Radical Idea: Armor

[Psychic Robot]

Any links? Although, I like the different types of AC.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I mean, it seems to me that a fighter should have a much larger to-hit number than a wizard at level 20 (+20 vs. +10). But maybe that results in game-breakage.

It does. +20 vs +10 isn't too bad since its still on the d20 Rng, but the concept is bad.

The way to differentiate the Fighter and Wizard is by their attacks effects, not by their chances to hit. The Wizard could/should have an identical chance to hit, you just alter the effect/damage.

If you want the Wizard's basic damaging attacks to be half as effective as the Fighters, you give them both a +20 to hit, and halve the Wizards damage.

Otherwise the Wizard never hits, or there is a bullshit mechanic like touch Ac, which breaks in all sorts of ways (like Wraithstrike).

[Psychic Robot]

I can see where that works from a mechanics perspective, but I don't really like that from a flavor perspective (I suppose is the term that one would use)--although that seems to be the thinking behind 4e, and that's one of the things I don't like about it.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

...but I don't really like that from a flavor perspective (I suppose is the term that one would use)...

How is that?

[Username17]

Frankly I don't see why high level "wizards" should be bad in melee. They certainly aren't in modern source materials like Slayers or Murder Princess. They weren't in early 20th century source material like Lord of the Rings or Narnia either. The White Witch or Gandalf strode confidently into battle and killed fools with a stick.

Heck, go back to older source material and people who "have magic" are just higher level across the board. It's like people's conception of a Monk. If your concept is "generally better" your concept is higher level. Monk concepts and wizard concepts are almost universally just "high level" concepts.

And that's why people's concepts for Fighters are always so underwhelming. A high level concept is Goku or Thor. A low level concept is Conan or Khilt the Wolf. If your character can't do something uper awesome, they have no reason to be able to adventure with and against people who can. Full stop.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

I think a fighter should be a lot better than that a wizard at hitting a target, not through pure physical power--which is something that 4e strives for, since your attack bonus is largely dependent on Strength (correct me if I am mistaken)--but rather skill, which would be represented by BAB.

Frank: I understand where you're coming from, and I realize that my views on fighters are very much in the minority here. I do not like fighters doing weird, supernatural things without magic, and I don't like them using "magic" without spellcaster levels.

[RandomCasualty2]

Frankly I don't see why high level "wizards" should be bad in melee. They certainly aren't in modern source materials like Slayers or Murder Princess. They weren't in early 20th century source material like Lord of the Rings or Narnia either. The White Witch or Gandalf strode confidently into battle and killed fools with a stick.

Yeah, pretty much.

I think that if you have an attack, you should be good at it. Really, I hate the idea of attack stats altogether, and I think ability scores should be entirely defensive. 4E really shows us why, because you have to pump your attack stat to maximum or you're falling behind.

Really, everyone's attack power should be entirely level based, with only their defenses fluctuating. That way whatever powers you choose are good. And if you want to be the guy who shoots firebolts and spells, then those are your powers. If you want to use sword moves, then those are your powers. If on the other hand, you want a little bit of both, you should be able to do that too.

What differentiates an accurate attack or inaccurate attack should be based on the attack itself, whether it's a separately named 4E power or a 3E style power attack where you can trade accuracy for power.

[Talisman]

I'm with P_R on this, although I recognize that high-level fighters need to be able to emulate some superhuman abilities in order to remain competitive. But I don'tr want my fighter doing overtly magical stuff without the Overtly Magical feat or PrC.

I think the cumulatively divergent BAB system can work over a set number of levels. Theoretically, it could be made to work over 20 levels, and you just state that the game ends at 20th level - there is no "epic".

Or perhaps - taking a page from 4e - everyone has a similar "BAB", but fighters get a proficiency bonus with weapons, and a bigger one if they blow feats on them, while spellcasters get a proficiency bonus on magical attacks. A wizard can swing a sword, and a fighter can cast a spell from a scroll (or some minor magical knowledge feat - whatever) but at a reduced attack bonus.

[Psychic Robot]

That's one thing that I think 4e did right with rituals--make it so that even the "dumb" classes can use them. 'Tis a shame that the system is, overall, made of fail, though.

[Talisman]

That's one thing that I think 4e did right with rituals--make it so that even the "dumb" classes can use them.

Should be easy enough to swipe for 3.x, tho'.

Just designate certain spells as "rituals," maybe have a skill prereq, and slap a "do not use in combat" casting time on 'em.

[Psychic Robot]

Well, I could see the Arcana skill checks being replaced with Spellcraft, the Nature checks being replaced with Survival, but what would replace the Religion checks? I think that the skill should be Wisdom-based, but I think it's retarded to make Knowledge (religion) into a Wisdom skill.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I think a fighter should be a lot better than that a wizard at hitting a target, not through pure physical power--which is something that 4e strives for, since your attack bonus is largely dependent on Strength (correct me if I am mistaken)--but rather skill, which would be represented by BAB.

Do you mean either of the following?:
-Fighters should be more reliable than Wizards in their damaging attacks.
-Fighters should do more damage than Wizards.

Oh, and martial skill =/= going off the Rng.

[Psychic Robot]

Both.

[Voss]

That's one thing that I think 4e did right with rituals--make it so that even the "dumb" classes can use them.

Should be easy enough to swipe for 3.x, tho'.

Just designate certain spells as "rituals," maybe have a skill prereq, and slap a "do not use in combat" casting time on 'em.

Very easy. Use the same skills, 1 minute casting time (10 rounds, which is essentially time you don't care about outside of combat, but has the possibility of actually being tension-raising trying to interrupt it during a well crafted encounter). Pop some reasonable limit on how many and how often you can do them [that doesn't involve a bank roll], perhaps charisma modifier [how often you can convince the universe to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up] or Con mod [endurance, bitches], and call it a day.

[Psychic Robot]

I'd do something like 3 + Con mod times per day, but what would you suggest for replacing Religion as a skill?

[Talisman]

Knowledge (religion). Seriously; it may not be nicely symmetrical, but it makes sense.

Edit: And's I'd recommend [Cha mod] + [1/3 level] per day...but that's just me.

[Voss]

I'd do something like 3 + Con mod times per day, but what would you suggest for replacing Religion as a skill?

Talisman gave you a serious answer, I'm just going to look at you funny.

Given how high stat mods can get on their own in 3.5, I'd hesitate on adding more times/day. How many times a day do you really need to summon a demon lord from the depths of hell? Or scry/teleport? Because people are really going to be doing that.

[Psychic Robot]

Well, I'm also thinking of low-level things like arcane lock. Perhaps one could use them X number of times per day, but one would have to expend additional uses for more powerful rituals.

[Voss]

Maybe that. Or, and I don't really advocate this, but it may be worth discussing: a 'rituals per day' chart. Yeah, like spells.

Or perhaps, break them into 'ritual levels', 1-9, and you can use 3/day of current level rituals, 5/day of previous level, 7/day of the level before that, and however many you want of lower levels, because they don't really matter any more.

[Psychic Robot]

Hmm. Rituals per day...perhaps classified as tiers?

[Voss]

Aren't spell levels tier-like enough? Not much reason to go the 4e route and toss around bullshit terminology for the sake of bullshit terminology.

[Psychic Robot]

EXCEPTION-BASED DESIGN

...Now, what was the original topic of this thread?

[Talisman]

...Now, what was the original topic of this thread?

...something about chipmunks, I think.

[NoDot]

Tell me, is there even a decent reason to limit rituals per day?

[RandomCasualty2]

Tell me, is there even a decent reason to limit rituals per day?

All I can really think of is divination spamming.