PDA

View Full Version : Alternate HD progression, death, stabilisation and BAB rules.



Avianmosquito
2017-02-02, 07:53 PM
This is the first part in the take-it-or-leave-it rules that come attached to Aelsif. Every one of these rules can be taken as part of the group or by themselves at DM discretion. (Though I, when I run my campaign, intend to run them all.) These specifically address my principle issue with D&D, the health system creates too large of a difference between low and high level characters. There are other rules coming later that will only make this worse. So, as a result, I had to find a way to compensate, and these rules are what I came up with.

Firstly, the optional rule I felt made this change necessary. In order to make AC less trivial and help even out warrior and caster classes at high levels, BAB now applies to both attack and touch AC. This completely eliminates the primary issue with AC at high levels, which is that BAB normally eclipses it to the extent that it is impossible to not have a 95% chance to hit on your first attack. (Often the second attack, sometimes the third, rarely the fourth.) This also makes warriors more potent later on, as casters using spells that require attack rolls (disintegrate, scorching ray, any spell with a touch range, etcetera) will find it nearly impossible to hit warriors because the warrior's touch AC will be too high. It also has a negligible effect at low levels, so it doesn't break low-level casters or make it much harder for low-level characters to land hits.

There's also a save adjustment, your class's strong saves now get 1/level (instead of 2+1/2 level) and your class's weak saves now get 1/2 level (instead of 1/3 rounded down). That means starting lower on your best saves, but ending much higher. (+1 at level 1, +20 at level 20.) It's also a straight improvement on your weaker saves (0-10 instead of 0-6).

Oh, and enhancement now goes up to +10 before weapons are considered epic. That's a significant factor, and unlike the rest of these rules that one is actually part of the setting and isn't optional.

The change in HD is fairly straightforward. You get five maximised HD. Period. This doesn't play nice with multiclassing, but it works. In the 3-18 range, that means wizards have 5-40hp, rogues have 10-50hp, clerics have 20-60hp, fighters have 30-70 and barbarians 40-80, end of story. Raising your constitution later will still increase your hit point total, and your bonuses to saving throws and AC still allows you to be ludicrously hard to kill at high levels, but it's because you're better at avoiding damage than taking it. You know, the supposed explanation for why characters have so many HD in the first place? This actually performs that way. It also makes attacks a credible threat and high-level characters can utterly destroy eachother in a single combat round with good rolls.

The change in the rules for death (through standard health damage) are also pretty straightforward. You die at -100%, not -10. You can be bleeding to death for a good long time, in theory as much as eight minutes for a high constitution barbarian, and it makes it unlikely a hit will instantly kill. There's also no instant death effects, not even the instant death at 0hp effect of disintegrate, giving you an even better chance.

Stabilisation is now a fortitude save with a DC equal to 20 plus your negative HP. You also don't stabilize automatically when a healing spell is cast on you, even if it restores you to positive health, though they do delay death by a lot and lower the saving throw enough there's no reason you can't make it unless you're almost cosmically unlucky. Additionally, any damage taken by a stable character in negative HP will destabilize them again, even if it is a single point. Using heal for first aid is no longer a check, and just lowers the save DC for stabilization by your heal skill, for one round only. What this means is there's a good chance of stabilising if you are just below 0 and when heal is used it becomes even better, but when you're really close to death there's almost no chance of survival without heal and only high heal skills will give you a serious chance.

There's more to come. And once again, these are not REQUIRED to use the setting, they're just kinda sitting at the back of the document if you want them, and they don't have to be taken as a unit.

Zireael
2017-02-03, 05:42 AM
If I'm reading that right, the saves change lessens the gulf between high and low saves? That's good.

Can I take all five maximized HDs at first five levels? Because that's pretty much the way 99% people would do it.


How does pricing for magic items work with the enhancements above +5?

Avianmosquito
2017-02-03, 06:06 AM
If I'm reading that right, the saves change lessens the gulf between high and low saves? That's good.

Actually, it kinda strengthens it by the end of the game. It's the difference between +10 and +20 instead of +6 and +12. I can come up with a revision that does lessen the difference, if that's what the community would prefer.


Can I take all five maximized HDs at first five levels? Because that's pretty much the way 99% people would do it.

I'm not totally sure what you're asking here.


How does pricing for magic items work with the enhancements above +5?

I haven't worked out the specific details, save to say that the source of the extra enhancement is an extra +1-5 available from mundane material differences, and that both said differences and magical enhancement would be much cheaper than in other settings. I'm not even sure right now I'm actually going with that enhancement bonus or if I'm just going to have the better materials get better damage dice. The latter is better, but it is also a lot more work and the enhancement model is acting as a stand in until that's done or I decide not to bother.

EDIT:
Decision made. I'm going to have materials increase the size of your damage dice, and just start there. It works better, and it doesn't run into the uncomfortable issue of only having four materials better than standard and trying to have the final one be a +5. Each material better than standard increases the size of your dice by 1 (so a sword's 1d8 becomes 1d10, and a knife's 1d4 becomes 1d6). Upgrades go up to four grades better, so for example an iron sword deals 1d8, a steel sword does 1d10, a tempered steel sword 1d12, a dwarven steel sword does 2d6 and a royal steel sword deals 2d8. Inferior materials also exist, and those get smaller damage dice. For example, a copper sword deals 1d4 damage and a brass one deals 1d6. (Bronze is still 1d8, jungle bronze 1d10 and royal bronze 1d12. Bronze is better in some environments, as it is immune to rust effects.)

Material quality only exists for melee weapons and polearms, throwing weapons included, arrows and bolts. Magical enhancement can be applied to all weapons and ammunition except for heavy weapons (such as cannons) and their ammunition. Firearms, slings and their ammunition do not receive a material bonus as the standard (lead) is already the best material for bullets.

aimlessPolymath
2017-02-03, 05:01 PM
In no particular order:



The change in HD is fairly straightforward. You get five maximised HD. Period. This doesn't play nice with multiclassing, but it works. In the 3-18 range, that means wizards have 5-40hp, rogues have 10-50hp, clerics have 20-60hp, fighters have 30-70 and barbarians 40-80, end of story. Raising your constitution later will still increase your hit point total, and your bonuses to saving throws and AC still allows you to be ludicrously hard to kill at high levels, but it's because you're better at avoiding damage than taking it. You know, the supposed explanation for why characters have so many HD in the first place? This actually performs that way. It also makes attacks a credible threat and high-level characters can utterly destroy eachother in a single combat round with good rolls.

Questions:
When do you get these hit dice? Do you get your first five HD maximized, or what?
How does this interact with multiclassing?
Are the Power Word spells adjusted to deal with this? In a mage vs. mage
How does this interact with effects which care about the number of HD you have?
Inspire Greatness. It adds more Hit Dice. Interactions?
How does this interact with skill points/feats, if at all? Are they changed to work off level instead of skill points? If so, how are monsters with class levels affected?


In order to make AC less trivial and help even out warrior and caster classes at high levels, BAB now applies to both attack and touch AC.
Re: Touch AC- This means that in many cases, making a touch attack is actually harder than making an unarmed strike.


There's also a save adjustment, your class's strong saves now get 1/level (instead of 2+1/2 level) and your class's weak saves now get 1/2 level (instead of 1/3 rounded down).
Are save DCs adjusted at all? Keep in mind that in general, a saving throw DC is normally 10 + 1/2 level (in some fashion) + ability score. Assuming similar ability score numbers, a character has a 50-50 shot of making saving throws for their bad saves, and a +5% per two levels upgrade to that for good saves- making saving throws rapidly outpace special abilities. A monk (all good saves) will literally never fail a saving throw at high levels.

Avianmosquito
2017-02-03, 07:32 PM
When do you get these hit dice? Do you get your first five HD maximized, or what?

You start with them, and you don't get any more from levelling. Effects that add more hit dice are unaffected, including racial traits. That means giants still get their extra eleven hit dice, except that makes a total now of sixteen instead of twelve. Ultimately, this makes weak creatures and low-level characters much more durable, but has little effect on strong creatures and makes high-level characters much less durable.


How does this interact with multiclassing?

Not well. You split your hit dice between your classes, proportionate to your investment preference towards older classes. IE, if you started off as a bard (thus have 5d6) and you take a level in sorcerer to increase your casting power (which is a solid multiclass, by the way) your hit dice will be split between them and you'll have 3d6 and 2d4. These are still maximised, so your hit point total just dropped (assuming 10 constitution) from 30 to 26. If you multiclass again... There's something wrong with you, but let's say you multiclass to fighter to make up those hit points, you'll now have 2d6, 2d4 and 1d10, which maximised totals to 30hp, evening you back out.

However, that's assuming these are your first three levels (or you keep them evenly levelled). If you're already a level 4 bard and take a level in sorcerer, you'll only get one hit die changed over to d4. The 4-1 ratio in your levels is used in your hit dice. If you take another level in sorcerer, that's a 2-1 ratio and we're back to 3d6 and 2d4 until you have more sorcerer levels than bard levels and it becomes 2d6 and 3d4.

Overall, it works. It's also complicated and implies that the poor durability of these classes is inherent enough that taking levels in them makes you easier to kill. There's reasons that might make sense, but I'll leave that to the players.


Are the Power Word spells adjusted to deal with this? In a mage vs. mage

For characters, use level instead. For creatures that with bonus hit dice, add their extra hit dice to their level.


How does this interact with effects which care about the number of HD you have?

Unless you have bonus hit dice, just use level instead. If you do have bonus hit dice, add your bonus hit dice to your level.


Inspire Greatness. It adds more Hit Dice. Interactions?

Performs as normal. Raises level for level-specific effects by 2, gives 20hp, and its other effects for attack and fortitude work as normal.


How does this interact with skill points/feats, if at all? Are they changed to work off level instead of skill points? If so, how are monsters with class levels affected?

It doesn't impact your skill points and feats, those are still level dependent. Monsters with class levels gain any bonus hit dice that their race template gives, but these are not treated as levels and thus don't grant skill points, feats or other such effects. Bonus hit dice do make them more resistant to effects determined by hit dice, however.


Re: Touch AC- This means that in many cases, making a touch attack is actually harder than making an unarmed strike.

Touch AC as distinct from armour AC. That is, it applies to touch attacks AND normal attacks. Whether you're casting harm or punching somebody in the face, the touch AC bonus from level remains fully functional.


Are save DCs adjusted at all? Keep in mind that in general, a saving throw DC is normally 10 + 1/2 level (in some fashion) + ability score. Assuming similar ability score numbers, a character has a 50-50 shot of making saving throws for their bad saves, and a +5% per two levels upgrade to that for good saves- making saving throws rapidly outpace special abilities. A monk (all good saves) will literally never fail a saving throw at high levels.

Save DCs are not adjusted. This change was made because a single failed save can end you on the spot at high levels now. I'd rather not have a high-level party wiped by a single meteor swarm, thanks, and the way this works out it's highly unlikely more than one of them will botch their save and get slaughtered. You can expect enemies to succeed saves more often than not, which is why you use spells that still work when their saves are failed, like fireball and meteor swarm, which still deal half damage if the enemy doesn't have evasion. It also encourages casters to diversify the save types of their spells. Stacking up a bunch of evocation that relies on reflex seems good until you're fighting a rogue, now more than ever, so use some spells that rely on fortitude or will, even attack rolls. If all else fails, some spells don't use attack rolls and have no save, such as acid fog. It's damage over time, but it's guaranteed to work.

Remember, natural 1 still fails no matter how high your save is, and a single failed save against a high-level spell spells disaster. Chain lightning, for example, deals 20d6 at max level, and that average 70 damage will immediately incapacitate or kill most classes. Even the 35 from a successful save is an unacceptable proposition, which is why it's good that high-level warriors can also very quickly kill casters, even from range.

aimlessPolymath
2017-02-03, 08:16 PM
You start with them, and you don't get any more from levelling. Effects that add more hit dice are unaffected, including racial traits. That means giants still get their extra eleven hit dice, except that makes a total now of sixteen instead of twelve. Ultimately, this makes weak creatures and low-level characters much more durable, but has little effect on strong creatures and makes high-level characters much less durable.

This seems like it would make low levels a lot more of a slugfest. An average wizard of 1st level (If I read this right) will have 20 hit points- enough to take multiple hits from a greatsword, and making their limited damaging spells virtually useless, pushing them further towards save-or-lose spells. A fighter of that level will have around 60 hit points, rendering him nigh-invulnerable. Meanwhile, your average orc warrior (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/orcs/orc) will take around 5 hits (at around a 30% hit rate, that makes 15 rounds- even with 3 orcs, it will take 5 rounds of beating on him) to kill that fighter.

Meanwhile, high-level encounters are swung against the players health-wise, but they gain a massive AC bonus to make up for it. Damage totals have gone up significantly due to weapon enhancements and spells which deal X damage/level, but the chance of hitting has gone way down. However, while monsters' hit points have gone up with level to match the players' increased damage, they don't have nearly as much



Touch AC as distinct from armour AC. That is, it applies to touch attacks AND normal attacks. Whether you're casting harm or punching somebody in the face, the touch AC bonus from level remains fully functional.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "Touch AC". Do you mean, "Characters add their Base Attack Bonus as an untyped bonus to their AC"? Or is there some distinct meaning of "armor AC" that I'm not understanding?

If you add your BAB to your AC, that means that at high levels, it's rare that you will hit with more than one attack- and often not that. Looking at an example 15th level character, the pirate king (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-14/pirate-king-half-elf-fighter-15) now needs to roll an 18 to hit himself with an attack.

You will want to address the true strike spell regardless, as it bypasses the AC rebalance you have here.


For characters, use level instead. For creatures that with bonus hit dice, add their extra hit dice to their level.
Power Word spells run off hit point totals.



Save DCs are not adjusted. This change was made because a single failed save can end you on the spot at high levels now. I'd rather not have a high-level party wiped by a single meteor swarm, thanks, and the way this works out it's highly unlikely more than one of them will botch their save and get slaughtered. You can expect enemies to succeed saves more often than not, which is why you use spells that still work when their saves are failed, like fireball and meteor swarm, which still deal half damage if the enemy doesn't have evasion. It also encourages casters to diversify the save types of their spells. Stacking up a bunch of evocation that relies on reflex seems good until you're fighting a rogue, now more than ever, so use some spells that rely on fortitude or will, even attack rolls. If all else fails, some spells don't use attack rolls and have no save, such as acid fog. It's damage over time, but it's guaranteed to work.

Remember, natural 1 still fails no matter how high your save is, and a single failed save against a high-level spell spells disaster. Chain lightning, for example, deals 20d6 at max level, and that average 70 damage will immediately incapacitate or kill most classes.

I'm not actually as concerned with spellcasters (who have such diversity of options that they can deal with most targetted nerfs). I'm worried about classes like the monk, who make use of Stunning Fist on a regular basis, finding it flopping practically every round, or others which derive a significant amount of power with a class feature reliant on a saving throw. I'm also worried about hoser-type monsters like basilisks and mind flayers who find their principal option failing on a regular basis.

The saving throw system also works against characters with limited-use options, since they will usually find them wasted.

Mages can usually ignore the saving throw change by picking the right spells. For example, buffs are just as useful as before, and even more so now that (at low levels) they expect the battle to last several rounds instead of wasting most of it, or (at high levels) double a 15% hit rate to a 30% hit rate with a low, low +3 bonus. This might be what you want, I guess.

If you want to address high-level spells which cause save-or-lose, have you considered reversing the direction of spell level DC increase? That is, a 17th level wizard has 10+Int bonus saving throw DCs on his 9th level spells, but 18 + Int bonus saving throw DCs on his 1st level spells?


Have you playtested these rules with test characters? There's enough moving parts that I can't really tell whether the reduced high-level hit points make up for the higher AC and saving throws. It looks like low levels become a slugfest, but high levels become a game of "use ability or attack, watch it fail, but on the ~15% chance that it succeeds, you really, really, feel it". I'm not actually sure, though.

Avianmosquito
2017-02-03, 09:38 PM
This seems like it would make low levels a lot more of a slugfest. An average wizard of 1st level (If I read this right) will have 20 hit points- enough to take multiple hits from a greatsword, and making their limited damaging spells virtually useless, pushing them further towards save-or-lose spells. A fighter of that level will have around 60 hit points, rendering him nigh-invulnerable. Meanwhile, your average orc warrior (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/orcs/orc) will take around 5 hits (at around a 30% hit rate, that makes 15 rounds- even with 3 orcs, it will take 5 rounds of beating on him) to kill that fighter.

Low level fights do tend to last longer, but not as long as you'd think. Take that mage vs greatsword example. A typical fighter will have a high strength score as well, and two-handing means a 1.5x increase. If their strength is 18, they're dealing 2d6+6, or an average of 13 damage, and will two-shot a wizard (one-shot on a critical), and even if they only have 14 strength they'll deal 2d6+3, an average of 10, still two-shotting the wizard.

There's also the fact that materials work different in this setting. Standard damage dice is for iron, if somebody's using a tempered steel greatsword it goes up from 2d6 to 2d10 because its two qualities better. 2d10+3 averages 14 and 2d10+6 averages 17, that wizard is doomed if a fighter gets in close. This also applies to arrows and bolts.

And all this is ignoring the existence of firearms, which don't get material or ability score bonuses to their damage but have range and deal high damage to start with. An opening shot with a musket tips the scales pretty heavily depending on who hits and who doesn't.

As for that orc warrior, the orcs of this setting are primitive islanders. They'll probably be using spears, not falchions, and that's if they aren't currently attacking with bows or slings. A short spear deals 1d6, and at best their materials will allow a 2d6 version 9 (obsidian spearhead), and if they have the listed 17 strength they'll be dealing that +3. So an average 6.5-10 damage per thrust, which yes will take a while to put down a PC fighter, but then the fighter will take a few hits to put down that orc who has 55hp, so it evens out. It's still not a fair fight, the PC is coming to this contest with guns and steel, but it isn't as lopsided as you make it sound.

And by the way, I don't see how a creature with +4 attack is getting a 30% hit rate here. What armour are you assuming they're wearing? If they're in full plate, it's a wonder the orcs can kill them AT ALL, and most players aren't wearing full plate in a setting like this anyway. Breastplates usually, but not full plate.


Meanwhile, high-level encounters are swung against the players health-wise, but they gain a massive AC bonus to make up for it. Damage totals have gone up significantly due to weapon enhancements and spells which deal X damage/level, but the chance of hitting has gone way down. However, while monsters' hit points have gone up with level to match the players' increased damage, they don't have nearly as much

Monsters are often really tanky late game, but they aren't getting the bonuses to AC and saves that players get, no. So the players expertly avoid being hit because it will ruin their day while the monster needs to be wounded repeatedly to kill it. More or less the way you'd expect this sort of thing to play out in a more realistic environment.


I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "Touch AC". Do you mean, "Characters add their Base Attack Bonus as an untyped bonus to their AC"? Or is there some distinct meaning of "armor AC" that I'm not understanding?

I just wanted to make it clear that this BAB bonus is NOT ignored by touch spells, because if I remember correctly (which I may not) 4e also gives AC with levels and that AC is somehow ignored by touch spells. That's it. It's effectively a dodge bonus, you even lose it when flat-footed.


If you add your BAB to your AC, that means that at high levels, it's rare that you will hit with more than one attack- and often not that. Looking at an example 15th level character, the pirate king (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-14/pirate-king-half-elf-fighter-15) now needs to roll an 18 to hit himself with an attack.

Oh really? Because it sure seems more like the high-level characters have EXACTLY the same chance to land the first hit on eachother as low-level characters, assuming they are the same level and members of classes with equal BAB. Sure, their additional attacks are much less likely to hit, but they still have the advantage of at least having them, and the hits do a lot more damage when they do land. And if you put a class with a high BAB against one with a low BAB, their attacks are much MORE likely to hit than at low levels, with additional attacks also having the advantage of being able to hit.

Sure, the pirate king may need to roll an 18 to hit himself, but he's an extreme example, with armour of far higher quality than his weapons and very high dex compared to his strength. Most characters will hit far more often than that, regardless of level.


You will want to address the true strike spell regardless, as it bypasses the AC rebalance you have here.

No it doesn't. It gives a +20 for a single attack, not a guaranteed hit.


Power Word spells run off hit point totals.

Blame my poor memory and the tendency of our campaigns to stop somewhere between levels 5 and 10. I can make an adjustment.


I'm not actually as concerned with spellcasters (who have such diversity of options that they can deal with most targetted nerfs). I'm worried about classes like the monk, who make use of Stunning Fist on a regular basis, finding it flopping practically every round, or others which derive a significant amount of power with a class feature reliant on a saving throw. I'm also worried about hoser-type monsters like basilisks and mind flayers who find their principal option failing on a regular basis.

Their principle option already failed on a regular basis. Sure, it's worse now, but a stun for 3d4 rounds leaves entirely too much vulnerable time in this system and will almost certainly result in a character's death.


The saving throw system also works against characters with limited-use options, since they will usually find them wasted.

And when those options do work, they will generally end a fight on the spot. A high-level rogue's sneak attack already deals 10d6 on top of weapon damage that can also be really high, if you pair that with scorpion venom and the save DC is failed, you probably just one-shotted most characters where in the base rules it would have been lucky to take off half their health. Just make sure that when you use those abilities that you use them in a circumstance that gives the best chance of success.


Mages can usually ignore the saving throw change by picking the right spells. For example, buffs are just as useful as before, and even more so now that (at low levels) they expect the battle to last several rounds instead of wasting most of it, or (at high levels) double a 15% hit rate to a 30% hit rate with a low, low +3 bonus. This might be what you want, I guess.

Except hit rates tend to be higher than that. Your example had extremely high AC relative to his attack, most characters will have a 40-60% chance to hit on their first attack each round.


If you want to address high-level spells which cause save-or-lose, have you considered reversing the direction of spell level DC increase? That is, a 17th level wizard has 10+Int bonus saving throw DCs on his 9th level spells, but 18 + Int bonus saving throw DCs on his 1st level spells?

I've considered it, but there are some spells (and at least one metamagic) that ONLY benefit from increased spell levels. This would turn those into a straight disadvantage.


Have you playtested these rules with test characters? There's enough moving parts that I can't really tell whether the reduced high-level hit points make up for the higher AC and saving throws. It looks like low levels become a slugfest, but high levels become a game of "use ability or attack, watch it fail, but on the ~15% chance that it succeeds, you really, really, feel it". I'm not actually sure, though.

The full set, no. But the only new features are the altered weapon qualities and the saving throw bonus, which are there to fix my gripes with how it performed. The 15% chance you keep mentioning is exceptionally low for attacks, and most spells still have some effect even when a save works. Fights end very quickly at high levels, and that's the main effect of these rules.

aimlessPolymath
2017-02-03, 10:50 PM
Low level fights do tend to last longer, but not as long as you'd think. Take that mage vs greatsword example. A typical fighter will have a high strength score as well, and two-handing means a 1.5x increase. If their strength is 18, they're dealing 2d6+6, or an average of 13 damage, and will two-shot a wizard (one-shot on a critical), and even if they only have 14 strength they'll deal 2d6+3, an average of 10, still two-shotting the wizard.

There's also the fact that materials work different in this setting. Standard damage dice is for iron, if somebody's using a tempered steel greatsword it goes up from 2d6 to 2d10 because its two qualities better. 2d10+3 averages 14 and 2d10+6 averages 17, that wizard is doomed if a fighter gets in close. This also applies to arrows and bolts.

And all this is ignoring the existence of firearms, which don't get material or ability score bonuses to their damage but have range and deal high damage to start with. An opening shot with a musket tips the scales pretty heavily depending on who hits and who doesn't.

As for that orc warrior, the orcs of this setting are primitive islanders. They'll probably be using spears, not falchions, and that's if they aren't currently attacking with bows or slings. A short spear deals 1d6, and at best their materials will allow a 2d6 version 9 (obsidian spearhead), and if they have the listed 17 strength they'll be dealing that +3. So an average 6.5-10 damage per thrust, which yes will take a while to put down a PC fighter, but then the fighter will take a few hits to put down that orc who has 55hp, so it evens out. It's still not a fair fight, the PC is coming to this contest with guns and steel, but it isn't as lopsided as you make it sound.

And by the way, I don't see how a creature with +3 attack is getting a 30% hit rate here. Are you assuming they're wearing full plate? Because in that case, it's a wonder the orcs can kill them at all.
Fighter AC is 10 + 5 or 6 from armor(Chainmail or Scale Mail), +2 from a shield, +1 from Dex 12 or so, +1 from BAB = AC 19 or 20, which requires a roll of 16 or better to hit with a +3 bonus. Shields are pretty standard issue in my party, for roughly this reason.
Orc actually has BAB +1, and that one had Weapon Focus, making it +5 to hit, requiring a 14 or 15 to hit- 30-35% hit rate.

Point taken on weapon damage and hits/kill- I wasn't aware that you had changed the weapon rules, either.



Monsters are often really tanky late game, but they aren't getting the bonuses to AC and saves that players get, no. So the players expertly avoid being hit because it will ruin their day while the monster needs to be wounded repeatedly to kill it. More or less the way you'd expect this sort of thing to play out in a more realistic environment.
Oh! This is the other thing I didn't know. The changes are much more balanced in that context.


I just wanted to make it clear that this BAB bonus is NOT ignored by touch spells, because if I remember correctly (which I may not) 4e also gives AC with levels and that AC is somehow ignored by touch spells. That's it. It's effectively a dodge bonus, you even lose it when flat-footed.
OK, makes sense. 4e just had touch spells target Reflex.


No it doesn't. It gives a +20 for a single attack, not a guaranteed hit.
Fair enough- my main concern is getting off ray spells with no save (Ray of Frost, Ennervation, Ray of Exhaustion (save reduces to fatigue), whatever 1d6/level ray spells you have) against NPCs or levelled characters, who benefit most from these changes. It's practically a guaranteed hit- if you could hit on a 19 before, now you can hit on a 2. Between this and knowing you lose it anyway like Dodge bonuses, I have no concerns here.


Their principle option already failed on a regular basis. Sure, it's worse now, but a stun for 3d4 rounds leaves entirely too much vulnerable time in this system and will almost certainly result in a character's death.
Fair enough, especially with what I saw about the AC bonus dropping when stunned.



And when those options do work, they will generally end a fight on the spot. A high-level rogue's sneak attack already deals 10d6 on top of weapon damage that can also be really high, if you pair that with scorpion venom and the save DC is failed, you probably just one-shotted most characters where in the base rules it would have been lucky to take off half their health. Just make sure that when you use those abilities that you use them in a circumstance that gives the best chance of success.
What? Scorpion venom deals 1d2 strength damage per round.
I do concede the point on rogue damage- since ambushes bypass the dodge bonus, sneak attacks make much more sense.

EDIT: Whoops, looked at the Pathfinder site.


Oh really? Because it sure seems more like the high-level characters have EXACTLY the same chance to land the first hit on eachother as low-level characters, assuming they are the same level and members of classes with equal BAB. Sure, their additional attacks are much less likely to hit, but they still have the advantage of at least having them, and the hits do a lot more damage when they do land. And if you put a class with a high BAB against one with a low BAB, their attacks are much MORE likely to hit than at low levels, with additional attacks also having the advantage of being able to hit.

Sure, the pirate king may need to roll an 18 to hit himself, but he's an extreme example, with armour of far higher quality than his weapons and very high dex compared to his strength. Most characters will hit far more often than that, regardless of level.
I don't think he's actually that extreme an example- for one thing, he only has +1 breastplate, actually cheaper than his +1 human-bane scimitar, only 2 points more Dex than Str, and only a potion of barkskin. Without the potion, he still needs a 15.
Archer: Warrior 8 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-6/aloof-archer-elf-warrior-8) now needs to roll a 16 with his bow.
Fighter 10 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-9/Krun-Thuul) now needs to roll a 15 to hit.
Monk 14 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-13/little-fist-halfling-monk-14) now needs a natural 20 to hit with flurry of blows (which in Pathfinder increases your BAB for attacking only, so he's at an advantage), or a 19 unbuffed.
Fighter 7 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-6/watch-captain-human-fighter-7) now needs a 16 to hit.
Ranger 4 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-3/human-ranger-4) now needs a 14 to hit, or 16 with TWF.
Notice the pattern? The higher level the character, the harder it is to fight another PC adventurer, because you can barely hit.

All of these are for the first attack. The only one I found (and note that all I did was click on NPCs with various fighter levels) who still stood a chance of hitting himself was a Fighter 10 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-9/tatius-cheriford) build with two feats and +2 Weapon Training for his dueling sword.

Overall, it looks like the natural pattern of bonuses favors AC- there are a great number of spells which buff AC without a corresponding attack spell, and the pattern of magic items is similar. At minimum, shield-users are much better- when you split the cost for an enhancement bonus between a shield and a set of armor, the price is halved due to the (enhancement^2 * 1000 gp) rule. When you split it among a set of armor, a ring, an amulet of natural armor (or a potion of barkskin), etc, the effect is multiplied. (note that the Fighter 10 took advantage of precisely none of those options). It is possible that within your group, some or most of these options are changed, or that you had different experiences at high level- in particular, the item balance swings towards AC, but in a lower-item game, or one in which items are given in more discrete amounts (i.e. more but better bonuses), it's likely to swing less hard.


Except hit rates tend to be higher than that. Your example had extremely high AC relative to his attack, most characters will have a 40-60% chance to hit on their first attack each round.
Against monsters, yes. I misunderstood and thought monsters also had the AC bonus. Seems fair then.


I've considered it, but there are some spells (and at least one metamagic) that ONLY benefit from increased spell levels. This would turn those into a straight disadvantage.
True enough, but it seems easy enough to turn Heighten Spell (say) into "For every spell level which you increase the spell level, increase it's saving throw DC by 2", which cancels out and reverses the penalty, or apply similar modifications to other spells.


The full set, no. But the only new features are the altered weapon qualities and the saving throw bonus, which are there to fix my gripes with how it performed. The 15% chance you keep mentioning is exceptionally low for attacks, and most spells still have some effect even when a save works. Fights end very quickly at high levels, and that's the main effect of these rules.
It sounds then that you've tested the BAB-to-AC rule, and it performed OK? That covers most of my worries, actually. I'm still uncertain about PC-versus-leveled character combat.

Avianmosquito
2017-02-03, 11:57 PM
Fighter AC is 10 + 5 or 6 from armor(Chainmail or Scale Mail), +2 from a shield, +1 from Dex 12 or so, +1 from BAB = AC 19 or 20, which requires a roll of 16 or better to hit with a +3 bonus. Shields are pretty standard issue in my party, for roughly this reason.
Orc actually has BAB +1, and that one had Weapon Focus, making it +5 to hit, requiring a 14 or 15 to hit- 30-35% hit rate.

Breastplates are the standard medium armour in this setting, they provide 5. Shields are uncommon in a setting with guns, most shields used are used by primitives and those that aren't tend to be bucklers. With 12 dex, the fighter's AC will be 17, 18 if they have a buckler. The orc should have +5 to hit and need to roll a 12 or 13. That's a 40-45% hit chance.


Point taken on weapon damage and hits/kill- I wasn't aware that you had changed the weapon rules, either.

It was mentioned above, actually. Only in brief, though I edited in more of the rules later.


Oh! This is the other thing I didn't know. The changes are much more balanced in that context.

The AC bonus is from class levels. Monsters without class levels wouldn't receive it. NPCs would, however.


OK, makes sense. 4e just had touch spells target Reflex.

There's the part I was missing, I guess. I haven't actually played 4e.


Fair enough- my main concern is getting off ray spells with no save (Ray of Frost, Ennervation, Ray of Exhaustion (save reduces to fatigue), whatever 1d6/level ray spells you have) against NPCs or levelled characters, who benefit most from these changes. It's practically a guaranteed hit- if you could hit on a 19 before, now you can hit on a 2. Between this and knowing you lose it anyway like Dodge bonuses, I have no concerns here.

Alright. Well, the difference between the wizard's BAB and the fighter's... Let's call it... BACB? BDB? Whatever, his AC bonus, that makes it hard for the high-level spells to land. At level 10, it's a 5-point difference. At level 20, it's a 10-point difference. But then, the lack of health makes it unlikely the fighter would survive such a hit if it did land. I'll have alternative armour rules and the like later, though. And I still need to work out how higher-end materials work in armour.


What? Scorpion venom deals 1d2 strength damage per round.

The SRD says huge scorpion venom, Injury, DC 18, 1d6 con initial and 1d6 con secondary.


I do concede the point on rogue damage- since ambushes bypass the dodge bonus, sneak attacks make much more sense.

Yeah, and while 10d6 is not a one hit kill against the more durable classes, it is an enormously powerful hit and rogues usually get multiple sneak attacks in a single surprise round. A rogue is just about screwed in a straight-up fight with a high-level fighter, but their sneak attack is a game ender if they can pull it off.


I don't think he's actually that extreme an example- for one thing, he only has +1 breastplate, actually cheaper than his +1 human-bane scimitar, only 2 points more Dex than Str, and only a potion of barkskin. Without the potion, he still needs a 15.
Archer: Warrior 8 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-6/aloof-archer-elf-warrior-8) now needs to roll a 16 with his bow.
Fighter 10 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-9/Krun-Thuul) now needs to roll a 15 to hit.
Monk 14 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-13/little-fist-halfling-monk-14) now needs a natural 20 to hit with flurry of blows (which in Pathfinder increases your BAB for attacking only, so he's at an advantage), or a 19 unbuffed.
Fighter 7 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-6/watch-captain-human-fighter-7) now needs a 16 to hit.
Ranger 4 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-3/human-ranger-4) now needs a 14 to hit, or 16 with TWF.
Notice the pattern? The higher level the character, the harder it is to fight another PC adventurer, because you can barely hit.

All of these are for the first attack. The only one I found (and note that all I did was click on NPCs with various fighter levels) who still stood a chance of hitting himself was a Fighter 10 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-9/tatius-cheriford) build with two feats and +2 Weapon Training for his dueling sword.

Overall, it looks like the natural pattern of bonuses favors AC- there are a great number of spells which buff AC without a corresponding attack spell, and the pattern of magic items is similar. At minimum, shield-users are much better- when you split the cost for an enhancement bonus between a shield and a set of armor, the price is halved due to the (enhancement^2 * 1000 gp) rule. When you split it among a set of armor, a ring, an amulet of natural armor (or a potion of barkskin), etc, the effect is multiplied. (note that the Fighter 10 took advantage of precisely none of those options). It is possible that within your group, some or most of these options are changed, or that you had different experiences at high level- in particular, the item balance swings towards AC, but in a lower-item game, or one in which items are given in more discrete amounts (i.e. more but better bonuses), it's likely to swing less hard.

It really shouldn't, the AC bonus and the attack bonus are equal, with weapons and armour also cancelling eachother out. The entire point was to preserve the same dynamic on the first attack at all levels, and in my experience it did. Magic items increasing AC in six different ways were a requirement to make AC do something in the original as otherwise you inevitably hit a point where you hit 95% of the time by mid level, especially in a setting where shields were a rarity. They aren't required now because your levels do that already, more feats increase attack than AC and spells are roughly even split between them.

The point of this change was to allow a much smaller health pool and still have a considerable difference between high and low-level characters. Two fighters of the same level will stand the same chance of hitting eachother no matter what those levels are, but a single level difference will give the higher level one a 10% advantage. That way, high level characters would still have the advantage without fights taking forever by mid level.


Against monsters, yes. I misunderstood and thought monsters also had the AC bonus. Seems fair then.

Greater clarity of language should help in the future. How about "Character classes now grant a base defence bonus (BDB) to AC, equal to their BAB. This bonus is similar to the dodge bonus from dexterity, and is lost under the same circumstances."?


It sounds then that you've tested the BAB-to-AC rule, and it performed OK? That covers most of my worries, actually. I'm still uncertain about PC-versus-leveled character combat.

I have. And perhaps it's a playstyle difference that made it work so well, though. We didn't give out quite so much loot, which meant fewer magic items, so we didn't get this AC bonus *and* deflection bonuses from one set of magic items *and* natural armour bonuses from potions of barkskin, and so on. Maybe adding a DM tip to the bottom will help. The fact that few people used shields also helped, but that's a setting thing.

Now on to the next thing, which is what in the hell better materials will do for armour. I'm certain I don't want more AC, so... Dex caps? Damage reduction? Dex caps and damage reduction? Dex caps and damage reduction, with how much of each determined by the weight of the armour? Leaning towards that last one. See me in a couple hours.