There are several things I very much enjoyed in D&D 4E that I’d like to try to include in a Pathfinder campaign. Here I’m hoping that you all can perhaps provide some advice on how to incorporate these mechanics into Pathfinder or solid mechanical or balance reasons not to adopt a particular aspect of 4E.
Please avoid edition wars or simply stating what you like or dislike, I’m looking for experience and rules insight. I already know I like these things so simply telling me that you don’t think Skill Challenges has a place in Pathfinder would not be helpful.
Part One of my inquiry, focused on what improvements Pathfinder has made to D&D 3.5, can be viewed HERE.
Many thanks, to any and all who chose to contribute.
• Minions: This seems relatively easy to add to me and I think can be lifted whole cloth. Has anyone tried this?
• Skill Challenges: This I expect to be trickier to add given the wide open variance of skill levels among players. My gut reaction is to adopt a 4E like approach to skills so that Skill Challenges will be a viable activity within game. This would have the side benefit of making NPC generation easier. Anyone who has tried Skill Challenges in 3.5 or Pathfinder I’d love to hear your experiences.
• Dynamic Combats: I liked that 4E had made virtually all forms of attacks into standard actions, including multiple weapon attacks. This made it so that the player’s move action never needed to expended on anything other than actually moving. Any thoughts on a way to incorporate this into Pathfinder?
• Simplified Conditions and Modifiers: This addresses the High Calculation Combat Effects issue that I had with 3.5 (see part one). Penalties applied to fixed traits like attack, defense, skill use, action availability, etc. No Con drain or caster level changes. I’m considering adopting a similar condition track and then creating a condition that applies specific penalties in place of ability drain (a con drained modifier). Anyone tried anything like this?
• Simplified Attacks of Opportunity: Only two things provoke and they always provoke (unlimited AoOs available to everyone). This made tracking AoO availability and provocation very simple and straightforward. I’d like to adopt it, but I’m concerned about balance issues as certain actions are balanced by AoOs. I’d definitely add Combat Maneuvers as something that provokes as well.
• Passive Senses: Also easily added to Pathfinder I suspect by simply stating that under normal circumstances everyone is taking 10 on Perception and Sense Motive checks. Thoughts?
• Decentralized Healing: Healing surges were both a boon and a bane to my party. Some people found them highly unrealistic and magical in nature. I saw them as akin to Vitality Points as used in the Star Wars d20 RPG (pre Saga Edition). Would using Vitality/Wound points perhaps allow a similar dynamic of reducing dependence on healers by allowing easy healing between combats?
• Defender Viability (marking): I liked that a tank had a way to demand the attention of a given enemy or penalize him for going after someone else. I’ve been considering a feat chain that would allow a marking mechanic into the game for those interested in taking it. Has anyone tried something like this?
Thanks to all who comment!
Heh, my immediate reaction is "well, play 4e then! It's a great game and does all these things!"
A couple of comments though... You mention the "sticky defender" issue and frankly I think that's one of the most abused concepts in 4e. I almost laugh every time my 4e DM says "Oh, he's marked, so he'll attack the fighter." Marked is just a -2 to hit, and when my ranger is cutting the bad guy to little pieces, and has an AC that is much more than 2 less than the tank, it's downright foolish to continue to hit the tank just because he marked you. Especially since 4e tanks don't do nearly the damage that a striker does (by design). It makes the combat brain dead and (blissfully) shorter when my ranger just whales away on the bad guy because the tank marked him.
I keep seeing people complain about having to use a full round action for a full attack. Is this really a problem? That makes a lot more sense to me than the 4e situation where a character can do a daily attack as a standard action, do an off hand attack as a minor action and run halfway across the battlefield with a move action and THEN decide to action point and do another whole standard action. I calculated it out one day and my ranger could literally move more than 30 squares in combat and attack four different targets pretty much anywhere along that path. That beggars verisimilitude to me.
Skill challenges are the stupidest thing in 4e and that's quite an accomplishment in a game where you used to have limits to how many magic items you could use per day.
Minions are just silly. They are more of that "cinematic combat" thing where people just feel good about wiping out whole battalions of meaningless enemies. The whole concept of minions just makes me gag.
Healing surges are just a means to limit character resources. I don't mind them, but they do create artificial feeling limitations to me. "Oh no, I'm out of healing surges, I'm totally healthy but now I'm afraid to fight!" But they do provide a means to slow the party down so the DM can manage encounters.
I do very much like the move, minor, standard action dynamic. I also love the attack rolls in place of saving throws, I think that's a great advancement in the game since it means the player is always rolling to determine the outcome of an attack. I love the richness of the tactical combat options and I do like that even spellcasters are effective with at-wills all day.
But I do see them as totally different games and I don't feel much of a need to pull in 4e effects into Pathfinder when I can just play 4e instead.
|
• Minions: This seems relatively easy to add to me and I think can be lifted whole cloth. Has anyone tried this?
I hated Minions. Loved the concept,hated the mechanics. Boring and anti-climactic. But I won't derail your thread to get into it. If you like them enough, yeah they are super easy to add.
• Skill Challenges: This I expect to be trickier to add given the wide open variance of skill levels among players. My gut reaction is to adopt a 4E like approach to skills so that Skill Challenges will be a viable activity within game. This would have the side benefit of making NPC generation easier. Anyone who has tried Skill Challenges in 3.5 or Pathfinder I’d love to hear your experiences.
SC are easy to implement. With so many more skills there are more skills to add to a Primary list and a Secondary list. While having a wider array of skills that could be used as Tertiary skills that will open up some of the Secondary skills.
• Dynamic Combats: I liked that 4E had made virtually all forms of attacks into standard actions, including multiple weapon attacks. This made it so that the player’s move action never needed to expended on anything other than actually moving. Any thoughts on a way to incorporate this into Pathfinder?
Never had a problem as it is in PF. In 4e there are few ways to get multiple attacks in a round. Most of those ways are Daily/Encounter powers. Only a handful of classes could do it as an @will.
• Simplified Conditions and Modifiers: This addresses the High Calculation Combat Effects issue that I had with 3.5 (see part one). Penalties applied to fixed traits like attack, defense, skill use, action availability, etc. No Con drain or caster level changes. I’m considering adopting a similar condition track and then creating a condition that applies specific penalties in place of ability drain (a con drained modifier). Anyone tried anything like this?
I have not but I agree that tracking long term conditions is a pain. Having penalties last for a day at most, so that a group hit with something will have to suck it up for a few fights.
• Simplified Attack of Opportunity: Only two things provoke and they always provoke (unlimited AoOs available to everyone). This made tracking AoO availability and provocation very simple and straightforward. I’d like to adopt it, but I’m concerned about balance issues as certain actions are balanced by AoOs. I’d definitely add Combat Maneuvers as something that provokes as well.
I like that casting in a threatened area provokes, and the check to cast defensively has been modified to make it harder to do so.
I also like the idea of the Coma bat Reflexes adding to AoO chances, but i guess that is a minor change.
• Passive Senses: Also easily added to Pathfinder I suspect by simply stating that under normal circumstances everyone is taking 10 on Perception and Sense Motive checks. Thoughts?
This mechanic is "behind the scenes" so adding ti would not hurt, or probably even be noticeable at all. I also like the idea of "passive skills"
• Decentralized Healing: Healing surges were both a boon and a bane to my party. Some people found them highly unrealistic and magical in nature. I saw them as akin to Vitality Points as used in the Star Wars d20 RPG (pre Saga Edition). Would using Vitality/Wound points perhaps allow a similar dynamic of reducing dependence on healers by allowing easy healing between combats?
wans of healing and potions do the same. I can see adding HS to the game to increase the survivability without using resources. i do not see them hurting the system.
• Defender Viability (marking): I liked that a tank had a way to demand the attention of a given enemy or penalize him for going after someone else. I’ve been considering a feat chain that would allow a marking mechanic into the game for those interested in taking it. Has anyone tried something like this?
Marking is useful in a very limited way. If the AC difference between the marker and the people he is defending for is greater than 2, then it is still better to attack the defended PC. It was not really a demand, but a polite asking.
On Skill Challenges:
Pathfinder already has the basics for a Skill Challenge system in the Chase rules. Just replace physical skills with any appropriate one or two. Used in combination with page 42 for Pathfinder by the_gneech, you should have no trouble making a robust and complex skill "encounter". If you wish even use elements of Complex Skill Check
|
Skill Challenges have existed since 3.0 D&D. But only 4th edition calls them that.
The fact that there are different rules for it in 4th edition shouldn't fool you. A skill challenge is any encounter that can be beaten with skills only, and that's true of many encounters. In fact, I have played a character who considered all challenges to be called skill challenges.
|
• Minions: This seems relatively easy to add to me and I think can be lifted whole cloth. Has anyone tried this?
One HD enemies with high Str or Dex scores. The go down with a good hit, but you can't ignore them as they have a decent chance to hit and do noticable damage. Great targets for AoE evocations.
• Skill Challenges: This I expect to be trickier to add given the wide open variance of skill levels among players. My gut reaction is to adopt a 4E like approach to skills so that Skill Challenges will be a viable activity within game. This would have the side benefit of making NPC generation easier. Anyone who has tried Skill Challenges in 3.5 or Pathfinder I’d love to hear your experiences.
Design an encounter with nothing to kill, but that you have to accomplish something via skills. Make sure it has a time limit so the party can't just try again. Something like 'save the old mill from the flood' using skills to shore up levies, brace the machinery to avoid stress damage, and other things. Let players come up with ideas and do your best not to say no.
• Dynamic Combats: I liked that 4E had made virtually all forms of attacks into standard actions, including multiple weapon attacks. This made it so that the player’s move action never needed to expended on anything other than actually moving. Any thoughts on a way to incorporate this into Pathfinder?
Make full attacks standard actions. Alternatively, use the 'trade iterative attacks for movement' ideas floating around the forum. Allow movement when Attacks of Opportunity are provoked.
• Simplified Attacks of Opportunity: Only two things provoke and they always provoke (unlimited AoOs available to everyone). This made tracking AoO availability and provocation very simple and straightforward. I’d like to adopt it, but I’m concerned about balance issues as certain actions are balanced by AoOs. I’d definitely add Combat Maneuvers as something that provokes as well.
Remember that players will walk through fire to avoid AoOs. Whatever you choose to have cause AoOs, make sure it is something you want to discourage players from doing.
• Passive Senses: Also easily added to Pathfinder I suspect by simply stating that under normal circumstances everyone is taking 10 on Perception and Sense Motive checks. Thoughts?
I believe strongly in just comparing skill bonuses and deciding who wins based off of that. Higher bonus wins.
• Decentralized Healing: Healing surges were both a boon and a bane to my party. Some people found them highly unrealistic and magical in nature. I saw them as akin to Vitality Points as used in the Star Wars d20 RPG (pre Saga Edition). Would using Vitality/Wound points perhaps allow a similar dynamic of reducing dependence on healers by allowing easy healing between combats?
Allow characters to heal a set amount of HP whenever they have five minutes to rest. Depending on your comfort level, this could be anything from 1/4 to full. Dividing HP into Health and Stamina can be an easy way to track how much the party can recover without spending resources.
• Defender Viability (marking): I liked that a tank had a way to demand the attention of a given enemy or penalize him for going after someone else. I’ve been considering a feat chain that would allow a marking mechanic into the game for those interested in taking it. Has anyone tried something like this?
Use a taunt mechanic that forces a Will save to avoid targeting the taunter. If people are uncomfortable with that being too 'magical compulsion-like' have it instead inflict a penalty to attack and damage rolls against anyone other than the taunter. The penalty could be anything from -2 to -5. Consider having this apply to spell save DCs if the taunted enemy is a wizard that doesn't use attack and damage rolls. Also consider a rule that you must make an opposed attack roll to move away or past an enemy. This allows melee characters limited blocking ability, although highly mobile enemies can still get by them.
|
Skill Challenges have existed since 3.0 D&D. But only 4th edition calls them that.
Oh, they've existed far longer than that.
But maybe that's my outlook from playing games other than D&D since the 80s.'To escape the shoggoth in the tractor, make 4 Operate Heavy Machinery rolls in 10 attempts. Any fumble sets you back two successes.'
That's why I couldn't understand the vitriol surrounding them.
You have to wonder, well, what are you guys using, if you're not using something similar?
It's true that the official DCs got amended by WotC early on, but those were all suggestions anyway.
Minions are p. easy, you just have to divorce HD from everything else. The best way to make ANY enemy in 3e nine times out of ten is already to say "Screw the rules, I have DM-hood!" Make a normal enemy maybe two levels below the PCs then give it the one hit property.
Passive checks are literally just that check +10, as if they were already taking ten on it.
Also lol @ brassbaboon because you got so much wrong in your post. I'll simply state this: stickiness is more then just the marked quality.
|
|
Also lol @ brassbaboon because you got so much wrong in your post. I'll simply state this: stickiness is more then just the marked quality.
Alright C, even if he did ignore the discussion and engage in edition warring agains the OPs wishes, that's no call to ridicule him. Try not to demean yourself.
I do find it amusing that bb mentions the 'move,minor,standard action dynamic' as a good thing, since it's just about exactly the same as 3.5s move, swift, standard action dynamic.
On the marking: isn't it like the Cavaliers Challenge? Also look around 3.5 there is a number of Goad and Taunt feats designed for that, maybe they'll help.
|
|
Minions: I haven't used this but could be interesting - I like Mook rules. If you don't want to go the whole hog of 1 HP, you could say such NPCs have minimum HP, so a Level 5 Warrior with +2 Con would have 15 HP - enough to maybe take one attack but likely to go down against more.
Skill Challenges: These were already in use in 3.5 under Unearthed Arcana's Complex Skill Checks (M&M also used the idea in Mastermind's Manual). I would set DCs quite low to avoid the issue of PCs having so varied a Skill bonus. I even think a PFS effectively had a skill challenge as well (to do with finding a cure).
Passive Senses: A very simple but remarkably useful rule to introduce.
Decentralized Healing: Even if you don't go with Healing Surges you shoudd perhaps consider a Second Wind mechanic - its a great idea that solves the issues of a Cleric having to not only waste spells healing others, but also wasting actions doing so. IMHO its a better solution than PF's Channelling which still requires the a cleric to spend actions.
You might also want to look at Reserve Points from UA, basically each character gets twice as many HP, but half are in a reserve pool and it takes a minute of rest to move a reserve point into HP. It means that you can only go into a fight with normal max HP, but afterwards you can recover somewhat, depending on how many fights and thus reserve points already used and how long you get to rest.
Adding in Armour as Damage Conversion can also help and even then provides the Second Wind mechanic. AS some damage taken will always be non-lethal you can use the option to "take a standard action to "spend" a number of reserve points equal to or less than his HD to reduce his nonlethal damage an equal amount".
|
|
People that like those silly concepts already have a game that incorporates them. Why try to force them into this game too?
Nice edition bashing there! "Silly" concepts indeed <rolls eyes>
The OP said he liked the mechanics and didn't want any edition bashing, try to show that request some respect please as you don't just annoy the OP but others like me (who happens to like 4e).
If you must do it, look at how traps with magical effects are done. I think their CR is equal to their spell level. But I'd definitely limit this to warriors (the NPC class) since someone with, say, wizard levels can get real nasty as a minion
That's nice for some computer game maybe (though even not then), but has no place in a game that is supposed to model a "real" world. (In that example above, you could just make 7 Knowledge checks an you'd be in)
Instead, just let the players figure out how to get in and let them make checks for each part of their plan (so if they want to find out about the hidden entrance, they'd have to make some sort of Knowledge check to know about it, followed by Diplomacy to find the architect, followed by Diplomacy or Intimidate to get him to talk; or Swim across the moat and climb the wall, all while using Stealth and/or distractions; or talk the guards into letting you in with Disguise, Diplomacy or Intimidate; You then usually need to make each check once. You can't skip one and make another twice unless it makes sense to work that way)
If it's a single, extended activity (like opening a really tricky lock), you might also use extended checks. They have a certain DC and a certain number of successes to beat. Sometimes, there is a price for failure (or for failing too many checks) or a time limit involved.
Pathfinder has a profusion of healing options. Clerics are still among the best of them (oracles of life can probably outperform them) thanks to channel energy, but other classes can make good healers or part-time healers, too (especially if several of the "lesser" healers team up, like bard + paladin). Coupled with cheap wands of cure light wounds (I think they're often called Happy Sticks) this means that healing should not be that much of a problem.
That said, I think warrior types in Pathfinder are something you ignore at your own risk. Sure, you can walk around them (be sure to leave enough free space between them and you lest you become victim of attacks of opportunity, including stuff like trip and Standstill) to get to the gooey arcane centre, but they'll just walk up behind you (depending on how close they are to the wizard, a 5'-step might be enough) and beat you half to death (chances are that it's more rather than less than half)
Instead of marking, use things like trip. I had a monk character in our last campaign, and with his trips and grapples he made sure his chosen victim had no choice but to content with him. And many warriors, especially fighters, can often afford the three feats to become a master of trip at least.
• Minions: This seems relatively easy to add to me and I think can be lifted whole cloth.
Not really. The two basic combat systems are significantly different so as to make this impossible for a straight copy paste.
• Skill Challenges: This I expect to be trickier to add given the wide open variance of skill levels among players. My gut reaction is to adopt a 4E like approach to skills so that Skill Challenges will be a viable activity within game. This would have the side benefit of making NPC generation easier. Anyone who has tried Skill Challenges in 3.5 or Pathfinder I’d love to hear your experiences.
This would actually be easier to port to Pathfinder because of the skill changes made to Pathfinder make it much closer to 4e than 3.5.
• Dynamic Combats: I liked that 4E had made virtually all forms of attacks into standard actions, including multiple weapon attacks. This made it so that the player’s move action never needed to expended on anything other than actually moving. Any thoughts on a way to incorporate this into Pathfinder?
All attacks are standard actions because there are no multiple weapon attacks. A single attack may get to use two weapons if a character dual wields, but the action economy is each character gets one attack. A character may be able to target multiple things, but to do it as often as it is done in 3.5 or Pathfinder, you have to be a controller class.
• Simplified Conditions and Modifiers: This addresses the High Calculation Combat Effects issue that I had with 3.5 (see part one). Penalties applied to fixed traits like attack, defense, skill use, action availability, etc. No Con drain or caster level changes. I’m considering adopting a similar condition track and then creating a...
Other than ability and level drain, its not too different
• Simplified Attacks of Opportunity: Only two things provoke and they always provoke (unlimited AoOs available to everyone). This made tracking AoO availability and provocation very simple and straightforward. I’d like to adopt it, but I’m concerned about balance issues as certain actions are balanced by AoOs. I’d definitely add Combat Maneuvers as something that provokes as well.
Since all actions are extremely simplified, the same stuff provokes in 4e as Pathfinder - movement and anything that targets at range. And I don't think you get infinite AoOs in 4e, but maybe I'm wrong.
• Passive Senses: Also easily added to Pathfinder I suspect by simply stating that under normal circumstances everyone is taking 10 on Perception and Sense Motive checks. Thoughts?
Passive IS taking 10.
• Decentralized Healing: Healing surges were both a boon and a bane to my party. Some people found them highly unrealistic and magical in nature. I saw them as akin to Vitality Points as used in the Star Wars d20 RPG (pre Saga Edition). Would using Vitality/Wound points perhaps allow a similar dynamic of reducing dependence on healers by allowing easy healing between combats?
I don't like healing surge mechanics. Each character can only heal X number of times per day regardless of anything? And the number of times anyone can heal is self limited? Terrible.
• Defender Viability (marking): I liked that a tank had a way to demand the attention of a given enemy or penalize him for going after someone else. I’ve been considering a feat chain that would allow a marking mechanic into the game for those interested in taking it. Has anyone tried something like this?
This was a good change though its rather hamstringed. Making defenders actually have an ability to attempt to force opponents to fight them is the only way to make being a tank worthwhile.
• Minions: This seems relatively easy to add to me and I think can be lifted whole cloth. Has anyone tried this?
Short answer is yes, this has been tried:
check herethere was another thread as well (previous to the linked one, searching for minions in the rpg forums will turn it up
• Skill Challenges: This I expect to be trickier to add given the wide open variance of skill levels among players. My gut reaction is to adopt a 4E like approach to skills so that Skill Challenges will be a viable activity within game. This would have the side benefit of making NPC generation easier. Anyone who has tried Skill Challenges in 3.5 or Pathfinder I’d love to hear your experiences.
Yes, I have used them to pretty solid effect. You dont need to know skills, the key is to simply set 'hard' 'average' and 'easy' dc's and then turn it into a sequence of events with the party needing to succeed x times before they fail y times. If you can think well on your feet this can be used very well, and it a good way to have non-combat situations grant xp. Just make sure there is more description/roleplay and not just rolling dice and giving numbers.
• Dynamic Combats: I liked that 4E had made virtually all forms of attacks into standard actions, including multiple weapon attacks. This made it so that the player’s move action never needed to expended on anything other than actually moving. Any thoughts on a way to incorporate this into Pathfinder?
This requires a fundamental change to how combat works. Pathfinder did a little to this with vital strike. You may want to give out the vital strike tree for free to all your players to encourage that. If thats not enough, you may want to consider looking at Tome of Battle from 3.5 on ways to make 3.5ish combat lean more to standard actions and more movement.
|
|
• Minions: This seems relatively easy to add to me and I think can be lifted whole cloth. Has anyone tried this?
I like the idea as well, but have yet to implement it- Most low CR monsters will go down in one hit anyway once the PCs get above a certain level. I wouldn't feel comfortable using it with a high HD creature or anything with real class levels. Minion Goblins, sure. Minion wizards - not so much!
• Skill Challenges
I wrote something similar into the "Tomb of Haggemoth" campaign. Complicated activities which would have been rather boring to play out (in this case, spending weeks trying to find your way through a trackless, barren desert) were mapped out on a sort of scale. I picked a skill (in this example, survival) and had one party member roll against that skill. Other party members were allowed to come up with creative ways to boost the skill roll, usually by making skill checks of their own, or by casting appropriate spells, or just by being clever. Any reasonable suggestions added a +2 circumstance bonus to the roll. The table looks something like this:
1-5: Abject failure, Lose lots of time, start again from scratch
6-10: Setbacks. Lose lots of time, Try again with a temporary -4 to the check.
11-12: No progress. Lose lots of time. Try Again.
13-15: Minimal progress. Lose minimal time. Try again.
16-20: Progress. Lose minimal time. Try Again. Add +2 to all future attemtps.
21-25: Good Progress. Lose no time. Try again.
26-30: Very Good Progress. Lose minimal time. Add +4 to next attempt.
31+: Success.
You can take this scale and slide the DC up or down depending on how difficult you want the task to be, you can add extra bonuses or penalties for various levels of success, and you can even add encounters or discoveries or plot dumps which get triggered when the party hits a certain DC. I think it works very well.
• Dynamic Combats
I've never had too much trouble with this, mostly because I tend to keep the enemies moving, which kind of forces the PCs to move. If the monsters prosecute a dynamic combat, then so will the PCs. Works especially well with large groups - some monsters can withdraw while others attack, melee monsters can pull back so that ranged attacks can get in with no interference, etc.
• Simplified Conditions and Modifiers
Never had too much difficulty with this. You can buy (or make) condition cards for Pathfinder, which I think is a big help.
• Simplified Attacks of Opportunity:
The importance of AOO is directly proportional to who you're fighting. I've had well-armored fighters happily wade through a crowd of goblins or do fancy maneuvers, taking multiple AOO because they know that the enemy has little chance to hit. The same guy won't take more than a 5-foot step when he's within reach of a Giant or Ogre. Whenever things get confusing about who gets one and who is due one, I just bring down my GM-fiat boot, make a snap decision, and move things along.
• Passive Senses
I just ask for perception checks all the time. My players like rolling dice. :P
• Decentralized Healing:
I make sure that healing potions are easily available and relatively cheap. Magical healing is just one of those things which is ubiquitous in all fantasy RPG games (and a lot of non-fantasy RPGs), and you just kind of have to hand-wave the profound cultural impact it would normally have and deal with the dissonance, I think. Neither D&D nor Pathfinder can function without it.
• Defender Viability (marking):
I actually DON'T like this. I prefer to keep the monsters mobile, which in turn forces the PCs to be mobile. AOO works well enough for me in this regard, and also there are already mechanics available to Cavaliers, Paladins, and others which allow them to interfere with monster attacks on their allies.
Minions- Various people have suggested good options. Basically use the same stats as the base monster, reduce HPs, reduce CR and viola. I'd hate to suggest a definitive template because lowering HPs to 1 or a relatively low number impacts the game differently at different points. Be very leery of making spellcaster or creatures with SLAs into minions though.
Skill Challenges- DCs are not standardized in 3.x/PF like they are in 4e so you have to make more complex skill challenges with variable DCs for variable skill use. Also keep in mind that the range of character skill levels is much wider than in 4e.
Dynamic Combats- Make Vital strike a universal option that scales with BAB, you need to be wary of Golems but for the most part even 4x base damage isn't that awesome. A more extreme option is making full attacks work with movement. Remove the AoO penalties for trying maneuvers.
Defender Stickiness-Give everyone free Combat Reflexes and Step Up. That gives defenders the option of maintaining control over things in base to base contact. I'd also be tempted to raise the DCs on defensive casting to something more meaningful.
Passive Skills- Perception checks and passive diplomacy are treated as always on Take 10 checks. I thought every did these already ;)
Decentralized Healing- Reserve Hit Points, or Fast Healing out of combat or healing surges all work well.
Modifier Overload- This is a difficult one especially at high levels when a ton of buffs are always present. My suggestion is to create stat block overlays of some sort.
SCs are not really anything new. They are a good formalised frame to award XPs for using the skills, but otherwise they've been around in one form or another.
Marks are fine, but many peaople discussing them failed to mention their greatest advantage. That -2 penalty for atacking something else than the defender is just cake frosting, but the real thing is that they also let the defender punish the marked target. Fighter gets an AoO, Paladin shovers the enemy with radiant damage, swordmage teleports... These are the REAL advantages offered by defenders marking their targets ;)
Minions: Since staying power is a big part of CR, this will throw thSimplified Conditions and Modifiers: If you don't like things that modify attributes, change it thus: Everything that does attribute damage or drain instead invokes an attribute penalty on relevant checks (for drain, this is permanent so you need magic to remove it). I call it attribute penalty so it stacks with other penalties, and you can say that this stacks with itself in most cases. Do the same for things that increase your ability scores (or at least things that only temporarily increase them).
That's how it's supposed to work now (for damage at least). See here. Drain does actually adjust the score, but you can easily make it just a permanent penalty.
Passive senses: I consider senses to be (almost) always passive. You can rule that under certain conditions (like when doing guard duty), people will take 10. Otherwise, whenever someone could sense something, they get a check. If you don't want to tip them off, write down their Perception modifier and roll for them. My players are generally mature enough not to metagame Perception checks, so I let them do it. Besides, making them roll the occasional Perception check without any reason adds to their paranoia ]>.
There's no mechanical reason that characters can't automatically take 10 on perception checks. You get a reactive perception roll to hear/see things, and you're allowed to take 10 on that roll. You just need to make it the default rather than an option that the players can choose instead of rolling.
I will agree that a lot of these things can and are already doable.
I want to speak specifically about the minion mechanic
I like it it does work and most of the folks I have played with have incorporated something like it. I know that it was incorporated into Feng Shui, what, over a decade ago. It has likely been in use a lot longer than that. Let's not go around acting like it was some new idea or that any of the other ones are either. If you like them then please use them if it makes the game better for you and the other players that's the goal.
|
|
Marking isn't a taunt mechanic. It's a distraction mechanic. It's pretty obvious if you watch team sports, and see how much effort people put in to getting away from a marker, and how much more accurate they are once they've done so. Marking takes the place of simultaneous movement and penalties for acting when threatened by adjacent enemies. Being able to step away and act as if nothing was a problem doesn't reflect the fact that you've had to do something to stop someone interfering with you. I'd go with -2 penalty to attacks if you're marked, -5 if you're doing something which provokes an AoO.
Didn't I cover all that in my post?
Also, how is being taunted not a distraction mechanic? It require a strong will (Read: Will save) to continue focusing on other things, doesn't it?
I was going to reply, but realized that my replies were going to end up being: "Tried this already, hated it in 4E, hated it when I ported it over to 3.X/Pathfinder."
So... I guess my point is why would you ever want to? :P
Cheekiness aside,
I did draw up a minion template. (It doesn't, as many suggest here, divorce that much from HD, simply states that all minions have 1 hp regardless of HD, and they're CR -6.) The problem, however, is that Pathfinder doesn't need minion rules, really - just use a low CR creature. The party will still get XP for it (albeit, a minor amount), and with smart tactics (aid other action, flanking, the right tactical/teamwork feats) and a boss that can equip them properly (outside of their CR, perhaps bumping up the CR by 1 just for equipment) then you can mimic minions pretty accurately.
Plus it's cool when your PCs can actually feel pretty bad ass as they mow down 4 - 6 dudes a round.
Skill challenges, as stated, already work in Pathfinder, Pathfinder just chooses not to codify them as such. Honestly, the skill challenge mechanic to me seemed way too mechanical and stilted. I far more prefer free form RP with skill use than a dictatorial "Only X, Y, or Z skills with have A, B, and C effects, but don't use W, or you'll automatically fail! Oh and you must get so many successes to win."
But they can be easily fitted into Pathfinder with very little conversion.
I hate healing surges, so I will say nothing on those. I also hate marking (perhaps more so than healing surges, as marking is actually a mechanic that can exist only in video games and has no non-mechanical analogue), and will thus remain silent on that issue.
The dynamic combat/standard action full attack thing can be problematic. I think you also need to be a little more specific as to your AoO issue. (I'm honestly perplexed how people can consider AoOs confusing. I suppose a big enough combat could make a GM wonder which enemies have used AoOs, but in my 10 years of gaming 3rd edition/Pathfinder, I've never had difficulty remembering "1 or 0", since most creatures don't have Combat Reflexes - and those that do tend to have very specific tactics related to its use.)
|
|
Yes, taunting is a distraction, but simply being near someone who is trying to stop you doing something is also a distraction, or should be. Trying to do one thing while someone tries to stop you doing makes it enormously hard.
Also consider a rule that you must make an opposed attack roll to move away or past an enemy. This allows melee characters limited blocking ability, although highly mobile enemies can still get by them.
?
Thanks to everyone for their contributions to this thread. And for keeping it civil and on topic. The Pathfinder community is indeed a cut above.
Here's what I've gleaned from your responses and the approach I believe I'll be attempting should I decide to pursue a Pathfinder Campaign (something you've all made much more likely!).
- Minions: CR -4, 1 hp, 1 attack for average damage, evasion, hit points treated as equal to hit dice for spells that have unusual hit point based effects. Intended for minion style monsters (soldiers, thugs, cultists), not spell casters or monsters with troublesome powers (domination, area damage, etc). Some leaders may grant additional bonuses to their minions (the ability to revive them, improved attacks, or defenses, etc) or the minions may grant each other bonuses if present in sufficient numbers (3 adjacent to the same foe or each other, etc).
- Skill Challenges: In a skill challenge cooperation is expected. As such Aid Another is not possible as it is already assumed. Every participant gains advantages toward completing the challenge. As long as one member of the party is trained in a skill all participants for whom that skill is a class skill may add their level -3 rather than their actual skill modifier. This bonus may never exceed 3 less than the highest bonus among participants. In non-class skills they may add their level -6 and it may never exceed 6 less than the highest bonus among participants. This does not however allow them to make a check in a skill that cannot be used untrained. This is to narrow the range during challenges so that multiple people can participate without it spelling certain failure if the wizard attempts a climb check. I realize this may be controversial so I may start a separate thread on this one.
- Dynamic Combat: Vital Strike feats are standard combat options. Two weapon fighters may apply their off-hand weapon damage dice in a similar fashion and may choose the qualities and bonuses from either weapon to apply. The extra die of damage is not carried over into a cleave attack arising from the use of the Cleave feat.
- Simplified Conditions and Modifiers: addressed by Pathfinder.
- Simplified Attacks of Opportunity: everyone gets one attack per target per turn. Combat Reflexes allows multiple attacks against the same target for multiple provocations, allows AoOs while flatfooted, and grants a +1 attack bonus on all attacks of opportunity.
- Passive Senses: Passive Perception and Sense Motive implemented as automatic take 10. Players may always ask for a full check.
- Decentralized Healing: Out of combat all healing magic is maximized as long as the target rests for 2 minutes before the casting of each spell (so four spells cast on the same person would require 8 minutes of resting total). An empowered healing spell is also maximized but only if the target rests 3 minutes before hand (no fractional maximization is granted if they rest 2 minutes). A DC 15 Heal check taking 5 minutes (during which the patient must rest) can restore 1/4 hit points to a person who is above 50% of total hit points. (Special thanks to BobChuck for starting a separate thread on Vitality Wounds which sparked this idea)
- Defender Viability: Marking is available to all Full BAB classes. As a swift action they may mark a target that they attack (the attack need not succeed) and they may use their swift action on an AoO before their turn comes up (though not if flat footed). The marked target takes a -2 penalty to any attack or save DC of an ability that does not include the PC as a target (at 12th level the penalty becomes -4). If the mark attacks someone else he triggers a free attack from the marking PC (even if no longer within reach). The mark lasts for 1 round.
Thanks again and if anyone has any further comments and/or any thoughts on my plans please feel free to comment further!
Expand the rule to include any action that does not include the tanking character. Make it a "Tank" feat that requires the threatened enemy to win an opposed BAB (or beat the tank's CMD) to do anything not involving the tanking character. (Attack other character, move away, AoO another character.)
..... This makes me think, would not be mechanically more satisfactory way to execute this by allowing a "Tank" to be considered to occupy multiple squares. Combat Patrol in the APG is a good start, but it doesn't completely keep a foe from bypassing or getting around the guard.
If you add another feat onto that tree that counts a number of adjacent squares equal 1/2 the "Tank" character's movement as being occupied if an opponent tries to moves through it... and provides soft cover against reach weapon attacks from foes trying to attack over those squares. An ally could stand in these fake occupancy squares.
Visual in ASCII
F = Fighter (Tank) with 30 ft. move
f = pretend occupied squares
- = free squares
----
-fF-
-ff-
----
----
ffFf
----
This would allow the "Tank" to take up say 10' by 10' square instead of a 5' square or maybe a line, effectively blocking a wider hallway or being a very annoying obstacle in a natural setting.
It still doesn't stop acrobatic attempts to pass through or overrun, etc., but allows the "Tank" (like a fighter) to become a mobile wall effect.
Frankly I still think the term Tank in MMO is misused, should be more accurately an Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) because that's what they are really doing. Safeguarding the "troops" inside while getting them into effective deployment range.
Can someone explain passive skills I think I understand and might add it to my pfgame (but I hate to add 4th ed stuff) I'm thinking if no rolls are asked for on perception and sense motive is takin 10
|
|
Instead of marking, use things like trip. I had a monk character in our last campaign, and with his trips and grapples he made sure his chosen victim had no choice but to content with him. And many warriors, especially fighters, can often afford the three feats to become a master of trip at least.
+1
In addition, I see the feats "Stand Still" and "Saving Shield" as a definitive answer to the desire to have "Tanks". If you don't want an enemy getting to your back ranks, just hold him/her there. Combat maneuvers like Bull Rush can put the enemy right where you want them - away from your squishy characters, and "Saving Shield" is basically reverse marking anyway, and is more believable, for those simulationists like myself who feel that marking doesn't make sense in the world of fantasy physics.
Minions don't work well for the same reasons - PF tries to emulate a fantasy reality, and its rules don't play well with concessions to better gameplay for gameplay's sake.
My best suggestion on how to use "minions" is to take large groups of creatures with CRs and stats far enough below the group that they are one hit kills anyway, and have them use group tactics, such as aid another, flanking, or stacking AoE buffs like Bless, Prayer, Bardic Music, Haste, Mass [Animal]'s [Ability Score] to get their attack, damage, and save DCs up to a challenging level while keeping their HPs back in a lower CR bracket.
As an example, an Eberron game I ran recently saw monsters with CRs 3 or 4 below the party become threats when the "boss" character used twinked out bardic music to give the whole group of them +4 to hit and damage. The party's best damage dealers could still take them down in one or two hits, but monsters that should have no business hitting the PCs at all got upgraded to having a 10-20% chance of landing a successful melee attack - before modifiers such as aid another, flanking, or additional buffs - and that nasty Inspire Courage bonus made sure that successful melee attacks would *hurt*, even if was just a ping from a one-hit-wonder monster from a previous era's CRs.
In regards to HPs and Healing Surges, the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana (and the Iron Heroes game, a 3.5 derivative) had an option called "Reserve Points" that allowed a character to, while taking a short rest, recharge their hp from a pool equal to their normal max HP - that replenished itself in matching amounts anytime a character healed HP.
So anytime a character got cure magic, it restored Xd8 HP and reserve HP, but the reserve HP only existed to let characters recover quickly after fights without becoming dependent on spellcasters, who were still the only ones to give HP back in the midst of a fight.
The only exception to this was the heal skill, which allowed the subject of a successful first aid attempt to transfer a small amount of reserve HP into their normal HP pool, even if they were toe-to-toe with a whole orc tribe, which was a nice way to enhance the dubious usefulness of the heal skill.
Probably the one thing I like about 4E is the classifying of actions as Major action or Minor action. Much better than standard or move equivalent. Just keeps things nice and clear - something for Pathfinder 1.5?
Instead of marking, use things like trip. I had a monk character in our last campaign, and with his trips and grapples he made sure his chosen victim had no choice but to content with him. And many warriors, especially fighters, can often afford the three feats to become a master of trip at least.+1
-2
I don't think I can reiterate enough how that DOESN'T WORK. Are you going to grapple a balor? Trip a triceratops? No, but you could mark them to encourage them to fight you.
There are several things I very much enjoyed in D&D 4E that I’d like to try to include in a Pathfinder campaign. Here I’m hoping that you all can perhaps provide some advice on how to incorporate these mechanics into Pathfinder or solid mechanical or balance reasons not to adopt a particular aspect of 4E.
Please avoid edition wars or simply stating what you like or dislike, I’m looking for experience and rules insight. I already know I like these things so simply telling me that you don’t think Skill Challenges has a place in Pathfinder would not be helpful.
Part One of my inquiry, focused on what improvements Pathfinder has made to D&D 3.5, can be viewed HERE.
Many thanks, to any and all who chose to contribute.
Let's see...
• Minions: This seems relatively easy to add to me and I think can be lifted whole cloth. Has anyone tried this?
I've used "minions" for a long time, and by minions I mean creature way below the party's CR in mass numbers to deadly effect (I could toss some advice for these sorts of things, or link you to tucker's kobolds, but let's just say it works if you know the 3.x/PF system).
If you try to incorporate 4E's 1 HP = 1/4 CR system, or a variation thereof, you will run into some major problems quickly. In most cases you will either be shoveling out XP too quickly, or you will be sending your PCs up against incredibly difficult encounters at low XP values. Let me elaborate a bit...
"Creatures" in 4E have a very limited list of options, literally down to one or two special abilities that may or may not have much reason to exist on the creature (for example, cyclopes all have a single "Evil Eye" ability, but it does something completely different for each Cyclops) plus physical attacks.
Creatures in 3.x/Pathfinder are more complex. While I think this makes for a much better game (merely my opinion), creatures are not limited to fighting like every other creature ever; and some creatures have multiple options at their disposal. Some creatures are considered dangerous because of how difficult it would be to inflict that 1 hp damage on them; but here's some examples of what I mean...
An orc (CR 1/3, worth 135 XP) only has about 6 hp anyway, so if you "minionized" them, you'd end up with 4 orcs at about 35 XP each (rounded up), at 1 Hp each; which is likely far more dangerous than a single orc; in this case, they are way more dangerous.
An owlbear (CR 4, worth 1,200 XP) normally has 47 hp and a fairly low armor class (because it's HP is pretty thick, AC is pretty low, and it's a brute creature that rushes and then lasts a round or two to get some attacks in); but as a minion, you'd end up with 4 owlbears at 300 XP each, with 1 HP each; at which point they are trivial. You could drop two of them with a single magic missile, or most all of them with a small volley of alchemical items (the splash damage kills them). So in this case, they are way too easy.
A shadow (CR 3, worth 800 XP) normally has 19 Hp and is incorporeal (50% miss chance vs magic weapons, immunity to mundane damage sources), and possesses a 1d6 strength damage attack, and creates a new shadow if they kill something via strength damage. A minion shadow would be worth 200 XP, and have 1 Hp, but still be pretty dangerous; especially because they can lurk inside walls ad floors (a popular tactic amongst incorporeal creatures), making it difficult to hit them without readied actions. Having four of these shadows would be infinitely harder to fight than a single shadow.
And so on and so forth. Creatures in 3.x/Pathfinder aren't intended to be minions in the way 4E does them. You will run into a lot of problems if you try to do it this way.
You also don't need minions to make low CR creatures frightening or at least challenging to higher CR characters; but that's an article for later.
• Skill Challenges: This I expect to be trickier to add given the wide open variance of skill levels among players. My gut reaction is to adopt a 4E like approach to skills so that Skill Challenges will be a viable activity within game. This would have the side benefit of making NPC generation easier. Anyone who has tried Skill Challenges in 3.5 or Pathfinder I’d love to hear your experiences.
I haven't checked all the 4E errata (or any of it in fact), but I know as presented in the books, skill challenges are pretty much useless and poorly designed. I do know it's been errata'd at least twice, however, so maybe it's not that bad anymore.
Either way, I've always used something akin to skill challenges in my games; but I'd need to write up some rules/guidelines for it otherwise. I do think resolving encounters through multiple skill checks is a fine deal, and very do-able in 3.x/Pathfinder games (I myself have ran an encounter with initiative + actions that was actually a verbal contest where the players and NPCs used a combination of Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive over a few rounds to achieve success over the other side; sometimes playing to their surroundings; it was pretty sweet). So yes, I do think encounters with skills are do-able; just not as written in the 4E core books.
• Dynamic Combats: I liked that 4E had made virtually all forms of attacks into standard actions, including multiple weapon attacks. This made it so that the player’s move action never needed to expended on anything other than actually moving. Any thoughts on a way to incorporate this into Pathfinder?
In my games, I generally house-rule full-attacks as standard actions. A real person can hit another real person multiple times in a span of 3 seconds, I see no reason why a 6th level superhuman cannot.
Otherwise, I'd leave most things alone. Most spells and the like that have a casting time greater than 1 standard action generally deserve those casting times (since they tend to do things like summon re-enforcements).
• Simplified Conditions and Modifiers: This addresses the High Calculation Combat Effects issue that I had with 3.5 (see part one). Penalties applied to fixed traits like attack, defense, skill use, action availability, etc. No Con drain or caster level changes. I’m considering adopting a similar condition track and then creating a condition that applies specific penalties in place of ability drain (a con drained modifier). Anyone tried anything like this?
Can't say I have tried anything like that. I kind of like the ability to attack things like ability scores and levels. Pathfinder greatly, greatly simplified stuff like level drain, and ability scores have been easy to track; so I don't have much advice here. The biggest problem I could see arising from just making it a penalty would be that it would require specifics to note that such things will kill you and/or make you useless; 'cause that's what they're supposed to do.
• Simplified Attacks of Opportunity: Only two things provoke and they always provoke (unlimited AoOs available to everyone). This made tracking AoO availability and provocation very simple and straightforward. I’d like to adopt it, but I’m concerned about balance issues as certain actions are balanced by AoOs. I’d definitely add Combat Maneuvers as something that provokes as well.
Some fighter types may cheer for such a change, while many that rely on flanking will bemoan it. It also makes things like potions much stronger in the middle of combat, and makes it very easy to draw random items from your bag while meleeing; something that the handy haversack did as a selling point.
Also, creatures with Reach will love you for the free Combat Reflexes, and sadly, that means creatures that probably aren't the PCs. This will greatly increase the power of things like giants, dragons, and pretty much any ol' thang bigger than the PCs.
• Passive Senses: Also easily added to Pathfinder I suspect by simply stating that under normal circumstances everyone is taking 10 on Perception and Sense Motive checks. Thoughts?
Works fine, and I've used this approach for years; including using it for NPCs; which effectively sets the DC to sneak up on them at 10 + modifiers; which I'm 100% happy with.
• Decentralized Healing: Healing surges were both a boon and a bane to my party. Some people found them highly unrealistic and magical in nature. I saw them as akin to Vitality Points as used in the Star Wars d20 RPG (pre Saga Edition). Would using Vitality/Wound points perhaps allow a similar dynamic of reducing dependence on healers by allowing easy healing between combats?
I didn't really like healing surges. Realism aside (taking a breather and suddenly not being "bloodied" anymore), and healing surges aren't needed for easy healing between encounters. That's what things like wands, potions, and clever healers are for. I doubly hated the fact that clerics consume healing surges to heal people; as it meant a cleric isn't really a healer, but someone who loans other people healing surges or loans them the ability to pop a healing surge quickly.
Also, wound/vitality points complicate the game further (effectively it's akin to making critical hits target your Con), and might be desired if you're going for a gritty game where a well placed arrow will destroy you, but it has powerful effects on a 3.x/PF game. Critical based builds become even more frightening (Ok, you're 20th level with 24 wound points; now the Fighter scores a critical hit on you, and deals 2d4+5+5+4+15 points of damage to your wounds; now he'll roll the next 3 attacks).
Really, I'd think very carefully before using wounds/vitality. It works good for some types of games, and very bad for others.
But I'd also ignore healing surges, and point your party members to wands of cure light wounds or drop a few x/day healing items, which they can keep it resell as desired. Part of the fun of 3.x/PF is being able to have magic items you can use.
• Defender Viability (marking): I liked that a tank had a way to demand the attention of a given enemy or penalize him for going after someone else. I’ve been considering a feat chain that would allow a marking mechanic into the game for those interested in taking it. Has anyone tried something like this?
Thanks to all who comment!
Defender viability is a tricky one, but really 4E didn't do a great job with it either. Fighters are poor defenders, but paladins were great ones (-2 to attacks vs not-fighter, compared to shweet holy damage vs not paladin), and that's just in core; but Fighters are built as defenders, so I question the "balance" they were looking for.
However, granting tanks abilities that make them ideal for annoying and pestering enemies is a great idea in my opinion. I've included a few feat options and such as well for that sort of thing (no, it's not the Goad feat). The main thing for Tanking hits is you have to do something to get your foes attention.
Lemme break it down in WoW terms, 'cause WoW uses a very easy to understand "aggro" system which also makes a lot of sense tactically. In WoW, you have these mages and such which basically unleash doom against their enemies (in terms of high damage, but in D&D you might be turning them into fuzzy bunnies); and this makes the mage look very threatening and a high priority kill.
Meanwhile, Warrior types have to keep the monster off the mage (unless they're built as killers, in which case they too can become a high priority threat). Now if you've got a poor tank, who's only whacking them with their basic attack, your Tank is going to look very non-threatening, and they will ignore your tank until the dangerous members are dead.
Warriors specializing in Tanking sport abilities which help them generate large amounts of threat; such as tearing their opponent's armor up (in D&D terms, reducing their AC), stunning them (a stunned foe is a weaker foe), or inflicting other status ailments on them; or literally forcing them into combat for a period (kind of like calling them out); and a few tanks actually inflict enough damage to make enemies want them dead first.
In tabletop terms, this means either A) your Fighter-types need to inflict enough damage that enemies want to kill them instead of the mages (but that's probably not how you want your group dynamic to go), or B) Fighter-types need things that make them threats indirectly; things that make the Fighter dangerous to ignore. To give an idea, here's some feats from my Heroes of Alvena game; added specifically for tanks.
Combat Harassment
You force opponents to pay attention to you in combat, preventing them from reacting to your allies.
Prerequisite: Base Attack +1
Benefit: During your turn before making an attack, you may declare an opponent you threaten the target of your harassment. While harassing a target, you suffer a -1 penalty to all attack rolls and your target suffers a -2 penalty to their AC until your next turn. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty to your attack rolls and the targets AC increases by -2.Commentary - This feat provides the user no benefit, essentially lowering the user's damage output against the target, but lowering the target's AC vs all allies. Since it's round to round, the target must either try to take you out, or be destroyed by your allies in short order. This is ideal for low-damage builds, since your damage really doesn't matter, and it allows you to contribute heavily to the damage per round of the enemy.
Retributive Protection
You can punish enemies who ignore you in combat.
Prerequisites: Base Attack +1
Benefit: As a swift action, you may declare an opponent the target of your retribution. Until your next turn, whenever that opponent attacks (melee or ranged) anything (creature or object) other than yourself, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you, and gain a +1 bonus to hit and a +2 bonus to damage on attacks of opportunity against the target. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the bonus to your attack rolls increases by +1 and the bonus to damage rolls by +2 (+2/+4 at BAB +4, +3/+6 at BAB +8, etc).Commentary - This feat is ideal for someone with Combat Reflexes who really wants to punish enemies for ignoring her. Once again, as with Combat Harassment, you gain no benefits unless the target ignores you, at which point you begin to carve your name in its backside. It also combos well with feats like Step-Up, Combat Harassment, and Combat Expertise; allowing you to really excel as a physical tank while remaining a viable threat against opponents.
... Defender viability is a tricky one, but really 4E didn't do a great job with it either. Fighters are poor defenders, but paladins were great ones (-2 to attacks vs not-fighter, compared to shweet holy damage vs not paladin), and that's just in core; but Fighters are built as defenders, so I question the "balance" they were looking for....
A bit off topic...
Can you please explain how the fighter was a poor defender, while the paladin was great?
Fighter: Marks target by attacking it (multiple marks possible if you have more than one target), marks last until the end of your next turn. Mark gives -2 attack if the Fighter is not targeted as well. If adjecent marked target tries to shift or attack anyone else than marking Fighter, the fighter gets a basic attack against it (unless errat'd it's not AoO though, so the target can get whacked again if it tries to attack again via action point and then get an AoO while moving away). Fighter also gets his WIS bonus to AoO and if the AoO hits the target's movement is interupted.
Paladin: Marks as an at-will minor action once per turn on one target within 5 squares, can have only one mark at time. Mark gives -2 attack if the Paladin is not targeted as well. If marked target tries to attack anyone else than marking Paladin for the first time in it's turn, it suffers 3+CHA bonus radiant damage (6+CHA bonus on 11th, 9+CHA bonus on 21st). You mut either end your turn adjecent to the marked target, attack it, or challenge a different target. If you don't end-up adjecent to marked creature or attack it, your Divine Challenge (marking ability) is disabled next turn.
Overall the Fighter does more damage while the Paladin does it more reliably, but I can't see the Fighter being disadvantaged.
Random Thoughts:
Minions, Skill Challenges: As people have said, there are ways to implement the concepts even if the exact mechanics are slightly different
Simplifying conditions and AOO's: cannot really be done within the framework Pathfinder works in; some things simply have a limit of how simplified they can be and still be worth the time of messing with
passive skills: as others have pointed out, it called taking 10 in Pathfinder
marking: great concept, but I have problems with how 4e implemented it; first, while it is something that "tank" type characters should be able to do better than others, it is something that everyone should be able to at least attempt; Pathfinder already has something close with Intimidate, which wouldn't be that hard to modify to include a "mark" function of some kind; whatever mechanism is used must have some kind of cost beyond granted class abilities, "marking" would be best done via feats that everyone can take, and those classes with bonus feats have more access to, or via the Intimidate skill, in both cases, Pathfinder is built around opposed actions and defenses, so some kind of defense mechanism against "marking" would need to be developed
I think there was a debate about tanking and aggro a while ago and a lot of people aggreed that this can also be mimicked without such mechanics. Simply RP and make yourself look like a bigger threat. Against low INT foes (beasts and such) the fighter types can just shout and make wild moves, against regular foes he can try to taunt them. Either way using intimidate and bluff should help (feint, demoraliese).
Alternatively you can use CMB/CMD mechanic, perhaps with CHA (force of personality, interaction ability in general) in place of strength and WIS (common sense, is he trying to trick me?) in place of DEX.
|
|
Or you could just maneuver so that you're in between the bad guy and your supporting friends. That's a very acceptable method of tanking - play better. You can even provoke AoO's ON PURPOSE so that the enemies can't use those attacks of opportunity on your allies. If you have a high-AC character, this is quite viable. I don't see the need for feats that allow your character to do what your player should be capable of doing.
Combat Harrassment and Retributive Protection look like fun feats, but as a player I think I could abuse the HECK out of them. Especially retributive protection.
"Yes, I have a reach weapon and you can't get to me with a five-foot step. And if you attack anyone other than me, I will attack you with a sizable bonus to my attack. Oh, you're making four attacks? Fancy that, I have four attacks of opportunity."
I'd make it a standard action to invoke the retributive protection, and then an immediate action to attack. I would also make Combat Expertise a prerequisite. This removes a significant amount of cheese.
Combat harassment started out as a great idea, but why not just make an Aid Another action to grant your ally +2 to their attacks? And then make a feat that allows you to Aid Another with all your allies fighting a certain enemy? You want to be able to attack while doing so? This seems wrong and too powerful to me.
Second, I want to say that I believe fourth edition did have some amazing ideas, which excited me tremendously when Wizards was posting during the development process. However, I found that there execution was lacking. That's why I went to Pathfinder instead.
I suspect that sentiment is true for a lot of people. 4e had a lot of great ideas, but for whatever reason, the execution of most of them just wasn't there.
|
|
The thing about Minions that always struck me as absurd was this...
I imagine a vast horde of orcs who have swept down into civilized lands, instilling terror in the human population of the area. Between slaughtering humans in outlying villages, they fight amongst themselves to determine rank and pecking order. Eventually, the horde reaches an area where the humans have organized their defenses. The human army expects to be vastly outnumbered, until they realize that the orc horde is now comprised of the three guys who didn't manage to accidentally kill one another.
The thing about Minions that always struck me as absurd was this...
I imagine a vast horde of orcs who have swept down into civilized lands, instilling terror in the human population of the area. Between slaughtering humans in outlying villages, they fight amongst themselves to determine rank and pecking order. Eventually, the horde reaches an area where the humans have organized their defenses. The human army expects to be vastly outnumbered, until they realize that the orc horde is now comprised of the three guys who didn't manage to accidentally kill one another.
Well, this is 4E. You can't use the rules to determine what happens when the monsters are not on the scene. 4E monster rules are written to work in relation to PCs. Otherwise it's purely DM fiat or perhaps D&D miniatures rules at best. Those rules are meant to support a story, rather than to simulate like 3E.
Right. 4e monsters don't actually exist until a PC can interact them.
Well, they do exist in the story, just have no rules implementation. That's why the Succubus could act as an irresistible temptress and bring kingdoms to ruin despite the fact that it could hardly present such feats in combat. Out of scene powers are not included in the package.
I'd describe it as a play script. Whatever the autor puts there is there whether it has any inner logic or not. Everything is subservient to the story, but on the scene (combat, or any other PC interaction) you are limited with whatever the actors are able to perform +/- scene magic and special effects. Smoke and mirrors compared to what the playwright can put in the backstory.
