Flanking in TT only requires there be two attackers on opposite sides and threatening the target. An extra feat and then position doesn't matter at all if there is 3 ppl threatening.
And yes, being blasted through a building by a mage pretty much destroys all thinking of being melee type of character. It needs fixing soon.
So could, to make it video gameable, have it be something like flank will come into effect within x seconds of when a character is damaged by another player.
Or extend that to damages another player. Then, mechanically theyd be major dpsd any time they ignored the rogue or if they were just swamped, the rouge would be doing more dps than the fighter (assuming the rhythm was right.)
Or as you said plus three, and its all day.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always found that D&D (and by extension Pathfinder) rulesets were pretty sub-standard from a mechanical standpoint ("fighting words" I'm sure on this forum). Their real advantage is that they are so common that everyone and thier brother is familiar with them (kinda like McDonalds) so it's really easy to put together a game/campaign for people without needing to get everyone to invest in in learning an entirely different ruleset.
When playing with my regular group of friends/gaming group, when I used to do that on a regular basis, we almost never used D&D rulesets. It's easy enough mechanicaly to have a player in a TableTop game designate thier facing...even with longer rounds where they could turn around there would still be a "I'm trying to concentrate the majority of my attention here"....if they are concentrating the majority of thier attention against the opponent that could do them the most damage if they don't, that's called "good tactics" not an exploit... it does leave them open for the other opponent to exploit if positioned properly... ymmv.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There has to be a distinction between TT rules and the way things play in a video game. I don't believe it is avoidable, but how can we know until we actually try?
But if there are things that are inherited from tabletop that simply don't work well I hope GW and Paizo can recognize that and adapt for the virtual environment. I'm not asserting that TT rules can or cannot work with regard to combat mechanics, only that it will be difficult to accurately identify where the dividing line should be drawn, even if it should.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFO does not eschew facing because of tabletop rule inheritance. PFO eschews facing because of the technical limitations of massively-multiplayer online gaming, and the other mechanics that would have to be sacrificed in order to enable it.
The fact that PF TT also has no facing makes it easier to appeal to history for additional support of that decision, but it's not the driver.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've always found that D&D (and by extension Pathfinder) rulesets were pretty sub-standard from a mechanical standpoint ("fighting words" I'm sure on this forum). Their real advantage is that they are so common that everyone and thier brother is familiar with them (kinda like McDonalds) so it's really easy to put together a game/campaign for people without needing to get everyone to invest in in learning an entirely different ruleset.
When playing with my regular group of friends/gaming group, when I used to do that on a regular basis, we almost never used D&D rulesets. It's easy enough mechanicaly to have a player in a TableTop game designate thier facing...even with longer rounds where they could turn around there would still be a "I'm trying to concentrate the majority of my attention here"....if they are concentrating the majority of thier attention against the opponent that could do them the most damage if they don't, that's called "good tactics" not an exploit... it does leave them open for the other opponent to exploit if positioned properly... ymmv.
In terms of mechanics, I was partial to RoleMaster (RuleMonster), but yes, it's always been easier to find players for D&D or (these days) Pathfinder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PFO does not eschew facing because of tabletop rule inheritance. PFO eschews facing because of the technical limitations of massively-multiplayer online gaming, and the other mechanics that would have to be sacrificed in order to enable it.
The fact that PF TT also has no facing makes it easier to appeal to history for additional support of that decision, but it's not the driver.
Well there is facing in TT pathfinder but only in very limited situations. Tower Shields for example.
I have the impression facing may matter once we get formation tactics but do not quote me on that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PFO does not eschew facing because of tabletop rule inheritance. PFO eschews facing because of the technical limitations of massively-multiplayer online gaming, and the other mechanics that would have to be sacrificed in order to enable it.
The fact that PF TT also has no facing makes it easier to appeal to history for additional support of that decision, but it's not the driver.
Well there is facing in TT pathfinder but only in very limited situations. Tower Shields for example.
I have the impression facing may matter once we get formation tactics but do not quote me on that.
And even that still isn't facing, not really - you choose where you place your wall-shield, but there is nothing mechanically that stops you interacting with things behind you (as long as you use your other hand to do it).
