes; they become NPC classes in the main. Alternatively the GM can run a high power all tier ½ campaigns, a base for ½ progression gishes or make them prestige classes.

I believe that this will help validate mundane and ½ progression builds, be they combat gishes or specialist casters.

Personally, I prefer to fix rather than ban. Plus, some archetypes have a really long history with the genre, and you are setting yourself up for a lot of blowback from some players, I think. I do admit that it doesn't make a lot of fluffy-sense for a studious wizard to be wandering around fighting orcs, but that's how the game goes.

If you are willing to make a little more effort, I think there are a few fairly simple things we can do to address most of your concerns.


Invisibility:
The prevalence and power of invisibility make true seeing or its equivalent essential for all builds and classes. If a character does not have access to this then it becomes irrelevant after a certain point.

Invisibility spells (or even SL/SU abilities) should be more like invisibility cloth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD83dqSfC0Y) and simply give a bonus to Hide/Move Silently/Stealth checks. That way the caster can use it on himself or to enhance his friend the rogue.


Total Immunity to X:
Makes X worthless in a given scenario. A prevalent TItX makes an X based build utterly pointless.
...
True seeing:
Making stealth based build irrelevant.

Yeah, this is a problem, and for the most part I'm totally in agreement. Frankly, I might even take it farther than you; I'd like to remove racial immunities to certain things (spell schools, crits, etc) from many creature types.
If you give me a few example of what you're thinking of I'll suggest to replacements, most likely as resistance or boosts to Saves.

For example, True Seeing should give you a boost to perception checks, and Mind Blank a boost on your saves (or a new save every minute or something). Because the rock-paper-scissors method of doing things doesn't make for very exciting gameplay...especially when half the classes are walking around with rocket launchers.


Flight:
Makes pure melee characters pointless. Also invalidates all kinds of traps and barriers.

Flight comes online for the Wizard at 5th level, and this apparently sets the benchmark because anything that has to wait for a higher level is seen as purely "worse". Although there are a fair number of monsters with flight speed as well.

I'd alter Levitate to be a 3rd level spell instead of second, and cut down it's movement speed. You can move upward at a rate of 5 ft. per round, sideways at 10, and down at 20. At the very least it keeps casters from drifting so far out of range quite so quickly.

Fly should be either a 5th or 6th level spell, and instead of 60 ft. per round you move at your normal ground-based speed with average maneuverability. Other forms of flight can stay where they are, I think, because for he most part they come attached to less overwhelming classes/races.

I guess the thinking behind Overland Flight was that it traded slower speed and less maneuverability for extended duration, but 40 ft./round and Average Maneuverability is more than good enough for most players anyway. It's also a "Personal only" spell, fitting in with the "nice things for me but not for you" mantra of casters.
"Fly" was a Travel-Domain spell but "Overland" isn't? IMO take Overland Flight off the Sor/Wiz spell list and give it to the Travel Domain instead.


The other side of the equation is that characters without flight can't attack those with. First, I'd reduce spell range as follows-
Long: 100 ft.+10 ft./level
Medium: 50 ft.+5 ft./level
Short: 25 ft.+5 ft./2 levels

There are lots of broken spells that rely on neither, but the range and duration for many spells is frelling ridiculous (ex. Teleport, since I was just looking at the Travel Domain)

Second, you need to make archery easier to pick up as an off-spec option for many builds. Preferably through a combination of more feats and simpler/better rules. If you are interested, I've got a link around here somewhere with my attempt at it.



“Anything you can do I can do better,
I can do everything better than you”

Various spells and powers can make a spell caster easily able to things that mundanes have to specialize to achieve. Worse they can usually do it better.

As stealth characters: Flight, invisibility, teleport, polymorph….ectra.
As Fighters: Wildshape, polymorph, enlarge, summon, animal companion…ectra.
As Diplomancers: Charm, dominate, suggest, mindrape.

We are the action economy preservation society
Breaking the action economy is the big I WIN D&D button. Ways of doing it include:
- Familiars
- Summon monsters
- Time stop shenanigans


This is where it starts to get tricky, I think, because you really need to alter individual spells on a case-by-case basis.
For example, Polymorph is really several spells in one because you can use it to change into whatever creature you want at any time. I would propose changing it so that when you first learned the spell, you needed to pick one and only one creature that it would let you change into. You could learn more versions of it, but each would have to be prepared separately or would count as a different spell known.
Ditto for the Summon Monster line and similar effects (like Enchanting-Dominate Monster).


For summoned creatures, rather than acting on their own you could rule that the Wizard needs to give them actions each turn or they simply stand around and do nothing. Giving orders to one creature is a move action, two creatures is a Standard action, three is a Full-round action, and you can't actively control more than that without taking a bunch of feats to augment summoning.
That's just one idea. If you prefer the version of fluff that says the creatures are real and self-interested (i.e. pulled from somewhere) than have the caster make a save each round, and if he fails his monsters turn on him (not an uncommon occurrence in fiction).


And in the end, some spells do probably need to be banned or converted to epic magic (where at the very least EVERYTHING is more or less broken, so they'll be in good company).

Things like- Celerity (makes Initiative order not matter)
Shapechange (haven't yet figured out a compromise that keeps it's flavor and isn't the Polymorph problem increased by an order of magnitude)
Time Stop (again, there's nothing I've been able to come up with that balances the extra rounds)
True Resurrection (no one is ever really dead)


So yeah, that's my take on it. Anything I missed?

Yitzi
2013-05-05, 12:27 PM
I do admit that it doesn't make a lot of fluffy-sense for a studious wizard to be wandering around fighting orcs, but that's how the game goes.

Maybe have NPC noncombat versions (read: Get no HD or BAB) of the non-full-BAB classes, so that your typical studious wizard has no place in a battle, and the adventurers who have enough to avoid being killed almost instantly are the rare exceptions?


Invisibility spells (or even SL/SU abilities) should be more like invisibility cloth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD83dqSfC0Y) and simply give a bonus to Hide/Move Silently/Stealth checks. That way the caster can use it on himself or to enhance his friend the rogue.

It should also give some sort of Hide in Plain Sight ability.


Because the rock-paper-scissors method of doing things doesn't make for very exciting gameplay

It can, especially when both sides have some of each...the problem here is more that D&D is less rock-paper-scissors and more rock-paper-rocket launcher.


I'd alter Levitate to be a 3rd level spell instead of second, and cut down it's movement speed. You can move upward at a rate of 5 ft. per round, sideways at 10, and down at 20. At the very least it keeps casters from drifting so far out of range quite so quickly.

Fly should be either a 5th or 6th level spell, and instead of 60 ft. per round you move at your normal ground-based speed with average maneuverability. Other forms of flight can stay where they are, I think, because for he most part they come attached to less overwhelming classes/races.

I still think that any solution should include a bonus on ranged attacks against flyers.


fitting in with the "nice things for me but not for you" mantra of casters.

Yes, that's one of the biggest problems.


The other side of the equation is that characters without flight can't attack those with.

Another thing where a bonus on ranged attacks would help a lot.


Second, you need to make archery easier to pick up as an off-spec option for many builds. Preferably through a combination of more feats and simpler/better rules.

I don't really think the rules need changing, just to give more ways to get off-spec feats (whether via floating feats, or by giving more feats, reducing the number of feats useful for each purpose, and making the feats that exist more useful.)


Things like- Celerity (makes Initiative order not matter)

I'm all for banning that one.


Shapechange (haven't yet figured out a compromise that keeps it's flavor and isn't the Polymorph problem increased by an order of magnitude)

Break it into two spells. One would be like Polymorph in terms of what it can do (i.e. acceptable forms) but like Shapechange in terms of duration and changing once/round and being personal-only, and the other would be like Shapechange in terms of what it can do, but would be a 1 round/level spell that doesn't let you change forms after it's cast, and can target allies. Throw that on top of a good existing Polymorph fix, and it should be good.


Time Stop (again, there's nothing I've been able to come up with that balances the extra rounds)

I think if you depower buffs, Time Stop (which is really only good for buffing, barring exploits that can be dealt with individually) will be a lot more balanced.


True Resurrection (no one is ever really dead)

That's what TPKs and Trap the Soul/Soul Bind are for.

If you prefer a more flavorful approach: Resurrection (of any sort) is a big deal, and the deity performing it will impose a quest in exchange. It's a great plot hook, and should be a great deterrent to getting yourself killed (you could probably remove the level loss and material cost and still have it be a stronger motivation not to get killed.)

Blightedmarsh
2013-05-05, 02:31 PM
Personally, I prefer to fix rather than ban. Plus, some archetypes have a really long history with the genre, and you are setting yourself up for a lot of blowback from some players, I think. I do admit that it doesn't make a lot of fluffy-sense for a studious wizard to be wandering around fighting orcs, but that's how the game goes.

If you are willing to make a little more effort, I think there are a few fairly simple things we can do to address most of your concerns.

I do see you point, it is entirely valid. Perhaps toning them down a bit in general but allowing them to specialize in a more useful way would be a good avenue to explore. That is effectively the core concept of the "magister" so maybe they don't require a re-branding.



I do admit that it doesn't make a lot of fluffy-sense for a studious wizard to be wandering around fighting orcs, but that's how the game goes.

How else is a scholler to get a hold of ancient artifacts and scrolls ahead if his so called peers? How else is he to truly field test his new spell of ultimate burnination except in the field? How better to acquire rare reagents with absolute certainty of their fidelity and origin except to slice it from their smoldering corpses of his subjects with his own hands? Plus the tax breaks are nice.



Invisibility spells (or even SL/SU abilities) should be more like invisibility cloth and simply give a bonus to Hide/Move Silently/Stealth checks. That way the caster can use it on himself or to enhance his friend the rogue.

It should also give some sort of Hide in Plain Sight ability.

I always imagine it as something like a chameleon or the predator camouflage. Something that works a lot better if you don't move when someone is watching you.


Frankly, I might even take it farther than you; I'd like to remove racial immunities to certain things (spell schools, crits, etc) from many creature types.
If you give me a few example of what you're thinking of I'll suggest to replacements, most likely as resistance or boosts to Saves.


Seconded. I think that taking crit imunity from undead was one of the things it did right.

I think that any form of "immunity" must be:

Partial Ex: Immune to crits from piercing weapons
Temporary: Requires a check, grants a save or only for X hits/rounds a day
Conditional: Give a special weakness in exchange for an immunity.



Second, you need to make archery easier to pick up as an off-spec option for many builds. Preferably through a combination of more feats and simpler/better rules.


I don't really think the rules need changing, just to give more ways to get off-spec feats (whether via floating feats, or by giving more feats, reducing the number of feats useful for each purpose, and making the feats that exist more useful.)

I have been playing around with some feet related concepts:

--Once you have the initial link in a feet chain it will auto upgrade as you level up or alternately you can buy upgrades you qualify for with XP.

--Certain comparatively worthless feats (toughness, weapon focus, skill focus, exotic weapon proficiency[X]) can be bought using XP by anyone that qualify for them.

The basic idea is to free up certain feet intensive builds and reduce the hit from feet tax.



If you prefer a more flavorful approach: Resurrection (of any sort) is a big deal, and the deity performing it will impose a quest in exchange. It's a great plot hook, and should be a great deterrent to getting yourself killed (you could probably remove the level loss and material cost and still have it be a stronger motivation not to get killed.)

Deity, artifact, dragon magus, daemon; whatever floats your boat really.



Break it into two spells. One would be like Polymorph in terms of what it can do (i.e. acceptable forms) but like Shapechange in terms of duration and changing once/round and being personal-only, and the other would be like Shapechange in terms of what it can do, but would be a 1 round/level spell that doesn't let you change forms after it's cast, and can target allies. Throw that on top of a good existing Polymorph fix, and it should be good.

Their is a nice (but rarely used) warlock invocation that allows you to transform into a spider. As the character levels up more potential sizes of spider are allowed. I like this sort of model.

Flight
"That deaf dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball"

I kind of like the concept that a flight as a spell like ability has to keep going at the same speed and direction as they did on the last turn unless A) they use a move action to change their vector or B) they ricochet off of something. I also like the idea that "booking it" requires a full round action.

I want to allow spellcasters to use fly spells to move creatures and objects around the field like pawns on a table.

Wizard mobility

The biggest thing I want to do with spell casters is make certain powerful spells require a full round action. This means that their mobility is impaired and thus they require a more tactical aproch.

A)


For summoned creatures, rather than acting on their own you could rule that the Wizard needs to give them actions each turn or they simply stand around and do nothing. Giving orders to one creature is a move action, two creatures is a Standard action, three is a Full-round action, and you can't actively control more than that without taking a bunch of feats to augment summoning.

B)


That's just one idea. If you prefer the version of fluff that says the creatures are real and self-interested (i.e. pulled from somewhere) than have the caster make a save each round, and if he fails his monsters turn on him (not an uncommon occurrence in fiction).

A) for constructs, mindless undead and mundane creatures.
B) For the kind of creatures you would expect to have free agency