For this campaign setting, I want the PCs to be able to switch-hit effectively. The combat is slanted towards firearms, but melee still happens, and I want the characters to be able to stand up in both types of battle. This essentially means that pretty much every character that has combat feats or abilities should be a switch hitter, meaning that I need to make such builds easy.
How should I go about this?
Also, armor is no longer in use. What should I replace the fighter's armor mastery abilities with?
Before I can answer what to replace those abilities with, what have you replaced armor with?
I pan to use the defense bonus option from Unearthed Arcana. It's what D20 Modern does (though it's bonuses are a bit different), and the Unearthed Arcana version is balanced for the D&D classes.
It seems perfect for what I want to do.
The only issue with this system is spellcasters and touch spells, and I'm getting around that by allowing them to act as if they had a full BAB for the purpose of spells or other magical abilities that require touch attacks only.
Also, should I treat anyone using a firearm as a melee weapon as proficient if they are proficient with the firearm's normal use?
|
First, it's all house rules, so should be there, not advice.
Second, you really don't need to. Switch firearms for bows and you have base pathfinder, both are viable, you generally use feats and stats to enhance one. A marksman is very different from a samurai.
And sure, if people use the sword on the end of a musket they can be proficient with it. Why not?
First, it's all house rules, so should be there, not advice.
Second, you really don't need to. Switch firearms for bows and you have base pathfinder, both are viable, you generally use feats and stats to enhance one. A marksman is very different from a samurai.
My worry is people getting into melee with a monster, only to be disadvantaged because it's optimized for that and they aren't.
And sure, if people use the sword on the end of a musket they can be proficient with it. Why not?
Eh. IRL bayonets are actually really only good for aggression training, holding off cavalry (and this is only if their formation is tight enough), and intimidation. If you look at the American Civil War, when troops descended into hand to hand combat they tended to use the butt of their gun, not their bayonet. I can't speak for other wars, but I'd think the trend would be similar. The problem is that a bayonet makes the weapon too long to be effective in close quarters combat and the stabbing motion requires more space than you have. A swinging motion is easier and takes up less space.
I'm speaking more of whacking people with the weapon. Though, if you are proficient with a bayonet, you should be proficient with whacking people.
Don't require your pcs to be anything, switch hitters included. Let them build the characters they want to build.
The problem is, If your character doesn't have a lot of firearms training and isn't a spellcaster, you are at a very large disadvantage. This makes melee characters hard to build. I'm trying to get around that by making the building of characters that can do both ranged and melee easier. I don't want to take options away, but I also want them to have survivable characters.
If that is the type of game your pcs want to play, they'll draw up ranged characters automatically. If it isn't, then you're going to have a problem no matter how "switch hitter friendly" you make it.
Still, I'd at least like to give ranged characters a little extra melee ability for free. It couldn't hurt anything and it doesn't take any options away.
|
1) I'm assuming you are already doing this, but have Firearms be (at least) commonplace; that way they are martial weapons, meaning any of the fighty classes will be proficient with them, but the advanced firearms are still special
2) Make Weapon Finesse a base feature of the system, rather than a feat tax. Sure, it might overload Dex a little bit, but Weapon Finesse really shouldn't be a separate feat (at least in my opinion)
Also, should I treat anyone using a firearm as a melee weapon as proficient if they are proficient with the firearm's normal use?
Nah, count it as an improvised weapon of the appropriate size.
1) I'm assuming you are already doing this, but have Firearms be (at least) commonplace; that way they are martial weapons, meaning any of the fighty classes will be proficient with them, but the advanced firearms are still special
2) Make Weapon Finesse a base feature of the system, rather than a feat tax. Sure, it might overload Dex a little bit, but Weapon Finesse really shouldn't be a separate feat (at least in my opinion)
Firearms are simple weapons, and even Wizards are proficient.
As for weapon finesse, maybe.
|
|
Just so we're clear: why would a gunman ever switch to melee? If I was in a cthulu horror movie and a big monster was chomping at me, I'd still shoot my gun :).
If someone wants to be a melee monster, they can build that way, and rush with that sword that is charmed you sometimes see. But in a Modern warfare optioned world, most will shoot guns even in close quarters, going to melee would be foolish.
Maybe we're not understanding what you're going for; why do you need modern people to want to pull out melee weapons, and why those few who do can't just specialize (a la Fallout series).
Well, the simplest solution I see is to allow feats such as Power Attack and Deadly Aim which are mechanically the same but only apply to ranged/melee combat scenarios to work for either. Granted your options for such feats are limited, as feats such as Rapid Shot and TWF are not technically equivalent while they still provide similar bonuses, but it would be a start.
And I second the Weapon Finesse as a free feat. Fighters in real life rely on their speed if they happen to be fast but weak to land more blows than a stronger opponent and wear him down, and they don't have to train separately to develop this, they just do it naturally.
When it comes to the ranged weapon being used as an improvised melee weapon, as long as it's not unreasonable I'd allow it. I'd still probably use the bayonet myself, much as you would a spear (hey, if you can kick but with one, why not the other). If you want to make things even easier, you can allow select uses at a reduced penalty, and even further reduce the penalty for improvised uses of a weapons with which your players fight constantly.
Ex #1: Using a rapier to deal bludgeoning damage with the pommel would impart the usual -4 penalty and decrease dmg to 1d4 with a x2 crit on a 20, but using it to deal slashing would only impose a -2 penalty and maintain the 1d6 dmg, dealing x2 with a crit on 19-20 (instead of 18-20). However if your swashbuckling rogue uses the weapon all the time, decrease both attack penalties by 2, effectively eliminating the penalty for dealing slashing damage with the rapier.
Ex #2: Using a musket with a bayonet, you could make a normal ranged attack, a normal bayonet attack (piercing dmg, 19-20x2[I think, but where is this?]), an attack with the butt of the musket (bludgeoning) at -2 penalty with a 20x2 crit, or a slashing attack with the bayonet at -2, 20x2 crit. If your player always fights with this weapon, they effectively eliminate the penalty to these improvised attack.
You have to figure, either way these weapons were designed to take a beating, the only question is how can you use that to your advantage. There are even historical records of unarmored opponents using long swords held by the blade to pummel a fully clad knight with the pommel, seeing as the blade wouldn't actually be able to penetrate his armor.
As for the Defense Bonus issue with touch attacks, I'd say that only 1/2 that bonus applies to touch AC, rounded down, and leave the Wizard/Sorcerer BAB unchanged. Think of it as though your PCs are still getting "hit" by some of the attacks, but are able to roll with most of them, negating the damage. You might also consider adding their spellcasting ability modifier to their spell touch attacks in addition to their Str/Dex modifier.
This should even out the playing field substantially and make things easier to follow. Just be sure that your players are writing down their new AC/tAC and spell-based ranged/melee attack bonuses so you don't have players forgetting them until the next round.
Just so we're clear: why would a gunman ever switch to melee? If I was in a cthulu horror movie and a big monster was chomping at me, I'd still shoot my gun :).
If someone wants to be a melee monster, they can build that way, and rush with that sword that is charmed you sometimes see. But in a Modern warfare optioned world, most will shoot guns even in close quarters, going to melee would be foolish.
Maybe we're not understanding what you're going for; why do you need modern people to want to pull out melee weapons, and why those few who do can't just specialize (a la Fallout series).
Damage reduction. A lot of the monsters I'm designing are much more susceptible to slashing than piercing damage. For example, I love undead. However, pumping bullets into non-functioning organs is not as effective as hacking the thing apart.
Don't get me wrong. Firearms are useful against most of the opponents. I just plan to have some, like those undead, that they just aren't particularly lethal against.
|
|
Unless you are making guns substantially more lethal than swords (in which case you still pay the DR) I don't see the issue. PF already has this, and someone who wants to be a vamp hunter can choose to rush gunners with their swords (or at least have a decent strength and power attack). At higher levels gun shooters can cluster shot past DR (if this is a legal feat). Or just let the mages take out the gun-not-harming undead.
It really sounds standard; plenty of opportunity for each specialist to shine.
Unless you are making guns substantially more lethal than swords (in which case you still pay the DR) I don't see the issue. PF already has this, and someone who wants to be a vamp hunter can choose to rush gunners with their swords (or at least have a decent strength and power attack). At higher levels gun shooters can cluster shot past DR (if this is a legal feat). Or just let the mages take out the gun-not-harming undead.
It really sounds standard; plenty of opportunity for each specialist to shine.
Except I'm allowing ranged attacks of opportunity for some actions (not all actions that provoke a melee AOO provoke a ranged one), and charging somebody with a loaded gun provokes an AOO. I want melee combat to occur, but don't want it to be the standard. Someone who charges gunners with a sword should die. There is a reason guns eventually became the standard. I want hand to hand combat to have a feeling of being sort of a desperate effort without slaughtering the PCs.
I suppose I should make what I want clear. In this campaign setting, 5-6 shot breech loading weapons are the norm, and have overtaken melee weapons as the primary tools of war. It is not intended for a swordfighter to be able to charge a bunch of people with rifles and live. However, I still want there to be some melee combat. Have you ever seen the Patriot? Remember how dramatic it was when everything at Cowpens degenerated into melee? Remember how dramatic it is in any action movie with old time sailing ships when the knives and cutlasses come out? That's the kind of feel I want to capture with the melee combat in this system.
Seeing how you have things set up (the 5-6 round breach loading firearms as simple weapons with AOOs set up for charging a person with a loaded and presumably drawn weapon) things will be pretty dire if they do get to melee combat. That means that your bad guys are powerful enough to survive at least a few shots and are probably better at dealing dmg in melee to boot.
The best thing you can do is give your players more options, but without overwhelming them. As I proposed earlier, allow unconventional uses of their conventional weapons, allow mechanically similar feats and abilites to cross over the melee/ranged boundry (for this I'd include Clustered Shot and Penetrating Strike for overcoming DR), and other similar rule bendings.
If you want to take things a step further, allow a player with Improved Critical and similar weapon-specific feats to use that feat for all attacks with a given weapon, be it an improvised pommel strike with a dagger or a bayonet strike with a rifle. Maybe even allow that Weapon Focus (musket) to be used with a spear that has a similar heft as the musket does with a bayonet.
Remember, expand options with existing abilities instead of just adding new ones. This will make things easier to follow and allow you to ad-hoc on the go to make things easier for you and your players.
Seeing how you have things set up (the 5-6 round breach loading firearms as simple weapons with AOOs set up for charging a person with a loaded and presumably drawn weapon) things will be pretty dire if they do get to melee combat. That means that your bad guys are powerful enough to survive at least a few shots and are probably better at dealing dmg in melee to boot.
The best thing you can do is give your players more options, but without overwhelming them. As I proposed earlier, allow unconventional uses of their conventional weapons, allow mechanically similar feats and abilites to cross over the melee/ranged boundry (for this I'd include Clustered Shot and Penetrating Strike for overcoming DR), and other similar rule bendings.
If you want to take things a step further, allow a player with Improved Critical and similar weapon-specific feats to use that feat for all attacks with a given weapon, be it an improvised pommel strike with a dagger or a bayonet strike with a rifle. Maybe even allow that Weapon Focus (musket) to be used with a spear that has a similar heft as the musket does with a bayonet.
Remember, expand options with existing abilities instead of just adding new ones. This will make things easier to follow and allow you to ad-hoc on the go to make things easier for you and your players.
I like all these ideas.
I am also ruling the bayonet a reach weapon that can be braced. This is fairly realistic to how it was used, and the bayonet really does have trouble in close combat. That's why real life soldiers in the Civil War preferred to swing the weapon like a club. This rule doesn't make the bayonet 100% useless, but it does curb it quite a bit. I do plan to give the butt end of the weapon a good damage value.