|
This one may be a bit contentious but I think this is the place to bring it up. This is a rule at combat level rather than any specific class so all people can utalise it.
Many discussions have occurred around the disparity of effectiveness for combat types vs casters. Particularly the inability for combat oriented playes to fully utelise all their attacks if they move more than 5 feet.
I would like to see a change where you can either:
a) Spend attacks for further movement (5 feet increments, 10 feet if hasted).
or
b) have casting spells over a certain level take a full round action (can't move more than 5 feet and cast)
I have implemented the first example into my home game and with characters now at 17th level it seems to work well. Gives the fighting types more tactical maneuverability and the capacity for higher damage output.
My preference is the spend attacks option as it is far less complex than tracking if a spell was level 4 or more so you couldn't move and cast (purely from a DM's perspective).
If there is enough interest I'll post the full rule I've written for the move option.
In terms of backwards compatability it certainly has no impact on stat blocks as written.
Also, I remember how hot this topic was early on in the piece so if this isn't the place or isn't what the designers are after, I understand if it gets shut down. I just felt it was an option that could balance a number of other issues in the game.
Cheers
Yes. Basically, this is about the change in 3.x that:
Made it so you could not Full Attack with more than a 5' Step.
Made it so you could cast any Spell (no matter the Level) AND take a Move Action.
"Melee" Classes' Iterative Attacks are their obvious counterpart to Caster Classes' increasing powerful Spells.
While both Class Types can do their Schtick AND take a Move Action at 1st level, at higher levels, the "Melee" Classes are limited to the same Single Standard Attack that they had at first level, while Casters have access to their highest Spell Level... This when most spells DON'T need specific positioning to pull off, but Melee attacks REQUIRE being in threat range to do anything at all.
I'm happy with limiting Full Attacks & Moves (since this applies to Monsters as well), but don't see the reasoning behind NOT limiting Spell Casting Movement somehow. It would seem that applying a Spell Level limit to Standard Action Casting is analagous to REDUCING Iterative Attacks if the Fighter moves more than 5'.
(Using BOTH rules seems to work very well together, actually...)
As well, I wonder why 2 Weapon Fighting bonus attacks aren't usable after a Move Action:
At first level, even with a Full Attack and just a 5' step, a "normal" melee character is limited to 1 attack.
2WF allows 2 attacks, and is balanced by attack penalties (-2/-2 w/ Feat & appropriate Weapons)
If it's reasonable for Improved 2WF to increase a 1st level PC's Full Attack from 1 to 2 attacks (w/ penalties),
why shouldn't the same penalties also balance out taking a Move Action/ Charge and attacking twice?
One thing in implementing this is whether Rogue's Sneak Attacks should somehow be reduced to compensate for being able to Full Attack more often (or at least have Multiple Attacks):
Either by slowing the advancement (# of SA dice), reducing the die type (d6->d4?), or limiting Sneak Attack to a per round damage bonus. This is somewhat stickier to resolve, but I thought I should throw it out there.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think that changing the casting time of some of the more powerful spells for their spell level to full round actions would be a nice balancing factor. For instance, fireball is a pretty average 3rd level spell, so keep it at a 1 standard action casting time, but haste is at the high end of 3rd level spells, so make it take a full round action.
Reducing the # of Iterative Attacks per extra 5' step seems overly-penalizing compared to Spellcasting, which gets an entire Move Action for "free".
(And doesn't resolve how Move Action-equivalent Actions should affect the # of Attacks)
Instead, the # of Attacks granted by a Standard Attack could increase, just slower than Full Attack.
For Casters, they could Cast their HIGHEST Spell Level as a Full Round Action, and (Highest Spell Level -X) as a Standard Action. So in one example, a 3rd Level Spell might be a Full Round Action (allowing only 5' Step, basically the same as 2nd Ed), but 1st Level Spells would just be Standard Actions. This doesn't mean the highest level Spells need to become Full Round CASTING TIME, it just needs to effect the Action Economy.
(The period actually vulnerable to disruption isn't increased)
The Casting Time terminology might be clarified if this were adopted, i.e. "Swift", "Standard", "Channeled (1 round)" (instead of "Full Round") & "Channeled (X)" for especially long rituals.
If there is enough interest I'll post the full rule I've written for the move option.
I'm interested.
I'd really like to see this addressed. I think a good solution would be to give up iterative attacks to gain an extra 5' step per sacrificed iterative. So at BAB +6,+1, you could give up your +1 attack to take two 5' steps, to attack 10' away and thus avoiding an AoO due to moving. A special consideration would need to be addressed for 2-weapon fighting, hasted, speed weapons, and such however.
At the same time it's worth looking at each spell's casting time on a spell-by-spell basis. Particularly powerful spells (save-or-dies), might be bumped up to full-round actions for instance, with the quicken spell feat not able to be applied.
I'm not sure if a casting time based on spell level is best, as you have save-or-die spells at low levels as well.
|
|
Why not just let all character's sacrifice an iterative attack for an extra swift or move action a round, or both if they want. This is short, simple, and addresses the problem.
Because if you gave casters an extra swift action they could possibly cast three spells a round. Two swift and a standard. I don't think that will balance well.
The spend attack option I outlined above works well for movement. It works for everyone. But fighters get a boost because they get bonus attacks faster. In melee, this means they can drop an opponent with an attack, then move and engage another opponent. It's rare that a caster is going to spend the extra move and get an attack in.
Imagine a situation where a 9th level fighter has haste. He moves and engages an opponent and drops it in the first attack. His combat potential is now gone in the current rules.
With the move action rule above, he can spend his second iterative attack to move 10ft and engage a second opponent (10ft for haste). Depending on how you DM the haste attack rule it's even possible that the fighting type could now engage his bonus attack on the new opponent.
I's worth noting I don't let this stack with a charge action in my games.
As I said, for our game now at level 17 it really works well.
Cheers
Why not just let all character's sacrifice an iterative attack for an extra swift or move action a round, or both if they want. This is short, simple, and addresses the problem.Because if you gave casters an extra swift action they could possibly cast three spells a round. Two swift and a standard. I don't think that will balance well.
Well, if it actually required an ATTACK Action which uses actual ATTACKS, NOT allowing hypothetical Iterative Attacks to add on to a Caster's Cast Spell + Cast Swift / Quickened Spell routine, it would prevent that scenario, which I agree would be WAY over the top (especially since the point is to let Melee scale like Casting)
...I just prefer making Standard Attack Action ITSELF scale because (besides avoiding above problem completely) giving up (Full Attack) Iterative Attacks for 5' of movement doesn't address that Casters can cast Max Level Spell AND Move-Equivalent Action, while "Fighters" cannot Iterative Attack and do that Move-Equivalent Action. Of course, if Casters' highest-level Spells are Full Round Actions (as proposed), they couldn't do that with their stronger Spells, but it just seems simple & elegant to allow Standard Attack Actions to scale like Full Attack does (but slower), :
Instead, your Character Sheet just lists "Standard Attack = X Attacks, Full Attack = Y Attacks", based on BAB.
I don't really think a Spell Level cut-off for casting as Standard Action vs. Full-Round Action is much work at all.
Tracking which Spells are Full-Round CASTING TIME and things like Spontaneous Metamagic seems alot more work.
You just update your "Max Standard Action Spell Level" when you gain a Spell Level. No biggie.
These seem like a great pair of changes, that would put Casting & Melee more in the same boat Action Economy-wise, and actually fine-tune some of 3.x's "changes" to 2nd Edition.
|
Why not just let all character's sacrifice an iterative attack for an extra swift or move action a round, or both if they want. This is short, simple, and addresses the problem.Because if you gave casters an extra swift action they could possibly cast three spells a round. Two swift and a standard. I don't think that will balance well.
Which is honestly a concern for the Spells and Magic Playtest.
As I said, for our game now at level 17 it really works well.
Working well at level 17 isn't impressive. D&D's numbers have always been biased towards functioning at higher levels. The Primary reason I actually like 3.P is that a level 1 character doesn't suck. If the math doesn't scale from level 1-20 it's not the best solution we can come up with.
Why not just let all character's sacrifice an iterative attack for an extra swift or move action a round, or both if they want. This is short, simple, and addresses the problem.
I don't think this would be best. Giving up an iterative for an extra move action effectively gives you a double move with multiple attacks. At BAB +16, you could actually move triple your normal move and still attack. Monks would be flying all over the place.
I also think that swift actions should be kept at 1 per round.
Now if you could give up an iterative for certain move-equivalent actions and/or extra 5' steps, that may be interesting.
...I just prefer making Standard Attack Action ITSELF scale because (besides avoiding above problem completely) giving up (Full Attack) Iterative Attacks for 5' of movement doesn't at all address that Casters can cast Max Level Spell AND Move-Equivalent Action, while "Fighters" could not Iterative Attack and also do that Move-Equivalent Action.
I think you might lose some elements from the tactics of movement if you just made the standard action scale with attacks. And it would reduce the quality of a 5' step. But I'll have to play out some mock battles to be sure.
I don't really think a Spell Level cut-off for casting as Standard Action vs. Full-Round Action is much work at all.
Tracking which Spells are Full-Round CASTING TIME and things like Spontaneous Metamagic seems alot more work.
A number of spells already have different casting times other than a standard action...Feather Fall, the summon spells... I don't see it as work at all. At high level, we have to refer to spell descriptions so often anyway, so we'd be looking at the casting time as well. Not to mention the many subtle changes to several spells in pathfinder, which reinforces the need to looking them over.
For Casters, they could Cast their HIGHEST Spell Level as a Full Round Action, and (Highest Spell Level -X) as a Standard Action. So in one example, a 3rd Level Spell might be a Full Round Action (allowing only 5' Step, basically the same as 2nd Ed), but 1st Level Spells would just be Standard Actions.
Quite honestly...
There's an elegance here. Enough people have spoken that, they want magic to continue to be powerful and flashy. In a way, this suggests a learning curve. Sure, you learned this amazing new power, but it's going to take a little while to get used to it and use it to full effect. But it does, eventually, allow the full effect, and the effect we're talking about here is just movement-based, an attempt to equal out actions.
Perhaps at level 20, the full-round for those last uber-level spells goes away...as a cap.
That said, some of the more powerful level spells should probably be adjusted to being full-round, but that can wait for spells. Remember Turns, anyone?
I think you might lose some elements from the tactics of movement if you just made the standard action scale with attacks. And it would reduce the quality of a 5' step. But I'll have to play out some mock battles to be sure.
I think that's definitely an important distinction to retain,
but I think my suggestion still keeps the Full Attack/ Move+Standard Attack trade-off,though allowing that distinction to scale with level(BAB).
Let's say Standard Attack loses ONE Iterative Attack compared to Full Attack.
But to balance it (You can always chose to take a Single Attack at Full BAB), it "trails" your Full BAB by 5 (the # needed to gain Iterative Attack), meaning if the Standard Attack allows X Attacks, and Full Attack is X+1, your chance of hitting with X Attacks is MUCH lower with the Standard Attack than the Full Attack.
Standard Iterative Attacks could be listed explicitly in the Class BAB Tables (like Full Attack/Iterative Attacks: +15/+10/+5), or just described as "starting" with the SECOND Iterative Attack.
As I mentioned, I think Standard Attacks SHOULD allow 2WF/ other additional attacks (since these are considered balanced with single attack Full Attacks at low levels), but remember, these Secondary Attacks are using the same Base BAB as Full Attack's SECOND ATTACK (i.e. @-5, and 2WF has it's own penalty on top) - If you choose the option to make one single attack at Full BAB, you would forgo "Secondary Attacks".
I think that's definitely an important distinction to retain,
but I think my suggestion still keeps the Full Attack/ Move+Standard Attack trade-off,
though allowing that distinction to scale with level(BAB).Let's say Standard Attack loses ONE Iterative Attack compared to Full Attack.
But to balance it (You can always chose to take a Single Attack at Full BAB), it "trails" your Full BAB by 5 (the # needed to gain Iterative Attack), meaning if the Standard Attack allows X Attacks, and Full Attack is X+1, your chance of hitting with X Attacks is MUCH lower with the Standard Attack than the Full Attack.
Standard Iterative Attacks could be listed explicitly in the Class BAB Tables (like Full Attack/Iterative Attacks: +15/+10/+5), or just described as "starting" with the SECOND Iterative Attack.
Sorry, didn't catch the part that you're looking at two different numbers:
Full Attack = X attacksStandard Action = X Attacks - 1
Is that right?
In that case... I think it would have to scale at full number of attacks - 1, because it would prove almost useless otherwise.
The benefits of this really wouldn't kick in until 11th level for good BAB types, and 15th level for average BAB types.
Also, I don't think your standard attacks should trail a full-attack at -5. In other words, if your BAB is +12, then your:
Full-Attack is: +12,+7,+2
Standard Attack is : +12,+7
That's not all that different from giving up iteratives for additional 5'moves. It allows you to move further, but you would still provoke attacks of opportunity. And yes, with your way, I would agree that TWF should get more attacks, but going the extra 5' step route as I have written, a TWFer could give up more attacks to move further.
|
|
Probably should've just posted this in the orginal post, but here's the rule as I've written it for my home game
3) Spending iterative attacks. We introduced the ability for fighters to spend iterative attacks to enable them an additional bit of movement. For each attack you spend, you gain an extra 5 feet of movement, or ten feet if under the influence of haste. Dual wielding characters spend attacks in pairs. So for 5 feet extra move you lose both you main and offhand attack. You lose attacks in order from lowest attack to highest. You can spend this move after attacking if you have attacks left. You can spend this after moving as well. You cannot spend these attacks to move further than you would normally be able to in a round. You can’t spend attacks to cast extra spells. Flying doesn't increase the distance able to be moved for a spent attack
This one's straight from the addendum I typed for my players. We haven't run into issues with it yet.
Cheers
Edit: - just realised the part about not moving more than normally allowed might be confusing. What this means is that in normal combat environment, a human could move up to 60 feet in a round with a double move and no penalties. The extra movements from spending attacks cannot allow you you to supercede this limit. The limit changes as usual for things such as haste or armour penalties. We discussed this in game so it wasn't written in the addendum. Sorry for the confusion.
Sorry, didn't catch the part that you're looking at two different numbers:
Full Attack = X attacks
Standard Action = X Attacks - 1
...I think it would have to scale at full number of attacks -1, because it would prove almost useless otherwise.
Yes, I think my first post I didn't specify and just said "slower" advancement,
And in my second more detailed post I actually fleshed it out more.(A "slower" advancement NOT tied directly to the main one would be a headache. Dropping an attack is easy)
The benefits of this really wouldn't kick in until 11th level for good BAB types, and 15th level for average BAB types.
This is true, but I think giving more would be "too much". It DOES work with 2WF/Shield Bash earlier.
Also, I don't think your standard attacks should trail a full-attack at -5. In other words, if your BAB is +12, then your:
Full-Attack is: +12,+7,+2
Standard Attack is : +12,+7That's not all that different from giving up iteratives for additional 5'moves. It allows you to move further, but you would still provoke attacks of opportunity. And yes, with your way, I would agree that TWF should get more attacks, but going the extra 5' step route as I have written, a TWFer could give up more attacks to move further.
"My way" allows 20' more movement (more with speed boosts, plus flexibility to use ANY Move-Equiv. Action.
I thought that dropping the first (best BAB) Attack might be necessary to "Balance" the ability, since the lowest one rarely hits. But as you point out, this is mainly coming into play at high levels - which in Pathfinder means you're either giving up Vital Strike bonus damage, or reducing your Attacks by one MORE, which means not much left over - Taking that into account, I think dropping the last attack IS reasonable and balanced.
2WF's can make the earliest usage of this, but like I said, it has the same balance as low-level Fighters with only single attack Full Attacks. How Sneak Attack works could POSSIBLY be tweaked...
To touch back on the Caster end of things, I like setting up the distinction of "Top 2 Spell Levels as Full-Round Action, lower level Spells as Standard Action" (Top 2 Spell Levels seems about equal to the +5 BAB needed to gain Iterative Attack). It brings back some of 2nd Edition's flavor (lower level spells faster to cast), but without the messy Initiative book-keeping, and with 2 simple tiers. Like I mentioned, since most Spells DON'T need to be cast in melee range, Casters are LESS penalized than Fighters by having to take a Full Round Action (with only 5' Step) to use their strongest abilities (~Fighter's Full Attack) - The Melee Fighter NEEDS TO stay in Melee Range to be effective, while the Caster's spells are always effective (they just WANT to stay out of Melee for Defensive purposes).
Personally I'd love to see many spells casting times increase. That's another thing that was a sneaky bump to casters in 3.x, that their spells now just went off on their action. In previous editions spells had casting times in "segments" and if you got hit during those segments you lost the spell, thereby reducing some of the spellcasters overall power advantages. Casting magic took time. Now the melee sorts have to ready an attack against the caster or be in threatening range when the spell casting begins etc. Before, the spellcaster could begin casting fireball on segment 3, the bad guy moves up to him and whacks him on 5, and if the spellcaster is still awake his spell is lost. Now, losing the spell was core, but we always had a concentration type roll to keep the spell. Anyway, my point is, I'd love to see VERY MANY SPELLS get their casting times increased, and start with the more powerful or problematic ones first.
Director of Game Design
|
Hmm, this is certainly one of the numerous problems with the melee vs caster divide. As I see it, assuming that this problem is not addressed elsewhere, there are a few options to bring a bit more balance to the equation...
1. Full attack is a standard action. This is possible but it has deeper ramifications as it significantly alters the value of certain feats (Whirlwind Attack for example) and the potency of some monsters (trolls for example).
2. Sacrifice attacks for extra movement as part of a full round action. This seems a bit off to me, as it is outside the flow of what you can normally do. We are allowing you to sacrifice attacks for a benefit through feats and class abilities though, so this might be an option through feats.
3. Alter spell casting times. One of the solutions posted here is really interesting and one that I have been kicking around a bit as of late. The idea is that a spellcaster's higher levels spells require a full round action, while lower level spells default to their standard duration. I like this idea, but I am still thinking it through, looking for unforeseen problems.
4. Add some ability to purely martial classes to let them move more and still full attack. There are a lot of options here, but most of them could be simply solved with a feat that has a BAB requirement (move your full speed, take two attacks, BAB +11 requirement: this might work).
I am interested in seeing where this goes. Could I get some groups to play using these options over the next few weeks and report back.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I have some possible unforeseen problems with increasing casting times:
Metamagic feats: How do these interact with the increased casting time? Are they full round if they hit the highest spell level? Or do they stay according to their original level? What about quicken spell?
What about the spells with longer casting times already? Do they "lower down" once you get past them? Do they take even longer when they are your max spell level? An example would be the Summon Monster spells which are already a bit problematic.
If they can interupt my spell can I interupt their attack with one of my own? Seems fair that if they can set me off my stride I can set them off theirs. An attack routine can be disrupted in real life: You see it all the time in boxing, wrestling, and UFC. One guy starts to get his rythim going and the other counters and breaks it up.
On the idea of move action + full attacking:
What if you got one less itenterive attack than normal if you move as a normal thing? It would benefit average and full attack progressions -- full attack more than average, and would stop a feat tax from taking place, which is something we should avoid I think. Afterall all those nice extra feats start to lose their niceness if I suddenly got several more feats I feel I MUST take to be effective.
1. Full attack is a standard action. This is possible but it has deeper ramifications as it significantly alters the value of certain feats (Whirlwind Attack for example) and the potency of some monsters (trolls for example).
4. Add some ability to purely martial classes to let them move more and still full attack. There are a lot of options here, but most of them could be simply solved with a feat that has a BAB requirement (move your full speed, take two attacks, BAB +11 requirement: this might work).
Full Attack as Standard Action feels off to me too, since it's giving EVERY Combatant Pounce, basically.
Being able to have PCs face a Monster WITHOUT Pounce (say, Tentacle Monsters) seems valuable.As well, keeping a distinction between Full Attack/Standard Attack+Move does add to the depth of Combat.
I proposed the "Weak Iterative Attack" as Standard Attack (1 less than Full Attack) because it maintains the distinction to Full Attack (while scaling appropriately with Level), but I think it's important that it NOT BE A FEAT. Casters do not spend a Feat to be able to Cast Spells as Standard Actions. Barbarians & Paladins only have 10? Feats - This is CORE functionality they shouldn't be penalized to obtain. Specifying this as ITERATIVE attack actually preserves Pounce Monsters as specific instead of Universal, which certainly helps backwards-compatability with Monsters.
Another option could be to regress CASTERS to 2nd Edition-style Full-Round Action Casting (as I mentioned this doesn't need to be CASTING TIME for Interruption purposes), and also give THEM a Feat allowing Lower Level Spellcasting as Standard Actions (BAB/Spell Level requirements should make them available at equivalent levels).
2 Lower Spell Levels seem equivalent to giving up 1 Iterative attack, based on the equal Class Levels needed to gain both.
The "Feat Required" option, besides seeming like a "Feat Tax" in general, is even more "Taxing" on Melee-ists, since they NEED to stay in Melee Range, meaning they WILL "drop down" to Move+Standard no matter what. For a Caster who DOESN'T need to be in Melee (being OUT of it is just a Defensive "preference"), having a Move Action every round isn't as much of a necessity (Archers have benefit over Melee here). I personally would prefer both aspects (Casting/Iterative Attacks) to be built into the standard system as default, not needing a Feat.
I'll try and get this playtested in the next weeks, though...
Granting more full-attacks is not what the game needs.
At present, particularly past level 11, and as soon as level 5-6, when Haste is online, combat becomes all about getting your full-attack, because it's the fastest, most efficient method of winning a fight.
Which isn't a whole lot of fun. Making full-attacks even more common would just make a bad thing worse.
So instead, assuming that full-attacks exist to make martial characters scale with casters, if a change needs to be made, then slowing spellcasters down is probably the best method.
Damage comes in huge spikes due to full-attacking already. Let's not make it even more common.
-Matt
Matt: Changing Default Spellcasting to Full-Round DOESN'T matter to Casters as much, since most of their Spells are at Range. It would be harder to force a Caster into Moving & only using low-level Spells, compared to forcing a Melee character to Move + Standard Attack, because positiong isn't as crucial to Spell Success as it is to Melee. I suppose higher level Spells could become MULTI-ROUND Casting Time, or even regress completely to 2nd Edition giving Spells greater Disruptability, scaling with their Level, but I doubt that's happening. That's why I like: Weak Iterative Attacks helping Standard Attacks' "Level Scaling" (like Spells) while maintaining Full Attack distinction...
Why lose attacks for extra movement. Just create a feat (or make it a standard for all characters) that allows you to move extra 5 feet for each iterative attack you can do. So BAB +1 - +5 characters can move 5 foot and full attack (if wielding two weapons or rapid shooting), BAB +6 - +10 characters can move 10 feet and do full attack, BAB +11 - +15 can move 15 feet and do full attack and BAB 16+ can move 20 feet and do full attack.
I would also limit this movement to MAX what that character can move with its move action.
Also this movement would not be needed to be done at the same time.
OK, this might make some problems with the Cleave and such feats but the movement and tactical possibilities are great with this.
|
We're hitting high levels in our RotR campaign (well, higher than we've ever hit in 3.x, anyway :P). I'm going to introduce this new feat:
Combat swiftness (Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13, BAB +6.
Benefit: When you take a full attack action, you can spend one of your iterative attacks to take an additional 5' step that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
|
|
I don't quite like the idea of increasing casting time for high level spells, for some reasons:
* There are spells whose "thing" is that they're quick to cast.
* What happens with the Quicken Spell feat?
* I'd prefer added movement rather than restricted movement.
So, I like giving combat characters the option to move more better. And the ideal way to do this, IMO, would be using feats.
1. Full attack is a standard action. This is possible but it has deeper ramifications as it significantly alters the value of certain feats (Whirlwind Attack for example) and the potency of some monsters (trolls for example).
4. Add some ability to purely martial classes to let them move more and still full attack. There are a lot of options here, but most of them could be simply solved with a feat that has a BAB requirement (move your full speed, take two attacks, BAB +11 requirement: this might work).
Full Attack as Standard Action feels off to me too, since it's giving EVERY Combatant Pounce, basically.
Being able to have PCs face a Monster WITHOUT Pounce (say, Tentacle Monsters) seems valuable.
As well, keeping a distinction between Full Attack/Standard Attack+Move does add to the depth of Combat.I proposed the "Weak Iterative Attack" as Standard Attack (1 less than Full Attack) because it maintains the distinction to Full Attack (while scaling appropriately with Level), but I think it's important that it NOT BE A FEAT. Casters do not spend a Feat to be able to Cast Spells as Standard Actions. Barbarians & Paladins only have 10? Feats - This is CORE functionality they shouldn't be penalized to obtain. Specifying this as ITERATIVE attack actually preserves Pounce Monsters as specific instead of Universal, which certainly helps backwards-compatability with Monsters.
Another option could be to regress CASTERS to 2nd Edition-style Full-Round Action Casting (as I mentioned this doesn't need to be CASTING TIME for Interruption purposes), and also give THEM a Feat allowing Lower Level Spellcasting as Standard Actions (BAB/Spell Level requirements should make them available at equivalent levels).
2 Lower Spell Levels seem equivalent to giving up 1 Iterative attack, based on the equal Class Levels needed to gain both.The "Feat Required" option, besides seeming like a "Feat Tax" in general, is even more "Taxing" on Melee-ists, since they NEED to stay in Melee Range,...
Yes. Please, please, please with sugar and a million monkey babies, don't make it a feat. It'd just be a feat tax--and this is a game issue. A feat suggests "this is an issue only some martial PCs have, so not all will need to take this option." Further, feats in general are more important for martially-inclined PCs, as many martial powers are focused in them, so it's arguable that the number available for all martial PCs is somewhat important. :)
I have some possible unforeseen problems with increasing casting times:
Metamagic feats: How do these interact with the increased casting time? Are they full round if they hit the highest spell level? Or do they stay according to their original level? What about quicken spell?
Hmm... how can you apply a Metamagic Feat to your higher-level spells, anyway? Feats that allow for reducing the level-increase of metamagic spells are not OGL, the only Metamagic Feat with a Spell-level adjustment =0 that I can think of is Energy Substitution - which is not OGL - , and I strongly believe that Metamagic Mastery for Universalist Wizards cannot be applied if the feat you are using would increase the spell level above the maximum you are normally able to cast.
So, basically, 95% of the times, spells of your higher level CANNOT be modified with Metamagic feats...|
|
Hmm, this is certainly one of the numerous problems with the melee vs caster divide. As I see it, assuming that this problem is not addressed elsewhere, there are a few options to bring a bit more balance to the equation...
1. Full attack is a standard action. This is possible but it has deeper ramifications as it significantly alters the value of certain feats (Whirlwind Attack for example) and the potency of some monsters (trolls for example).
2. Sacrifice attacks for extra movement as part of a full round action. This seems a bit off to me, as it is outside the flow of what you can normally do. We are allowing you to sacrifice attacks for a benefit through feats and class abilities though, so this might be an option through feats.
3. Alter spell casting times. One of the solutions posted here is really interesting and one that I have been kicking around a bit as of late. The idea is that a spellcaster's higher levels spells require a full round action, while lower level spells default to their standard duration. I like this idea, but I am still thinking it through, looking for unforeseen problems.
4. Add some ability to purely martial classes to let them move more and still full attack. There are a lot of options here, but most of them could be simply solved with a feat that has a BAB requirement (move your full speed, take two attacks, BAB +11 requirement: this might work).
I am interested in seeing where this goes. Could I get some groups to play using these options over the next few weeks and report back.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I could happily see this go to a feat opion if you feel it needs that type of sacrifice.
I'll have to let others playtest the change to spell casting though as my casters would lynch me if I tried this one out at this stage of our campaign :)
I think metamagic would cause an issue here, as pointed out by another poster, particulalry quicken.You'd have to reword the quicken option so it changed the casting time by one level - i.e spells of 3rd level or lower become a swift action, spells of 4th or higher become a standard action. Full round spells become a full action etc.
I also think other metamagic spells should scale the spell according to the slot they're in. So a 3rd level spell prepared in a 4th level slot would take a full action to cast. This has implications on Sorcerors though, as they already have a time delay for casting metamagic on the fly. Better players than I probably need to tackle that one I'm thinking.
Cheers
The point he was making, The Wraith (yes, I remembered lol), was concerning spells that were effectively higher-level spells because of metamagic. He wasn't talking about using metamagic on the higher level spells.
*points to his earlier idea concerning keeping a single attack(s with 2 weapon fighting) for standard action, and raising the damage according to the number of iterative attacks availiable.*
Still waiting for feedback lol.
Thank you for remembering it ! You are among the few, dear sir !!! :)
I pointed that because I was thinking about the idea Quandary wrote about, making ONLY the higher-level spells 'full-round ones' (and the others, keeping their original casting time) - which is a good one IMHO, let me add.
However, as a general rule, a spell whose casting time is greater than a standard action requires only an extra full-round action to cast (page 77: "Casting a standard action metamagic spell spontaneously is a full-round action, and a spell with a longer casting time takes an extra full-round action to cast."), so a Sorcerer can currently cast a Silent Summon Monster III, for example (with a casting time of 1 round + 1 full-round action).
You appreciate me remembering to address you by your full screen name but then you skip over my attempted contribution to the thread? For shame ;].
But yeah, that idea is interesting, regarding the casting times. Still not sold on it, but I am thinking it over. I've got enough playtests running right now though, so somebody else will have to handle that lol.
Uh, sorry. I skip over because I really have no good ideas on the subject, not because I was ignoring you. :(
Only thing I can think of is that your idea can have some merit IF we keep it as a feat-only option; it's very different from the 3.x rules, and combat needs a tweak, not a overhaul (or backwards compatibility would be thrown out of the window...)
I would sprinkle my head with ashes in order to make amends (and cast Atonement, too)... ;)
|
|
Another factor I'd like to chip in with regards to the extra move option - more movement allows fighting types to shift their threatening zones in a very tactical way. Combine this with a number of the new combat feats offered in the feat section and additional movement for meleers (is that a word?) becomes very interesting indeed.
My group can use this to drop screening opponents and then tactically shift to put casters or other nuking types within a threatening zone. IT makes casting close to combats all sorts of dangerous again, certainly somthing I'd like to see brought back into the game.
Mind you, the same also works for the enemy, but it doesn't seem to pop us often in our games in favour of the enemy. Possibly becasue dropping PC's is harder to do than dropping NPC's.
I think I've come to the end of all i can say with any real gaming experience as backup now. Will have to bow out until I can playtest some of the other facets suggested by Jason.
Cheers
What, my idea got completely ignored?
Wrath, both A and B sound pretty good (and seemingly B will happen), let me throw in a random thought:
This may sound crazy, but how about a Greater Spring Attack feat that gives the character the ability to move his full Movement rate between attacks during a Full Attack action? Again, this may sound rather overboard for many people.
Damn it I did it again. I am sorry....I did not mean to threadjack :(
Here is what I posted
I am sorry if this was written somewhere else, I did not see it.
Sometime ago in another discussion it was mentioned that a full attack action should be a standard action for characters with full BAB. I really like this as it provides mobility and a level of threat to the melee classes.
This also makes the enemy casters know that they are not safe(er) from the melee's so long as they can move more than 5' away from them each round. They know it is better to give up one AoO and make them move to you to get one attack the next round than to stand there and let them have all their iterative attacks. So as a caster it is smarter to back up 10 + feet, take the AoO, and blast away. That way the melee is constantly chasing the caster....in effect being "kited" (to use a WoW term).
I think this is the simplest fix, and the one that puts caster vs. melee on a level playing field.
4. Add some ability to purely martial classes to let them move more and still full attack. There are a lot of options here, but most of them could be simply solved with a feat that has a BAB requirement (move your full speed, take two attacks, BAB +11 requirement: this might work).
I am interested in seeing where this goes. Could I get some groups to play using these options over the next few weeks and report back.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
The problem with this is that only ONE of the purely martial classes as enough feats to invest in something like this. This should be a core ability for all full BAB classes.
It's a small boost, but anything to make the standard action attack more valuable is a good thing, promoting movement in battle, in my mind, is far better than wrapping character's up in trying to stand still and slug it out.
(On a side note, I have ruled that a monk's flurry attack functions as an "Attack Action", aka either a standard action attack or the first attack in a full attack action, so it can be used with movement, and its worked great to make the monk a mobile striker, he can actually use the ability and his speed propperly)
Brilliant! I commend you sir.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
3. Alter spell casting times. One of the solutions posted here is really interesting and one that I have been kicking around a bit as of late. The idea is that a spellcaster's higher levels spells require a full round action, while lower level spells default to their standard duration. I like this idea, but I am still thinking it through, looking for unforeseen problems.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'd be wary of this change, especially because some spells simply aren't very good if not quick. Examples are feather fall and dimension door. Feather fall's already an immediate action, if you are 2nd level, you can effectively never cast it under this option, since your target has already gone splat. Dimension door is a quick escape spell - which is of reduced effectiveness if it's not quick.
I'd rather use the solution that I mentioned earlier that some of the better spells of each spell level had an increased casting time to a full round action (not a 1 round casting time like the summon monster spells), things like haste, sleep, color spray, fly, etc.
I really don't feel changing spellcasting times is a wise change to be making at this point - it would alter the game, and backwards compatibility, quite a bit.
The idea of improving the Standard attack action a bit does seem the simplest change. As the Forum name says, this is for Higher levels. BAB +0 to +5 warrants no change. We don't need to improve the standard attack for someone with +6 to +10 BAB - they normally get two attacks, that drops to one, a reasonable exchange (exception: two-weapon fighting).
That leaves BAB of +11 and up. Normally these are +11/+6/+1. Dropping the lowest attack for a move action is nutty - that last attack is nice to have, but rarely hits. Making a choice of +11 or +6/+1 as another suggested makes a lot of sense to me.
I was personally going to suggest +11/+1 - dropping the middle attack - making the iteration go by 10 not 5, so BAB +17 would be +17/+7 (no +2 either). I think this reasonable, but the "first attack or all the rest" choice seems better overall.
As for two-weapon fighting - all of the above should apply to the iterative attacks, not simply "attacks" as vital strike does. That means two-weapon fighting would reduce proportionally the same as other fighting, if it gets to make both attacks per iteration. Should it get this?
I don't know - TWF is strong - it got stronger with Double Slice and the changes to Power Attack. I don't think it should get both attacks after a move from BAB +0 to +5 at least. Perhaps include that ability as part of Improved Two-weapon fighting (i.e. Grants a second attack at -5 when making full attack action, or an first off-hand attack in a standard attack action.)
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting would then grant the attack at -10 regardless of full attack or standard action.
Overall, I think Devastating Blow has severely reduced the need for this sort of fix, but that doesn't mean its a bad idea.
kyrt - your idea is already included in the Devastating Blow feat.
ArchAngel - your idea ends up being very close to simply making a full-attack a standard action. That has a whole lot of implications.
I allow a feat to help improve the standard action for strength based fighters(and what I feel is a nice follow up chain feat):
Martial Assault [requires: Power Attack]
Benefit: As a standard action you make an attack that does extra damage equal to your BAB if you hit.
Focused Assault [requires: Martial Assault, +8 BAB]
Benefit: If an opponent you hit using Martial Assault during your turn attacks someone other than you or attempts to move away from you, you gain an Attack of Opportunity and if you hit your opponent is staggered for 1 round.
Then, for those characters who may favor mobility or dex based fighting I modified the Spring Attack feat:
Spring Attack [requires: Mobility, +6 BAB]
Benfit: You may incorporate movement into a full round action for attacking purposes. You may move before, after, or between your attack(s) up to your full movement rate for the round. However, if you move more than 5' you must give up 1 iterative attack and if you move more than 1/2 of your movement you must give up 2 iteratives. If you fight with two weapons, you must give up 1 off hand attack for each iterative you have given up. At a minimum, you are always allowed to make 1 attack and may move before and after your attack up to your full movement rate.
Note: What I've done may not be the best solution, but SOMETHING needs to be done to shrink the divide in effectiveness between a standard action and a full round action at high levels for melee types.
Actually, altering casting times is 100% backwards compatible.
-Same spell
-Same level
-Works differently
I could pick up an NPC wizard and run it as-is. If feats were added to grant more full-attacks, I wouldn't be able to run that NPC as-is, because I'd have to give him more feats.
If altering casting times is not backwards compatible, then I don't know what is.
-Matt
Hmm, this is certainly one of the numerous problems with the melee vs caster divide. As I see it, assuming that this problem is not addressed elsewhere, there are a few options to bring a bit more balance to the equation.
1. Full attack is a standard action. This is possible but it has deeper ramifications as it significantly alters the value of certain feats (Whirlwind Attack for example) and the potency of some monsters (trolls for example).
2. Sacrifice attacks for extra movement as part of a full round action. This seems a bit off to me, as it is outside the flow of what you can normally do. We are allowing you to sacrifice attacks for a benefit through feats and class abilities though, so this might be an option through feats.
3. Alter spell casting times. One of the solutions posted here is really interesting and one that I have been kicking around a bit as of late. The idea is that a spellcaster's higher levels spells require a full round action, while lower level spells default to their standard duration. I like this idea, but I am still thinking it through, looking for unforeseen problems.
4. Add some ability to purely martial classes to let them move more and still full attack. There are a lot of options here, but most of them could be simply solved with a feat that has a BAB requirement (move your full speed, take two attacks, BAB +11 requirement: this might work).
I am interested in seeing where this goes. Could I get some groups to play using these options over the next few weeks and report back.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
First off, any change at all you make in this area will greatly enhance the game. I'm certainly advocating for some solutions over others, but I'll welcome any solution you come up with.
1. This would change combat immensely. Too much so I think. In addition to the ramifications you mention, also the battlefield would be extremely deadly for everyone and you would certainly lose some tactical aspect from melee combat. It would also slow down combat.
2. I still like this solution the best for martial combat. It doesn't add much tactically, but it does give a boost to martial characters. The idea works off the premise that: the more time you spend moving, the less time you have to make attacks. I predict going the feat route would make these particular feats in very high demand, unless they were carefully considered.
3. The idea of increasing casting times for a caster's higher level spells isn't a bad one. But I think that there would be so many exceptions to this standard rule, with current casting times (feather fall, summon spells, fire trap...) that it may begin to get awkward. An exception would have to be made for sorcerers using metamagic feats as most already increase casting time to a full round action.
4. I don't think this is neccessary. Again, I'd rather see an addition to the combat rules to address this.
In the end, I really think the solution should be as simple as possible. Most if not all of our suggestions, lean toward adding another layer of complexity (even if it's a small one), to running combat.
Here is the simplest, yet still, effective solution that I can come up with. It doesn't add a single additional rule.
1)Address each spell's casting time on an individual basis when we get to the spells chapter. Each spell can be assigned a casting time based on it's power and function.
*free/swift action
*standard action
*full-round action
*1 round
*minutes and longer
You could end it right there and not tamper at all with the martial side of things. You don't add a single rule. It's backwards compatible, you don't have to change a single metamagic feat, martial characters automatically gain some chance versus powerful spells, in the opportunity to disrupt, and caster's power is decreased.
Having said that, I still would like to see a middle ground option for martial characters between a full attack and standard attack. I would prefer it not to be a feat option or class ability, but the feat option again would be the simplest rules light solution.
|
|
Wrath, both A and B sound pretty good (and seemingly B will happen), let me throw in a random thought:
This may sound crazy, but how about a Greater Spring Attack feat that gives the character the ability to move his full Movement rate between attacks during a Full Attack action? Again, this may sound rather overboard for many people.
i like this option
but in general would only eb applicable to he fighter and maybe the barbarianit would requiere a big chain of feats
Re: Changing standard Casting Time for higher level Spells:
(top 2 Spell Levels is my suggestion, roughly equivalent Class Levels to 1 Iterative Attack)
I should clarify that these higher level Spells TAKE ONE LONGER ACTION TYPE than normal.
(Metamagic Spells are treated as their effective Spell Level for all purposes)
Spells listed as taking longer than a Full Round (currently) could take twice as long to cast (or +50%?), if cast at your top 2 Spell Levels.
Actually, in this regime I could see a new Metamagic Effect that cost 1 Spell Level (i.e. applied to a 2nd Level Spell, would use a 3rd Level Slot), BUT it REDUCED the effective Spell Level by 1 FOR CASTING ACTION purposes (so the MM'd 2nd Level Spell would count as a 1st level spell for Casting Action/Speed Purposes). This could even be a Pre-Requisite Feat before taking Quicken Spell.
Honestly, I think the best solution is both "buffing" Melee AND slightly weakening Casting.
Otherwise, bringing Melee to full equality with 3.5 Casting would mean FULL Iterative Attacks as Standard Actions, which removes a Tactical element completely while making Melee Monsters (and NPCs) MUCH more dangerous.
...I'd prefer not to regress ALL Casting to 2nd Edition (Full-Round).
In fact, having lower-level spells faster to cast (still allowing Move Actino) seems to bring back in some of 2nd Edition's flavor where lower level spells had faster Init Speed and less "Disruptability", without having to deal with the combat complexity that system had.
|
|
I would love to see damage spells getting a sizable "bump" and higher level spellcasting taking longer to cast (other game systems, such as rifts, use a similar method) it really makes the protection of mages much more of a concern for parties.
I also love the idea for full attack as standard action, you can charge and move double with one attack, or move single and get your full attack. the 5ft step mechanism is no good. (full attacks on single moves were a strong part of 2nd ed)