I added a similar feat to Mark/Greater Mark to my Pathfinder Beta game. My players loved it, although my NPCs hated it. It made the fighter *very* effective at tanking. Putting on your flame-retardant suit is a good idea though, since a lot of people seem to have strong opinions about the marking mechanic.
With Pathfinder Final, I'm removing the Marking mechanic from the game, since I think feats like Step Up and Shall Not Pass achieve much the same effect. I'm going to see how it goes, but I'm going to take a second look after a few sessions.
|
Or you could use some of the new feats that are in the Pathfinder RPG rather then the silly mark system.
Stuff like Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, Disruptive, Spellbreaker, Lunge and the like should make anyone wishing to bravely stand before their companions more then capable of "hold aggro."
If making the RPG more of a board game is your intent, perhaps you should just go for 4th edition then, or play the game Decent from Fantasy Flight Games.
Maybe just a little. Like the Dying from negative hit points.
Given that in Pathfinder death happens at -Con hp, which doesn't really scale with level, I have experiemented with a percentage of your hit points (like 4E does). Negative half hitpoints seemed like too much though, I've been trying -1/3 of your total hit points (or -10 whichever is better) and this has been working so far in a home campaign. It means people do actually fall unconscious at high level and as a DM you can hit them hard without worrying about killing them outright.
|
Don't listen to the nay sayers, they are just grumpy.
The system you suggested sounds fine. There are things to consider though with some of the new feats.
For example with Covering attack your ally gets to make a free 5' step. But if the opponent has Stand Still, Step Up or Lunge they may be able to negate that movement, or at least compensate for it.
Actually it makes perfect sense. That is sort of why soldiers lay down covering fire and firing arcs for. You know, real world combat stuff that 3.x doesn't do. Maybe the "mechanics" are not the same, but the concept is.
Anyone who says you can't take inspiration from 4E, or MMORPGs, or whatever needs to look at the hobby and realize that it takes inspiration any where a good idea is found. To stop doing that, even if the idea is from the "DREADED 4E, or WOW," is a sure fire way to kill the hobby outright.
And I like your ideas. In fact I'd love to see you run a few games where that works just as planned then hit them with an unusual build that can compensate. Just to the players squirm and shriek! lol
Has anyone converted Pathfinder (or 3.x for that matter) to Spell, Spell-like, and Supernatural Abilities rolling 1d20 + spell level (or 1/2 HD) + ability mod vs 10 + Saving Throw Bonus?
If so, did it speed up combat? Did you allow Critical Hits on 20s and Auto-Misses on 1s?
|
Has anyone converted Pathfinder (or 3.x for that matter) to Spell, Spell-like, and Supernatural Abilities rolling 1d20 + spell level (or 1/2 HD) + ability mod vs 10 + Saving Throw Bonus?
If so, did it speed up combat? Did you allow Critical Hits on 20s and Auto-Misses on 1s?
SmiloDan, are you talking about this system?
SmiloDan, are you talking about this system?Has anyone converted Pathfinder (or 3.x for that matter) to Spell, Spell-like, and Supernatural Abilities rolling 1d20 + spell level (or 1/2 HD) + ability mod vs 10 + Saving Throw Bonus?
If so, did it speed up combat? Did you allow Critical Hits on 20s and Auto-Misses on 1s?
Yes. It seems like it would speed things up, especially for large groups of PC and/or NPCs.
The marking system is a good one but I agree that it should be feat based. I think your ideas are sound, but be aware that they will be very useful to any toe-to-toe combatant so would become almost an auto pick for fighters and paladins, and even clerics (that take the heavy armour prof, anyway ;)) I would make it always a swift action to mark a target that is in reach, rather than the 4E every attack marks as 4E doesn't have iterative attacks.
The marking system is a good one but I agree that it should be feat based. I think your ideas are sound, but be aware that they will be very useful to any toe-to-toe combatant so would become almost an auto pick for fighters and paladins, and even clerics (that take the heavy armour prof, anyway ;)) I would make it always a swift action to mark a target that is in reach, rather than the 4E every attack marks as 4E doesn't have iterative attacks.
I agree about the Swift Action. It allows non-spell casters to use Swift Actions, which they rarely get to do.
Ok, I am wearing my flame retardant black-leather battle shorts, but go easy all the same.
Didn't you know that Hellfire ignores fire resistance? Sorry bob, you're toast }>
Now that I have your attention, I was thinking of adding two teeny, weeny little bits of 4E to my PFRPG.
Please wait patiently for the inquisition to arrive. We ask you to support them to the best of your ability. .D
1) Marking - My fighter loved the idea that threatened opponents ignored him at their peril.
The concept is okay (I'm not tickled pink about it, but it's alright), but the execution in 4e made no sense. I'm talking, of course, to the fact that you can be marked by only one enemy. If someone else marks you, the previous mark goes away.
That's a game mechanic that's just there to be a game mechanic, not to make sense in the context of the game world.
So if you want to do something like this in Pathfinder, with its commitment to rules that aim to simulate a game world that feels more or less real (I know, elves and fireballs, but you know what I mean), that part should go.
Maybe that makes it "IMBA", but then the action itself has no place in the game.
Mark - As a swift action you mark an enemy you have just attacked (not necessarily hit). Until the beginning of your next turn, should that enemy make a melee attack against someone else, and they are threatened by you, you get an attack of opportunity.Greater Mark - As mark above except that it is now a free action and the target suffers a -2 penalty on all melee attacks where you are not the target. Prerequisites: Mark, BAB6+?? Maybe more??
How many enemies can you mark this way? This should definetly go into the description.
On a sidenote: Unless you have step up, this feat can often be circumvented by the dreaded five-foot-step.
In addition, I'd like to know the reason behind the melee only restriction (i.e. if the guy instead whips out magic and attacks your ward, you can't do anything about it). To me, it seems that if you're really bearing down on someone, any other action would trigger your wrath.
Finally, I think there should be a defense against that, and I mean other than just going away, attacking you, or doing something else than attacking. Maybe use combat manoeuvre bonus against combat manoeuvre defense.
Covering Attack - As a standard action you make a melee attack at -2. If you hit, an ally adjacent to the target gets to make a 5-foot step as an immediate action.
Not as much a fan of that, not the way it is implemented.
Instead, I suggest something like this:
Make an attack against an enemy. If you hit, you make a combat maneuvre check (using CMB against his CMD). If you succeed, you have the enemy distracted sufficiently for an ally of yours to move without being threatened until the beginning of your next turn.
Covers the intention of a covering attack without having some weird telekinesis effects.
Yes. It seems like it would speed things up, especially for large groups of PC and/or NPCs.SmiloDan, are you talking about this system?Has anyone converted Pathfinder (or 3.x for that matter) to Spell, Spell-like, and Supernatural Abilities rolling 1d20 + spell level (or 1/2 HD) + ability mod vs 10 + Saving Throw Bonus?
If so, did it speed up combat? Did you allow Critical Hits on 20s and Auto-Misses on 1s?
I actually used that system during the final chapters of the last campaign I ran:
* Players really liked getting to make what they saw as "attack rolls for spells".
* Against large groups of enemy NPCs, it really sped up combat since I didn't need to rolls tons of saving throws.
* On 20s, the players drew from the Critical Hit Deck.
* On 1s, the character left themselves open to an Attack of Opportunity (same rule I use for regular combat).
* For one of two sessions I made it so that the attacker always rolled the dice (ala Star Wars Saga Edition), but the players really disliked not getting to roll their own saves. Since it seemed to affect their trust-level, I went back to allowing them to roll their own saves.
All-in-all, the "Players Roll All the Dice" variant worked very well and I'll be using in my next campaign (whenever that happens).
Smilo Dan
I can imagine it will speed up things. However, as a sadist, I like the look of pain on my players' faces just before they roll to save. I would miss that too much.
Players still roll their own saves in that system. The NPCs/enemies that you are DMing are the ones with the static saving throws (i.e. players make magic attack rolls against the enemies).
|
|
Players still roll their own saves in that system. The NPCs/enemies that you are DMing are the ones with the static saving throws (i.e. players make magic attack rolls against the enemies).Smilo Dan
I can imagine it will speed up things. However, as a sadist, I like the look of pain on my players' faces just before they roll to save. I would miss that too much.
Big fan of that system. I used it once in a VERY short game (couple of sessions). Lord I liked it so much as GM. Takes SO much off your hands and lets you focus on the story and not the darn dice.
I have considered using that for all future games, but future games are likely to be put off for about 3-4 years for a new job.
What level were you playing at? Was the impact of this type of ability lessened as your party rose in levels? (I am assuming that it will). Did you end up regretting putting it in? Did the players regret it or did they love it?
We had this ability in effect from levels 2-7 in my CotCT game. The impact was not lessened as level increased. 3.5 tends to focus on many PCs vs 1 monster for the really hard fights, which is where this feat really shines. Once you get about 3-4 threats on the board (1 baddie plus 4-5 guys whose sole purpose is to get in the way doesn't count) the ability starts to lose effectiveness.
My players absolutely loved this ability. The fighter loved being in control, the rogue loved the fighter's ability to keep the monster's attention while sneak attacking for tons of damage, the wizard loved that monsters couldn't just ignore the fighter and head over to mutilate him.
I like the ability because it makes my players happy. However, from a purely rules side, I'm ambivalent. It's a powerful ability, to be sure, and it really screws with monster tactics. However, if my PCs didn't have that ability, they'd just handle the situation differently. Like I said, I'm going to give the new rules a try and if they don't allow the fighter to exert some control over the battlefield I'll probably put it back in.