As I've mentioned elsewhere, I have found some aspects of non-d20 systems to be quite refreshing in implementation, concept, etc. I figured I'd start a thread to discuss this system, Suzerain, and offer perhaps a few suggestions that might drive Pathfinder into new RPG ground rather than being simply an upgrade to 3.5.
Note that I do not in any way think Pathfinder will adopt this rule set in whole, or even in large part, as that would violate the stated intention of keeping this as compatible as possible with 3.5. But still there may be ideas that provide insight...I do not intend to get into the details of Suzerain to such a degree that it would breach their copyrights and such--if you are truly interested in that level of detail I encourage you to head on over and support them with a purchase.
So, my first offering is related to the way in which Suzerain handles determining level of success for a check. It has always bugged me with D&D that I might roll a really good attack, for instance (say a 20 with confirmed thread, criting and also beating the targets AC of 15 by 5 points) and then have this marvelous attack result in paltry damage due to poor Damage rolls (say a 1 on the initial damage, then a 1 on the crit). Suzerain uses a base result plus incremental increases based on how successful the roll actually was. In the above attack the damage would have been in some way tied to the actual attack result itself, then, and so would be more spectacular. Moving beyond the easy example of attack/damage, this can translate into measuring success in a social challenges (diplomacy, intimidation, etc.), physical challenges (swimming/climbing speed, enduring an environment, etc.), and intellectual challenges (researching a creature, figuring out a lock/puzzle, etc.). This is somewhat in place for things like Jump and Diplomacy, though both of these might need attention in other ways.
Core question, can Pathfinder more closely tie die rolls to actual check results in a meaningful, yet easy to understand/document way?
Benefits of this approach include reducing required dice rolls, increasing satisfaction from exceptional successes, and perhaps allowing for a more dynamic resolution mechanic than set DCs.
Down-sides could include increased "mathiness" (I succeeded by 9, and I get perk X for every 2 points over the minimum needed, so I get 4.5 perks) and possibly more mechanics to keep in mind (Suzerain has separate, though similar, mechanics for every feat/skill in the game).
Just food for thought. More later.
Suzerain does indeed use an opposed roll--Melee/Unarmed/Ranged feat versus Melee/Unarmed/Dodge feat (you can use Melee or Unarmed to parry and block, or Dodge to, well, dodge). I've been thinking about this for d20 and honestly haven't come up with a good implementation as yet. Even before Suzerain, I had considered house rules for d20 giving weapons some sort of "damage step" that was the amount of damage garnered per every increment of success. This house rule actually did incorporate an active defense roll rather than static AC. I think that approach is too far away from 3.5, however, to mesh with the stated goal of backwards compatibility. Still thinking on this one...
Another aspect of the system that I like--there is a cap on the total possible bonuses you can apply to a check. Now, their system uses a standard base number (8) as a success similar to how Savage Worlds uses (in most cases) a target number of 4. But that gets into the underlying game logic/statistics behing their system. It's very similar to a "Take 1" concept for skill checks in d20 where a character can just assume a 1 on a roll because it would still be a success. Coupled with the above concept of degrees of success, sometimes a player might decide he wants to go for quick and easy versus the best result possible, basically. What I like about this concept in general is it can eliminate some of the crazy stacking situations one can get into in d20.
Just food for thought...
Another Suzerain thought-nugget...
I've seen some discussions on social encounter mechanics, intimidation, diplomacy, etc. here as folks think on this approach for Pathfinder. Suzerain's approach to this is a unified health system tied to three separate attributes--Physical health measures what we'd understand as HP in d20; how much damage you can take before going down. The innovation comes in having Mental and Social/Spiritual health as well.
Using the same mechanics as for combat, then, they can mirror horror/insanity, torture/interegation and such through "damage" to a characters Mental health. This can be temporary or "permanent" and represents wearing down the character's mental faculties over time (or I suppose in one big burst if one had an actual Mental attack form as from a spell or psionics).
On the Spiritual/Social side, health damage could represent impacts from diplomatic maneuvering, trying to gain influence with an organization, etc. or could represent spiritual decay when being influenced/tainted by "evil" or some other metaphysical force.
In all this, the damage is far smaller than the d20 HP system and ties directly to the associated attribute, so a character might start out with 3-6 Physical health and "only" progress up to 15 by the time the hit demigod status. In this system, it's much more important to never take damage if possible (Dodge or Parry/Block for Physical, for instance, are very important) as they don't have the level of abstraction assocaited with HP. Again, the system is too far from d20 to be a direct model, but I think it can provide some interesting concepts for thought.
A final thought (well, as sure as I say that I'll re-read Suzerain and come up with something else...):
The system for initiative and combat order in Suzerain is very interesting to me. It breaks actions down into:
Full Actions (includes movement, attacking, etc.)
Free actions (because we always have to clarify that witty repartee is okay!)
and
Double Actions (take two actions and merge them into one, but with check penalties--similar to the Savage Worlds multi-action penalty mechanic)
Characters roll for a reaction time, which becomes something like their init modifier for the round. This roll is modified by things like armor (slowing people down, thus increasing reaction time) and declared actions (all of which have associated action times). Order for declaring these actions goes from slowest reaction time (modified by armor) to fastest, so the faster characters see a bit more of what's going one. The actions are then resolved in order and really clow actions may not resolve until the next round.
So far, this is somewhat like runnning a d20 session and using weapon speeds or a similar mechanic. The neat piece comes in when you go with the Advanced Rules for combat. This system works similar to the basic rules, but instead of keeping everyting bottled up in rounds the actions just flow from one to the next based on reaction time + action time. As actions move forward, they have mechanics for interrupting an action, possibly modifying a previously declared action or taking a new action altogether in response to changes in the battle--there are of course repurcussions for these interrupts to keep the battle from devloving down to everybody trying to interrupt all the time. This system looks like it would give combat a very slow-motion feel. If the group wants, the system can even be "real-time" such that if a player takes too long to decide on his action he automatically "pauses" and thus slips down further in the cycle.
Of all the aspects of Suzerain, this is the one I most want to see in action. I had to re-read the section a bit to wrap my head around the concept, but I think it could provide for some really dramatic fights that get beyodn the standard "do X on my init, then wait while everyone else acts." I actually think this system could be implemented in a d20 game with a bit of work more readily than some of the other "innovations" (I put this in quotes as I know the real-time combat system isn't new, but the Suzerain implementation sure is slick!). I'm not sure it would fit as a core of the Pathfidner RPG, but it's definitely something I'm going to puruse at least as a house-rule to see how it flows in a d20 game.
|
Another Suzerain thought-nugget...
I've seen some discussions on social encounter mechanics, intimidation, diplomacy, etc. here as folks think on this approach for Pathfinder. Suzerain's approach to this is a unified health system tied to three separate attributes--Physical health measures what we'd understand as HP in d20; how much damage you can take before going down. The innovation comes in having Mental and Social/Spiritual health as well.
...
I think one could use this idea to build a handy sub-system to have in place for certain adventure types. Cthulhu/Horror/Pulp/etc. would be modelled very well by splitting HP across physical|mental. Yes, HP is an abstraction, but why not have two abstractions? :)
Anyway, it's a cool idea. I'm not so hot on the spiritual health, though I guess you could model how close to living one's god's ideal. Maybe give you x Spritual HP, and when you hit zero, your alignment changes, you lose spells, or you need atonement (or all of the above).
The tie-in to stats is interesting. too. I think it would work better in DnD terms to be able to "burn" stats to recharge your HP and then get restoration and what have you for at least the mental and physical HP.
Good stuff.
|
|
A final thought (well, as sure as I say that I'll re-read Suzerain and come up with something else...):
The system for initiative and combat order in Suzerain is very interesting to me. It breaks actions down into:
Full Actions (includes movement, attacking, etc.)
Free actions (because we always have to clarify that witty repartee is okay!)
and
Double Actions (take two actions and merge them into one, but with check penalties--similar to the Savage Worlds multi-action penalty mechanic)
...
This all sounds Really cool.
For some reason, this reminds me of the chase mechanics Paizo has presented in... PF7? Anyway, I may run a test night with non-static initiatives.Any chance you will give a go at adapting the rules for the interrupts and dynamic initiative to work in 3e town?
I think one could use this idea to build a handy sub-system to have in place for certain adventure types. Cthulhu/Horror/Pulp/etc. would be modelled very well by splitting HP across physical|mental. Yes, HP is an abstraction, but why not have two abstractions? :)
Anyway, it's a cool idea. I'm not so hot on the spiritual health, though I guess you could model how close to living one's god's ideal. Maybe give you x Spritual HP, and when you hit zero, your alignment changes, you lose spells, or you need atonement (or all of the above).
The tie-in to stats is interesting. too. I think it would work better in DnD terms to be able to "burn" stats to recharge your HP and then get restoration and what have you for at least the mental and physical HP.
Good stuff.
Good thoughts. I agree the Social/Spiritual one is the hardest to wrap one's mind around, especially since they are combined. I could see the Spiritual health being used with something like the Taint system from Unearthed Arcana. The Social health aspect could come into play, as noted in the rules, as a measure of the "character's poise, elegance, sophistication, and standing in the eyes of others" and losing it results in the character geting flustered, confused, and foolish-looking (with related check modifiers to social checks). I know they've got the Suzerain Hero rules coming out soon are going to expand on some aspects of the game and I think they may
This all sounds Really cool.
For some reason, this reminds me of the chase mechanics Paizo has presented in... PF7? Anyway, I may run a test night with non-static initiatives.Any chance you will give a go at adapting the rules for the interrupts and dynamic initiative to work in 3e town?
Yes, I was actually thinking about it a lot last night, as I was getting a little geeked about the idea of running a d20 combat this way. I'll try to write up my initial thoughts were along these lines...
Okay, here's my shot at trying out a system like the Suzerain "slow-mo" for d20. I readily note that it is a pale shadow of the full Suzerain system. I did run it past the author over on the Talisman forum, both to (1) get feedback from anyone familiar with d20 on how this might work out and (2) make sure this would be appropriate to post in another forum. I definitely don't want to go scamming Talisman's IP, but I do think a "teaser" like this might draw folks from the d20 crowd to check out Suzerain in more detail.
So, without further delay...
The d20 Reaction System
Being a replacement for standard initiative and rounds inspired by the excellent Suzerain RPG from Talisman Studios (as I can’t pry my players out of d20 as yet). The Suzerain system is far more detailed, allowing for much greater differentiation between action types. I strongly encourage anyone interested in this mechanic to check out the Suzerain RPG right now! But beware, it might suck you right out of your d20 games and into the Untamed Empires of Suzerain…
Core Mechanics
For this system, low reactions times are better. As such, a d20 character’s Initiative modifier is reversed, becoming a Reaction modifier. At the start of combat, each active, aware combatant rolls 1d20 modified by his Reaction modifier to determine his Reaction Time (RT); note that the result may never be lower than 1, but may be higher than 20. So, as an example of combat, let’s assume a PC with an Initiative modified of +5 is facing off against two goblins, each with an Initiative modifier of +1. With the Reaction System, the player rolls a 1d20, getting a result of 10, then subtracts 5 points, ending with a RT of 5 for his character. The DM likes to roll minor monsters Init all at once, so rolls a single 1d20, also getting a result of 10. With their modifier applied, the goblins each end up with an RT of 9.
The character with the highest RT declares his action(s) first, with everyone else following in order down to the lowest RT. Every action has an associated Action modifier, as listed below. The character adds his RT to his declared action’s modifier to determine the Action Time (AT) when the action will occur. Actions are then executed in order, and after each action occurs the player declares another action (adding his RT and the appropriate action modifier to determine his new AT increment).
Action modifiers I've considered right now to give some level of detail, but not get into too much minutia, are:
- Free Action: 0 (DM limits number that can be done at one time)
- Immediate/Swift Action: +1 (these are a little more taxing than Free Actions)
- 5’ Step: +1
- Standard/Move Action: +4
- Full-Round Action: +8
These general times are modified by weapons used (if any) as follows:
[list]
- Light - -2
- One-handed - +0
- Two-handed - +2
So, continuing the example of the character facing two goblins, the DM must declare actions for the goblins first, since their RT of 9 is higher than the character’s RT of 5. This may feel backwards at first, until you realize characters with the better reaction times (i.e. lower RT) get some insight into what those with a worse reaction time are doing. The thus declares that one goblin, seeing an opportunity to attack the character, will Charge (a full-round action allowing both movement and an attack) to attack with his spear. This goblin (we’ll call him Goblin 1) has an AT of 9 (his RT) + 8 (using a full-round action) + 2 (using a two-handed weapon) for a total of 19. The second goblin, being more cowardly than his companion, decides to duck behind the nearest cover (which is 15’ away, and so is a Move Action). This goblin (we’ll call him Goblin 2) has an AT of 9 (his RT) + 4 (using a move action) for a total of 13. Finally, with some idea of what both the goblins are doing due to his superior reaction time, the character decides to Charge the very goblin that is Charging him! He has his trusty longsword already in hand, otherwise he would have needed a Move Action to draw the weapon (with his BAB higher than +1, he could have drawn it as a Free Action combined with a regular move, but a charge is not a regular move…). So, the character has an AT of 5 (his RT) + 8 (using a full-round action) + 0 (using a one-handed weapon) for a total of 13. This action cycle thus looks like this:
AT 13 – Character charges Goblin 1; Goblin 2 moves behind cover
AT 19 – Goblin 2 charges Character
We’ll hand-wave the attack and damage rolls, assuming that the character’s charge kills Goblin 1, thus preventing that goblin from ever resolving his own action (a DM might even take the actions as near-simultaneous, having the goblin and character meet somewhere mid-charge, both at -2 AC, but with the Character getting an attack in before the goblin). So, we end the action cycle at 13, with one dead goblin and another in hiding. You could think about this as being 13 seconds into the combat, if you need to be tracking spell durations for instance.
Special Initiative Actions
With this system, the standard Delay and Ready actions from d20 require modification.
For the Delay action, the player simply takes no action, basically waiting to assess what happens in the battle before committing to an action. The player may declare an action at any later time, but this action may not interrupt another already-declared action as a reaction to that event. Your next AT starts from the count when the delayed action is executed. Continuing our example, the character (with a RT of 5) is unable to see any opponents and so Delays declaring his action until he sees an open opponent. Goblin 2 (with a RT of 9), gets a little gumption and decides to step out from his cover to survey the scene. As this is a 5’ Step (with a +1 action modifier), the goblin’s AT is 10. So from the previous action cycle (which ended at 13), Goblin 2 steps out from behind cover at a count of 23 on the overall action cycle. With his Delayed action, the character decides to fire off a magic missile at the goblin since the little bugger is too far away to charge. The character’s AT is 9 (5+4), so the spell will come into effect on a count of 32. Goblin 2, now seeing he faces not only a swordsman but a spellcaster as well, decides to drop to the floor (a Free Action) in hopes of gaining some degree of cover from the spell. This has an AT of 9 (9+0). Goblin 2 thus drops down to the floor at count 32 on the action cycle, simultaneous with the character casting his spell. Unfortunately for Goblin 2, the spell doesn’t require an attack roll, so the magic missile streaks across the battlefield to strike him.
The Ready action lets you prepare to take an action later by specifying the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. You may then take the readied action in response to that condition. As long as the RT for the Readied action has passed, the action occurs just before the action that triggers it. Otherwise it occurs on the appropriate RT count. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your next AT starts from the count when the readied action is executed. You may declare a new action if you like, losing the readied action. The readied action may be used as normal to distract a spellcaster, counterspell, or ready a weapon against a charge. Modifying the above example, rather than simply delaying his action, the player declares that his character will fire a magic missile at the first goblin that comes into view. This Readied action (with an AT of 9) occurs at a count of 22 or later in the cycle. Assuming Goblin 2 takes the same action of stepping out from cover, the magic missile fires immediately on count 23 (this AT being the same as calculated for the Delayed action example), interrupting Goblin 2’s action and blasting him with the spell.
In most cases, a Readied action is more advantageous than simply Delaying, but if the trigger does not occur you may end up losing the action and you are also less able to respond to changes in the battle as you wait on a specific situation to occur.
In addition to the standard d20 Delay and Ready actions, a character may also attempt an Interrupt during his action cycle. To accomplish an Interrupt, the player must declare this as soon as the action he wishes to interrupt comes up in the cycle, before any results are known (i.e., he cannot wait until an attack roll is made to see if the attacker rolls high or low). The character and the target of the interruption make opposed Reaction checks (1d20+reaction modifier), with the lowest result occurring first. An Interrupt must be an action with an AT of 1 or lower. As such, this is generally a Free, Immediate, or Swift action or a 5’ Step. This Interrupt action replaces the characters previously declared action and the player must declare a new action, determining AT as normal. Continuing the example from the Readied action above, on count 23 the character must either declare a new action or delay. Deciding there may be more goblins lurking in hiding, the character again readies an action to fire a magic missile at the first goblin that comes into view. This readied action will occur on count 32 or higher in the cycle. Unfortunately for the character, the first two goblins were just a distraction to allow a bevy of goblin archers to line up shots on the character. They are all about to fire at a count of 30, sending a volley of arrows flying toward the character. Knowing he is better off flat on the ground then standing up to become a pincushion, the character declares an Interrupt, losing his previous action (and at the DM’s discretion, perhaps the spell as well) to instead drop to the floor and gain a +4 bonus to AC. The character’s Reaction check roll comes out to 12, modified down to a 7. The goblins (again the DM likes to roll them all as one) roll an 11, modified down to a 10. The character is fortunately able to drop to the floor and gain a bit of cover from the arrows. He is now prone, however, and must declare a new action to start from count 30 in the cycle.
In summary…
I’ve tried to capture some of the feel of the Suzerain “slow-mo” system while keeping core elements of d20 (like action types) consistent. Greater detail could be added to this approach by assigning action modifiers to Skill checks, breaking down weapons into more detail (a rapier might have a better reaction modifier than a longsword, though both are one-handed), giving different spells different modifiers, etc. However, as d20 isn’t fully structure to handle this approach like the Suzerain system, I think getting too far in the weeds would eventually become too burdensome to be fun. If you want that level of detail, I’d say your better off playing a system designed for this, like Suzerain (I know, I say that a lot…). Of course, I know there are folks at there more talented than I that can, perhaps, come up with a perfect d20 implementation. If so, I’d love to see it…
For any interested, I've got the first part of a full review for Suzerain started down in my Suzerain from Talisman Studios - Anybody Played It? thread.