| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just finished up a few new rules. Basically, effects similar to those of demoralize (from intimidate) and the feat Antagonize, but turned into combat maneuvers instead - that way they don't require heavy investment and their effect is more limited than that of the oft-criticized Antagonize. Also added a bolstering ability because I think the "mundanes" need a few more tools in their toolbox.
The goals:
1. Rules that allow a "tank" or anyone to draw the fire, not through mind control but rather through encouraging attacks on the "tank" (or other).
2. A method for "mundanes" to more easily mess with casters without forcing casters into melee.
3. Rules that allow for the "great leader" trope to be represented. Think braveheart speech.
4. Rules that aren't too counterintuitive and that allows the combat types to have the easiest time using these abilities and, more importantly, to resist them. (why I think 10+BAB+Wis is better DC than 10+HD+Wis).
Honest criticism appreciated! It hasn't been playtested yet, but from the basic maths it doesn't seem to get too powerful. Non-wis based casters will have the hardest time with these, but on the other hand - they have quite an easy time otherwise, and the penalties don't seem TOO prohibitive.
I can definitely appreciate the idea behind what you're doing, and I think you have the right idea. I did something similar, here are two of the versions I've tried (I prefer the second version):
Version I - Combat Maneuver
Taunt: As a swift action, you may attempt to temporarily rattle a target through the use of insults and goading or otherwise convince them that you are the most tempting (or most dangerous) target in an area. The target must be within 60 feet, have an Intelligence score of 3 or higher to be susceptible to a taunt (taunting is a mind-affecting ability), must be within line of sight to you, and must be able to hear and understand you.
When you taunt a target, the target must make a Will saving throw against DC 10 + 1/2 your Character Level + your Charisma modifier. If successful, you are the only creature it can make melee attacks against during this turn. (If it kills you, knocks you unconscious, loses sight of you, or otherwise is unable to make melee attacks against you, it may make any remaining melee attacks against other foes, as normal.) A taunted creature can still cast spells, make ranged attacks, move, or perform other actions normally. The use of this skill restricts only melee attacks.
Each successive taunt grants the victim a cumulative +1 bonus to his Will save against further taunts for the rest of the combat.
Version II - Persuasion Check
Taunt: As a swift action, you may attempt to temporarily rattle a target through the use of insults and goading or otherwise convince them that you are the most tempting (or most dangerous) target in an area. The target must be within 60 feet, have an Intelligence score of 3 or higher to be susceptible to a taunt (taunting is a mind-affecting ability), must be within line of sight to you, and must be able to hear and understand you.
When you taunt a target, make a Persuasion check. The target must make a Will saving throw against DC 10 + the result of your Persuasion check. If successful, the target takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made against any target other than you. An affected spellcaster is forced to make a Concentration check (DC 10 + 1/2 your Character Level + your Charisma modifier) at a -4 penalty to cast a any spell until the beginning of your next turn.
If your target kills you, knocks you unconscious, loses sight of you, or otherwise is unable to make attacks against you, it may make any remaining attacks against other foes, as normal.
A taunted creature can still cast spells, make ranged attacks, move, or perform other actions normally.
Each successive taunt grants the victim a cumulative +1 bonus to his Will save against further taunts for the rest of the combat.
Hope they help/inspire.
The second is a skill check (I assume Persuasion is a houseruled skill consolidation?), which I dislike because how high you can get skills is so extremely different for different characters and it makes it easier for a wizard than a fighter to be good at it. It's hard to predict how high the modifiers will go, especially depending on if you can make custom items. Being a swift action many characters won't have a reason not to use it every turn. The DC for the spellcraft checks feels overly complicated, as does the bonus to saves.
But I'm more interested in evaluation and criticism of my house rules, if you're willing to give it.
** spoiler omitted **
But I'm more interested in evaluation and criticism of my house rules, if you're willing to give it.
Very valid points and yes, persuasion is a combined skill in my setting. One of the reasons I was interested in this thread is for a version that takes all things into account and works with the current system.
The problems you pointed out with my version have made me reconsider it (most of the material was taken from other d20 products). The problems I see (my opinions) with your version are common to other mechanics:
Combat maneuvers: The best way to crowd control an enemy is often to kill it. You're giving up damage to try to control an enemy (which is not a guaranteed success - neither is damage, but players /tend/ to go for damage over short-term effects). The intelligence of the enemy should also play a part: "have an Intelligence score of 3 or higher to be susceptible to a taunt" is a line I think your version should include.
Feats: Feats are something no player ever feels they have enough of. New feats are only desirable if they provide enough of a benefit to outweigh the loss of damage or other desirable action. You're not going to see many, if any, spellcasters taking advantage of this system. Fighters, I can see to a degree, due to their large number of feats, but not most other classes.
Evil Lincoln points out in another thread regarding feats and maneuvers: "Maneuvers already cost a bunch of feats. And we're not going to successfully encourage their use by adding more feats to the entry fee — unless it is a bottle-neck überfeat that makes the whole concept of maneuver feats pay off. Presently, they do pay off, but nobody can afford to be great at more than one (fighters can maybe pick three)"
Skill Points: Fighters are going to be hard-pressed to take advantage of these feats. They have horrible skill points as it is. I don't disagree with the prerequisites, but they're definitely a limiting factor.
Intelligent Enemies: There is no cumulative bonus for successive taunts to resist a taint which can work against the players as well as the monsters: eventually, the taunts are not going to deter the enemy from what they recognize as a real threat.
That said, I really love the idea behind the bolster mechanic. Improved Bolster REALLY stands out as being an awesome feat to take. As a player, I'd be likely to ignore the taunt feats, use the taunt mechanic as is (only a handful of occasions I'd need to use it), and take Improved Bolster.
Edited: Something I just noticed: do mind-affecting abilities, as mentioned in improved bolster, include spells? (on re-reading, yes) How does a fighter identify a mind-affecting spell without spellcraft or is it just automatic? (I get the idea, but in order to notice, they have to fail the save and some behavior has to occur, i.e. it should "technically" allow a reroll - which is beefy, as you can't identify without them already under the effect/behaving differently) If it's automatic, there's no way I wouldn't take this feat.
I can actually see some fighters taking Taunt/Improved Taunt, while spellcasters would probably be more likely to take/use Bolster/Improved. I'm also assuming opponents have access to these abilities: depending on build, a number of bad guys with any intelligence can shut down certain casters (using bolster) that focus more on subtlety/crowd control than blaster/direct damage.
On killing vs control: While you can sometimes kill an enemy, there are many situations where you cannot. If you can kill the enemy you absolutely should - this is the same for all combat maneuvers. When you can't kill an enemy, that's when you want to weaken them whether through tripping or demoralizing.
On intelligence: I skipped the intelligence requirement in favor of it being mind-affecting and taking a -4 penalty if you do not share a language. The reason for this is that you can absolutely demoralize an animal, and at least some animals you can taunt as well (though maybe not wild ones). You might be right on the taunting requiring the target to be sentient, but I think demoralize should not.
I don't really know what you mean with cumulative bonus - do you mean the taunter can't give worse and worse penalties so the enemy is forced to attack it? I don't really think it has to. Since maintaining a taunt is a swift action, once you've succeeded you can do other stuff (including demoralizing and full-attacking). The only way to get rid of the taunt is to get rid of the taunter or prevent it from taking actions (through Hold or similar) or through leaving it's range/blocking line of sight (or theoretically to both blind and deaf yourself).
It is free to ignore the taunter - it's not mind control - but taking a -2 to AC and all rolls is actually quite severe - not to speak of the concentration check that might very well force casters to use lower-level spells.
I don't want it to be so good it's a non-brainer. It should only sometimes be the best course of action - especially since using it is free (except actions).
On feats: I agree casters won't use these feats. That's part of the design (see point 2). Partly it's to adjust the caster-martial disparity that I feel is still relevant. And yes, few characters will take more than a single of these feats if even that - it's part of the Combat Maneuver design.
You can be great if you focus but decent even without, though.
So even without the feats they are useful in certain circumstances, which is kind of the point - circumstantial unless you focus on them. With the feat the chance rises by 10% but more importantly you can do it as a move action, allowing you to do something else to.
I think you are right in that bolster is awesome - maybe it's a little too awesome. I'm thinking of maybe restricting it a bit, like "use as an immediate action 1/day, otherwise it's a swift action" instead of always. It's a very powerful ability.
On skills: 5 ranks in either or means you have to put some work to it, but it's not that hard to get - All human fighters have a minimum of 2 skill points per level, if they don't dump Int or if they spend the FCB it's 3/level. But primarily, the feats are meant for skill-rich classes such as rogues and monks to have an ace in combat that low-skill classes don't have.
On mind-affecting abilities and identifying: Mind-affecting abilities are usually but not always spells. When it's not deceptive abilities such as Major Image, it doesn't need to identify it - if the characters friends are affected by the fear aura of an old dragon the bolsterer can just be a good inspirer. If it IS something like major image and the bolsterer does not realize it there's not much to do - but if the bolsterer does realize it's some sort of deception it can tell the others it's not real.
Knowing it is a deception would be possible in mainly three ways: Through spellcraft, through a successful save (in major image's case by interacting with it), or through outside knowledge (the fighter knows about this mage's tactics, for example). It would not have to know excactly what spell or even if it is a spell, just that it's not real.
EDIT: WOOOPS, big frakkin' woops! It's seems I've forgot to include the very condition that taunting grants! Updated with the condition, nerf'd improved bolster a bit and put in an Int requirement on Taunt.
Quick Response
Re: Angered Condition - I assumed the angered condition was based off the condition described here Caustic Slur, so that clears that up.
Re: Bolster - I love the idea. It was one of those, "I can't see myself NOT using this mechanic," deals.
I'd actually toyed with the idea of Taunt as an AoE 30' radius effect, with a -4 penalty to the primary target if he didn't focus on you and a -2 penalty to all secondary targets if they didn't focus on you. I like the idea you make spellcasters make concentration checks; I don't have time to check, but with the formula you use for calculating the concentration check, does the DC remain relevant at all levels?
Quick Response
Re: Angered Condition - I assumed the angered condition was based off the condition described here Caustic Slur, so that clears that up.
Re: Bolster - I love the idea. It was one of those, "I can't see myself NOT using this mechanic," deals.
I'd actually toyed with the idea of Taunt as an AoE 30' radius effect, with a -4 penalty to the primary target if he didn't focus on you and a -2 penalty to all secondary targets if they didn't focus on you. I like the idea you make spellcasters make concentration checks; I don't have time to check, but with the formula you use for calculating the concentration check, does the DC remain relevant at all levels?
Oh, didn't know there was already such a semi-condition. Might have to change the name on mine then.
Bolster is based on about the same idea as countersong (though that is more powerful but with a smaller set of uses)
Yeah, the concentration DC should remain quite relevant. I think spell level * 3 is quite good as a formula since it assumes that concentration increases by 1.5/level for full casters.
[spoilers=For a wizard/witch:]
At level 1: Concentration +1(lvl)+4(18Int) vs DC13 for highest spell level. Needs 8+.
At level 5: Concentration +5(lvl)+5(18+2Int) vs DC19 for highest spell level. Needs 9+
At level 10: Concentration +10 +7(18+2+4Int) vs DC25 . Needs 8+.
At level 15: Concentration +15 +9(18+3+1+6Int) vs DC 34. Needs 10+.
At level 20: Concentration +20 +12(18+5+5+6) vs DC 37. Needs 5+.[/spoilers]
If you feel this is to low, consider making it 4*Spell Level though that might be too harsh. Or maybe not, considering you could use lower-level spells anyway. It would give results:
[spoilers]At level 1: DC 14, needs 9+
At level 5: DC 22, needs 12+ or 4+ for spell two levels below highest (1st)
At level 10: DC 30, needs 13+ or 5+ for 3rd level spell
At level 15: DC 42, needs 18+ or 10+ for 6th level spells
At level 20: DC 46, needs 14+ or 6+ for 7th level spells.[/spoilers]
4*spell level might be good for a Greater feat, but for a standard action without any feat investment I think 3*spell level is a good debuff.
Oh, didn't know there was already such a semi-condition. Might have to change the name on mine then.
I didn't either. I plugged the condition into http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ to see if it was one I just wasn't familiar with and the feat popped up.
The feat is the only instance, outside of your use, I've seen for the condition. I wouldn't worry about it.Yeah, the concentration DC should remain quite relevant. I think spell level * 3 is quite good as a formula since it assumes that concentration increases by 1.5/level for full casters.
I've seen some use DC = Spell Level x 5 (no other modifiers) for them, but never used anything like it myself. I'd be interested in hearing how it plays out at your table with the 10 + Sl * 3 = DC, though.
|
Are "Angered" and Shaken+ mutually exclusive? I've been toying around with a similar idea, where one of the side effects of provoking an enemy was that it become much harder to scare them away.
I was also thinking about taunting involving lowering your own AC by 2 or so, at least in the round you perform the action. Lowering your shield a bit and saying "come and get me". Meanwhile the Angered condition gives penalties to actions that don't target you somehow.
Also, I'd still want to run these things off skills; they just feel like typical uses of Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate, it'd be weird not to use those skills. If that means a dedicated verbalist will have a high success rate, that'd be okay with me, as long as the effect wasn't too strong.
Consider: if you're really good at taunting, and have really good AC, then effectively you're doing a mutant form of Aid Another to your allies AC by making it hard to attack anyone but you. If that cost you a heap of skill points and a feat, that seems like a balanced trade.
As for multiple condition spamming: I was gonna keep it simple. To put a new condition (angered, shaken) on someone, you have to get a higher skill result than that used to place the current condition's skill roll result. So to Taunt someone that was Demoralized with a 34, you have to get a 35+.
Action cost: start out as standard, the improved and greater feats shift it to Move, then to Swift (Free?), and provide +2 bonuses. Yeah, that's going to be intense, but it has to be, to be worth the feats. And a low action cost makes it actually doable for a full-attacking fighter to keep attention focused on him.
dotted for future reference.
Are "Angered" and Shaken+ mutually exclusive? I've been toying around with a similar idea, where one of the side effects of provoking an enemy was that it become much harder to scare them away.
As written they are not. Anger plus demoralized should equal a very frustrated feeling, I imagine. :) But demoralize doesn't do much to scare someone away, unfortunately.
I was also thinking about taunting involving lowering your own AC by 2 or so, at least in the round you perform the action. Lowering your shield a bit and saying "come and get me". Meanwhile the Angered condition gives penalties to actions that don't target you somehow.
Yeah, the end result would be kinda the same though - the target has an easier time hitting you than others. The main idea though, is that if it ignores you, it's going to take those pretty hefty penalties.
Also, I'd still want to run these things off skills; they just feel like typical uses of Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate, it'd be weird not to use those skills. If that means a dedicated verbalist will have a high success rate, that'd be okay with me, as long as the effect wasn't too strong.
I agree somewhat - it's why I put the skill rank requirements for the improved feats. However, it's VERY hard to put an adequate DC for it when skills are involved. Either it becomes trivially easy for anyone who's putten any work towards it, or it's completely impossible for the average person. It also varies greatly by table, mainly based on if you allow custom +skill items (and at what price).
It also risks making Wizards among the best provokers since they have the ranks to spend.
I agree that it seems like something that should be done through a skill check, I do think that there will be balance issues though. And using combat stats for performing skill-related stuff in combat is non unpreceded - the steal combat maneuver does not allow you to roll sleight of hand, for example.
Consider: if you're really good at taunting, and have really good AC, then effectively you're doing a mutant form of Aid Another to your allies AC by making it hard to attack anyone but you. If that cost you a heap of skill points and a feat, that seems like a balanced trade.
Yeah the thing is in my rules above, keeping it up is a free/swift action, and if you have the improved feat starting is a move action... Which means on turn one you can both demoralize and aid another, and after that you can demoralize, aid another and take a move action, should you want to. Or demoralize more and more enemies.
If you focus on it you will have a high success rate btw. Consider a 10th level full BAB class with 14 cha (high, but not that high) and the feat - it has a +14 to succeed as a move action. The DC against non-wis casters will be around ~15 while wis casters and meleers will be somewhere around ~22.
As for multiple condition spamming: I was gonna keep it simple. To put a new condition (angered, shaken) on someone, you have to get a higher skill result than that used to place the current condition's skill roll result. So to Taunt someone that was Demoralized with a 34, you have to get a 35+.
That might work, but I don't think it's very simple, since you have to note what the roll was, and also, you're going to WANT a low roll (or as close to the DC as possible, rather) which is counter-intuitive.
Swift (Free?), and provide +2 bonuses. Yeah, that's going to be intense, but it has to be, to be worth the feats. And a low action cost makes it actually doable for a full-attacking fighter to keep attention focused on him.
Two feats for a swift-action near-always success provocation/demoralize? Every fighter is going to take that. Always. And every rogue. And everyone else who isn't incredibly feat-starved. Or maybe a high-level caster that doesn't get bonus feats won't take it since it wants to use quickened spells, but still. Swift action is far too good with that rate of success.
Bolster is the one I have gripes with, just the fact that bolster would have pretty much the same chances of succeeding as those with good will saves, apart from those with really good ones like cleric, paladin and perhaps monk. Not too sure about that though I think I will do some math later when my brain is working to see if this is true. I would not have gripes with it if it means a dedicated bolster user is about on equal terms, I am more worried about the casual user.EDIT:
So did some simple math because it was bugging me. Levels I took were 5, 10, 15 and 20.
I went with the assumptions that at 5th you would have cloak of resistance +1, 10th +3 and +5 at 15 and 20. Also this is with the good save progression.
5th: +5
10th: +10
15th: +14
20th: +17When you compare that with full bab apart from level 20 it is more or less the same. So it comes down to Attribute bonuses and if WIS does nothing for you as part of your class I would wager that the CHA and WIS bonuses are more or less the same.
So little on the fence here but I am not sure I like the idea that just by being full bab class and not dumping charisma, you are as likely to succeed as a class with Good save progression who does not invest in wisdom.
EDIT2: Oh and came to mind that there might be unintended result of some things from the bestiary getting a lot more good. Succubus comes to mind with CR7, BAB+8 and Cha mod of +8
You might be right in that. Would changing it to a standard action balance it out? Or forcing the ally to choose which it wants to use before rolling it's own save?
One change I hope to see when we someday (not too soon I hope) get a second edition of pathfinder is a big addition to combat maneuvers. I want something that will offer more options in combat than swing my weapon that will remain relevant at higher levels. I want combat maneuvers based off of more than strength, maybe meaneuvers based off of all six ability scores.
I agree, bolster definitively needs work. I'm thinking this scaling maybe doesn't work at all, seeing how save DC's increase 1/2 levels and for a full BAB this increases 1/level. While a dedicated caster gains a higher casting stat than a paladin gets Cha, it clearly does not make up for it.
For a specialized high-level ability this might be fine, but not for a combat maneuver that everyone can do. It needs to be redone from the ground up.
What about this instead:
BOLSTER
You can bolster your allies to withstand opponents trying to affect their minds. Using this combat maneuver is a move action. One ally within range gain spell resistance against hostile mind-affecting spells equal to the result of your CMB check. This effect lasts one round.
IMPROVED BOLSTER [Combat]
Prerequisites: Diplomacy 5 ranks or Bluff 5 ranks
Benefit: When using the Bolster combat maneuver, you can apply it to one ally plus one more ally for every 10 on your result (so it affects two allies if you roll 10, three if you roll 20 and so on). Once per day you may bolster as an immediate action. In addition, you get +2 on Bolster attempts.
Normal: Bolster affects a single ally.
My thought is that caster level for primary casters increase at the same rate as the BAB of combat classes. Spellcasters caster level checks increase at about the same rate as a combat class' CMB, too - cha-modifier and spell penetration should mostly even out.
Using the same maths as you, assuming +1 misc at level 1 (elf, feat, w/e), +2 misc at 5, SP at level 10 and GSP at 15/20:
5th: Caster must beat average SR of 17/19, has a +6.
10th: Caster must beat average SR of 25/26, has a +12
15th: Caster must beat 32, has a +19
20th Caster must beat 37, has a +24
Needing 13+ can be tough, but you need to declare use beforehand so you do spend actions regardless (even if the spell fails, you've spent a move and they've spent a standard). And the caster can still cast other spells, like self-buffs, summons, blasts, battlefield control that is not mind-affecting and the likes - and then the bolsterer has spent an action for no good at all.
I do want to keep the "immediate action" for improved bolster, as otherwise even someone with the feat might never use it successfully just because the target happened to use another spell.
Speaking of the feat you might want to think about Greater feats.
Few things to change:
All: Mention these are mind affecting abilities so you can not taunt the zombie for example.
Bolster: change the wording to "as if had SR" just a thematic thing, mechanically nothing changes. Nitpicking I know.
Greater feats done and uploaded, as well as the Bolster redesign (and changed to "as if").
It's already mentioned that they are mind-affecting though. Look:
Verbal assaults can be used at up to 30 ft. range, as long as the target is able to clearly see and/or hear you. In addition, if the target cannot hear you at all or if you don't share a language, you take a -4 penalty to the CMB check. All verbal assaults are non-magical mind-affecting abilities.
Bolster: You're right in that. I'll check what I can do to change it.
Demoralize: It's meant for one round period. It was just to be overly clear on the duration, but I guess it made it more ambiguous instead.
Taunt: Yeah, see/hear is still a requirement. I realized by level 6 or so, it becomes harder and harder to get within 30 feet.