The Campaign Builder's Guild

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) 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, 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, 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.