3.5e Overhaul – Objective: Fixing ALL 3.5e's problems (P.E.A.C.H)

[1pwny]

I was going to read through all the classes, but after seeing how much stuff there was, I just quit. Based on everything previous to them, I'll assume they're just as good.

Good job with it, everything was really nice, and from what I could see, balanced.

Just wondering, how long did it take you to write all this?

[nonsi]

I was going to stay quiet and wait till someone with something more profound replied, but it doesn't look like they're going to.

This could be my fault or just a stroke of bad luck.
Seems like many of the currently active brewers are busy with their own projects.


(Iterative Attacks)

Buffs martial classes in an interesting, tactical way. I like.

Yes. This is what I was trying to tell Grod the Giant in the Christmas Tree discussion (guess I didn't convay that message all too well).


(Weapons & Armors)

Nothing much to say, but using PF rules is generally a good idea.

They did their homework better.
On this angle WotC got lazy.


(AC – The Whole Story)

This is great. It fixes abuse and scales ac by level in one package.

...Which reduces gear dependency and enhances class-independent level benefits.


(Natural 1s and natural 20s)

Deals with the probability very well (if requiring the numbers to be written down somewhere).

Not really.
- stretch 20 up to 30 (18 + 2d6)
- stretch 1 down to -10 (2 - 1d12)
- Divide fumbles to 3 possibilities of even odds (attack someone else, lose weapon or drop prone)
After 2 sessions, you don't need the pages ever again.


(Feats turned into combat options available for all)

All looks good except "Improved Combat Maneuver," which confuses me. Do the feats lose their original abilities? Are the original abilities given to every character (just saying no AoOs?)?

I get the confusion.
My bad.
This one should've been in the Modified Feats spoiler, not the general rules.
I'll migrate it sometime tomorrow.


(Ranged Attacks)

Is that instead of or as well as Str-bonus with some weapons?

The only case where Str is involved for ranged attacks is when using tossed objects - and those are drastically inferior, so no problem there.


(Hit Points)

I like the max hp at first. The negative health stuff adds a little bookkeeping, and values would probably have to be written on one's character sheet to help memory. I don't know if it's needed, and I probably wouldn't use it.

This just means that the "Disabled" state is stretched from a single value of zero to a range equal to your HD (negligible at lower levels and more significant as you level up) and one's Con is one's body's struggle to cling to life.
Makes death a bit less probable and better simulates real life.
This is just another case what 2 or 3 sessions will forever terminate the need to go back to the pages.


(Crit Substitution)

First response is "noo my crits!" I like dealing extra damage based on better hits, though it may just translate into adding 1.5ish times your str/dex bonus, since accuracy means damage now.

Not str/dex bonus directly, but rather the diff between actual attack roll and minimum required score.


(Crit Substitution - cont.)

If a weapon by default has 19-20, x2, would it recive +50%? IF not, I believe some weapons have less incredible criticals for more base damage, which would then make them more powerful.
When is the 50% applied?

The diff is applied as is to the weapon's base damage.
50% is of the calculated diff and is per extended crit threat range and crit multiplier.
Some feats allow circumstantial damage multipliers - the added damage counts as base damage, so it is also multiplied on those special circumstances.
Guess I should clarify that one.


(Gaze Attacks)

I don't think I've ever used one, so I can't judge.

I just never liked the idea that a CR 6 monster can TPK a party just out of stroke of bad luck - regardless of its actions or the party's (or even against its intentions).
It makes many encounters one-dimensional and it's plain simple unfair.


(Magic Projectiles & Magical Plusses)

I don't know about balancing archers and melee (didn't know that was a problem), but I like the ammunition stacking.

If for no other reason, bows are easily sundered and provoke AoOs at close range.
Also, the idea is that the bow guides your hand while the missile homes in on the target.


(Combat Actions – (N)ew / (R)edified / More (O)ptions)

These are all beautiful, and are probably my favourite part of the fix.

Thanks.
The idea was to make combat more dynamic and to make certain maneuvers easier, more interesting and with more options.
Combat always seemed a bit boring to me, focusing too much on raw stats.


(spellcasting rules)

Most magic changes I haven't a lot to say.

Regardless of what the spells themselves do, the basic game mechanics grant spellcasters too big an advantage over others.
The natural order of things is that spells can do stuff that's forever beyond the reach of mundane actions, but that they're harder to execute.
I see it as a good thing that spellcasters should rely on allies & henchmen to carry out their craft - without whom they're easily interrupted.
This also adds the dimension of battle strategy and battle formation.
Spellcasters should be inferior to melees - unless well prepared in advance strategicall and with reinforcement.
They should very much be inferior to melees in face-to-face combat.


(Ability-Score Progression)

is fairly accurate, but tends to give characters two good and four bad attributes.

Not necessarily.
A warrior needs more than just Str & Con.
If those are maxed out while the others are neglected, you're bound to feel the shortage of at least some of the others.


(LA Buyoffs)

looks good, but I would need to test it.

It's just a bit better than suggested in UA, and you don't need to pay to stop paying.
You also don't need to use some strange formula.
You get to eventually remove 3 LAs over 20 levels (15 actually). Seems fair enough and balanced to me.


(XP “Payment”)

Might interact badly with the xp and wealth curves, since 1xp =/= 5gp for all levels. Other than that, I like.

Not sure what you mean by that.
Also, what would be your preferred ratio - and more importantly why?

I think I'd rather use PF races, but there is nothing bad here.

I wanted races to count more in the general equation.

The Skills system is competing the the Tome of Prowess for me. I'd have to study them both better before deciding.

Actually, the skill system is probably the best executed notion of 3.5e.
The point was not more prowess as it was more of bringing skills closer to real life... and to handle issues that could've only been detected after years of experience, so I don't hold this one against the game designers in the least.

The classes all look good, but I'm too attached to strange and wonderful homebrew to restrict players into stock-ish classes.

The intent was the very opposite of restriction.
It was to overcome the need for inventing a new class every time you can't find the right class or class-combo for your personal taste.
Other that weird combos like Ur-Theurge and Fochlucan-Ue-Lyrist, I can't imagine a character concept that's doable with the official classes that you can't to high proximity using my 14 classes.
In the process, I hope I managed to design them to assist upholding many other aspects of my proclaimed agenda.






Thanks for the detailed reply, qazzquimby

[nonsi]

I was going to read through all the classes, but after seeing how much stuff there was, I just quit. Based on everything previous to them, I'll assume they're just as good.

Take your time. I'm not going anywhere anytime soon.
Even if you don't comment on them, I believe you'll find them an interesting reading material. They might give you ideas for homebrew of your own.

Just wondering, how long did it take you to write all this?

Too long. Way way too long
I've written 4 game overhauls so far.
The first (2005 IIRC) was made in good intentions, but was quite a disaster. It was messy and was based purely on my ideas with very little regard to other's opinions.
The second started to show promise, but was still quite "unripe".
The third was quite well thought out, but I over did it and flooded it with too much ideas that required bookkeeping.
This one is a much cleaner and more polished version of the third. It's definitely a lot "leaner" and far more gametime-practical. I've been cooking it for more than 2 years before I finally posted it here, probably going over thousands of insights presented by others. About 70% of what's in here is me putting other people's work into this virtual cauldron - some similar to the source and some totally reshuffled. The rest is genuinely mine.

[qazzquimby]

(Ability-Score Progression)

Not necessarily.
A warrior needs more than just Str & Con.
If those are maxed out while the others are neglected, you're bound to feel the shortage of at least some of the others.

Not necessarily, but with unfortunate frequency I fear. Frequent character SADness and the way optimization usually plays out rewards stacking all your advances into one stat, or in this case two.

(Xp Payment)

Not sure what you mean by that.
Also, what would be your preferred ratio - and more importantly why?

As you increase in level, the amount of money they're playing with curves up sharply, while the amount of experience they're gaining curves up more slowly. It only means the xp=>gp costs will mean more at low levels and less at high levels.
I'm mostly nitpicking :p the only way it could be done with more accurately is a quadratic formula.

I wanted races to count more in the general equation.

That's actually why I'd said PF. I should go back and compare if you think otherwise, but I'd thought PF races generally influenced characters more.

Other that weird combos like Ur-Theurge and Fochlucan-Ue-Lyrist, I can't imagine a character concept that's doable with the official classes that you can't to high proximity using my 14 classes.

Where are the ironmen? Where is the gramarie? Tell me where the gramarie is.
Seriously though, I don't have a real complaint, they look very well done.

[nonsi]

(Ability-Score Progression)

Not necessarily, but with unfortunate frequency I fear. Frequent character SADness and the way optimization usually plays out rewards stacking all your advances into one stat, or in this case two.

SADness is no longer valid for spellcasters.
Quote:

Spellcasters, Ability Scores & Skills:

Spoiler

Show

No more a single ability for spellcasting.
Spell access + auto-maximized skill ranks are both a derivative of class level progression.

Int-bonus determines bonus spells known
Wis-bonus determines SR penetration
Cha-bonus determines spell DC.

Class-assigned spellcasting ability determines only tolerance, not max available SL.

Mages’ Tolerance is keyed off of their Int and they gain maximized ranks in Spellcraft.
Priests’ Tolerance is keyed off of their Che and they gain maximized ranks in Knowledge (religion)
Druids’ Tolerance is keyed off of their Wis and they gain maximized ranks in Knowledge (nature)
Bards’ Tolerance is keyed off of their Cha and they gain maximized ranks in a chosen Perform skill (e.g. singing/oratory/harp/...)
Witches’ Tolerance is determined by their primary circle and they gain maximized ranks in Craft (alchemy)

(Xp Payment)

As you increase in level, the amount of money they're playing with curves up sharply, while the amount of experience they're gaining curves up more slowly. It only means the xp=>gp costs will mean more at low levels and less at high levels.
I'm mostly nitpicking :p the only way it could be done with more accurately is a quadratic formula.

What formula did you have in mind?




(Races)

That's actually why I'd said PF. I should go back and compare if you think otherwise, but I'd thought PF races generally influenced characters more.

I actually think PF didn't go far enough.

Where are the ironmen? Where is the gramarie? Tell me where the gramarie is.
Seriously though, I don't have a real complaint, they look very well done.

It's not about complaints at all.
If there's a character concept that's beyond my proposed classes (within the realm of fantasy, the kind that 3.5 official materials make possible), I want to know about it so I can plug that hole.
(clarification: ToB maneuvers, psionics, vestiges, meldshaping & trunaming are mechanical tools, not not character concepts).

.

[SinsI]

A misprint?

Dodge:
Except for Circumstance and Morale bonuses, these are strictly limited to character abilities and they always stack.
Dodge applies to touch AC.
Shield applies vs. incorporeal attackers.
Shield doesn’t apply in situations where one loses his Dex-bonus to AC.

[nonsi]

A misprint?

Definitely. Thanks

[SinsI]

Fumbles are extremely bad and should be eliminated with prejudice! I strongly suggest you reconsider using those: they unduly punish melee combatants that make a lot of attacks. Just think - if somebody has 20 attacks (not impossible for Totemist/Warshaper), he is going to fumble every single round!

I mean, a melee character battles the greatest horrors of creation throughout 20 levels advancement and learns nothing about avoiding getting hit?
NOTHING?! Really?!

He has more HP, that's the defense he learns.

[1pwny]

What formula did you have in mind?

If "ax² + bx + c = 0"

[qazzquimby]

Don't take this too seriously, because I didn't spend enough time ensuring its accuracy.

Spoiler: questionable maths.

Show

The formulas assume the total gold you have received at any level is equal to 1/5th the total experience you have received, in terms of power influence.

GP=3.25XP*1.236^ECL
XP=1.54GP*1.236^-ECL


Example numbers, to see if these are of any use in their current form.
I need to spend 1xp (translating into gp) and I'm:
1st level - 1xp = 4gp
5th level - 1xp = 9gp
10th level - 1xp = 27gp
20th level - 1xp - 225gp

If the math is correct which, which I don't promise, the rapid escalation would mirror the relative increase in gold in relation to experience, as you can see on the WBL and xp to level charts.

[nonsi]

Fumbles are extremely bad and should be eliminated with prejudice! I strongly suggest you reconsider using those:

I'll try to show you my perspective.

they unduly punish melee combatants that make a lot of attacks. Just think - if somebody has 20 attacks (not impossible for Totemist/Warshaper), he is going to fumble every single round!

1. There are no Totemist or the like in my proposed rules.
2. There cannot be Totemist or the like in my proposed rules, given there's no meldshaping in them.
3. I strongly oppose anything that in any way could produce so many attacks. The only compromise I'm forced to make is in the case of TWF, which needs to be balanced vs. the other styles, so 8 would be the absolute maximum (for that reason alone it's my leased preferred combat style). The reason I so strongly oppose #Att inflation is because it derails the game to handle so many dice rolls per attack. I much prefer less #Att with the same overall damage output, but wouldn't prevent a player from picking his/her preferred style.

I don't know if you noticed, but in my rules you don't automatically miss on a natural roll of 1. Only if you miss do you fumble, and about 1/4 of the times it carries no ill effect.
It's all done to make combat feel more real.

He has more HP, that's the defense he learns.

Taking a blow is not even similar to avoiding a blow.
My son is a 12 year old karate red-belt (still quite a novice at martial arts). I promise you that the average adult would find it a lot harder to hit him than hitting another average adult.
At the age of 16 (min adult age for humans), hell be neigh untouchable to an average adult.
By the age of 25, hell be neigh untouchable to all but the top fighters (he's quite dedicated).
That's RL. I see no reason why heroic characters should be inferior to RL living breathing people.

[SinsI]

Make a search on these forums for Fumble, you'd find many reasons for why they are so awful. Although sometimes they are hillarious.

There's saying that's classic on this board.
"Put 10 1st level warriors in a room attacking AC 10 training dummies for ten minutes. If any of them are killed or dismembered the gamemaster should eat his critical failure rules."

With your fumble rules, they have a chance of failing that test.

Think of this - effect of fumble should be about equal to the effect of critical hit. And double damage one time in 20 (with your changes it is even less than that, as only the base rolled part is effectively doubled on 20) is not anywhere near equal to losing the rest of your attacks for the round and next round due to losing your weapon (and having to retrieve it) or becoming prone.

Taking a blow is not even similar to avoiding a blow.
My son is a 12 year old karate red-belt (still quite a novice at martial arts). I promise you that the average adult would find it a lot harder to hit him than hitting another average adult.
At the age of 16 (min adult age for humans), hell be neigh untouchable to an average adult.
By the age of 25, hell be neigh untouchable to all but the top fighters (he's quite dedicated).
That's RL. I see no reason why heroic characters should be inferior to RL living breathing people.

If you are thinking that he is going to be "untouchable", you watch to many movies. He might block all the attacks, but evading all of them is impossible.
All martial arts give is conditioned reflexive response; after your son has achieved that basic level, his defense will hardly improve at all - only his combat strategy (moves selection) and physical attributes are going to improve.

[nonsi]

With your fumble rules, they have a chance of failing that test.

I reject the proposal to "eat his critical failure rule" because:
1. Chances for self inflicted injury = 1:20 (fumble) x 2:6 (attack another target) x 1:3 (at most - diagonally positioned on the grid, no reach weapons) x roughly 50% (hitting self) = 1:360.
2. Statistics never guarantee success or failure.
3. Try to hit a wall with your fist as hard as humanly possible for you for 10 minutes. I'm a sour pickle if you don't get injured.
4. If you repeat #3 with a dagger (again - as hard as humanly possible for you), there's a solid chance that somewhere during those 10 minutes you do get hurt.
5. A half-decent built 1st level Warrior shouldn't automatically miss a training dummy on a roll of 1, so the odds are even less than 1:360.
6. Can someone die from mindlessly storming a castle wall IRL? The answer is a definite positive.

Think of this - effect of fumble should be about equal to the effect of critical hit.

Says who? . . . unless we're talking throughout 20 BAB-improvements-up)
Novice characters are more prone to disaster that veteran ones.
At low levels, the odds are against you. The higher you get the more your odds improve. That's how RL works.
Run the numbers and see the attack roll average of a 10th level Warrior (taking Combat Edge & Ever Vigilant and elevated level-dependent-stats + the occasional Bulls Strength into account).
How often would a 10th level warrior fumble?

after your son has achieved that basic level, his defense will hardly improve at all.

On that I wholeheartedly agree.
Considering level 6 to be the very far high edge of mortal capabilities IRL, a seasoned warrior with a lifetime worth of battle experience would only squeeze +3 modifier out of his BAB +6.
That's less than Dex 18 would grant you as a 1st level rogue.
And, of course . . .
"This benefit does not apply when one loses his Dex-bonus to AC, carries more than medium load, or donning armor without proper proficiency."

Do you consider attributing the grand master of Aikido (Dan 13) or Ninjitsu (Dan 15) a lifetime experience worth of AC of about +5 to be a ridiculously high assessment?
Those guys are untouchable. Facing one of them, you'll never connect (unless you're a seasoned top warrior yourself).

[tarkisflux]

For your strain and tolerance, did you want them to be able to cast more of their highest level spells without resting at high levels than they could at low levels? Adding level to points pool grants that, even with the increased higher level costs. At level 1 you might be able to cast 3 spells of level 1 (21 points = 18 casting stat + 1 level + 2 (14) con), but at level 17 you can cast at least 4 of them (40 = 18 casting stat + 17 level + 2 (14) con), even before you add in the expected attribute growth. Levels above 17 are weird because of the lack of new spell levels.

If that isn't something you're attached to and you're not attached to cost differences between even and odd levels, you could probably get rid of the table by switching to a more static point pool system. I don't mention this because I think your strain doesn't work, but because you seem pretty annoyed at having to do tables. Anyway, 30 points total with an 8 point cost for your highest level means you always get 3 spells of your highest level, whether you're level 1 or level 17. It doesn't follow the normal progression of more spells in your highest level at even levels (and 19-20 are weird because of the lack of new spell level), but I think the consistency and lack of high end power growth is more important in a points system. It's the simplicity of it that means you don't need to do table lookups, because there are never new numbers to remember. If you're interested in seeing that spelled out more, here's an example of one that I wrote up a while back that includes a bunch of other tweaks that you probably don't care about.

For your casting times, did you mean a full-round action like a full-attack or a run (which just uses all of your actions and doesn't leave you open to off-turn attacks), or did you mean a 1-round action like casting summon monster (which uses all of your actions, leaves you open to off-turn attacks, and doesn't take effect until just before the start of your next turn)? I think you want the latter based on notes, but it's unclear from the rules text. WotC really dropped the ball on this terminology and I've had more table arguments over it than most other things, so it bothers me when it's not as exact as it could be.

For those concentration checks, are you still going with 10 + damage dealt + sl? It was already hard to make this check reliably, and your damage changes and bonus reductions make it even harder. And the 1-round casting is going to make them much much more common. That may well be expected or desired, but it strikes me as in a weird place. If you want them to fail once in a while but not all the time, updating the formula to depend less on damage and more on BAB might work. If you like them failing that often, why not simplify and just make casting fail if you get hit like in older editions?

Other comments later maybe, we have pretty different goals and so I'm doing a lot of self editing and selective reading here.

[SinsI]

Novice characters are more prone to disaster that veteran ones.

Erhm, what? With Fumble rules it is the complete opposite - the more iterative attacks you have (so the more "veteran" you are), the worse you suffer from the disaster called fumble:

How often would a 10th level warrior fumble?

Better look at his senior 11th level warrior:
His last iterative attack is at -10, so essentially his BAB for it is equivalent to the BAB of 1st level warrior.Sure, he has some more bonuses, but monsters at that level have more AC, so the chance of fumble on that last iterative attack is the same as the chance of fumble on the 1st level warrior's only attack.
If you add chances of fumble from his first two attacks, you will see that 11th level warrior is going to fumble more often than his 1st level counterpart.

I reject the proposal to "eat his critical failure rule" because:
1. Chances for self inflicted injury = 1:20 (fumble) x 2:6 (attack another target) x 1:3 (at most - diagonally positioned on the grid, no reach weapons) x roughly 50% (hitting self) = 1:360.

So? 10 1st level warriors in 10 minutes will make a 1000 attacks, so you will have, on average, 3 "accidents".

5. A half-decent built 1st level Warrior shouldn't automatically miss a training dummy on a roll of 1, so the odds are even less than 1:360.

Training dummy has AC 10. 1st level Warrior has BAB 1;elite Array gives +2, and maybe +1 for Weapon Focus. That's +4 total - so they are missing a lot, and not only on 1.

[nonsi]

For your strain and tolerance, did you want them to be able to cast more of their highest level spells without resting at high levels than they could at low levels? Adding level to points pool grants that, even with the increased higher level costs.

As a general guideline - yes.
Things tend to feel a bit easier as you gain mileage.

At level 1 you might be able to cast 3 spells of level 1 (21 points = 18 casting stat + 1 level + 2 (14) con), but at level 17 you can cast at least 4 of them (40 = 18 casting stat + 17 level + 2 (14) con), even before you add in the expected attribute growth. Levels above 17 are weird because of the lack of new spell levels.

If that isn't something you're attached to and you're not attached to cost differences between even and odd levels, you could probably get rid of the table by switching to a more static point pool system.

I want players to feel like they're actually gaining more spell power, therefore I don't wish to adopt the static pool-size approach.
I'm ok with it because contrary to spell slots, going nova leaves you totally drained (also notice the spell duration cutdown).
Also, since spellcasters got hit with a king-sized nerf bat, I'm ok with them regaining some power back.

I don't mention this because I think your strain doesn't work, but because you seem pretty annoyed at having to do tables.

As a rule of thumb - yes, but we're living in an imperfect world, so occasional compromises are a must when one wishes to hit an exact dosage.

Anyway, 30 points total with an 8 point cost for your highest level means you always get 3 spells of your highest level, whether you're level 1 or level 17. It doesn't follow the normal progression of more spells in your highest level at even levels (and 19-20 are weird because of the lack of new spell level), but I think the consistency and lack of high end power growth is more important in a points system. It's the simplicity of it that means you don't need to do table lookups, because there are never new numbers to remember. If you're interested in seeing that spelled out more, here's an example of one that I wrote up a while back that includes a bunch of other tweaks that you probably don't care about.

I see whet you mean, but then, on more than half the levels, there's no spellcasting progression at all.
Players just don't like it when they level up and gain nothing for it.
Also, with my approach, at each given level, you need to memorize but a single line, so it doesn't really matter if the numbers are 8-5-3-2-1 or a slightly different sequence.

For your casting times, did you mean a full-round action like a full-attack or a run (which just uses all of your actions and doesn't leave you open to off-turn attacks), or did you mean a 1-round action like casting summon monster (which uses all of your actions, leaves you open to off-turn attacks, and doesn't take effect until just before the start of your next turn)? I think you want the latter based on notes, but it's unclear from the rules text. WotC really dropped the ball on this terminology and I've had more table arguments over it than most other things, so it bothers me when it's not as exact as it could be.

Except for typos, I have clear distinction between full-round (swift/immediate actions at your disposal) and 1-round (no swift/immediate action, longer exposure) duration.

For those concentration checks, are you still going with 10 + damage dealt + sl? It was already hard to make this check reliably, and your damage changes and bonus reductions make it even harder. And the 1-round casting is going to make them much much more common. That may well be expected or desired, but it strikes me as in a weird place. If you want them to fail once in a while but not all the time, updating the formula to depend less on damage and more on BAB might work. If you like them failing that often, why not simplify and just make casting fail if you get hit like in older editions?

Because I still want to leave a small chance for success.
I'm trying to solve the problem caused by casters always maxing Concentration ranks in an attempt to circumvent the threat altogether.
If one wishes to be more combative - that's ok, but a spellcaster will under no circumstances be able to reduce the threat to nearly only HP damage.
In BECMI D&D, facing an equal-level fighter one-on-one (no strategy, no allies) was suicidal.
I wish it to be bordering suicidal, but leave an opening for exceptional luck, should one put everything s/he can on Concentration.
Sometimes one does all the right things build-wise and game-wise, but the odds are still against him. I don't want it to be an immediate and inevitable death sentence.

[tarkisflux]

Fair enough on strain. Like I said, it's hardly broken and I have no interest in contesting design decisions.

Except for typos, I have clear distinction between full-round (swift/immediate actions at your disposal) and 1-round (no swift/immediate action, longer exposure) duration.

Then I suggest this is a typo. You wrote:

All spells that normally take a standard action to cast now take a full round.

To be clear and distinct you would want to write that as "1-round" or as "a full-round action". The only reason I assumed you meant 1-round was because of your notes; lacking those I could make an argument for this either way based on context and natural language.

Because I still want to leave a small chance for success.
I'm trying to solve the problem caused by casters always maxing Concentration ranks in an attempt to circumvent the threat altogether.
If one wishes to be more combative - that's ok, but a spellcaster will under no circumstances be able to reduce the threat to nearly only HP damage.
In BECMI D&D, facing an equal-level fighter one-on-one (no strategy, no allies) was suicidal.
I wish it to be bordering suicidal, but leave an opening for exceptional luck, should one put everything s/he can on Concentration.
Sometimes one does all the right things build-wise and game-wise, but the odds are still against him. I don't want it to be an immediate and inevitable death sentence.

I must have very different experiences with concentration checks than you. They are already failed most of the time in games I've played or ran even with large item bonuses, which is why I indicated that this seemed to make them extremely remote. What sort of success chance are you looking for? How remote is too remote?

If you don't want everyone maxing it all the time or for the combat option to have a larger opportunity cost, you could instead make the ability to keep a spell after getting hit a benefit of the combat casting feat. Spending a feat on it instead of some skill points you weren't going to do anything with anyway is a very different calculation in my experience. You're already redoing skills, removing that aspect of concentration without the feat doesn't seem like much of a stretch though it may be something you're uninterested in.

[nonsi]

...spellcasting...Concentration...numbers...

Too tiered to assess things ATM.
I'll run the numbers tomorrow and come to a conclusion.

[BasketOfPuppies]

So… I've noticed that there's nothing statistical listed for "Fractional BABs and Saves."

[nonsi]

So… I've noticed that there's nothing statistical listed for "Fractional BABs and Saves."

No need.
Full BAB = 1
Average BAB = 3/4
Poor BAB = 1/2.


Say you take 1 Mage level and 1 Monk level.
All you do is add 1/2 + 3/4 = 5/4 ---> 1 (rounding fractions down).

Nothing special there.
If you know where you were in the previous level, you know where you got to now.

[nonsi]

No need.
Full BAB = 1
Average BAB = 3/4
Poor BAB = 1/2.


Say you take 1 Mage level and 1 Monk level.
All you do is add 1/2 + 3/4 = 5/4 ---> 1 (rounding fractions down).

Nothing special there.
If you know where you were in the previous level, you know where you got to now.

On second thought, I've decided to include this example in the rules.

[nonsi]

Fair enough on strain. Like I said, it's hardly broken and I have no interest in contesting design decisions.



Then I suggest this is a typo. You wrote:

To be clear and distinct you would want to write that as "1-round" or as "a full-round action". The only reason I assumed you meant 1-round was because of your notes; lacking those I could make an argument for this either way based on context and natural language.

Ok, took care of this one.

I must have very different experiences with concentration checks than you. They are already failed most of the time in games I've played or ran even with large item bonuses, which is why I indicated that this seemed to make them extremely remote. What sort of success chance are you looking for? How remote is too remote?

If you don't want everyone maxing it all the time or for the combat option to have a larger opportunity cost, you could instead make the ability to keep a spell after getting hit a benefit of the combat casting feat. Spending a feat on it instead of some skill points you weren't going to do anything with anyway is a very different calculation in my experience. You're already redoing skills, removing that aspect of concentration without the feat doesn't seem like much of a stretch though it may be something you're uninterested in.

I've added 2 DC tables.
Check them out and see what you make of them.

[tarkisflux]

Ok, took care of this one.

It's clear what action it uses now, but confusing because it doesn't appear to allow for your design notes. A full-round action is still completed on the character's initiative, unlike a 1-round action. So it doesn't allow people the chance to move out of the way on their turn, unless their turns are simultaneous. And it doesn't allow a 16th level archer to take down 5 low level casters with their attacks, since they can only ready a full attack (because of +6 BAB bonus changes) with a single trigger. Did I miss a relevant change elsewhere?

I've added 2 DC tables.
Check them out and see what you make of them.

Apologies, it seems I was being insufficiently clear earlier. I was not referring to the casting defensive DC, but to the "I got hit and don't want to lose this spell" concentration DC. I mentioned damage in the DC and getting hit specifically, but those would be easy to miss with everything else going on. It seems like that one would matter more given your movement changes, since casters will likely fire from the back and hope no one has readied an action to shoot / fireball them. Those are the checks that I see failed quite often, not the defensive casting checks.

This unfortunately means that your tables do not address my concern... though when I wrote those concerns I thought that you meant 1-round casting though. If you go with 1-round cast times I think its worth reconsidering those DCs, but it's less problematic in a full-round action casting setup where your main worry is readied actions rather than everyone's actions.

[nonsi]

It's clear what action it uses now, but confusing because it doesn't appear to allow for your design notes. A full-round action is still completed on the character's initiative, unlike a 1-round action. So it doesn't allow people the chance to move out of the way on their turn, unless their turns are simultaneous. And it doesn't allow a 16th level archer to take down 5 low level casters with their attacks, since they can only ready a full attack (because of +6 BAB bonus changes) with a single trigger. Did I miss a relevant change elsewhere?

I believe this one gets covered the moment you click-open the "Crowd Control Spells/Abilities" spoiler, because a lot of offensive spells fall into that category,

Apologies, it seems I was being insufficiently clear earlier. I was not referring to the casting defensive DC, but to the "I got hit and don't want to lose this spell" concentration DC. I mentioned damage in the DC and getting hit specifically, but those would be easy to miss with everything else going on. It seems like that one would matter more given your movement changes, since casters will likely fire from the back and hope no one has readied an action to shoot / fireball them. Those are the checks that I see failed quite often, not the defensive casting checks.

This unfortunately means that your tables do not address my concern... though when I wrote those concerns I thought that you meant 1-round casting though. If you go with 1-round cast times I think its worth reconsidering those DCs, but it's less problematic in a full-round action casting setup where your main worry is readied actions rather than everyone's actions.

Well, given my Crit Substitution rules, damage multipliers are harder to come by and more situational, so while the overall damage doesn't decrease, damage scores remain in the more sane values most of the time.

Also, avoiding the need to maintaining spellcasting when damaged motivates casting defensively.
It also keeps "obsolete" SLs viable.

[tarkisflux]

I believe this one gets covered the moment you click-open the "Crowd Control Spells/Abilities" spoiler, because a lot of offensive spells fall into that category,

Fair enough. I didn't open that section because I assumed you were done with casting modifications after you'd made a general rule for them and I wasn't interested in what I'd read from other similar sections.

For consistency, you may want to move that into Spellcasting with the rest of your cast time changes. It would also make your design notes there make sense immediately, instead of much later.

Also, avoiding the need to maintaining spellcasting when damaged motivates casting defensively.
It also keeps "obsolete" SLs viable.

Casting defensively does not avoid the need to maintain spellcasting when damaged. It only avoids AoOs when you begin casting on your turn - casting defensively is completely unused if you begin casting a spell from outside a threatened area.

When someone throws their full-round CL10 fireball at you, you will need to make a concentration check DC 10 + 35 (average damage on failed save without additional riders) + SL. This is comparable to the defensive casting checks for a full-round SL 9 spell, though there is a fair bit of variance in the damage that could make the DC run from easy to impossible. A CL 15 full-round delayed blast fireball would push that average DC up to 10 + 52 + SL, in excess of the casting defensive checks. Yes this is a net boost to evocations (if only because they were nerfed less, still welcome though), but you may be asking casters to survive multiple really high DC checks in order to cast their 1-round crowd control spell.

If this is working as intended, then that's that I guess. If you changed this, it is not in a place that I have been able to find in spellcasting or skills.

[nonsi]

Fair enough. I didn't open that section because I assumed you were done with casting modifications after you'd made a general rule for them and I wasn't interested in what I'd read from other similar sections.

For consistency, you may want to move that into Spellcasting with the rest of your cast time changes. It would also make your design notes there make sense immediately, instead of much later.

Good advice.
Done.

Casting defensively does not avoid the need to maintain spellcasting when damaged. It only avoids AoOs when you begin casting on your turn - casting defensively is completely unused if you begin casting a spell from outside a threatened area.

When someone throws their full-round CL10 fireball at you, you will need to make a concentration check DC 10 + 35 (average damage on failed save without additional riders) + SL. This is comparable to the defensive casting checks for a full-round SL 9 spell, though there is a fair bit of variance in the damage that could make the DC run from easy to impossible. A CL 15 full-round delayed blast fireball would push that average DC up to 10 + 52 + SL, in excess of the casting defensive checks. Yes this is a net boost to evocations (if only because they were nerfed less, still welcome though), but you may be asking casters to survive multiple really high DC checks in order to cast their 1-round crowd control spell.

If this is working as intended, then that's that I guess. If you changed this, it is not in a place that I have been able to find in spellcasting or skills.

Ok.
What if it were DC = [10 + 1/2-dmg + SL] ?
Would that balance things out, given the multiple nerf-bat-hits spellcasters took in this overhaul, or would it make things too easy ?
Or should it be DC = [10 + 1/2-dmg + 2*SL] ?

[tarkisflux]

Ok.
What if it were DC = [10 + 1/2-dmg + SL] ?
Would that balance things out, given the multiple nerf-bat-hits spellcasters took in this overhaul, or would it make things too easy ?
Or should it be DC = [10 + 1/2-dmg + 2*SL] ?

I honestly have no idea. Those both bring the high end average damage numbers back into line relative to your defensive casting DCs, but might make checks against low damage hits too easy. It doesn't help that I'm not really sure what sort of behavior you want to see when someone gets shot with an arrow / fireballed while casting a spell and there's lots and lots of ways to tweak it.

In your above setup, damage values will still be extremely variable (it's a LOT of variance in some cases though, as a CL15 DBF does between 15 and 90 points of damage, adding between 7 and 45 to the DC). That may be points for it in your book though, if you like the idea of lucky big hits being more likely to break concentration than unlucky small ones, and some of the ends are going to be pretty unlikely. You could also give the half damage DC discount only when you're casting defensively and the full damage in the DC when you're not, if you liked the variability but wanted to push defensive casting a bit. If you go with a damage format though, you may want to go with one check per person attacking you instead of multiple small checks per hit. It lets multiple attacks from a full-attack routine come out on par with a single fireball come out about the same way in this setup.

If you want it to be less variable, you could make it a function of spell CL or attacker BAB instead of damage perhaps. As seen in your tables, those numbers are pretty manageable and can be planned around, if potentially less interesting. You could even use the casting defensive DCs if you wanted, though I have my doubts about how that would feel in play.

There's also no reason the roll needs to be in here at all if you don't want it. If you really want to push casting defensively, you could go back to older DnD versions and just declare that a hit when not casting defensively causes you to lose the spell. It's a pretty substantial nerf, but it also means that casters who don't want to go full into concentration for defensive casting don't have a reason to go in at all and might spend their resources in other places and just cast full-round action spells from distance.

There's plenty of other ways to tweak it as well, but those are the ones that seem closest to standard that probably fit some aspect of your desired behaviors (as guessed by me from other bits in the conversation).

[nonsi]

I honestly have no idea. Those both bring the high end average damage numbers back into line relative to your defensive casting DCs, but might make checks against low damage hits too easy. It doesn't help that I'm not really sure what sort of behavior you want to see when someone gets shot with an arrow / fireballed while casting a spell and there's lots and lots of ways to tweak it.

I’m aiming for something between 50% and 75% average chance of failure (depending on damage & selected SL, ranging from easy to impossible, guaranteeing that low level spells never become obsolete dead weight).

In your above setup, damage values will still be extremely variable (it's a LOT of variance in some cases though, as a CL15 DBF does between 15 and 90 points of damage, adding between 7 and 45 to the DC). That may be points for it in your book though, if you like the idea of lucky big hits being more likely to break concentration than unlucky small ones, and some of the ends are going to be pretty unlikely. You could also give the half damage DC discount only when you're casting defensively and the full damage in the DC when you're not, if you liked the variability but wanted to push defensive casting a bit.

I see your rationale, but adopting this angle would make Combat Casting a “wouldn’t leave home without it” option.
Problem with no-brainers is that they’re not really options.

If you go with a damage format though, you may want to go with one check per person attacking you instead of multiple small checks per hit. It lets multiple attacks from a full-attack routine come out on par with a single fireball come out about the same way in this setup.

I’d expect a successful full-attack damage to surpass an average fireball.

If you want it to be less variable, you could make it a function of spell CL or attacker BAB instead of damage perhaps.

I have a problem with things that break suspension of disbelieve.
A grazing cut is nowhere near the same as an axe to the guts. The first you could actually be oblivious to for a few seconds while the second falls on you like a ton of bricks.

There's also no reason the roll needs to be in here at all if you don't want it. If you really want to push casting defensively, you could go back to older DnD versions and just declare that a hit when not casting defensively causes you to lose the spell. It's a pretty substantial nerf, but it also means that casters who don't want to go full into concentration for defensive casting don't have a reason to go in at all and might spend their resources in other places and just cast full-round action spells from distance.

But I don’t want to nullify the option of going full into concentration for defensive casting.
I wish to keep both options on the table.

There's plenty of other ways to tweak it as well, but those are the ones that seem closest to standard that probably fit some aspect of your desired behaviors (as guessed by me from other bits in the conversation).

Maybe the light I've shed above now makes other options seem viable(?)

[BasketOfPuppies]

What do you mean by this?

[Rogue]

[Rogue's Expertise]

'Innuendo- The Rogue gains all benefits of the Beguiler described in the "Dead Levels II" article'?

[nonsi]

What do you mean by this?

[Rogue]

[Rogue's Expertise]

'Innuendo- The Rogue gains all benefits of the Beguiler described in the "Dead Levels II" article'?

Woops
Dead Levels II


Also, as a by-product, I noticed that my Spellthief's 1st level is a bit lacking, so I've added an appropriate feature that was just begging to go in there.