I suppose I should preface this with a note that I haven't actually convinced anybody to play PF with me yet (though I'm working on it!), so perhaps the actual experience doesn't warrant my concerns.
However, given that, I'm concerned about combat in Pathfinder. More specifically, one of the few things I like about 4e is that it makes fights very dynamic and movement-oriented. People move around the battlefield for better position, to avoid or employ interesting terrain, or sometimes just because they can. And since 4e has no full-round actions, the system supports such playstyles.
Pathfinder doesn't. I know it's mostly not an issue at low levels, but once people want to start making a full attack, actual combat movement slows to a minimum. My experience with 3.5 is that people just stood around throwing attack rolls at each other until one side ran out of HP.
I don't want that in my games. I'd like interesting, dynamic, cinematic combat. And I'd like to figure out how to make that a reasonable expectation, rather than having the rules tell my players it's a bad idea.
So I'm looking for suggestions on how to do this. Alterations to combat rules are acceptable, although it'd be cool if that was kept to a minimum. I don't want it to start looking like a completely different system.
|
Pathfinder, being D&D 3.5-ish, is tied to the concept of full attack which pretty much assumes that you stand and deliver. Not much can be shifted in that regard.
The Scout class from Complete Adventurer was built around the premise of hit-and-run attacks, but it wasn't a very well done class to be honest.
Actually, I find that the re-allocating of feats like Cleave and Vital Strike to being standard actions has made combat more dynamic in Pathfinder - moving and hitting is no longer a waste of actions, because you can move and still hit several targets, or move and hit one target harder than normal. It's still more effective to hammer it out if you get the chance, but if you have to move and hit, you can do so effectively. A recent clarification means that Vital Strike can be used with Spring Attack, which makes the former a desirable feat.
On the whole, it isn't incredibly mobile, but with a little encouragement it can be fairly dynamic.
(As for the Scout, it was one of the better classes, and can be imported virtually as-is into Pathfinder).
I believe 3.5/pathfinder has terrain, and movement, but it isn't out front and as focused as 4E. I believe both system offer dynamic combat and you will just have to wade into it.
The harder sell is between melee and caster types, as the former will appear more restricted (in regards to movement and scope) and the later offering more options.
It is true that the fighting types will WANT to do full attacks more often, but if what you are after is a more mobile and dynamic battle there are lots of things you can do to arrange that.
1) Make the players move too the enemy. Dont start the fight in a small room, make it big, make it have terrain they have to pass, layer your enemies so after the first couple are down, the players have to move to the next.
2) Make your enemies/monsters move. Employ hit and run tactics (using things like vital strike, flyby attack spring attack etc in your monsters/enemies really helps here). If your monsters move, your players will too. Just because your players want to stand and deliver, doesnt mean your monsters have to.
Note: One word of warning, dont ALWAYS do this, your fighterish guys should have opportunities to make full attacks, that is after all what they are best at, but requiring them to corner enemies first is not always a bad thing.
3) have your enemies use terrain. Cutting a rope bridge, jumping over a gap, whatever is needed but try to have your enemies use the terrain included in point 1 to their advantage.
Pathfinder improves the problem from 3.5 a little, but not to the extent that it sounds like 4th edition did.
However, it sounds like you're going to be a GM, so let me offer this advice: full-round attacks require both combatants to stay still. If the monsters are moving around, the players will have to as well.
|
4E has a more dynamic movement system because it has embraced D&D as grid based game. Everything is push, pull, shift - in very small, digestible moves on a board/map.
Pathfinder can be played without minis, completely in the head-space of a descriptive environment. It's less specific when it comes to movement and more focused on the mechanics of timing as a dynamic limitation.
If you're a fan of grid based combat in Pathfinder, I suggest switching many of the full-round melee (only melee) feats and actions to standard actions. If you go without a map, your players will naturally be more adventurous with their movement.
I can't see how to do this without modifying the rules.
A few ideas :
-The first melee hit during a full round action, except with touch attacks (and reach weapons ?), make the opponents step 5ft in the direction of the attack (granting an AC bonus ?). When the defender fights defensively or use the total defense action, the distance increase to 10ft. If the movement is blocked by an obstacle or a creature, or if it brings the defender into difficult terrain, it takes a -2 penalty (maybe typed as dodge ?) to its AC. I've got the swordplay duels of Pirates of the caraibes in mind, hit-and-run tactics can't be the only way to move in combat...
-Allow a creature with legs to use one as a secondary natural attack, to make the appropriate damage and push its opponent back 5ft with a CMB check. A Kick feat would negate the attack of opportunity it should provoke normally. Bull rush should then be changed so that it moves both creatures 5ft in the direction of the attack, before having its normal effect.
-As has been said, make standard actions more efficient, changing the full-round feats to standard, and improving slightly the already standard ones.
-Two weapons fighting grant two attacks in a standard action.
-Maybe make more combat maneuvers possible as part of a multiple attack action, but with the last point that would make TWF too powerful. Hey, maybe it's time to use damage-reducting armors to even it out...
-Make tumbling easier, maybe opposing it to a perception check instead of to the opponents CMD, or allowing the movement to continue with a cumulative penalty to the following checks (if multiple opponents are threatening) after an attack of opportunity has been provoked.
|
4E has a more dynamic movement system because it has embraced D&D as grid based game. Everything is push, pull, shift - in very small, digestible moves on a board/map.
I think you just hit the nail on the head as to why I hate 4e so much.
"Chess: the Roleplaying Game" - you too can play a rook!
Er, 3.5e D&D was the original "Chess: the RPG". Take a quick look and you might notice the non-circular "blast" template in you 3.5e book. This is the game design not a flaw. Both 3.5e & 4e are designed with miniatures and combat mats in mind.
The 5'-step and many of the feats in 3.5e/PFrpg are AS difficult to play out in your head as many of the 4e powers.
Point being such "4e isn't an RPG, it's a boardgame" comments are old, really, really old. I would say that if you really dislike miniature based combat you dust off your 2e D&D books...
2e D&D + Al-Qadim = just plain magic :)
To the OP. What you said is fundamentally true, but keep in mind PFrpg borrows from 3.5e (which assumed miniatures play) whereas 4e, as you point out, was a ground up build to embrace miniature based combats. So 4e has (perhaps) a better miniatures based combat system at heart.
S.
I have a rule set that seeks to make 3.5/PF combat more dynamic by (in part):
1. Getting rid of AoO.
2. Making it possible for characters to take more than one 5-foot step per round (based on BAB).
I can't see how to do this without modifying the rules.
A few ideas :
-The first melee hit during a full round action, except with touch attacks (and reach weapons ?), make the opponents step 5ft in the direction of the attack (granting an AC bonus ?). When the defender fights defensively or use the total defense action, the distance increase to 10ft. If the movement is blocked by an obstacle or a creature, or if it brings the defender into difficult terrain, it takes a -2 penalty (maybe typed as dodge ?) to its AC. I've got the swordplay duels of Pirates of the caraibes in mind, hit-and-run tactics can't be the only way to move in combat...
Thinking about 'real' combat for a moment, pushing back an enemy in melee is more of a morale mechanic ... so two ways of doing this:
-Allow a creature with legs to use one as a secondary natural attack, to make the appropriate damage and push its opponent back 5ft with a CMB check. A Kick feat would negate the attack of opportunity it should provoke normally. Bull rush should then be changed so that it moves both creatures 5ft in the direction of the attack, before having its normal effect.
This is really a Bull Rush move, and I'd prefer to keep it as such.
-As has been said, make standard actions more efficient, changing the full-round feats to standard, and improving slightly the already standard ones.
A lot of this has been done.
-Two weapons fighting grant two attacks in a standard action.
I would certainly have no problem with those with mulitple attacks, no matter how they are gained, being able to make every other iterative attack on a standard action. So if you have attacks at +15/+10/+5 then on a standard action you get +15/+5. If you have ITWF then this might be +13/+8/+3 and +13/+8, so you may get +13/+3 and +8.
What do people think?
-Maybe make more combat maneuvers possible as part of a multiple attack action, but with the last point that would make TWF too powerful. Hey, maybe it's time to use damage-reducting armors to even it out...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they can already be used this way.
-Make tumbling easier, maybe opposing it to a perception check instead of to the opponents CMD, or allowing the movement to continue with a cumulative penalty to the following checks (if multiple opponents are threatening) after an attack of opportunity has been provoked.
Tumbling is fine as is; if you want to get past people you need Mobility as well, and some of the feats under it that give a miss chance if you move. They are tailor made for this kind of fight, we should use them.
|
|
To begin with, I don't dislike miniature based combats. As long as they are kept seperate from roleplaying.
I very much prefer non-mat based RPGs (I'm a huge fan of Feng Shui), but it's much easier to find people who play DnD, so I have to keep up to speed with it.So, I think 3e made some bad moves by being more mat based, but 4e amplified those bad moves significantly.
I agree with you, I'm an RPG is in the head sort of guy also. For me the best 3.5e is True20...
For me (in my opinion) 3.5e became like the bastard child. Not sure what it was. Tried to move combat to the mat, but didn't want to take it too far in case it alienated rapid role-players (go figure). Say what you like about 4e being not the game for some, but WotC did have the balls to make the game they wanted D&D to be (and they own the rights remember) rather than patching 3e as 3.5e did. 4e is completely focused on the battle mat for COMBAT (then again 3.5e is also - if you want all the feats etc to work as written).
Which brings us to the OP query. Firstly, if you like the 4e combats, why not play 4e? The classes and rules are written specifically to support these types of combats.
My concern with having any form of iterative attack that also allows movement is you may have a negative impact on ranged based classes - think unarmored ones especially. With the feats available to fighter-type classes significant damage can be inflicted with a single hit. I'm more inclined to go with one of the above posters who suggested by making your encounters (i.e. critters) more mobile by default the hitty-classes will become more mobile.
2 cents,
S.
PS: I love 2e D&D... Hug-a-tree hippy demi-human (yes I said DEMI meaning "less than human" - suck it up) lovers made 3e D&D --> 4e. Why can't Halflings be 20th fighters you say? It's because the little hairy footed bun eaters are too small, simple and fair. "Zeb" had it right!
How about 'falling back' as an option when you are attacked, that gives you a +2 AC dodge bonus if you take a five foot step away from your opponent (he has the option to five-foot step to follow you but this does not negate your AC bonus).
You can't take a 5-foot step on another's character turn. That's why I thought about making it automatic. Maybe it should be done as part of a defensive fighting or total defense action.
On a successful melee attack, make an Intimidate check vs 10 + your foe's Will save bonus + Bravery in order to force them to give ground, taking a five-foot step backwards if they have the room to do so.
I'd use a 10+damage dealt against CMD.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they can already be used this way.
Only sunder and disarm can be used in place of a melee attack. The rest take standard actions. I was thinking about Feint in particular.
That's also why a Kick maneuver usable as a secondary natural attack can be useful (in addition to its cinematic effect). It's also a good pretext to add more movement to bull rush, and make it more of a rush instead of either a charge or a static action.Tumbling is fine as is; if you want to get past people you need Mobility as well, and some of the feats under it that give a miss chance if you move. They are tailor made for this kind of fight, we should use them.
Well, the more feats you need to make it work, the less it can be used. Plus, tumbling requires also that you advance the skill, in addition to advancing the feats you mentionned and the skill-boosting ones. If only highly-specialized characters can use it effectively more than half the time, that won't make combat in general more cinematic.
You can't take a 5-foot step on another's character turn. That's why I thought about making it automatic. Maybe it should be done as part of a defensive fighting or total defense action.
I know, but this option could be available as an immediate action, or at the end of your own action.
I'd use a 10+damage dealt against CMD.
I wouldn't because the damage isn't linear - CMD does not scale at the same rate that damage does, and twenty points of damage are shrugged off if you have 200 hit points and horrific if you have 21. However it's not about hurting the guy as making him think that you might.
Only sunder and disarm can be used in place of a melee attack. The rest take standard actions. I was thinking about Feint in particular.
Improved feint is already just a move action to feint, and remember feint makes you vulnerable to sneak attack - make it any easier to feint and rogues will slaughter just about anything in up-front combat.
That's also why a Kick maneuver usable as a secondary natural attack can be useful (in addition to its cinematic effect). It's also a good pretext to add more movement to bull rush, and make it more of a rush instead of either a charge or a static action.
Hmm. However you do the move - be it a shield charge, a shoulder barge, a kick or a mighty blow - having a 'pushback' option you can take as a normal attack instead of a bull-rush would be handy, even if it just worked as a bull-rush at a penalty (I would suggest -4).
Well, the more feats you need to make it work, the less it can be used. Plus, tumbling requires also that you advance the skill, in addition to advancing the feats you mentionned and the skill-boosting ones. If only highly-specialized characters can use it effectively more than half the time, that won't make combat in general more cinematic.
You have to look at it from both sides: if the players try to block enemies reaching their back ranks and an enemy saunters casually past them with them getting no chance to prevent it, how happy will they be about it? They will be eager to argue that really, tumbling past someone should not just be a simple role but depend on how skilful the blockers are. That's why we have the current system; you can tumble past those less able than you, but it gets harder the more skilled they are at blocking.
Fact is, blocking is a valid tactic to use, and you don't want to invalidate it - it's one of the fighter's roles to get between his squishy friends and the foe, and it's hard enough for him to do as it is. There is a time to move around, and a time to stand your ground.
However it's not about hurting the guy as making him think that you might.
But more with your martial talent than with your charisma, i think... so that fighters, barbarians or paladins that didn't put their points into intimidate can still make opponents step back, and not being forced back by a charismatic rogue or a bard.
Improved feint is already just a move action to feint, and remember feint makes you vulnerable to sneak attack - make it any easier to feint and rogues will slaughter just about anything in up-front combat.Not as effectively as they do with a flanking buddy. Else the invisible blade PrC would have been an automatic choice for every rogue. Feinting as a move action is almost worse for a rogue than as a standard action, since it pins him in front of a dangerous opponent.
having a 'pushback' option you can take as a normal attack instead of a bull-rush would be handyIs there already rules for using shoulders or legs in combat ?
That's why we have the current system; you can tumble past those less able than you, but it gets harder the more skilled they are at blocking.
The problem is, there's no blocking skill. So it gets harder the more the opponent is big and strong and skilled at hitting stuff (as should be for the latter, but that's already taken into account when the AoO is resolved). It's harder to go past a huge dragon without provoking an AoO than past a rogue, with all its reflex and combat trickery training, but both AoO, if they hit, stops you as surely.
I'm not really convinced that it's the fighter's role to block the foes. Actually, I think that the task of catching agile foes, that try to move by avoiding/escaping stuff, should be left to agile fighters types (especially monks, then agile fighters and rogues), and the task of blocking strong foes, that try to move by bashing obstacles, should be left to strong fighters types (especially paladins and heavy armored fighters). And I still think that a rogue specialized in this skill should be able to get past non-specialized opponents most of the time.So, after very little thinking, I'd make the check for tumbling around an opponent opposed to its acrobatic skill, and the check for tumbling trough its space opposed to its CMD. And add something so that a dragon's (or fighter's) AoO is more effective at stopping the foe than a rogue's. Maybe add an opposed combat maneuver check, but that's starting to make a lot of dice rolling.
Did you try something, OP ? And did it work ?
I haven't tried anything yet, but some of the ideas here seem pretty useful. I'll look into testing things out when I have a group together.
I'm not really convinced that it's the fighter's role to block the foes. Actually, I think that the task of catching agile foes, that try to move by avoiding/escaping stuff, should be left to agile fighters types (especially monks, then agile fighters and rogues), and the task of blocking strong foes, that try to move by bashing obstacles, should be left to strong fighters types (especially paladins and heavy armored fighters). And I still think that a rogue specialized in this skill should be able to get past non-specialized opponents most of the time.
So, after very little thinking, I'd make the check for tumbling around an opponent opposed to its acrobatic skill, and the check for tumbling trough its space opposed to its CMD. And add something so that a dragon's (or fighter's) AoO is more effective at stopping the foe than a rogue's. Maybe add an opposed combat maneuver check, but that's starting to make a lot of dice rolling.
You have a point in that another acrobat should be able to block an acrobat. I suggest using the current system, but having the option of replacing CMD with 10+Acrobatics check.