Star Wars Saga Edition has it almost fixed. There 2-3 attacks is the tops you will get. And it is easy to fight because all attacks have the same attack roll. Using Force powers is done also 2 times tops per combat round.
I suggest taking (stealing) some ideas from them. They got rid of iterative attacks and turned those into feats. Also the feats that would grant extra attacks now give extra damage. Like Rapid Shot which gives +1dX of damage instead of a new attack.
The important thing to note is that all weapons do much more damage there then in D&D. But the whole system works, and works really good. It is actually the best d20 system out there ATM.
How can we use their ideas to make Pathfinder combat better and more simple?
|
Star Wars Saga Edition has it almost fixed. There 2-3 attacks is the tops you will get. And it is easy to fight because all attacks have the same attack roll. Using Force powers is done also 2 times tops per combat round.
I suggest taking (stealing) some ideas from them. They got rid of iterative attacks and turned those into feats. Also the feats that would grant extra attacks now give extra damage. Like Rapid Shot which gives +1dX of damage instead of a new attack.
The important thing to note is that all weapons do much more damage there then in D&D. But the whole system works, and works really good. It is actually the best d20 system out there ATM.How can we use their ideas to make Pathfinder combat better and more simple?
Hmm, given I got every book from SAGA I was also surprised to see the eloquence of their high level play. I really believe there is enough talent on the Paizo staff to fix this in PRPG. I earnestly believe that High Level and Epic Play should capture the spirit of Roleplaying first and then delve into the mechanics and technicalities. I forsee that Paizo will tackle this well after '09 with perhaps some "mighty gusto."
Paizo staff had always said that if 4th Edition interferred with the stories they like to tell, they would not support it (at least in Pathfinder). I can only imagine by Lisa's remarks of her 3.5 High Level Play nightmares that this is something they do wish to address properly. The stories of Epic Kings and Legendary Heroes of the Gods is certainly appealing to a writer that wishes to bridge beyond time and space. There is a lot to be had in those lofty places that are just unrealistic for a 14th Level Character to conceive. The "true mission" of bringing Epic Roleplaying to the table is in capturing the roleplaying element in a higher hemisphere that befits one being not only a legend but perhaps also becoming a demigod. If I could start as a First Level Rogue and end as a God in the PRPG, that would be truly incredible. If Paizo could somehow keep "telling the stories they wish to tell" within that frame of advancement, it would be completely mindblowing. I cannot imagine how much unleashed creativity would be wrought on the RPG hobby from such a successful venture. It could bridge into a new milieu of thought that would define a new gendre of gaming.
I mean,
How many people want to be a KING? With Armies?
How many people want to be a High Priest? With disciples?
How many people want to be a a son of a GOD? With powers?
How many people would like to challenge a GOD? With Godly Weapons?
Of course this is not D&D as we know it now. And the idea of it all sounds completely beyond the game.
But what if it played the same?
What if it was no more complex or gamer smart than what we already have now at the below 14th level mark?
What if you could tell stories like that as easily as you can with a first level character party?
That is the challenge and the way to attack this problem. I am fairly certain if Paizo says, "We can tell the stories we wish to tell in an Epic Level system", than they have boldly solved what 3.5 could not.
Cheers,
Zuxius
Good stuff..Even more good stuff..
This would be great.. Unfortunately, I believe that you are correct when you say that it will not be tackled until well after 09. This simply isn't in the scope of what this beta test and the new Pathfinder are about. Backwards compatibility is the issue here. People want to continue to use their splat books, it's understandable, those things get expensive. I on the other hand though, would trade away my vast collection for a D&D that finally works.
|
They got rid of iterative attacks and turned those into feats. Also the feats that would grant extra attacks now give extra damage. Like Rapid Shot which gives +1dX of damage instead of a new attack.
I haven't tried the Star Wars Saga Edition, but this sounds like a workable approach. Certainly, putting an upper limit on iterative attacks would go a long way towards making high-level combat more playable. And giving Fighters a boost to damage instead of a bunch of extra attacks is definitely a smart move - it helps them to compete more effectively with the amount of damage dished out by high-level spellcasters.
Another move that would benefit high-level combat is to tighten the limits on the number of conditional buffs that can iunfluence the outcome of a combat encounter. At the moment, each member of a high-level party may have 4-6 buffs that have an effect on combat - and keeping track of all of these fiddly conditional modifiers can slow combat to a crawl. For starters, I would suggest eliminating unnamed modifiers from the game entirely to let the stacking rules do their job. Secondly, I would place an upper limit on the size of maximum bonus that characters can add to their attack roll and damage roll from all sources - I would suggest capping the maximum attack and damage modifiers at 1/2 the character's level. Thus, a 10th level character could add a maximum of +5 to attack and damage rolls from various buffs, a 12th level character could add a maximum of +6, a 14th level character could add a maximum of +7, and so forth. This upper limit would ensure that high-level combat does not degenerate into a buffing contest...
|
|
Yet this change (extra damage instead of attacks) makes combat more "swingy", and probably removes the usefulness of any feats that give you attack penalties and/or damage bonuses (i.e. Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Lunge, and so on). The system would stress the importance of each roll (whether the max. number of attacks is one or two roll). In 3E/PF usually at least one attack connects at high levels, but using the Saga mechanics (if I've understood it correctly) would result in any penalty or bad roll affecting the outcome way too much. Also, this would make monsters with multiple attacks much more dangerous in comparison.
It also increases the number of damage dice on the table (e.g. +2D6 per "removed" attack) and I think the time it would save at the table is less than it appears to be. Of course, a "static" bonus (e.g. +1/LVL per attack) would be another matter altogether.
Yet this change (extra damage instead of attacks) makes combat more "swingy", and probably removes the usefulness of any feats that give you attack penalties and/or damage bonuses (i.e. Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Lunge, and so on). The system would stress the importance of each roll (whether the max. number of attacks is one or two roll). In 3E/PF usually at least one attack connects at high levels, but using the Saga mechanics (if I've understood it correctly) would result in any penalty or bad roll affecting the outcome way too much. Also, this would make monsters with multiple attacks much more dangerous in comparison.
It also increases the number of damage dice on the table (e.g. +2D6 per "removed" attack) and I think the time it would save at the table is less than it appears to be. Of course, a "static" bonus (e.g. +1/LVL per attack) would be another matter altogether.
No, power attack and similar feats are more then useful in SW.
Yes, less attacks per round mean that they need to hit more often. But this mechanic works for all combatants. Enemies get less attacks as well.
But in D&D the weakest attack misses anyway. In SWSE multiple attacks all attack with the higher bonus (there are no iterative attacks).
Rolling just extra dice for damage makes the rolling faster then rolling multiple attacks, and calculating multiple results of that and then rolling damage for all of these.
|
|
But in D&D the weakest attack misses anyway. In SWSE multiple attacks all attack with the higher bonus (there are no iterative attacks).
To my mind this is the key point - in high-level play the last of a characters iterative attacks are so weak that they rarely have any meaningful effect on the game. It does nothing except slow the game down...
Rolling just extra dice for damage makes the rolling faster then rolling multiple attacks, and calculating multiple results of that and then rolling damage for all of these.
This seems like a fair point to me.
But in D&D the weakest attack misses anyway. In SWSE multiple attacks all attack with the higher bonus (there are no iterative attacks).To my mind this is the key point - in high-level play the last of a characters iterative attacks are so weak that they rarely have any meaningful effect on the game. It does nothing except slow the game down...
Rolling just extra dice for damage makes the rolling faster then rolling multiple attacks, and calculating multiple results of that and then rolling damage for all of these.This seems like a fair point to me.
I've seen a post (can't remember where or whom) that proposed to keep the number of attacks the same but even-out the attack bonuses as such:
1 attack at full BAB,
2 attack, full BAB-2 for each
3 attack, full BAB-3 for each
etc
So a 6th level fighter (2 iterative attacks, considering BAB only) could do:
+6 or
+4/+4
Its 16th level counterpart (4 iterative attacks, still only considering BAB) would have:
+16 or
+12/+12/+12/+12
Any attacks gained via TWF or rapid shot just follow the same formula.
While it not 100% backward compatible, its the closest change to iterative attacks that I can see happen.
|
|
Yet this change (extra damage instead of attacks) makes combat more "swingy", and probably removes the usefulness of any feats that give you attack penalties and/or damage bonuses (i.e. Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Lunge, and so on). The system would stress the importance of each roll (whether the max. number of attacks is one or two roll). In 3E/PF usually at least one attack connects at high levels, but using the Saga mechanics (if I've understood it correctly) would result in any penalty or bad roll affecting the outcome way too much. Also, this would make monsters with multiple attacks much more dangerous in comparison.
It also increases the number of damage dice on the table (e.g. +2D6 per "removed" attack) and I think the time it would save at the table is less than it appears to be. Of course, a "static" bonus (e.g. +1/LVL per attack) would be another matter altogether.
No, power attack and similar feats are more then useful in SW.
Yes, less attacks per round mean that they need to hit more often. But this mechanic works for all combatants. Enemies get less attacks as well.
But in D&D the weakest attack misses anyway. In SWSE multiple attacks all attack with the higher bonus (there are no iterative attacks).
Rolling just extra dice for damage makes the rolling faster then rolling multiple attacks, and calculating multiple results of that and then rolling damage for all of these.
So, in Saga, either all of your attacks hit or all of them miss? In my books that adds a lot more randomness and "swinginess" to high-level combats (i.e. no damage vs. 170+ per round -- see below).
For example: a high-level fighter who inflicts 4*(2D6 + 1D6 + 26) damage if he hits, could potentially either inflict 170+ per round or *no* damage at all? And what about crits? All attacks are crits, or just the first? In any case, I think all crit-related feats and magic items and spells would become a top priority to any melee specialists.
Or did I misunderstood something here?