Again thank you for the further remarkable responses. You guys are amazing!
Well I've had a change of heart about minions (much credit here to Ashiel for getting me to look up Tucker's Kobolds and the rules). I took a look and here's what I found within the existing rules:
Mooks: Using low CR monsters in high numbers effectively.
•Have them act in groups to flank and aid another (multiple times with stacking bonuses) (with flanking, one allies aid, spells, feats, and equipment a +7 bonus to atks should be common).
•Change feats (to weapon focus, etc) and improve weapons (masterwork) and armor (banded mail gives +6 but reduces speed to 20 ft, chain shirt is +4 with no speed loss).
•Support them with adepts (bless), clerics (bless, bane) or bards (inspire courage, silent image). Use the same basic stats for these classed characters, just add spells.
•Have them fight recklessly (charge and run) and move immediately into the PCs area so that they use up Opportunity Attacks and cannot be fireballed en masse.
•Have them attack in waves (on separate rounds) and from multiple directions.
•Have several of them ready ranged attacks to interrupt spell casters (heavy crossbows).
•Mix in two or three more durable monsters that don’t go down as fast (possibly mobs of the mooks).
•Have them use advantageous terrain (cover, tight corridors if appropriate) and equipment (traps, tower shields, siege weapons, nets, alchemy, poison, oil, etc).
In a way it could work even better than 4E minions because I can put far more of these on the battlefield because so many of them are only there to use aid another actions or hold tower shields for archers or absorb AoOs from the PCS and to generally die without inflicting direct damage.
I've given up on the idea of simplified AoOs and will stick with Pathfinder's AoO system.
On Decentralized Healing: I've implemented maximized healing if the target rests for two minutes before the spell is cast, but I really like pobbes suggestion of class hit dice being used in healing effects. Multi-class characters could go with whatever their majority class is (or the highest if they have an equal split).
Kthulhu, I'll check out Trailblazer. Thanks for the pointer!
I'm also on the fence now about marking. I like that mechanic and think it could be a good addition to the game, but I could be convinced otherwise. Anyone else want to weigh in on it?
Like it was said, marking is not for everyone and Pathfindr doesn't have it implemented from the start. Itš usually assumed that the monsters are roleplayed as well rather than driven by some sort of AI so if the PCs wan to get nonster's attrntion, they try some RP on it. Just keep on your mind that when you give the player an ability to compell monsters to do something, some of the monsters, or perhaps all of them could get the same options and suddenly the player could find himself taking the same medicine.
There are already certain limited marking powers. Paladin's smite and Cavalier's Challenge. Perhaps these mechanics somewhat weakened would be a good rules base for your house rules on this.
All I have to add is I've used the "minion" thing since 1e. Someone mentioned it as "cinematic combat", and that's exactly why I use it.
• Minions: This seems relatively easy to add to me and I think can be lifted whole cloth. Has anyone tried this?
I don't like 4E minions. Many 3.5/PF monsters are already defacto minions as it is, hence I cannot see the necesity for this.
• Skill Challenges: This I expect to be trickier to add given the wide open variance of skill levels among players. My gut reaction is to adopt a 4E like approach to skills so that Skill Challenges will be a viable activity within game. This would have the side benefit of making NPC generation easier. Anyone who has tried Skill Challenges in 3.5 or Pathfinder I’d love to hear your experiences.
I hate, hate, hate skill challenges.
• Dynamic Combats: I liked that 4E had made virtually all forms of attacks into standard actions, including multiple weapon attacks. This made it so that the player’s move action never needed to expended on anything other than actually moving. Any thoughts on a way to incorporate this into Pathfinder?
I HATE this... even worse than skill challenges.
• Simplified Conditions and Modifiers: This addresses the High Calculation Combat Effects issue that I had with 3.5 (see part one). Penalties applied to fixed traits like attack, defense, skill use, action availability, etc. No Con drain or caster level changes. I’m considering adopting a similar condition track and then creating a condition that applies specific penalties in place of ability drain (a con drained modifier). Anyone tried anything like this?
The current conditions system works great. No need for revision as far as I am concerned.
• Simplified Attacks of Opportunity: Only two things provoke and they always provoke (unlimited AoOs available to everyone). This made tracking AoO availability and provocation very simple and straightforward. I’d like to adopt it, but I’m concerned about balance issues as certain actions are balanced by AoOs. I’d definitely add Combat Maneuvers as something that provokes as well.
PF's way of handling AoO works better for me than the 4E OA system.
• Passive Senses: Also easily added to Pathfinder I suspect by simply stating that under normal circumstances everyone is taking 10 on Perception and Sense Motive checks. Thoughts?
Love it. I have done this while GMing for years.
• Decentralized Healing: Healing surges were both a boon and a bane to my party. Some people found them highly unrealistic and magical in nature. I saw them as akin to Vitality Points as used in the Star Wars d20 RPG (pre Saga Edition). Would using Vitality/Wound points perhaps allow a similar dynamic of reducing dependence on healers by allowing easy healing between combats?
This might be OK as an optional rule for parties without healers.
For standard play I personally prefer the healer system established in the original D&D and carried on by PF.• Defender Viability (marking): I liked that a tank had a way to demand the attention of a given enemy or penalize him for going after someone else. I’ve been considering a feat chain that would allow a marking mechanic into the game for those interested in taking it. Has anyone tried something like this?
The current feats Step Up, Disruptive etc. already bring this element into play.
Without wanting to sound accusatory I think it sounds, like you basically want to turn PF into 4E. I don't know if that is the correct impression, but if it is I would rather suggest you incorporate the elements of PF into your current 4E campaign is it would probably be easier.
I also know of players who have adopted PF classes into 4E with relative success.
By the way... have you ever tried the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana? More specifically the Reserve Points or perhaps some other options found on d20 SRD? This could help with decentralised healing somewhat.
By the way... have you ever tried the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana? More specifically the Reserve Points or perhaps some other options found on d20 SRD? This could help with decentralised healing somewhat.
I tried that in 3.5 and it wasn't half bad.
Zmar,
Neither the paladin or cavalier abilities seem like they would encourage the creature to specifically fight the paladin or the cavalier. The smite actually seem like it would encourage the monster to attack other members of the party (since the paladin's AC is actually higher whilst smiting).
The thing I like about marking is that it can be used on the PCs and it has the exact same effect on them that it does on the monster. It encourages a course of action but does not force it. It basically just imposes a penalty which the PCs/monsters can choose to accept if a better course of action is available. If I added something like a taunt mechanic with a will save then the PCs would rightfully expect that when that will save is failed the monster would behave the way they want. If I reversed this on the PCs then I'm taking over their characters. I want something that can work for both PCs and monsters and marking still seems the best option.
I agree that the reserve points would work for some groups, but mine is a group that dislikes book keeping and I suspect that tracking a second set of hit points could get confusing. But I won't rule it out, my current idea of maximized spells with rest doesn't really reduce the demand on divine casters, so It's definitely not an ideal answer. I considered buffing up the usefulness of the Heal skill, but it is also largely the domain of the divine casters (though with PF's lack of cross class penalty anyone could pick it up).
That's why I said to use them as a base, not as they are ;)
Zmar,
Neither the paladin or cavalier abilities seem like they would encourage the creature to specifically fight the paladin or the cavalier. The smite actually seem like it would encourage the monster to attack other members of the party (since the paladin's AC is actually higher whilst smiting).The thing I like about marking is that it can be used on the PCs and it has the exact same effect on them that it does on the monster. It encourages a course of action but does not force it. It basically just imposes a penalty which the PCs/monsters can choose to accept if a better course of action is available. If I added something like a taunt mechanic with a will save then the PCs would rightfully expect that when that will save is failed the monster would behave the way they want. If I reversed this on the PCs then I'm taking over their characters. I want something that can work for both PCs and monsters and marking still seems the best option.
I agree that the reserve points would work for some groups, but mine is a group that dislikes book keeping and I suspect that tracking a second set of hit points could get confusing. But I won't rule it out, my current idea of maximized spells with rest doesn't really reduce the demand on divine casters, so It's definitely not an ideal answer. I considered buffing up the usefulness of the Heal skill, but it is also largely the domain of the divine casters (though with PF's lack of cross class penalty anyone could pick it up).
I don't think that any marking mechanic should be able to force anybody, npc or pc, to be under the control of anybody else. The problem with not building in some kind of defense is that pretty much every other effect in Pathfinder that directly effects a creature, and most of the effects that indirectly effect creatures, allow some kind of defense mechanism. To not have one for marking would make it much more powerful than just about any other option.
If I were to include it, I would probably add a "distract" function to Intimidate that, if successful, would impose a penalty to any action taken that does not involve the person doing the distracting. I would also add feats that would allow someone to attempt to distract an opponent for free on things like successful combat maneuvers, spell casting, readied attacks, charges that end with a successful hit, and other triggers like the use of things like the step up, disruptive, and similar feats. This way, it still requires beating someone's defenses, so no creature, PC or NPC, is forced to do anything completely against their will, and it is available to everyone, though the feats (which would be combat feats) would be more accessible to fighters and other with bonus feats.
Zmar, you did indeed :)
Sunshadow 21, that's a good point about it being the only penalty that can be applied to an adversary automatically. To some extent I don't mind that because I still feel that the melee classes are underpowered at high levels and this would help with that, but I can't deny that you make a good case.
Maybe there's a way to make a 'distract' combat maneuver with an improved distract feat that reduces the action cost. So as a standard action anyone can impose the penalty after beating the targets CMD and the penalty would persist for as long as they continued to engage the target in melee (this maneuver would not provoke an AoO). With the improved distract feat they could use a swift action as part of a standard attack action or an attack of opportunity to mark a foe (and gain a +2 to CMB for the maneuver). The penalty would remain the same as my previous suggestion, -2 until 12th level, then -4, attacking other than the marking creature grants a free melee attack to the marking creature.
Does that sound more reasonable?
Paladin could be easily modified to throw up an aura let's call it Righteous Fury (replaces Smite Evil) that would give anyone else than paladin within 20 ft or so +2 Holy bonus to AC and saves and give pally a + CHA bonus to attack and damage until the end of paladin's next turn on any evil target that within this range attacked paladin's ally. Duration and ending conditions could be the same as with smite with the exception that the effect would end if the paladin tried to protect an evil person and so on.
That's not a bad idea Zmar, but it is limited to paladins and I want this to be a more widely available option.
sunshadow21 got me thinking about combat maneuvers, but then I remembered how much I agreed with Cartigan's earlier point that CMB simply isn't effective against many monsters that you would want to use marking against. Then I realized that sunshadow21's main point was that the penalty was too easily applied compared to other penalties in Pathfinder.
What if marking provided a carrot instead of a rod? What if the marked creature receives a +2 bonus to damage (+4 after 10th level) against the defender (and a +1 or +2 bonus to ability DCs)? Then, if the marked creature makes an attack that doesn't include the defender, the defender gets a free attack with the same damage bonus.
That seems like it would entice the enemy to take an extra shot at the defender and penalize him for ignoring the defender, without automatically applying the penalty that sunshadow21 rightly pointed out was probably unbalancing.
Having the marking be a penalty or potential bonus doesn't make much difference. Your idea of making feats to speed up the action economy is one I mentioned briefly myself, and has precedent with all the feint feats out there. Making it a carrot rather than a penalty would be an interesting way of playing it out though, making the opponent choose between the easier hit or the possibly far bigger threat behind it.
... Defender viability is a tricky one, but really 4E didn't do a great job with it either. Fighters are poor defenders, but paladins were great ones (-2 to attacks vs not-fighter, compared to shweet holy damage vs not paladin), and that's just in core; but Fighters are built as defenders, so I question the "balance" they were looking for....A bit off topic...
Can you please explain how the fighter was a poor defender, while the paladin was great?
Fighter: Marks target by attacking it (multiple marks possible if you have more than one target), marks last until the end of your next turn. Mark gives -2 attack if the Fighter is not targeted as well. If adjecent marked target tries to shift or attack anyone else than marking Fighter, the fighter gets a basic attack against it (unless errat'd it's not AoO though, so the target can get whacked again if it tries to attack again via action point and then get an AoO while moving away). Fighter also gets his WIS bonus to AoO and if the AoO hits the target's movement is interupted.
Paladin: Marks as an at-will minor action once per turn on one target within 5 squares, can have only one mark at time. Mark gives -2 attack if the Paladin is not targeted as well. If marked target tries to attack anyone else than marking Paladin for the first time in it's turn, it suffers 3+CHA bonus radiant damage (6+CHA bonus on 11th, 9+CHA bonus on 21st). You mut either end your turn adjecent to the marked target, attack it, or challenge a different target. If you don't end-up adjecent to marked creature or attack it, your Divine Challenge (marking ability) is disabled next turn.
Overall the Fighter does more damage while the Paladin does it more reliably, but I can't see the Fighter being disadvantaged.
Basically it comes down to two things. 1) The fighter can mark multiple foes for a -2, which is nice, but as noted by another poster, the guys they will want to hit are likely to have significantly lower ACs anyway. Provoking an attack if they shift or attack is nice, but high AC opponents like soldiers can easily avoid this; and if they can keep out of the fighter's melee reach (say due to terrain) then they can just laugh at him and attack the ranger or whomever does the killing. Likewise, core fighters really don't do much damage compared to enemy Hp (even with a two handed sword), and a poor roll makes the damage trivial.
Paladins can happily focus on Charisma, making their 3/6/9+Charisma a fairly solid hit. At 1st level, you can easily inflict 7 damage on an enemy who attacks anyone but you, and you inflict the -2 penalty just the same, and it can be done to anyone within 5 squares; you don't even need to be near them; which means that you can attack them with a ranged weapon (even if you miss and/or have a very poor attack modifier) or use a prayer and it remains. This means that even if your Paladin cannot reach the target, you're giving them a lot to think about since you're inflicting both a -2 and steady damage every round that an enemy ignores you; and honestly, if the enemy cannot engage you, then they're pretty much boned.
Let's see. At 7 damage per round if they attack someone other than you, you would outright kill a level 6 gnoll claw fighter (level 6 skirmisher) in 10 rounds. If you're actively engaging it in melee, you're also dealing either weapon damage + charisma and inflicting an additional -2 penalty to its attacks (-2 vs you, -4 vs anyone else) with Enfeebling Strike, or you're dealing the same damage with Bolstering Strike and also soaking damage by gaining Temporary HP; allowing you to mark & tank without consuming as many healing surges.
As your charisma increases, the damage just continues to increase as well. At level 21, you're dealing 9 + Charisma (say 19 damage, going from memory it seems like you could easily sport a +10 by this point, but I forget); which is enough static damage that it gives enemies pause. The biggest problem with the Fighter mark, that I saw during my trial with 4E was that it was great while opponents were in melee with you; but in many cases it was easy enough to just ignore the fighter's extra hit (not enough damage, fair % chance to avoid the hit entirely), or the fighter really had difficulties if terrain hampered his ability to attack them in melee. The Paladin had none of these problems; and his mark dealt more damage than the Fighter's attacks; and if he actively was engaging enemies, he tended to tank and damage adequately.
I guess if the NPCs happily dive into the Fighters so they can get glued to them, then the Fighter's mark is nice. Otherwise, I always found the Paladin mark to be more versatile; since 9/10 times our Fighters rarely got to mark more than maybe 2 enemies anyway.
EDIT: Also the Paladin's mark pretty much forces any minion you mark with it to attack you or assuredly die with 100% certainty, so you can mark a minion on your turn, attack a different minion. This was particularly useful when dealing with clusters of archer minions or other kinds that had ranged attacks; since the Paladin could force them to attack him.
Or you could just maneuver so that you're in between the bad guy and your supporting friends. That's a very acceptable method of tanking - play better. You can even provoke AoO's ON PURPOSE so that the enemies can't use those attacks of opportunity on your allies. If you have a high-AC character, this is quite viable. I don't see the need for feats that allow your character to do what your player should be capable of doing.
Combat Harrassment and Retributive Protection look like fun feats, but as a player I think I could abuse the HECK out of them. Especially retributive protection.
"Yes, I have a reach weapon and you can't get to me with a five-foot step. And if you attack anyone other than me, I will attack you with a sizable bonus to my attack. Oh, you're making four attacks? Fancy that, I have four attacks of opportunity."
I'd make it a standard action to invoke the retributive protection, and then an immediate action to attack. I would also make Combat Expertise a prerequisite. This removes a significant amount of cheese.
Combat harassment started out as a great idea, but why not just make an Aid Another action to grant your ally +2 to their attacks? And then make a feat that allows you to Aid Another with all your allies fighting a certain enemy? You want to be able to attack while doing so? This seems wrong and too powerful to me.
As for the reach weapon + combat reflexes, that's pretty much the idea, actually. Setting up tactical situations where you damn them if they do, or damn them if they don't. By that point, it may just be better for them to retreat an attack with ranged weapons, but in any case it will be put on the defensive.
Combat Harassment lowers your attack rolls against a target but makes them more vulnerable to attacks by your allies. It offers the user no benefit, but makes them more dangerous indirectly because they can apply a harsh de-buff to their enemies, while continuing to actually engage them in combat, making you seem more threatening. It's not ideal for a damage dealer (better to have Power Attack and convert that same -6 hit into +18 damage), but it's a very solid bet if you have a rogue friend, a barbarian friend, or any other friends who also make use of hitting things as their primary combat routine.
It was also recently errata'd to an equal penalty (as opposed to 2:1, it's now -1/-1 to your hit/their AC vs your allies).
Marking in Pathfinder has a couple of problems. First the "tank" classes
don't have the big starting pool of hit points that they would have in 4e. Second, combat
is less movement oriented than 4e combat.
To introduce this style into pathfinder is not impossible though. You simply have to make a couple of design concessions. The first thing we need is to make a mechanic that is capable of making a monster want to attack the fighter instead of the other party members. This effect can't be so powerful that it cripples the monster if it attacks another party member but it also must not be to weak either.
I suggest a couple of combat techniques to make threatening monster effective.
1): Combat Control
This technique allows a fighter to threaten an opponent within reach in melee combat. If an opponent who is within reach attempts to move away from the fighter they provoke an attack of opportunity. If the attack hits then the monster must make a reflex saving throw against a DC equal to half of the damage it recieved or it finds itself unable to move away as the fighter hinders it's ability to move.
2): Combat Challenge
This combat technique allows a fighter to hinder an opponent with in reach of it's melee attacks if it chooses to attack a target other than the fighter. When a monster attacks a target other than the fighter it provokes an attack of opportunity from the fighter using this technique. If the attack hits the monster takes -2 penalty to the attack roll and the attack deals half damage instead of it's normal amount. If the attack has a saving throw then any one targeted by the effect get a +4 bonus to their saving throw attempt. Spellcasters who cast defensively are not subject to this effect as long as they are successful in their check.
A fighter can only use these techniques on a monster within melee reach. The fighter must choose a single target and declare that they are marking the monster as their target. A fighter may only mark a single creature at a time and may never have more than one creature marked at any point. Marking a creature is a free action and a new target may be declared as a free action once per round.
Anyways I hope these help some.
On Skill Challenges:
Pathfinder already has the basics for a Skill Challenge system in the Chase rules. Just replace physical skills with any appropriate one or two. Used in combination with page 42 for Pathfinder by the_gneech, you should have no trouble making a robust and complex skill "encounter". If you wish even use elements of Complex Skill Check
Hey, thanks for the shout-out! :) re: my "Page 42" stuff, there's a slightly updated version on my blog:
http://gneech.com/rpg/page-42-for-pathfinder-revisited/
...which includes a print-friendly version.
re: Minions, I did try a few variations (which you can read about here if interested: http://the-gneech.livejournal.com/1751709.html ), but in the end I ended up using low-CR monsters and giving them cheesy equipment -- Ogre with a +3 greatclub, baby! -- so that they’d actually have a chance to hit the AC 30+ monster PCs I've got. But then when the ogre goes down, what actually "drops" is the regular gear you'd expect to see on an ogre.
-The Gneech
Oh, and re: marking, we've been playing around with a house rule that allows someone with ranks in Intimidate to challenge a single target as a move action; the target makes a Will save with a DC of the challenger's Intimidate check. If the save succeeds, the target acts normally; if the target fails, they react to the challenger as their next action (with "react" being defined generally as "attack" or "flee").
Thing is, "marking" evolved in MMOs as a way of creating artificial intelligence for the monsters. Monsters in tabletop games already have intelligence, i.e. the GM, so it's something that really should be mostly left in the realm of roleplaying, at least in my opinion. That's why the challenge costs an action, and at most will make the foe change a single action.
-The Gneech
4E generic figther basic attack on lvl 7
+3 1/2 level
+3 STR (assuming base 16, now 17 after increase)
+1 weapon talent
+2 proficiency
+2 magic
+11 total... it can be easily brought to +13 while alone (strength and better proficiency), +15 with advantage, another +2 with cleric's Lance of Faith or aid. With other possible buffs and aids and I think we can safely assume that the total attacks will be about +15 regularly. lvl 10 elites often have 25, soldiers around lvl 8 are somewhere around 24-22. Assume some debuff from the group and I guess you can roll about 7 to hit even with basic attacks (not counting things like WIS bonus to AoO). That's not that shabby chance IMO.
Now, toward damage
+3 STR
+2 magic
+1 focus
+1 Weapon talent
+1d8 weapon
That's 11 vs paladin's 7 (assuming CHA 18), at very base. Now with strength, two-hander, And some feats it can be easily 15.
It would take different approach than with the paladin, but I think it's safe to assume that these two would be roughly even with their tanking.
Heh, my immediate reaction is "well, play 4e then! It's a great game and does all these things!"
I sold all my 4e stuff the other day.....thank you eBay.....and bought more Pathfinder books and AP if that tells you anything about 4e mechanics.
Heh, my immediate reaction is "well, play 4e then! It's a great game and does all these things!"I sold all my 4e stuff the other day.....thank you eBay.....and bought more Pathfinder books and AP if that tells you anything about 4e mechanics.
Not really, it tells me that as a whole you did not like the collected mechanics/game (which is your right and grats that ebay helped finance your recent purchases) not whether a subset of those mechanics (some of which other games used and predate 4ed by, ohh a decade or more) could be utilized in a pathfinder OGL system.
Would you please elaborate for me so I better understand what you are getting at?
I'll just comment on what I know, because I've also included some 4E into my PF house rules.
• Passive Senses: Also easily added to Pathfinder I suspect by simply stating that under normal circumstances everyone is taking 10 on Perception and Sense Motive checks. Thoughts?
I did this and it makes sense, because we don't to waste time with people asking me all the time, especially on basics like doors.
I also did the same thing with Knowledge skills and skills in general, where the character would know but the player might not.
Also, I find there's too much variation when both the stealth and perception rolls use a D20. Using this method, even master thieves end up failing a lot. I don't like that and it's a lot easier to have the rogue roll stealth and have him beat everyone's Perception + 10.
• Decentralized Healing: Healing surges were both a boon and a bane to my party. Some people found them highly unrealistic and magical in nature. I saw them as akin to Vitality Points as used in the Star Wars d20 RPG (pre Saga Edition). Would using Vitality/Wound points perhaps allow a similar dynamic of reducing dependence on healers by allowing easy healing between combats?
Yup, I modified the system to include healing surges. Works great. My players appreciate it too, although healers are still useful, we're not forced to have them and they're not forced to heal. It also removes the cheesiness of using wands of cure light wounds just to keep us moving.
I also:
- Made wizard and sorcs 1st level abilities at-will and boosted their damage a bit.
- Made Greater Weapon Finesse for rogues, monks, bards, which allows them to add their Dex bonus to damage instead of str, as precision damage. There are more details I'm not going to get into...
- Gave everyone 6 more hp at first level
- Allow rituals if they don't have a spell memorized
Heh, my immediate reaction is "well, play 4e then! It's a great game and does all these things!"I sold all my 4e stuff the other day.....thank you eBay.....and bought more Pathfinder books and AP if that tells you anything about 4e mechanics.Not really, it tells me that as a whole you did not like the collected mechanics/game (which is your right and grats that ebay helped finance your recent purchases) not whether a subset of those mechanics (some of which other games used and predate 4ed by, ohh a decade or more) could be utilized in a pathfinder OGL system.
Would you please elaborate for me so I better understand what you are getting at?
AS a GM you can make them work anyway you want.....which is the bottom line but getting your players to buy off on your system is another matter. Both systems core mechanics are so different that making them mesh will be hard to do and your homebrew rules would be extensive. If you want to create your own system as a combo of the two knock yourself out. But they are two distinctively different systems and you could only play at the margins of the mechanics to make a new system work without re-inventing the whole.