What breaks if every build decision is mutable?

[Quertus]

So, you know how Clerics can change their spells every day? That's really noob friendly - it means you can't build yourself into a corner.

Well, what if every class were like that?

What if initiators knew all maneuvers, and could swap them out with 5 minutes warning? What if Fighter bonus feats could be changed as readily as initiator maneuvers?

What if building your character were as simple as writing <class> <level> on your sheet, and then everything else could be selected on a daily basis (and/or with a free minutes prep time)?

Heck, maybe players could even change ACF or other features this easily, too.

What would break if the game were played that way?

[Ignimortis]

My schedule certainly would.

Imagine players digging through all possible abilities to find the right ones. Every single class gets at least a few dozen choices, and many of them get hundreds.

IMO, the amount of mutability Clerics get is unsustainable by itself, and if you couple it with something that presumes a quick switch (i.e. martial adept maneuver swaps), then you just complicate things even more.

[Quertus]

Incompetent players could take excessive time looking up things that they don't know. Sure. That could break the gameplay. Just like it breaks the combat gameplay now.

But the underlying system and balance? If, in a single-player videogame of 3e, all "build tree" choices were mutable on "short" or "long" rest, would that break the game in any noticeable way?

[Dimers]

Item crafting would be limited only by available downtime. And I imagine there's a feat or two to help reduce that problem, too. Doesn't break anything, but ramps up something that's already potentially unbalancing.

[One Step Two]

Time spent playing is certainly one thing that would suffer. I am speaking anecdotally, but I know several of my players enjoy playing Sorcerers and Bards due to limited spell choices to not have their time bogged down picking out different spells for the day. When I was playing as a wizard, I had a healthy Spellbook, but even I had a set repertoire of spells I would usually prepare throughout the campaign so I wouldn't agonize over choices, though judicious use of Alacritous Cogitation helped fill the gaps.

Fighters wouldn't get a tonne of benefit from this, mostly because while changing feats would help certain encounters, it's almost as dependent on their magical gear. If they have invested a significant amount of their WBL on a powerful sword, shield and full plate, retraining their feats to be an agile hit-and-run archer would lag behind due to a lack of gear.

For things like Initiators, business as usual, other than time. Their Maneuvers already cover a wide base of useful tricks, changing them on the fly just means they can dip into other specialty powers and stances for different encounters. Such as picking up more Desert Wind maneuvers, trading away shadow hand throwing strikes before fighting a white dragon just to use an off the cuff example.

That would be the other one, encounter balance and appropriate encounter levels would be significantly impacted. Factoring in the party making more tactical withdraws, spending however much time they need to deliberately change over abilities to stack the deck in their favor. So a reduction in exp in those cases would be a necessity.

[Particle_Man]

I assume that some Tier 2 characters, like sorcerers, become Tier 1 casters as they go from "do one thing extremely well" to "do everything extremely well".

On the other hand, Rangers become more effective, as you don't have to hope you run into your favoured enemy, but instead get favoured enemy: those guys!

[Quertus]

Item crafting would be limited only by available downtime. And I imagine there's a feat or two to help reduce that problem, too. Doesn't break anything, but ramps up something that's already potentially unbalancing.

Interesting. Everyone's a critic crafter now - and an efficient one, at that.


Time spent playing is certainly one thing that would suffer. I am speaking anecdotally, but I know several of my players enjoy playing Sorcerers and Bards due to limited spell choices to not have their time bogged down picking out different spells for the day. When I was playing as a wizard, I had a healthy Spellbook, but even I had a set repertoire of spells I would usually prepare throughout the campaign so I wouldn't agonize over choices, though judicious use of Alacritous Cogitation helped fill the gaps.

Yup. Everyone *can* play with a set playbook, and everyone *can* update it as needed. You don't have to pick your class based on your preferred playstyle.


Fighters wouldn't get a tonne of benefit from this, mostly because while changing feats would help certain encounters, it's almost as dependent on their magical gear. If they have invested a significant amount of their WBL on a powerful sword, shield and full plate, retraining their feats to be an agile hit-and-run archer would lag behind due to a lack of gear.

I mean, they're unlikely to take "weapon specialization" in "exotic weapon proficiency: Beholder mouth pick" when they've got a +5 platinum great sword that their party Wizard slaved over for 50 days and spent 1,000 XP on… unless it's a *McGuffin* Beholder mouth pick, that is. But I could see them swapping around mounted combat feats / charging feats / whirlwind attack / ranged feats / AoO feats / great cleave based on the terrain and expected foes.


For things like Initiators, business as usual, other than time. Their Maneuvers already cover a wide base of useful tricks, changing them on the fly just means they can dip into other specialty powers and stances for different encounters. Such as picking up more Desert Wind maneuvers, trading away shadow hand throwing strikes before fighting a white dragon just to use an off the cuff example.

Yeah, I've only once heard an initiator say, "I spend 5 minutes changing my readied maneuvers" - and that *may* have just been a prearranged signal to let the GM know that they were betraying us. So… yeah, might not be used much, beyond *guaranteeing* access to things like Mountain Hammer.


That would be the other one, encounter balance and appropriate encounter levels would be significantly impacted. Factoring in the party making more tactical withdraws, spending however much time they need to deliberately change over abilities to stack the deck in their favor. So a reduction in exp in those cases would be a necessity.

Citation needed on reducing XP for the players being smart. Last I knew, most systems granted bonus XP for such cleverness.


I assume that some Tier 2 characters, like sorcerers, become Tier 1 casters as they go from "do one thing extremely well" to "do everything extremely well".

Hooray, more characters / classes are balanced! Bonus!


On the other hand, Rangers become more effective, as you don't have to hope you run into your favoured enemy, but instead get favoured enemy: those guys!

Lol.

"Run away"

"Why?"

"I don't hate these guys… yet."

That would make for some memorable role-playing, as the Ranger tries to psych herself up to hate every foe. I'd love to read the Drizzt books that come out for that. :smallwink:

[Efrate]

Depending on your group you slow everything to a crawl, and you kind of lose a lot of character identity. I can go from greatest grappler on earth to the greater archer to the kung fu genius at the drop of a hat, what am I actually?

If you do it with enemies as well then either you hand wave it all, because they would counter you as you counter them, and nothing ever happens, or it's you have the perfect solution to everything let's say you win and not do the whole rolling, combat, using ability things.

It might be novel for a one shot but I dont see it as sustainable. Maybe of you limit it to some number of "forms" for most it could work. But everything being able to be optimized forever for every one with just a few moments sounds more headachey than awesome.

[Batcathat]

you kind of lose a lot of character identity. I can go from greatest grappler on earth to the greater archer to the kung fu genius at the drop of a hat, what am I actually?

This would probably be my main issue with such a change. While a character is obviously more than their mechanics, I think mechanics are usually part of it. Of course, "able to adapt my build to the situation" could be an identity, but not if every character is like that.

[Quertus]

Depending on your group you slow everything to a crawl

Much like with groups that take hours for a simple combat, I'm calling that a problem with the group.

Not that it's not a problem, and not that it isn't one that the system exacerbates, but… I consider exacerbating problems to be a feature, as it encourages growth.


and you kind of lose a lot of character identity. I can go from greatest grappler on earth to the greater archer to the kung fu genius at the drop of a hat, what am I actually?

You're a Fighter. A **** good one, not one of those lame one-trick ponies.


If you do it with enemies as well

Monsters rarely have class levels


It might be novel for a one shot but I dont see it as sustainable. Maybe of you limit it to some number of "forms" for most it could work. But everything being able to be optimized forever for every one with just a few moments sounds more headachey than awesome.

I've had the "forms" idea for some time now; problem is, it doesn't fulfill that "engineer" itch.

And, while I like the idea… hmmm… maybe I should make the reverse thread, "what if <casters> had to pick a 'theme' every day"? So, sure, casters can do anything… just not today. Today, my Wizard is a War Mage; tomorrow, he could be a Dread Necromancer or a Beguiler. Today, my Cleric venerated Lolth, and can cast spells from the (much broader) spheres of… Spiders, Competition, Darkness, Chaos, Evil, and Elves, or something. Tomorrow, they might venerate Farlang, or Mask, or Mystra, and have a completely different power set. (EDIT: because they're a Cleric of the *pantheon*, but can only be powered by one deity at a time, because reasons)

Worth making a thread about?


This would probably be my main issue with such a change. While a character is obviously more than their mechanics, I think mechanics are usually part of it. Of course, "able to adapt my build to the situation" could be an identity, but not if every character is like that.

Every PC being more than a 1-trick pony is bad? No… every PC having the same schedule for their flexibility is bad?

[Batcathat]

Every PC being more than a 1-trick pony is bad? No… every PC having the same schedule for their flexibility is bad?

Yes, PCs being one trick ponies is bad but that doesn't mean they should have all the tricks. I don't want a build being just a class and a level and I'd rather have a character with a potentially limiting concept that interests me. YMMV, obviously.

[Duke of Urrel]

The cleric's access to the whole class list of cleric spells is what makes clerics overpowered. Overpowering every other character class is not the simplest solution to this problem. The simplest solution is to restrict clerics to the spells given in Player's Handbook unless a cleric makes a Knowledge of Religion check to know a particularly useful spell from a splatbook.

I am sympathetic to the idea that mundanes should get more good things, and that includes more feats. But do I think we should give them every single feat in every single book that they qualify for? No.

[Biggus]

Citation needed on reducing XP for the players being smart. Last I knew, most systems granted bonus XP for such cleverness.


In the DMG (p.50) it gives a list of factors which affect the difficulty of a given encounter, such as whether the party has healing magic or area-effect-blasty-magic available, and says "none of the above factors should necessarily be taken into account when assigning or modifying challenge ratings" (emphasis mine), meaning it's the DM's judgement as to whether these factors modify the CR.

If the PCs all have the option to rearrange all their feats, spells etc at five minutes' notice to suit every encounter, I as a DM would certainly modify the CR downwards. It's not just a case of them being clever, it's a case of them having much better tools to be clever with.

[NigelWalmsley]

Every PC being more than a 1-trick pony is bad? No… every PC having the same schedule for their flexibility is bad?

Because flexibility is not really the problem. If you let the Fighter reselect all his feats every day, he'd still be worse than the Wizard. The reason classes are bad is largely because their options are weak. This change mostly pushes the game towards being extremely miserable to play while doing relatively little to address the real sources of imbalance. You'd do far more good replacing the Fighter with the Warblade than giving the Fighter unlimited DCFS.

[One Step Two]

Citation needed on reducing XP for the players being smart. Last I knew, most systems granted bonus XP for such cleverness.


In the DMG (p.50) it gives a list of factors which affect the difficulty of a given encounter, such as whether the party has healing magic or area-effect-blasty-magic available, and says "none of the above factors should necessarily be taken into account when assigning or modifying challenge ratings" (emphasis mine), meaning it's the DM's judgement as to whether these factors modify the CR.

If the PCs all have the option to rearrange all their feats, spells etc at five minutes' notice to suit every encounter, I as a DM would certainly modify the CR downwards. It's not just a case of them being clever, it's a case of them having much better tools to be clever with.

Thanks for that Biggus, I was away from my books when I posted, otherwise I would have cited the source myself. With that said though, while it might lower the exp the party gets, what they do get in return is a more meaningful ability to interact with encounters, and it could be used to enhance the game through encouraging players to spend more time investigating and scouting before encounters when they all have the means to set themselves up for the best chance of victory.

I just realized that technically speaking, every player does have the ability to change all their class features thanks to the existence of Psychic Reformation. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm) You could even bake in the lower exp reward to equivalent of 50*Party EL, and let them change their abilities as if they had access to that power constantly.

[Mike Miller]

I assume that some Tier 2 characters, like sorcerers, become Tier 1 casters as they go from "do one thing extremely well" to "do everything extremely well".

On the other hand, Rangers become more effective, as you don't have to hope you run into your favoured enemy, but instead get favoured enemy: those guys!

I may have to apply Favored Enemy (those guys) to my campaign.

[sreservoir]

The cleric's access to the whole class list of cleric spells is what makes clerics overpowered. Overpowering every other character class is not the simplest solution to this problem. The simplest solution is to restrict clerics to the spells given in Player's Handbook unless a cleric makes a Knowledge of Religion check to know a particularly useful spell from a splatbook.

I am sympathetic to the idea that mundanes should get more good things, and that includes more feats. But do I think we should give them every single feat in every single book that they qualify for? No.

The problem with this approach is that PHB-only clerics are still hilariously broken, and while PHB-only non-spellcasters are even worse. Core only has never been a solution to any of 3.5e's problems.

[Quertus]

Yes, PCs being one trick ponies is bad but that doesn't mean they should have all the tricks. I don't want a build being just a class and a level and I'd rather have a character with a potentially limiting concept that interests me. YMMV, obviously.

Hmmm… choosing a class inherently limits the character. But… you… *want* the build game to exist, to individualize your PC? Beyond the customization available by being a… Fire Elf Barbarian 5 / Sorcerer 5 / Arcane Archer 10?


The cleric's access to the whole class list of cleric spells is what makes clerics overpowered. Overpowering every other character class is not the simplest solution to this problem. The simplest solution is to restrict clerics to the spells given in Player's Handbook unless a cleric makes a Knowledge of Religion check to know a particularly useful spell from a splatbook.

I am sympathetic to the idea that mundanes should get more good things, and that includes more feats. But do I think we should give them every single feat in every single book that they qualify for? No.

A wise man once said, "In order to understand recursion, first, one must understand recursion."

However, once that first wise man does, it's just silly to think that his apprentices *have* to research the concept for themselves.

So, while that idea may work from a Gamist perspective, it *generally* fails from a Simulationist / world-building PoV.

Also, core is generally considered about the *worst* source of imbalance.

Regardless, I don't think many people will agree that this would "overpower" other classes - and especially not *all* of them.


In the DMG (p.50) it gives a list of factors which affect the difficulty of a given encounter, such as whether the party has healing magic or area-effect-blasty-magic available, and says "none of the above factors should necessarily be taken into account when assigning or modifying challenge ratings" (emphasis mine), meaning it's the DM's judgement as to whether these factors modify the CR.

If the PCs all have the option to rearrange all their feats, spells etc at five minutes' notice to suit every encounter, I as a DM would certainly modify the CR downwards. It's not just a case of them being clever, it's a case of them having much better tools to be clever with.

Apologies, I'm nearly permanently AFB these days. From what you said, I can't tell if that's advice for the GM to (potentially) *reduce* XP, or to *increase* XP, based on the party's capabilities. (EDIT: that is, does it explicitly specify to *decrease XP if the party has tools*, or to *increase XP if the party lacks appropriate tools*?)


Because flexibility is not really the problem. If you let the Fighter reselect all his feats every day, he'd still be worse than the Wizard. The reason classes are bad is largely because their options are weak. This change mostly pushes the game towards being extremely miserable to play while doing relatively little to address the real sources of imbalance. You'd do far more good replacing the Fighter with the Warblade than giving the Fighter unlimited DCFS.

I'm… not suggesting this as a "solution to what's wrong with 3e" (as, IMO, it is entirely unrelated to what "little" (compared to how many things people complain about) is wrong with 3e).

I'm simply asking, would anything actually, mechanically *break* if we homogenized the play experience, to make every class play like a Cleric (and/or like an Initiator, although that may have muddied the waters).

The "fact" that Fighters (and especially feats) are weak sauce is its own issue. And the benefits of doing so (beyond making the game devoid of permanent setbacks from choosing the wrong feat / spell / maneuver / whatever) are similarly beyond what I was expecting to evaluate.

[One Step Two]

Apologies, I'm nearly permanently AFB these days. From what you said, I can't tell if that's advice for the GM to (potentially) *reduce* XP, or to *increase* XP, based on the party's capabilities. (EDIT: that is, does it explicitly specify to *decrease XP if the party has tools*, or to *increase XP if the party lacks appropriate tools*?)

I can field this one, it's both.

The DMG on page 39 points out that circumstances which might favour the PCs could either lower the Encounter Level of the fight or might reduce the experience to as much as half. This is true for the reverse, if the encounter is much harder but the players overcome, the EL is higher or they could be reward upto twice the experience amount.

The passage does go on to discuss the pros and cons of such an approach, but it sets a clear precedent that players having an easier time of fights might not get as much experience. Of course, this brings up to my mind the design philosophy that gets thrown around that a given encounter should take 1/4 of the party resources. If they expend those resources in scouting, or divinations and in this case uses the new given system of altering their own given powers/feats/etc, then the EL ought to remain the same. But beware the 15 minute adventuring day I suppose.

[rel]

The problem with this approach is that PHB-only clerics are still hilariously broken, and while PHB-only non-spellcasters are even worse. Core only has never been a solution to any of 3.5e's problems.

A better approach is no core allowed.
On the one hand no wizard, cleric, druid, wish, custom magic items or planar binding. On the other hand no fighter, monk, toughness or run.

[NigelWalmsley]

A better approach is no core allowed.

No, it isn't. Core has spells you absolutely need in the game, like Stone to Flesh, Raise Dead, and Restoration. The correct approach is to ban the things that are broken, because it's a very small list of things and everyone knows what they are. Dump Planar Binding and Polymorph (which are Core) but also Celerity and Manipulate Form (which are not).

[Quertus]

No, it isn't. Core has spells you absolutely need in the game, like Stone to Flesh, Raise Dead, and Restoration. The correct approach is to ban the things that are broken, because it's a very small list of things and everyone knows what they are. Dump Planar Binding and Polymorph (which are Core) but also Celerity and Manipulate Form (which are not).

You forgot Fighter and Monk (which are core) and… what's something notoriously bad outside of core again? Some race with cripplingly high HD+LA? Some terribly overpriced item? And True Namer maybe?

[NigelWalmsley]

You forgot Fighter and Monk (which are core) and… what's something notoriously bad outside of core again? Some race with cripplingly high HD+LA? Some terribly overpriced item? And True Namer maybe?

Truenamer, Samurai, Swashbuckler. The vast majority of PrCs, frankly. I mean, have you ever seen someone play a Ghost-faced Killer or Spinemeld Warrior?

[Psyren]

Technically you can do this today, just modify the Retraining rules so all options take a maximum of 8 hours.



On the other hand, Rangers become more effective, as you don't have to hope you run into your favoured enemy, but instead get favoured enemy: those guys!

I'd rather give them a limited resource technique for such a situation (like PF's Instant Enemy spell) rather than eroding build identity through saying "Actually I hate everyone, I just need 8 hours to think about it for a while first."

[Asmotherion]

I'm allowing free respecs every 4 levels, that would not afect my games much.

On the other hand, I would never allow this mid-session. Either decide at home, before session, or get stuck with your previous list.

Spells Known casters proffit of something similar in my campains either way, as I allow them to swap up to their Cha Mod spells at dawn, as long as they have the spells recorded in a pseudo-spellbook.

[Thunder999]

So every caster is now an optimised crafter on their downtime, with all the cost and time reducing feats+whichever crafting feat their particular choice needs.
Spontaneous and prepared casters are now about on par, wizards are still better than sorcerers, but now it's mostly just the odd vs even levels for new spells.
Psionic classes get a nice boost much like the spontaneous casters.
Fighters, barbarians and other standard martial types don't really gain much, they're still stuck with whichever weapon they blew their WBL on.
Rogues gain a tiny bit more, but since there's really not many choices for their special abilities it's not meaningful.
Initiators are another small step up, the fact is that few maneuvers are really situational enough to benefit from this.
Warlocks and dragonfire adepts do quite well, now those more situational invocations are useable and picking a damage type that fits the situation is an option.

[rel]

No, it isn't. Core has spells you absolutely need in the game, like Stone to Flesh, Raise Dead, and Restoration. The correct approach is to ban the things that are broken, because it's a very small list of things and everyone knows what they are. Dump Planar Binding and Polymorph (which are Core) but also Celerity and Manipulate Form (which are not).

Yes, save or dies become a lot more dangerous. I call this the cleric problem; some monsters require a cleric of level x to fight them.
There are non-core ways around some save or suck conditions but others the players will just have to plan around. And PC attrition will be higher.
That being said, having tried no holds barred games of both core only and no core allowed 3.5 I stand by my initial assessment.

A game with no player options from the PHB, DMG and MM is more balanced than one with player options restricted to those 3 books.

[Asmotherion]

No, it isn't. Core has spells you absolutely need in the game, like Stone to Flesh, Raise Dead, and Restoration. The correct approach is to ban the things that are broken, because it's a very small list of things and everyone knows what they are. Dump Planar Binding and Polymorph (which are Core) but also Celerity and Manipulate Form (which are not).

Or, just allow everything, on the condition "NPCs and monsters will be as optimised as your PCs+ a bit more".

So, unless you Want the boss fight to end up taking a whole session per round, checking immunities, resistances, and what else applies were, keep it resonable.

[GrayDeath]

Only Time, intern logic and consistency (Game Worlds would look....very random?) and anything resembling Character Uniqueness.

[Florian]

What would break if the game were played that way?

Quite a lot.

A lot of the things you describe have been part of PF1 near the end of the edition. For example, the Brawler class came with the feature of sorta-kinda a "floating feat pool", allowing to adapt combat styles very quickly, while the Medium could basically switch between (very limited) version of six core classes.

I had fun playing a character that was based on utilizing both concepts, core chassis of Fighter (Weapon Master) 3/Occultist (Panoply Master) 2. Note that this particular Occultist archetype works similar to the Medium, by learning other classes.

There are two main parts to this build. In PF, limited-use abilities are strictly more powerful than their always-on counterparts. The core ability here is to create a similar "floating feat pool" as described above, allowing you to swiftly chose and reset the most powerful abilities you can grab. An Iron Wizard.

So I can pretty much tell you what breaks. The cost to benefit ratio between generalist and specialist gets out of whack. Very specialist / niche / limited use stuff gets an enormous push and so on.