|
I've been meaning to playtest this with my own group (which is always willing to put up with my bizarre experiments), but I'd thought I'd post it here and see if anyone thinks its a good idea or not.
7th Ability Score: Prowess (Pro)
Prowess replaces the base attack bonus characters normally would gain. Instead, Prowess measures your character's capacity to use violence. Those with high Prowess excel at harming and killing others- while those with low Prowess have problems with using violence against others, hesitating instead of striking hard when attacking another.
My plan to implement it so far is just replace Base Attack where ever it is mentioned with a character's prowess modifier.
In addition, if Extra Attacks are still desired, I'd suggest creating a feat that allows a character those extra attacks or make it into a new class feature of Martial Classes.
So, what do you awesome gaming folk think?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ehm...why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^^^ This
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The net effect this has on the game: martials are now more MAD than they previously were, and need to pay a feat tax to get iteratives; casters have another score to dump for more points.
This is a positive change that helps the games because wizards were too weak?
|
|
The net effect this has on the game: martials are now more MAD than they previously were, and need to pay a feat tax to get iteratives; casters have another score to dump for more points.
This is a positive change that helps the games because wizards were too weak?
It never was intended to fix that problem. That's a much bigger issue, and that isn't what I'm trying to solve here.
Instead, my thought was to remove a game mechanic that implies that killing things is the whole point of the system. I didn't say that martial characters HAD to take a feat; I suggested giving them iterative attacks as a class feature, if you think its necessary. I personally don't think anyone is helped by iterative attacks.
I do think it balances out fairly fine all around when implemented, but do think that I need to reconsider how it affects martial characters?
Thanks for the reply! :D
Instead, my thought was to remove a game mechanic that implies that killing things is the whole point of the system.
D20 games are Combat games. That's why the Combat rules section is thick enough to brain a cat.
I personally don't think anyone is helped by iterative attacks.
Wat.
But Pathfinder is a terrible system for anything other than killing things.
And "it changes the name of this stat on my character sheet so it's more aesthetically pleasing" is a pretty bad reason to make major mechanical changes.
|
|
Ehm...why?
I wonder that a lot myself.
Er- I mean, the idea came to me that Pathfinder and d20 originally tends to have a lot of rules that imply that leveling makes you good at killing and attacking things. I think that, for a homebrew, it might be a good variant that treats attacking like you treat lifting things or general intelligence and so forth.
It also might help if coupled with some rules to expand and make some other things get use that the rules don't support now, but my first thought is to re-structure how people make their characters- are you a strong guy, a fast guy or the guy who is just too good at killing things?
Anywho, thanks for the reply. I hope this gets my idea across.
No, the rules imply nothing. They as much as flat out say "Leveling makes you better at killing things."
That is the point of class levels, especially for classes that aren't Wizard or NPC classes that aren't Warrior.
I just don't see why you want to tie combat ability to a stat (which will, like other stats, scale very poorly by leveling) other than to have a houserule to FORCE your players to choose between combat and everything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can agree with the "nobody is helped by iterative attacks" thing in the sense that basing the system so that the only way to deal decent damage as a martial is to stand still and never move is a really lousy setup that makes the game less fun and less cinematic and generally worse for all concerned. However, taking away iterative attacks while leaving the rest of the system unchanged doesn't help matters, it just makes non-casters unplayable.
So what houserule are you going to implement to deal with the fact that more than half the class features and feats and equipment in the game exist solely to make people kill things better? Maybe rename the fighter to "Lumberjack" but with the option to apply those great chopping skills to enemies instead of trees if someone might want to use Pathfinder to fight at some point?
|
|
The net effect this has on the game: martials are now more MAD than they previously were, and need to pay a feat tax to get iteratives; casters have another score to dump for more points.
This is a positive change that helps the games because wizards were too weak?
This.
Furthermore, removing iteratives from martials outright ruins them. Full stop. Even the closest thing to this, Vital Strike, is absolutely horrid.
|
|
But Pathfinder is a terrible system for anything other than killing things.
And "it changes the name of this stat on my character sheet so it's more aesthetically pleasing" is a pretty bad reason to make major mechanical changes.
IDK, its intended for just a homebrew thing, so I don't think my reason needs to be too perfect. I'd use another system, but this is a hack I'm pulling from somewhere else to see how it affects Pathfinder.
Hmm, I do see your point, it does seem aesthetic more than practical.
Here is, quickly, what I like about the idea that makes me want to try it:
1st level characters whose attacks are high enough to be more threatening to monsters; spellcasters with better attack bonuses than than some fighters; an attack stat that further weakens people when penalized.
I think those are interesting points to play around with. Anyway, thanks again for posting. :D
Er- I mean, the idea came to me that Pathfinder and d20 originally tends to have a lot of rules that imply that leveling makes you good at killing and attacking things. I think that, for a homebrew, it might be a good variant that treats attacking like you treat lifting things or general intelligence and so forth.
It also might help if coupled with some rules to expand and make some other things get use that the rules don't support now, but my first thought is to re-structure how people make their characters- are you a strong guy, a fast guy or the guy who is just too good at killing things?
I think perhaps you are trying to capture too much abstraction in a single stat.
There are a lot of factors that go into "being good at killing things". And somebody who is good at killing things in one context (say, a line worker at a slaughterhouse) may not be good at killing things in another context (say, a sniper in the U.S. Marines), and neither of them might be good at killing things in a third context (say, hunting Great White Sharks in the ocean).
Yet, with a single stat to cover it all, there is no way to build or fluff any of it. You're either the master of all killing everything all the time, or you can't kill to save your life.
As an alternative, I would suggest maybe an Empathy (Emp) stat that added bonuses to things like Diplomacy and Sense Motive but acted as a penalty on your attack and/or damage roll. Even then, it's only a suggestion; it needs a lot more work to make sense and be balanced in play.
|
|
I think perhaps you are trying to capture too much abstraction in a single stat.There are a lot of factors that go into "being good at killing things". And somebody who is good at killing things in one context (say, a line worker at a slaughterhouse) may not be good at killing things in another context (say, a sniper in the U.S. Marines), and neither of them might be good at killing things in a third context (say, hunting Great White Sharks in the ocean).
Excellent point there.
I've thought about that- although, when you think about, isn't base attack already just a big abstraction in that same direction?
I don't want to just create a stat that penalizes players for doing what they want to do- that isn't fun. Your Empathy idea has some merit, though, and I might consider something in the same vein in a alignment sort of way.
Going a step further, I could drop in specific skills that replace weapon proficiencies and base attack- Melee, Ranged, Touch- but my gut tells me that sort of thing is more complicated than the Prowess idea. I like the simplicity of it, and I think playtesting will tell me how bad of an idea in the end it'll be.
Thanks for your post! :D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i thought you were gunna bring back comliness...Who doesn't want to bring back Comeliness?
they used to have charm% if i remember correctly. ok, like:
a number of times per day equal to your Comliness modifier, you may attempt to, upon a first impression, alter an NPC attitude immediately to helpful. this is a [compulsion] gaze attack. Will save DC = 10 + 1/2 character level + Comliness modifier...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see where you're going with this, or at least I can see where I would bo with this and I'm projecting that onto you, a complete stranger. Personally, I think I'd call it Agression over Prowess if it's going to dictate how bloodthirsty the PC is, but I think I see the idea.
However, I share the concerns of my fellow posters:
1. This does make martials characters more MAD, although I think this helps with realism and characterization. It requires you to build up STR and PRO in order to be a deadly barbarian, for example, but it allows high STR, low PRO characters, like Lenny(?) from Of Mice and Men.
2. I could see iteratives going away, but you'll need another way to keep martial PCs relevant in a tussle. I've thought of allowing as many attacks as a PC wants per round right from level 1, but with a -5 attack bonus and a - 1 AC per extra attack taken. So a lvl 1 fighter can swing once at +3 and full AC, once at -2 and -1 AC, once at -7 and -2 AC, etc. After a couple, it just gets silly and so they stop, but it simulates recklessness and the resulting consequences. Just an idea, totally unpolished. But back to my point, you'll need a good way for melee damage to keep up with caster spell damage...at least somewhat.
3. If PRO replaces BAB, then a fighter could have a +3 or +4 base to hit at first level, but what about 7th level? IF they put their 4th level ability bump into PRO then they'll be only +4 or +5, whereas he'd be +7 by current rules. It starts better but falls of sharply after only a few levels.
I'm sure something this big will have many, many more points of concern that will need addressing, but from a characterization point of view...it's an interesting idea.
|
|
I just don't see why you want to tie combat ability to a stat (which will, like other stats, scale very poorly by leveling) other than to have a houserule to FORCE your players to choose between combat and everything else.
I do want them to make that choice, to a certain level. I have players who aren't interested in being just combatants; one or two like to tweak into tanks, and it seems to fit the constraints just right.
Would it help if I told you I use a houserule that lets PCs buy increases in ability scores by picking a feat?
|
|
I can see where you're going with this,
Awesome post, I already taking notes.
1. This does make martials characters more MAD, although I think this helps with realism and characterization. It requires you to build up STR and PRO in order to be a deadly barbarian, for example, but it allows high STR, low PRO characters, like Lenny(?) from Of Mice and Men.
Yeah, the realism is the part I like of the idea. I also think it'll work will tied with Armor as Damage Reduction, since AC numbers tend to be lower with that.
2. I could see iteratives going away, but you'll need another way to keep martial PCs relevant in a tussle. I've thought of allowing as many attacks as a PC wants per round right from level 1, but with a -5 attack bonus and a - 1 AC per extra attack taken... But back to my point, you'll need a good way for melee damage to keep up with caster spell damage... at least somewhat.
My first thought is "think of that later" because my group prefers playing between 5th and 10th level. However, long term-wise, I think that solution is tied to the overall power balance issues people have with spellcasters, and I don't want to tackle it just yet.
3. If PRO replaces BAB, then a fighter could have a +3 or +4 base to hit at first level...
I think altering the nature of how AC works (Armor as DR for example) I think helps the problem, but yeah, I've seen it. I think it could be solved by expanding the range of some weapon bumping feats, creating new chains or class features- or just running the game as a Western and using Guns I think.
I'm sure something this big will have many, many more points of concern that will need addressing, but from a characterization point of view...it's an interesting idea.
Thanks! Your post had some good concerns- and good ideas. I'll keep them in mind.
You know you can roleplay "big guy who doesn't want to punch things" without needing to invent an "also you suck at punching things" stat, right? Hell, even if you want to represent it mechanically, just don't carry a weapon or take Improved Unarmed Strike; now you can only attack for 1d3 damage at a -4 penalty and provoke attacks of opportunity in the process. (And have we forgotten that Lenny, despite not wanting to kill anyone, was unfortunately so unable to control his own strength that he accidentally killed twice? Doesn't seem like not wanting to kill was affecting his attack rolls.)
Empathy would hard-code into the system that players are required to be heartless murderhobos in order to be effective in combat so basically it's a just plain terrible idea. Again, you're allowed to roleplay stuff not written on your character sheet.
If martials don't have a to-hit advantage over casters then what the hell is the point of playing a martial? Or are you introducing a new "Magic" ability score too that lets fighters cast spells just as well as a wizard?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets make it 9 scores, with comliness and senses thrown in! Or ten? Whats a single word to encompass mental constitution?
1st level characters whose attacks are high enough to be more threatening to monsters; spellcasters with better attack bonuses than than some fighters; an attack stat that further weakens people when penalized.
I think you're looking at this wrong. A spellcaster has a smaller BAB not because of some genetic ability. A wizard is not a wizard by birth, but a person who decided to spend their time learning spells instead of proper sword techniques, thus giving them lower BAB. Stats are a reflection of a person's natural talents, but classes (and feats, and skills) are a reflection of a person's actions, and what skill set they have decided to develop.
There is no reason to make a Prowess stat because strength already covers your idea. A level 1 wizard with 18 strength will hit harder then a level 1 fighter with 14, but eventually the fighter improves because he practices his fighting technique while the wizard practices his spellcasting. Eventually the naturally weaker fighter would overtake the naturally stronger wizard because of his practice and hard work.
How is this different from Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom?
"Prowess" would be a small section of those ability scores combined into one: Your "muscle-memory" and physical training to perform combat techniques (Strength), your tactical knowledge of how to fight (Intelligence) and your ability to sense and thus respond to moves made by your opponents (Wisdom).
Adding something like "Luck" is unnecessary but would be appropriate for certain games (and often in is other systems). "Appearance" (physical appearance (not Charisma) can be appropriate in a game that focuses more on social interactions even I personally do not like the idea.
These are the two things I was expecting to see and something I think could be argued for. There really is no reason for Prowess as a stat: theoretically everything it represents is covered by other core stats, and in terms of gameplay it creates more problems than it might solve and makes everything more complicated.
i understand what you are trying to do, i think in mutants and masterminds there is a combat ability score that functions as this. however i think BAB is Way to ingrained and this sort of ruling is best suited for more flexible (usually classless) systems.
Also keep in mind how much of Pathfinder depends upon BAB as is.
-There are a plethora of feats that refer to a character's BAB
-With Prowess, your character's Attack Bonus would not increase as you leveled. The aforementioned feats would all need to be adjusted for players to actually take them.
-Because it does not increase, all monsters in the Bestiaries would need to be adjusted.
In order for a 1st level fighter to have the same average attack bonus, let's say it's about +4, he would either have to roll luckier or divert points way from Constitution, Dexterity, and other stats in order to keep it up. But then he would still be stuck with that +4 until 4th level, where MAYBE he could get it to +5 by adding to Prowess or Strength, but if not, it'll still be +4 until 8th level.
Armor would have to be adjusted also, because no character or creature will be able to hit eachother if AC remains the same for creatures and characters.
Supposing you successfully do that in a perfectly balanced fashion, the ultimate effect is that martial characters increase in power less when they level (since their attack bonus increases very little if ever), making a bigger discrepancy between casters and martials, and making players less excited about levelling up.
"Luck" is a bit more tempting because that's a fairly common fantasy archetype - the plucky young farmhand with no real skills but who destiny forces into the role of hero and who survives to a large extent on luck - and would actually require some mechanical representation. However, I think that would still be better represented by classes/archetypes/feats based on that image than by inventing a new ability score.
I remember one of the advanced players option books from 2e separated out the 6 attributes into 12 'sub atributes'...
Stregth was split up into damage bonus and carry capacity
Constitution was split up between hit point bonuses and poison saves
Charisma was split into like presence and attractiveness or somesuch.
You could essentially take whatever your attribute roll was and adjust each half of the sub attribute by up to 2 points in opposite directions
So for example your 18 strength could become a 16damage 20carrying capacity kind of strength or the reverse, a 20damage, 16 carrying capacity kind of strength.
We used it extensively until we switched systems and everyone who saw it liked it.
|
|
However, I think that would still be better represented by classes/archetypes/feats based on that image than by inventing a new ability score.
As I've said before, I'd just go use another system- because I like those more- but I consider it a creative challenge to try and hack Pathfinder and d20. I'm the sort of person who likes the idea of going to Mars, not just sending a robot.
I've also thought about using a different sort of magic system with this rule, something more flexible than normal Pathfinder, as well as my own personal rules to help Martial characters out.
But the reason I thought that martial ability should be an ability score and not a stat that levels or gives anyone a "big" advantage is the same reason that I didn't a new trait that unfairly favors Rogues or Clerics. You could, for example, create a Criminal Bonus, and that bonus is added to any sort of larceny skill check. You could rename it Faith, and boom, Clerics get a big bonus on those sort of checks.
Furthermore, you could go and say hey, you can use your Criminal Bonus on attacks that are ambushes or use Faith when fighting infidels.
But I don't want that, mainly because I want to affect how people also think about creating their characters. Rules imply game behavior, and if players don't expect their attack bonus to go up, they may consider other kinds of things for their characters to do. If I decide to make the game more of a mystery-type of adventure, then having rules that drop BAB in favor of something else make that sort of thing easier.
Anyway, thanks again for posting everybody :D
I can agree with the "nobody is helped by iterative attacks" thing in the sense that basing the system so that the only way to deal decent damage as a martial is to stand still and never move is a really lousy setup that makes the game less fun and less cinematic and generally worse for all concerned.
Don't forget about the DM/GM not moving the enemies.
However, I think that would still be better represented by classes/archetypes/feats based on that image than by inventing a new ability score.As I've said before, I'd just go use another system- because I like those more- but I consider it a creative challenge to try and hack Pathfinder and d20. I'm the sort of person who likes the idea of going to Mars, not just sending a robot.
I've also thought about using a different sort of magic system with this rule, something more flexible than normal Pathfinder, as well as my own personal rules to help Martial characters out.
But the reason I thought that martial ability should be an ability score and not a stat that levels or gives anyone a "big" advantage is the same reason that I didn't a new trait that unfairly favors Rogues or Clerics. You could, for example, create a Criminal Bonus, and that bonus is added to any sort of larceny skill check. You could rename it Faith, and boom, Clerics get a big bonus on those sort of checks.
Furthermore, you could go and say hey, you can use your Criminal Bonus on attacks that are ambushes or use Faith when fighting infidels.
But I don't want that, mainly because I want to affect how people also think about creating their characters. Rules imply game behavior, and if players don't expect their attack bonus to go up, they may consider other kinds of things for their characters to do. If I decide to make the game more of a mystery-type of adventure, then having rules that drop BAB in favor of something else make that sort of thing easier.
Anyway, thanks again for posting everybody :D
As long as you realize you can't simply add a new stat and remove BAB without it drastically affecting every element of the game, which is what I was trying to get across. Really, doing so would make the game cease being Pathfinder IMO.
I actually played around with the idea of Luck being a 7th ability score.
Then we rename Dex to Agility, Wis to Perception, and Con to Endurance. We could all be S.P.E.C.I.A.L.
The only time I ever felt a need to have more than 6 stats in a game was when I was working on a Pokemon conversion for Pathfinder. There was no way to express certain kinds of pokemon with very high defense and low hp that scales at the same rate as all the others, so I ended up turning natural armor into a stat, and a few playtests later it ended up being a completely different game, which was good. You just can't call it Pathfinder anymore if it's that different.
decouple base attack from statistics and use armor as DR. base attack could give both attack and damage. Then change full attacks to something like two swings.
It would be more combat attrition than the current system. Easier to hit, but having damage soak for every character. I would also adjust poor saves to a progression that hits +9. Poor base saves at high levels are pretty gross right now.
I think I'd sooner fold Base Attack Bonus into a skill than a Stat.
The assumptions of the game (the assumed numbers by level, etc) require a more steadily growing base bonus than an ability score would provide.
Also, attacking already gets an ability score (Str, Dex, or others depending on abilities and feats). Making the check a combination of two stats really doesn't sit well in the system, for scaling purposes and otherwise.
As a skill, it makes more sense. You can basically turn the game into a Skill + Ability score system. This lets you decide if you want to be good at combat or not, and allows high level NPCs who basically can't fight good, but are still high level for other reasons.
It's pretty seamless too, skill ranks are 1-20, BAB is 1-20. About the only issue is how many skill points a class gets.
Since you are changing the game to a skills game, you can do things like the following:
Everyone gets 4 skillpoints per level (or more, whatever feels right or churns out in playtesting).
Classes give extra skillpoints that go towards a small list of options. A rogue might get 6 skillpoints towards a lot of troubleshooting or scouty stuff, while a Fighter might get 2 that can go towards the combat stuff.
If this is done though, I'd strongly suggest popping in a defensive skill analogue, with armor acting more as DR. Just off the top of my head.
I was considering this kind of skills system for a Steampunk campaign setting.
.
This would drastically change the feel of the game though, but could give a wider scope of options for character building.
|
That almost seems like it could be handled through a retooling of how alignment works in your game. Instead of an ability score you add in different levels of mental health for alignment and one could be more aggressive and the other more passive.
Didn't Palladium do something like that in their system?
you add in different levels of mental health for alignment and one could be more aggressive and the other more passive.
Are you intentionally saying that mental health and aggression are the same thing?
you add in different levels of mental health for alignment and one could be more aggressive and the other more passive.Are you intentionally saying that mental health and aggression are the same thing?
One is in no good mental health if he/she/it attack just for the hell of it, and some might not like the idea of attacking first.
If we had to add a new 7th stat I'd say "creativity". Imagine what kind of fun doors that would open!
If we had to add a new 7th stat I'd say "creativity". Imagine what kind of fun doors that would open!
And hope people can roleplay this.
I think this concept is kind of cool. but I don't think you should outright remove base attack from your home-brewed games. I would add in Prowess and add that to attack bonuses instead of Strength. Characters should automatically get better at attacking as the level but that killer instinct idea that prowess adds is a really cool concept. Yes it does make martial characters a little more MAD but for your games that wouldn't be a bad thing.