Arne Schmidt's page

I think it would be nice if shields offered a greater ability to negate AoOs. An AoO is supposed to represent dropping your guard to take a distracting action, but a shield could reasonably be used to take an action while maintaining cover.

My thought is that if you were wielding a shield (not a buckler) you could spend a move action to negate any AoOs for a provoking action. So you could take a move action through hostile foes actively using your shield to ward off the blows, drink a potion, pick up a dropped weapon, stand from prone, etc by using your shield as cover.

I think this would make sword and board a more attractive option and keep the shield defensive rather than turning it into just another off-hand weapon.

I recommend an extremely rigid caste system upon which your entire social and political status depends. Upward movement through the cast system would be extremely difficult while downward movement would be extremely easy.

Be sure to include an outcast or untouchable caste at the bottom which they don't even acknowledge the existence of, but which everyone is terrified of becoming.

Also slave would be a valid rank, above outcast, since a slave has value.

You'd also need to figure out how foreigners fit into the system.

The caste system could affect all aspects of life. Different castes would have different rights (such as what property they can own, what laws apply to them, use and ownership of weapons, access to training and school, what they wear, the ability to own or practice magic, etc.). Some castes might dictate certain fashions so that they can be easily identified (especially the upper classes who expect obediance on sight, etc).

Just some thoughts.

It is possible that the use of lower iterative attacks to make CMB checks was intentional. It might help explain the higher base DC. If your iterative attacks have little chance of hitting the opponents AC it encourages you to take the risk of trying to disarm, sunder, etc with an attack that might otherwise be useless.

Seems to me that being able to use lower iteratives for CMB checks encourages CMB checks despite the high base difficulty.

My players have been using a variant that goes like this for several adventures now. They're currently 11th level.

Anyone making a full attack may sacrifice an attack to gain a number of feet of movement equal to their speed divided by the number of attacks they have available. Attacks gained from speed effects (haste, speed weapons, etc) must be sacrificed first.

So a player with a move of 60 and 4 attacks (2 iterative, haste, and twf) gains 15 feet of movement for sacrificing the haste attack or 30 feet of movement for sacrificing haste and their lowest iterative. This movement may be may be taken before, after or between attacks, but must be used all at once. So they could attack, drop a foe, sacrifice an attack for move, move to a new foe, and use their remaining attacks.

The only clunky part of it is tracking the amount of movement they have relative to changing speeds and attacks, but basically I've had them come up with a short list of what happens at their various speeds and numbers of attacks.

This has brought our primary fighter much closer to the effectiveness of the sorceror in the party since it gives her the opportunity to affect more targets (something the sorceror almost never has a problem with).

I'm sure part of the reason is that a pure delay that interrupts is always the best choice. So everyone takes it. So when does anyone act?

The Intecept action would be a very specific type of interrupt that requires a lot of things to be in place and has a lot of restrictions.

-They must be within a distance equal to your speed.
-There must be an unobstructed straight-line to the target.
-The target must be at least 10 feet away at the time of charge (can't use it against an adjacent target)
-Your attack must be a melee attack.
-You take an AC penalty until your next turn.

So the intercept action is only a better option if you're a melee combatant at range. Adjacent meleers, archers, spellcasters, etc would still use a standard ready action (unless they were going for something very specific with an intercept).

To clarify: by the existing 3.5 rules a delayed action cannot be used to interrupt an action performed by another character (It is specifically prohibited in the delay action text). If you delay your initiative and they begin casting a spell the soonest you can act is once their action is complete (the following initiative count). I believe this is to keep delaying an action from being used as an open ended ready action (that is a ready action with no trigger requirements and allowing a full action instead of a standard action).

IMO The best option still seems to be an Intercept action which is a full-round action that allows a charge of distance equal to your speed as an immediate action that can interrupt someone else's action.

I like the idea, but the current one is a bit too potent.

When would a fighter/monk/etc ever take any other action? This allows him to move, full attack, and interrupt actions. It is hands down better than any other option the fighter has. The only limiter on it currently appears to be that it is triggered by a single enemy. Of course this is only a limiter if there's more than one enemy or more than one enemy that is a real threat (for example, a boss surrounded by ignorable minions is still only a single real threat).

The intercept action shouldn't be better than a charge IMO. I'd be much more inclined to allow an Intercept Action as a full round ready action that prepares a partial charage (move your speed and attack, +2 atk, -2 AC). Which the fighter can trigger as an immediate action at will against any target he can see.

This allows the fighter to intercept and interrupt with more versatility (he can pick targets) but doesn't allow him to do more than he could have done on his turn. The charge also simulates the need to move quickly and makes terrain an interesting factor (since difficult terrain prevents the charge).

The fighter can still grapple, trip, bull rush, etc using the charge and the attack bonus makes it more likely to be dramatic and successful.

Just my 2 cents.

Could someone post a link to the other version of this thread? I couldn't find it.

I'm running a sea-faring campaign currently. One of the things I hated about Stormwrack was the way that there were basically aquatic versions of elves, humans, and halflings.

So I decided if the humanoid was the basic form of life on land then the merfolk was the basic form of life under the sea.

So I made different tribes of merfolk with different philosophies and physical characteristics.

The Malenti- are elf-like in appearance and demeanor. They are guardians of the sea.

The Eadro- are the most numerous of the merfolk and are city builders. They are the standard merfolk seen in the monster manual.

The Darfellan- resemble killer whales and live a nomadic life as hunters.

The Aventi- most resemble humans in skin-tone and body style and are a noble warrior tribe.

The Sheol- are small, fast merfolk who dwell in small villages and around Eadro cities. They are the best farmers of the merfolk (like halflings).

This made the merfolk a much more interesting race to me. I also made spells from Stormwrack that let them adventure out of the sea a little easier to come by.

I combined Climb, Jump, and Swim into Athletics in my campaign and it has worked great. My players love it and it makes my life easier as a DM.

The main reason that having Athletics and Acrobatics combine the str and dex skills is great for me as a DM is that I don't have to worry about terrain challenges that are impossible for the players to overcome because they're good at one type of movement and bad at another. I can design my combats with a much wider variety of physical challenges and I don't have to keep thinking 'oh, wait the fighter could jump this chasm, but he can't climb this cliff'. I'm able to just say Athletics DC X, Acrobatics DC Y for any obstacles/ challenges put on the map. So the Athletic/Acrobatic characters get to show off and use their physicality more frequently and more impressively and in a greater variety of situations, which makes it more fun.

As far as the Athletic dervish not being able to swim goes. I had a similar situation with an urban theif who had never been in the water in his life, but had a huge Athletics bonus (for climb and jump). I simply didn't let him apply his skill modifier to swim checks until he had an in-game chance to train up. His athletic focus meant that once he learned to swim he was very, very good at it.

I've revised it for my game as follows:
Turn Undead: Turning and Rebuking Undead works in the following fashion. In niether case does it have any effect upon living beings. Turning Undead deals 1d6 points of damage in a 30 foot radius to undead. This increases by 1d6 at every odd level. The undead may make a Will saving throw (DC 10+ 1/2 cleric level +Cha mod) to reduce the damage by half. Failing the Will save against a turning attempt also stuns the undead for 1 round per level of the cleric. Turn Resistance is applied as a bonus on this saving throw. An evil cleric may rebuke undead with the following effects. Rebuking undead heals 1d6 damage per odd level possessed by the cleric. It removes any stunned condition from a previously failed save against a turning attempt. If the undead fail a save versus a rebuking attempt the cleric may decide to awe the undead for a number of rounds equal to his cleric level. If his effective hit dice is double the hit dice of the undead it falls under his command. An evil cleric can command no more than twice his hit dice in undead through this power. He may decide to release previously commanded undead in order to command new undead or to leave the newly affected undead free.

And this is how I handle Fear Effects:
Fear Effects:
Shaken: as in the PHB, -2 penalty to attacks, saves, skill and ability checks.

Frightened: -4 penalty to attacks, saves, skills, and ability checks. Spellcraft DC 10+ spell level or lose any spell cast while frightened.

Panicked: As frightened but you drop anything held, must use one move action to immediately move away from the source of your fear, and are incapable of directly attacking the source of your fear. Spellcraft DC 20+ spell level or lose any spell cast while panicked (you may still target an area effect that will encompass the source of your fear).

PCs may continue to act under these conditions. Frightened or Panicked NPCs typically flee if they are experiencing a penalty equal to or greater than their will save bonus (if they now have a negative modifier). Magical fear effects can be removed using dispel magic, but it leaves the target shaken for the remainder of the effects duration. Remove fear will completely remove all fear from the subject. Certain events such as a directly imperiled loved one (not merely a comrade, but a lover, child, or parent) may allow an additional save to reduce the condition to shaken.

Special Note: PCs may chose to react to fear according to the standard rules (that is fleeing, but with only the penalties for being shaken) or remain and take the penalties listed above (despite their enormous vulnerability).

What about treating them in a fashion similar to Pathfinder's affliction rules?

Thus the effect in question (whether it be death, paralysis, feeblemind, whatever) has a recurring effect (frequency) that goes on each round and will eventually lead to the conditon in question (dead, turned to stone, paralyzed, etc).

Like the more powerful afflictions they could have steeper requirements for stopping the effects. A powerful death effect might require two consequtive saves to stop the Con damage. They could also require caster level checks to successfully remove with magic.

While this certainly doesn't maintain the "Instant Death" feel of save or die spells it could certainly introduce some suspense and apprehension into the game.

There's a feat in the PHB 2 called Agile Shield Fighter. It's basically TWF with a shield with no dex prerequisite. Since Pathfinder is supposed to allow our other books its reasonable to assume it would qualify you for anything TWF does as long as you're using a shield.

Montalve,
Thanks for suggesting Corsair. I purchased the pdf last night and I think it will be an excellent tool for my sea-faring campaign.

I'll be using Corsair's rules for ship combat and damage, ship repair, and ship customization.
I'll be using the mob rules from DMG II for boarding actions and shipboard battles (because I can't see how the PCs or monsters fit into Corsair's crew combat rules).
I'll be using the morale rules and arrow volley rules from Heroes of Battle.
And I'll be using the maneuverability rules from Stormwrack.

I have some details to work out to make all of these systems play nice together but I think the combination is going to be great for my campaign.

The Pathfinder Bard can. Their Lore Master class feature lets them take 10 on Knowledge checks at will and take 20 on a certain number of knowledge checks per day (1/day at 5th, 2/day at 11th, 3/day at 17th).

But you have to keep in mind that in 3.5 the mob/military unit still provokes an AoO for the grapple attempt (they don't have improved grab) and they have a very low armor class. If they take any damage from the AoO the grapple attempt automatically fails.

In pathfinder they have a lower grapple bonus (due to the size change),and if the AoO hits, the damage is added to the Combat Maneuver DC for the grapple.

Plus mob/military units tend to have much lower strengths than a typical Gargantuan CR 8 monster.

So in either case the grapple has a much lower chance of success than against a normal monster of the unit's size. And in Pathfinder being grappled only provides a -2 penalty to melee attacks.

I'm not sure why you think the fighter needs a ring of freedom of movement to succeed. My 8th level players (including the fighter/bard and the barbarian) have little trouble making hash out of mobs.

I should mention that another of my mob house rules grants a +1d6 cumulative damage bonus for each of the following feats: cleave, great cleave, combat reflexes, and +2d6 for whirlwind attack. That is because the mob mechanic robs these feats of the mechanics that normally activate them. So this is how I compensate the players for that change. So a barbarian with Great Cleave gets +2d6 on every attack against a mob since he'll never trigger a cleave attack.

That's really nothing more than a way of describing the fight. Sure an undisciplined mob is described as pulling the character down in a grapple, but a disciplined military unit is described as having pinned down the character with shields and polearms. It's still a grapple but described differently. And the unit still does its normal weapon damage each round in addition to grapple damage (which is also 5d6) so you can really describe it as them overwhelming the guy they've grappled (who is now taking 10d6 damage per round).

I actually give military units certain advantages over standard mobs. They do 5d8 damage instead of 5d6, they can fire arrow volleys (per Heroes of Battle), higher AC due to armor, higher Con (more hp), the outer edge is considered to have reach weapons (so AoOs are possible), and so on.

It is definitely true though that your players need to be comfortable with a higher level of abstraction to use this system. But then most larger scale systems are more abstracted so there you go.

Thanks, its worked well for me so far. And I've created a bunch of house rules to make it work a bit better.

Some people object to the level of abstraction that the mob rules creatue, specifically things like fireballs not killing everyone in the mob that they hit. But my players quickly figured out that the smart move was to use area effects the same way as normal. Don't center it on a mob, try to hit as many mobs as possible with the fireball. Since they take +50% damage from area effects the results can be quite impressive.

For large scale battles I use the mob rules. I treat 50 enemies as a single Gargantuan 30 hd humanoid/swarm that does 5d6 damage to anyone whose square it occupies. Each mob is CR 8. The full mob rules can be found in the DMG 2 or in an issue of Dragon Magazine (one of the Shackled City adventures featured their first apppearance).

So if the PCs are engaged in a fight against 500 foes there are 10 enemy mobs. If they're supported by 200 allies there are 4 friendly mobs. If there are more enemies than that I'm likely to describe that narratively and simply have the battle hinge on what happens in the PCs portion of the fight.

I also use the rules for siege weapons and arrow volleys from Heroes of Battle.

It's certainly not that I think your idea is a bad one it just doesn't answer my particular concerns.

I considered the math issue, but I think it's doable especially since you can always pre-calculate the numbers for yourself when hasted and when not hasted. So you just keep them handy. Other than haste/non-haste they shouldn't change much in the course of a single game.

You always round down. So the guy who gets 7.5 feet per attack gets 5 feet or 15 if he sacrifices two attacks (and uses them together instead of broken up).

FYI Cleave/Great Cleave/Combat Reflexes don't affect the system. They just grant you extra attacks whenever they would apply. They have no impact on making a multi-attack (they are niether counted as attack, nor factored into your move amount).

Nice idea, but it doesn't satisfy my criteria. Requiring a 4 feat chain to be able to do this doesn't really address my combat mobility concerns. It's just a new form of specialization available to very few characters.

I want everyone moving more freely.

I'm not worried about the naming since one is an action type and one is a pre-calculated feat that is probably never going to be mentioned in combat. Confusion should be minimal.

I do want to point out that under my multi-attack system you can't multi-attack and exceed your normal movement. Since you divide your speed by the number of attacks it's mathematically impossible to move more than your speed. So if you're going to make one attack you'd take a move and a standard action because that option always allows you the most movement combined with an attack (other than a charge if the criteria is met).

It also allows TWF fighters to move a significant amount and make both TWF attacks (since they're treated as a single iterative attack). So an 11th level TWF ranger could sacrifice 2 iterative attacks, move 2/3 of his speed and make both TWF attacks or 1/3 of his speed and make 4 TWF attacks (2 iterative, 2 off-hand), something he can never do in the RAW.

I think I'm going to try introducing a new kind of full round action called a Multi-attack.

When you make a multi-attack you divide your speed by the number of attacks you get and then for each attack that you sacrifice you may move that amount.
-Extra attacks from speed effects, class abilities, feats using the same weapon are counted just as other attacks are
Example: A hasted monk with flurry of blows and iterative attacks of +11/+6/+1 would be considered to have 5 attacks.
-Cleaves and Attacks of Opportunity are resolved normally.
-Off-hand attacks due to fighting with two weapons must be used and sacrificed in pairs with their equivalent iterative attack.
Example: A ranger 11 with 3 primary hand and 3 off-hand attacks only divides his speed by three.
-Monsters may sacrifice natural attacks in the same way, however multiple natural attacks of the same type are counted in pairs (2 claw attacks, 2 wing attacks, 2 tentacle attacks, etc) and the monster's speed is divided by the number of single attacks and pairs.
Example: A dire bear with a bite and 2 claw attacks is considered to have 2 attacks.
Example: A dragon with a bite, 2 claw attacks, 2 wing attacks, and a tail slap is considered to have 4 attacks.
Example: An octopus with 8 tentacle attacks is considered to have 4 attacks.

Some additional Multi-attack rules:
-Multi-attacks roll damage normally.
-Movement used during a multi-attack provokes Attacks of Opportunity normally.
-Movement gained by sacrificing an attack must be used all at once and cannot be divided into multiple smaller moves.
Example: A fighter with 4 attacks and a speed of 60 gains 15 feet of movement by sacrificing one attack. He cannot attack, move 10', attack, move 5', attack. He could sacrifice two attacks to move 15', attack, move 15', attack -OR- attack, move 30', attack.
-Bonus attacks granted by speed effects (such as haste or boots of speed) must be sacrificed first (that is before the lowest iterative attack can be sacrificed).
-Attacks and moves may be used in any order that the creature prefers to use them (the highest BAB attack need not be the first attack in the multi-attack)
-Off-hand attacks due to fighting with two weapons must be made simultaneous to the comparable primary hand attack, but may target a different creature than the primary hand.
-Monsters with multiple natural attacks of the same type (2 claw attacks, 2 wing attacks, 8 tentacle attacks, etc) must sacrifice those attacks in pairs.
-Spring Attack allows a creature to divide each move into multiple smaller moves (so the fighter in the example above could make use a multi-attack sequence of attack, move 10', attack, move 5', attack if he had the Spring Attack feat). They also do not provoke attacks of opportunity for movement from any creature that they successfully hit during a multi-attack.
-Multi-attack can only be used with melee attacks, not with ranged attacks (though it can be combined with thrown weapons, though rapid shot may not be used to gain an extra attack in this case).

What do you think? How would you feel if your DM introduced this as a house-rule?

I can see that this would simplify the mechanics of melee damage to multiple targets, but I don't see how it would accomplish the goal of encouraging mobility. If a fighter has three targets in reach and can make one attack roll to do damage to all of them without moving, then why move and provoke attacks of opportunity if it isn't absolutely necessary?

It encourages mobility because the fighter is capable of moving his full speed before or after he delivers this multi-attack. Something which is not possible as it stands now. Currently to attack mulitple targets the fighter can move no more than 5'. To get within reach of multiple opponents he must usually move more than 5' which then precludes the ability to attack more than one of them that round. All but one of the targets will have the chance to move away before he is able to deliver any attack on them at all. (Note this may not be the case for characters with reach weapons and combat reflexes since they are depending on AoOs rather than iterative attacks).

It also allows him to disengage after damaging multiple opponents (particularly if he drops them so no AoOs are taken or by tumbling) and seek more advantageous ground for his next round of attacks, or take cover between them since he can move again before making his next multi-attack.

It would be less damage than a successful series of iterative attacks would deliver, but to me that's a fair trade off for the increased mobility, likelihood of being able to deliver damage to multiple targets, and increased damage against single targets. If multi-attack damage was delivered in lots (see my EDIT above) then the fighter could actually dole out the damage more efficiently by delivering enough lots to drop a target and then placing the next lot on another target and so on. This is likely a more efficient use of damage than delivering a full BAB attack for 20 points of damage on a wounded creature with 2 hit points followed by a low BAB attack against a less wounded creature.

Using my suggestion a fighter could move and deliver a multi-attack against multiple foes. Next round he could move to a new group and deliver another multi-attack. It would take the same fighter 4 rounds to accomplish that by the existing rules. Rd 1- move and attack once. Rd 2- full attack. Rd 3- move and attack once. Rd 4- full attack.

Thinking about it now, this could also work for extra attacks from things like haste or weapons of speed. You just add another weapon damage multiplier while haste is in effect. Cleave might be reworked to add a weapon damage multiplier to all remaining targets if you drop one during your multi-attack. Great Cleave could add a multiplier for each foe you drop, and so on.

I'm not sure this is the way to go, but it's an interesting thing to consider.

Okay,
So let's talk about limiting it to a single attack with additional attacks being granted by feats (TWF, rapid shot, cleave), class abilities (flurry of blows), or speed enhancements (haste, weapon of speed, etc).

Dennis Da Ogre has some good points so how do we compensate for these factors?

One possibility that has come up is to replace the iterative attack with a damage bonus, such as a multiple of weapon damage. Each time the fighter gains an iterative attack instead his weapon gains a multiplier to damage. So at 6th level the fighter's longsword does 2d8+bonuses, At 11th 3d8+bonuses and so on. Criticals would add their damage as per the raw (1d8+bonuses). Only standard action attacks would recieve this damage bonus. Bonus attacks (as above) and AoOs would do damage normally (no multiplier).

To handle the fighter's ability to have an area effect (formerly multiple attacks against multiple foes) you instead allow him to use his standard action attack to hit everyone that he threatens but he divides the damage among them. One attack, one damage roll. On a crit you multiply the whole thing. So an 11th level fighter would do 3d8 longsword damage plus bonuses divided among all targets. On a crit he would double all of that divided among all targets (makes a crit with an axe great against multiple foes). Obviously this is a sort of whirlwind attack but whirlwind attack allows you to apply full damage to everyone without dividing it up.

EDIT: or maybe for increased flexibility, the fighter's area attack damage is divided into lots that he can apply to any target he successfully hit with the attack. For example, say the attack delivers 30 points of damage with three possible targets. The damage is divided into 3 lots of 10 points each. So the fighter could do 20 points of damage to one enemy, 10 points to another, and none to the third if he so chose.

I'm not sure how to apply this to monsters with multiple natural attacks though. Maybe they simply get a bonus 5 feet of movement (not a 5 foot step) for each 6 points of BAB they have, but must give up one natural attack to take it. So a monster with BAB +11 could move 15 feet, but would have to give up 2 natural attacks.

Any thoughts/comments?

Interesting. The funny thing is that I've never noted AoOs as the reason my players stop moving around the battlefield. There are plenty of ways to move and still avoid them (tumble, carefully chosen movement, mobility, etc). In most cases if my players want to move they'll just take the AoO and do it anyway.

But once they have access to more than one attack IF they don't move they almost never do. Apparently taking damage is not a big deal, but giving up an attack is unnacceptable...at least to my group.

Thanks Dennis,

I'm also considering looking at it this way:
A full-attack action is traded for a standard attack and a move action.
So each iterative attack is equal to the characters speed divided by the number of attacks he gets. So a ranger with Speed 30 and BAB of +11/+6/+1 could give up each attack for 10 feet of movement and still be considered to be making a full attack.

So he could move 20 feet and make both TWF attacks. Or make both TWF attacks, move 10 feet, and make his second iterative attack.

The only problem I see with this is that as you get more attacks you're actually trading them for less movement. The same ranger with a +16/+11/+6/+1 sequence only gets 7.5 feet per attack sacrificed. But I'm not sure that really matters since it means if he tried the two maneuvers above he could still move 20 feet and make both TWF attacks, or he could make two TWF attacks, move 15 feet, and make his second iterative attack.

My inclination is to require TWF attacks to always be taken in pairs. Thus with improved TWF you have to make your second iterative attack and second TWF attack at the same time and can't make a second TWF attack if you sacrifice your second iterative attack to move.

Extra attacks from speed effects (haste, etc) become an issue though. How do I fit those in fairly. Do I just treat them as an additional attack and divide their speed by a larger number? IF the same ranger was hasted he'd have a move of 60 with a +11/+11/+6/+1 attack sequence. He'd gain 15 feet of movement for each attack.

This could become a problem with highly mobile creatures with multiple attacks. It could make them much more dangerous.

EDIT: Further note. I would require all movement from a sacrificed attack to be taken at once, not divided between attacks. So a hasted ranger could not sacrifice his lowest iterative to gain a move of 20 and attack, move, attack, move, attack. He'd have to sacrifice two iterative attacks to move twice. A hasted ranger 11 could however make three attacks (TWF and haste attacks), move 20' (sacrifice lowest), and make two attacks (second iterative and improved TWF)

I'm also interested in changing how iterative attacks work however my reason is because the current structure encourages warriors to stand in one spot and move a maximum of 5 feet at high levels. Low level characters with only a single attack run around the battlefield, move to take advantage of cover, gain higher ground, etc. High level characters stand in place and womp.

It makes combat less dynamic at high levels and terrain less of a factor (since no one moves much).

I'm currently considering several house rules that might be of interest to the Pathfinder crew.
1. Making feat, class ability, and speed based extra attacks useable as standard actions. So TWF, rapid shot, flurry of blows, haste would all allow two attacks as part of a standard action (but wouldn't stack so TWF and haste is still only two attacks).
2. Changing combat expertise so that in any round that you move more than 10 feet you gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each iterative attack that you gave up by moving (higher AC at higher level).
3. Allowing an additional 5 foot move (not 5 foot step) for each iterative attack you give up in a full attack. So if you have 3 attacks you could move 5', attack, move 5' more, attack again but both 5 foot moves would provoke AoOs (unless you used accelerated tumbling). Or you could attack, move 10 feet, and attack again. Only iterative attacks could be exchanged in this way (not attacks due to haste/twf/etc) though other attacks could be used (so a TWF fighter with +6 BAB could make one attack at -2, move 10 feet, and make his off-hand attack by giving up his second iterative attack. Or move 10 feet and make both twf attacks. etc.

Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike are interesting ideas but they do nothing to encourage mobility on the battlefield. If a way could be imagined to use them without requiring warriors to stand pat I'd be very interested to hear it.

Thanks for all the thoughts folks.

This is not designed to be a nerf of fear. It doesn't make fear less powerful it makes it affect you differently. As has been pointed out being frightened or panicked under this system makes you MORE vulnerable to your enemies, not less.

My hope is not that this will exchange an interesting qualitative effect for a boring quantitative effect, but that it will create a quantitive effect which encourages the player to CHOOSE to act appropriately. This change gives the player more reasons for actual fear than the RAW system does because he is more vulnerable.

I also don't think this is necessarily worse to melee characters than to spell casters. Under the old system the fighters couldn't attack at all. So it's certainly not any worse. The DCs of the spellcraft checks are actually 14+ spell level and 28+ spell level when you include the skill check penalty. Those are pretty steep. However if that doesn't work I also considered removing the spellcraft check but instead penalizing the save DCs of your spells. That would simulate that your intense fear leaves you feeling powerless against your foes and this lack of confidence makes your spells easier to resist.

For the record I have house-rules for virtually every condition in the game that makes you stop playing or I simply don't use them (players continue to play their characters when charmed or dominated they are just expected to act accordingly). I don't consider realism a valid reason to implement something that makes a player sit out a significant portion of the game. So simulating how someone really reacts to fear is not a priority for me. Keeping my players playing and having fun is. This option gives the player choices which is a good thing.

I think that's an excellent suggestion Epic Meepo and solves the penalty issue quite nicely. It also encourages the player making the choice to run. I shall amend the rules accordingly.

Hmm. The 'engaged' idea gives me a thought. What if the target was allowed a new saving throw to overcome their fear if they removed themselves from line of effect to the source of their fear. They could make a new save every round that they remained out of line of effect and if successful they would drop to shaken.

That would provide a real reason to flee (run, attempt the save, return to battle) and give them a chance to get their defenses back up.

I'm still on the fence about the heavy penalties to saves. It seems to make sense, but might reduce the fun of the game.

More thoughts welcome.

Hmm. That's a valid point about the saving throw penalties. However that is one of the things that makes this so horrific and likely to make the character decide to flee of his own volition rather than simply being forced not to play the game while the fear effect is active.

I'm hesitant to revise it too much because the system could easily lose its elegance, but I'm open to suggestions on this issue.

One question, does the skill penalty also apply to the Spellcraft check to avoid losing a spell?

Overall, I like this idea.

Excellent observation, I missed that implication. The answer of course should be yes, but that makes those DCs much harder to achieve than I intended. I'll adjust them.

So let me revise them as follows:
Frightened: Spellcraft DC 10+ spell level or spell is lost.
Panicked: Spellcraft DC 20+ spell level or spell is lost.

Robert Hanson,
I would not support the removal of the Spellcraft check since under the existing rules a spellcaster can't cast spells at all when frightened or panicked (except arguably for the sole purpose of escaping). Without the Spellcraft check spellcasters are virtually unaffected by fear. That was not my intention.

Fear effects shouldn't just be a problem for warriors and rogues. If your hands are shaking, you can't catch your breath, and you can barely look at the source of your fear it seems that it would be hard to cast a spell at it.

I like this idea and concur with lastknightleft's numbers. An extra 5 feet of movement per iterative given up seems reasonable.

In the case of two weapon fighting I would rule that the same off-hand iterative attack is given up as is sacrificed for the primary hand. This would allow a high level TWF fighter to move 20' (5+3 atks) and still make his two best attacks, an ability they sorely need.

What about things like rapid shot and haste/speed effects?

My inclination is to allow these to be taken as normal. So a 16th level ranger with haste and rapid shot could move 20' and fire three shots at -2 (or 60 feet and fire once, or 120 feet with a charge).

nigh undetectable bump.

I recently made this adjustment to how fear effects work in my campaign and my players have really liked it. The result is that fear effects don't become 'stop playing the game' effects and gives the PCs real reasons to consider fleeing rather than simply forcing them to do so. I thought I'd post them here to see if the Pathfinder crowd liked it as well.

Fear Effects: The various states of fear have the following effects.

Shaken: as in the PHB, -2 penalty to attacks, saves, skill and ability checks.

Frightened: -4 penalty to attacks, saves, skills, and ability checks. Spellcraft DC 15+ spell level or lose any spell cast while frightened.

Panicked: -8 penalty to attacks, saves, skills, and ability checks. Spellcraft DC 25+ spell level or lose any spell cast while panicked.

PCs may continue to act under these conditions. Frightened or Panicked NPCs typically flee if they are experiencing a penalty equal to or greater than their will save bonus (if they now have a negative modifier). Magical fear effects can be removed using dispel magic, but it leaves the target shaken for the remainder of the effects duration. Remove fear will completely remove all fear from the subject. Certain events such as a directly imperiled loved one (not merely a comrade, but a lover, child, or parent) may allow an additional save to reduce the condition to shaken.

Excellent point Argamae. I also like this more open mechanic. With a little creativity it can also be used for things like pulling the rug out from under someone, yanking a curtain down over their head, pushing a statue over on someone, hitting them with a chandelier whose rope you've just cut, and so forth.

I do however think the current DC is too high. I'll be using a DC of 11+CMB for my games.

I concur.

I've seen this term thrown around a lot and often without an explanation of why the proposed change is a BC issue. For my own part I consider a change a BC issue if the change will force me to do a substantial amount of revision to my existing library of 3.5 materials to use them in a Pathfinder game. That being said if the change has truly great game play benefits I wouldn't want to see it excluded because of backwards compatibility issues.

The Prestige Class issue actually makes me like the feat idea even less since skill rank prerequisites are often used as a means of forcing multi-classing to gain access to a powerful prestige class.

In particular skill prerequisites can force full casters to take non-caster levels to gain significant powers in a full caster PRC (or to wait to appropriatetely high levels via cross-class ranks). This feat would mean that they don't have to give up any spell ability at all to gain those PRC powers.

Stating that it is not that hard to convert non-SRD domains to Pathfinder domains does not make it so.

It is hard if you're short on time or uninterested in doing so. Balancing the new mechanics of daily uses vs. spells lost is not easy.

Plus this change means revising every cleric stat block from a previously published source. Unlike wizards and sorcerors, clerics actually lose spells per day at every level as a result of this change. It also eliminates listed domain only spells which may be in those stat blocks and adds a host of abilities which are not included in the original stat block. So every cleric stat block needs significant rework to be compliant.

That leaves the Pathfinder DM with two choices. Spend the time to convert his NPCs over so they are on par with the PCs or ignore the change for his NPCs in which case they don't have the same powers and abilities as similar PCs.

To me that's too much of a blow to backwards compatibility.

No offense intended but this strikes me as something that is unnecessary and potentially confusing.

The existing system is fairly elegant in that a cross-class skill plus skill focus is equal to a class skill. You can push a cross-class skill ahead of a class skill by also taking the relavent +2/+2 feat. But to be the best possible at the skill it must be a maxed class skill with both feats. I like how this works and would not welcome a feat that blurs this elegance.

Additionally I can see this being confusing if a player took the feat to make the skill a class skill, but then multi-classed so that it became a class skill anyway. He may feel he's entitled to an additional +3 bonus and not understand why he's not getting it.

But they can refrain from adding systems or changing systems in a way that wrecks compatibility with non-SRD materials. One of the things that Pathfinder is supposed to do is maintain the value of the books we already have.

To maintain compatibility in this area all they have to do is not alter the way domain powers work.

I'd be in favor of Athletics (climb, jump, swim), Acrobatics (balance, tumble), and Legerdemain (Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand, and Use Rope).

The more I think about it, based on my example above, the more I think a return to opposed checks is the way to go; maybe straight CMB vs. CMB.

The advantage to this is not mathematical, it is in player perception. If my player had failed an opposed check with a 16 he might very well have assume that the enemy also rolled well. It doesn't give away the fact that the DC is so high like a static DC does. In other words the player won't know for sure that a 16 is always a failure against this foe. So he might try again in the hopes of getting lucky.

Arne Schmidt wrote:

I think it's relevant that the CR system has been altered such that encounters with higher level characters are going to be happening more frequently. In 3.5 a CR appropriate challenge was one npc of the player's level. Now its two of the player's level or one npc 2 levels higher.

Your encounter had a classed NPC with 4 more levels than the APL. Not an appropriate challenge, methinks.

There were 5 PCs and this was their only encounter the entire day. It was completely appropriate and was in fact a relatively easy battle for them. The DMG guidelines are just that, in the end the DM has to assess abilities and circumstances to determine appropriateness.

Yes, it would be a better test if they had been the same level, but that's not how it happened and I don't want to report from fictional experience.

I know the idea is that it should be harder to perform a combat maneuver against someone than to just hit them outright, but even at DC 11+CMB in most cases this will still be true. The only problem I see is at low levels where it might be easier to perform a CMB than to straight attack someone (because AC will be higher than CMB DC). I'd actually be fine setting a minimum difficulty for the success of any CMB (say 15). So the DC would be 11+CMB or 15 whichever is higher.

The penalties for a successful combat maneuver are in many cases less severe than they were in 3.5. Grappling does not prevent spellcasting anymore. Improved trip does not grant a free attack anymore. So successful maneuvers pay off less and are harder to achieve under Pathfinder. The system is definitely easier to use which is great, but I think ultimately it will not be used by PCs because it's too hard to succeed and the rewards are not great enough.

Arne, I'm not sure we should be taking CR into the account. It should be applied at party level, not at the level of each party member.

The 6th level barbarian would have needed a roll of 15 to grapple his own clone.

In the example you mentioned, he went for a 10th level fighter (or barbarian?). As far as I am concerned, he was batting way out of his league, as he would have been in any system where you go against an opponent with nearly double your levels.

I was applying it at the party level. The Barbarian was in a party of 5 sixth level characters. For them a 10th level barbarian is only EL 8 (lower actually because there were 5 of them). Challenging, but certainly not overwhelming. If the barbarian had been level 8 he would have been an EL 6 encounter, a standard encounter for a party of four 6th level characters. And my barbarian would still have needed to roll a 16 to grapple him (18 if the enemy barbarian had been raging).

I think it's relevant that the CR system has been altered such that encounters with higher level characters are going to be happening more frequently. In 3.5 a CR appropriate challenge was one npc of the player's level. Now its two of the player's level or one npc 2 levels higher.

Not by much. Effectively the Alpha 3 DCs are so high already that increasing the DC via AoO damage is virtually the same as negating the attack altogether. (As in my example, the minimum possible damage made the CMB DC impossible to achieve).

Slime, no problem. Your posts have been well reasoned and clearly extend from experience with the new rules. You've given me a lot to consider (including the possibility that I'm flat wrong).

On page 77 of release 3, under Performing a Combat Maneuver:
'Unless otherwise stated, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, add the damage to the DC to perform the maneuver.'

This even further slants things in my mind. This combined with the base difficulty of 15 makes success against another humanoid of similar strength and ability highly unlikely.

Slime,
Thanks for taking the time to do the math.

Part of my problem is also player perception beyond the numbers. My barbarian player saw that he had an opportunity to grapple because he found his foe unarmed after making a thrown weapon attack. He recognized that there was not going to be an AoO. He thought while raging that he would have the edge in strength (and did 20 to 14) and this would at least bring him close to on par with his target. When he rolled a 16 he thought for sure he'd started a grapple. When I told him it was not so, there was a clear 'Well, I'll never try that again' moment.

The problem is increased by Pathfinder's CR system for classed characters. This was a challenging encounter for the party (APL +2) but in 3.5 it would have been considered an overwhelming encounter (APL +4). If I ran it as a challenging encounter under 3.5 the enemy would have been two levels lower and the 16 the player rolled would have been a success. I think the Pathfinder CR rules for classed npcs are a big improvement over 3.5, but they still exacerbate this issue since all classed npcs foes are likely to be two levels higher than they would have been under 3.5.

I doubt the AoO really makes much of a difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder since even in Pathfinder the AoO affects the success of the grapple attempt. If the enemy had taken an AoO and hit the barbarian the damage would have been added to the DC of the CMB check. So if he did 3 pts of damage the barbarian player couldn't have grappled him even on with a roll of natural 20 (and the enemy had a minimum damage of 3).

It just seems all around to me that it being a lower DC would be better for the game (including for giant swallowing creatures).

EDIT: This just made me wonder, do CMB checks have auto succeess on a 20 and auto-failure on a 1?

Zaister,
I see where you're coming from with the +2 to static DCs, but this is a bonus that is being applied to a relatively infrequently used maneuver. Many monsters can't be disarmed or sundered at all since they don't use weapons. Some can't be tripped (oozes, perfect fliers, swarms, etc), and quite a few are just so large and strong that the maneuvers have little chance of success. So I feel like these feats should provide a large bonus to their maneuver. If the DC were lowered to 11+CMB I might be convinced that you were right, but even then I'm on the fence. +3 might work.

Locworks,
IMO there will be no more swallow wholes than there were under 3.5. Lowering the CMB DC to 11+CMB also lowers the DC for the escape check of the swallowing monster's victims. This is on top of the change to size modifiers which is much greater than the 4 pt difference we're talking here. So the fighters have a better chance of actually breaking free, the rogues have a better chance of escape artisting out, before they are actually swallowed. Plus grappling does not provide the same restrictions on spellcasting that it did under 3.5. A grappled Spellcaster needs only a DC 15+ spell level Spellcraft check to cast any spell (no restrictions on components as with 3.5 grapple). Even pinned this is the same DC they would need to cast a verbal only spell, like dimension door.

To be fair, in the example you give, with a difference of 3 between the CMBs (since that character needed to roll an 18) the chance of success is 15%.

Now for 3.5:

If I bypass the fact that if the opponent deals damage on the AoO the attacker automatically fails and take into account that the attacker needs to roll over 2 for the touch attack (fairly conservative, I think) and that you win if you beat your opponent’s roll.

No grapple feats for anyone and no automatic fail on 1 or success on 20. So the attacker fails for sure on rolls of 1 to 4 (since he needs to be over 4) and he also fails if the defender rolls 17 to 20 that’s a 160/400 fail to start with. I’ll spare you the rest of the calculations.

In the end, you get a chance of success is about 12% and that’s being very conservative for the 3.5 system since the AoO could cut that in half.

Opposed roll may seem like they offer a chance for everyone to make it but not only do you need to be lucky but you also need for the opponent to be unlucky.

The 15+ DC is closer to backward compatibility than it may seem IMO.

It's not a fair comparison.

First of all the change to the Pathfinder CR system means that my player's barbarian 6 was fighting a CR 8 challenge, not a CR 10 as it would be in 3.5. CR 10 verges on overwhelming (no chance of victory), CR 8 should merely be challenging.

Secondly, both were unarmed (the higher level barbarian had used a thrown weapon the preceeding round), so no AoOs were happening at all. The enemy barbarian had a lower strength which evened the playing field.

Under 3.5, the 6th level barbarian would have needed to roll a 2 to succeed on the touch attack (+11 vs. AC 12) and then would have needed to succeed at an opposed check of +11 versus +14. If the enemy rolled a 10 he'd only have needed a 13 to succeed.

That's a 13 to succeed at an overwhelming encounter. Under Pathfinder this was not considered an overwhelming encounter (which I agree with). But that tells me that needing to roll an 18 every time to succeed was too hard.

Interestingly enough as far as the numbers for this encounter went if the DC had been 10+CMB the chances would have been very similar to 3.5. (he'd have needed a 13 to succeed).

I understand that opposed rolls don't work out exactly this way mathematically (using a 10 as I did above). However opposed rolls leave the player with the perception that they can get lucky and succeed (which is true). My player new he was going up against a static DC and when his 16 failed he said "Well, I'm not trying that again."