I am working on a character and realized that there are many things in the game that you just cant do. either because the rules wont let you or because the rules for doing so are, to be blunt, stupid.
here are a few examples
counter spell There are rules for counter spelling but they are so confused and prohibitive most people wont (or shouldnt) bother with them. I mean... just deciding to try to counter means your potentially wasting an action. then you have to hope you have the right spell to counter with (or dispell magic or, with a feat, a spell in the same school with a higher caster level) I think it can be done better than this. Better to just be a bow class and ready actions to dispel casting at least you dont have to build your entire class around being effective
parry The only direct rules for paying an attack state that you can only do it with a pierce weapon. Parrying also requires that you give up an attack action. granted full defense, fighting defensively and two weapon defense are abilities that are supposed to simulate parry as an abstract they do not effectively represent the ability in my opinion.
non standard use of terrain not sure what to call this but the game does not allow one to say... open a door just wide enough to throw something in a room then close it, or step from behind a wall, take a shot and step back. some things can be represented by prohibitive feats such as move and shoot but others are just impossible by rules
granted some things are impossible because they are abusable in a turn based system. but others represent a range of tactical possibilities eliminated from the game.
What would YOU like to do that the game just wont let you.
Counter spell: I have nothing to help with
Parry: I have always considered D&D health to mean more stamina then actual health. Meaning that during a fight, just because you are "hit" doesnt mean that blood was drawn so much as it puts you that much closer to being worn out. For me the only real hits are the crits and the finishing blow. so the whole fight you are deflecting blows, but anyway I ramble
NSUoT: Stepping out to take a shot is like using half or full cover, your shots wont be as good, but you are still mostly behind that wall, its not like you can shoot right through it after all. As far as the quick opening and closing of a door, any decent dm should be able to handle you doing that
Move five feet, open a door, step through, close the door, move another five feet.
Can I do that in one round?
The first three, yes. The last five foot, no.
Opening and closing a door are both move actions so you can do both plus one five foot step.
Don't I need to move ten feet? (five feet to move up to the door and five feet to pass through) or do you get to cross a threshold "for free"?
One of my character concepts involved jumping on the enemies head/shoulders and shooting arrows into them.
The GM ruled it was impossible by the rules, but let me "say" I was on its head for a -4 penalty to my attack rolls while standing in the square next to it.
We were both a bit, "well damn that sucks" about it but them's the rules.
use playing cards instead of dice when I play my rogue.
use tarot cards instead of dice when I play my wizard.
Sorry, the "fluff mechanics" sometime lower the fun of the "fluff at table".
Don't I need to move ten feet? (five feet to move up to the door and five feet to pass through) or do you get to cross a threshold "for free"?
You mean to avoid hitting yourself with the door? I assume you're sort of "squeezing" around it as it swings through, as you are allowed to move within your square for free (a la making a Reflex save) as long as you don't leave it. Or do you mean that the door itself takes up a square? Because they're generally on the line between squares. Because if the door is down the middle of the square, it would be awkward.
X|_ (where X is the PC and | is the door; X and _ are adjacent squares)
1. move action: open door X\_
2. 5-foot-step _\X
3. move action: close door _|X
I have no idea if this is RAW, but I did it in-game (and then stood against the wall to make a Stealth check behind the door when the bad guys opened it to come in after me).
I do wish that using random items as weapons wasnt so underwhelming. I want to be able to play a barbarian that doesnt carry weapons, instead he uses what is in the area, including the bodies of his fallen foes, sadly to actually do that in game means that you deal piss poor damage.
Don't I need to move ten feet? (five feet to move up to the door and five feet to pass through) or do you get to cross a threshold "for free"?
You mean to avoid hitting yourself with the door? I assume you're sort of "squeezing" around it as it swings through, as you are allowed to move within your square for free (a la making a Reflex save) as long as you don't leave it. Or do you mean that the door itself takes up a square? Because they're generally on the line between squares. Because if the door is down the middle of the square, it would be awkward.
X|_ (where X is the PC and | is the door; X and _ are adjacent squares)
1. move action: open door X\_
2. 5-foot-step _\X
3. move action: close door _|XI have no idea if this is RAW, but I did it in-game (and then stood against the wall to make a Stealth check behind the door when the bad guys opened it to come in after me).
I'm imagining a door on the edge of a square adjacent to mine (so I can't reach it at the start of my turn). I can five foot step into the square, then open and shut the door, but I can't get through it (as I understand things).
It seems to me that if there's a closed door five feet away from me, I can't move up to it, open it and pass through it, closing it behind me all in one trurn.
To use your notation, here's the start position:
X_|_
And I want to get to:
__|X
EDIT: of course it's a little off topic, since moving through doors efficiently is hardly something I'd 'love' to do. Nonetheless, it seems to highlight the problem with grouping "close a door" together with "move thirty feet" and declaring them near-equivalents. I can't move ten feet whilst passing through a closed door during a period in which I can otherwise run 120 feet.
I think if I were inventing a game I'd use movement points or something you spent each round based on actions taken, rather than several different classes of action.
True; you have to start out adjacent to the door. Or you could move up to your speed to a door and open it in one round, then step through and close it the following round. Or you could five-foot-step to a door, open it to look inside, and slam it again before the monsters inside can attack you (unless they have a readied action). Or you could start adjacent to a door, open it, and run like heck, leaving it swinging behind you. But there are no mechanics to let you move to a door, open it, move through and then close it all in 6 seconds, because you're limited to one 5-foot-step per round.
lol yep.
so any one following you gets the benefit of chasing you through an open door that you spent an action to move... or....
hell wait a minute. I cant even be standing adjacent to a door, open it, step through and close it. how silly is that. the act of opening a door, taking a 5 foot step and closing it is impossible in the course of a standard turn.
As for the parry. your right. the rules seem to place it in the general abstract of hitpoints and defense. however if they actually allowed a mechanic for parry they could allow tactical options and feats based on the parry. such as using attacks of opportunity to parry or counter attack options.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am working on a character and realized that there are many things in the game that you just cant do. either because the rules wont let you or because the rules for doing so are, to be blunt, stupid.
The rule system is an exception based rules system. That means, essentially, that the rules elements can be added to create ways of getting around what you find as obstacles within the core rules system. Some of those exceptions have been created for you, others you can create yourself.
counter spell There are rules for counter spelling but they are so confused and prohibitive most people wont (or shouldnt) bother with them. I mean... just deciding to try to counter means your potentially wasting an action. then you have to hope you have the right spell to counter with (or dispell magic or, with a feat, a spell in the same school with a higher caster level) I think it can be done better than this. Better to just be a bow class and ready actions to dispel casting at least you dont have to build your entire class around being effective.
I agree that the core rules for counter spells tend to not get used very often. You can create archetypes, traits, magic items, feats, or feat trees to make counter spells more effective. The two design element limits on counterspelling are the need to have an effective counter spell prepared and the opportunity cost of the action needed to cast the counter spell. Design or use existing rules resources that would involve counterspelling with a school of the same level, the same school, the same descriptor, etc. to reduce the limit on what is prepared. Maybe a spell of lower level has less chance of success and/or reduces the effectiveness of the counterspell. Introduce a rules element to change the type of action for the counterspell, perhaps to an immediate action in exchange for magic item charges, multiple spell slots, or the use of unfilled spell slots. These are suggestions only, and there are additional creative options.
parry The only direct rules for paying an attack state that you can only do it with a pierce weapon. Parrying also requires that you give up an attack action. granted full defense, fighting defensively and two weapon defense are abilities that are supposed to simulate parry as an abstract they do not effectively represent the ability in my opinion.
What is it about the existing rules elements that you describe that don't represent the act of parrying? I think that the addition of an immediate action parry might get what you want, yes? The rules system supports the addition of an immediate action parry through the exception based rules system.
non standard use of terrain not sure what to call this but the game does not allow one to say... open a door just wide enough to throw something in a room then close it, or step from behind a wall, take a shot and step back. some things can be represented by prohibitive feats such as move and shoot but others are just impossible by rules
granted some things are impossible because they are abusable in a turn based system. but others represent a range of tactical possibilities eliminated from the game.
There is nothing in the rules that prevents the sequence: 1) open door, 2) throw item, 3) close door. Nor is there anything that prevents 1) move, 2) shoot, 3) move again. They may take either A) more than one turn of actions, B) the use of a rules resource such as a feat, trait, etc., C) the agreement of a particular game style by the GM, or D) selecting an existing rules mechanic to represent what you are trying to accomplish.
In the case of the door, this kinda sounds like a reskinned charge: it is the combination of what is normally two move actions and a standard in a predefined way. I could see opting to call it a full round action to pull of the sequence in exchange for a penalty of some meaningful way. It can either be done with a flexible GM, through a house rule (another way of saying "third party rule of limited distribution") addition of an action type, or the use of a feat or other rules resource. Maybe allow it with a given Dex check.
Stepping out, shooting, stepping back is usually not needed...you can shoot from behind a corner, for example. If you mean from farther away, then, yeah, the rules allow it via move and shoot, or by using more than one turn.
You say there are restrictions on tactical possibilities. I would describe what limits there are on this sort of thing to be an agreement between imaginative people about what is possible in a comparable period of time and effort. The tactical possibilities, by definition, are the choices made based on the resources at hand, not the resources you have no access to. Take the game of chess: one makes tactical choices from the options granted by the pieces available; it might be imaginative to wish pieces could move off one side to the other (wrap around left-right), but is it reasonable to describe the game as stupid because the standard version of the rules don't permit it?
What would YOU like to do that the game just wont let you.
The rules permit all sorts of things that do not appear explicitly in text. It doesn't mean that they can't be done. It may mean that a player cannot count on being able to design a character around an option that will depend on the will of the GM and the other players.
I recognize that my reply sort of deflects the intent of your post. I'm not being obtuse. Rather, I post this in the spirit of inspiring creativity in response to a game for which the rule books, by their self-definition, are incomplete and very, very capable of being expanded upon either formally or informally.
Good Gaming!
The AC mechanic has, since the dawn of time, assumed an abstract of a defender actively defending, including blocking blows with his weapon. This is not always a "parry," so-to-speak, but then, neither is a block always a parry.
Casting a spell is action-expensive. Why should countering it not also be so?
Opening doors and throwing things through them, and other normal actions that human beings on Earth can think up and do, are things your GM should be handling (since every GM/DM has been doing so pretty much since 1974, anyway). If your GM is not ad hocking or working something out, then get a new one. He is painfully underqualified for his position.
On that topic, could you imagine what the rulebook would be like if every tiny little variation in action and behavior had to be detailed down to the nth degree? If the rules for opening a door, throwing something in a room, and closing it had to be detailed to keep you happy, and thus, EVERY similar action had to be detailed, the book would be about six thousand pages long.
The reason human beings GM is because they can handle this sort of thing by making a ruling, unlike a computer.
I do wish that using random items as weapons wasnt so underwhelming. I want to be able to play a barbarian that doesnt carry weapons, instead he uses what is in the area, including the bodies of his fallen foes, sadly to actually do that in game means that you deal piss poor damage.It does however illustrate quite broadly why we made the historic leap from pebbles, sticks, and broken limbs to real weapons.
Yeah I know, and I dont really have a problem with how it works, just one of those character concepts that I really like, that is all
The rules permit all sorts of things that do not appear explicitly in text. It doesn't mean that they can't be done. It may mean that a player cannot count on being able to design a character around an option that will depend on the will of the GM and the other players.
I recognize that my reply sort of deflects the intent of your post. I'm not being obtuse. Rather, I post this in the spirit of inspiring creativity in response to a game for which the rule books, by their self-definition, are incomplete and very, very capable of being expanded upon either formally or informally.
Good Gaming!
You know howie... very good points.
I must admit that this is the view i have always traditionally had. however I have been playing the last 4 or 5 months with a GM who seems in capable of making such on the spot decisions. if its not an explicit rule in the book it cant happen no matter how much sense it does or does not make. (well unless of course he wants to fudge the rules in order to get something over on the characters.
I used to fight with him over things and then had to train my self to just accept his view, which lead me to try and figure out ways to make them work IN the rules.
however... the truth is he is no longer GM and it was not until i read your post that I realized I was no longer subject to his play style and lack of creativity.
I feel like the trained elephant who has suddenly realized that he is not bound by the piece of string.
thanks.
|
|
hell wait a minute. I cant even be standing adjacent to a door, open it, step through and close it. how silly is that. the act of opening a door, taking a 5 foot step and closing it is impossible in the course of a standard turn.
Um, yes it is. If you start adjacent to the door, the order of action is:
Move Action - Open Door.Free 5 Foot Step to go through.
Move Action - Close Door.
In 4e Opening and Closing a door is at least a Minor action, but that still means you can't do more than Open Door, Move 5 feet through, Close door if you start adjacent. But at least if you are happy to leave door open you could move 30 feet, open door, move 30 feet.
|
You are skilled at using optical tricks to make yourself seem to be where you are not using a cloak to hide your true position and confound your foes. You weave across a battleground with foes barely catching glimpses of your form between the flowing swirls of your cloak, until at the last second they realize too late that...
Armored Cloak fighter...
- A shield bonus from a cloak to your AC.
- Either a Sense Motive vs Bluff or Perception vs Sleight of Hand (or CMB check vs CMD) as your swirling cloak decieves your foe rendering them flat foot, enabling you to perform a Sneak attack damage.
- Cloak Entangle Combat Manuever vs CMD or gain the entangled condition.
And I thought I was crazy when I was going to say "play a homebrew race". Then again, not sure if it counts as the game not letting me, or just being the case of a puritan DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Play an effective high level character who doesn't light up like a chirstmas tree under detect magic.
Run away from a fight that can't be won.
It is very rare in my experience to have an opponent strong enough that the party can't beat but that it is possible to get away from.
Only time seems to be when the opponent is for some reason tied to a location. Ghost's murder site, water elemental in a pool, salamander in lava, etc...
Yes, the monk can out run the flying dragon and the wizard can teleport away. The rest of the group tends to die.
And the other way around. I want to have the cowardly kobalds and goblins or a reoccuring villian run away from a losing fight. Then they could come back later and still be a problem. However, as the rules work. If the party can beat them at all, they can usually kill them faster than they can run away.
Running up a wall doing a backflip over an enemy. I also want to be able to aim for target body parts giving them certain debuffs like warhammer to hit guy in head his ears will be ringing and his head pounding but this in no way hinders him in combat? I think a system in place where you pretty much lose something every hit would be complicated but not impossible.
Now I can see fights quickly becoming one sided but not if you play it right and swap out the fighters every once in awhile.
Running up a wall doing a backflip over an enemy. I also want to be able to aim for target body parts giving them certain debuffs like warhammer to hit guy in head his ears will be ringing and his head pounding but this in no way hinders him in combat? I think a system in place where you pretty much lose something every hit would be complicated but not impossible.
Now I can see fights quickly becoming one sided but not if you play it right and swap out the fighters every once in awhile.
You might want to take a look at 101 New Skill Uses from Rite Publishing, they have some Free-Running and Parkour type things you can do with the Acrobatics skill. Might let you do exactly what you are describing in that opening sentence.
As for the targeting body parts, are you aware of the Called Shots mechanics introduced in Ultimate Combat?
I think he means being chased by the enemy, running to the wall and doing a back flip as they comically run headlong into the wall instead of stopping 10 feet back assuming your trapped.
problem is it doesn't work because of the turn based rule. basically the enemy is usually "technically" 20 or 30 feet behind you smoking a pipe waiting for their turn while your making that acrobatics check.
same thing happens with the fly skill... there are all these rules for maneuverability which should make a more agile flyer able to evade a faster flyer... except that all of those maneuvers are useless since the chaser does not have to follow those evasions thy simply have to fly a straight line to the point where the target stopped flying.
having said that... my mentality in the past and again now that I am no longer hindered by the rules lawyer mentality is that if your chasing some one either on land or in the air you have to more or less follow their steps as the actions SHOULD be happening simultaneously.
recreate the front cover of the many of the books with the RAW
I wish acrobatics let you be a little more parkour/jackie chan with your vertical movement, taking walls and ledges into account for modifiers.
Players in my game don't run into that problem, because I generally try to let my players do what they want, but as a player in other people's games, it's something I miss.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
I think he means being chased by the enemy, running to the wall and doing a back flip as they comically run headlong into the wall instead of stopping 10 feet back assuming your trapped.
problem is it doesn't work because of the turn based rule. basically the enemy is usually "technically" 20 or 30 feet behind you smoking a pipe waiting for their turn while your making that acrobatics check.
same thing happens with the fly skill... there are all these rules for maneuverability which should make a more agile flyer able to evade a faster flyer... except that all of those maneuvers are useless since the chaser does not have to follow those evasions thy simply have to fly a straight line to the point where the target stopped flying.
having said that... my mentality in the past and again now that I am no longer hindered by the rules lawyer mentality is that if your chasing some one either on land or in the air you have to more or less follow their steps as the actions SHOULD be happening simultaneously.
There's an old rule variant (I think it was 2nd Ed AD&D) that had all characters (and the DM for NPC's/Monsters) write down and prescribe their actions at the same time before declaring what was going on. Made things very chaotic, if not unwieldly sometimes.
In our game from time to time it has come up whether or not someone can "put a dagger to your/their throat" and threaten them. In Champions it was akin to a "cover" shot. The attack roll had already been made but the damage postponed until the covering action was concluded.
I'm not sure how to simulate this in PF without houseruling it, and we already have quite a few houserules.
Play a character based on Rand or Mat from Wheel of Time. Impossible.
Parry
Spell Points instead of spell slots
Actually play a tank
Be a Ranger that's better at shooting a bow then a Fighter.
Play an Assassin without breaking the game.
AS to the CG Paladin. My group uses both the alternate alignment paladins and prestige paladin from 3.5.
In my game there are no level 1 paladins just like there are no 1 HD Liches... If you meet a paladin he is at least 6th level and usually a bad mofo. As it should be.
In our game from time to time it has come up whether or not someone can "put a dagger to your/their throat" and threaten them. In Champions it was akin to a "cover" shot. The attack roll had already been made but the damage postponed until the covering action was concluded.
I'm not sure how to simulate this in PF without houseruling it, and we already have quite a few houserules.
Well at that point they are defenseless. You could just call it a delayed 'coup de gras' spending the full round action but holding the damage. Its the closest I can think of being the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flexible ritual magic.
|
counter spell There are rules for counter spelling but they are so confused and prohibitive most people wont (or shouldnt) bother with them. I mean... just deciding to try to counter means your potentially wasting an action. then you have to hope you have the right spell to counter with (or dispell magic or, with a feat, a spell in the same school with a higher caster level) I think it can be done better than this. Better to just be a bow class and ready actions to dispel casting at least you dont have to build your entire class around being effective
I don't meant to toot my own horn, and I never really got to playtest it, but a while back I worked on a bard archetype called The Mesmer that focused primarily on punishing various enemy actions, including an emphasis on countering enemy spellcasting, and making the requirements easier to meet.
The only thing I would like to point out is that Counterspell Mastery, at 4th level, allows you to ready a counterspell as a move action, freeing up your ability to cast/use standard actions while defending your party against spellcasters.
Food for thought, anyways.
I want to be able to spend multiple attacks and movement whenever I want, if I win initiative. For example, if I'm a 16th level fighter with a 30-ft. move, I want to be able to attack once, move 25 ft., mow down two more guys, and then see what's cooking; when a guy starts casting, I want to sidestep 5 ft. and throw my dagger with my remaining movement and attack.
I want to play a wizard that uses wild magic.
Dhalsim. If only the Aberrant Bloodline allowed you to do unarmed strikes instead of touch attacks, I could Eldrich Heritage it up. But no dice.
Dhalsim. If only the Aberrant Bloodline allowed you to do unarmed strikes instead of touch attacks, I could Eldrich Heritage it up. But no dice.
It doesn't get you quite the same range as our fighting-game friend has, but I played a one-shot with a guy who flavored his use of the Lunge feat as exactly this.
On the topic of parrying there are past rules for parrying in Dragon magazine 301 starting on page 33. I have used them in the past and they worked fine, the only thing I can see now would be its all based on your 'to hit rolls'. As with alot of past 3/3.5 feats I find they still fit fine without changes, but if they dont work as you would like then they could be a good starting point for house rules for you.
Hope this helps.
|
|
I think he means being chased by the enemy, running to the wall and doing a back flip as they comically run headlong into the wall instead of stopping 10 feet back assuming your trapped.
That could be more tricky, although I guess if your opponent was actually bullrushing or overrunning you and you moved up to the wall and readied the action to move through his threatened square once he entered your square it could sort of work.
I wouldn't mind being able to ready more than just a simple action but I find when I ready an action if its not something straite forward like "attack enemy when they come into range" then my readied ether doesn't go off or what I want to do takes multiple actions. If I haven't used any of my actions on my turn I want all my actions when I ready.
I guess what I'm asking for is a little more flexibility with the readyed actions.