The "I'd Play This If..." Thread

[Hibou]

So I've been talking with sparkletwist about the upcoming Haveneast game and in the process of creating/customizing her character she has brought up several issues with the rules that I really couldn't refuse houserules for. This has pushed me to think a bit more about customizing the Pathfinder system for the game without completely overhauling it, and also about how other people feel about the system's limitations in general. In response I have created this thread for input from the community; not specifically for input on the Pathfinder system (although those thoughts will be relevant to the game), but for systems in general and how to make them more fun.

What I want to talk about here are the little things that ultimately prevent people from picking one class, weapon, feat, etc. over another and how we might fix them. An example from the above situation include the limited effectiveness of crossbows (let's be honest, who has time to reload for that much damage?). We determined that anyone with a non-zero BAB gets Rapid Reload for free (correct me if I'm wrong sparkle, I lost the log) .

I want to note too that the discussion ought to stray away from huge changes; this is about the wee things that turn you away from an otherwise entertaining build. Also, when it comes to those who might end up playing in the campaign, any displeasures voiced will get a long look for inclusion. It's about having fun, anyway.

So, what would you play if?

I'd play more Druids if they could cast Animate Dead.

[Ghostman]

I'd use save-or-else type of magic much more often if it could target multiple people or had some kind of useful secondary effect that applies if the primary effect is resisted. Hold Person for example is a pretty bad choise of a spell, especially for an arcane spellcaster, because it requires spending your turn for a (what is usually a depressingly small) chance to affect an opponent. Granted, the effect itself is very powerful, but it's hardly worth the gamble when there is a high probability that you'll totally fail to accomplish anything for a round. The problem is worse in Vancian magic systems as they require limited resources (spell slots) to be spent to make the magic available, which very much discourages keeping these kind of unreliable spells as trump cards to be used in desperation - your spell slots are just too precious to be wasted on something you won't be using with some regularity.

An example from the above situation include the limited effectiveness of crossbows (let's be honest, who has time to reload for that much damage?). We determined that anyone with a non-zero BAB gets Rapid Reload for free

This is a pretty backwards way to fix the issue, IMO. Rather than focusing on the unique strengths of the weapon you've instead focused on it's weaknesses, erasing/lessening those and thus made the weapon more similar to other ranged weapons. Crossbows are supposed to be slow to reload, but they're also supposed to be accurate, easy to use and powerful shots. A better approach to balancing the weapon would be making it more effective by enhancing these qualities.

[Hibou]

I'd use save-or-else type of magic much more often if it could target multiple people or had some kind of useful secondary effect that applies if the primary effect is resisted. Hold Person for example is a pretty bad choise of a spell, especially for an arcane spellcaster, because it requires spending your turn for a (what is usually a depressingly small) chance to affect an opponent. Granted, the effect itself is very powerful, but it's hardly worth the gamble when there is a high probability that you'll totally fail to accomplish anything for a round. The problem is worse in Vancian magic systems as they require limited resources (spell slots) to be spent to make the magic available, which very much discourages keeping these kind of unreliable spells as trump cards to be used in desperation - your spell slots are just too precious to be wasted on something you won't be using with some regularity.

An example from the above situation include the limited effectiveness of crossbows (let's be honest, who has time to reload for that much damage?). We determined that anyone with a non-zero BAB gets Rapid Reload for free

This is a pretty backwards way to fix the issue, IMO. Rather than focusing on the unique strengths of the weapon you've instead focused on it's weaknesses, erasing/lessening those and thus made the weapon more similar to other ranged weapons. Crossbows are supposed to be slow to reload, but they're also supposed to be accurate, easy to use and powerful shots. A better approach to balancing the weapon would be making it more effective by enhancing these qualities.

You're right. I want to improve them more, personally. I'd like to make them have a higher critical and base damage.

I never really noticed that issue with Hold Person but that's brutal. I'll need to improve that as well...

[sparkletwist]

The big one for me, that has always been a thorny issue in D&D 3 and its derivatives, is, of course:
I'd play more martial characters if they didn't tend to look pathetic next to spellcasters.

I am optimistic that the Haveneast game could do something about this; it seems the setting tends to eschew huge amounts of immensely powerful magic. The game being confined to the lower levels also helps, as magic doesn't get quite as crazy at those levels. However, there is still the matter that most of the martial classes (with the exception of the Rogue with its enormous pile of skill points and other various tricks) tend to be able to contribute far less out of combat than, say, the versatility of a spellcaster who can pull out a prestidigitation, mage hand, silent image, grease, or one of those other spells good for a million different things.

Smaller issues that have come up, are, of course, playing someone who uses crossbows and making that not awful, and trying to get there without pulling in a bunch of fluff from the Ranger class that I don't really want to incorporate.

Rather than focusing on the unique strengths of the weapon you've instead focused on it's weaknesses, erasing/lessening those and thus made the weapon more similar to other ranged weapons.

As the one who suggested the Rapid Reload fix, I can tell you that this was actually the intention. I looked at longbows and then at crossbows and wondered why crossbows had to be crap.... so I tried to fix that and that alone. You're correct that trying to make them more distinct by adding features instead of leveling the playing field would add more variety and flavor, but it would also be more work. It would require creating more mechanics and I didn't feel like doing that or bothering Hoers with it.

I'd use save-or-else type of magic much more often if it could target multiple people or had some kind of useful secondary effect that applies if the primary effect is resisted.

I agree that hold person isn't good, but I think that's more a specific problem with it rather than a problem with "save-or-else" spells in general. At spell level 3 you could also be casting stinking cloud or slow which are excellent against a whole group of enemies. Or you could cast ray of exhaustion against a single target, and it still leaves the target fatigued even if they make their save.

[LD]

>>I'd play more martial characters if they didn't tend to look pathetic next to spellcasters.

Just play a ranger. The ranger in my current group, at levels 7 to 11, has done at least as much as, if not more damage, than spellcasters do.

[Steerpike]

On the subject of spellcasters, E7 should help a lot.  At least in my experience the disparity between spellcasters and martial characters only becomes egregious in the high levels.  Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and Cavaliers are all pretty cool even when placed next to full-blown spellcasters for the first 5-10 levels or so.

Fighters are boring, though.  Pathfinder makes them a wee bit better, but not that much.

[sparkletwist]

Just play a ranger. The ranger in my current group, at levels 7 to 11, has done at least as much as, if not more damage, than spellcasters do.

As it happens, I actually am taking a one-level dip in Ranger. I'm going for a Cleric archer for the most part.

But anyway, I agree that martial types are great at dealing damage, and can often outdamage a spellcaster, particularly one not optimized for evocation. However, that's.. not really the problem. The problem is all the other stuff that casters can do that leaves the non-casters in the dust. (Of course, if your game is heavily combat oriented, it won't be as big of a concern.)

Monks... are... pretty cool

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  :P
(I'd go into detail, but I'd rather not derail this thread! To stay on topic, I'll just say "I'd play a monk if it was actually worth it," and leave it at that.)

[Magnus Pym]

sparkletwist! Don't you remember how I totally DESTROYED our first encounter in the previous Haveneast game with my fierce barbarian! RAWR!

Makes me wanna play barbarian again I loved it.

[Polycarp]

Any fix with crossbows is going to be arbitrary because PF isn't really capable of describing, mechanically, what actually made them different from bows.  All you can do is really whatever you feel makes the gameplay the most interesting.  It's true that free Rapid Reload makes crossbows much the same as longbows, but Rapid Reload does that anyway - making it free just makes it so you don't have to burn a feat for nothing.  In any case, in e7 it only matters for full BAB classes, as anyone else won't be able to have the iterative attacks to make use of Rapid Reload anyway - or if you get Rapid Shot.

I guess one thing you could do that wouldn't require much invention, assuming you've barred the gunslinger, is to adopt the like-a-touch-attack-within-X-range-increments mechanic that PF guns use.  You'd probably have to kill Rapid Reload as a consequence, otherwise that might get sort of ridiculous.

Anyway, I can't really address the central point of the thread - the only PF I've played is Haveneast and Fimbulvinter.  I've played a fair amount of 3rd ed and there weren't really any classes I avoided for mechanical reasons.  I'm really not that good at mechanics anyway and usually just played whatever class I found interesting.  I asked for spears to be houseruled last time because they were dumb but that's all I can think of at the moment.

[Lmns Crn]

I'd play more martial characters if they didn't tend to look pathetic next to spellcasters.

Oh, hey, that's my big thing right there. I've got a handful of problems with D&D3.X/Pathfinder, but really, this is the huge one-- it's the issue that fantasy games of the "some people have magic and others do not" genre desperately need to grapple with, regardless of genre.

While we're on the subject of magic complicating everything, I'd play more D&D-style games if spellcasters were allowed to innovate. You know, as opposed to selecting prefab spells from a list-- stuff other mages from previous generations have come up with. I want more games to be in the form of "I am an Adept of Incantations and a Neophyte at Fire Magic and a Master of Telepathy... what can I sling together out of those ingredients?"

I'd play more Druids if they could cast Animate Dead.

You want the Mystics from the Jade Stage, then.

[LordVreeg]

I'd play more martial characters if they didn't tend to look pathetic next to spellcasters.

Oh, hey, that's my big thing right there. I've got a handful of problems with D&D3.X/Pathfinder, but really, this is the huge one-- it's the issue that fantasy games of the "some people have magic and others do not" genre desperately need to grapple with, regardless of genre.

While we're on the subject of magic complicating everything, I'd play more D&D-style games if spellcasters were allowed to innovate. You know, as opposed to selecting prefab spells from a list-- stuff other mages from previous generations have come up with. I want more games to be in the form of "I am an Adept of Incantations and a Neophyte at Fire Magic and a Master of Telepathy... what can I sling together out of those ingredients?"

I'd play more Druids if they could cast Animate Dead.

You want the Mystics from the Jade Stage, then.

I have been reading this in the background
I agree that both of these problems drive me a bit nutsy

[LD]

Sparkletwist- well, gear can make certain rangers much more versatile... and possibly a dip into rogue for Use Magic Device...

[Polycarp]

An extremely demented build that just popped into my head makes me wish there were martial double weapons.  It turns out that every single double weapon is exotic with the exception of the lowly quarterstaff (which is simple).

[sparkletwist]

I'd play more martial characters if they didn't tend to look pathetic next to spellcasters.

I'd play more D&D-style games if spellcasters were allowed to innovate.

I think that part of the overall problem is that fixes to each of these individual problems that are not well conceived can cause them to be in opposition. For example, D&D 4e closes the gap between martial characters and spellcasters, but it does so largely by confining spellcasters to a predefined list of tactical maneuvers that are basically just refluffed versions of the same tactical maneuvers martial characters get-- innovation is not really a thing. On the other hand, something like Mage tries to incorporate a really versatile "magic can do anything" sort of system, but the result is that a mage can indeed do anything and mundanes instead get left in the dust.

FATE's general approach seems to work fairly well for me. I'd boil it down to three things:
- Both magical and mundane skills are rather broadly defined, allowing a lot of room for interpretation and ability to innovate
- Actions are abstracted, stating their result in terms of effect ("+2 bonus") rather than action performed ("grappling"), allowing players to fluff them as desired
- If it really doesn't seem like it's going to work, lay down a fate point and declare that it does

Due to the broadly defined skills, both magical and mundane guys get to innovate, and the rather abstracted maneuvers mean crunch-wise they're doing basically the same things. On some level, that seems like 4e all over again, but I think the distinction in FATE is that the list that the maneuvers are being pulled off a list that is basically "every action that has mechanical weight in this system" rather than "a tight list of narrowly defined tactical combat moves." This gives them a lot more resonance in actual play.

gear can make certain rangers much more versatile... and possibly a dip into rogue for Use Magic Device...

Access to magical gear or just "sufficiently advanced technology" can close the gap too, of course, but at the peril of making the character sort of mechanically irrelevant because it's the gear that is solving all of the problems. In the case of a D&D party where the Wizard makes the magical gear and the Fighter uses it, the Fighter needs the Wizard a whole lot more than the Wizard needs the Fighter.

[Ghostman]

FATE's general approach seems to work fairly well for me. I'd boil it down to three things:
- Both magical and mundane skills are rather broadly defined, allowing a lot of room for interpretation and ability to innovate
- Actions are abstracted, stating their result in terms of effect ("+2 bonus") rather than action performed ("grappling"), allowing players to fluff them as desired
- If it really doesn't seem like it's going to work, lay down a fate point and declare that it does

Due to the broadly defined skills, both magical and mundane guys get to innovate, and the rather abstracted maneuvers mean crunch-wise they're doing basically the same things. On some level, that seems like 4e all over again, but I think the distinction in FATE is that the list that the maneuvers are being pulled off a list that is basically "every action that has mechanical weight in this system" rather than "a tight list of narrowly defined tactical combat moves." This gives them a lot more resonance in actual play.

How well does this approach work when it comes to magics that can do things such as make stuff fall upwards, steal memories off someone's head, allow one to speak with animals and plants, conjure visions of places and events far across space and time, take flight on a carpet or a broomstick, or cover a field with a cloud of thick fog?