Hi all, I've generally found that many of the combat feats, AOO's and multipule attacks are slowing down the game. I am considering dropping these and merging the combat system with the combat and manuver system from Hero Games.
for those who arent familar with the Hero Games system, players may make a full move, or half move and attack.. typically no more than one attack per phase or round (though there are abilities that allow more than one attack to hit based on the first die roll ala double shot, autofire etc, I would use this for two weapon fighers etc.) players may act before their point of init by pulling their next action to perform a defensive action (but not attack). players "may" use manuvers like "covered" that allow them to make an attack if a circumstance comes up (like somebody casting a spell or walking into a line of fire) but otherwise there are no AOO's (but it takes their action to set this up.) Players may delay their stated action if they win init but if they do not act by the end of the round they can loose their actions.
the Hero Games manuver and martial arts system also presents a much more dynamic and detailed combat system I think players will enjoy, with much fewer faults and min/maxed exploits.
any thoughts about this? areas where you think this will get me into trouble system wise?
That's a rather radical change to the system. Is there any particular reason you want to try to hybridize PF as opposed to just playing on that system instead?
You want a different system.
blackbloodtroll wrote: You want a different system. In a nutshell this, at a certain point you are no longer paying the named system, so don't bother.
I think this will not function with Pathfinder. Melee/ranged combat will become more or less worthless with increasing levels.
A level 15 fighter has only one attack instead of three - the cleric still uses his standard action to cast his spell, only his spells become better (e.g. destruction vs. single attack).
chaos- the primary reason : Hero games uses 3d6 for most resolutions, I personally think there is an emotional connection most gamers have to d20 D&D based games.
Hero Game System is without a doubt IMHO the most moddable, well thought out and detailed system that exists, like the macs they have refined it constantly but never really come out with hugely new resolution systems or hugely altered rulesets (except for one "this never really happened" moment) it just got better and better since the early 80's...
but HGS has its own problems, a very large learning curve and is extremely intimidating for most gamers (together the two core books weigh 9 lbs and thats without any fluff content or much art), the variable spd or actions per turn system gets confusing, having three stats (body like hp, stun, and endurance) that need to be kept track of is another hang up, too much dice rolling, calculating, and defenses reducing dammage (and many defensive systems you have to keep track of) is just too much round to round accounting for me.
so both systems have big problems, I was thinking a merger would improve both.
to blackblood- why?
to winterborn- technically that certan point you mention is at the point you decide to use one house rule. and why is it ok for a game designer to come out with an entirely new edition that alters much of what the previous edition did but wrong for an individual DM to do the same (for the benifit of his players and the game in general by providing more options for the way people may want to play the game)?
Turgan- your right, I'd likely have to come up with something that increases the dammage of melee and ranged fighters the way sneak attack dice work for rogues.
Why not just play Marvel Heroic Fantasy RPG, and fluff it up like Pathfinder?
I've got no exp with that system, does it have a better combat system than PF?
It uses a dice pool system. I have already played a Pokemon and Conan themed game in addition to Marvel using the system.
It is interesting that nearly every idea to change the system is a hidden fighter (martial char) nerf.
You want to change everything that lets the fighter stay on par with the casters.
The last idea was to give everyone more feats. As the numer of feats he gets is what makes the fighter special it is again a fighter nerf.
Why does everyone hate fighters so much they keep on changing the system in a way to nerf him?
At higher levels he already is one of the weaker classes because he cann't do a lot except fight and while the casters have save or die spells the fighter has to kill foes by reducing their hp to 0, what often takes longer than a single round of combat.
The way you described the system that you want to emulate with pathfinder, I don't think you're going to get any actual increase in the speed of gameplay. Pathfinder really isn't that complex. I can't help but feel that maybe the issues you are having is due to players not having a firm grasp of mechanics. If that's the case, it just takes a little practice, and writing down everything all added up :p
I still say take a short switch to another system.
Pathfinder will be here when you get back.
stick to low level PF
whfrp 2
dnd-next
all much simpler / faster
blackblood- I generally dont like dice pool systems... havent read whfrp2 but didnt like whfrp 1, DnD next wont be out until 2013 sometime. (but hopefully this merger should work with next)
Umbra- the way I set this up fighters would be more effective not less.. I'm also thinking about giving them a higher "SPD" by HSG which would be like having extra rounds of actions in a turn... but a big issue I have with fighters is a generic figher can not come close to a min/maxed optimized fighter in crits, damage output, AC, etc. therefore ballence is all over the place and encounters can be lethal for some, while almost no challenge of others. I hate that.
chaos- every level most characters are getting new powers and worse, new feats, which break the basic rules in different ways, most of the players in the group I am in have been playing pathfinder since it came out. They have a firm grasp but IMO the game is essentially broken by the feats and AOO's compair a round of OSR AD&D with PF using mid level characters(ignoring weapon speed) and there is a HUGE difference in the speed. a round takes about 4-5x as long in PF.
My recommendation is to just switch to the basic box. Rumor has it that they cut out the AoOs... and that alone should speed things up.
Frankly, i LIKE multiple attacks... and tend to get very frustrated when i only have one.
Also, I'm VERY leery of 'merging systems'
I did that a LOT years ago, and really only found MORE frustration. Every new rule... Every new Feat or proficieny.... you now need to go back over EVERY pre-written character and 're-do' him...
ugghhh....
Mutants and Masterminds is what you are looking for. They even have a fantasy setting book.
At the least, melee characters need something like the vital strike and cleave feat chains. Otherwise, they fall so behind the power curve the game is unbalanced.
Perhaps another solution is when a melee character makes an attack only during a round, the hit creature is automatically stunned.
Just how long exactly is it taking your players to do their turn, because I'm getting the feeling we're not quite on the same page as to what's "slow" and what's not.
That said, it still sounds like an issue of not knowing exactly what your character can do or how to do it. Out of curiosity, what feats in particular do you find slowing down the gameplay?
Fallofcamelot- I think I have a copy, and I'll check out the fantasy setting... btw does M&M have AOOs?
Phantom- I agree, theres all kinds of problems I'd have to overcome here, but I'd rather straighten things out than let things drag on the way they are and it is really annoying me... I just dont wanna play PF the way it is, but its what the other people in the area want to play. So I think I'm kinda stuck with fix it or drop my weekly gaming session all together and start trying to figure out how to game on google/skype (wich sounds just horrible to an old grognardian table topper like me)PS- there are manuvers that you'd make one roll to hit, every 2-3 you hit by would mean an additional attack struck home... so you get the extra dammage just not the extra chances to crit or fumble, and it eliminates a hell of a lot of calculation to figure out if your off hand is hitting with the +3 dagger you just found, when your favored hand missed with the flint axe etc.
Ajaxis- HGS has about 40 manuvers, many are similar to the common combat feats in PF. (for example they have sweep which is nearly identical to Improved Cleave)I dont know about the stunning... if the characters are getting attacked they would have the same problem...
Chaos- how long... kinda depends, most of the players do have spread sheets of their most common attack/feat combos. If its a basic combat maybe 13-18+ min a round I guess (we have 8 characters including NPCs in the party I think)and uh... I think I was being pretty generous when I said it was only 4-5x as long... a OSR D&D round I think for this group would take less than 10-30 sec per character as opposed to 1-2 min+ for PF.
I dont know all the feats all the characters have, I just know we sure spend a lot of time re-reading the feat rules when things get hetic (like when we have to figure out what adjacent means to a character who just got enlarge cast on him and is using cleave and a pole arm)
The feats which seem to ive us the most trouble in general I would say are any feats which create AOOs or allow additional attacks or additional magic damage, also the feats which create special conditions or require saving throws... so most of em I guess except the ones that just add a few bonuses to hit or dam etc.
I find Pathfinder's combat rules a little on the simple side to begin with. I don't believe I'd find it enjoyable if made even simpler.
Combat is the meat of the system. It has the most rules dedicated to it. If you strip off that meat, PF is kind of bare.
flesh- theres like more than 200 feats now, most of em combat feats... you consider knowing and remembering how all those work and work/synergize together simple? you impress me.... if its that simple why do we have hundreds of advice postings asking how to build xyz character?
If you are considering this, Pathfinder is not the game for you. Use a game that's better suited for you and your players.
There is nothing wrong with the changes you want to make, so long as you enjoy tinkering with the system. The NAY sayers don't like it because it means that in a hypothetical situation where they show up at your door, they wouldn't know how good their character from another game was. That's it in a nut shell.
If changing rules is fun, then go for it. There will be other problems that crop up later, just take them as they come.
While I have no particular problem tinkering with systems, there are two main problems I see here:
- The first problem is that the combat mechanic is fairly central to the system, and throwing all that out results in a completely different game if you do all the work to put the pieces back together (does a wizard using scorching ray still get to make multiple attacks?), or a Frankestein's monster of a game if you don't.
- The biggest problem, which ties in to the first, is that your players want to play Pathfinder. What you're describing isn't. Discuss this with your players, because it sounds like they aren't likely to accept this houserule.
That said, go with whatever's fun for both you and your players.
I'm starting to think maybe your right... I was reading a posting today on a 11th lev magus/sorc character throwing around melee attacks that do 10d6+38 SG damage, critting on 15+ that also vorps because they have an 11k magic item.... how is this ballenced with say a 11th lev vanilla fighter attacking 2-3 times a round for 1d8+10 and critting on a 20? nothing in the changes I am proposing would alter something like this.
There seems to be sooo many broken mechanics like the above in PF, I dont think theres anything I or anybody else could do to fix all it, and the designers sure dont seem to be pumping out the eratta or playtesting their releases very well to stop gigantic exploits like this from happening.
I really do like the world and fluff, adventures seem to be very well written, but the combat seems extremely slow to me, and not very detailed even with all the feats (multi attacks generally means bad dueling options). class/build ballence is clearly shot to hell and I dont want to spend a lot of time looking over every character with a microsope and analizing every combo of feats/ class/ archtype/ paragon/ spell and character created item abilities or arguing about what is and isnt ok only in my "not really PF" (brood brood) games because of these glaring issues.
so congrats you convinced me, I cant possibly fix or improve this game. I'll keep grudgingly playing PF using only the most greatly raped rule exploits and give up any idea of DM-ing till 5.0 comes out... and pray Wot-hasbo wont screw us again...
sorry for the rant but arrg this is frustrating... I just wanna run/play in a game system that everyone else in smallville wants to use, hopefully without all the problems that I mentioned above.
Have you tried E6 or sticking to low level games?
In my last game, I ran the system through its paces, so to speak - the game went from level 8 and ended at 14 (I had planned to go to 20). The party had no full spellcasters (arcane or divine). And still, the game was effectively unglued at level 12 - I really thought it would be OK until the mid-teens. Each player turn took way too long to resolve and that made the combats boring and tedious math exercises. Add to that the ridiculously overpowered abilities that the players and monsters had. In many cases, one player/monster would simply end the encounter with one action. At higher levels, the game changes significantly. So, why go there?
baalbamoth wrote: flesh- theres like more than 200 feats now, most of em combat feats... you consider knowing and remembering how all those work and work/synergize together simple? you impress me.... if its that simple why do we have hundreds of advice postings asking how to build xyz character? That's the beauty of the system. You can make a simple character, pick feats, and probably do fine. You don't need to min-max.
But, the option for min-maxing is there.
Easy to learn, hard to master. The tag-line of all good systems.
baalbamoth wrote:
Chaos- how long... kinda depends, most of the players do have spread sheets of their most common attack/feat combos. If its a basic combat maybe 13-18+ min a round I guess (we have 8 characters including NPCs in the party I think)and uh... I think I was being pretty generous when I said it was only 4-5x as long... a OSR D&D round I think for this group would take less than 10-30 sec per character as opposed to 1-2 min+ for PF.
Dude you have 8 characters of course it's going to take that long. Throw in 4 NPCs(a pitifully low number in comparison you should probably be around 8 npcs per combat too) And this would mean each individual takes roughly one minute. Expecting 10 seconds per player is laughably short in any sort of tactical game. Just remove all the tactics and the battle map and maybe you could get it down to ten seconds ... maybe.
Edit: And remove all spell casting because god knows looking up spell casting rules takes forever and a half.
baalbamoth wrote: ...players may make a full move, or half move and attack.. I don't know Hero Games, but this part sounds very similar to a set of house rules that I've been working on with the goal of eliminating Attacks of Opportunity. And, yes, I think what you have in mind is very doable.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
I like feats, although you could limit the selection if you think they're slowing down combat. Maybe cap AOs; most people don't get more that one; for Combat Reflexes, make it tiers like Power Attack or something - +1 AO for Dex bonus +1 - +4, +2 AOs for Dex bonus +5 - +8, etc.
I tend to agree on multiple attacks. I think I'd limit it to one attack for everyone, except fighters - let 2 attacks be a fighter's "thing." Not that hard to do. Either keep it at BAB +6, so fighters get as 2nd attack at 6th level, or make it BAB +10, as kind of a mid career thing, maybe even a 3rd attack at BAB +20, capstone. I'd still allow feats like Two-Weapon Fighting and Rapid Shot, but they'd be a bit more special if they were the only way for non-fighters to get multiple attacks. You'd have to nerf monsters a little, or just let them keep multiple natural attacks and be a whole lot badder.
There's also the Trailblazer version. Multiple attacks act like TWF - at BAB +6, instead of getting two attacks +6/+1, you get 2 attacks at -2 each, so +6 or +4/+4. At BAB +11, the penalty drops to -1, so +11 or +10/+10, and at BAB +16, there's no penalty, so +16 or +16/+16 (although it's still a single attack vs. a full attack).
Mike J- TOTALLY agree. were 3/4 through runelords now, and just hitting 12th... two players are also swapping out their old characters to run dragonblooded (or whatever their called)min/maxed magic users, and its getting sick, but we want to finish the campaign so we just deal with it. If I cant find a way to resolve the issues I have problems with, and I cant get characters past 11th without what your talking about happening, I wont be running PF, and probably wont be playing long.
flesh- but thats the real problem, you wont do "just fine" you wont come close to fine.
we had a lizard man falchon max crit built character in our party, he was throwing over 100pts damage per round on average and had a sick AC. how is the DM supposed to make the game challenging using the set AP encounters for him? ans: he cant. If the DM wants to alter the set encounters, how is the DM supposed to increase the power level to deal with that kind of rule rape, while not totally overpowering the non-min maxed characters? ans: he cant. and there are Soooooo many ways to powergame using the feats, its not like any one exploit stands out.
IF min-maxing just gave a small advantage I would be ok with that, but because in PF min-maxing can let you have four times the power (low estimate) of a non-min maxed character, it throws the entire game off.
Gnomer- totally disagree, we played 2.0 D&D w house rules, battlemat and minis forever where if you took more than 30 sec even with spell casting you were taking too long. actually watch a clock and tell me you couldent move your mini, roll two dice, add two dice, and have 90% of OSR D&D player turns done in 15 seconds each or less.
Hroth- never heard of "Champions"? first supers game ever, first point system ever, first generic system ever, etc. etc. powergaming is next to impossible (because of the "active cost vs actual cost" system and it even says in the power descriptions "you cannot have xyz skill with xyz power without specific GM approval") I absolutely love it but the learning curve is HUGE, and combats can take a long time unless players are very familiar with the system/defenses/etc. take a look...
http://www.herogames.com/home.htm
they even have a free MMO
https://register.perfectworld.com/co_splash
But even with getting rid of AOO's your still going to have all those other problems... IMO character creation is just too easy to manipulate in PF.
Mosaic- there are a few ways to handle multi attacks, treat multis like improved cleave, for every 3 you hit by, you hit with another attack and just roll dammage a 2nd time, or you could increase the damage of a single attack by a specific amount for each additional attack the character has in some way, but it still leaves the problem magimaster mentioned... what will you do about the spell scorching ray and all the other little snipits that would be effected by a change like this? its doable, but it would take forever and in essence your re-writing most of the game...
Thats why I'm looking at Warriors and Warlocks now, its the Mutants and Masterminds fantasy system. I think it will be close enough to PF that conversion would be easy (so I can keep the fluff and not confuse the players too much)and it would get rid of all rapage.
I had wondered how long it would take for me to cave in and champion what is possibly my favorite RPG ever, in the history of dice rolling.
Risus.
It's free, it's super small, and it's SUPER RP oriented.
Yes, it's highly abstracted, but it's more than capable of handling any kind of setting/tone you put behind it.
I've run Risus with my super serious dark tone campaign world for close to three years now with various groups. No hiccups.
I love PF, I've always loved the d20 system.
but if you're struggling with one of the very core premises of the entire system, then I'd recommend Risus.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
