Fundamental Changes to 3.5 Problems


New Rules Suggestions


When looking through the Pathfinder rules we were happy to find the same attention to detail and presentation that Wizards put into the system. However, we feel that this system, as it stands so far, does not take advantage of the golden opportunity that Paizo has: to address all the problems that exist in the core elements of the D&D 3.5 Edition system.

Across the web many fundamental problems are widely agreed upon within the 3.5 core rules. We have been troubleshooting these problems for some time, and have come up with some changes to the core rules that allow improvement to the balance of the system while retaining compatibility with all the existing 3.5 materials. While our concepts are neither complete nor fully playtested, we felt the need to act and discuss some of our ideas before the Pathfinder core rules are fully cemented, in hopes these ideas would be adopted. Below, you will find the reasoning for our changes, followed by the changes themselves.

Combat System
We feel the round structure of D&D's combat system needs help. Our group has always found it strange that all battle-hardened characters may only make one choice every six seconds of combat. Moreover, they may make as many as nine attacks and shift position by 5 feet in a timeless instant, then stand inert for another 6 seconds before making another single reactive decision. We feel this aspect of the combat system is one of the reasons that the characters whose strength is physical combat and not casting are comparatively weaker (see other points below).

What we propose is:

Each combatant's round is broken into 4 segments, during which 4 action slots may be used: primary action slot, secondary action slot, tertiary action slot, and quaternary action slot.

Swift actions can be taken during any one of a character's segments, but still only once per round.

Immediate actions and free actions remain unchanged.

A standard action uses the primary, secondary, and tertiary action slots, and also prevents the character from acting on his next two segments.

Move equivalent actions take up any one action slot, starting at the lowest available (quaternary, tertiary, secondary, primary) and working their way up. Move actions can be taken during any number of segments/action slots, up to all of them (a character can move up to 4 times a round). See “Run,” below, for specifics.

Attack progressions are broken down to fit into this model in the following manner:
- Attacks from an attack progression that are derived from the same base attack bonus are grouped together such that they count as one of the above actions.
- Attacks of the highest attack bonus are grouped into a "primary attack" and use the primary action slot.
- Attacks of the second highest attack bonus are grouped into a "secondary attack" and use the secondary action slot.
- Attacks of the third highest attack bonus are grouped into a "tertiary attack" and use the tertiary action slot.
- Attacks of the fourth highest attack bonus are grouped into a "quaternary attack" and use the quaternary action slot.

Implementation of this system:
- Initiative is rolled as normal, and a character can begin to act when that initiative count comes up.
- Each character has four possible chances to use action slots in each round. Each of these opportunities is called a segment.
- A character can execute any one of his available actions at each of his segments.
- Each additional segment takes place 4 counts after the previous one until all action slots are used up.
--- A character with an initiative roll of 18 would have segments on counts 18, 14, 10, and 6.
- Any action that uses more than one action slot takes place during the current segment unless specifically stated otherwise. An action that uses 2 or more action slots prevents the character from acting for a number of the following segments equal to action slots used -1.
--- For example: a standard action uses 3 action slots (primary, secondary, and tertiary). A character taking a standard action during his first segment would perform that action, but not be able to act again until his fourth segment occurs (12 initiative counts later).

Example Combat

An 11th level Ranger with the two-weapon fighting combat style. He is wielding two daggers and carrying a longbow.

This character's attack bonus progression with his daggers could look like this: +9 (primary dagger),+9 (offhand dagger), +4 (primary dagger), +4 (offhand dagger), and -1 (primary dagger). His two attacks with a bonus to hit of +9 are his “primary attack” because they are both derived from his +11 BAB. The two attacks with a +4 bonus to hit are his “secondary attack” because they are both derived from his +6 BAB attack. His last attack at -1 to hit is his “tertiary attack” because it is derived from his +1 BAB attack.

This character's attack bonus progression with his longbow could look like this: +11,+6,+1. His +11 BAB attack is his “primary attack.” The +6 BAB longbow attack is his “secondary attack.” The +1 BAB attack will be his “tertiary attack.”

This character may not make “quaternary attacks” because his BAB would have to be +16 to grant him his final iterative attack.

Our example ranger begins combat with a goblin fighter and a goblin wizard. Let's say the ranger's initiative is 10, while the goblin fighter's is 7, and the wizard's is 5.

Count 10: When the ranger's turn comes up, he decides to use his base movement of 30' to close to melee range with the goblin fighter. This move uses his quaternary action slot for the round, leaving his with his primary, secondary, and tertiary action slots for this round of combat.

Count 7: The goblin fighter, engaged in melee with the ranger, uses his primary action slot to perform his “primary attack.” In his case, a spear attack with a +1 bonus to hit. The goblin's +1 BAB means he is only able to make a single attack, which is his “primary attack.” The goblin fighter is now left with his secondary, tertiary, and quaternary action slots for this round.

Count 6: The ranger acts again. He now decides to use his “primary attack” to make two melee dagger attacks (one primary, one off-hand, both at +9 attack bonus) against the goblin. He has now used his quaternary and primary action slots, leaving only his secondary and tertiary action slots for the remainder of this round.

Count 5: The goblin wizard casts his most powerful spell at the ranger, Magic Missle. As this is a standard action, it uses the goblin wizard's primary, secondary, and tertiary action slots. The spell goes off, and the goblin wizard may not act again until initiative count -7, his final segment. Only his quaternary action slot remains.

Count 3: The goblin fighter, miraculously alive, has no attack actions remaining. Wounded and dim-witted, he decides to move away from the ranger, which provokes an attack of opportunity (as usual) from his opponent. The goblin uses his quaternary action slot to move his base movement of 20'. The goblin is now left with his secondary and tertiary action slots for the rest of this round.

Count 2: No longer within melee striking distance, the ranger decides to use a free action to drop his daggers, which consumes no action slots. Then, he uses a move action to draw his bow. Since move actions always use the lowest available action slot, this maneuver consumes his tertiary action slot. The ranger is now left with only his secondary action slot.

Count 1: The goblin wizard's second segment. He would normally be able to act, but since he used a standard action in his first segment he must wait. Only his quaternary action slot remains.

Count -1: The goblin fighter continues to move away from the ranger. He uses his tertiary action slot to move 20' away, since this is his lowest available action slot. He is now left with only his secondary action slot.

Count -2: The ranger fires the longbow at the goblin fighter, who is now 40' away. He uses his only remaining action slot to perform his longbow “secondary attack.” The arrow hits, and the goblin fighter is killed. The ranger's fourth segment has concluded, and he may no longer act until the next round, at initiative count 10.

Count -3: The goblin wizard's third segment. He would normally be able to act, but since he used a standard action in his first segment he must wait. Only his quaternary action slot remains.

Count -5: The goblin fighter's segment would normally take place, but he is in no condition to act. This segment passes without event.

Count -7: The goblin wizard's fourth segment, during which he may act again. He wisely uses his action to move as far away from the ranger as he is able, 20'. The round concludes for all combatants.

Combat Maneuver Changes

Some actions as currently defined do not fit perfectly into this new system. Below find 2 examples that have come to mind, with more to follow.

Charge
The charge action uses a character's primary, secondary, and tertiary action slots (it has been changed to a standard action.) He may move his movement rate (not double his movement rate) and use his “primary attack” at the end of that move. The character still receives +2 to hit and -1 to AC until his first action of the next round.

Run
If a character would like to move his maximum speed (use all four segments/action slots to move), he must declare that he is planning to do so at the beginning of his first segment that round. When he makes that declaration, he is said to be running, and is denied his dexterity bonus to AC as per the normal rules. At any one of his later segments, he can decide to stop running, at which time he regains his dexterity bonus to AC and can perform his remaining actions as normal
- If the character has the Run feat, he does not lose his dexterity bonus to AC when he declares that he is running. He also may move double his movement during the segment in which he uses his primary action slot to move (as move actions use the lowest available action slot, this must be his last segment).

We have more changes drawn up, and they will be posted another day.


Backwards compatibility is an absolute priority for Pathfinder, fixing problematic issues is only considered as long as it doesn't compromise this too much.

As an aside, this:
"Moreover, they may make as many as nine attacks and shift position by 5 feet in a timeless instant, then stand inert for another 6 seconds before making another single reactive decision."
is not true, even if it may seem that way. Every turn takes 6 seconds and all turns in a given round happen near-simultaneous.


In a way you are describing the whole 3.5 versus 4.0 dilemma. PfRPG is trying to improve 3.5 as much as possible while retaining reverse compatibility. The 4.0 design team felt massive changes needed to occur to improve the game and sacrificed reverse compatibility. If you want to change 3.5 that much, you might as well scrap the system or write a PDF file that proposes a 'whole new combat sytem for 3.5'. What you are describing might be more fun, but it goes its own way and I don't think it will be well accepted. PfRPG must be well accepted or it will be history.

For what it is worth, I am in favor of adopting the 4.0 'action' system as much as possible for 3.5. So Standard, Move and Minor actions. That way it is easy for people to step up to PfRPG from 4.0.


Personally I think that an alternate initiative system like this would really only be feasible if a computer was running the combat. Even with a combat pad at the table there's no way I'd be able to keep up with hopping back and forth between players like this and I'm pretty sure it would confuse the hell out of everyone (and not just because it's different from what they are used to).

IMO, if such a radical departure is going to be made, then it would make more sense to have a roundless, beat-based turn system. By this I mean that Initiative is used only to determine who gets to take their initial action first. After taking that action, they must wait a certain number of initiative "beats" before being able to take another turn.

While I'd absolutely need a computer to keep track of a beat system, I believe it would cause less confusion for the DM and players than spacing out individual actions for a single creature over the course of a round. For one thing, You could completely eliminate iterative attacks using a beat system. Characters who would traditionally have more iterative attacks would simply wait fewer beats before acting again.

Mind You, I think either change would be too radical of a departure for PfRPG. Still, it could be interesting to develop these ideas as house rules to see how they work out. Who knows, something like this might end up being a viable rule for inclusion in an Unearthed Arcana style Pf book at some point. :)


While this system is interesting, I'd have to agree that it wouldn't work for PF's paradigms of adhering as closely to backwards compatibility as they can.

We used to use much the same system in 2E, and it worked quite well. Cyclical initiative, I believe it's called; Rifts uses the same thing.
Those systems used attacks only, though - your first attack would go on your initiative count (x), the second on x - weapon speed (2E) or x - a flat number (Rifts; IIRC). In 3E, you could just do x - 5 for iterative attacks.

The good point about it is that it more closely imitates the ebb and flow of combat, instead of just "blow off all my attacks in the blink of an eye." The bad point, as mentioned, is that you need to keep track of when your next action comes up, but if you have reasonably intelligent players/DM, I don't see this as that bad a problem. It would make a great optional system, but I wouldn't make it core because it breaks the d20 paradigm of "simplicity over all" - it's more a system for experienced players, IMO.

I don't get why move actions use the bottom action slot instead of the next available one - it'd be much easier to keep track of things. For example: The ranger moves to close with the goblin (first slot), attacks (second slot), drops his daggers and draw the bow (third), and shoots (fourth). See? Simple.


@ Paguar Ban: This system does, in fact, retain 100% backward compatibility. You'll notice that every action type of current 3.5 system rules is covered and rolled into this one. Standard actions use primary, secondary, and tertiary action slots, iterative attacks change as described, etc. These things change, but this system is adapted to allow all existing 3.5 material to be easily rolled into it. We specifically cover, under the heading "Combat Maneuvers" the actions that do not fit nicely within this system, and propose the changes necessary to roll them back into it. While there are probably a couple more things like this, I invite you to bring up more items that cannot be fit into this system using the framework we've outlined.

As far as the near-simultaneous explanation, I don't buy it. While I understand what the thought process is, the bottom line is that characters only decide once per round what to do, so regardless of what the time-based explanation is, their options are strangely limited to only one decision-making segment per round and cannot react to the other actions occuring "near-simultaneously" with theirs. The mind observes, processes and reacts to events that take place in intervals of as small as milliseconds, so why do D&D characters only make decisions at one static time interval per 6-second period?

@ Laithoron: The system does seem very complicated at first, but in actual play it really isn't much more complex. When characters first roll initiative, the DM makes an initiative table that outlines what character's segment takes place on what count. This is determined only once, before combat begins. Then, as normal, play proceeds according to the initiative table drawn up at the beginning. Each of four action slots usage is tracked per creature, but that is the only extra complication that actually occurs during combat. Each player would simply track what actions slots they use each round, then start over again the next round. While they do have an extra item to tack, it is only four options that refresh every round.

@ Walker in Shadows: Move actions specifically use the bottom action slot so that the more action slots you spend moving, the more of your worst possible attacks are eliminated. There would be no benefit to choosing a higher action slot to move with, so we simply outlined what the best choice would have to be. It's important that attacks and Standard actions consume the best action slots first, so that attacking prevents Standard actions from being performed in the same round. If there was no specificity about this, a character could use his best attack AND cast a spell in the same round.

As we were interested in keeping basically the same kinds of options available per round in this system as in the standard 3.5 system, this specificity still basically allows you to perform one standard action and move, or make a full attack. The only real difference is that you can do more move actions, but you are still prevented from doing most 3.5 taboo things, like attacking and casting a spell, without a special ability to allow you to do so.

If anyone can come up with action types from 3.5 rules that seem to break this system, or simply will not be converted as we outlined conversion in the initial post, please mention it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Laithoron wrote:
Personally I think that an alternate initiative system like this would really only be feasible if a computer was running the combat.

Heh. Once upon a time, I played an extreme D&D variant kind of like that, only it dropped the concept of combat rounds completely. The basic time unit was the beat, 0.1 seconds long, and actions took some number of beats to perform. Melee weapons had maximum & minimum strike times, draw times, and (if applicable) throw times; characters had mental & physical reflex times; and like that. We never used a computer to run it, but the vast majority of people who reffed it were in grad school working on doctorates.

This variant, incidentally, was the first place I ever saw learning trees for spells. Kind of interesting that it was put together over thirty years ago.


In most games I've been in, people occasionally get confused with the initiative order when NOTHING has been changed at all (they remember "last time" or things like that).

Delay and Ready end up confusing some players that aren't paying full attention to the combat sequence.

And these are normal people who are capable of higher level math normally.

.

The problem is that people are thinking of what they intend to do after combat, or a couple rounds later in combat, or trying to figure out this or that item or spell and looking up stuff, or thinking about what they want to order for pizza later, or had to go to the bathroom and missed some of the combat, etc.

It's not that people aren't capable, it's that this new system will give us MORE chances to screw things up.

It's a laudable goal, creating a more simultaneous actioned combat sequence, however it's not entirely necessary and possible with this type of game without making things too difficult.

A friend of mine mentioned the Feng Shui game system, and how it has a simpler "point based" initiative order for counting down actions in combat.
The gist of it being that you start with X points in a round, using an action costs Y points, and you can go again when the initiative count down has reached your new point total.

This is the same game that has bonus points for going "CH-CHNK" when you are going to use a Shotgun, so take that as you will...


I find the system to be a pretty elegant way of introducing a pseudo-beat based combat system, as other respondents have mentioned.

I've noticed that many of the respondents to this post have implied or outright stated that this system doesn't maintain compatibility with the core 3.5 rules, but if you actually study it, I think it does. In fact, it seems that the only thing that is affected is that full attacks are broken down such that a characters with a lot of attacks can do some or all of his attacks and still move some.

Since the physical damage based characters in DnD 3.5E are widely regarded as the most jilted from a power standpoint, I don't think that is particularly unbalanced.

Any standard actions look to be the same in this proposed system. Look at the structure that Michael proposed: A round consists of primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary actions. The standard action uses the best 3: primary, secondary, and tertiary. If the character still wants to move he can do so with his quaternary action, albeit at a different point in the round from his standard action. This is practically the same thing as in the core material and doesn't seem to be incompatible at all.

While not expressly stated in this proposal, I would assume that any full round actions would just use all 4 slots up, so the character couldn't do anything else except swift, immediate, and free actions, as normal.

I'm sure there will be periodic oddities that come up that will need to be addressed on a case by case basis, like you did with charge and run actions, but individual anomalies do not mean that this adjustment is not compatible. I think it'll add a lot of realism to combat dynamics without requiring a wholesale rewrite of all the other 3.5 material.

As a response to posters that have argued against this point on the grounds that it is too complicated or requires too much actual attention being paid to the game, I have this to say: Sit, down and take your Ritalin. All you have to do it write down who goes when when initiative is rolled. If your players can't be bothered to pay attention, then do you really want them in your game?

The way I see it, and rules change that allows you to use the wealth of already released material without having to rewrite each individual entry in the monster manual is at least worth an objective look. Good post, Michael.


Bill Miller 52 wrote:
Sit, down and take your Ritalin.

Wake up and have some coffee. Lots of coffee. Preferably with lots of sugar.

That said:
- Getting your one remaining move in combination with a standard attack but having to do it at a separate time doesn't mesh with Spring Attack.
- What happens when you make your first attack (as part of a full attack) against me and I follow that up by moving away out of your reach by more than 5 ft before you get to your next attacks? The example goes into that, but doesn't explain how the ranger got to use part of a full attack (since he uses two weapons) on top of a move and then is allowed to break of this full attack and switch to a move equivalent. Are you honestly suggesting that's backwards compatible?
- where's the real gain? A character combining a standard action and a move or a move-equivalent and a move gets to "make decisions" at two separate times in a single round. Full-round actions are really the same, unless you choose to make a full attack (in which case you get to make up to 4 decisions, but really all you make is one)Is that really a significant step forward?


Bill Miller 52 wrote:
Sit, down and take your Ritalin.

OP: TLDR. :D

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 3 / New Rules Suggestions / Fundamental Changes to 3.5 Problems All Messageboards
Recent threads in New Rules Suggestions