| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Howdy everybody, lately I've been feeling as though something was a bit off in my otherwise happy world of Pathfinding, and I believe I've pinpointed the source of the disturbance;
The defense system makes me want to cry sometimes.
Here's what I mean. All characters gain a base attack bonus, meaning as they gain experience over the course of their adventures they become better combatants more adapted to the chaos of combat, right? Ok, so, my question is then why don't characters get better at defending themselves? The idea that a 20th level fighter with no armor or Dexterity bonus could be dealt damage by a commoner wielding a pointy stick is...bizarre.
Now, one could argue against me that a character's relative ability to defend himself is one of the many things reflected in his number hit-points, and that a defense bonus is unnecessary hoo-hah; The train of thought essentially being that the more hit-points you have, the more defendy you are, and that your loss of hit-points is at least partially a reflection of your increasing fatigue and whatnot from blocking, dodging, and parrying attacks...But that's just using fluff as a cover up, basically.
So, just for giggles here are a couple ideas that have been banging around in my cranial cavity (Disclaimer; yes, I understand that if you change something as fundamental to the game as the defense system then a multitude of other things have to be adjusted to line up with those changes, but to hell with the repercussions, I wanna experiment!)
-Base defense bonus; Exactly what you think it is, a defense bonus based on level. I would think it would be equal to the class in question's base attack bonus...but..it might need it's own little column on the class block now that I'm thinking, because for fluff reasons I can't imagine a Barbarian defending as effectively as a fighter...not to say a Barbarian should defend all that much worse, but just not quite as well. Hell, maybe there could be an archetype that limits DR in exchange for a better defense bonus? You get the idea.
-No more static base defense; I've been heavily considering doing away with that static 10 you stack your defense bonuses on altogether (At least for player characters, it might take up a bit too much time if every single monster is rolling for defense), and calling for a defense roll to oppose attacks instead. Not only does this add another level of randomness to combat, and draw players attention to the enemy's turn more effectively, but it also allows the party mage and other assorted squishies a better chance to not get so squished. Marquid the Sorcerer might just roll straight 20's on defense die and stand toe to toe with a Blackguard for a round or two, who knows? I was introduced to this idea by Mutants and Masterminds second ed. and immediately fell in love.
Now I understand that this all might seem like ranting gibberish, and it is, but I've seen a few threads on this sort of topic and I know there are a few like minded, and more intellectually organized individuals than myself who could share some knowledge and opinion on this general...sort of...idea.
Sleep easy and stay warm.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the idea of a 20th level fighter (or any class character, for that matter) being dealt damage by a commoner with a pointy stick being excellent, if not positively desirable.
The idea of a 20th level fighter (or any combat oriented class) being hit by a commoner with a pointy stick is another matter.
Also, the fact that a character improves his/her attack ability but not his/her defensive attitute after being wounded a hundred thousand times is really... funny.
However the HPs value is a catch-it all number that defines stamina, phisical wounds, determination, will to survive, fatigue and other stuff - at least for PCs: for adversaries it's just the sustainable damage amount. Sucks to be them.
At the same time, the AC value is another catch-it-all number that includes, dodging, weaving, blocking, parrying, feinting, armor damage soaking capacity, and other stuff too, that you just can't do as an active response maneuvre, but add as a flat modifier to a static number. Yayyyyy.
Game balance and playability moreover desires that attack succeeds a little bit better than defence, and that a combat exchange goes as fast and smooth as possible. Other game systems have a way more complex and slow procedure, as in "I choose my combat stance, my opponent does the same, them I roll for attack with modifiers for conflicting stances, my opponent rolls for defense with different modifiers for the same two conflicting stances of before, then I roll for damage, subtract the armor soaking value, change my opponent vitality points and add yet another modifier to combat due to sustained damage, stress and fatigue. OK, roll again for initiative, you're facing the third goblin now".
So, unless you rework from the ground up the whole system, lots of HPs, high attack vs not so high defense, roll vs static number, they all stay right there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll touch on the two ideas presented:
I had a GM who used this once - basically as you leveled up, you gained a static bonus to AC (dodge, I believe), based on class and level. Fighters and other "defensive" classes had the best of it, with mediums coming slower and wizards/sorcerers being in dead last. All I really remember is that at 7th level the bonuses were something between +3 and +1.
One thing you could try - a bit wordy though - is half your level to dodge AC, capped by half your BAB at that level.
Examples - A party just finished the dungeon and levels up their characters. The fighter hits 12th level and gets his new AC bonus - half his level (+6), capped by half his BAB (+6). Since the two are equal, there's no issue. The Wizard also hit level 12 and adds his new bonus (+6), but it's capped by half his BAB at this level (6/2 = 3), so his bonus is plus 3.
Personally, I wouldn't want it to be a dodge bonus, because I don't think it should apply to touch attacks. But on the other hand, casters use touch attacks, and they need a nerf. So dodge it is! A custom AC type (say, Parry) could give you whatever effects you want (Works like a dodge bonus EXCEPT against Spells). Since it would stack for being a different bonus and nothing in PF is a "Parry" type, no need to worry about it conflicting with anything.
Static Defense: This one is easier to say. Combat takes long enough as it is. An extra layer of rolling, even if it's only for PCs, just sounds like bad news to me. One idea is at the top of the round all the PCs roll their defense rolls and stick with it the whole round. Can't make the monsters target the poor guy who rolled "3", though.
Crap. I tried to nest spoilers. No dice. ;-)
As i always say: you want a system based on strict realism you play something else but D20.
The system i know better in this regard is GURPS 3rd ed:
To tell the truth, i never ever even wanted or tried to introduce rules like those in a D20 based system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GURPS is king for realism, as far as I am aware. Loads and loads of optional rules for making as real as you want it. That and using 3d6 as the basic roll is awesome compared to the damn d20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Iron Heroes had a base defense system. Armor gave you DR IIRC. If that was the only change made I don't think it would be that made, but I would not want it for the current system. For Pathfinder 2.0 it might be worth looking at.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Implemented in 4e. I liked it. Lots of people didn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 4E I did not like it either. I don't remember the exact reason though.
I don't think he is asking for a boost to AC. He is just saying the mechanic that is in place, does not make sense.
The character getting better on their own should also be factor, instead of just piling on armor is the the OP was getting at.
edit:Unearthed Arcana for 3.5 had an optional system like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the problem being described is what it seems to be. While the OP presents it as a lack of defense-bonus, the issue is initiative. And even that's not much of a problem.
If the 20th-level fighter wins initiative, the commoner doesn't hit. He can't hit. He'll be a smear of ex-commoner. If the commoner wins initiative, he gets one chance to hit. Sure. That's fair. He got the drop on the fighter. The fighter is flat-footed. Unable to defend himself. Again, unable to defend himself. Well, the commoner should be able to hit a person who isn't expecting the attack.
Arguably the issue is that all the fighter can do is take Improved Initiative, Additional Trait, and get himself a +6 to initiative. Not enough to really statistically put the leash on lost initiative.
Still, the problem isn't defense.
Worse, this way lies madness. Even a top-notch trained special-services soldier can be struck by a snake, or bit by a spider, or mauled by wolf. Sure, he'll fight back and win, but he's got a good chance of getting hurt. Well, if you start adjusting numbers so humanoid CR1 creatures can't hit you, the same happens to monsters, which is equally unrealistic.
@OP
Have you seen the d20 Star Wars game? It has a scaling defense bonus per level based on class that does not stack w/ armor and has rules for how it stacks when you multiclass (I think you add the bonuses together and subtract 2, something like that). It helps out characters that don't use armor (like Jedi, well, basically everyone but stormtroopers) but mostly makes armor useless at mid level for most characters. I would be cautious of adding too high an AC bonus (especially if it stacks w/ armor), or you might make it impossible to hit anything at high levels...you're attempt to make melee characters harder to hit could, in effect, just make wizards even more powerful (as they can bypass the AC w/ spells and target saving throws).
You could also take a look at the Palladium/Rifts books. They have a rather convoluted combat system where you roll to strike, the opponent rolls to parry or dodge, then you check if you hit and damage the armor or make it through to damage the person... It makes combat last a lot longer, and while there are parts of the system that are fun, I personally prefer the simplicity of one roll. If you wanted to try something similar in Pathfinder, you could remove the static base 10 and have people roll for defense, but be prepared to make combat last longer.
I read the 2nd poster's comment, and took that as the OP's comment. Yeah the OP not wanting someone to be hurt is not realistic. A sharp weapon no matter how holds it, is going to hurt.
Well, the system you started describing is called Hackmaster : attacker rolls, defender rolls and tries to do as well as attacker.
Go check it, the Basic version is free.
Howdy everybody, lately I've been feeling as though something was a bit off in my otherwise happy world of Pathfinding, and I believe I've pinpointed the source of the disturbance;
The defense system makes me want to cry sometimes.
Here's what I mean. All characters gain a base attack bonus, meaning as they gain experience over the course of their adventures they become better combatants more adapted to the chaos of combat, right? Ok, so, my question is then why don't characters get better at defending themselves? The idea that a 20th level fighter with no armor or Dexterity bonus could be dealt damage by a commoner wielding a pointy stick is...bizarre.
They do using my houserule in my homebrew game. It's a problem inherent in a game where magical doodads take the place of a character's skills and experience.
But then the argument about "Well, that's why hitpoints increase, see?" starts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a homebrew system I implemented back in 2nd ed. days. If the defender wanted, they could attempt a "parry" maneuver which took away from their attacks in their next round. You had to roll better than the attacker did.
There were also other maneuvers such as feinting that could eliminate a defender's ability to parry a blow. I also made up a rule that giants, dragons, etc. who had superhuman strength could not be parried. It made combats more interactive and it suited our needs at the time. We haven't used it since, however.
If you want to keep game balance the same, but feel like AC is derived more from skill than from equipment, just eliminate some magic items and add the bonuses from them as characters gain levels.
Here's what a character could afford if 10% of WBL is devoted to simple magic defenses. You could make other adjustments as you see fit, like eliminating the "slot" the item came from, or reducing treasure awards, but personally I don't think those would be necessary steps.
No Ring of Protection or no Amulet of Natural Armor:
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Level 7 +1 (Natural armor or deflection)
Level 8
Level 9
Level 10
Level 11 +2
Level 12
Level 13
Level 14 +3
Level 15
Level 16 +4
Level 17
Level 18 +5
Level 19
Level 20
No Ring of Protection and no Amulet of Natural Armor:
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Level 7 +1 (Natural Armor)
Level 8
Level 9 +1 (Deflection)
Level 10
Level 11 +2 (Natural Armor)
Level 12 +2 (Deflection)
Level 13
Level 14 +3 (Natural Armor)
Level 15 +3 (Deflection)
Level 16 +4 (Natural Armor)
Level 17 +4 (Deflection)
Level 18 +5 (Natural Armor)
Level 19 +5 (Deflection)
Level 20
|
I was considering the defence system, but its all pretty linked at the moment.
I don't like the bonus to hit from strength, ogres can be slow and clumsy so why do they hit so easily?
Armour as damage reduction seems like a good way forward. It normally slows a person down wearing armour, but its a significant advantage against most things (perhaps not the fore mentioned ogre...)
I really didn't like in 4th ed that touch AC's were so high for some creatures it would be really easy to touch...
Game balance is a finely balanced thing however. There are optional rules for many things such as scaling defence to represent parrying, but these often have their own "realism" problems.
I have found as many suggest, if you want a more realistic combat look elsewhere, but for fast and fun combat use the existing system.
I think the Swords and Sorcery Game of Thrones D20 version had a pretty realistic combat system that incorporated a lot of the above, but unless you can get the pdf, the hardback goes for silly prices...
Howdy everybody, lately I've been feeling as though something was a bit off in my otherwise happy world of Pathfinding, and I believe I've pinpointed the source of the disturbance;
The defense system makes me want to cry sometimes.
Here's what I mean. All characters gain a base attack bonus, meaning as they gain experience over the course of their adventures they become better combatants more adapted to the chaos of combat, right? Ok, so, my question is then why don't characters get better at defending themselves? The idea that a 20th level fighter with no armor or Dexterity bonus could be dealt damage by a commoner wielding a pointy stick is...bizarre.
Now, one could argue against me that a character's relative ability to defend himself is one of the many things reflected in his number hit-points, and that a defense bonus is unnecessary hoo-hah; The train of thought essentially being that the more hit-points you have, the more defendy you are, and that your loss of hit-points is at least partially a reflection of your increasing fatigue and whatnot from blocking, dodging, and parrying attacks...But that's just using fluff as a cover up, basically.
So, just for giggles here are a couple ideas that have been banging around in my cranial cavity (Disclaimer; yes, I understand that if you change something as fundamental to the game as the defense system then a multitude of other things have to be adjusted to line up with those changes, but to hell with the repercussions, I wanna experiment!)
-Base defense bonus; Exactly what you think it is, a defense bonus based on level. I would think it would be equal to the class in question's base attack bonus...but..it might need it's own little column on the class block now that I'm thinking, because for fluff reasons I can't imagine a Barbarian defending as effectively as a fighter...not to say a Barbarian should defend all that much worse, but just not quite as well. Hell, maybe there could be an archetype that limits DR in exchange for a better defense...
Yes, it is a bit rubbish. Defence (and attacking for that matter) is done better in other systems. Like those where the numbers are kept simple, but both parties roll (attack and defence respectively), and it isn't throw a die, add a number, does that reach another number. Attacking and defending can be a lot more mechanically exciting than hitting an AC, and defence is a weird thing at times as it stands, since ability and level can account for so little, and items are so important. Sure there are defensive feats, but offence is a lot stronger, and a turtle wont' defend based on their chars abilities and strengths, the items do a lot of the defending (ahem, +3 full plate, +4 shield, +2 ring).
So yeah, big problems, can be done better.
Have you seen the d20 Star Wars game?
I second this, Saga's Defense system was probably my favorite out of all the D20's I played. Probably helped the system made it intentionally hard for characters to be killed(30+ HP at level 1 for martials!), but the scaling defenses and lack of items affecting stats was great imo.
Will the OP explode if I point out that this is covered in the Optional Rules section of Ultimate Combat?
Isn't it just DR based on your armor? Or is it a different section?
Alas, we're playing a 'First Generation' RPG updated to Fourth Generation's unified system expectations. Game designers are trying to sell this generation's products while some players are already grasping for things they see in future RPGs.
A friend's Second generation game gave everything 100 hit points (100 Health), but dealt with actual damage inflicted by what was doing the hitting and what was getting hit. A factor 6 damage from a hill giant against a halfling could easily sneak up to a 8 simple based on size differential. A 8 would mean 8D6 (avg: 28 points of health lost). As complicated as the rest of the homebrew was, players general had it down before the night was over. Mages got better at avoiding magical damage, fighters were really good at avoiding combat damage and rangers were all but impossible to poison.
Another ran active defenses preventing hits and armor reducing damage in the same weak style as DR. It got better when he switched to a proportional DR (armor stopped every 'x' point of damage, x being number no greater than 10, but being rather hard to shift below about 6). Again, a lot of HP, but an axe doing 20 points is going to lose 2 from any real armor. Magic armor spells had 'y' hits that they would take before crumbling. Again, it dealt with the 'hit point defense' in a novel way.
Have you seen the d20 Star Wars game?I second this, Saga's Defense system was probably my favorite out of all the D20's I played. Probably helped the system made it intentionally hard for characters to be killed(30+ HP at level 1 for martials!), but the scaling defenses and lack of items affecting stats was great imo.
Um, no it didnt. The triple HP at level one was there to make it possible to play the game at level 1. Weapons in saga edition (for good reason) do a TON of damage. A typical blaster does 3d8 damage on a hit without addint anything to it. One feat and it does 4d8 damage. A vibro axe does 2d10+1.5strength + half your level, add a feat and it does 3d10+1.5strength plus half your level. A gamorian, at 1st level could be doing 3d12+7 damage with 1 feat and a racially available melee weapon. You are just as vulnerable in saga edition as you are in pathfinder at 1st level, the numbers are just higher.
That said, to the OP, there is a reason defense doesnt scale evenly in this game. It is iterative attacks. Things in this game are meant to attack multiple times, especially at higher levels, with some sort of penalty on some of the attacks. So the secondary or iterative attacks should still have a chance to hit, but not be guaranteed. Hence the fits and starts advancement for AC. Though ofcourse this almost all comes from magic items which drives me crazy, but an even scaling AC gain from a class system would be problematic unless you fundamentally change the game to rely on enhancing single attacks instead of having multiple attacks ALA saga edition.
Have you seen the d20 Star Wars game?I second this, Saga's Defense system was probably my favorite out of all the D20's I played. Probably helped the system made it intentionally hard for characters to be killed(30+ HP at level 1 for martials!), but the scaling defenses and lack of items affecting stats was great imo.
I was actually referencing the Wizards of the Coast Star Wars game, but yeah, both have scaling defense. I've not played the Saga Edition, so armor may not become as obsolete in that game. <shrugs>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something that has been suggested by a few people, but which I recommend against, is adding a "defense roll" of some kind. It doesn't change the math on an attack, but it does slow down combat. As the game goes up in level, the slowdowns get much worse.
(There are some game systems that do something special with opposed combat roles, but they're specially designed to do so.)
I'll touch on the two ideas presented:
One thing you could try - a bit wordy though - is half your level to dodge AC, capped by half your BAB at that level.
Not to nitpick, but isn't that just the same as "half your BAB"? There isn't ever a case where your BAB is higher than your level, is there?
Classed monsters, maybe? But wouldn't you want to give them a defense bonus based on HD, not just on class levels?
Oh! You're right. I did make it unnecessarily complicated. Half BAB is basically the same thing. Well, it was off the top of my head, so no polish is expected. Good catch, though!
Another word on GURPS - the way it handles attack and defense is the attacker rolls against his skill (if his skill is, say, 15, he needs to roll a 15 or lower on 3D6 to hit - this can be modified by targeting vulnerable areas or other modifiers as appropriate), and then the defender rolls against his defense skill (and picks the type of defense - dodge, parry, or block), and if he succeeds, then the attack is parried, or blocked, or dodged.
It works well, and there are several different things to take into account. It's quite a good system for active defenses, and having something to do, even when it's not your turn. For example, one can elect to retreat a hex to gain a bonus to his defenses.
I apologize if someone's already linked to this and I missed it, but
Link is to the Defense bonus rules originally published in 3rd Ed Urban Arcana. Because it's 3rd ed, you can probably convert to use in Pathfinder very very easily.
Class defense bonus does NOT stack with armor bonuses (but does with other equipment-based bonuses); you use whichever is highest, which is why the "heavy armor" category of bonuses is the highest, and the "no armor" category is the lowest.
You could probably also combine this with "armor as DR" however, if you felt so led, without things breaking terribly.
Method#1: Grant 1/2 BAB as an armor bonus. Net result is virtually no change in the math of the game and allows for some opportunities to play lightly armored characters through higher levels (this bonus is still exceeded in defense by the magical armors available for most classes).
Method#2: Grant 1/4 BAB as an increase in effective Dexterity bonus to AC (so at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th, you'd increase your Dexterity bonus to AC by +1). Favors characters in light armors, reduces Dex concerns for melee martials, makes it easier for Fighters to fill in their armor training.
Method#3: Allow all character's to devote up to 1/2 their BAB as a dodge bonus to their AC each round, to represent how much of their focus is spent on defense rather than offense. Warrior classes get the most mileage out of this in terms of sheer numbers but wizards and sorcerers will see this as +1 dodge every 4 levels (with some exceptions they can largely ignore their BAB).
Method#4: Fashion an armor as damage resistance system and then make a fast, medium, and slow defense rating system that grants AC bonus instead of armor. Example: +12/+9/+6 (or base 6 + 1/3 level, base 3 + 1/3, and base 0 + 1/3 level).
Method#4.A: An interesting armor as DR system I've experimented with is instead of actually preventing damage the armor converts a portion of damage equal to its armor bonus into nonlethal damage. This means that even though you can get beaten up and winded your life isn't in actual danger due to the armor (a guy in full plate might get beaten down but he's not going to be bleeding out, just unconscious). This has the side-effect of making healing more efficient in combat (healing effects heal an equal amount of nonlethal HP). For creatures immune to nonlethal damage (such as undead and constructs) they instead receive a set amount of actual damage reduction based on the protection of the armor (I prefer 1/3 the AC as DR, such as studded leather = DR 1/-, full plate = DR 3/-, +5 full plate = DR 5/-).
Example: Valeros the Fighter has 12 Hp and is wearing chainmail (AC 6). He is struck by an orc's falchion for 8 damage. He takes 2 lethal and 6 nonlethal. He later takes another 8 damage. He's now at 4 lethal and 12 nonlethal. He's unconscious but breathing. Kyra the cleric comes and heals him with cure light wounds for 5 damage. When she does she heals 5 lethal and 5 nonlethal. He now springs back up with 0 damage and a bit of nonlethal. After the fight he walks off the fatigue from getting hit (nonlethal damage heals every hour instead of every day).
The result is that armor means you are less likely to die from sudden burst damage, gives you better returns on healing (making tanking more ideal), and allows martials to improve the longevity of the party because a significant portion of the damage they suffer over the course of the day can be healed more efficiently or can heal while on the go through natural healing.
You can apply the armor bonus to spells as well, for those who've always thought that it was odd that the extra insulation provided by armor does nothing to protect you from spells like fireball.
If you want to keep game balance the same, but feel like AC is derived more from skill than from equipment, just eliminate some magic items and add the bonuses from them as characters gain levels.
This is very similar to what I do. Though personaly my progression is a little more generous at the lower levels. Also I've tied it to BaB such that High BaB classes are a little more defendy than low BaB classes. Everybody's always saying casters are better than martials at high level so I figure why not throw them a bone.
Basicly I remove deflection bonuses and natural armor enhancement bonus in exchange for a defense bonus that caps at
Full BaB +12
3/4 BaB +10
1/2 BaB +8
That bonus applies half to Touch and in full to flat footed. I realize this part doesn't make much sense but it keeps touch ACs more or less where they are meant to be.
The system works nicely and fixes the OPs main issue without negating the usefulness of armor which is something I always felt 3.5s unearthed arcana defense rules did.
- Torger
Something that has been suggested by a few people, but which I recommend against, is adding a "defense roll" of some kind. It doesn't change the math on an attack, but it does slow down combat. As the game goes up in level, the slowdowns get much worse.
(There are some game systems that do something special with opposed combat roles, but they're specially designed to do so.)
Defence rolls are good, but the crunch of the game causes issues. For a swashbuckler or viking game with more personaly mano to mano combat, I would recommend it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked it in 4e, but the system math is completely different, since iterative attacks isn't a thing, and scaling works entirely equally for both attack and defense if you're a wizard or a fighter. Still, I think this type of thing works better than 3.x's version. It's also one of the reasons I like using M&M (a superhero game) for fantasy, because the system math, though in many ways d20 based, is much better than any 3.x variant I've seen, pathfinder included.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main point was that I think the defense system is too gear based, and that that should be remedied somehow. I'm just not a big fan of armor piling. Whether this takes the form of a defense bonus based on class levels, vitality and wound points (Another nifty chunk of Revised Star Wars D20), or whatever, I'm accepting, so thanks for the links and whatnot. D20 Modern took a crack at this idea too and...it was more or less successful, not quite perfect though, like any good game.
Also, why the hate on opposed attack roles? I mean, I get that they add one more roll to combat, but, oh god, 5 whole seconds, what a gamebreaker. I suppose I stole the idea from a system that doesn't use damage rolls, so combat was sped up somewhat compared to standard PF combat, but that secondary randomness being added into the mix sounds enjoyable enough for me to deal with an extra roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that Pathfinder 2.0 will feature a major overhaul of the defense system. I would like to see a system where you AC would increase with your level and where armors would decrease your AC (or your max Dex bonus) instead of improving it. I prefer systems where armors and natural armor give you damage reduction. I also like where Project Eternity is going with misses, glancing hits and hits. Tell me, fellows paizonians, does such a system already exist?
My main point was that I think the defense system is too gear based, and that that should be remedied somehow. I'm just not a big fan of armor piling. Whether this takes the form of a defense bonus based on class levels, vitality and wound points (Another nifty chunk of Revised Star Wars D20), or whatever, I'm accepting, so thanks for the links and whatnot. D20 Modern took a crack at this idea too and...it was more or less successful, not quite perfect though, like any good game.
I would agree that it is far too gear based, particularly when whether or not that gear 'should' be available is a matter of itense debate. I have personally instituted a system in my game to replace the magical AC bonuses, so once you hit your optimal Armor to dex ratio (IE get your armor bonus as high as it can be with mundane gear) you then take feat like abilities (that dont count against your feats) to increase your ability to defend yourself as well as other things like saves and your offensive ability. I honestly think the way magic items work in the game is part of the problem, and you would have to remove that for a defense bonus system to work in the game (or somehow make them not stack)
Also, why the hate on opposed attack roles? I mean, I get that they add one more roll to combat, but, oh god, 5 whole seconds, what a gamebreaker. I suppose I stole the idea from a system that doesn't use damage rolls, so combat was sped up somewhat compared to standard PF combat, but that secondary randomness being added into the mix sounds enjoyable enough for me to deal with an extra roll.
The problem isnt the 5 seconds, its how often you have to do it. Most people probably take about 5-15 seconds to roll a die, look at their bonus and get a total. If there are temporary buffs in play (spells, class abilities, temporary modifiers, conditional feats and abilities like combat expertise etc) its probably more like 20-30 seconds. Now you might say, well you added 30 seconds to a turn, big deal. But that is ONE attack. Even at low levels, things attack more then once. Imagine a dragon attacking a player. Claw, claw, bit, wing, wing, tail slap. Even assuming just 15 seconds to resolve the defensive roll, thats adding almost 2 minutes to the resolution of that dragons turn. Expand that over a whole encounter with 6-10 or more participants over 5 turns. Your talking about adding half an hour to an hour of real time to a single combat.
Try it. Get a stop watch and some friends. Run an encounter with 3-4 enemies. Have one friend sit out and just time things. Do it once with the defensive rolls and once without. Baring some real statistical anamolies, you will see a difference in the average time it takes to resolve each turn, and a significant increase in the duration of fights, particularly as you get to higher levels and characters/monsters are rolling multiple attacks per turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that Pathfinder 2.0 will feature a major overhaul of the defense system. I would like to see a system where you AC would increase with your level and where armors would decrease your AC (or your max Dex bonus) instead of improving it. I prefer systems where armors and natural armor give you damage reduction. I also like where Project Eternity is going with misses, glancing hits and hits. Tell me, fellows paizonians, does such a system already exist?
Armor as DR does exist, but it faces problems in pathinder/3.x. And it has to do with the way numbers scale in the game. Those other systems work because they dont use HP the way pathfinder does. Other systems use a far less abstract damage system
The way HP abstracts getting 'hit' makes that tough to do. A level 1 goblin does like 4 damage a hit. A big stompy monster can do like 100 damage in one hit at high levels. The fighter is probably wearing the same armor in both cases. How do you scale that? And how do you do it without invalidating the guy who doesnt do 1 big hit, but 5 smaller ones. I honestly dont have a solid answer except possibly retooling the whole combat and hp system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Anguish,
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I too have been pondering a possible need to improve static defense, but you made a good point. In the abstract a high level melee warrior's training shines in the number and accuracy of attacks and not in his/her AC.
Combine that with the fluff/abstract that HP is comparable to natural defensive ability to turn a deadly strike into a scratch and I would then say the system works as is.
Just my two cents.
|
I'll touch on the two ideas presented:
One thing you could try - a bit wordy though - is half your level to dodge AC, capped by half your BAB at that level.
Not to nitpick, but isn't that just the same as "half your BAB"? There isn't ever a case where your BAB is higher than your level, is there?
Classed monsters, maybe? But wouldn't you want to give them a defense bonus based on HD, not just on class levels?
There is.
For an aasimar oracle using a specific revelation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, why the hate on opposed attack roles? I mean, I get that they add one more roll to combat, but, oh god, 5 whole seconds, what a gamebreaker. I suppose I stole the idea from a system that doesn't use damage rolls, so combat was sped up somewhat compared to standard PF combat, but that secondary randomness being added into the mix sounds enjoyable enough for me to deal with an extra roll.
The problem doesn't come from the opposed roll (as in the time it takes to roll the dice), but rather it stems from the time it takes to compute all the necessary modifiers to the opposed rolls themselves.
Opposed checks without the whole "system mastery" (spell buff, piece of equipment, feat, situational modifier, class feature, racial ability, etc.) math apparatus of the d20 system is great.
Right now, the opposed check brings along such a train of luggage that becomes unwieldy even at lower levels, and completely nightmarish from 10th level up.
I strongly support more articulated defensive maneuvers, but the current AC+HP concepts and d20 roll+pile of modifiers does not help at all implementing anything different from a roll vs a static number - and that comes before class based, leveled defense bonus and armor as DR plus a Vitality/Wounds system.
EDIT: and yes, what Kolokotroni said above.
Please don't let there be a Pathfinder 2.0. Pleaseohpleaseohplease. If you want a defense mechanic, house rule it or use another game's version. I didn't like the systems other games used, so I made up my own.
Nitpick: I cant actually imagine a 20th level combat character that will be as vulnerable, even naked, as they were at level 1. They're going to have inherent bonuses, class features, feats, persistent spell based defenses, etc.
These values DO scale... but its not on a chart, and its not quite so linear as BAB. Which IMO is a good thing.
When designing any other defense mechanic, you're going to need to account for existing scaling. Otherwise its just MORE scaling on top.
Nitpick: I cant actually imagine a 20th level combat character that will be as vulnerable, even naked, as they were at level 1. They're going to have inherent bonuses, class features, feats, persistent spell based defenses, etc.
These values DO scale... but its not on a chart, and its not quite so linear as BAB. Which IMO is a good thing.
When designing any other defense mechanic, you're going to need to account for existing scaling. Otherwise its just MORE scaling on top.
Some more so than others. Let's look at the vanilla fighter for instance. Maybe he's taken dodge that's a +1. If he's fairly wealthy then he's arranged for a +5 inherent bonus on dex, that gives him at best another +3 naked AC. That's all I can really think of for a grand total of +4.
And 3 of that came from magic not from being awesome at fighting.
- Torger
P.S. by all means please let me know what I've missed.
Nitpick: I cant actually imagine a 20th level combat character that will be as vulnerable, even naked, as they were at level 1. They're going to have inherent bonuses, class features, feats, persistent spell based defenses, etc.
These values DO scale... but its not on a chart, and its not quite so linear as BAB. Which IMO is a good thing.
When designing any other defense mechanic, you're going to need to account for existing scaling. Otherwise its just MORE scaling on top.
Its a perception thing that has to do with the wierd way hp sneaks in a lot of thematic capability without seeming that way. Assuming that 20th level fighters cant actually take like 20 great swords to the gut and live, hp is their defensive abilities that have to be worn down (hence things like the wounds and vigor alternate rules). So while the 20th level fighter might get 'hit' almost as much as his 1st level counterpart without gear, his drastically increase hp is representetive of those 'hits' not being as effective against him (possibly with things like dodges and parries).
Its one of the many thematic problems that the abstraction of HP causes.
P.S. by all means please let me know what I've missed.
Short list of things I personally would expect on a 20th level fighter (not necessarily all of them, mind): dodge, combat expertise (qualified by headband likely or base), +4 inherent dex, 3 ranks in acrobatics for superior fighting defensively, possibly crane style or something similar, depending on race there's the possibility of natural armor (with potential for improvement), extended mage armor (I would, at least)... thats all i can think of ATM that's not gear based.
Also, why the hate on opposed attack roles? I mean, I get that they add one more roll to combat, but, oh god, 5 whole seconds, what a gamebreaker. I suppose I stole the idea from a system that doesn't use damage rolls, so combat was sped up somewhat compared to standard PF combat, but that secondary randomness being added into the mix sounds enjoyable enough for me to deal with an extra roll.The problem doesn't come from the opposed roll (as in the time it takes to roll the dice), but rather it stems from the time it takes to compute all the necessary modifiers to the opposed rolls themselves.
Opposed checks without the whole "system mastery" (spell buff, piece of equipment, feat, situational modifier, class feature, racial ability, etc.) math apparatus of the d20 system is great.
Right now, the opposed check brings along such a train of luggage that becomes unwieldy even at lower levels, and completely nightmarish from 10th level up.I strongly support more articulated defensive maneuvers, but the current AC+HP concepts and d20 roll+pile of modifiers does not help at all implementing anything different from a roll vs a static number - and that comes before class based, leveled defense bonus and armor as DR plus a Vitality/Wounds system.
EDIT: and yes, what Kolokotroni said above.
Yes indeed they are, but the system mastery crunch fights such a beautiful face-off of attack vs defence.
What a fine thread this is.
Short list of things I personally would expect on a 20th level fighter (not necessarily all of them, mind): dodge, combat expertise (qualified by headband likely or base), +4 inherent dex, 3 ranks in acrobatics for superior fighting defensively, possibly crane style or something similar, depending on race there's the possibility of natural armor (with potential for improvement), extended mage armor (I would, at least)... thats all i can think of ATM that's not gear based.P.S. by all means please let me know what I've missed.
I discount extended mage armor on the grounds that it requires an external source that needs to be reapplied after X time and again comes from magic not from being awesome at fighting. It's either gear or ally dependant.
Combat Expertise fair enough for those fighters lucky enough to have a 13 or higher int. If they're relying on a headband to use it then it's gear dependent and the whole thrust of this discussion is AC without gear.
Natural Armor isn't avaliable to most PC races so I don't think it's fair to include in a generalized discussion.
Crane style fair enough. Though it's pretty feat intensive for your run of the mill fighter who's already usually doing other stuff with both his hands.
Dodge and inherent bonuses I mentioned.
3 ranks in acrobatics nets you a +1 AC when fighting defensively (which I'll admit you should probably be doing if you're getting into fights starkers) so fair enough. I revise my number to a whopping +5
Though 3 of it still comes from magic (inherent bonuses) not fighting prowess.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I've actually down was allowing each rank in Acrobatics to be added into your AC as a Dodge bonus, so long as you are wearing light armor. Armor check penalties lower the value and you completely lose it when wearing medium or more or have a medium and higher load. Seemed to work very pre-Level 10 without invalidating heavy armor builds, though I wonder how the math would be at higher levels.
EDIT: I'm getting all poo brain here. Meant to say half your ranks in Acrobatics go to AC.