3.5 and Pathfinder are turn-based games. The rules-as-written make life very difficult for any character whose battlefield role involves interception.
Remaining mobile and directing attacks vs. a mobile target makes you ineffective because you lose Full Attack as an option, and your target (possibly a mage) can often still move farther than you without a loss of effectiveness.
Recent suggestions on the forum for fixing the Fighter have centered around allowing the fighter limited capacity to move in response to the movements of his opponents. A similar discussion has arisen of the Monk's battlefield role (mobility and caster-killer, if I recall Mr. Bulmahn's words on the subject correctly).
All this leads me to wonder, is there some missing combat option, along the lines of Ready Action, that could allow Monks, Fighters, and plain old any character who needs to focus on interception, to get the most out of their special abilities?
To get my fellow Paizoans thinking, I'll kick off this thread with an inferior suggestion in the hopes that more powerful minds will refine or replace it:
Combat Option: Intercept
As a full-round action, a character can declare an Intercept versus any enemy she can currently see, provided she has a higher initiative score. The character takes no action on his own initiative. When the intercepted enemy attempts to take an action on her own turn, the intercepting character may move up to his speed to enter melee range with the intercepted enemy, and may take a Full Attack action before the intercepted enemy's action. This may occur before or after the enemy's movement, just before he takes his action.
I'm not sure this is any good, but you see what I'm driving at. Fighters benefit from (finally) being able to use their full attack when it counts (like the Pounce monster ability), and monks benefit from their high movement rate giving them control over the battlefield. I like to think the balancing factor here is that you must be within your speed to the target in order to pull this off, unless they move toward you and close the distance. So if you sacrifice a standard attack and your initiative, you can pounce with a full attack, provided the enemy leaves an opening.
I'd love to hear radically different approaches to the same general concept.
I posted these elsewhere:
Intercepting Step (Combat)
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Bull Rush, Mobility
Benefit: You may choose to move up to your normal movement speed as an immediate action in response to an enemy's movement. This movement counts as one of your attacks of opportunity for the round (but does not count against your normal movement), and must place you in a square along the enemy's line of movement (if you cannot reach such a square, you cannot use this feat). This movement forces the moving enemy to stop in the square in front of the one you now occupy. Alternatively, the enemy can attempt to bull rush or overrun you (at +2 to the normal DC) to continue movement, but this provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
Mobile Combatant (Combat)
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6; Dodge, Mobility
Benefit: You may trade one or more attacks for 10 ft. of movement each. Your attacks and movement can be taken in any order you choose. For example, an 11th level fighter could attack once, take a 5-ft. step, attack again, move 10 ft., and attack again.
Normal: You can move only one 5-ft. step when making a full attack.
Opportune Strike (Combat)
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, BAB 6+
Benefit: When making a full attack, after making your primary attack, you may choose to hold one (or more, if applicable) of your iterative attacks. Held attacks can be made at any time later in the round as immediate actions, even when it is not your turn. If you hold more than one iterative attack, the two (or more) held attacks need not be made at the same time, although they can be if you so choose.
Special: If you also have the Mobile Combatant feat, you can use that in conjunction with the held attacks, if you so choose.
This is good thinking Kirth.
Are feats the answer? My understanding is that the flow of turn-based combat is causing this problem (no way to intercept). If so, why should characters that hold a specific feat or class ability be the only ones relieved? I think we need a universally available action that allows characters designed for interception (like the monk and possibly the fighter) to actually achieve it.
The monk will benefit from any sort of interception option, by dint of his higher speed. I'd like to include a moving full-attack, provided it could be balanced, so that most martial classes will finally have an answer to highly mobile casters.
I think the problem runs deeper, down to the original design assumptions of 3.0, and a new combat option seems promising to me.
I to am coming to think the issue lays in the combat turn and maybe that needs looked at
Are feats the answer? My understanding is that the flow of turn-based combat is causing this problem (no way to intercept). If so, why should characters that hold a specific feat or class ability be the only ones relieved? I think the problem runs deeper, down to the original design assumptions of 3.0, and a new combat option seems promising to me.
I agree with you 100%, without reservation. However, Pathfinder is set to be "backwards-compatible" (to 3.5e, not to 1e), and fundamental changes in the flow of combat system -- while sorely needed to bring viability to melee classes above 6th level -- are not likely to be addressed as such. Jason Bulmahn has, however, expressed a desire to see feats that address combat deficiencies. Therefore, I've made the needed changes as feats -- even though a general change in the combat rules, as you point out, would be better, more efficient, and less penalizing to low-feat classes like the paladin, who still need the boost. I'd rather have the feats, and houserule that all melee classes get them as bonus feats -- rather than not have them at all, and not have any changes in the combat system, either.
I think a new combat option meets my needs for compatibility much better than new feats or class abilities. Stat blocks can be used unchanged, there would be no high level characters suspiciously missing "essential" feats, and it isn't the type of rule that gets referenced overmuch in modules or APs if it is presumed to be in the rulebook.
I wouldn't dare take issue with initiative or even the turn-based system. There already exist combat options for monsters that let them break the "no move and full attack" rule. If we could find an appropriate cost for such an action, I think it would go a long way to fixing the problems with interception as a tactic.
(I'll step back for a minute so this doesn't become a personal tirade)
I think a new combat option meets my needs for compatibility much better than new feats or class abilities. Stat blocks can be used unchanged, there would be no high level characters suspiciously missing "essential" feats, and it isn't the type of rule that gets referenced overmuch in modules or APs if it is presumed to be in the rulebook.
That's a great point. Hopefully Jason will be willing to tinker with those areas -- with his abilities, and with Monte and Sean to advise him, we can't lose.
I wouldn't dare take issue with initiative or even the turn-based system. There already exist combat options for monsters that let them break the "no move and full attack" rule. If we could find an appropriate cost for such an action, I think it would go a long way to fixing the problems with interception as a tactic.
I agree that something like this needs to become available, and to ALL characters, not just Fighters, and not just to those who can spare the Feats for it.
Likewise, I think the Combat Maneuvers could be re-worked so that the "Improved Maneuver" Feats worked more like the Maneuver Abilities that Monsters have (giving free Maneuver attempts on melee hit). Likewise, I think Grapple should be better integrated in the Iterative Attack system. There's good intentions in wanting to prevent multi-attacks allowing one-round Pins, but how it currently works is only to the detriment of PCs/Humanoids, since Monsters have Improved Grab, while PCs have to give up their other attacks, which they could be using to jab/shiv/etc their Grappling opponent.
I've been using a jury-rigged version of more-or-less exactly the combat option you're descibing since 3.0. We never really had a name for it ("get in his way" "get him before he has a chance to..." or even "intercept him.") , but it has kept our "heavies" in the game. In retrospect, this is probably a big part of why I tend to think fighters don't need much fixing. (As an aside, most front-line fighters select improved init real early on.) Since our house rule is nebulous, however, and most of my players don't think of the game in terms of rules like "combat options" (grapple, for example, is what happens when you "wrestle" or "grab him" etc), I've been able to gloss over possible potential abuses.
|
backwards compatability can be achieved as long as most of the terminolgy stays the same.
Making full attacks a standard action rather than a full action OR making casting a full action rather than a standard action will change the dynamics of a game and solve a number of issues without affecting the compatability of older resource books or making converting modules over to pathfinder very difficult.
However, remember that changes that occur to a system as a whole means that the monsters get to use it as well. This can make dangerous opponents much more lethal and needs to be consdered before blanket changes get made.
This is why I think the feat system can address these things as it allows those meant to be good at tactical combat (fightig types) the option to become interceptors or blockers or whatever but means monsters (which generally won't have access to as many feat slots as PCs do) won't become too overpowered.
Cheers
Except monsters also gain more Feats under Pathfinder,
AND they have access to Feats which PCs do not...
(Pounce for Charge & Full Attack, Improved Grab for Grapple & Full Attack).
I think jason really should look at this. It may need some work but it would give a fighter some of his power back
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.
I like the idea, but the current one is a bit too potent.
Agreed.
When would a fighter/monk/etc ever take any other action?
My understanding of penalty for this action was a)sacrifice initiative, and b) effectiveness contingent on the direction the enemy moves. The original version was not an immediate action. I'll admit it is provably overdoing it, and a little more complex than I would like— something more on par with a charge action would be great.
On the other hand, a full attack with a move isn't all that overpowered. Most spells way outperform any weapon in a standard action. The design selectively limits the effectiveness of melee combatants only by hobbling their ability to act and move. I know this is intentional, but I think many players feel it should be the other way— fighters should be mobile, unstoppable caster distractions; and casters should be relatively static while they are dumping out powerful magic. That would be more in line with the high fantasy tropes.
I'd like to hear more from the people who have been solving this problem already in the context of feats and class abilities. What would be a balanced and useful combat option for interception?
I'd like to hear more from the people who have been solving this problem already in the context of feats and class abilities. What would be a balanced and useful combat option for interception?
We played 1e/2e for years and it was never a problem... wizards and fighters were pretty well-banced back then. Fighters could move freely, make iterative attacks with no penalties, "beat you to the draw" if they won initiative, etc. Wizards automatically lost spells when they were hit. In many ways combat was the reverse of how it is in 3e.
As has already been stated here, most monsters that need it already have Pounce (charge + Full attack), so why not also give that to Fighter types?
There are enough restrictions to charge (straight line, no difficult terrain, not through opponents) that having Pounce as a feat is not unbalanced.
Expanding Readied Actions to allow Full round actions like a Charge attack would also greatly help out battlefield control. Or perhaps allow a Charge as a special exception of the single Standard or Move restrictions for Readied Actions.
I also really like the feat that allows you to give up an iterative attack in exchange for additional movement. It also fits well with the intent of other feats that have been added to PFRPG.
All that said, it also enforces the failings of Medium and Heavy armor restrictions to movement.
|
|
I'd like to see readied actions and held initiative rolled into one thing. Hold your intiitative till a predertimined event, then get your full action. Eg "I hold until the enemy starts casting" once the caster does something then you immediately interrupt. It makes intitiative much more important, allows for interrupt or intercepts without giving the very powerful move and full attack. Of course you could also make this a feat.
While the full attack option is very attractive, if this becomes available through a rule change rather than a feat tree or high feat requirement, it means that EVERY monster/baddy can use it. While some critters do get pounce etc. imagine a world where everything can do this. We fought a critter in our last game that had eight tentacles to attack with, each with obscene damage and a high to hit.My guys beat it by moving in and out of combat so it couldn't really focus all of its attacks. Imagine if that monstrosity could move and unleash all its attacks every round. TPK.
If we open the pounce like feats up to players as well (i get the distinct impression it's going this way for monks at least, and possibly fighters), then the players get access to it if they choose to or can afford to (through feat expenditure) but it still limits the monsters.
I house rule held actions like i stated above (mostly becasue we misread it all when 3rd edition first came out and never bothered to fix it). It works for us, and most of my players invest in improved initiative as a consequence.
I also have a house rule that lets a player spend an iterative attack for extra movement (5 feet standard, 10 feet hasted). Dual wielders have attacks bound as pairs. So for a BAB of 15/10/5 - drop the 5 attack to gain a bonus 5 or 10 feet and still get the 15/10 combo. Works well, particularly in close confines. With dual wield, assuming you have the feat tree that allows you to have six attacks, the lost iterative attacks lose the mainhand and offhand when spent for movement. So no gaining 20 feet and still having 4 attacks when hasted.
This makes haste and hastinf items much more powerful though and they my need looking at for mid level play (not really issue at level 15 where my guys are currently knocking around).
Notice this doesn't tend to transfer to all critters as many get extra attacks through the multi attack options, not because of BAB iterative attacks. The tentacle beast above wouldn't be able to spend 4 of its attacks to get 20 feet and still get 4 attacks as they arent scaling down, its all one attack mod, just 8 separate attacks. I know this isn't perfect but it really did change the dynamics of combat in our game when we introduced it. Keeps the fighter types happy.
I would however like to see this modification of mine rolled into a feat instead as up would tidy up a whole bunch of bookeeping for me the DM (which attacks can be spent for extra moevement again? Who has those types of attack?) With the feat, you know they can spend attacks as they have the prereq for the feat.
Hopefully I'll get a chance to write some feats up for that part of the playtest, though other people here have posted similar concepts and in many cases better ideas than I use, so maybe I'll just hang back and see.
Cheers
I'd like to see readied actions and held initiative rolled into one thing. Hold your intiitative till a predertimined event, then get your full action. Eg "I hold until the enemy starts casting" once the caster does something then you immediately interrupt. It makes intitiative much more important, allows for interrupt or intercepts without giving the very powerful move and full attack. Of course you could also make this a feat.
While the full attack option is very attractive, if this becomes available through a rule change rather than a feat tree or high feat requirement, it means that EVERY monster/baddy can use it. While some critters do get pounce etc. imagine a world where everything can do this.
If we open the pounce like feats up to players as well (i get the distinct impression it's going this way for monks at least, and possibly fighters), then the players get access to it if they choose to or can afford to (through feat expenditure) but it still limits the monsters.
There's not much for me to add to your excellent analysis and suggestions; I agree on all counts -- except I'd very much like to see a feat at least that doesn't require you to state a pre-determined action to respond to, but just lets you hold your actions and use them immediately as you see fit.
P.S. Your suggestion about TWFers giving up paired attacks for movement seems like a very good one.
I've been thinking hard on this one, reading and re-reading the rules for Delayed turns.
I'm not certain that the current rules for delay have changed from 3.5, but it seems that nothing is stopping you from delaying and then charging. If this is the case, the ineffectiveness of interceptor characters might be the player's fault, not the rule's.
You can ready a move action— you can ready TWO move actions— so if you can determine where an enemy is headed it is pretty simple to cut them off and get an AoO. You can delay until their turn and charge. There are satisfactory options.
You can delay until their turn and charge. There are satisfactory options.
Can a delayed charge pre-empt an enemy's action, the way a readied action does? It would be viable for disrupting spellcasting, if so. If not, the caster simply needs to cast defensively (a piece of cake) and we're no better off.
You can delay until their turn and charge. There are satisfactory options.Can a delayed charge pre-empt an enemy's action, the way a readied action does? It would be viable for disrupting spellcasting, if so. If not, the caster simply needs to cast defensively (a piece of cake) and we're no better off.
I've seen some DMs allow a character to ready a "partial charge" (i.e. single move + attack). I'd rather have that then the original suggestion of being able to ready a single move + full attack.
You can delay until their turn and charge. There are satisfactory options.Can a delayed charge pre-empt an enemy's action, the way a readied action does? It would be viable for disrupting spellcasting, if so. If not, the caster simply needs to cast defensively (a piece of cake) and we're no better off.
Cast defensively should add the attacker's BAB to the DC like Tumble does. I'm surprised it doesn't do this already, it seems to have fixed Tumble.
I've come to realize that interception probably requires a lot of smaller fixes like that, rather than a catch all combat option.
Some GMs (not I) place a lot of emphasis on keeping initiative order secret. Perhaps these people would take issue with using a delayed turn to interrupt someone, but even in that even I would say that they could act on the same initiative count, using whatever tie-breaker is traditional. This seems like it could be clarified.
We'd also need some caveat that if someone preemptively charges you and lands right in your path, you can't just step diagonally past them and keep moving -- either that, or make attacks of opportuinity a LOT more dangerous than they are. (Feat to deal precision damage on an AoO, almost like a sneak attack for fighters?) Otherwise, even if casting defensively gets more difficult (which it certainly should), a wizard (or other enemy) can just walk right past the fighter to attack the fighter's friends, or to cast a spell from a non-threatened square.
I don't mind this idea that much, but I would worry about charging (why do it when you can wait to get a full attack in), and using this as a cheap way to get both a move action and a full attack action. Maybe one less attack than normal, or only move up to 1/2 movement rate?
|
(Feat to deal precision damage on an AoO, almost like a sneak attack for fighters?)
There's one of those in the New Feats thread (suggested by me and written out by you and Tarren Dei, if I recall). I can see it making sense; the person being attacked is not concentrating on fighting, so may expose other areas. Although again, I wouldn't restrict it to fighters.
We already have that: the trip maneuver. If the intercepting fighter knocks the bad guy to the floor, the bad guy can't move diagonally past him.
Sure, if we just drop the DC to a reasonable level... maybe 11 instead of 15?
Wrath speaks well on this.
I agree that Delay/Ready should really just be consolidated.
As is, as far as I can tell, it seems a high DEX/Init. character doesn't really need to ever Ready an action: They can just keep Delaying one Initiative Tick until their opponent's Turn, and if their DEX/Init Mod is higher, their attacks still happen first... AND all the damage they do counts against the Opponent's Spellcraft/ Concentration DC, since it's on the same Init Round.
So for those characters, they never have to bother with the restrictions of Ready Action, or risk completely losing their Round's Actions if the exact Trigger doesn't occur, because Delay does 90% of what Ready can do. That the rules are broken for only 75% of characters isn't a reason to keep them that way. I think we could just drop Ready as a distinct option from Delay, and allow ANY character to gain the "act first on same round" Interrupt ability that high DEX/Init Mod. characters currently have. The high DEX characters would still have an advantage because on SUBSEQUENT rounds they would still maintain their superior Interrupt 'position', while lower Init characters would not.
Sure, if we just drop the DC to a reasonable level... maybe 11 instead of 15?
I would really be happy returning to Touch AC & Opposed STR,
but just making the "Opposed" Strength Check a fixed one, i.e. 1d20 + (your STR) vs. 10 (or 11) + (their STR)
|
Making full attacks a standard action rather than a full action OR making casting a full action rather than a standard action...
this is why the underlying principle in 3x is fundamentally flawed, imo.
in the earlier incarnations of D&D, "full attack" was, in essense, a "standard action" and spell casting was, in essense, a "full round action". you could NOT move and cast a spell in 1e, period, it was either/or. by making it possible to move and cast, and by making it impossible to move and full attack, 3x took away a major "balancing" feature of AD&D...
so, to make the above quote work it should read:
Making full attacks a standard action rather than a full action and making casting a full action rather than a standard action...
|
|
I'd like to hear more from the people who have been solving this problem already in the context of feats and class abilities. What would be a balanced and useful combat option for interception?We played 1e/2e for years and it was never a problem... wizards and fighters were pretty well-banced back then. Fighters could move freely, make iterative attacks with no penalties, "beat you to the draw" if they won initiative, etc. Wizards automatically lost spells when they were hit. In many ways combat was the reverse of how it is in 3e.
(you forgot to mention wizards couldn't cast and move in the same round ;) )
We'd also need some caveat that if someone preemptively charges you and lands right in your path, you can't just step diagonally past them and keep moving.
Here, I disagree. That's tactics. If you don't want the enemy to outmaneuver you, don't charge them while they still have a chance to maneuver.
A reading of the RAW seems to imply that a partial-charge is possible, since charging is permitted when you are restricted to a standard or move action. I'm pretty sure this is not the intent of the rule (I think it is for the surprise round), but it seems to fill the need. I would like to see this explained officially, and I hope it rules in favor of partial charges (or not, if ready actions are dropped entirely).
As for times past when casters couldn't move and cast: that would definitely do a lot for the cause of interception. In my opinion, this is where the "game" logic of 3e went awry. There is a snowball's chance in hell of Pathfinder reverting to such a system, though.
So we're stuck with arms race: casters got better, now martials need to be elevated to a competitive level (or not). Same old argument.
For what it is worth, I am for dropping the Ready Action. I think an improved wording on delay, mostly disambiguation without any real new rules, may be just what the doctor ordered.
If Delay/Ready works better (maybe explicitly allow 2WF/ Unexpected Attacks/ etc with Charges...?), than hitting a Caster for Interrupt damage should be fine. The DC of Spellcraft could be looked at, but I don't think "Full Attacks" are necessary to be able to Interrupt successfully.
As Wrath said, if "Move & Full Attack" is an automatic part of the rules, than ALL Monsters have it as well, which, as it nullifies the Pounce ability, runs counter to "BW Compatability". Multi-tentacled creatures Charging (and with Spring Attack) back-stepping to maximize AoO's (against PC's) would just be MAJOR PAIN. Having a Feat that gave a Pounce-like ability to PCs (atop of Mobility/ Spring Attack) seems a valid addition I'd support, though (and one I've seen in non-Core material already).
Making Casting not allow Movement again (5' step OK) would be a major improvement.
3rd Ed. dropped this when Weapon Speed/Casting Time was dropped. Previously, there were "Full Round Casting Time" Spells (Summoning), and those specific Spells STILL ARE Full Round Casting Time. All the other Spells were made Standard Actions, though. This could be fixed by changing the "Action Type" of Spellcasting to preclude more than 5' of movement. (i.e. Full Action, but completes on Initiative Tick unless Summoning Spell)
I think recognizing the design choices (and mistakes) of 3.x is important in approaching this issue clearly.
If Delay/Ready works better (maybe explicitly allow 2WF/ Unexpected Attacks/ etc with Charges...?), than hitting a Caster for Interrupt damage should be fine. The DC of Spellcraft could be looked at, but I don't think "Full Attacks" are necessary to be able to Interrupt successfully.
As Wrath said, if "Move & Full Attack" is an automatic part of the rules, than ALL Monsters have it as well, which, as it nullifies the Pounce ability, runs counter to "BW Compatability". Multi-tentacled creatures Charging (and with Spring Attack) back-stepping to maximize AoO's (against PC's) would just be MAJOR PAIN. Having a Feat that gave a Pounce-like ability to PCs (atop of Mobility/ Spring Attack) seems a valid addition I'd support, though (and one I've seen in non-Core material already).
I just want to go on record as the guy who introduced the bad idea in the OP: I don't think we need full attacks here. It was a poor suggestion meant to get things started. I guess that means I don't think we need an "intercept" combat option any longer. But we should still discuss measures for making interception viable.
I think the best we have so far is this:
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.
;-)
What is the point of Ready Action causing you to LOSE YOUR ACTION (instead of just delaying it) if the trigger doesn't occur? If an Intercept Action is introduced, Ready Action will just be used all the less. The simplest solution is to ditch Ready Action as distinct from Delay, and allow Delay to act as an Interrupt. The only problem: People might actually use it.
...to avoid AoO's. In other words, like how Tumble checks work. (incl. being threatened by multiple foes)
I'd also like to see clarity on how things like 2WF work with a Charge attack (or single move). In 2WF's description, it seems like you could Charge & 2WF, but not in the descriptions of Action Types. But then how do the new abilities, like Unexpected Strike (Swift/ Instant Action), fit into this? I think it's appropriate to allow all these "bonus" attacks on top of a Charge.
And another Feat to allow Pounce (or "Full Attack" Charge) would seem appropriate to add. (w/ Feat/ BAB Pre-Req's)
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).
I'm left wondering if Ready/Delay actual work as printed, and they just fell under the radar as tactics. I'll be that Mr. Bulmahn wants to leave these rules as they are.
Lots of games let delayed actions interrupt. I don't see it as a huge problem, but I guess the designers forbade it for a reason. Then again, it seems like the early 3.0 days were about nerfing martial types.
As they say in Shadowrun: "Magical superiority through faster firepower."
Here, I disagree. That's tactics. If you don't want the enemy to outmaneuver you, don't charge them while they still have a chance to maneuver.
My dilemma is that they almost always have a chance to maneuver, rendering charging a lost cause. Moving is only half the battle -- it helps with disrupting spellcasting, but I still feel that fighters and paladins should have the ability to effectively guard their friends as well. That means some ability to effectively interpose themselves between enemies and those frinds so that the enemies can't just walk by. If tripping can accomplish it, OK, but that brings us back to a silly situation where the only effective fighter is the spiked chain wielder, and that just grates me too hard -- a sword-and-shild fighter should still be a viable character, IMHO, or else we're failing in our task.
I'd be just as happy if this were a feat or maybe a separate combat maneuver ("check" as opposed to "trip", "disarm" or whatever); it doesn't need to be an automatic option. Others have proposed a "taunt" mechanism which I personally find unsatisfying on a number of levels. But some means of keeping people from just walking past you -- particularly if you aren't a spiked cheese wielder -- needs to be an option, I think.
That means some ability to effectively interpose themselves between enemies and those frinds so that the enemies can't just walk by.
Mage Harpoon.
|
|
I think this is a pretty sound idea. With refining, this could be a viavle new aoption.
Just a reminder, Immediate Actions and Swift Actions were added much later to the SRD, so there is precident for adding a non-feat mechanic without relying on feats to make the change. As someone else pointed out, a new mechanic or combat option really doesn't alter the set stat-block or backwards compatibility. Adding feats means some degree of reconfiguration.
Just one question. Doesn't the charge action require a straight line to the target/opponent? How would intercepting handle this?
|
|
Kirth, I have an idea for a set of feats for board and sword fighters that allows them to make threatened squares difficult terrain or impassable terrain (levelling specific). The idea being that a defensive option means you can't move past them, not just get AoO'd. A fighter with this sring of feats now has an effective frontage of 15 feet. If he's enlarged then now its a 30 foot frontage (10 foot of occupied space, 10 feet either side of threatened squares).
This also stops the 5' foot step and cast (but doesn't address the defensive cast, that's another issue).
However, I don't see the intercept fighter in the same light as the blocking fighter, I have a fixed concept I'm working towards with some feats for a more agile fighter (see the fluid movements of the battles in Troy say) as opposed to a defensive Phalanx fighter (300 style possibly). A guy in heavy armour and with a big shield, wielding spears or swords effectively can easily "Defend" an area bigger than 5 feet, and I'd like to see this reflected in the rules.
A guy with two weapons and light armour (or some other mobile weapon armour combination) should be able to react faster and more effectively but isn't a blocking option in my mind. Two different options.
These are the thoughts behind a number of the solutions I've thrown in above so everyone at least has an idea where I'm coming from.
Cheers
Personally, I don't think keeping the Ready/Delay "as is" while adding ANOTHER option,
a hybrid "Initiative Action"/Melee Action ("Intercept") is the way to go.
Simplicity & effectiveness don't need to be opposed.
There should be the minimal number of "Initiative Actions" (which is why I support collapsing Delay/ Ready),
that are clear-cut and effective, but are still open to multiple uses:
"Intercept" is one use only. (well, it could conceivably also be used for Spells also, currrently (3.5/beta)... sheesh)
And I see plenty of good reasons NOT to Delay:
to maintain your initiative advantage/ not waste a round's actions
you're not fighting casters you can interrupt/ you don't know you are
note that after Delaying once, if you want to do it again you pretty much lose a rounds' actions.
thus interrupt is a limited tactic.
also note that the high DEX/Init Mod character still has the superior Interrupt ability, because they continue to act just before the opponent on subsequent rounds (but on the same tick), meaning unless the Opponent Delays off that Tick, their spellcasting would continue to be interrupted by melee damage. So allowing Delay Action to be an effective interrupt for ALL characters still doesn't approach the high DEX/Init Mod character's superior NON-STOP Interrupt capacity. (it is a princess' bride scenario when interruptor/interruptee decide whether to Delay for their NEXT round: if they both do, high DEX still gains Interrupt advantage. this is a silly 'gambling' scenario that shouldn't exist in the rules)
While writing this, I thought of something else:
Casting Defensively is an absurd auto-pass by mid-levels, obviously, but as well:
why doesn't Casting Defensively have any action-economy consequences?
Currently, it doesn't interfere with Moving & Casting (which has already been mentioned on it's own, w/o Cast Def.)
However Spellcasting and Movement is or is not modified,
it REALLY seems to me that Casting Defensively should necessitate giving up ALL movement.
|
|
While writing this, I thought of something else:
Casting Defensively is an absurd auto-pass by mid-levels, obviously, but as well:
why doesn't Casting Defensively have any action-economy consequences?
Currently, it doesn't interfere with Moving & Casting (which has already been mentioned on it's own, w/o Cast Def.)
However Spellcasting and Movement is or is not modified,
it REALLY seems to me that Casting Defensively should necessitate giving up ALL...
Threadjack here sorry, but wanted to respond to this point.
Can't get the full quote up sorry Quandary, still gotta figure out a work around for that.
I think defensive casting needs to be rolled into defensive stance as well. It seems to be two separate rules for the one action.
Fighting defensively gives a bonus to AC for a person most likely fully trained in fighting.
Defensive casting makes you immune to being hit if your intelligent enough (spellcraft now) even if you've spent all your ife sequested in a tower reading books. Kind of silly to me.
Roll them into one rule, preferrably the one that means your AC goes up. Drop the spellcraft check to do so. Now a caster can take a defensive stance to make them harder to hit while casting (AC goes up), if they get hit then make em take a spellcraft. This also brings the idea of casting in combat back into the domain of the cleric again rather than the wizard/sorceror (clerics tend to have better AC from the experience in our games)
As much as I'd like to see this happen, I don't think it will though. It would upset many casters and may have big implications for high level play, particularly if the fighting types continue to be unable to prevent access to the casters. I also havn't playtested this idea so can't comment from an experience perspective.
End of threadjack :)
Cheers
I think defensive casting needs to be rolled into defensive stance as well. It seems to be two separate rules for the one action.
And while we're at it, can we also rename Combat Expertise to be Improved Defensive Fighting? Because it all it does is change the atk:AC "exchange rate" from 2:1 to 1:1. It never makes any sense to me that the feat for fighting defensively doesn't even reference the defensive fighting rules.