This evocative image is by Pixabay.com / thommas68

Being invited recently to participate in play-testing for Pathfinder 2.0 (or whatever they are calling it) – an invitation that I had to, regretfully, decline – has, nevertheless, fired my imagination.

I keep returning to the question,

“If I were one of the authors tasked with updating the game system, what would I do?”

Surprisingly, clear answers immediately came to mind.

Some of these ideas I’ve written about in the past. Where that’s the case, I’ll point readers at the appropriate article. Others are new subjects of discussion.

Because I rather suspect that few, if any, of these ideas will be incorporated into the official rules when Pathfinder 2.0 achieves its finalized form, they will be presented as House Rules that readers can choose to incorporate, or not, themselves.

Space is going to preclude going into too much depth regarding any of these subjects. If there’s demand for it, I might expand on one or two in a separate follow-up article.

Schools Of Magic

First, I would make the schools of magic more meaningful. Every mage would be required to select a “theme” to their magic, to be approved by the GM. Spells from that school are reduced in spell level one slot and become available automatically when the character reaches the requisite character level. Spells outside the school are NOT available automatically and have to be sought out, either on scrolls or from someone who already knows the spell and is willing to teach it.

I would also generate and include a suggested list as a table that players/GMs could simply roll on.

Spell description would be enhanced with additional flavor text to use in visualizing magic school / spell combinations.

Each mage would also be required to choose an “opposing theme” for magics that are reduced in effectiveness. “Reduced” how? well, the simplest way would be to increase the spell level of such spells by 1. But it’s not the only choice that I would offer.

Reducing Metamagics

I described these in Broadening Magical Horizons. These are a sub-class of Metamagic Feats that I introduced in one of my campaigns, to great effect. Unlike normal metamagics, which enhance a spell in exchange for placing the in a higher spell slot, these reduce both effectiveness and spell slot. They can be used to counterbalance or mitigate a normal metamagic enhancement, or can be applied to reduce the spell slot.

Every mage would be required to choose one reducing metamagic that they gain as a free feat.

For various “staple” spells that are likely to be included in one or more schools, I would also write up stat blocks for “reduced versions” that become available at lower character levels provided (1) you have chosen an appropriate school; and (2) you have the appropriate Reducing Metamagic Feat.

Thus a fire-school mage would be able to cast a regular Fireball spell as a 2nd level spell instead of the normal 3rd level slot, would get a reduced version available as a 1st level spell, and a greatly reduced version as a 0th-level spell. The latter might be nothing more than the equivalent of striking a match – 1 point of damage if you stick your finger in the flame and keep it there – but it would be a perfectly reasonable Orison.

Spontaneous Metamagics

I would create new magic items that automatically add a level of metamagic feat (reducing or enhancing) to selected spells when in the mage’s possession during casting.

I would then incorporate explicit rules for mages to be able to decide on metamagic enhancements to their spells “on the fly” as opposed to pre-loading the versions memorized with the Feat. However, this is an option only available if you have a magic school that matches the spell. So Fire Mages could do it with Fireball and Flaming Hands and Wall Of Flame and the like.

The intent is to (1) increase the flexibility and precision with which mages of a particular school can cast spells from that school; (2) create magic items explicitly useful by particular schools of magic; and (3) clarify an area of rules that needs a little cleaning up..

Slowed Mage Power Progression

If you were to ask almost any D&D/Pathfinder GM what the biggest problems are with earlier editions of the game, they would probably talk about “game balance” or “level imbalance”.

Simply put, mages are too weak at low levels and too powerful at high levels, relative to other classes, and the other classes also suffer from similar inequalities of a lesser degree. The problem was most acute with AD&D, but has been present through every generation of rules up to 3.x/Pathfinder; 4th ed D&D attempted (again) to fix the problem, with (I understand) limited success, 5th ed D&D actually does fix it – at the expense of some (a lot?) of the unique class flavor. Not having played 4th ed or the final incarnation of 5th ed, I can’t speak to that definitively; those are just my impressions.

Well, Pathfinder 2.0 will need to fix this problem too, but do so in a distinctly different way to the approach of WOTC, and preferably one that doesn’t have that flavor price-tag attached.

Instead of spells gaining 1d6 or whatever with each character level, they would gain one step on a fixed “effectiveness chart”. This would read something like “+1, +d3, +d6” at higher levels, “+d3, +d6” at mid-levels, and only for the first 3 or 4 levels would the existing power progression apply.

So, fireballs might run “3d6; 4d6, 5d6, 6d6, 6d6+d3, 7d6, 7d6+d3, 8d6, 8d6+d3, 9d6, 9d6+d3, 10d6, 10d6+1, 10d6+d3, 11d6, 11d6+1, 11d6+d3, 12d6,” and so on.

On top of that, 1d6 of the effect is always to be designated “critical effect”. Casting a spell is to require a combat roll of some type, probably using INT in place of STR, and that 1d6 only happens on a critical hit. So “12d6” is really “11d6 +1d6 critical”.

This slows the progression of power levels of mages. The exact specifics can be fine-tuned to correct the upper-level power problem, while the effects of the magic schools rules goes a long way to solving the lower-level problem. Not all the way, but I’ll get to that a little later.

Clerical Revision

There would need to be similar revisions made to clerical spells and spellcasting. In particular, I would devise some clerical-only Metamagics that would emphasize the difference between divine magic and arcane magic.

All Clerical magic should come in three optional flavors (with Metamagics as the means of implementing the flavors in game mechanics): single target, multiple target, and area effect. Each of these should be a step down in terms of power effect, but a significant increase in effectiveness relative to what a mage could manage even if they could apply their metamagics to a clerical spell. Another Clerical Magic, one that’s at least one step further removed from area effect, would be Permanent, and there might well be an intermediate “semi-permanent” version.

These Clerical Metamagic impacts would increase with character level. A 20th-level Cleric should be capable of Blessing (for the normal duration of the spell) an entire region, or Permanently Blessing a building.

The current description of each clerical spell becomes the “base level” upon which these variations are created. If the “base level” describes an Area Effect, then the multiple-target version is more powerful than the existing spell, and the “Single Target” version more powerful again. If the “base level” is single target, then the multiple-target spell is weaker, and the area effect weaker again.

One set of changes that I would definitely focus on is “Holy Drip Bottle” syndrome. I posited a solution to this in the last two parts of my “All Wounds Are Not Alike” series (Narcotic Healing part 1 and part 2), but I think that might be a step too far for general use. Though I would definitely include it as an optional rule!

No, my preferred solution for general consumption is a little more far-reaching – and yet, ironically, the results would look and feel a lot more like traditional Pathfinder.

Changed HP subsystem

HP would get broken into two strands: Critical Capacity and Wound Capacity. The exact means of division requires a little more thought; the notion is that most of the existing HP would go into Wound Capacity, while Critical Capacity would be 1st-level HP plus 1 for each subsequent character level, or something along those lines. I might require every third lot of bonus HP from CON to be applied to Critical Capacity instead of Wound Capacity, or I might apply the bonus both ways at such levels – that would need to be play-tested.

An ordinary hit can only impact Wound Capacity until that is all gone. Any “unused” damage inflicted is lost. Only when a character has no remaining Wound Capacity can ordinary damage be applied to Critical Capacity. Total loss of Wound Capacity requires the character to save vs CON or lose consciousness. Any Critical Damage that has been inflicted increases the DC of this save.

But wait – didn’t I just say that you don’t lose Critical Capacity until you’ve used up all your Wound Capacity? Well, that’s not entirely true. All attacks have two components: critical damage and ordinary damage. Critical Damage is only inflicted on a Critical Hit, applies directly to Critical Capacity, and is otherwise ignored. Run out of Critical Capacity and you have to start making FORT saves to avoid starting a countdown to Death.

That countdown is punctuated at various points by key events – immobility/collapse, unconsciousness, coma, and (of course) death. The count between these events is 6+CON Bonus. The lower your CON, the more quickly you die. If you reach one of these landmark status points, that is your condition even if you are healed by Potion or Cleric. It requires a separate healing effect to remove the condition (or the passage of time). (The Immobility stage is designed to give characters one last chance to chug a healing potion).

This makes characters and creatures slightly slower to kill, overall, but more sudden and impactful when it does happen, and a lot harder to heal, and enables differentiation of the different healing spells according to the way they handle Critical Damage. Cure Light Wounds heals NO Critical Damage. Cure Moderate Wounds heals 1 Critical Damage per die of healing – subtracted from the total – with the balance being applied to Wound Capacity, and so on.

Which brings me back to magical attacks like Fireball. 1/3 of the dice of damage these do (round down) must be reserved as Critical Damage, that is only inflicted on a Critical Hit.

To score a Critical Hit, you have to roll a natural 20 on your attack roll, AND your attack total must be 20 more than the target’s AC. That makes them a lot harder to score if you are significantly lower-level than the target you are attacking, and reduces slightly their probability the rest of the time.

Backstab Revision

One of the major purposes of this combat change is to facilitate a major revision to the Backstab rules. The problem is that backstabs are (currently) either too lethal or not lethal enough, either inadequate or total overkill.

Breaking “Hit Points” into the two damage types permits a more controlled mechanism for Backstab attacks. Such attacks can do normal damage, plus a backstab critical component based on character level if the attack total is 10 more than the target’s AC. This is likely to be instantly deadly to anyone more than a couple of character levels lower than the Thief/Rogue, and a critical injury demanding immediate attention to anyone not several character levels higher. On a critical hit, the weapon’s ordinary damage is also applied to the Critical Capacity of the target, making this an effective but not instantly-lethal attack against targets roughly 50% higher in levels than the Backstabber.

Balancing this is the need to achieve an attack total ten higher than the target’s AC. This is easy to achieve against unarmored low-level opponents and becomes progressively less so as those two statements become invalid. Characters in heavy armor make extremely difficult backstab targets even at relatively low levels. This brings a dash of realism to the mechanism without compromising the fantasy element inherent in the genre. The result would be at home in both high and low-fantasy campaigns.

Paladin Changes

I’ve thought a lot about changes to, and variations on, the standard Paladin. That was to be the subject of the still-unfinished sequel to Assassin’s Amulet, after all. I still want to finish and publish that, one of these days, so I don’t want to steal my own thunder – besides, I can’t squeeze 60-odd pages of notes into one section of this article in any practical way!

Nevertheless, some of the mooted changes would be priority inclusions. In that unfinished work, I posit that the key to understanding the comparative differences between Clerics and Paladins is that each was designed (as an organization/community) to oppose different enemies. I then proposed three variations for GMs to choose between: (1) Clerics were designed to deal with rogue/dark gods on behalf of the good/light gods; (2) Clerics were designed to deal with the plots of Devils; or (3) Clerics were designed to deal with the Chaos and Misery inflicted by Demons.

In case (3), [standard] Paladins were created to oppose Devils, and needed to be organized and systematic to cope with the plots of these enemies; In case (2), [standard] Paladins were created to oppose Demons, and their order and system are specifically intended to be weapons and armor against the anarchy that Demons can inflict; and, in case (3), Paladins are the primary opposition to both groups. I then went on to tweak those Standard designs into specific forms designed to be effective against one of the two enemies.

This involved altering a number of the special abilities of the class, often in such a way that the existing effects could be retained as a special effect when the ability was applied to a normal person – the primary purpose of Laying On Hands was not to heal, it was to Exorcise, and so on. I also customized the spell lists extensively, and reduced the combat capabilities of the class (so that they were clearly less combat-effective than Fighters) but replaced those benefits with additional enemy-specific capabilities.

All of those changes, and the concepts in back of them, would be brought into Paladins if I were rewriting the Pathfinder rules.

Revised Skill DC subsystem

I showed in “How Hard Can It Be?” – Skill Checks Under The Microscope that the whole 3.x/Pathfinder DC scale is out of whack. A 14th-level character can succeed on a DC 40 check 50% or more of the time, given only slightly favorable circumstances. I solved this by applying a corrective calculation, New = 10 + 1.2 x (Old – 10).

EG:

• Old DC 0: 0-10=-10; x1.2 = -12; +10 = -2.
• Old DC 10: 10-10=0; x1.2 = 0; +10 = 10 (no change).
• Old DC 20: 20-10=10; x1.2 = 12; +10 = 22.
• Old DC 30: 30-10=20; x1.2 = 24; +10 = 34.
• Old DC 40: 40-10=30; x1.2 = 36; +10 = 46.

In

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast, I revisited the issue, looking at the standard of expertise that should be used as the basis for determining what the DC should be for any specific task.

Most recently, in The Black Meta-Art Of Setting Difficulty Targets, I analyzed the effect of compounded modifiers and got some very surprising (and revealing results) – if you have N modifiers of average range ±1-to-M, most of the time, the net effect will be of a single modifier in the ±1-to-4/3×M range, with a small but increasing error at higher N values that isn’t worth compensating for.

Were I one of the creative team working on Pathfinder 2.0, I would use these latter 2 articles to determine what the DC should be of the example tasks listed in the Core Rulebook (0-35 scale), then apply the corrective factor determined in the first article and quoted above, or add new entries for DC 40/45/50/55/60.

Revised XP System

This is another subject that I have written about, sparking quite a bit of controversy when I analyzed the vagaries of the existing XP system. But, if I were rewriting the system, I would ditch the whole existing structure and model its replacement on a series of articles published here at Campaign Mastery:

• Experience for the ordinary person;
• Objective-Oriented Experience Points; and
• The Past Revisited: The XP-less NPC.

Magic Items and Magic Places

I would throw in a lot of new magic items, over and above those listed earlier. Magic items which conferred ranks in skills. Some of the magic items listed in The Bottom End Of The Magic Biz.

The entire contents of Let’s Talk About Containers: 22 Wondrous Items.

The ideas in Creating New Magic Weapons.

The content from all 7 parts of the Spell Storage Solutions series – “If I Could Save Magic In A Bottle,” “A Heart Of Shiny Magic”, “Just Another Pointy Stick”, “Not Just Another Pointy Stick”, “The Energizer Bunny”, “The Ultimate Weapon”, and The Crown Of Insight from “Let’s Make A Relic”.

Some content from “How Long Should Potions Last?” which was part of this Blog Carnival post.

Plus a deeper dive on the Spell Components concept, as suggested in the Some Arcane Assembly Required series.

Some content from Big Is Not Enough: Monuments and Places Of Wonder. And the location ideas presented in Six Wonders: A selected assortment of Wondrous Locations for a fantasy RPG and Five More Wonders: Another assortment of Locations for a fantasy RPG.

Encumbrance

I would take the ideas offered in He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Servomech: User-friendly Encumbrance in RPGs and run with them.

And Lastly

Lastly, of course, I would look at the articles I’ve done on variant races and present them as optional choices for the GM, expanding the palette of choices within the game. Of course, I would include my Ergonomics articles –

Ergonomics and the Non-human about Elves, and By Popular Demand: The Ergonomics Of Dwarves about, well, that’s fairly obvious. And maybe the more recent article, (In)Human Survival: The Biology of Elementals and More, too.

By the time all that was finished, the game would be both radically different and distinct from its original version, and yet still recognizably Pathfinder. Of course, you don’t have to wait. It’s (almost) all waiting for you here already – just click on the links!

And, to the people who actually have the responsibility for drafting the next generation of the rules: Your solutions don’t have to look anything at all like the ones that I’ve proposed, but these are still the areas that I would be looking at. Of course, if you do happen to like one or more of the ideas presented here, contact me – my terms are very reasonable, I promise!