Greetings fellow gamers. I hope you find this guide useful and I look forward to your comments on what may be improved on it. For sake of brevity I have not explained the very basics (for example, initiative) nor attempted to comprehensively list all Actions (for example, all Combat Maneuvers). Although perhaps one day this may be expanded to include all of those things if that is deemed useful. Many thanks for your attention.
====================
The popular D20 rulesystem has struck a balance between the complexity of realistic simulation rulesets and the simplicity of abstract systems. This balance between realism and abstraction maximizes playability but sometimes increases ambiguity. While interpretation of the rules are also an enjoyable part of the game, often the attempt to reduce this ambiguity creates the unintended consequence of illogical play through the "rule patches" imposed in the attempt to increase clarity. Many GMs and Players, inexperienced and experienced alike, can be affected by this problem.
Combat is an area rich with opportunity for confusion but by treating the round and action construct as a system of interacting parts, this Guide attempts to reduce the confusion of even the most perplexed GM or Player. Our discussion here is specifically focused on the Pathfinder ruleset by Paizo.
The Basics
A round is 6 seconds long during which a large set of actions can be performed. These actions are organized by type as follows:
1. Standard
2. Move
3. Swift
4. Free
Time and Energy
These Action Types are distinguished primarily by the amount of time each one requires to be performed properly. Naturally, more complex or energy intensive tasks require more effort, the Full Round action being the most time consuming as its title indicates and the appropriately named Free Action, being the least. The time/energy economy of Action Types is a foundational element of this system. It's easiest to describe these in terms of decreasing energy/time expenditure. Again, generally, the more complicated or energy intensive an event is, the more time consuming it is:
1. Standard - the most complex actions. For example, any attack, most combat maneuvers, concentrating to maintain a spell, stabilizing a dying friend with first aid.
2. Move - not as complicated as standard actions but still requiring significant time and effort (relative to a 6 second block of time). Examples include any non-attack Movement such as walking (of course), open/close a door, draw/sheathe a weapon, pick up an object.
3. Swift - these actions consume a very small portion of time/energy but nonetheless are a significant enough of an expenditure to warrant tracking. It might be useful to think about these as occurring over the span of less than a second. Perhaps 300-600 milliseconds. Examples of Swift actions are casting a Quickened Spells or performing certain Feats.
4. Free - these actions consume an even smaller portion of time/energy than Swift Actions; such a small amount that they can essentially be mixed into the round anywhere. Speaking (low energy) or dropping an object (low time) are canonical examples.
These Action Types can have subtypes. Currently, the ruleset only specifies one subtype, Immediate, which is most commonly applied to the Standard type or to the Swift type, allowing that Action to be resolved Immediately instead of during the character's place in the initiative.
Finally, certain action types may be substituted for one another. In particular, a move action can be substituted for a standard action. Although, some choices will inevitably preclude other choices as illustrated below.
Patterns of Action
There are five notable patterns of activity that can occur in a given 6 second block of time:
1. The Full-Round Standard Action Pattern
2. The Standard Action + Move Action Pattern
3. The Double-Move Action Pattern
4. The Full-Round Movement Action Pattern
5. The Attack of Opportunity Action Pattern
Let's discuss each in turn:
The Full Round Standard Action Pattern entirely consumes the available time in a round, allowing the character to perform the most intense Standard Actions but leaving her with only enough capacity to move only a single 5 foot step or something equivalently small (as per the Action Type time/energy economy rules discussed above). Currently, the only variable intensity Standard Actions are melee attacks and powers. The intensity for these Actions increase as the character progresses in level. In the case of the former, this is reflected primarily in the number of attacks that can be performed. In the latter case, it is the complexity of the spell which increases over time. A high level fighter can perform many attacks in the amount of time that a first level fighter can perform only one. A high level wizard can control world shaping energy in the same amount of time that a first level wizard can only hold a door closed magically.
The second pattern, Standard Action + Move Action, shifts some of the energy dedicated to intense Standard Actions (as described above) into Movement, that is locomotion in contrast to an attack. In this pattern, the character may move a distance up to their speed and still perform a Standard Action. Because the character is spending energy to move some distance, they no longer have the energy or time to perform the full complement of Standard Actions as they did in the Full Round Standard Action Pattern.
Given the first and second pattern, one should expect that a Standard Action could be exchanged for a Move Action. This is indeed the case and is the basis for the third pattern, the Double-Move. In this pattern, the energy and time that could be allotted to a Standard Action is instead devoted to Movement. As a result, the character can Move twice in the round, for a total of twice their Speed. Logically, one might also expect that the reverse would be true. Namely, that the Move Action in pattern #2 (Standard Action + Move Action) could be exchanged for a Standard Action. This is indeed the case; that is the Full Round Standard Action Pattern discussed above.
The character may choose instead to apply their energy and time intensively to Movement instead. This pattern, the Full-Round Movement Action Pattern, is similar to the Full Round Standard Action Pattern and similarly consumes the full round but is instead focused on intense Movement Actions. The most common intense Movement Action is called Running, where the character can move at four times their Speed, or more with Feats. Logically, in this circumstance the character should also be able to perform an action equivalent in time/energy expenditure to a 5-foot step since that amount of time/energy remains in the Full Round Standard Action Pattern as well.
The fifth pattern, the Attack of Opportunity pattern, can be the most perplexing activity to understand and is therefore often applied incorrectly in gameplay. But by considering the above principles, in conjunction with an understanding of the conceptual basis for this game mechanic, you too can join (or remain in) the ranks of the unperplexed. At the heart of this pattern is the notion that the character's opponent has given her an Opportunity. Generally, this opportunity is granted due to some distraction imposed by circumstances. To illustrate this along with what we've discussed so far, let's consider two combatants, Evaal and Lara:
Things are not going well for Evaal. He lost initiative and Lara, by this time in the round, has brought Evaal to the brink of death. Evaal wisely chooses to substitute a Melee Attack to Read from a Scroll instead. (They both know it's the Scroll of Unspeakable Horror which will instantly - and horribly - slay (no save) all but the Reader within 666 feet). Unfortunately for Evaal, the distraction inherent in his choice of standard action (reading a scroll) provokes an attack of opportunity. In effect, his distraction grants Lara the opportunity to perform a Standard Action with the Immediate subtype. The vast majority of the time, players choose the Attack Standard Action so this pattern is called Attack of Opportunity but Attacks are Standard Actions and Standard Actions are substitutable. Although unwieldy, the Attack of Opportunity is perhaps better named an Action of Opportunity. In any event, Lara is a wise opponent too. Previously, she noticed (Perception) a mark on Evaal's wrist (Knowledge) that indicated he is protected by a powerful body swapping ward. Had Lara reduced him to unconsciousness by any means Evaal would have had the option to switch bodies with her. Instead of performing a Standard Action Melee Attack she chooses to perform the Standard Action Combat Maneuver, Dirty Trick, to throw sand from the tomb floor into his eyes. Now Blinded, Evaal's cry of frustration (Free Action) echoes into the next round where Lara, who has initiative, substitutes a Melee Attack for another Combat Maneuver, Disarm, plucking the scroll from Evaal's hands (Lara is a martial artist). Lara could use a move equivalent action in place of an attack to pick up a gleaming key at her feet (it dropped unnoticed by Evaal when he unrolled the scroll). She chooses a different path however. Rather than grab the key, or bull rush (Combat Maneuver) Evaal into the nearby 20 foot wide chasm, Lara opts to jump the distance without a running start (Acrobatics). Risky. She fails the DC to cross but makes the DC to grab the ledge on the other side (Reflex) and climbs up. Evaal clears the sand from his eyes but by the next round, impotently watches Lara (she has initiative) tearing down the corridor (Full Round Standard Movement Pattern: Running) and out of sight. Evaal does not think he can make the jump (he's right). "Curse you Lara!! CURSE YOOOOOU!!!" (Evaal Free Action). <distant laughter> (Lara Free Action). The gleaming key lays unnoticed at Evaal's feet, now mostly covered by sand...
Used properly, the D20 rulesystem and its many extensions can be the source of thrilling adventures and epic roleplaying. Used improperly, the ruleset can be a different source of entertainment - but mostly for others.
It is my hope that you have enjoyed reading this Guide and that it offers you more clarity than confusion in your never ending journey to Understanding. Happy Gaming!
===================
In case I missed it, is there a question hidden in there?
oh, I'm sorry, I'm just getting the hang of this board and thought this was the most appropriate place to post this.
My primary question is have I summarized combat rules sufficiently accurately for this guide to be useful? Of particular focus for this guide is the concept of a time/energy economy for actions. For example, performing move equivalent actions in *exchange* of movement or standard actions... performing a combat maneuver such as dirty trick in exchange of an attack during your initiative, or as an Immediate action in response to an attack of opportunity, and so on.
If there is a better place to post this, would someone who can do so, please move it that location?
Many thanks
Currently, the ruleset only specifies one subtype, Immediate, which is most commonly applied to the Standard type or to the Swift type, allowing that Action to be resolved Immediately instead of during the character's place in the initiative.
Immediate actions have nothing to do with standard actions. They could be considered a variant of swift actions.
The Full Round Standard Action Pattern
You may want to remove "Standard" from that title, since it doesn't actually involve a Standard Action.
Because the character is spending energy to move some distance, they no longer have the energy or time to perform the full complement of Standard Actions as they did in the Full Round Standard Action Pattern.
This is misleading. There are no standard actions in a full-round action.
Given the first and second pattern, one should expect that a Standard Action could be exchanged for a Move Action. This is indeed the case and is the basis for the third pattern, the Double-Move. In this pattern, the energy and time that could be allotted to a Standard Action is instead devoted to Movement. As a result, the character can Move twice in the round, for a total of twice their Speed. Logically, one might also expect that the reverse would be true. Namely, that the Move Action in pattern #2 (Standard Action + Move Action) could be exchanged for a Standard Action. This is indeed the case; that is the Full Round Standard Action Pattern discussed above.
This is incorrect.
You can always take a move action in place of a standard action. (Action Types) You can use that move action to do anything a move action can do, you are not restricted to using it for movement.
You cannot exchange a move action for a standard action. This would result in two standard actions, which is not possible (barring some very limited and rare abilities).
A full-round action is not the same as two standard actions.
Full-Round Movement Action Pattern
I'm not sure what the benefit of renaming actions is.
Personally, it makes more sense to me to tell someone they can use a full-round action to run.
Logically, in this circumstance the character should also be able to perform an action equivalent in time/energy expenditure to a 5-foot step since that amount of time/energy remains in the Full Round Standard Action Pattern as well.
If you move any distance, you cannot take a 5-foot step.
A 5-foot step is a Miscellaneous Action, which you didn't mention above, so it's odd to suddenly insert it in a place where you specifically can't use it.
Evaal wisely chooses to substitute a Melee Attack to Read from a Scroll instead.
You cannot read a scroll in place of a melee attack. Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer).
(They both know it's the Scroll of Unspeakable Horror which will instantly - and horribly - slay (no save) all but the Reader within 666 feet)
Using example spells that don't exist might be confusing to readers.
In effect, his distraction grants Lara the opportunity to perform a Standard Action with the Immediate subtype.
None of this is true.
While making an attack of opportunity is an action, it's not an immediate action, and it's really not a standard action. (It's undefined, it's only an 'action' in the sense of an act you are performing, rather than a game-defined action category) The only thing you can do with an AoO is make a melee attack, or perform an act you can do in place of a melee attack (like a Trip combat maneuver). Any specific standard action (like the Attack action, or Grapple) cannot be made in place of an attack of opportunity.
Instead of performing a Standard Action Melee Attack she chooses to perform the Standard Action Combat Maneuver, Dirty Trick, to throw sand from the tomb floor into his eyes.
She cannot do this, as the Dirty Trick combat maneuver is a standard action, it cannot be made in place of a melee attack.
If you do figure out a way for Lara to blind Evaal when he tries to read a scroll (readied action, perhaps) you should mention that the AoO interrupts his action to read the scroll, and since he's blind, he automatically fails (since using the scroll requires sight).
My primary question is have I summarized combat rules sufficiently accurately for this guide to be useful?
It needs some refinement, particularly in the way you word things, rather than the idea you're trying to get across.
One key thing is to be careful with specific terms the game has defined. If the game has a mechanic, using the name of that mechanic in other ways leads to confusion.
In particular, actions. Never say action unless you really mean it.
For example, A standard action is a type of action.
The attack action is a specific type of standard action.
Certain abilities only work when you use the attack action, which can only be done with a standard action, not with an attack of opportunity, not with a full-round action, and so on.
If there is a better place to post this, would someone who can do so, please move it that location?
The Advice section is for Hints, tips, how-to guides, character builds, and requests for advice about how to play the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
If you want the thread moved there, you can click the 'flag' button at your top post (on the right, near the timestamp), then choose the option to flag for the wrong forum. A moderator will then move the thread (they're really extremely quick about those things). The other option is to refine the guide a bit then post it in that forum. It seems like you can edit the first post in the Advice forum forever, so if you want to change or refine the guide later, you don't get locked out after a certain amount of time.
To be honest, your guide did not clear up combat for me, but rather made it harder to follow. I believe this was because of your use of non-standard terms and the errors. I would also use a simple example rather than attempting to create a large example. Break the example down to the elements and insert them as that element is discussed in the guide.
Suggestions: Use italics for the examples, also maybe indent them so they stand out and add a glossary of key terms defined.
<lots of good feedback>
Thank you everyone for the valuable feedback on this thread and in private mail. Grick, your comments with links to rule references is especially helpful, thanks.
I think I'm trying to do too much in one thread so I will break this up into three big chunks:
1. A new post to the Advice section once I have consolidated the incoming input and feedback into an updated Guide. I need to unconfused myself first ;-)
2. To achieve that last part, a set of questions on how the rules actually work. It seems that the Rules Questions section is the right place for that. I will probably do that after some additional research (a short preamble on this at the end of this thread -- thoughts welcome)
3. Finally, I suspect that there will need to be some amplification to the wording the rules as written (is that what RAW means?) or proposed additions to the rules. I suppose the Homebrew/House Rules section is the right place for that.
On item 2, above. Despite the thorough "How Combat Works" write up, I find myself perplexed ;-) by the action economy (as measured in time, energy, or some surrogate). For example, there seems to be no debate that an AoO allows one to perform a melee attack. Somehow, this attack is deemed different as a melee attack conducted elsewhere in the round. How? Why? The AoO melee attack is at full BAB, full damage, etc. so it is not being powered by less time/energy than the type of melee attack that a character starts their standard action with... if *that* one can be exchanged for something less intense (in terms of time/energy) like a move-equivalent action, it seems like the AoO melee attack should be exchangeable too.
Also, I'm not quite sure if the RAW (I'm trying to say rules as written here) is saying that to perform a Combat Maneuver (say Grapple) means that you exchange all of your attacks in place of this, as opposed to just one melee attack. If it's the former, that seems broken to me. A fighter electing the standard action + 5' step option might be able to perform 3 attacks in that round... another fighter at level 1 could only perform 1 attack under the same pattern. Both could only Grapple once? It doesn't match intuition imhe (in my humble experience)... college wrestlers can grapple more than once per second I assure you.
Judging from the number of posts on topics like this (100's of pages of posts), I suspect that there is some room for interpretation here. But I also suspect that the intent of the system was to develop a mech for combat that was somewhat realistic but not too onerous in it's bookkeeping. I like the distraction rules that underpin AoO but, notwithstanding the reading I'm going to do, I suspect that they are in need of amplification and/or clarification of some sort.
Another good thing you can do is put your guide into a google doc and then you can edit it after an hour. The current messageboards don't support that kind of editing potential which is necessary to build it into something you can be proud of.
I find myself perplexed by the action economy (as measured in time, energy, or some surrogate).
That's your main problem right there. You can't interpret the rules by some notion of what's harder or easier, faster or slower, etc. Just read the rules for what they are on their own; bringing in outside concepts like that will just confuse things.
Also, I'm not quite sure if the RAW is saying that to perform a Combat Maneuver (say Grapple) means that you exchange all of your attacks in place of this, as opposed to just one melee attack.
The rules say that making a grapple (or bull rush, or dirty trick, etc.) attempt is a standard action. That's it. It doesn't matter what else you could have done with that standard action, or how many attacks you could have gotten in a full-attack action. Grappling costs a standard action.
There are some combat maneuvers (trip, disarm, sunder) which, instead of costing a standard action, are made in place of a melee attack. That means whenever you would make an attack (either as a standard action attack, or part of a full-attack action), you can choose to perform one of those maneuvers instead.
A fighter electing the standard action + 5' step option might be able to perform 3 attacks in that round
Nope. Getting more than one attack in a round requires a full-attack action, which is a kind of full-round action. You can never* get more than one attack from a standard action.
It doesn't match intuition imhe (in my humble experience)... college wrestlers can grapple more than once per second I assure you.
It doesn't matter. The rules say it takes a standard action; end of story.
Hope that helps!
*Unless you have the Pounce ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself perplexed ;-) by the action economy (as measured in time, energy, or some surrogate).
Perhaps stop thinking of it as time/energy but instead actions which are available to you.
Or consider a machine that accepts coins. Each day you are given a quarter, a nickel, a few pennies, and a dime. (If you're unfamiliar with US currency, those are coins of decreasing size)
You can put a quarter in the quarter slot and get a plastic egg.
You can put a nickel in the nickel slot and get some chewing gum. (This nickel slot also accepts quarters, but doesn't give change)
You can put a penny in the penny slot and get a rubber band.
You can put a dime in the dime slot and get candy.
Or, you can put a quarter and a nickel in the big weirdly-shaped slot to get a toy.
Those coins are actions.
Quarter = standard action
Nickel = move action
Penny = free action
Dime = swift action
and the big weird one that uses a quarter and nickel (standard and move) is a full-round action.
I guess an immediate action would be a guy walking around who will give you a piece of candy after you've left the machine with the agreement that you'll give him your dime tomorrow. This metaphor isn't working so well.
For example, there seems to be no debate that an AoO allows one to perform a melee attack. Somehow, this attack is deemed different as a melee attack conducted elsewhere in the round. How? Why?
Because the rules say so. When someone provokes, you can make an attack of opportunity, etc.
It doesn't use one of those action types, so anything that requires that you use one of those action types doesn't apply.
Back to my terrible metaphor, imagine some guy who owns the machine will give you a hearty pat on the back each time you spend a quarter to get a plastic egg. If someone else gives you a plastic egg, you didn't spend a quarter, so the guy doesn't pat you on the back.
So if you have a feat (Vital Strike) that only works when you use the attack action, it's not going to work if you don't use the attack action. And since an AoO doesn't use the attack action, that AoO can't benefit from Vital Strike.
Also, I'm not quite sure if the RAW (I'm trying to say rules as written here) is saying that to perform a Combat Maneuver (say Grapple) means that you exchange all of your attacks in place of this, as opposed to just one melee attack.
Grapple: "As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options."
It's a standard action. This means you must use your quarter in the quarter slot. If you use your quarter and your nickel together in the weird slot, it doesn't count.
Note the difference in wording between grapple and trip:
Trip: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack."
While grapple requires a standard action, trip only requires a melee attack. Since an attack of opportunity is a melee attack, you can attempt to trip your opponent in place of it. But because the AoO is not a standard action, you can't use it to grapple (or to cast fireball, or to drink a potion, or to light a torch with a tindertwig, etc.)
If it's the former, that seems broken to me. A fighter electing the standard action + 5' step option might be able to perform 3 attacks in that round...
Full Attack: "If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."
If you use a standard action, you only get one attack, regardless of how many weapons you have, what your BAB is, etc. (Barring certain abilities such as cleave)
Both could only Grapple once?
You can generally only perform a grapple once per turn.
Abilities can change this. The Greater Grapple feat allows you to maintaining the grapple is a move action.
It doesn't match intuition imhe (in my humble experience)... college wrestlers can grapple more than once per second I assure you.
They must have taken the feat, then. =)
-edit-
I got distracted and forgot to mention an important point to my coin metaphor: The machine doesn't know or care what the value of each coin is, only the size. A dime is legally worth two nickels or ten pennies, but the only way the machine will give you candy is if you put in a dime, rather than any sort of currency worth ten cents.
So while making a single melee attack as an attack of opportunity might be, in your mind, equivalent (in time/energy) to making a single melee attack as a standard action, the machine doesn't care. It wants a quarter, or you're not getting an egg.
dotting because this would be so awesome to hand out to my newer players.
I made this combat action outline some time ago for my players (some were new to Pathfinder and tabletop gaming in general). Feel free to use it to explain what you can do in a combat round. The gist of it is you pick a column, then pick one action per section within that column in whatever order you see fit.
I guess an immediate action would be a guy walking around who will give you a piece of candy after you've left the machine with the agreement that you'll give him your dime tomorrow. This metaphor isn't working so well.
This cracked me up. Thanks Grick.
Hmm ansel. how can i print that?
Click the printer icon in the Google Docs toolbar. I recommend checking "No Gridlines" and setting the Layout to "Fit to Width" and "Portrait". It prints perfectly onto a single sheet. I used 110 lb. card stock, hole punched it for a 3-ring binder, and gave a copy to each player.
If you're signed in with your Google account (assuming you have one) you should also be able to make a copy of the document (File Menu inside Google Docs) into your account if you wanted to make any changes.
Fantastic feedback everyone -- thank you!
I need to absorb all of this info and will attempt to integrate it into the guide I'm trying to write on this.
For the moment, a few insights and comments:
1. Grick, once again, thank you for the detailed answers. I very much like the coin analogy (candy and hearty pats on the back too). I feel that the utility of this analogy does indicate that there is an economy to consider and the coins are quanta of something (time/energy, or?).
2. I'm beginning to understand the problem that intuition can cause here. I realize that a major mistake I've been making is in attempting to map real-world events to these rules. They make much more sense if I instead treat them as the rules of a board game or something similar. So, as in chess, bishops move diagonally on their color, pawns only forward except under certain conditions, etc., etc. While chess is ostensibly a low-res representation of warfare, it would seem to be folly to really try to assign genuine realworld actions to the rules of chess. I understand that most RPG's try to go beyond "mere" boardgame rules but efficiently simulating real-world effects seems to be in conflict with many parts of the ruleset (as evidenced by the hundreds of threads I went through the other day just on discussions about AoO -- wow).
3. Inconsistent results when the rules are applied appear to indicate seams in the ruleset where things don't quite fit well together. Again, AoO seems to be an interesting example. Or a long thread I read through on what it really means to threaten a square. To illustrate, let's quickly consider AoO. Setting intuition aside about a time/energy economy on actions during a melee round, I now understand that according to RAW one can perform a disarm combat maneuver as an AoO but since an AoO is not a "real" melee attack one cannot substitute a move equivalent action for it, such as picking up an item. This creates the strange situation where you can knock a sword from an opponent's hand and then pick it up as part of an AoO (from Disarm "If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped") but you can't just pick something up using an AoO. It seems internally inconsistent.
Lots of food for thought. I've been wondering if it is possible to construct a set of rules that can efficiently simulate realworld situations and can also stand the test of intuition. That would make for some interesting RPGing it seems to me. I understand that this is probably what the houserules section is for and I will have a look at that presently. (I do need to spend some time on other things to earn as many of those coins as possible though ;-))
I've been wondering if it is possible to construct a set of rules that can efficiently simulate realworld situations
GURPS!
Oh, wait. You said "efficiently." Nevermind.