CL as BAB

[GnomeWorks]

I
Wizards learn to fight over the course of levels. In a magical world, it is only sensible, then, that fighters learn to magic.

Remove CL as it exists from the game, in its entirety. Casting classes do not grant a caster level, and there is no distinction between types of caster.

All classes gain a "base CL bonus."

For full casters, their base CL bonus is equal to their class level, just as fighters and other martial classes gain a full BAB progression.

Non-casters, such as fighters, gain a base CL bonus equal to one-half their class level, rounded down.

Half-casters, such as bards, rangers, and paladins, gain a base CL bonus equal to three-quarters their class level, rounded down.

Base CL bonuses from all classes stack. A character cannot have a greater base CL bonus than their hit die.

Effects that grant bonuses to CL, such as Improved Caster Level (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/kobold-press/general-feats---3rd-party---kobold-press/improved-caster-level), grant an appropriately-typed bonus to CL (they do not count as improving the character's base CL: just as Weapon Focus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/weapon-focus-combat---final) doesn't improve your BAB, but gives a bonus on attack rolls).

Whenever an effect is based on caster level, use the character's total CL bonus instead.

Prestige classes that improve casting, such as eldritch knight (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/eldritch-knight), do not grant "an increased effective level of spellcasting." Instead, prestige classes that improve casting only improve spell access and spell knowledge, not caster level. Prestige classes have a base CL progression, just as they have a BAB progression.

Example: Bob the fighter is fourth level. He has a BAB of +4 and a CL of +2. He can cast no spells, so his CL is (largely) irrelevant. If he takes a level of wizard, he gains +0 BAB and +1 CL, resulting in BAB +4, CL +3. He has spell access as though he were a first level wizard, but casts them with a CL of 3.

Discuss.

Edit: This one has a label now, as well.

[Tanuki Tales]

Instead, prestige classes that improve casting only improve spell access and spell knowledge, not caster level. Prestige classes have a base CL progression, just as they have a BAB progression

These seem to contradict one another, unless you're saying that PrCs increase CL, regardless of if they're caster PrCs or not.

And how exactly does this benefit mundanes, as you haven't explained how they actually learn magic. The only effect I see is that Tier 1 is still Tier 1, since they never needed PrCs for that and Gishes get more of a boost.

Edit: So wait, mundanes get absolutely nothing out of this? Then why is this necessary exactly? It doesn't nerf magic really. :smallconfused:

[GnomeWorks]

These seem to contradict one another, unless you're saying that PrCs increase CL, regardless of if they're caster PrCs or not.

All classes have a base CL bonus. In the case of eldritch knight, it would probably have a full CL progression, just like it has a full BAB progression, since it's pulling the gish concept.


The only effect I see is that Tier 1 is still Tier 1, since they never needed PrCs for that and Gishes get more of a boost.

"Tiers" are rooted in one individual's vague opinions of class balance, and discussion of them isn't useful.


So wait, mundanes get absolutely nothing out of this? Then why is this necessary exactly? It doesn't nerf magic really. :smallconfused:

It helps to make the gish concept useful.

If you take your first level of mage at fifth level, after four levels of fighter, you cast with a CL of 3, not 1. Your combat spells are that much closer to being level-appropriate.

The point of this is not to nerf magic, it is to simplify accounting and make gish concepts easier mechanically. Nerfing magic comes later.

[Tanuki Tales]

"Tiers" are rooted in one individual's vague opinions of class balance, and discussion of them isn't useful.


Well, that tells me all I need to know about this thread.

You, uh, have good luck with this.

[GnomeWorks]

Well, that tells me all I need to know about this thread.

What, that I believe in metrics (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test)?

I would certainly hope so.

[D.M.Hentchel]

So Unearthed Arcana covered this already, called it magic rating, your version unnecessarily punishes bard and duskblades (and probably other classes not coming to mind) gives a number buff to half casters (paladin, ranger, hexblade). Its a decent starting off point, but doesn't accomplish much on its own.

Loss of CL was never the big deal, loss of spell levels was.

Edit: Whoops looks like this was pathfinder, my bad. Most of my point still stands. There would be A LOT of classes suffering from this: Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Summoner, Hunter, Investigator, Skald, Warpreist. On the flip side less classes would be getting a buff: Paladin, Ranger, Anti-paladin, Bloodrager. Also psychics I can't get myself to care about.

[dboxcar]

I guess I don't understand...
What sorts of spells does a 10th-level fighter get? Does she cast as a 5th-level wizard? or does she have no spells, but a 1st level wizard to takes 10 levels of fighter cast as a 6th-level wizard?

[Tanuki Tales]

I guess I don't understand...
What sorts of spells does a 10th-level fighter get? Does she cast as a 5th-level wizard? or does she have no spells, but a 1st level wizard to takes 10 levels of fighter cast as a 6th-level wizard?

The latter.

[IShouldntBehere]

This is more/less how the multi-classing from Tome of Battle works between initiators and non-initiators, just being a bit different in terms of the scaling coefficient for some classes. That system works well. I imagine this system would work well.

[Tanuki Tales]

This is more/less how the multi-classing from Tome of Battle works between initiators and non-initiators, just being a bit different in terms of the scaling coefficient for some classes. That system works well. I imagine this system would work well.

It doesn't work the same as Tome of Battle. Initiating stacking allowed you to pick higher level maneuvers/stances as long as you met the IL and amount of maneuvers required.

A Fighter 19/Wizard 1 in this system would have a caster level of 10, but only have 1st level spells. Which is better than being like ToB (since spells are insanely more broken), but not actually similar.

[GnomeWorks]

Whoops looks like this was pathfinder, my bad.

It doesn't matter, the differences are negligible.

And yes, I am aware that there are differences between the two. However the "tweaks" and "changes" Paizo has made are largely insignificant from a design standpoint, and the two systems are largely interchangeable.

II
Players like rolling dice, and mechanical symmetry is both elegant from a design standpoint and eases play in the sense that, if most core mechanics work similarly, players will find it easier to move into other classes, as the barrier to entry has been reduced.

"Saving Throw DCs" as a concept go away.

When a caster casts a spell, they roll a d20 and add their CL, plus their casting stat (Int for wizards, etc). The DC to "hit" a creature (or object, or whatever) with a spell is equal to 10 + its relevant saving throw.

Spell level - or whatever measure by which the relative power of the effect in question is being measured - has no impact on this roll.

If you hit a creature with a spell, the creature is affected by it as though the creature had failed its saving throw. If you miss, the creature is affected as though it had made its saving throw.

Regardless of the number of targets your spell has, you only make a single magical attack roll, which is compared against each target's DC.

Effects, such as feats, that improve your saving throw DC instead grant an appropriately-typed bonus to this "magical attack" roll.

This change has no effect on how abilities such as Evasion or Mettle function.

Spells that do not allow for a saving throw do not require a magical attack roll.

If an effect would allow multiple saving throws (ie, baleful polymorph (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/balefulPolymorph.htm)), your single magical attack roll is used in all instances.

Example: Dave the wizard casts fireball at an orc, who has a Reflex of +6. Dave has a CL of 5 and an Int of 18. He rolls d20+9, and if he gets a 16 or higher, the orc is subject to the effects of the spell as though it had failed the saving throw; if he gets a 15 or less, the orc is subject to the effects as though it had made the saving throw.

Example: Dave the wizards casts baleful polymorph at a different orc, who has a Fortitude of +5 and a Will of +2. He rolls d20+9 for his magical attack: if he hits a DC 15 (the orc's Fortitude), the orc suffers the initial effects, and then - 24 hours later - Dave compares his result against DC 12 (the orc's Will) to determine the secondary effects.

[Tanuki Tales]

Players like rolling dice

Players like agency too, which this steals away from them when they become the target of a spell. They literally have no control now over whether or not an enemy can affect them unless they burn resources to pump up their new Magic AC. Sure, this gives them the benefit of basically taking 10 on all saving throws (which, Yay, makes casters even more powerful now since they only need to worry about pumping up their CL and main stat), but it means they will never again feel the awesome feeling of making a high dice roll on a saving throw and the relief that comes with it.

Also, by making spell levels meaningless, you've now opened up probably a whole line of magic that was originally suboptimal because of its spell level, probably strengthening magic as a whole. Now it only matters if HD dependent effects are outlined, since a level 1 spell could now be as useful at level 20 as at level 1.

And what happens to abilities that get you to re-save against a spell you previously failed against? Does the caster have to roll again and if they miss this time, it never happened? That's hardly fair to the caster and not in a good way.

[GnomeWorks]

Players like agency too, which this steals away from them when they become the target of a spell.

By this argument, casters have never had agency because they never got to control whether or not their spells worked when they allowed for saving throws.

If you say that's a silly stance to hold, well: that probably settles that argument.


They literally have no control now over whether or not an enemy can affect them unless they burn resources to pump up their new Magic AC.

Hmm, almost sounds like... they have the ability to control that by making choices elsewhere, rather than relying on a die roll.

Hmm.


makes casters even more powerful now since they only need to worry about pumping up their CL and main stat

Literally all II changes is who rolls the die.

Edit: Herp derp on my end, it does more than that; I'd lost track of what I'd done with it. Yes, casters are "more powerful" because they have bigger numbers. While this may appear to be a bad thing (and obviously if we stopped there, it would be), it will wind up fine in the end.


but it means they will never again feel the awesome feeling of making a high dice roll on a saving throw and the relief that comes with it.

And in exchange, casters get to have the same "huzzah" moment with rolling well on attack rolls that non-casters do.

Seems like a bit of a wash, to me.


Also, by making spell levels meaningless, you've now opened up probably a whole line of magic that was originally suboptimal because of its spell level, probably strengthening magic as a whole. Now it only matters if HD dependent effects are outlined, since a level 1 spell could now be as useful at level 20 as at level 1.

Spell level is not meaningless; casters are still restricted to spell access off of it. That is not insignificant.

And yes, making a spell as valid a choice at 1st level as at 20th is part of the overall design goal.

Also, as I pointed out earlier:


Nerfing magic comes later.


And what happens to abilities that get you to re-save against a spell you previously failed against? Does the caster have to roll again and if they miss this time, it never happened? That's hardly fair to the caster and not in a good way.

Hmm. This is a legitimately good question; I think I've removed all of these effects over time, unintentionally, as I'm not able to come up with one off the top of my head.

There is a vague addendum to II that I have floating about in my head, in which if an ability causes an effect that a saving throw can end, the DC for that saving throw is equal to the magical attack roll of the effect that caused it, but I haven't had reason to actually think it out as - as I said - I think I've gotten rid of effects for which it matters.

[Tanuki Tales]

By this argument, casters have never had agency because they never got to control whether or not their spells worked when they allowed for saving throws.

If you say that's a silly stance to hold, well: that probably settles that argument.


It doesn't really settle the argument, but it is your attempt at ending it.

Which you've succeeded, since I don't think I'll make any head way at pointing out the flaws in this system, as it's currently presented and why it won't probably improve the game except for those corner cases who wouldn't need something like the tier system in the first place. I don't feel like beating my head against a brick wall, so I'll leave that Sisyphean task to others.

Good luck.

[GnomeWorks]

Good luck.

Kbai, Mr. Passive-Aggressive!

[ShiningStarling]

It feels worth noting that this system (system II) would buff magic at all levels, because you essentially exchange a static bonus to DC for spell level for a CL bonus that scales twice as fast, and makes low level spells harder to save against as well. The dangerous part really comes with the fact that the new Magic AC scales horribly. The easiest example being that a Fighter with Max Dex will have 0% chance to save against a Max Int wizard's fireball starting at level 14, and most fighters don't max Dex, which pushes that point further back in level, and gives them very poor chances to save before that point. It's a lot harder to raise saving throws than AC, and AC is harder to raise that to hits, this system essentially putting theverything magic attack roll between AC and to hits, favoring to hits. The party sorcerer may now use all their spell slots to use Charm Person to neutralize the enemy general. And all his staff. And all their staff.

[GnomeWorks]

III
Saving throw progressions are too small. We need to modify them slightly, as follows. I've also included an "average" category, but it's entirely possible that I'm pretty much the only person who designs classes with them.



Level
Good
Avg
Poor


1
+2
+1
+0


2
+3
+2
+1


3
+4
+2
+1


4
+4
+3
+1


5
+5
+3
+2


6
+6
+4
+2


7
+7
+5
+3


8
+7
+5
+3


9
+8
+6
+3


10
+9
+6
+4


11
+10
+7
+4


12
+10
+8
+5


13
+11
+8
+5


14
+12
+9
+5


15
+13
+9
+6


16
+13
+10
+6


17
+14
+11
+7


18
+15
+11
+7


19
+16
+12
+7


20
+16
+12
+8

[ShiningStarling]

Now the Max Dex fighter has 0% chance at level 16 instead, and having more time to think, with an arbitrarily high Dex and Int, the 0% chance occurs when 10 plus the save bonus is less than or equal to the level the save occurs at. For every point of modifier lower the Dex is than the Int, it pushes the equation to the 0% chance occurs when 10 plus the save bonus minus the difference in ability modifiers is less than or equal to the level the save occurs at. Saving Throws are better with system III, but honestly, it's still easier to pump caster level and DC bonuses. This system favors magic. As magic is already favored in D&D, this system will not make any game mechanics more balanced.

[GnomeWorks]

an arbitrarily high Dex and Int

For reasons, assume that the highest starting stat a character could have is 20, and that the absolute maximum attainable by level 20 is a 30.

Also assume that all classes suffer from MAD and rely on at least two ability scores.

Let me know if those assumptions change your math or your opinion at the moment. We'll get to why I'm saying "for reasons" eventually.

Edit: Ah, okay... I reread your post a couple more times, and now what you are saying is significantly more clear to me. I think that IV (see below) in combination with some things we'll be doing in the future will largely allay your concerns; that said, classes are designed with weaknesses in mind. Martial types will typically be more susceptible to Will-targeting effects, while caster-types will be more susceptible to Fortitude-targeting effects.


it's still easier to pump caster level and DC bonuses

Can you provide examples of how this is easier? Feats, classes, items, whatever; you've clearly got something in mind that is leading to this.

IV
AC is bothersome, specifically because it has so many silly variations (flat-footed, touch, combination of the two). We can simplify the mechanics of the game by removing AC, which will also let us do more interesting things with weapons later on.

Scrap the existing armor system in its entirety.

Any attack that targeted AC now targets a saving throw.

Armor comes in three categories: cloth, leather, plate.

Armor grants a +6 armor bonus to one saving throw ("primary"), and a +3 armor bonus to another ("secondary"). The primary save is determined by armor type: cloth is Will, leather is Reflex, plate is Fortitude. Each armor type has sufficient variations that cover all saves that are not its primary (thus there are two varieties of cloth armor, one that has Reflex as its secondary and one that has Fortitude as its secondary).

Enhancement bonuses on armor improve all saving throws by that amount.

Classes that grant light armor proficiency grant cloth proficiency; medium, grant leather; and heavy, grant plate.

Armor has no ACP; does not reduce speed; has no max Dex; and does not have ASF. These mechanics do not improve the game with their existence: they limit character concepts and are grounded in "realism" that is not appropriate to nor necessary for a fantasy game.

Shields are a special case and will be discussed later.

[D.M.Hentchel]

System IV concerns me.

It would really throw me out of my character if while discussing how to engage a wizard who favored mind control (or another 'mind attack' style foe) my character said, "Switch to cloth armor, that protects the mind better." It just sounds so silly and arbitray (alongside things like decking the nobles food taster in plate armor to make him more resistant to poison)

Now I understand that our idea of fanstay is rather different and that plenty of people would be fine with the mechanic, but also there are people like me who would hate it.

How about instead of Cloth, Leather, and Iron you use made up special materials (starsheen or green iron or whatever) then as a side note/variant rule you could have realistic armor, which would be all around worse than the special materials and only protect against physical attacks.

Or to make it even more in depth. You could have the special material 'armor' be something non-cumbersome that provides the bonus (like an amulet or bracers) and on-top of that allow characters to wear conventional armor (probably modify the stats) to gain a situational bonus against physical attacks. This would allow play their heavily armored hard to hit knight, but not require players to wear armor (assuming you reduce the impact it has).

[GnomeWorks]

System IV concerns me.

I'm not surprised by this.


It would really throw me out of my character if while discussing how to engage a wizard who favored mind control (or another 'mind attack' style foe) my character said, "Switch to cloth armor, that protects the mind better." It just sounds so silly and arbitray (alongside things like decking the nobles food taster in plate armor to make him more resistant to poison)

First things first: this isn't a game about food tasters, it's a game about individuals who go around and do home invasions on nasty critters, stab them in the face, and take their stuff. The scope of the game doesn't contain things like "well what if I want to play a food taster" because that concept doesn't hold water in the conceptual space of the game.

Switching to cloth armor to better protect yourself against a mage who focuses on mind control is entirely sensible to me: many JRPGs have cloth armor give bonuses to mental or spell defenses. It is perfectly within genre conventions that it does so. It is weird in the sense that D&D has never done that, but - in case you hadn't noticed - I'm making an awful lot of hamburger here.


How about instead of Cloth, Leather, and Iron you use made up special materials (starsheen or green iron or whatever) then as a side note/variant rule you could have realistic armor, which would be all around worse than the special materials and only protect against physical attacks.

No. Special materials? Come on, man. You're missing the point; we're reducing accounting and points of decision-making. With how IV is written, you make two decisions: what is your primary defense, what is your secondary. Boom, done. You can fluff your armor however you like within the bounds of its type (ie, don't describe plate as clothing), but instead of doing the late 3.5 thing where we have dozens upon dozens of armor types with special materials and special qualities and blah blah blah, instead we now have six. Six armor types, boom, done, pick one, move on.

And "only protect against physical attacks"? I mean, come on. Pretty much every post here has been "you're making magic too good." The point of removing AC, changing how saves work, and making armor work entirely differently is to put martials and casters (mostly) on the same playing field. Making armor "only protect against physical attacks" is directly in opposition of that goal.

I misread this section... it sounds like you just have an issue with the naming conventions. That's a personal taste thing; I don't care for the idea of making these armors "special materials" because that's weird to me and makes me question how first-level characters can purchase said "special materials," but whatever floats your boat.

I also don't do variant rules on my homebrew. That's silly. If I'm changing stuff, I'm changing it.


Or to make it even more in depth. You could have the special material 'armor' be something non-cumbersome that provides the bonus (like an amulet or bracers) and on-top of that allow characters to wear conventional armor (probably modify the stats) to gain a situational bonus against physical attacks. This would allow play their heavily armored hard to hit knight, but not require players to wear armor (assuming you reduce the impact it has).

"In depth" is not better. It is, in fact, worse. For this, players would need to track both that they're wearing armor and some magical widget, where that widget is, what their defense against physical attacks is, what their defense against magical attacks is... that's just too much. You're asking for way too much accounting for something that is pretty integral to the combat engine. Defenses need to be fast; there can be situational bonuses and penalties, sure, but the number of those things needs to be kept to a minimum, to reduce on-the-fly calculations that make the game drag.

[Magikeeper]

I think you underestimate how much people won't like the concept of non-magical armor giving resistance to non-magical poison because.. that's just how it is. It's not hard to give a better justification for that.

For example, you could justify the armor choice by saying people in the game's setting can attune themselves to their clothing in a way we cannot. That's why their clothes don't catch fire when fireball'd and are generally treated as a part of themselves for magic and such. Someone wearing a pile of iron is resistant to poison because that's an iron attunement thing. Cloth is generally plant material, which bolsters will. Leather is animal material, which bolsters reflex. If someone brings up sheep, well, sheep are now part plant, hurray for world building :P.

With that change it would make complete IC sense for poison tasters to wear plate - the world can return to being internally consistent once you accept the basic premise. Actions that make sense mechanically- like putting a sick person in plate* - also make sense IC.
*A situation far more likely to come up than poison taster fashion.

Furthermore, that explanation can easily be expanded to other material types in a non-arbitrary fashion for folk who DO like special materials. It also makes it easy to determine what "secondary" bonuses an armor might have based on what it is made out of.

[GnomeWorks]

I think you underestimate how much people won't like the concept of non-magical armor giving resistance to non-magical poison because.. that's just how it is. It's not hard to give a better justification for that.

Wearing plate has an effect on the brain-pan: you think you're better protected from physical harm, and "mind over matter" kicks in and boom, you are.

I don't feel the need to give any greater justification than that.

Also, 3.5 poison rules are bad. Assume they don't exist. Same with the disease rules.

[Magikeeper]

I don't feel the need to give any greater justification than that.

Having it largely be a mixture of placebo effect / comfort is, frankly, a much better justification than what you were giving before. That'll do just fine as long as it is consistent.

I suppose there are limits, then, in how many saves positive thinking can buff at the same time - since none of the armors grant you bonuses to everything? I also suppose someone who, for example, really, truly believes being naked and relying on their awesome muscles is superior protection could get the fort save bonus while streaking? I think those are both fine things, btw, I'm just confirming that's what you intend.

I do think a material attunement change is more add-and-forget than injecting emotional state and such into the saving throw rules, as it'll be easier for everyone at the table to quickly agree to corner cases, but it isn't essential.
Also, material attunement explains other mechanical oddities like clothes not bursting into flames when you'd think they would without creating any new issues AFAICT.

[GnomeWorks]

I suppose there are limits, then, in how many saves positive thinking can buff at the same time - since none of the armors grant you bonuses to everything?

You can find holes in anything if you keep poking enough.

The "I'm wearing plate so I think I'm more protected from things that wouldn't normally deal with, so I am" thing is all the justification needed for the mechanic.

And correct, all armors give you bonuses to two saves. If the armor is magical, the enhancement bonus goes to all of your saves.


I also suppose someone who, for example, really, truly believes being naked and relying on their awesome muscles is superior protection could get the fort save bonus while streaking? I think those are both fine things, btw, I'm just confirming that's what you intend.

...no.

There's no reason to take this idea and run with it and start trying to apply the concept to other mechanics. Why does armor give you protection from things it seems like it shouldn't? Because there's a mental component. No armor, no mental component, no bonuses. Period.


I do think a material attunement change is more add-and-forget than injecting emotional state and such into the saving throw rules, as it'll be easier for everyone at the table to quickly agree to corner cases, but it isn't essential.
Also, material attunement explains other mechanical oddities like clothes not bursting into flames when you'd think they would without creating any new issues AFAICT.

Clothes bursting into flame when subject to a fireball is a mechanical nightmare because now you're tracking hit points and locations for every piece of gear on your person. That is too much accounting, and it would just bog down play.

You seem keen on the material attunement thing. I'm not.

[Magikeeper]

You can find holes in anything if you keep poking enough.

Indeed. I bet most/all cars can be made to catch fire IRL under certain circumstances. And yet.. if that circumstance is "as soon as the driver turns the key", those cars are going to be pulled off the market.

What I'm saying is, degree matters. You seem to be against applying that justification in.. literally any scenario but the one you're currently using it in. We might as well say the Gods decree it is so; it'd be more consistent.


The "I'm wearing plate so I think I'm more protected from things that wouldn't normally deal with, so I am" thing is all the justification needed for the mechanic.

I recall saying that justification was workable? But I don't agree with the idea that every justification should live in a vacuum, as though each mechanic draws from a different universe. There are certainly some situations like that in the 3.5 rules, true, but that doesn't make it desirable.


Clothes bursting into flame when subject to a fireball is a mechanical nightmare because now you're tracking hit points and locations for every piece of gear on your person. That is too much accounting, and it would just bog down play.

Of course! I would wager every person on this thread, or even viewing this thread, agrees with us as well. But what does this have to do with anything I said?

I'm talking about IC justifications for stuff that is actually the way it is because it is better for the game. I haven't critiqued any of your numbers and such - until we get to how you've changed spells and the like (sounds like you've made some pretty big changes) there is little point to judge it.

Anyway, I like it when stuff that happens IC makes sense IC for IC reasons, and prefer justifications that leave few corner cases the DM is not okay with. At least, cases that are likely to ever come up.

Yes, some times we just accept we're playing a game and that's how it is. But.. again, degree. Just because those times happen doesn't mean we shouldn't ever try for consistency IC.

[PapaQuackers]

I'd have to agree with Magikeeper here. I think it really boils down to campaign worlds having rules even if they are rules different from our own. For example...

A commoner is cooking eggs in a pan above a fire, the metal is in direct contact with the flame and has grown very hot. The commoner knows he cannot touch hot metal with his bare hands because his skin feels pain and isn't designed to do that.

A second commoner comes along and puts on a pair of flame retardant gloves. He reaches over and grabs the pan easily enough. The first commoner accept this is plausible because he understands that flame retardant gloves exist and function in a way you'd expect.

This time an adventurer comes along and grabs the pan straight of the fire without wearing any sort of protection on his hands. His armor however affords him complete resistance to flame. So even though his hands are bare he is immune to the fire.


Now in a video game I'm willing to accept that third scenario because video game logic is different from D&D logic. Video games have hardware limitations and focus on giving clear and concise visual information without attempting to bog you down with realistic justifications. D&D on the other hand is designed around making you feel like you're the adventurer in that situation. A wizard uses magic to fly, he doesn't just jump 60 feet in the air because the DM says so.

[GnomeWorks]

Indeed. I bet most/all cars can be made to catch fire IRL under certain circumstances. And yet.. if that circumstance is "as soon as the driver turns the key", those cars are going to be pulled off the market.

What I'm saying is, degree matters. You seem to be against applying that justification in.. literally any scenario but the one you're currently using it in. We might as well say the Gods decree it is so; it'd be more consistent.

Your streaker example is not consistent with the justification as I described it.

For a placebo to work, you need something that you think will work. Plate armor gives you a very solid, very measurable defense against effects that attack Fortitude. If you are an individual in a world using these modifications, you know this is true. We are discussing only the edge-case of effects that bypass armor, for whatever reason. You know that the armor protects you from things that harm you in a Fortitude-y way, so by wearing plate you are better protected from things that affect you in a Fortitude-y way, and you think that and it placebos into being effective against poison or whatever.

If you're not wearing plate, you don't have the very measurable bonus provided by armor against obvious, non-internal effects that target Fortitude, so you lose the focus of the placebo and thus do not gain the bonus.

[Magikeeper]

You know that the armor protects you from things that harm you in a Fortitude-y way, so by wearing plate you are better protected from things that affect you in a Fortitude-y way, and you think that and it placebos into being effective against poison or whatever.

Placebo is often achieved with props, but we're arguing someone's worldview here. Superstition exists, people can believe pretty weird things. If you had a society that believed real warriors fight naked, and that their warrior spirit or whatever will protect them, you could well have someone as absolutely certain they will tank a poison as some armored guy. They did some prebattle ritual! Their Deity is with them! All their friends and family believe this is seriously how the world works! And, with respect to magical effects and such, this rock-solid belief won't be proven wrong since resting fort-targetting magic is a belief thing. On the contrary, they will be proven RIGHT.

The armor example relies just as much on society generally believing it to be true - there is no reason for armor to block non-physical attacks - it's just a more elaborate prop. It actually being genuinely effective at blocking some attacks might help it serve as a prop (but see below), but still, this is not essential to believing in snake oil as it were.

It might make sense for the no-armor warriors to only be adding the fort save against indirect effects, granted, and not sword-stabs to the chest... but the mind-over-matter explanation only applying to indirect effects was not stated anywhere. On the contrary, first response I got was this:

you think you're better protected from physical harm, and "mind over matter" kicks in and boom, you are.

Looking at your system, Cloth can have fort as a secondary, making it as effective as some leather armors at blocking swords. This, along with the 'physical harm' comment, gave me the impression that this belief explanation is ALSO having some effect on sword-stab like attacks.

Which means our crazy warrior society might be as good at taking sword hits as people wearing leather armor. Leather armor is actually pretty tough - matching it is only going to further support this society's belief. It sounds like a stupid idea, but all you need is one fool to really believe in it and the feedback loop of it actually working might inspire others. Or this could even happen before armor is particularly advanced. Unless people start already knowing how to make good armor, it's likely Mr. "Heavens are on my side!" will get to show that is possible to block swords with flesh in certain situations long before plate is even a thing.

That said, naked fighting is unlikely to come up - it was just given as "if this works I guess we're okay with all the other, less extreme, corner cases". Far more likely to deal with someone claiming they attribute a different sort of protection to an armor type. Like Reflex for cloth or Will for Plate something. Or an ancestral totem, or wood armor from a sacred tree, or who knows what.

I haven't brought up "What happens when mind/emotion/belief-effecting magic gets involved?" Mostly because you haven't shared the spell alterations yet so I don't know if that's even still a thing. :P

[Amechra]

II and III are bad. Really, really bad.

1) The math for saving throws is balanced around having it be about half-level + stat vs. half-level + stat. So the logical step for "casters have magical attacks instead of saving throw DCs" is half CL + casting stat, not CL + casting stat.

2) By making the "magic attack" bonus so comparatively large, you are also severely nerfing feats and class features that increase spell DCs, while strengthening any that boost caster level. Or were you planning on banning/rewriting all of those too?

3) You then proceed to "fix" a problem that you introduced by increasing save bonuses. Congratulations - you just nerfed every monster ability that requires a save other than spellcasting, as well as any other ability that calls for a save that the PCs might have access to. Heck, all of these changes seem to have been ignoring that, hey, spells aren't the only things with save DCs.

4) As a side note... in your example for II that refers to Baleful Polymorph, there is no possible way for the Orc to fail the Fort "save" but pass the Will "save".

It would have been much simpler to just, you know, have the "magic attack" be 1d20 + spell level + stat + bonuses vs. 10 + save bonus + stat + bonuses.

=---=

Also, IV isn't very good either. Most JRPGs (which is where you see a lot of the "cloth armor boosts magic defense" stuff - can't think of any other CRPGs where that's the case) also have pretty strict restrictions on who can wear armor of a given type. And usually you won't get that boost from the generic clothes you start in - if you want the magic defense boost, you have to wearing wizard robes or somesuch.

Seriously, given how much tinkering you are doing with the basic system math... are you sure you don't want to be playing something like SAGA or the like? Just randomly changing stuff, and then doing it again whenever the first change breaks stuff is a bad way to go about this.

=---=

I is fine, though.

[GnomeWorks]

words

I have contemplated this conversation, and determined that the direct/indirect divide in attack forms is something that does need to be addressed and mechanically resolved. The current system as it is is insufficiently granular to do so, and it will probably take some time for me to determine the best course forward.

That will unfortunately most likely result in the return of AC, which is unfortunate. But I need to put time into thinking about it.


The math for saving throws is balanced around having it be about half-level + stat vs. half-level + stat. So the logical step for "casters have magical attacks instead of saving throw DCs" is half CL + casting stat, not CL + casting stat.

That assumes that the base system math of d20 is kept whole as it is. I have no intentions of doing so.

It makes significantly more sense from a design and elegance standpoint that the numbers for martials and casters are comparable. It makes it easier for players to transition from playing one to the other, and makes the mechanics at least vaguely symmetrical, which makes everyone's lives better.

That it takes more effort to achieve that is of no consequence.


By making the "magic attack" bonus so comparatively large, you are also severely nerfing feats and class features that increase spell DCs, while strengthening any that boost caster level. Or were you planning on banning/rewriting all of those too?

Yes.


You then proceed to "fix" a problem that you introduced by increasing save bonuses. Congratulations - you just nerfed every monster ability that requires a save other than spellcasting, as well as any other ability that calls for a save that the PCs might have access to. Heck, all of these changes seem to have been ignoring that, hey, spells aren't the only things with save DCs.

Class abilities that follow the standard formula of "DC = 10 + 1/2 HD + stat" should not exist. They are mechanically inconsistent with the system as a whole and as such need to be abolished.

As for monsters, the response is easier. Is the ability physical or otherwise not supernatural in nature? It is based off BAB. Is it supernatural? It is based off CL. Done.


As a side note... in your example for II that refers to Baleful Polymorph, there is no possible way for the Orc to fail the Fort "save" but pass the Will "save".

Yes.

The orc could find a way to boost its Will.

Alternatively, I have also played around with secondary effects having some sort of penalty attached to the roll (ie, for baleful polymorph, the magical attack would be used for the Fort portion, then perhaps the magical attack at a -5 penalty for the Will portion. Similar to iteratives).


It would have been much simpler to just, you know, have the "magic attack" be 1d20 + spell level + stat + bonuses vs. 10 + save bonus + stat + bonuses.

The easy road is rarely the best one.


Also, IV isn't very good either.

These complaints are fluff-based, and I don't feel it necessary to answer them.

That said, this thread has led me to believe that a reconsideration of the defense system I have devised requires further tweaking, and thus it is highly likely that your complaints will be rendered largely moot.


are you sure you don't want to be playing something like SAGA or the like?

Now that's just insulting.


Just randomly changing stuff, and then doing it again whenever the first change breaks stuff is a bad way to go about this.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/88/88712cfec4fc031df0aee5628efcf84b154a78830b2882461b 62765bc77571bd.jpg
Randomly? Please. There (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=D20_Mechanic:_Character_Advancement) is (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=D20_Mechanic:_Abilities) absolutely (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=D20_Mechanic:_Wealth_and_Economies) nothing (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=D20_Mechanic:_Accessories) random (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=D20_Mechanic:_Potency) about (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=D20_Mechanic:_Initiative) what (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=D20_Mechanic:_Status_Effects) I'm (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=D20_Mechanic:_Feats) doing (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=Class:_Epochent), I (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=Class:_Engineer) just (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=Class:_Mage) possibly (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=Class:_Priest) chose (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=Class:_Psionicist) a (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=Class:_Trainer) poor (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=Class:_Caller) way (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=Class:_Vampire) to (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=Technology:_Vehicles) present (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=D20_Mechanic:_Materia) it (http://trinitywiki.org/?title=Main_Page).

[ShiningStarling]

That assumes that the base system math of d20 is kept whole as it is. I have no intentions of doing so.


... well, it seems to me that the main source of conflict in this thread is that these changes are being proposed as alterations to 3.5 D&D, if the base system math is going to change, then really it's more like a new system inspired by D&D. I feel this distinction would aid conversation by focusing more on the effectiveness of the new system rather than using existing 3.5 mechanical knowledge to point out the many problems and inconsistencies.

[digiman619]

*inevitable "just back-port Spheres of Power" comment*