First of all, before I begin, I want to note that I do not want to play a different game that uses such a system. Discussing other games that have such a system is awesome for purposes of inspiration and the like, but I will not be replacing 3.P as the 'core.'
Now to get on to my purpose with this thread. Over and over I've seen cases where the turn-based system creates an abstraction that makes the game easier to DM but less intuitive and- to me at least- less fun. My goal here is two-fold.
1: brainstorm ideas for adapting Pathfinder into such a game wherein characters act and react accordingly without trading 'turns' during the same time-frame.
2: applying that brainstorming session to come up with such a system and fine-tune it into something for use in regular games.
I've got something I need to take care of, so I'll just leave this here for now and start coming up with a few ideas of my own when I get back.
One thing that might work is allowing more generous held actions that allow more activity, and contested rolls to prevent it.
For example, a fighter guarding a princess can absolutely not fend off two characters with special reach tricks because one can walk around him. Worse, if he holds his move to intercept one, he can't stop the other.
Without a battlemat, the fighter could say, "I'm defending the princess." Then he gets in the way of the first rogue. When he tries to get in the way of the second, the first rogue can combat maneuver to hold the fighter.
Right now for PF, these rules would make a ton of feats as they are, like Spring Attack, Combat Patrol, Stand Still and do on obsolete. That's good by me. Lots of feats should just be regular things a character can do.
To go on - each players action is followed by a round of reactions. There could be a limit on the number of reactions based on a characters speed or perception, or their could be no limit other than gm guidance and counter reactions.
Heh, I've never used a battlemat anyway, so that's one obstacle I don't have to face, and I agree there are way too many feats that don't really belong (Spring Attack I might argue does belong though, attacking in the middle of moving is probably something that either everyone would do, or that should only be something that can be learned with the use of a single feat with no prerequisites.)
Hey, here's a thought Cranefist. I've heard in older editions one 'side' would act first, and then the other. Could a sort of 'team-based' turns, wherein team player all act at once (and can coordinate themselves verbally if they don't mind giving away their tactics to the enemy if the enemy can understand them) and then team monster all acts at once perhaps go some way to mitigate this?
That way we'd have one turn of actions with appropriate reactions, then it would rotate the other way for the opposite set of actions and incurred reactions.
Effectively you have that in Pathfinder usually when there is only one NPC. 3 players go. The dragon goes. All 5 players go starting with the two who haven't gone yet. Then the dragon goes. The only play is in who goes before the beast on the first turn. After that, its immaterial.
I used to play a lot of Mechwarrior and the people I played with liked Commander only initiative. It made the game look and play like a civil war skirmish - "Oh no, we lost initiative, everyone fall back!"
I do like your idea for action / reaction, trade sides, action / reaction. I actually do something like that when I run when it comes to initiative (at least in home games with players who know me), in that all that initiative means is your place relative to your direct compeditor.
Lets say I have 2 ogres attacking the group who go on initiative 4 and 15. You go on a 20 and your 5 teammates go on other numbers, the next one is 16.
I may or may not let the ogre you attack, either one, go before the guy who goes on 16 if the guy going on 16 isn't directly involved yet. If the guys on 20 and 16 say "we attack him together" I might wait on the ogre. Or, I might do him right after the fighter to group the activity in a complex battle to keep track of it better. It isn't really fair, and I don't always do it, but sometimes it helps the game make more sense. If you group it, you can say, "he parries your shot and hits back." If you don't group it, there is no flow to the combat. He blocks a shot. Narrative stops. Then sometimes later, he swings at you.
So here is a question - how much fairness are you willing to sacrifice for fluidity of narrative?
> Fairness: I'm not actually willing to sacrifice any fairness. However, there are different kinds of fairness, and sometimes what's 'fair' doesn't seem fair at all. My personal code won’t allow me to sacrifice fairness, but I am willing to sacrifice artificial illusions of fairness where present.
***
Getting back into the meat of the subject though, I envision it going something like this.
First off, Initiative needs to be changed. Each team gets a single initiative, either a Leader would roll, or every player rolls 1d6 and the results of Xd6 are compared against Xd6 rolled by the DM for each team he’s controlling. (In this way, if the DM is pitting the party against a small army or a few cooperating strike forces, rather than sending EVERYTHING at them at once, the opposing teams operate with separate actions and allow the party separate reactions.)
Lets assume there is no surprise (surprise always screws everything up. Frankly I’m strongly considering killing the ‘Surprise Round’ aspect of combat and instead just giving the surprisers automatic first turn.) For simplicity, I’ll use classes rather than names (because I don’t want to waste time naming characters and sticking to those names.)
Fighter: “Just great, Ogres. Drawing my sword I rush towards the one on the right, lining up a diagonal slash across its hip to try to take off its leg.”
Wizard: “As the Fighter runs at the giant, I whisper a few words of arcane power, conjuring a layer of Grease beneath that Ogre’s feet.”
Rogue: “I tuck into the Fighter’s shadow, running behind him to use him for a moving shield while I approach. But when he stops I don’t even slow down, instead diving to the side and tumbling around the Ogre into a flanking position while I stab my shortsword up into his guts.”
Cleric: “ ‘You, Ogre!’ I call out in a strong voice filled with the power of my God. ‘Fall on your face before your betters and surrender to the judgement of the saints!’ I’ll stay here to protect the mage incase one of them gets past our guys and cast Command: Fall on the Ogre nobody’s attacking. With any luck it’ll go down and stay down for one round while our boys mop up, but if not I’ve still got my Shield and Morningstar.”
Step 1: Ogres resolve saves against incoming spells while Fighter and Rogue approach. (Had there been nobody in their path, they may well have had an opportunity to react to the casting of these spells instead.)
Step 2: Ogres react accordingly to the charging Fighter and Rogue however they are able, such as possibly repositioning themselves to better effect or making counter-attacks of some sort. (Note of course that even if both are on the ground, they can still attack or whatnot from the ground, at penalty.)
Step 3: Ogre’s turn starts.
Sorry it got so long winded (which is why this took so long) but I hope you see what I mean by this. Nobody ‘goes first’ inside a team. The team all act TOGETHER and then the DM adjudicates the order of operations within that team’s turn, handles the opposition’s reactions (or moderates the Player’s reactions) and then moves on to the next turn.
One very simple idea I came up with a long time ago but never implemented, only to find others had also implemented it is to still use turns, but to have all the combatants advise the GM of what they will attempt to do and then roll for initiative, and the events play out from there. Kinda kills the response to stimulus option though. Perhaps the initiative roll/mechanic and the delay option could be scrapped, and those with high Dex/astounding reflexes get interrupt options in the same manner as AoO's.
4e had some interesting action economy ideas, it's pre-DnD Chainmail/miniatures and battlemat tactical warfare playstyle notwithstanding.
Also check out Little Red Goblin Games new campaign setting kickstarter Necropunk - for $1 you can become a backer and get access to the 40 page preview document which presents "phase rounds" kinda extra pre-regular initiative rounds in which the superfast get to act before everyone else.
Sorry most of this still deals with initiative, turns and AoO's by another name. I'd love to hear of a "round-less" action economy system that wasn't a reskinned diceless storygame approach ( which I also have no problem with, it's just outside the brief of this discussion, though it may be useful to hear of others' experience with Amber Siceless et al to get some ideas/brainstorms).
One minor pitfall I could see with the idea elaborated on in the last post, is that the first player to speak gets a powerful influence on the team's actions.
That being said... there's a certain amount of realism to that. If you have Leeroy Jenkins on your team you either support him, teach him tactics, or let him die.
I'm debating using a system where the lowest initiative declares the action they want to do, followed by the next lowest, all the way up to the highest initiative.
Those actions are locked in.
Then from highest initiative down, the actions take place if possible.
Still turns, but much more interactive.
Still fiddling with details, like if declaration of intent would be better than declaration of action. Trying to find a line which gives high initiatives ability to react to actions they see coming, while not boxing low initiatives out. Maybe something like, "move/attack" or "charge" or "cast" or "maneuver". Maybe more specific. Not sure.
There have been a lot of complaints about dexterity doing 'too much stuff' anyway, so I don't see any need to keep it in some clunky initiative system that tends to rely more on the d20 than the modifiers anyway.
EDIT: hmmm, if the proposed 1d6/player added together from above were implemented and Improved Initiative were reworked to add 2 or 3 (not sure which at this point) to that player's die roll, could get pretty interesting...
allow you to break up your movement and actions allowing as an example
a character with 50 speed and 4 attacks can move 10 feet, take 2 swings, move 20 feet, make a 3rd swing, wait until a foe gets within 20 feet of him, close the distance, then attack as if he had readied, without having to ready.
I'm all about helping martial characters, but the more I think about it, the more I'm preferring simple Team 1 Action -> Team 2 Reaction -> Team 2 Action -> Team 1 Reaction etc.
Not that I'm not willing to listen to alternative options of course, just thinking with my fingers.
Hmm, what sort of actions would be allowed during the reaction phase? In your example about the party vs. ogres would the ogre's reactions have any effect on their defense? Say one of the ogres tries to block the fighter's slash at his leg my shifting his foot back or blocking the attack with his club, would that have an effect on wether or not the ogre was hit?
I really like your idea of Team 1 Action->Team 2 Reaction->Team 2 Action->Team 1 Reaction.
I think it would make it easy to understand what happens in combat if the the current 6 seconds it takes a character in pathfinder to take their turn was turned into the "Team 1 action -> Team 2 reaction" and spell effects and attacks were resolved at the end of that..err.."turn" lets call it. That way the enemies reaction could increase their defenses, OR ready for a large action they plan to do on their turn, leaving themselves open. Flatfooted opponents wouldn't be able to defend themselves and their defenses would suffer as a result.
At the end of the "turn" when attacks and spells are declared and after reactions are declared, they would happen in order that the actions were declared. So in your example, first the fighter's swing, then the wizard's spell, then the rogue's flank, then the cleric's spell.
What do you think? would the whole "reaction" thing be too much of a change to how pathfinder's defenses are calculated? Hmm, what would it be like if the party split their actions up into sections..Say, since the fighter would want to get the "flanking" bonus with the rogue the fighter says he waits to make his attack until the rogue is in place. Would he then be able to make the attack? I guess this is doable in current pathfinder by using readied actions..Hmm.
Now another note. What do you think would happen if in your example, with the rules I suggested, would happen to a character's actions if the target of their action has changed since they decided on what they were doing. Say, the fighter slices the troll's foot off, the wizard casts grease, and the troll falls down to the side where he's missing a foot. Now the Rogue can no longer get behind the troll because now he would have to run around the troll, and that's farther than he can move and attack in a turn. So what do you think happens?
Just some thoughts :D This is a great thread, thanks for starting it Kyrt!
Hmm, what sort of actions would be allowed during the reaction phase? In your example about the party vs. ogres would the ogre's reactions have any effect on their defense? Say one of the ogres tries to block the fighter's slash at his leg my shifting his foot back or blocking the attack with his club, would that have an effect on whether or not the ogre was hit?
I imagine all kinds of actions are possible at the reaction phase, from repositioning to protect someone, to an evasive maneuver of some sort, to parry attempts, to bracing against a charge, perhaps even simply ‘standing firm’ and hardening one’s self against the impending attacks. Naturally these would require further rules to support the Action->Reaction combat style, but I’ve never been afraid to keep tinkering.
Quote:
I think it would make it easy to understand what happens in combat if the the current 6 seconds it takes a character in pathfinder to take their turn was turned into the "Team 1 action -> Team 2 reaction" and spell effects and attacks were resolved at the end of that..err.."turn" lets call it. That way the enemies reaction could increase their defenses, OR ready for a large action they plan to do on their turn, leaving themselves open. Flat-footed opponents wouldn't be able to defend themselves and their defenses would suffer as a result.
Hmmm honestly I had figured ranged actions (ranged spells of Standard Action or less and ranged attacks) would resolve first (including reactions to them) at the same time that the melees are repositioning UNLESS melee were already in position, in which case Melee would resolve simultaneously with the ranged stuff (which means that while someone is dealing with swords in his face he’s also dealing with arrows flying at him/spells targeting him) but the effects of those spells would not take effect until after the melee was resolved.
Now, this DOES have the potential to ruin actions and incorporate ‘kill stealing’ and ‘spell-wasting’ of a sort, but that’s the type of thing that can happen in fast-paced battle. This is also powerful motivation for a party to work on communication and teamwork, so they can deliberately time their movements in such a manner as to get the most benefit out of it. (The above is basically the default, but if someone in melee were to deliberately delay their assault/go on the defensive until the mage were to get off his spell or somesuch, they could totally do so.)
Quote:
At the end of the "turn" when attacks and spells are declared and after reactions are declared, they would happen in order that the actions were declared. So in your example, first the fighter's swing, then the wizard's spell, then the rogue's flank, then the cleric's spell.
What do you think? would the whole "reaction" thing be too much of a change to how pathfinder's defenses are calculated? Hmm, what would it be like if the party split their actions up into sections..Say, since the fighter would want to get the "flanking" bonus with the rogue the fighter says he waits to make his attack until the rogue is in place. Would he then be able to make the attack? I guess this is doable in current pathfinder by using readied actions..Hmm.
NOPE!
At least, that’s not how I’m doing it, you’re welcome to adapt as you see fit of course.
In my games, I intend to make the team’s actions be simultaneous, with a bit of resolution pattern to keep things smooth.
So in my example, the Fighter charges WHILE the Rogue runs behind him WHILE the Wizard casts his spell WHILE the Cleric casts his spell.
Because one of two chose to maneuver into flanking position, assuming the Ogre doesn’t stop him with his reaction, BOTH Fighter and Rogue get the benefits of the flank, it’s happening at exactly the same time. (Technically there would be a split-second delay between the Fighter’s attack and the Rogues, but the Ogre’s attention is still being split between the Fighter slashing and the Rogue maneuvering for and then taking a backstab.) Fighter also gets the benefits of a charge of course, because he charged in a straight line directly to his target.
Because the Cleric and Wizard are using their magic while their allies are moving (aka not in melee position at the start of the round) that means that their magic has time to take effect (or fail of course) before the melee guys get there, which could have a big impact on what sort of reactions the Ogres have available to them.
Quote:
Now another note. What do you think would happen if in your example, with the rules I suggested, would happen to a character's actions if the target of their action has changed since they decided on what they were doing. Say, the fighter slices the troll's foot off, the wizard casts grease, and the troll falls down to the side where he's missing a foot. Now the Rogue can no longer get behind the troll because now he would have to run around the troll, and that's farther than he can move and attack in a turn. So what do you think happens?
Well, first off, we’re talking about Ogres :P
But to get serious, unless the Fighter got a critical hit or was using a special called shot ability, he’s probably not ACTUALLY cleaving off the Ogre’s leg, but the Ogre might take a penalty to movement (and might have to start making additional saves just to maintain his balance on the grease with a wounded leg)
If the Troll DID fall, he’s still going to be falling inside his space. Meaning the Rogue can still tumble around it like before. OR for rule of cool I might declare he tumbles through the Ogre’s space at the normal DC to tumble around, because somebody who falls on their ass is going to be stunned for a split second AND they don’t fill up nearly as much vertical space. (Hell, why not give the rogue a trample attack on his way by, stomping on the Ogre’s ugly mug for Unarmed Strike damage? No sneak attack damage sure, but it doesn't interfere with the Rogue's actual sneak attack anyway.)
Quote:
Just some thoughts :D This is a great thread, thanks for starting it Kyrt!
Those are some thought-provoking thoughts indeed. I’m glad you’re enjoying the thread.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, possibly screwing a mage out of his spell because the martials took it down without needing his help is kind of lame.
I'm thinking maybe if the martials are already in position, rather than having the magic happen simultaneously, the CASTING happens simultaneously, but that last bit of the spell (the same bit that's held off in Spell Completion items like scrolls) is held off until the results of the martials actions is revealed.
If it turns out the spell isn't needed on that target, the mage could cast the spell at a different target in that combat, or could choose to 'hold' the spell. The spell is still expended, but the mage is essentially carrying an internal scroll of the spell (at his own caster level and ability scores of course) until such time as one of the following occurs: he casts it, he lets go of the power to cast a more appropriate spell, or he becomes unconscious.
You could rate actions according to speed. The character could have a stat that determines how high a speed action he can take on his turn. Half of that can be used to perform reactions.
Like, a first level character has a speed of 10 and a reaction of 5. Moving a certain distance is 1. Attacking is 8. Blocking costs 4.
So the first level fighter can move twice and attack, and if he's attacking a first level fighter, his opponent can block and move a little.
At higher level, maybe you have 12 speed, so after an attack you can reserve enough for a block. If you opponent has a reaction of 8, he could take the hit and hit you back - but because of your level you can still try and block it.
Higher level still, maybe you attack twice for each attack roll and always expect to block during your attack.
kyrt - can you give a little more or a formal structure on the round sequence so I can see it better (my mind just functions better with charts or lists)?
Let me make an example and you can chop up, destroy it or just flat
out say no.
Example of a phase based system -
Step 0/Pre-phase: All Sides declare what they intend to do (this is old school and can be ignored)
Step 1: Sides roll initiative and get bonuses based on action types
Step 2:
First move Side A
First move Side B
Step 3:
Ranged Attacks A
Ranged Attacks B
Step 4:
Melee Attacks A
Melee Attacks B
Step 5:
Quick Spells A
Quick Spells B
Reaction Phase
(held actions) - Side A
(held actions) - Side B
Step 6:
Second move A
Second move B
Step 7:
Second Attacks (ranged and melee) A * can be broken up by ranged and melee
Second Attacks (ranged and melee) B
Step 8:
Slow Spells A
Slow Spells B
Final Reaction Phase
(held actions) - Side A
(held actions) - Side B
Step 9: Clean up phase (end spell effects or conditions)
You could (and this would make it very messy) allow individual rolls and then change the steps to adapt to the roll (a little). Maybe the side with the higher initiative gets to do all their actions on step faster in the chart? Going by blocks of 5 or more initiative values moves you up one step. So you could have Side A roll really high (say they beat the enemy by 10) and they can get in steps of actions before the enemy responds. Or this could just be used for surprise /reaction 1st rounds and then everything can fall into sync the following round. The phase change up should not take base actions beyond Step 5, and the B side gets caught up there (or not).
sample of high initiate round, by 2 steps (10 difference):
Step 1: Sides roll initiative and get bonuses based on action types
Step 2:
First move Side A
Step 3:
Ranged Attacks A
Step 4:
Melee Attacks A
First move Side B
Step 5:
Quick Spells A
Ranged Attacks B
Melee Attacks B
Reaction Phase
(held actions) - Side A
(held actions) - Side B
Step 6:
Second move A
Second move B
Step 7:
Second Attacks (ranged and melee) A
Second Attacks (ranged and melee) B
Step 8:
Slow Spells A
Slow Spells B
Final Reaction Phase
(held actions) - Side A
(held actions) - Side B
Step 9: Clean up phase (end spell effects or conditions)
I used to use a system like this until I moved on to a raw declare/action speed system (with phased actions like, slow, normal, quick, fast, rapid, assigned to different tasks and added to a d20 roll).
Also, theoretically, a Side A combatant could hold their step action till the B side takes theirs (giving each step a mini reaction feature). If actions are not taken by the midway point, the combatants can switch up their actions in reaction to what has already passed during the reaction phases. Of course this assumes - holding actions and not expending actions during the normal action steps.
Or just dump the whole thing - I mostly did this to illustrate a chart of what I think you were getting at as the focus of this thread.
Hmmm, now that I look at the simplified version, that's not too bad. The (held actions) bit is a little confusing to me though.
My intention has been to re-emphasize the fact that everything is essentially taking place at the same time. The group that 'takes the initiative' has a split-second lead on the group that doesn't, meaning the group that loses initiative only gets to react first, then they take their actions while the other group reacts, and it becomes a dance until one side falls or falls-back.
Combat Round Chart wrote:
Phase 1: Initiative rolling (possibly with modifiers based on who surprises whom as an alternative to having a surprise round.)
Initiative winners will hereafter be referred to as Team A, initiative losers will hereafter be referred to as Team B.
Phase 2: Team A declares all actions as a team. Movement/Attack patterns, spells, etc.
Phase 3: Team B reacts to Team A's actions. This includes declaring reactions against their actions as well as saving against spells which could not be defended against through a reaction.
Phase 4: GM resolves actions in the most logical order available to make everything fit together.
Phase 5: Repeat phases 2-4 with Team B's Actions and Team A's reactions.
Ok, let me mull this one over a bit - I can tell you that the Phase 4 part can have some issues (I guess it depends on how much the GM has to do to make it work, or how much just sort of falls into place).
Edit: Ok, I will list some points that require clarity or the objective of what you are trying to get.
When you say "declares", do you mean they state and then those actions take place immediately? I'm assuming you are stating that they declare their actions and then those actions go into effect as they are announced?
Phase 3 - Team B reacts: To clarify, spell effects that required saves in phase 2 - so spell effects that require saving would be made before or after Team B gets to do anything. Ex - Hold person is cast on Chumpus Maximus from a Team A member in Phase 2, does Chumpus now make his save in Phase 3 before he gets to do anything else?
Phase 4: Are all the other actions declared attempts and then the GM puts them together (based on failed rolls, saves, etc) based on the rolls, or are the actions actually taking place in their respective Phases (2 and 3)?
Secondary question - are you considering any other variable to initiative - such as slow or fast weapons, spells, natural abilities, spells in items vs. cast (V,S,DF/M), etc?
When you say "declares", do you mean they state and then those actions take place immediately? I'm assuming you are stating that they declare their actions and then those actions go into effect as they are announced?
Everything in the entire turn (A turn being one set of actions and reactions, a round being the full set of each team's turn) is happening simultaneously, with slightly staggered order as the GM resolves them to fit them together.
They DO happen immediately (immediately rush the foe, immediately start casting, etc etc), but they aren't resolved until phase 4 when all the pieces can be put together.
Quote:
Phase 3 - Team B reacts: To clarify, spell effects that required saves in phase 2 - so spell effects that require saving would be made before or after Team B gets to do anything. Ex - Hold person is cast on Chumpus Maximus from a Team A member in Phase 2, does Chumpus now make his save in Phase 3 before he gets to do anything else?
These saving throws would be rolled during Phase 3 (the same time Team B is making its reactions, so this is the time period where the focus is on Team B), IF those spells weren't dealt with through the use of a reaction. If a spellcaster were within range, one possible reaction might be a reflex charge (off the top of my head I'd probably guess 1/2 movement speed maximum) alternatively, another might be blocking an incoming ray/missile with his weapon, or perhaps locking his mind/clenching his gut against magic, sacrificing his reaction for that round in order to get a bonus on the save (+4 seems about right off the top of my head, but this is all undecided as of yet.)
So... Chumpus Maximus can react to the spell as best he knows how before he makes the saving throw, but he makes the saving throw before he reacts to melees that had to approach him on their action.
If they were already in melee with him, then he reacts to their melee (or opts not to), then reacts to the spell if he didn't react to melee, then makes the save against the magic.
Quote:
Phase 4: Are all the other actions declared attempts and then the GM puts them together (based on failed rolls, saves, etc) based on the rolls, or are the actions actually taking place in their respective Phases (2 and 3)?
All other actions are declared attempts and then the GM puts them together based on the rolls. Everything happens at the same time, phase 4 is just when the pieces all come together.
Kind of like in an older turn-based video game, Player 1 makes his choices, Player 2 makes his choices, then the scene plays out.
Phew, that was more difficult to explain than I had expected lol, hopefully everything makes sense.
Ok, let me process this - I'm seeing a few points that could be gamed by the losing player when it comes to reaction choice (choosing what to react to, or order of simultaneous reactions).
I think we are going to need to define or redefine action choices with this - EX: blocking an incoming ray/missile with his weapon, or perhaps locking his mind/clenching his gut against magic, sacrificing his reaction for that round in order to get a bonus on the save (+4 seems about right off the top of my head....) all of this requires an new lexicon of action/reaction types. We need to make sure that current system choices do not muddle my (our) thinking on this.
Action and Reactions are a whole different can of worms when discussing the course of the round. This right here could be the lynchpin of the whole system.
Some critical components need to be hammered out:
-How many actions/reactions in a round?
-How do you decide the above (based on speed of individual actions, Dex, feats or a combinations...or on action types - Free, Immediate, etc)?
-Action response/reaction priority. We would need to make sure that it is PC game-proof and non-exploitable. Sides that lose initiative should not get the lion’s share of reaction, choice, etc - because they lost and go second.
Initially, I expected a single action and single reaction from each character on the board (barring units which act as one. I've got some unit mechanics I'm fiddling with on paper. I just love the idea of sending very low level phalanxes/pikemen/cavalry/massed-archers against mid-high level parties) at the baseline. Higher BAB might change that, but I figure make the system work at the bottom and then figure out how to expand it without breaking it.
I don't know if this is at all interesting to people, but when I was in college, I had a friend that drew up his own turnless system...it went second by second. Attack speed was calculated by adding a Dex factor to a weapon speed factor, and every attack had a 1d6 modifier added to account for random factors. You could move while attacking, but someone quick enough could move out of the reach of a really slow weapon. The way he had it, big weapons were simply too slow, but it was a fascinating concept. For Pathfinder, I might do something like this:
Just got home, first thing I did was look to see if there was anything new on this. Heh heh..
So just to make sure i've got how this works, a combat round is.. (Made a chart of how the round went, also included a 3rd "Team" for fights between multiple enemies teams who aren't
allied. Figured I could just ask instead of using it.)
When are attack rolls made? When are saving throws made? What about spells with saving throws AND attack rolls? What about lengthy actions like loading and firing a siege weapon or spells with a casting time of a "full round" or more? @_@
But yeah, I think adding a 3rd "team" to the combat would just result in them having their own turn. Turn order would be based on our initiative thing. But what if, say, another team enters the fight mid-combat? Ex. - Party fighting some drow cultists. The drow open a portal to the abyss. Demons pop out and attack everybody! (Player three has joined the fight! >:D)
Also, because this is a fast paced version of combat, how would conversations work mid combat? Like making diplomacy attempts to calm your enemy so you can dissolve the situation without any more violence. Or intimidate checks to scare away those pesky kobolds. Or (bluff?) checks to taunt that poorly dressed pirate captain (Those ARE his brown pants, HA!).
I really like how, it leaves things a bit more open ended than current pathfinder combat in what the player is allowed to do, and what the GM can have their enemies do. I have a pretty lax game of "Pathfinder" I'm GMing for some of my friends. We are a bit worn out on how rigid pathfinder can be on occasion, and it's pretty much Space Pathfinder, in our own campaign setting we're making up as we go. I'm pretty sure they'd be up to try out this style of turn by turn combat if I asked them.
P.S. - This is Habar414, I just decided to change my forum name thing.
Yup, each team gets an initiative of its own. If some team arrives out of the blue (such as via teleport above) they would probably act in whichever spot they appeared (if they were teleported in by one team mid-combat, I would rule that means they act right after that team.)
If a team were to approach in a manner that those in combat could detect it in advance (such as a cavalry unit rushing in from some nearby outpost) then they would make an initiative check as soon as they were able to perceive one another, and they could make whatever actions they wanted on their initiative. (In the case of a cavalry unit, that would likely just be running straight for the combat. In the case of a unit of scouts, they'd probably move for the high ground and start raining arrows/bullets on their enemies.)
Talking is still a free action, but as far as I'm aware the rules don't even allow Diplomacy rolls during combat at a combat-speed. (The slowest diplomacy roll, barring some feat or special class power, is one minute isn't it?)
Intimidate/Bluff would follow the normal rules, except of course that you don't have to worry about your buddy rushing in and swinging at the guy before you debuff him, because words travel much faster than feet do and the DM should apply your Intimidate before your friend reaches his target.
Phase 1: Initiative rolling (possibly with modifiers based on who surprises whom as an alternative to having a surprise round.)
Initiative winners will hereafter be referred to as Team A, initiative losers will hereafter be referred to as Team B.
Phase 2: Team A declares all actions as a team. Movement/Attack patterns, spells, etc.
Phase 3: Team B reacts to Team A's actions. This includes declaring reactions against their actions as well as saving against spells which could not be defended against through a reaction.
Phase 4: GM resolves actions in the most logical order available to make everything fit together.
Phase 5: Repeat phases 2-4 with Team B's Actions and Team A's reactions.
Phase 6: Cleanup.
Hopefully that came out right.
So a few more questions kyrt (some are questions are super basic, for clarity or just to state facts as I see them. You can yes or no them, or expand upon each point).
1) Only one initiative roll per fight. The phases cycle through until the fight is over (or fighters break off from each other).
2) Is there a priority of action within the winning side? That is, is there a determinant if the Team A Cleric gets his spell off before the Team A Fighter swings his two handed sword...or dagger? Is there a speed hierarchy of actions - spells slower than melee, melee slower than ranged, etc?
3) If I kill an enemy in Phase 2 (I'm a Fighter on Team A), does that mean that on Phase 5 that target does not get to act (because he's dead)?
4) Does Phase 6 serve as the old end of round for purposes of tracking timers (I'm assuming so, just want to make sure).
From what I gather you would like each PC/NPC to have:
1 Action (assuming this could be a standard and move, or some combo)
1 Reaction (unknown at this point)
What kind of Actions and Reactions would you like to see under this system?
I am also assuming that a very involved reaction (say in Phase 3 for someone on Team B) doesn't necessarily mean that he loses his core action in Phase 5?
So we need to define action types and we really need to define reaction types (since they don't really exist in the game right now and there is no standard to compare them to).
In my opinion I would like to see partial or free reactions where anyone can do these each cycle. And then I would also like to see full reactions - where you pretty much give up your action to give yourself the best chance of survival. Example from a Team B perspective - enemy throws a grenade (phase 2), and your reaction (if you have one) is to dive as far away (phase 3) before it detonates (phase 4). In effect, giving up your actions for that cycle (phase 5 - where you would normally be attacking)by diving or avoiding the grenade as desperately as you can.
Ok, I really suck at going to bed early. But at least I get to reply to this, so not all is lost.
1: yes, one initiative roll per side per combat, at the moment in time when the opposing sides encounter one another. Late entry teams get to act when they appear, and get an initiative count for use in comparison against their allies in regards to who goes first. (An all out free for all could probably get really ugly, but because of the nature of D&D/PF that should almost never happen. I can't remember EVER experiencing a fight with three independent 'sides.')
2: there is no priority of actions. All members act 'as a team' at roughly the same time, although presumably whomever chooses their action first is likely to have a strong influence on the action choices of those that follow (like how the Rogue in my earlier example decided to use the charging Fighter for a mobile meatshield.)
If, say, the Wizard delivered his action last, he would still have the option to cast a buff spell on the Fighter so long as the Fighter were within range at the start of their action.
3: that is correct. The killed victim had a chance to defend during his reaction in phase 3, but if phase 4 reveals that he is dead, unconscious, stunned, dazed, hogtied, or otherwise disabled, he can not act in phase 5.
4: yes
Actions would generally include things like Moving up to full speed and Attacking (including Combat Maneuvers), casting spells (possibly with a concentration check if the caster moved as part of his action), etc.
There's also the potential for some interesting 'combinations' because all party members are fighting at the same time. Like the classic two guys running holding a chain, or possibly even two casters timing their spells in such a manner as to treat them as one spell with interesting effects (Example, if a Cleric cast Flamestrike in conjunction with somebody's Fireball, the total d6 might be added together, 1/2 of the total might be divine damage, and fire resistance might only be applied once instead of twice.)
Reactions would generally be things like Parrying/Blocking, Dodging, 'Fortifying' (against a Fortitude/Will save spell or something like that) reaction-charges (limited movement, no charge bonus to attack, possibly an additional -2), and things of that sort.
I suppose we really DO need to define reactions in advance in order to hash this out properly, but I'm way too tired to do that tonight.
But yeah, it does seem like a good idea to highlight in which cases one would sacrifice their Action for a superior reaction. In the example of the grenade, grabbing it and trying to throw it back would probably be a Reaction that burns the next round's action (and isn't guaranteed to succeed of course, there'd be some kind of reflex check or something.)
Looking forward to seeing whatever else comes up by the time I wake up.
I don't believe the 'speed of action suggestions' were actually mine Covent, but yeah, in a system that wanted to use speed-of-action stuff that would fit in really well.
Yeah, speed of actions can be a micro-hierarchy within each Phase 2 and Phase 5 (Ranged then melee then spells) as a consideration, but that isn't the focus of this system.
So what do we need to establish here:
Initiative Roll:
Actual die roll for initiative (how is it conducted, what die (determines swingy range if d20 vs. modifiers applied based on PC choices))
DM adjudicated situation mods
Action Types:
Attacking
Casting Spells
Moving
Standard Actions
Other?
Reaction Types:
Standard Reaction (undefined)
Full Reaction (undefined, but loses action if taken)
Cleanup:
Might need some better defining as to when things end or clear for that cycle. what effect ends first, does anything carry over to next cycle -etc).
Hmm, a thought on "full reactions" that would cost you your next action. (Catching and throwing a grenade back) The catching of the grenade could be the reaction, and the tossing could be that creature's action during it's team's turn.
So it would still just be a "reaction", but because he caught it he gets the option to throw it back during his turn.
Now, do we want reactions to be defensive only, or will there be a mix of action types? I feel like leaving it as defensive actions would be simpler for players to understand, and less easy to abuse.
How do we want to figure in full attacking? Or the "5-foot step"?
Some ideas of reaction types
Trying to block a melee attack - you get a +X Shield bonus to your AC against that single attack. This stacks with other shield bonuses.(The amount could increase/decrease depending on what you try to block with, and size difference, smaller is worse, bigger is better. Just think, a small dagger against a large greatsword, not much could be done with the dagger.To use this you need something you can actively block with. I feel like no blocking with light weapons, and whatever you block with takes a portion of the attacks damage. just an idea that last part though)
Trying to dodge a melee attack - you get a +X Dodge bonus to your AC against that single attack. (the amount could increase/decrease depending on the size difference between you and your attacker/attacker's weapon. Useful for small creatures and also useful against brilliant energy weapons, since you cant block those.)
Trying to dodge a ranged attack. - you get a +X Dodge bonus to your AC against that single attack. (I feel like this one could be based on perception. not sure how to work it, but I think it'd be really cool.)
Trying to block a ranged attack. - you get a +X Shield bonus to your AC against that single attack. This stacks with other shield bonuses.(Not sure how this one would work, similar enough to a melee block, but still different..)
Trying to catch a ranged attack. - you dont gain any benefit to you defenses, but if you succeed (on something, maybe reflex vs. attack roll) you stop that attack outright and can throw it back on your turn. Things that were timed to explode that turn still explode (alchemist bombs), but splash weapons that break and loose their contents dont break. You need at least 1 open hand to do this reaction.
Trying to catch a melee attack. - you dont get any benefit to your defenses, but if you succeed (again, on something, perhaps CMB -4vs Attack roll) against an attack with a manufactured weapon you stop the attack and are holding the weapon. You can make disarm attempt (now or on his turn?). If you catch a natural attack you stop the attack are now counted as grappling the creature that attacked you.)
(This one's tricky..Kind of like the other catching one, but a bit different, since plenty of melee weapons are paws/flaming swords/tentacles so it wouldn't always work, or if you caught it you'd take damage, catching a spiked club would hurt.)(
Bracing yourself against a spell's effects - Add +X to one save to better resist a spell's effects (I didn't know how to make this one interesting :/)
Bracing yourself against a Combat Maneuver - ????
AoO - Make one melee attack against a foe within reach who has provoked an AoO against you this turn. (Can also include reposition/trip/disarm/blah blah blah...reposition...OH GOD, wizard casts flesh to stone, fighter provokes AoO from you that turn, reposition, wizard spell now hits fighter...O_O, too much? maybe only projectiles, and spells with attack roll can work like that, to avoid the Wiz Dominating the Fighter.. eh heh.)
Readied action - Make an action you said you had readied during your turn. These actions cannot require movement, but can cause it. The effects of readied actions happen before the regular actions for the turn.
Countering a Spell. - (this one is still a readied action thing, works the exact same as in pathfinder, just that the countering happens in the reaction phase, before the spell's effects take place in phase 4)
You cant take any reactions against an attack you are not aware of.
my thoughts while I was coming up with this list and on AoO's and readied actions:
I plopped this stuff in a spoiler thing because this post was getting a bit long :D
NO clue on how to make AoO's work without making theme bleh, should it be a reaction? I mean, it was always nice how AoO's were just "free" attacks, but should if it's a reaction you're taking advantage of your opponent when their defenses are down because they are attacking you instead of defending yourself. Hmm..IF these are going to be reactions I think it'd be "Make one melee attack against a foe in range who has provoked an AoO this turn." So should combat maneuvers be allowed? You know..I kind of like having this be a reaction. It fills that feeling of need for an offensive reaction.
Oh! And reactions could also include readied actions. So, on team 1's turn the druid readies gust of wind. Then on team 2's turn the druid can cast gust of wind as his reaction that turn. Possibly interrupting an attack. It would complicate things, but it'd be kinda cool. Not sure exactly how it would work if the entire team readied an action, would they just pass initiative at that point since they aren't taking "taking the initiative"? heh... I've just been adding cool stuff I think of to the list.
Now, when would attacks from readied actions and AoO's be calculated? We might need to make Phase 4a. and Phase 4b. Are there any issues you guys see with allowing readied actions and AoO's resolve in 4a. and the current team's actions resolve in 4b.? The main thing I see is the interruption of actions by using combat maneuvers and spells (pushing a foe, blinding him, dominating him, killing him with damage). Is that bad? Does it fit the system?
Ah, also, I dont think any movement should be allowed during the reaction Phase. Except perhaps the reposition combat maneuver on an ally..to take a hit for them. Now THAT would be sweet. Yeah, that should be the only form of "movement" allowed in a reaction. Anything that requires a move action or a full action cant be readied. But actions that CAUSE movement can be readied! A la' push an ally out of the way of an attack with a blast of water if you dont think you can manage to push your foe & such. Heh heh, so many options! @u@
Another thought, how does one actively defend against combat maneuvers? I think it'd be similar to the melee options but I dunno.
First, thank you Val. This saved me a LOT of work on starting points. (I had kind of nebulous ideas in my head that may have required active play to stimulate without these.)
Val wrote:
Now, do we want reactions to be defensive only, or will there be a mix of action types? I feel like leaving it as defensive actions would be simpler for players to understand, and less easy to abuse.
How do we want to figure in full attacking? Or the "5-foot step"?
You know I'm still working on that. Through the implementation of Action A-> Reaction B -> Action B -> Reaction A, we've added an entire additional step to combat (although we've also reduced the number of 'turns' to one per team) so I'm not quite sure where I stand on the full attack thing.
I'm well aware the current system as-designed requires full attacks for martials to contribute, but I find myself wondering if I should adapt the system in such a way that Martials don't NEED Full Attacks, instead delivering their damage in one (single weapon style) or two (two weapon style) blows. This has the added effect of making reaction strikes much more dangerous and have a far greater impact on combat than the weak AoO's in the game now.
If Full-Attack Actions are scrapped, you no longer need the 5' step to allow Full-Attacking warriors to slowly maneuver across the battlefield like a couple of snails. Things could easily get a lot more dynamic. If you're worried about casters, I wouldn't. Casters bend reality to their will, if they can't make a concentration check (at whatever difficulty you may set for Casting Defensively, I'm considering altering the DC for my games) then they have no business casting that particular spell under those particular circumstances.
First, thank you Val. This saved me a LOT of work on starting points. (I had kind of nebulous ideas in my head that may have required active play to stimulate without these.)
Val wrote:
Now, do we want reactions to be defensive only, or will there be a mix of action types? I feel like leaving it as defensive actions would be simpler for players to understand, and less easy to abuse.
How do we want to figure in full attacking? Or the "5-foot step"?
You know I'm still working on that. Through the implementation of Action A-> Reaction B -> Action B -> Reaction A, we've added an entire additional step to combat (although we've also reduced the number of 'turns' to one per team) so I'm not quite sure where I stand on the full attack thing.
I'm well aware the current system as-designed requires full attacks for martials to contribute, but I find myself wondering if I should adapt the system in such a way that Martials don't NEED Full Attacks, instead delivering their damage in one (single weapon style) or two (two weapon style) blows. This has the added effect of making reaction strikes much more dangerous and have a far greater impact on combat than the weak AoO's in the game now.
If Full-Attack Actions are scrapped, you no longer need the 5' step to allow Full-Attacking warriors to slowly maneuver across the battlefield like a couple of snails. Things could easily get a lot more dynamic. If you're worried about casters, I wouldn't. Casters bend reality to their will, if they can't make a concentration check (at whatever difficulty you may set for Casting Defensively, I'm considering altering the DC for my games) then they have no business casting that particular spell under those particular circumstances.
Quote:
Trying to block a melee attack - you get a +X Shield bonus to your AC against that single attack. This stacks with other shield bonuses.(The amount could increase/decrease depending on what you try to block with, and size difference, smaller is worse, bigger is better. Just think, a small dagger against a large greatsword, not much could be done with the dagger.To use this you need something you can actively block with. I feel like no blocking with light weapons, and whatever you block with takes a portion of the attacks damage. just an idea that last part though)
The problems I have with this are two-fold. First, a +X Shield bonus is sooo boring! Secondly, attack bonuses scale so much faster than AC that there will be many characters for whom a reasonable +X simply won’t do much of anything (especially if they weren’t actually wielding a shield.) My second problem is the weapon damage/weapon size factor. Someone who knows what they’re doing is not going to risk damaging their weapon while defending themselves with it. When they block, they’ll give with the impact to protect their blade, if they can’t block, they’ll parry. Heck even unarmed martial artists can parry swords if they’re skilled enough.
Lets try this on for size.
”Reaction: Parry” wrote:
Sometimes AC just isn’t enough. When a warrior recognizes a blow of a level he won’t be able to escape (the opponent hits his AC), he can attempt to parry and deflect the blow.
The parrier makes an opposed attack roll against his adversary’s, with one of the following results.
*If he fails to match the opponent’s attack, he fails to parry and instead opened himself up for greater damage. Increase the damage taken by 1 for each point by which the parry failed. In the case that a parry was made against a critical threat, a failed parry is confirms the crit for the opponent, in which case the bonus damage is multiplied by the attacking weapon’s crit multiplier.
*If he at least matches the opponent’s attack, he manages to block the blow and absorb the damage through his arms, treating the opponent’s weapon damage dice as if they had all rolled ones.
*If he scores at least 2 higher than the opponent, he takes ½ the total damage after treating the damage dice as ones.
*If he scores at least 4 higher than the opponent, he takes no damage.
EDIT: if a shield is used for this purpose, add its base Shield Bonus to this check, in addition to any enhancement bonuses it may have as a weapon.
More will be on the way. Although it could take a while, so please don't hesitate to reply to this post at your leisure :P
Trying to dodge a melee attack - you get a +X Dodge bonus to your AC against that single attack. (the amount could increase/decrease depending on the size difference between you and your attacker/attacker's weapon. Useful for small creatures and also useful against brilliant energy weapons, since you can’t block those.)
Hmmm, yeah, I can see the benefit to incorporating this. I didn’t include a weapon size issue in my parry in the post above (because I was laying out the foundation for it) but it would make sense that if one is fighting unarmed or wielding a buckler and light weapon they would generally prefer to sidestep an incoming greatsword rather than try to directly affect it.
This requires more contemplation, but I will definitely put some thought into including this alongside the parry as an alternative. (But like Parry, I would make it damage mitigation/elimination, rather than a Dodge Bonus.)
Quote:
Trying to dodge a ranged attack. - you get a +X Dodge bonus to your AC against that single attack. (I feel like this one could be based on perception. not sure how to work it, but I think it'd be really cool.)
Trying to block a ranged attack. - you get a +X Shield bonus to your AC against that single attack. This stacks with other shield bonuses.(Not sure how this one would work, similar enough to a melee block, but still different..)
Trying to catch a ranged attack. - you don’t gain any benefit to you defenses, but if you succeed (on something, maybe reflex vs. attack roll) you stop that attack outright and can throw it back on your turn. Things that were timed to explode that turn still explode (alchemist bombs), but splash weapons that break and loose their contents don’t break. You need at least 1 open hand to do this reaction.
I REALLY like the idea of including a perception check to notice a ranged attack from an sniper or such, and if the perception succeeds allow a dodge/block/catch check at some penalty compared to a check against which the reactor knew about his attacker in advance.
Once again, I’m going with damage mitigation/elimination rather than an AC boost. Catching a weapon like an alchemist bomb or something like that would be entirely pointless though, unless you included the option to chuck it. I imagine tossing it away from you in the direction it was already going (think hot potato, you minimize the lost momentum and keep the object going as far as possible) would be part of the reaction, while throwing it back would be one of those Full-Reactions Aux and I were talking about up-thread.
On the subject of that, the problem with catching something like a bomb/grenade and being able to hold it until you throw it next round on your action is that these things are on timers such that it may not make it to your next action. I’d much prefer to just include the option to spend the next round’s action as part of the reaction and maintain the flow of time.
I don’t feel like writing up actual rules for this stuff yet, but discussion is good too.
Trying to catch a melee attack. - you dont get any benefit to your defenses, but if you succeed (again, on something, perhaps CMB -4vs Attack roll) against an attack with a manufactured weapon you stop the attack and are holding the weapon. You can make disarm attempt (now or on his turn?). If you catch a natural attack you stop the attack are now counted as grappling the creature that attacked you.)
(This one's tricky..Kind of like the other catching one, but a bit different, since plenty of melee weapons are paws/flaming swords/tentacles so it wouldn't always work, or if you caught it you'd take damage, catching a spiked club would hurt.)
Tricky indeed it is, but that’s cool. Rather than JUST attempting disarm or an automatic grapple, I’d rather make things just a little more interesting. In addition to the disarm/grapple option, I’d like to add the following.
Reposition: after successfully catching an opponent’s melee attack, you can attempt to reposition them through physical force. If the attack was made with a manufactured weapon not bound to the body, the victim can willingly release the weapon to you and free himself.
If the attack was made with a natural weapon, unarmed strike, or physically bound manufactured weapon, the creature can use your own force against you to drag you with them into the space to which you were attempting to reposition them to, initiating a grapple.
(On the subject of weapons, a Morningstar isn’t actually an issue of pain because it can be caught on the shaft under the head. Catching a blade without gauntlets would either cause damage to the hands or apply a penalty for the martial-arts-master catching the sides of the blade.)
On the full attack bit, if we add a way for characters to completely avoid damage from an attack (via parrying) then putting the whole full attack, or have the damage of multiple attacks rolled into one attack roll will make melee combat difficult. One miss, or one bad roll means you do nothing that turn.
Tied into this is that with parrying a character could build completely for offense and ignore AC, relying on his high "to-hit" for his defenses. 1 on 1 with a barbarian would be terrifying @_@ perhaps that's how it should be.. I dunno, how do you feel about that part of parrying?
I do like your idea of instead of going the AC boost route we should go the damage mitigation/elimination route.
I see what you mean about alchemist bombs & such. I just felt weird about allowing someone that much of an action in a reaction phase, but now after writing my bit about readied actions I feel like it would fit the system pretty well.
If you want I can just keep editing that list up there with rules that we come up with, like parrying instead of blocking melee attacks. Oh! Here, I'll make a google doc that anyone can edit.
Tied into this is that with parrying a character could build completely for offense and ignore AC, relying on his high "to-hit" for his defenses. 1 on 1 with a barbarian would be terrifying @_@ perhaps that's how it should be.. I dunno, how do you feel about that part of parrying?
You're forgetting numbers. The Barbarian could parry away a single opponent's strike (without guarantee of success), but against a group he'll have to rely on his AC/DR.
Right right, More attack (either form multiple people, or multiple attacks from one guy) make my worries about parrying pretty much gone. It was just the one attack a round thing with parrying that made me worry for melee characters.
As it was the barriers that a melee character would have to get through to deal damage would be pretty meh. First you have to beat the creatures attack, so mobs with crazy high to hit would turn into a big problem for some melee characters, then you have to beat it's AC pretty much normal, then you have to worry about DR (Not as much if all the damage is bundled into one attack) THEN you see what the damage you dealt is.
Compared to Magic it seems like it's a bit much since a Wizard can fireball, and they reflex for half. one layer of defenses, and it doesn't even stop the attack outright. not to mention multiple bomb attacks -___-; (I have a super metagamed mindchemist in one of my games, he kills everything so fast...and can make every knowledge check at 30 or more..)
The ranged attack defenses could be based on a perception check to see the projectile, then +X dodge bonus to dodge the attack, reduced damage when blocking, then eliminate the attack by catching/deflecting the attack. Ooo! That setup could work for melee too!
Dodging an attack: +X dodge bonus against that one attack. "You attempt to quickly move out of the way of the attack"
Blocking an attack: +DR against the attack (just an idea, perhaps the fractions of damage would be better) "You brace something between you and the attack, reducing how hard you are hit"
Catching/deflecting/parrying: Check to Avoid the attack outright. (Perhaps benefits on how well you avoid the attack. You catch the arrow you deflect, or your attacker is flatfooted after being parried. Then perhaps penalties for if you fail and how by how much.)
Well, for starters if we scrapped the Full Attacks you wouldn't have to worry about your multi-bombing Alchemist :P
What tends to get me about the whole Attack -> AC thing is how helpless martials get as levels rise. You'd think a skilled combatant would actually be skilled and be able to defend himself, but attack bonuses tend to rise much faster than AC and that hobbles a martial's ability to defend himself. Couple that with Bite Claw Claw at full BAB (IF we scrapped Full Attacks, the Bite would basically be a two-handed Natural Attack, while the Claws would be a monster's Two Weapon Fighting option) and you find your Warrior is getting shredded and not doing a thing to stop it.
Not an easy problem to solve, but I really like the idea of including parrying and such in the reaction system (and was part of the reason I wanted to HAVE a reaction system.) When you have a new player at the table, and you attack him and tell him you hit his AC, what's the first thing most of them say?
"Then I'll block it!"
"Sorry Bob, you can't do that. The rules don't allow it/that's supposedly accounted for already in your AC"
"Then I'll dodge it!"
"You can't do that either Bob."
"What the hell is wrong with this stupid game!? I just sit there and get hit?"
Aah, I get it, so what you're looking to get from reactions is less "something extra to add to my already existing AC to show me actively defending myself"
and more restructuring the way AC works and splitting some of the already calculated bonuses (+dex, shield bonus, Dodge bonus) into the reactions the character takes to actively defend itself
EDIT: while also adding a few other ways of defending oneself (like parrying/deflecting attacks).
Yeah, something like that. Honestly I find PC armor class to be ok as-is, IF PCs (and normal PC race enemies with class levels) had the option to spend one reaction per turn trying to protect against one of the threats their currently dealing with.
Also, the problem with forbidding movement during a reaction is that you're forbidding reactions like "I'll intercept that lion charging at the wizard by moving into its charge line." If you allow a 'reaction charge' like I mentioned earlier, that fighter could even 'counter-charge' the lion and slam into it shield-first at an angle from the side and infront of it, stopping its momentum and demanding it deal with him if it wants to get at the squishies.
I was just worried about reactions effects becoming similar to whats possible in an actions, allowing PC's to squeeze out more attacks/movement on top of what what they can do during their action that turn.
Also, if a character can move as a reaction what happens to actions that are attacking him/targeting him?
I do really like the idea of being able to defend your allies in that way, just need to figure out how to make it work...
The 'movement' part is easy. You can't move to escape an action targeting you unless that movement is part of an actual defensive reaction. Example, the Dodge a Melee Attack reaction could possibly include movement up to the limit allowed by reactions. If you failed your dodge check, and were still standing after the results of the attack you absorbed you would still move (unless you were trying to dodge a grapple attempt or similar)
for purposes for interactive, i liked Palladium with its number of attacks that can be "spent"
you can spend them as attacks, you can spend them as dodges, parries are free....etc etc, even if someone goes first, you have actions you can spend/burn to react to their act.
