So as some of you (sparkletwist, mainly) are aware, I've been playing around with Pathfinder yet again in an attempt to make it more amenable to the type of game I want to run with my Haveneast setting. I'm planning on maybe running a game soon (probably offline, but it could be a chat game), and I intend on selling it as a somewhat gritty, E10 (10th level is maximum) fantasy game set in a world that's mostly early medieval with heavy influence from pre-Colombian civilizations. Here's my main dilemma:
I want to improve the viability of non-casters, but I'd also like to avoid Path of War mechanics if possible.
I'm not a huge fan of Path of War (or the Book of Nine Swords that inspired it), but I'd be okay with using any that weren't too bonkers and/or supernatural. This is obviously kind of tricky - it's difficult to give a proper buff to non-casters (by which I mean classes with 4th-level casting at best; this would mainly be the Paladin in my setting, as the Ranger class takes on the Skirmisher or Trapper archetype by default), and different classes definitely have more staying power than others when it comes to comparing to full casters and PoW classes. My trains of thought so far either involve:
1) Providing a fairly light boost to all non-caster classes, such as maybe getting access to any archetype's abilities in addition to the default class features (so you might, for example, get the benefits of the Barbarian Hurler archetype without having to give anything up) - I'm not a huge fan of this one, but it does give a little bit of an extra oomph towards your combat options and character fluff.
2) Removing the fighter entirely, buffing the rogue a little, and making the fighter's bonus feat progression, armor training, and weapon training available as a class feature for all non-caster classes - I like this one the most, and compared to #3, it requires much less work. In this scenario, the Cavalier becomes the "Warrior" class and essentially takes the fighter's place as the default combat specialist (keep in mind, he's now getting the fighter's feats and training), although something would need to be done about how the class is very mount-focused as it is. My main difficulty with this approach is that I seem to have less choice for the default soldier/bandit NPC (I guess me thinking the fighter would be good for this sort of mook says a lot about its quality).
3) I could theoretically put together a simplified class system that also helps address my desire to ban/modify certain classes. This class list would be something like Warrior, Rogue, Knight, Wizard, Shaman, Warlock (sparkletwist's version) - where each class more-or-less lines up with an ability score) - and the modification would incorporate Path of War maneuvers, as well as feat and/or class feature options to gain abilities that eliminated classes would have (dat customization). This one is also pretty cool, but would be much more time-consuming and would require a little play-testing.
You can take a look at my currently short list of house rules here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HIpOjEyDNXAX_QkWn5kixlflfy5a3iq0Rvo6oJi5zrM/edit?usp=sharing
What are your thoughts on these change options?
Additional Thoughts - Making the Fighter "Better"
I did a Google search for "does the fighter really suck" and got a bunch of results for 3.5, but one (GITP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276366-The-Fighter-Problem-amp-How-to-Fix-It)) did make at least some sense. Why does a fighter have such a garbage skill selection? It seems like the Fighter class could reasonably go up to 4 skill points per level base, maybe even 6. I don't think it should be as low as the Barbarian, which is pretty much your stereotypical "smash to win" class. I've never really thought that any class should only get 2 skill points per level as a baseline, but if I were to pick one, it'd probably be the barbarian. I realize this isn't a "oh wow everything is fixed" solution, but it does make the fighter slightly more capable outside of combat.
This is a topic about which I have absolutely no opinions. :grin:
The biggest problem is that improving the viability of non-casters without being "bonkers" is an extremely difficult proposition even at relatively low levels, and rapidly becomes impossible. I'd argue that even by level 10, there are some pretty formidable 5th level spells out there and any martial character is going to have to have their own superhuman powers in order to be able to play on the same playing field as characters who are throwing that kind of stuff around. There are some Path of War abilities that aren't quite so overtly supernatural, but they're still in the realm of superhuman action movie athleticism, which may or may not fit your definition of "bonkers." I think, ultimately, you have to decide what kind of game you're playing.
If you want a truly "gritty" game, then I feel like the solution is probably going to be more along the lines of nerfing casters rather than buffing non-casters, and this will be rather difficult to pull off because of how geared to the existing system expectations and power level the game is. It'd require a lot of reworking of monsters as well as some tweaking to ensure that playing a caster is actually still even any fun. On the other hand, if casters are going to stay basically as they are, then characters without magic simply can't compete in the mundane world without a substantial boost-- in short, the casters already are "bonkers" and the non-casters just need to keep pace.
I have mixed feelings about throwing a bunch of feats at characters. On one hand, this is definitely a viable buff, and having lots of feats to play with expands build options at lower levels and is fun! So it's not the worst idea. On the other hand, it tends to buff everyone and casters can just as easily make themselves more powerful too. I think feats aren't quite as essential to a caster build, but there are always useful things to do with feats. Any class with a "grab bag" class feature (e.g., Rogue Talents, Witch Hexes, etc.) can especially benefit because they can grab extra ones with their feats. The end result is that everyone is more powerful but I feel like the power gap between the haves and have-nots when it comes to spellcasting might not have actually narrowed any.
As for the default soldier/bandit NPC, I think that's what the Warrior NPC class is for. The fact is, the Fighter class, as written, is not really very much better than the Warrior NPC class, which tells you something right there...
EDIT: Oh, I want to add, if you do end up running the game here, sign me up. :D
Basically agreed with Sparkle on everything. Once you get past the lowest levels, you really can't make non-magic classes competitive without giving them "supernatural" powers. PoW (arguably) does it, at the cost of accepting that the martials now get to be as supernatural and "bonkers" as the casters.
This is why I'm an E6/P6 fan. Like you, the supernatural stuff makes me cringe a little, so I prefer to stick to the part of PF where the relative gulf is smallest. I hesitate to call even that "gritty," however. I'm not sure that's an adjective that can reasonably apply to PF at any stage of PC development.
QuoteIt seems like the Fighter class could reasonably go up to 4 skill points per level base, maybe even 6.
As far as I'm concerned this is basically "baby's first fighter buff." Yeah, go wild. It's not like
skill points ever broke PF/3rd ed. The PF Rogue has skill points for days, and is nevertheless considered one of the worst classes in the game.
Quote from: Polycarp
Basically agreed with Sparkle on everything. Once you get past the lowest levels, you really can't make non-magic classes competitive without giving them "supernatural" powers. PoW (arguably) does it, at the cost of accepting that the martials now get to be as supernatural and "bonkers" as the casters.
This is why I'm an E6/P6 fan. Like you, the supernatural stuff makes me cringe a little, so I prefer to stick to the part of PF where the relative gulf is smallest. I hesitate to call even that "gritty," however. I'm not sure that's an adjective that can reasonably apply to PF at any stage of PC development.
QuoteIt seems like the Fighter class could reasonably go up to 4 skill points per level base, maybe even 6.
As far as I'm concerned this is basically "baby's first fighter buff." Yeah, go wild. It's not like skill points ever broke PF/3rd ed. The PF Rogue has skill points for days, and is nevertheless considered one of the worst classes in the game.
You're right, and I talked with sparkle more about the topic. A fourth possibility that popped up is to merge the fighter and rogue classes, while expanding the fighter's weapon training/armor training ability to all non-caster classes, which I think isn't such an outrageous idea anyway.
I am still so torn about E6 vs E10. I definitely don't want the full 20-level progression, but I wonder if E6 is too low. I don't think it is, although I need to make sure Animate Dead is available as a 3rd-level spell to keep my personal sanity.
Quote from: Hoers
I am still so torn about E6 vs E10. I definitely don't want the full 20-level progression, but I wonder if E6 is too low. I don't think it is, although I need to make sure Animate Dead is available as a 3rd-level spell to keep my personal sanity.
For me, it boils down to what kind of scale and threat level you're looking for. Most monsters from Greek mythology are around 5th to 6th level so if you want a manticore to stay a manticore, and a Cyclops to stay a Cyclops, than you should keep your party around that level. By that standard, the level 10 Aboleth is a genuinely terrifying threat, but by E10 standards the Greek monsters, while not pushovers, are much easier to deal with, and the Aboleth is a worthy opponent. It's all about what you want the BBEG to be. For me, I would want something like an aboleth to be an ancient horror, that would take at least one campaign to deal with, if not a few campaigns.
Also if I may make a suggestion about spellcasters... I am a young gamer, I fully admit this, and I don't know much about old school DnD, but I know that back in the day, spellcasters were notoriously difficult to play because they started out extremely frail and had very limited amount of spell flinging capability, but as they progressed they became extremely powerful. So the warriors got to be good off the bat, but there was a peak, while with high level spellcasters, you respected those characters because they had to go through hell and back to get where there at. Maybe implement something similar? Take away some the wizards toys at level one, and then slowly give it back as the game progresses?
So I'd be the first to admit I'm not the most crunch-oriented person, so take this with a hefty pinch of salt... But it seems to me that what you're trying to do here, and what others have tried to do, is interesting as a thought experiment but may ultimately be a bit of a square-peg-round-hole situation. Maybe Pathfinder just isn't the best system for the game you want, and by the time you've hacked it enough that it works for you... I dunno, if it was me, I'd be tempted to just look elsewhere is all I'm saying. But then again I don't like 3.x/Pathfinder very much (as much as I have a blast in Steerpike's Fimbulvinter PF game I feel like most of my fun in that comes from the roleplaying and is almost despite than the rules rather than because of them) so like I said, take that with a pinch of salt.
Quote from: LoA
Quote from: Hoers
I am still so torn about E6 vs E10. I definitely don't want the full 20-level progression, but I wonder if E6 is too low. I don't think it is, although I need to make sure Animate Dead is available as a 3rd-level spell to keep my personal sanity.
For me, it boils down to what kind of scale and threat level you're looking for. Most monsters from Greek mythology are around 5th to 6th level so if you want a manticore to stay a manticore, and a Cyclops to stay a Cyclops, than you should keep your party around that level. By that standard, the level 10 Aboleth is a genuinely terrifying threat, but by E10 standards the Greek monsters, while not pushovers, are much easier to deal with, and the Aboleth is a worthy opponent. It's all about what you want the BBEG to be. For me, I would want something like an aboleth to be an ancient horror, that would take at least one campaign to deal with, if not a few campaigns.
Also if I may make a suggestion about spellcasters... I am a young gamer, I fully admit this, and I don't know much about old school DnD, but I know that back in the day, spellcasters were notoriously difficult to play because they started out extremely frail and had very limited amount of spell flinging capability, but as they progressed they became extremely powerful. So the warriors got to be good off the bat, but there was a peak, while with high level spellcasters, you respected those characters because they had to go through hell and back to get where there at. Maybe implement something similar? Take away some the wizards toys at level one, and then slowly give it back as the game progresses?
Yeah, I want that from my games too. I have actually run E6 a few times before and it worked out well, but E10 allows a little more leeway in terms of what everyone can do, and what can be considered an appropriate endgame challenge. Even in the case of the latter, I don't think the percentages for the population would change much from E6 - once you reached 7th-level, you'd essentially be in completely unknown territory, and you'd be in the demigod conversation. I see fairly powerful undead and dragons (neither of which you necessarily fight head-on) as being examples of the kinds of BBEGs such a campaign (in E6, but also in E10) might have, but more often than not it's probably just going to be a human adversary.
The spellcaster thing is actually pretty much what Pathfinder and other D&D variants already do, unfortunately - spellcasters are pretty limited at lower levels, picking up speed at 3rd and matching (maybe starting to surpass) non-casters around 6th.
Quote from: Kindling
So I'd be the first to admit I'm not the most crunch-oriented person, so take this with a hefty pinch of salt... But it seems to me that what you're trying to do here, and what others have tried to do, is interesting as a thought experiment but may ultimately be a bit of a square-peg-round-hole situation. Maybe Pathfinder just isn't the best system for the game you want, and by the time you've hacked it enough that it works for you... I dunno, if it was me, I'd be tempted to just look elsewhere is all I'm saying. But then again I don't like 3.x/Pathfinder very much (as much as I have a blast in Steerpike's Fimbulvinter PF game I feel like most of my fun in that comes from the roleplaying and is almost despite than the rules rather than because of them) so like I said, take that with a pinch of salt.
You're right. I'm not a huge fan of it either, but short of Fate (which I don't think is appropriate for my game), I don't believe there are many other options that wouldn't take me a while to learn. I've toyed with GURPS and Blade of the Iron Throne, but the latter is a bit too Conan-ish. It might just be enough to make the Fighter/Rogue combo tweak along with a few others and run E10, worrying more about the story. I feel like, in a raw comparison between Middle Earth (which the E6 idea was ultimately based on) and my own setting, mine has a slightly-higher power level that could justify letting characters go to 10th-level, even if at that point they're slinging abilities and spells that they've probably never seen from anyone else.
Quote from: LoASo the warriors got to be good off the bat, but there was a peak, while with high level spellcasters, you respected those characters because they had to go through hell and back to get where there at. Maybe implement something similar? Take away some the wizards toys at level one, and then slowly give it back as the game progresses?
This was something done in oldschool games and mostly abandoned in modern games because it turned out to be pretty crappy and not a whole lot of fun. Some people are going to want to play a low-level game and stop at level 6, others are going to want to
start at level 6, and some people might just want to go straight to crazy town and start at a high level. If certain classes aren't fun to play at certain levels, people just won't play them.
Pathfinder still does it to a limited extent, but a decently built level 1 Wizard is still going to get three or four spells a day plus school powers, so the whole thing is much more bearable, and this is a good thing.
I don't consider "what kind of monsters can you fight" to be a very good reason to choose E6 or E10 or anything else unless you consider it too tedious to do monster-tweaking yourself. I mean, yes, an Aboleth is CR 10 or whatever, but making a CR 6 "Aboleth" surely wouldn't be that difficult.
What distinguishes low-level from high-level play is the number and type of tricks players have at their disposal. At high levels, you can teleport and fly; at lower levels, the best you can do is boost your land speed a bit or levitate precariously into the air. In Steerpike's Fimbulvinter game, the lack of nondetection (anti-scrying) spells at low levels made the way I handled certain challenges very different than if I had faced those same challenges in a high-level game in which scry protection is just a matter of spell slots. Those kinds of things change gameplay in a way that is much more fundamental than "numbers go up."
Quote from: Polycarp
I don't consider "what kind of monsters can you fight" to be a very good reason to choose E6 or E10 or anything else unless you consider it too tedious to do monster-tweaking yourself. I mean, yes, an Aboleth is CR 10 or whatever, but making a CR 6 "Aboleth" surely wouldn't be that difficult.
What distinguishes low-level from high-level play is the number and type of tricks players have at their disposal. At high levels, you can teleport and fly; at lower levels, the best you can do is boost your land speed a bit or levitate precariously into the air. In Steerpike's Fimbulvinter game, the lack of nondetection (anti-scrying) spells at low levels made the way I handled certain challenges very different than if I had faced those same challenges in a high-level game in which scry protection is just a matter of spell slots. Those kinds of things change gameplay in a way that is much more fundamental than "numbers go up."
You're right, and after our conversation last night I am pretty confident I am going to run E6 with some fairly involved ways to gain access to a 4th-level spell here or a 5th-level spell there ("epic" feats, and/or expenditure of multiple post-progression feats maybe). That being said, one thing I've always kind of done with my games though is throw CR out the window - it seems like a very contrived metric that doesn't fit my games, which as you and sparkletwist in particular will know, aren't really predicated on running a handful of combats per day. As for magic, the E6 limits really seem to help keep the feel from getting out-of-hand; it always seemed like high-level play for casters was much more a game of trading gotcha's and paranoid protective spell casting.
Another metric I'm not a huge fan of from PF, which CR always makes me think of - despite being pretty core to the way the game is balanced - is the gold/silver/copper currency system. Haveneast economies mostly run off of as much barter as currency, so it'd be just as reasonable to trade favors or raw goods for things like new equipment or services. It makes me think sometimes that using an "honor" system, like the one I think used to be in Unearthed Arcana, would be beneficial to the game.
I'm not totally sure if there's any way to implement this in a game other than establishing that I'm not going to outright steal away the ability to have a couple of swords and some chainmail, but the group should put at least some thought into
why and how characters have them - whether it's an order, an heirloom, taken from a fallen adversary, a gift, or just bought from a bit of wealth obtained through work. It'd be a part of the game to acknowledge that having access to a blacksmith or two is part of the reality of the game's downtime, as well as getting new gear (which won't necessarily be hanging around just waiting to be bought, but would instead need to be commissioned). It's things like this that push me a little further in the direction of "use a different system".
How did Fimbulvinter handle acquiring new gear?
Quote from: Hoers
How did Fimbulvinter handle acquiring new gear?
There was a limited selection of things to buy in the town that'd become kind of a home base for the characters. Only most basic equipment was available there; anything better or rare had to be plundered from eg. a monster's nest, pulled off the cold dead hands of an enemy, or received as gifts or rewards from big hat NPCs -- there was one time we met Odin himself, who bestowed magical rings to the PCs. Working for the Jarl of Wulfheim also provided access to his armoury, within reason.
I'm also not a fan of a lot of aspects of the D&D/PF economy. Shopping for equipment is one of my least favorite parts of character creation, and I much prefer the Fate-style (admittedly much more rules light) mentality of simply assuming that characters have everything they need to competently do what they're good at, and proceeding from there.
One thing from Unchained that I like and have used in the past that supports this sort of play style is Automatic Bonus Progression (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/automatic-bonus-progression), which eliminates the need for a lot of the items that do nothing but add a numerical bonus-- and, indeed, eliminates them entirely, because they simply don't exist in games that use ABP. It also allows a hero to keep using a 'signature sword' (or whatever) for the entire adventure, because the enhancement bonus levels up with the character. The rule that using a weapon with a special property subtracts from your attuned bonus is kind of dumb, and I've never played that way, but it's otherwise something I quite like.
Quote from: sparkletwist
I'm also not a fan of a lot of aspects of the D&D/PF economy. Shopping for equipment is one of my least favorite parts of character creation, and I much prefer the Fate-style (admittedly much more rules light) mentality of simply assuming that characters have everything they need to competently do what they're good at, and proceeding from there.
One thing from Unchained that I like and have used in the past that supports this sort of play style is Automatic Bonus Progression (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/automatic-bonus-progression), which eliminates the need for a lot of the items that do nothing but add a numerical bonus-- and, indeed, eliminates them entirely, because they simply don't exist in games that use ABP. It also allows a hero to keep using a 'signature sword' (or whatever) for the entire adventure, because the enhancement bonus levels up with the character. The rule that using a weapon with a special property subtracts from your attuned bonus is kind of dumb, and I've never played that way, but it's otherwise something I quite like.
I like that, to an extent. I've always been very fond of how The Hobbit and LotR do the weapon upgrades - the would be "enhancement" bonus isn't as important as what the weapon symbolizes, or the item has a special conditional bonus/effect. Maybe I'll work something out to use the ABP rules. On the other hand, I've always run Haveneast under the assumption that a +2 weapon that does 1d8 fire damage on top of its base damage is outright godly, and that you'll get along just fine for an entire adventuring career with a masterwork weapon. I'll have to think about it.
You don't actually get a +2 weapon attunement until level 9. This means it won't happen at all in a game that ends at level 6 or 8, and won't happen until near the end in a game that only goes to level 10. So perhaps "outright godly" isn't actually the worst label for such a weapon, even with ABP in mind.
The one big change to the progression I would recommend making if you decided to stop at level 6 would be to allow martial characters to gain "Physical Prowess" rather than "Mental Prowess" at level 6, so they can get a boost to Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution instead.
I've kind of drifted from Pathfinder recently, but still retain some fondness for it. If I were looking to "balance" caster/non-caster classes I wouldn't so much go the routes you've sketched; indeed, my approach probably wouldd't be particularly mathematical at all. Instead I'd:
1) Make magic more dangerous and/or difficult and time-consuming to use at higher levels by building in a threat of madness, magical mishaps, or complicated rituals into spellcasting. This isn't so much as straight up nerf of spellcasters as it makes casters risky, unreliable, and expensive.
2) Change DMing style to favour non-casters, by creating scenarios and encouraging a style of play that puts pressure on the limited spell slots of casters. This makes casters "overpowered" for the first part of a day, but as their spells dwindle so does their utility. Survival horror scenarios where characters must survive onslaughts of monsters come to mind here. Strongly discourage a style of play where resting safely and frequently is a trivial, cheap, and reliable option. Create a world where casters hold their spell slots dear while fighters, who can chop stuff all day, never run out of oomph.
3) Make magic-users distrusted and persecuted in-setting to discourage rampant magic use in civilized society. Known casters quickly become targets for witch-hunters, get kicked out of towns, lynched/burnt at the stake, and otherwise shunned. This inhibits magic use in "civilized" areas and thus affords non-casters greater opportunity to shine.
Quote from: SteerpikeMake magic more dangerous and/or difficult and time-consuming to use at higher levels by building in a threat of madness, magical mishaps, or complicated rituals into spellcasting. This isn't so much as straight up nerf of spellcasters as it makes casters risky, unreliable, and expensive.
Well, given that Pathfinder's spells as written are generally safe, reliable, and cheap, this pretty much
is a nerf. Of course, that's not inherently bad. My main issue is making sure it's done in a way that makes it still fun to play a spell casters, and doesn't just disempower the players and make it more frustrating and stupid to be a caster. I'm against any sort of arbitrary random mishaps, fuck-you effects, or the like.
That said, the idea of "risky magic" is a fun and compelling one. Dresden Fate does this with evocation, Asura actually works this way, too: every prana power (i.e., spell) has a cost in "Dissonance," which reflects the amount that the universe pushes back when you try to do something that violates natural laws. There are a few ways to pay this cost, but the most direct and most commonly used is to simply sacrifice hit points or mind points, in effect, you have to take damage to your health or your sanity in order to be able to accomplish magical effects. There's a risk there, because you're now weaker, but it's also something that is fairly deterministic, so players are able to take calculated risks. It makes the use of prana powers potentially capable of causing harm or madness, and thus somewhat dangerous to use, without seeming too arbitrary.
Quote from: SteerpikeChange DMing style to favour non-casters, by creating scenarios and encouraging a style of play that puts pressure on the limited spell slots of casters. This makes casters "overpowered" for the first part of a day, but as their spells dwindle so does their utility. Survival horror scenarios where characters must survive onslaughts of monsters come to mind here. Strongly discourage a style of play where resting safely and frequently is a trivial, cheap, and reliable option. Create a world where casters hold their spell slots dear while fighters, who can chop stuff all day, never run out of oomph.
I doubt if this would work very well. As far as I can tell, the addition of unlimited cantrips and various utility powers are designed so that spellcasters always have something to do, rather than the oldschool D&D model of having to shoot a crossbow or run and hide after using up your one spell slot for the day. Modern spellcasters don't have to budget their spell slots quite so meticulously. That's not to say that resource management shouldn't be part of the game for classes with limited resources, but I also think that the way you're suggesting to do it harkens back too much to a way of play that was mostly left behind because a lot of people found it annoying and not that much fun. The penalty for failing to allocate your resources should be having to fall back on something weaker... but not uselessness.
Relying too much on spell slots as a limiting factor also runs into big problems when considering a "limited selection of at will invocations" casting model like the Warlock uses, weird encounter-based classes like the Factotum, and anything with faster recovery of abilities like the classes from Path of War. These classes will still outshine pure mundanes, unless they get arbitrarily nerfed somehow. I'll also point out that a fighter is still going to be indirectly affected by this, because, after all, he runs out of oomph just as soon as he runs out of hit points, which, since he's on the front lines, are going to be taxed much more severely-- and it's probably the cleric's limited spell slots that are going to heal him up.
Quote from: SteerpikeMake magic-users distrusted and persecuted in-setting to discourage rampant magic use in civilized society. Known casters quickly become targets for witch-hunters, get kicked out of towns, lynched/burnt at the stake, and otherwise shunned. This inhibits magic use in "civilized" areas and thus affords non-casters greater opportunity to shine.
This also just excludes casters from the game when the party is in town. What fun is that? While the rest of the party is shopping, the wizard gets to... wait around outside doing nothing? Fight an arbitrary fuck-you encounter singlehanded, maybe?
Also, without big changes to the general effectiveness and usefulness of magic, that is, without big changes to the actual spells are being cast, doing too much of this just makes people seem like paranoid luddites. And, I mean, maybe there
are some paranoid luddites out there, but the whole population being paranoid luddites who are afraid of magic when magic is so
useful seems sort of silly.
I think my biggest problem with fixes like these are that they don't so much directly nerf spellcasters in a specific way that improves game balance, but, rather, they seem more to exist to
punish a player for deciding to play a caster. That's a style of play I cannot and do not get behind.
The supposed balance of "casters do great things a limited amount of time" and "martials do mediocre things at will" has never really worked. If a DM doesn't take advantage of the difference by pushing the caster beyond his resources, then the "disadvantage" of a caster means nothing and they are strictly better than their mundane companions. If the DM does take advantage and forces a caster beyond his resources, the result is usually either that the caster's player is essentially left out of the game, or that the other players, not being stupid, voluntarily withdraw themselves from further action until their caster is ready to contribute again.
PoW "works" by essentially giving up the fight and making martials into per-encounter spellcasters. The other way to give up, of course, would be to do the opposite and make casters into martials by letting them cast all the time but nerfing magic's effects into the ground. The latter bothers people who want less high-flying supernatural craziness in their martials, and the latter bothers... well, most people, I'd assume.
Quote from: sparkletwistWell, given that Pathfinder's spells as written are generally safe, reliable, and cheap, this pretty much is a nerf. Of course, that's not inherently bad. My main issue is making sure it's done in a way that makes it still fun to play a spell casters, and doesn't just disempower the players and make it more frustrating and stupid to be a caster. I'm against any sort of arbitrary random mishaps, fuck-you effects, or the like.
Sure, I mean in a sense of course, it's definitely limiting the power of casters and so is a nerf, but without necessarily reducing the number of spells they can cast or how much damage they do or whatnot. Basically I think Pathfinder RAW's assumptions around magic are kinda boring, and, moreover, their boringness (i.e. reliability, cheapness) contribute to the overpoweredness of casters.
I can understand that some people don't like mishaps and random effects, but some people do - it's a taste thing, I'd argue. I think they have to be handled relatively carefully, but the randomnenss of them can be a source of fun and delight. I've seen a lot of eyes light up when a wild magic effect occurs. I don't think a 1st level spell should have a chance of destroying the caster or anything.
The Asura style system is definitely one way to do it that would involve less randomness.
Quote from: sparkletwistI doubt if this would work very well. As far as I can tell, the addition of unlimited cantrips and various utility powers are designed so that spellcasters always have something to do, rather than the oldschool D&D model of having to shoot a crossbow or run and hide after using up your one spell slot for the day.
I guess, but I don't think the cantrips/utility powers are really what make casters overpowered.
Quote from: sparkletwistThat's not to say that resource management shouldn't be part of the game for classes with limited resources, but I also think that the way you're suggesting to do it harkens back too much to a way of play that was mostly left behind because a lot of people found it annoying and not that much fun.
I'd frankly kinda dispute that it's really been left behind. In a lot of ways 5E hearkens back to old school gaming, which has been making a steadily growing comeback for a number of years (Lamentations of the Flame Princess, retroclones, the OSR, lots of DIY D&D stuff). If anything the assumptions of 3rd and 4th edition where the characters are hyper-powerful and have fewer limitations on resources are kinda waning now, at least for some.
You're quite right to note that the changes I'm suggesting make Pathfinder more "old school" and limit character power. I'd argue this is not remotely the same as disempowering players.
Quote from: sparkletwistThe penalty for failing to allocate your resources should be having to fall back on something weaker... but not uselessness.
Isn't that what the cantrips and utility powers are for though?
Quote from: sparkletwistRelying too much on spell slots as a limiting factor also runs into big problems when considering a "limited selection of at will invocations" casting model like the Warlock uses, weird encounter-based classes like the Factotum, and anything with faster recovery of abilities like the classes from Path of War. These classes will still outshine pure mundanes, unless they get arbitrarily nerfed somehow.
Oh yeah, I just wouldn't use those at all.
Quote from: sparkletwistThis also just excludes casters from the game when the party is in town. What fun is that? While the rest of the party is shopping, the wizard gets to... wait around outside doing nothing? Fight an arbitrary fuck-you encounter singlehanded, maybe?
No no - the caster can still do stuff in town. They just have to be careful about it when that stuff is magic - like taking care to avoid witnesses, intimidating people, being careful with the law, using magic sparingly, using disguises. They can shop for some of the same stuff as other players (i.e. non magical gear), but that takes, what, 5 minutes maybe of game time, unless the DM makes you go to every artisan individually and roleplay every haggle?
Quote from: sparkletwistAlso, without big changes to the general effectiveness and usefulness of magic, that is, without big changes to the actual spells are being cast, doing too much of this just makes people seem like paranoid luddites. And, I mean, maybe there are some paranoid luddites out there, but the whole population being paranoid luddites who are afraid of magic when magic is so useful seems sort of silly.
It depends in part on how common magic is. In the version of Pathfinder I'm envisioning it'd be rarer, and because of the dangers that might go along with it (see suggestion 1) definitely wouldn't always seem useful.
Basically I'm arguing that one way to "fix" magic in Pathfinder is to fundamentally change a lot of the assumptions around its commonness, safeness, and how it's regarded. I definitely don't think this sort of setting is the only interesting one. In my current game pretty much everyone and their dog is a wizard; we're in 5th edition though, where there are barely any mundane classes and even the fighter has an arcane archetype.
Quote from: sparkletwistI think my biggest problem with fixes like these are that they don't so much directly nerf spellcasters in a specific way that improves game balance, but, rather, they seem more to exist to punish a player for deciding to play a caster. That's a style of play I cannot and do not get behind.
I'm increasingly convinced that any account of game balance is very difficult to measure without context like how long characters typically have between rests, what types and difficulties of monsters are encountered, how common treasure is (and how much of it is magic), and what kind of obstacles a DM dumps on players; I also just plain old dislike the idea that combat efficacy should be the key component of balance.
Currently Pathfinder effectively punishes non-casters. Instead of buffing non-casters, all I'm arguing is that casters could be dragged down to the same level (in fun and challenging ways that make magic more interesting), so that everyone is lowly and underpowered in their own way. I often really enjoy this style of play both as a player and as a DM - what we might call the Call of Cthulhu model. Certainly not everyone's cup of tea but I don't think it's inherently less viable or fun than everyone playing superheroes.
Quote from: SteerpikeI'd frankly kinda dispute that it's really been left behind. In a lot of ways 5E hearkens back to old school gaming, which has been making a steadily growing comeback for a number of years (Lamentations of the Flame Princess, retroclones, the OSR, lots of DIY D&D stuff). If anything the assumptions of 3rd and 4th edition where the characters are hyper-powerful and have fewer limitations on resources are kinda waning now, at least for some.
I don't particularly agree with any of that, and I'd point to the success of Fate and its ilk, but that is probably a fairly big tangent. On the topic of 5th edition, I'll just say that it includes Inspiration, which is the first time that a narrativist-style meta-mechanic (albeit a rather halfhearted one) has been included in the core of D&D.
Quote from: SteerpikeYou're quite right to note that the changes I'm suggesting make Pathfinder more "old school" and limit character power. I'd argue this is not remotely the same as disempowering players.
I'm not against reining in the power of casters a bit. I mean, more limited classes like the Warlock and the Path of War classes aren't capable of nearly as much overpowered craziness as Vanican prepared casters, so I think it's sort of weird and counterproductive that they are the first thing you'd throw out, but anyway. As far as I can tell your idea is to change magic from something deterministic and just works (that is, the player gets to make a decision about using a power and then use that power) to a system where the player decides to maybe use magic and then random bad things might happen depending on the dice roll for some casting skill check or whatever the DM decides. That decreases the amount of agency the player has in basically arbitrary ways, and, yes, that
is disempowering, in a way that simply reducing the power of spells or the diversity of spells or the number of spell slots or taking a calculated risk related to one's hit points is not.
Quote from: SteerpikeNo no - the caster can still do stuff in town. They just have to be careful about it when that stuff is magic - like taking care to avoid witnesses, intimidating people, being careful with the law, using magic sparingly, using disguises. They can shop for some of the same stuff as other players (i.e. non magical gear), but that takes, what, 5 minutes maybe of game time, unless the DM makes you go to every artisan individually and roleplay every haggle?
Well, it's going to take longer if the wizard's player has to go through all the trouble of carefully sneaking around, using disguises, probably casting defensive spells secretly, or whatever, especially given how paranoid and meticulous wizard players tend to be. Maybe this kind of thing would be fun to some people, but it might also get tedious and end up being less fun to the rest of the group who is all sitting around while the wizard figures out how they're going to get into town so they can buy material components to replace the ones they used up... and yes, in nerfed-magic-world of course we're probably going to start tracking material components, because that's another way to put some limits on casters. Not really a very
good way, but it's something that could be done, I guess.
Quote from: SteerpikeI also just plain old dislike the idea that combat efficacy should be the key component of balance.
I do too, to be honest, but this is Pathfinder we're talking about, so it's probably going to be the metric we're stuck with. Pathfinder gives roleplaying very little mechanical relevance. Not quite as bad as 4th edition, but what is? Nonetheless, Pathfinder has no real way to mechanically codify character qualities akin to Fate's aspects, its social mechanics are primitive and barely functional, and a lot of the mechanics for doing interesting things crafting and alchemy and such seem mostly based around making items to get more combat power.
Quote from: SteerpikeCurrently Pathfinder effectively punishes non-casters.
It's certainly true that non-casters have less options on the table. However, they
have those options, and nobody's messing with them. It may be a lack of an enticement, given that those options are less, but I wouldn't call it a punishment. There aren't brutal critical miss tables, or meticulously tracking how much they can fight until they get tired out, or ardently pacifist towns where anyone carrying a sword is treated like dirt, or whatever else is specifically designed to specifically punish them for using their class features.
Quote from: SteerpikeInstead of buffing non-casters, all I'm arguing is that casters could be dragged down to the same level (in fun and challenging ways that make magic more interesting), so that everyone is lowly and underpowered in their own way. I often really enjoy this style of play both as a player and as a DM - what we might call the Call of Cthulhu model. Certainly not everyone's cup of tea but I don't think it's inherently less viable or fun than everyone playing superheroes.
In the realm of Pathfinder, I think this sort of game
is inherently less viable. Pathfinder games tend to be about problem-solving and overcoming challenges, and characters that are incapable of actually solving the problems and overcoming the challenges in front of them are not particularly viable. I mean, if we're talking about the sort of game where failure leads to interesting new things and "winning" is often basically getting away from the terrifying monster before it eats you, that's another thing, but Pathfinder isn't that game, and nerfing casters won't make it that game. It'll just make it a game where players get stuck a lot and die a lot. If you find that sort of thing fun, fine. I don't.
Quote from: sparkletwistI don't particularly agree with any of that, and I'd point to the success of Fate and its ilk, but that is probably a fairly big tangent. On the topic of 5th edition, I'll just say that it includes Inspiration, which is the first time that a narrativist-style meta-mechanic (albeit a rather halfhearted one) has been included in the core of D&D.
Basically I think 5th captures two trends in gaming: one, a move towards an older school style of play, and the other based around seering the game more as a story which the players co-create. At some sense these are in tension, but 5th deliberately presents itself as customizable and semi-modular for that reason.
Quote from: sparkletwistAs far as I can tell your idea is to change magic from something deterministic and just works (that is, the player gets to make a decision about using a power and then use that power) to a system where the player decides to maybe use magic and then random bad things might happen depending on the dice roll for some casting skill check or whatever the DM decides. That decreases the amount of agency the player has in basically arbitrary ways, and, yes, that is disempowering, in a way that simply reducing the power of spells or the diversity of spells or the number of spell slots or taking a calculated risk related to one's hit points is not.
It's disempowering in the sense that it reins in the scope of things a character can safely do. If you'd count that as disempowerment then I'd agree. I draw a very strong distinction between disempowering players and disempowering characters. I'd argue that making magic unpredictable doesn't take away player choice, what it does is add a new dimension of risk, just as there's a dimension of risk to a fighter charging into a group of ogres or a rogue trying to navigate a trapped corridor. I tend to find balancing risk to be the heart of suspense in roleplaying games, and love the nail-biting feeling of something possibly working or not.
Mishaps are only one possibility though. I think the Asura-style health/sanity drain is a great alternative for those who don't like as much unpredictability. It forces tactical decision making in a really cool way.
[quote-sparkletwist]Well, it's going to take longer if the wizard's player has to go through all the trouble of carefully sneaking around, using disguises, probably casting defensive spells secretly, or whatever, especially given how paranoid and meticulous wizard players tend to be.[/quote]
Eh, I dunno if I really buy this. How many defensive spells do you need to cast to buy a new horse? Can't the mage just not use magic for 5 minutes while the party does all of their shopping? The sneaking and disguises and such I'm thinking more in terms of town adventuring and plots, so to speak, not mundane town chores.
Quote from: sparkletwistI do too, to be honest, but this is Pathfinder we're talking about, so it's probably going to be the metric we're stuck with. Pathfinder gives roleplaying very little mechanical relevance. Not quite as bad as 4th edition, but what is? Nonetheless, Pathfinder has no real way to mechanically codify character qualities akin to Fate's aspects, its social mechanics are primitive and barely functional, and a lot of the mechanics for doing interesting things crafting and alchemy and such seem mostly based around making items to get more combat power.
I do see what you mean here. You're probably right from a pure mechanical/mathematical perspective.
Quote from: sparkletwistIt's certainly true that non-casters have less options on the table. However, they have those options, and nobody's messing with them. It may be a lack of an enticement, given that those options are less, but I wouldn't call it a punishment.
I'm just seeing dying in the thick of combat - or being hit with whatever weird ability a monster has - as being punishment: there's more inherent risk built into the fighter's job, where he gets hit by all manner of horrifying attacks and spells just for being in the front line, than for the mage solidly plugging away spells from the back. Sure the mage can be a target, but it's the fighter's job to be the butt-monkey in a lot of cases.
Quote from: sparkletwistIn the realm of Pathfinder, I think this sort of game is inherently less viable. Pathfinder games tend to be about problem-solving and overcoming challenges, and characters that are incapable of actually solving the problems and overcoming the challenges in front of them are not particularly viable. I mean, if we're talking about the sort of game where failure leads to interesting new things and "winning" is often basically getting away from the terrifying monster before it eats you, that's another thing, but Pathfinder isn't that game, and nerfing casters won't make it that game. It'll just make it a game where players get stuck a lot and die a lot. If you find that sort of thing fun, fine. I don't.
I think this is taking it to a bit of reductio ad absurdum. To clarify, I'm not actually suggesting that Pathfinder should be made into CoC or something like it. But I do think it could be a more fun if it took a few cues from games where the assumed power of characters relative to the challenges they face is lower or more uneven. This isn't to say the characters are
incapable of solving problems or overcoming challenges or that all the assumptions of the game get totally chucked out or that playing a caster be made a total misery.
Basically, buffing non-casters in various ways to make them catch up to casters takes the game in the other direction, towards a super-heroic game where everyone is special and hyper-competent at their chosen specialty. This is one of the things I like least about the 3rd/4th/Pathfinder generation of D&D. It might fix the problem of caster/non-caster disparity but at the cost of emphasizing something I like least about the game. You're quite right to point out that it's baked into Pathfinder's core assumptions, I'm just arguing those assumptions aren't sacrosanct, and can also be part of the tweaking process.
Quote from: SteerpikeI'd argue that making magic unpredictable doesn't take away player choice, what it does is add a new dimension of risk
Adding new risk in this way
is taking away player choice. Something that was formerly a choice solely in the hands of the player-- do I use this spell or not?-- now can have interference from the dice or the DM-- do I use this spell or not
and will I be able to? Doing this may or may not be acceptable to you, but it's hard to argue that it isn't what is going on.
Quote from: SteerpikeEh, I dunno if I really buy this. How many defensive spells do you need to cast to buy a new horse? Can't the mage just not use magic for 5 minutes while the party does all of their shopping?
You said "known casters," and I took that to mean that people who were known to be able to perform magic were at risk at any point. I thought the unpredictability of it and always having to be on your guard was a big part of the idea.
Quote from: SteerpikeI'm just seeing dying in the thick of combat - or being hit with whatever weird ability a monster has - as being punishment: there's more inherent risk built into the fighter's job, where he gets hit by all manner of horrifying attacks and spells just for being in the front line, than for the mage solidly plugging away spells from the back. Sure the mage can be a target, but it's the fighter's job to be the butt-monkey in a lot of cases.
You know, you're right about this, but part of the problem there is the current disparity between fighters and casters. The fighter doesn't have the array of defensive spells that a caster does-- he'll probably get buffed before the fight, but that's not the same as having them at his disposal. He's probably not going to be invisible, or have
mirror image up, or be able to teleport, or whatever other tricks that casters routinely throw around. The amount of crowd control available to fighters is also much less, so he kind of has to wade into the thick of it and get beat on rather than being able to throw down a
black tentacles or
create pit or whatever.
My solution is to give some of these fancy abilities to non-casters, too. Your solution seems to be to bring non-casters down to the same level... so they get beat on and have to be the butt-monkeys, too? Maybe that ties into...
Quote from: SteerpikeI do think it could be a more fun if it took a few cues from games where the assumed power of characters relative to the challenges they face is lower or more uneven.
... and maybe that's true. However, for that to work, Pathfinder would need a functional social system, a stealth system that didn't break in half as soon as it hit anything resembling a corner case, and chase mechanics that aren't contrived and stupid. So that talking, sneaking, and running away were actually viable options to avoid combat, rather than afterthoughts that don't really impact the fact that you're still assuredly going to be getting into (and hopefully winning) fights against level-appropriate opposition. Pathfinder doesn't really have those things, so it's the wrong game to use when trying to focus on those things.
Quote from: SteerpikeBasically, buffing non-casters in various ways to make them catch up to casters takes the game in the other direction, towards a super-heroic game where everyone is special and hyper-competent at their chosen specialty. This is one of the things I like least about the 3rd/4th/Pathfinder generation of D&D. It might fix the problem of caster/non-caster disparity but at the cost of emphasizing something I like least about the game. You're quite right to point out that it's baked into Pathfinder's core assumptions, I'm just arguing those assumptions aren't sacrosanct, and can also be part of the tweaking process.
As I've said several times, I'm not opposed to some reasonable nerfs for casters. I certainly agree that those assumptions aren't sacrosanct-- at least within the limitations of the system, as explained above-- and some sort of "meeting in the middle" could definitely work, especially since Hoers is going for more of a low fantasy feel anyway. I would just like whatever happens to happen in a (mostly) deterministic way that feels like a reasonable restriction on a powerful class in order to rebalance the game and/or fit a genre, rather than just giving the character the same amount of power as ever and then throwing in a bunch of bad effects that more or less just punish the player for trying to use it.
I've been reading the conversation and, along with my dislike for various other embedded system problems and my previous thoughts on homebrew systems, I think creating my own is something I'm ultimately going to try. I'll take concepts and ideas from Pathfinder, GURPS and Fate where appropriate, but what I really think I need is a system that gives characters three point pools - HP, Stamina, and Mana. This will most likely take me a very long time to put together, but I don't see any other way to be satisfied with a system to the level where I won't get annoyed two months down the road and have to retcon a game to accommodate a sudden additional houserule.
I'm thinking something with the standard six ability scores. In my old attempt at thinking through a classless system that has taken some inspiration from Dark Souls, the six stats were divided into three "passive" (Endurance, Wisdom, Mana) and three "active" (Strength, Dexterity, Charisma) stats (the division of which I think I have forgotten the purpose of). Stamina and Mana determined the size of the action pool and the spell pool, respectively, as well as how fast it'd replenish itself. Alternatively, they could only affect how long the pools replenish, while your character level would then determine HP, stamina, and mana points in addition to all of the other things that'd come with it (skill points, talents, etc.). If characters are getting mana points regardless of whether or not they're casters, though, then I think the stat has to provide something extra - it might be a hybrid magic/luck pool or something. A third way to do it would be to just strike out the mana pool as a core stat, relegating it to something you get from putting points into a skill or set of sub-skills.
This might be worth pursuing, taking some tips from the GURPs way of casting spells, but apply it to both pools (spend more to make your usage more effective). The trick for this, I think, is to determine what the options are for extra stamina expenditure, although the pools don't necessarily have to work the same way at all - stamina in my mind seems to be a balancing act between reserving enough points to block/parry/dodge incoming attacks and effects while also spending enough to affect your opponent (and in different scenarios, focusing solely on one of these two core options may be the best strategy); mana on the other hand would essentially be a way of "metamagic customization" for some basic spell effects, again sort of the same way GURPS does their spell effects - only with more variety. Either way, a part of the mechanic would have to be that casting too much too frequently, and/or exceeding some calculated limit of "per-spell/action" expenditure would do harm to the character (more minor "overloading" would probably just slow down the recharge for a bit, while more severe expenditures - while providing lots of power - would exhaust or harm the character in some way).
In such a system, there are no true spell levels - it's just a matter of what base effects you know, although you might still consider your 'spell level' to be whatever amount you can spend at once on a casting without any backlash. I feel like it would also tie well with two themeing aspects of Haveneast specifically: 1) that most casters are not pure casters (always my intent, but not a reality with Pathfinder), and 2) that spellcasting is routinely accompanied by the use of different foci to hasten and simplify the casting of different kinds of spells (e.g. masks reducing the health costs of necromancy spells, and increasing the intensity of weather spells).
Still thinking about this. Do you guys have any thoughts on this? I know I've discussed it with various people to different degrees in the past.
Quote from: HoersDo you guys have any thoughts on this?
Designing your own system is hard. I know, because I've done it. You end up reinventing a lot of wheels. I don't want to be too discouraging, but I will say that if you can get what you want by hacking something existing you might save quite a bit of time, even if the hacks are significant. I could've probably saved a bit of time and frustration developing Asura if I thought of it from the beginning as a pretty comprehensive Fate hack (which is more or less what it turned into) rather than starting with a clean slate that I then had to figure out how to fill in.
Quote from: HoersI won't get annoyed two months down the road
If you're trying to design your own system, you will be annoyed two months down the road anyway, because there are always false starts and mechanics that you reconsider. :dead:
Quote from: sparkletwistAdding new risk in this way is taking away player choice. Something that was formerly a choice solely in the hands of the player-- do I use this spell or not?-- now can have interference from the dice or the DM-- do I use this spell or not and will I be able to? Doing this may or may not be acceptable to you, but it's hard to argue that it isn't what is going on.
I suppose one way of thinking about is that it takes away one choice the player had, then replaces it with a new choice with new risks and a new range of consequences. It statistically decreases player control over the world, but not the total number of possible choices players can make.
I still contend this is just a new choice with different parameters, so the total number of choices doesn't change. The possible range of results changes, but even regular standard issue spells don't always succeed.
Anecdotally, my players love this stuff. Last night I was running Death Frost Doom and a player rolled up a Magic-User with the summon spell (http://summon.totalpartykill.ca/), a 1st level spell which can have some crazily unpredictable results. Check it out on page 134 here. (https://paulgorman.org/roleplaying/dnd/misc/LotFP_Rules_and_Magic_Free_Version_without_Art.pdf) For one random example, this can happen if a summoning spell goes awry:
"Instead of summoning a creature, a portal was opened to a dimension of infinite liquid. Whether this liquid is something mundane like water or something more exotic is up to the Referee. The sea level will begin to rise immediately, worldwide, at a rate of 10' per Turn until the water reaches a level 50' higher than the caster was when the spell was cast. Once it reaches this level, it will drain away at a rate of 1d10 feet per day."
The spell can literally unleash a Biblical flood. Casting this spell was the highlight of the night, something the player kept carefully in their back pocket for a long time till it was absolutely needed. I'm not claiming that this sort of mechanic is objectively superior or something; I'm claiming it's purely a matter of taste. De gustibus non est disputandum.
Quote from: sparkletwistYou said "known casters," and I took that to mean that people who were known to be able to perform magic were at risk at any point. I thought the unpredictability of it and always having to be on your guard was a big part of the idea.
I'd still imagine there are some instances - like buying trail rations - where the caster can still expect some degree of anonymity.
Quote from: sparkletwistHowever, for that to work, Pathfinder would need a functional social system, a stealth system that didn't break in half as soon as it hit anything resembling a corner case, and chase mechanics that aren't contrived and stupid. So that talking, sneaking, and running away were actually viable options to avoid combat, rather than afterthoughts that don't really impact the fact that you're still assuredly going to be getting into (and hopefully winning) fights against level-appropriate opposition. Pathfinder doesn't really have those things, so it's the wrong game to use when trying to focus on those things.
This is definitely one of those things where you prefer a more crunchy/mechanics-intensive system than I for various things.
The very phrase "level-appropriate opposition" sort of makes my skin crawl a bit.
EDIT: I should add that I've played Pathfinder for years, and my characters have all successfully talked, sneaked, and fled at one point or another, and not merely as a last resort. I've run multiple heist missions in Pathfinder, court sessions and political debates in Pathfinder, chases in Pathfinder. I didn't always use every bit of Pathfinder RAW but rather used the broad skeleton of the system - ability checks, skill checks, saving throws -to run things. These instances were not disasters at all - indeed they were some of the most fun I've ever had playing Pathfinder. I'm not convinced at all that adding intensely crunchy subsystems for talking or running would have greatly improved the experiences for me and my players (though I can see why it would work for some groups). I've also run lots of Pathfinder where challenges were not always level-appropriate, and these sessions also did not descend into misery. Often I find myself, when running Pathfinder, ignoring some of its more intricate rules-systems, or stripping it down (this is doubtless why I've come to prefer 5th, and various retroclones of 1st/2nd edition D&D). I frequently need to rely on my judgment as a DM to make calls on the fly; I've found that games which embrace this element of roleplaying rather than providing a rule for everything are more enjoyable for me and my players. My approach to improve Pathfinder would mostly be to strip out stuff rather than add things in. Incidentally a lot of the editions of D&D I'm describing don't have big, crunchy systems for stealth, talking, or running either, but they also are far less dependent on level-appropriate encounters and don't assume combat is the central task.
I'll gladly admit that Pathfinder is not a perfect system for lots of things. I'm not claiming to fix it, just suggesting ways it would be more fun
for me. That would include contesting some of its core assumptions, like the centrality of level-appropriate combat, or the way magic is handled.
Quote from: sparkletwistI would just like whatever happens to happen in a (mostly) deterministic way that feels like a reasonable restriction on a powerful class in order to rebalance the game and/or fit a genre, rather than just giving the character the same amount of power as ever and then throwing in a bunch of bad effects that more or less just punish the player for trying to use it.
That's fine, I just think this is a matter of taste. Which is totally okay - we don't have the same preferences all the time. You wouldn't enjoy the game I'm describing. But I don't think your critique rests in anything
other than taste - there's nothing "objectively" wrong with the approach I'm describing.
Quote from: sparkletwistMy solution is to give some of these fancy abilities to non-casters, too. Your solution seems to be to bring non-casters down to the same level... so they get beat on and have to be the butt-monkeys, too?
Yep! :grin:
Quote from: SteerpikeThe spell can literally unleash a Biblical flood. Casting this spell was the highlight of the night, something the player kept carefully in their back pocket for a long time till it was absolutely needed. I'm not claiming that this sort of mechanic is objectively superior or something; I'm claiming it's purely a matter of taste.
I mean, yeah, it's subjective. However, I will say the closest thing to "objectively bad" in a general discussion about game mechanics is probably "what percentage of games would simply not work at all with this mechanic?" When we're talking about a first level spell that can, at the whims of the dice, utterly derail the entire adventure, possibly cause a TPK, and wreck the entire campaign and setting... that percentage is probably going to be rather large.
Quote from: SteerpikeThe very phrase "level-appropriate opposition" sort of makes my skin crawl a bit.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. I specifically was using that phrase to highlight the limited nature of the Pathfinder system.
Quote from: SteerpikeThis is definitely one of those things where you prefer a more crunchy/mechanics-intensive system than I for various things.
Actually, no, I don't. I like systems like Fate that work more like you're describing, where outcomes are governed more by broad dice rolls that give the GM guidance for how to make up semi-arbitrary outcomes. And that can work for Pathfinder, too! However, the fact that it works to do it that way does not change the fact that Pathfinder includes rules in its book for using the Diplomacy skill and those rules are terrible and often produce nonsensical outcomes. If it included a functional system, the group could choose whether to use the crunchy system or wing it with quick dice rolls like you and I prefer. Since it does
not include a functional system, there's no choice-- you have to wing it. Or write your own.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: SteerpikeThis is definitely one of those things where you prefer a more crunchy/mechanics-intensive system than I for various things.
Actually, no, I don't. I like systems like Fate that work more like you're describing, where outcomes are governed more by broad dice rolls that give the GM guidance for how to make up semi-arbitrary outcomes. And that can work for Pathfinder, too! However, the fact that it works to do it that way does not change the fact that Pathfinder includes rules in its book for using the Diplomacy skill and those rules are terrible and often produce nonsensical outcomes. If it included a functional system, the group could choose whether to use the crunchy system or wing it with quick dice rolls like you and I prefer. Since it does not include a functional system, there's no choice-- you have to wing it. Or write your own.
For what it's worth, I'm leaning towards Sparkletwist's side in this chaotic spell effects debate. You really can't strategize around, or mitigate against such a broad range of randomness, so it does take away options and tactics in favor of gambling. I mean there's value in that, and would make for fun situations, but it's not something that you can really trust if you see what I'm saying
So are there any systems that cater towards social role-play and diplomacy? I've been toying around the idea of an E3 game as an experiment. Basically you cap off at level 3 so the game takes on a gritty low power feel where you have to use you're resources and skills wisely. I think this would be fun to try in a city setting sometime. But if there was a system that catered towards such low level ideals in the first place, I'm curious.
Quote from: sparkletwistActually, no, I don't. I like systems like Fate that work more like you're describing, where outcomes are governed more by broad dice rolls that give the GM guidance for how to make up semi-arbitrary outcomes. And that can work for Pathfinder, too! However, the fact that it works to do it that way does not change the fact that Pathfinder includes rules in its book for using the Diplomacy skill and those rules are terrible and often produce nonsensical outcomes. If it included a functional system, the group could choose whether to use the crunchy system or wing it with quick dice rolls like you and I prefer. Since it does not include a functional system, there's no choice-- you have to wing it. Or write your own.
That makes sense. I think we still probably have differing attitudes about how to handle social situations in games, but I'll totally agree that Pathfinder's RAW handle them badly. Hacking Pathfinder's social rules to make them functional would be a worthy goal in and of itself.
For what it's worth I think your approach to balancing casters leans in much more to Pathfinder's philosophy, which probably makes for better game design overall, if we're assuming that someone playing Pathfinder is essentially sympathetic to its philosophy. My approach here is definitely against Pathfinder's grain, and would probably be messier and uglier in theory and practice. I still think it might be more fun to those disenchanted with some aspects of Pathfinder who are still playing it, but admittedly this could be a niche group.
Quote from: sparkletwistHowever, I will say the closest thing to "objectively bad" in a general discussion about game mechanics is probably "what percentage of games would simply not work at all with this mechanic?" When we're talking about a first level spell that can, at the whims of the dice, utterly derail the entire adventure, possibly cause a TPK, and wreck the entire campaign and setting... that percentage is probably going to be rather large.
Heh. I'd argue that TPKs and massive plot derailments and campaign-shifting events that wreck the setting are absolutely baked into LotFP's approach to roleplaying just as level-appropriate encounters, challenge ratings, and cookie cutter magic items are baked into Pathfinder. It's a feature, not a bug - the mechanic can't be called "bad" when it's fulfilling a key part of the game's ethos. A LotFP session where a PC doesn't die brutally or get horribly mutated is a dull one indeed. It's as much a system for one-shots as it is for long campaigns, which are possible but definitely perilous.
Quote from: SteerpikeI'd argue that TPKs and massive plot derailments and campaign-shifting events that wreck the setting are absolutely baked into LotFP's approach to roleplaying just as level-appropriate encounters, challenge ratings, and cookie cutter magic items are baked into Pathfinder. It's a feature, not a bug - the mechanic can't be called "bad" when it's fulfilling a key part of the game's ethos.
That's why I called it the "closest thing." I understand that these things are not bad for LotFP games, but they'd be bad for quite a large number of other games. Since the discussion was about importing these mechanics into Pathfinder, I was looking at them in the broader sense (how useful are they
in general?) rather than just specifically in the game they came from.
To be a bit silly about it, pervasive disgusting juvenile toilet humor is absolutely baked into FATAL's approach to roleplaying. It's still something you'd probably want to leave out of just about every
other game.
Quote from: sparkletwistThat's why I called it the "closest thing." I understand that these things are not bad for LotFP games, but they'd be bad for quite a large number of other games.
Gotcha, yeah, I agree. Mostly. I think more games would benefit from embracing some of the wildness characteristic of LotFP - not to the point of the Summon spell, perhaps.
Quote from: sparkletwistSince the discussion was about importing these mechanics into Pathfinder, I was looking at them in the broader sense (how useful are they in general?) rather than just specifically in the game they came from.
That makes sense. I wouldn't ever go as far as LotFP does if I were hacking Pathfinder's spell system, I was more just using the Summon spell as an example of crazy, random magical effects that players can enjoy - but it's definitely too extreme for Pathfinder, even a rebellious Pathfinder straining against its core assumptions.
Quote from: LoAFor what it's worth, I'm leaning towards Sparkletwist's side in this chaotic spell effects debate. You really can't strategize around, or mitigate against such a broad range of randomness, so it does take away options and tactics in favor of gambling. I mean there's value in that, and would make for fun situations, but it's not something that you can really trust if you see what I'm saying
I can see this point. I'd argue that all strategy essentially comes down to managing risks and incomplete information; the potential for a random spell effect just adds greater risk to spells.
That said, really, I think there's lots of other ways to make spells more dangerous/draining than adding random effects to them, and those approaches are valid too.