Apologies if this belongs in the Suggestions/Homebrew forum, but I'm looking specifically for advice on this topic.
I'm planning on running a small game with a couple of friends soon, and I wanted to make a couple of changes. One of these changes is removing full attacks from the game (while adding a stunt system to keep things interesting).
I'm planning on effectively giving everyone vital strike for free at appropriate levels, and I think my stunts will create enough variety and power that characters won't feel too weak against enemies.
However, I'm not sure what to do about monsters. Certain monsters (pouncing tigers, dragons) rely pretty heavily on the number of natural attacks they have when engaged in combat. How do I remove this factor while still maintaining their ferocity? In addition, I feel like it kind of ruins the fluff a bit if a tiger that's leaping at you only plans on using its teeth as a weapon.
Note that most enemies, aside from major foes, will likely not utilize the stunt system, as it would be rather difficult to keep track of it for larger masses of foes. This would lower their power if they also cannot use full attacks.
So what do I do with the monsters? Should they just keep full-attacks with natural weapons? Or should I do something else?
Thanks, and again, apologies if this is in the wrong forum.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not let the monsters just do what they do? Just because PCs cannot full-attack, doesn't mean that we now have to force dragons to just do one bite per round. Or does it?
Also, it's not just some monsters who rely on it. For instance, fighters and barbarians and especially monks rely very heavily on multiple attacks do deal reasonable damage. Vital strike is a poor replacement for this. I don't know how useful your stunt system will be, but it seems to me that if you remove multiple attacks from the martial classes, the spellcasters will be even MORE powerful by comparison, and likewise, those classes such as TWF rogues will also suffer.
Even more interestingly, if a low-BAB class can attack just as often as a high-BAB class, with the right buffs, that low-BAB guy might dish out similar melee damage (or stunts), which means fighters (etc.) might be entirely replaceable with high-STR wizards. That would be strange, but could be a plausible outcome of such a rule.
I'm not sure at what levels you plan to try to implement this but this pretty much ruins martial characters as well as archery based builds. It will make spell casters even more powerful than they already are and in general I think this a bad idea. Its especially bad for monks (who rely on a very large number of attacks with large damage die and okay bonus from strength) and rogues (who rely on TWF and sneak attack) and archers (who again rely on multiple attacks at range to keep up with damage from normal martials by being able to full attack every round). The only people it doesn't punish is casters who will still move and cast every single round. Ultimately this just feels like a bad idea. BTW, vital strike doesn't even really begin to make up for the damage difference when you consider that static modifiers from strength and power attack will very quickly overtake the additional damage from getting double weapon dice.
|
If full melee can stunt and do vital strike damage I think it can work. I suggest giving the devastating strike feat (and improved) to non casters for free too.
I assume the vital strike is free and gained based on BAB.
If your players want to be a monk there could be a prob. But you could just treat his flurries towards improving vital strike.
RE: Vital Strike and Devastating Strike: Yes, vital strike is gained for free based on BAB. Adding devastating strike for free (and its improved version) isn't a terrible idea, either. I agree.
RE: Casters: I agree that this does become a problem. One of the bonuses is that neither player is playing a caster. However, NPCs do present an issue, though one I think can be mitigated. The stunt system favors martial characters, for example. Other systems can potentially be put in place as well, but I don't think this is the place to discuss it, as I don't want to get too far into homebrew territory.
Thank you for your suggestions and replies,
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
I dont know what your stunt system does, but if it doesnt compare with the tome of battle system from 3.5, you are essentially completely depowering martial characters. You eliminate two weapon fighting and archery from the game. You drastically reduce what even 2 handed fighters can do at mid levels.
If you want to take out full attacks, you pretty much have to re-write the combat system.
My advice is don't: Martials are nerfed enough as is, why are you taking away 1-3 extra attacks which can equate to 2-4 times more damage?
Also, what do you intend to do to TWF builds? Do they not get an extra weapon attack?
|
|
Oh, you need to consider haste effects. (I suggest a crit range increase, as it kinda simulates an extra attacks chance to hit). Martial classes can do tons of damage for their level as normal.
In your game the problems people (including me) are mentioning might not come up at all. And you can boost their effectiveness in other ways if needed - if it is a problem.
My plan for TWF builds was to allow them to make a single attack at a penalty, and deal damage with both weapons if they hit.
The idea behind removing full attacks and adding in the stunt/vital strike system was to create more active and exciting combats by adding some incomparables to the players' toolbox. I note that too often, combat becomes a war of attrition with the opponents, as martial characters are encouraged to do nothing but full-attack, as are many enemies.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
If you're really set on removing full attacks, what I'd do is actually look into doing a complete overhaul of the combat system based off of Hackmaster's count-up system. Turns in combat are determined by how fast an action is (each action takes a certain number of seconds), and the 'initiative' is just how many seconds into combat you are. Weapons take a certain number of seconds to swing while actively engaged with someone, and a different number if you aren't having to defend yourself. Different spells take different lengths of time to cast (some are 3-5 seconds, others are 10 or more). With this system, each class can reduce the amount of time it takes to attack with a weapon based on their level, but progress at different speeds (fighters reduce the speed of their weapon the fastest). TWF gives you additional attacks with your offhand weapon. Really well thought out, and for things like haste you can just have them improve the speed by a bit more.
But really, removing full attacks from the game changes the entire combat system in its own right and will require a great deal of effort to rebalance after people start getting iteratives, and completely kills TWF and archery builds as mentioned above. It's going to take a helluva stunt system to make up for the losses and make casters even sort of balanced relative to the martials (except for magi, who get screwed by the lack of full attacking as well).
*Edit* If you're looking to give them more interesting things to do than just full attack, then give them environments to work with that provide meaningful bonuses. Changing the terrain to block certain monsters, trapping things with furniture, what have you.
Why not just implement the same thinking behind TWF into full attacks then?
Comabats shouldn't be going much longer than 4 or 5 rounds unless you have a gaggle of foes on the field, so unless you give your monster's crazy ACs and double hp, the war of attrition should be over quite quickly.
The idea of stunts is fun, but I don't see how that's connected to getting rid of iterative attacks.
My plan for TWF builds was to allow them to make a single attack at a penalty, and deal damage with both weapons if they hit.
The idea behind removing full attacks and adding in the stunt/vital strike system was to create more active and exciting combats by adding some incomparables to the players' toolbox. I note that too often, combat becomes a war of attrition with the opponents, as martial characters are encouraged to do nothing but full-attack, as are many enemies.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
I get that, but the problem lies in after about 5th level, you are leaving poor martial characters in the dust. Their effectiveness disappears. Archery ceases to be useful pretty much immediately. The way HP scales in monster assumes drastically more damage then your characters will be able to do.
I mean I agree with you, and support the goal, but you have to understand that adding vial strike and letting a two weapon fighter make 2 attacks isnt making up for what you are taking away. All martial character can do well (vs spellcasters) is do lots of damage. You are taking that away. You have to make DRASTIC changes to the game.
One option is to look at tome of battle from 3.5. Look at those maneuvers. Thats how awesome your stunts have to be. Classes that cant cast spells at 1st level should get either warblade, or swordsage maneuver abilities. Add in your stunts if you want, but you need to give ALOT to martial characters if you are going to eliminate full attacks.
Just take out iterative attacks. Keep TWF, and a limited monk flurry, then all your monsters with more than one attack keep them, but don't get itteratives. Leave AoO's as is...
Monk would get a total of 3-4 attacks with flurry of blows at lvl 20. TWFers would only ever get 2 attacks, but it's also a lot less feat intensive to pick up. Your archers would suck a lot more being only able to rapid shot, but I suppose this balances things quite a bit. I would only allow the first vital strike feat though, because anything above that has potential to break your game.
Possible outcomes:
Full bab classes mean alot less in alot more situations, with the exception of the fighter truly mastering many different styles of combat, Snake and crane style monks would dominate against single "big swing" opponents, miss chances and critical threat ranges mean a lot more, and almost very rogue would be gimped without imp feint. Just some thoughts...
I'd play it though.
If you're going to do this, I'd recommend using Trailblazer.
Yes, it's 3.5, but it is a product that basically improves the "spine" of 3.5/d20 games - which Pathfinder is based on. One of the rules modules is around removing iterative attacks, without nerfing the fighting classes.
My plan for TWF builds was to allow them to make a single attack at a penalty, and deal damage with both weapons if they hit.
The idea behind removing full attacks and adding in the stunt/vital strike system was to create more active and exciting combats by adding some incomparables to the players' toolbox. I note that too often, combat becomes a war of attrition with the opponents, as martial characters are encouraged to do nothing but full-attack, as are many enemies.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
I can see what your trying to do but I disagree with how your trying to accomplish it.
As others have pointed out... If you eliminate Full attacks you are severely nerfing martials and causing a huge problems for the combat system as a whole. Here is my suggestion. Leave Full attack as is but give them something else as a SECOND option.
Combine the Martial classes with the 3.5 Tome of Battle Classes.
Fighter + Warblade
Rogue + Swordsage
Barbarian + Warblade
Paladin + Crusader
Ranger + Swordsage
This way they still get to Full attack but they also have the option to use Standard action maneuvers. Its a win win, and you dont have to change the combat system or convert every monster that has more then one attack a round. As an added bonus you just buffed melee types to be more comparable with casters.
I recommend compensating martial classes by having them automatically acquire additional, predetermined feats as they level. 3.5 had some interesting monk-type feats that were like watered down MA Maneuvers from 2nd Ed.
That probably won't bring them up to par with the casting classes, but it could help.
2nd Ed. AD&D 'options' line had some cool rules for weapon mastery that raised the base damage of their chosen weapon by the next die type. You could make some similar rules, so higher level martial classes did higher than base damage with 'chosen' weapons; d10 goes up to d12,2d8,1d20/2d10, etc.
It's an interesting idea, but I can't think of a way to keep it balanced without spending enough time making additional rules, to make it worth it, tbo.
Please post what you decide on, I'm interested in seeing what you decide to do.
If you're going to do this, I'd recommend using Trailblazer.
Yes, it's 3.5, but it is a product that basically improves the "spine" of 3.5/d20 games - which Pathfinder is based on. One of the rules modules is around removing iterative attacks, without nerfing the fighting classes.
Hooray for $5 pdfs! Scooped up Trailblazer, really like a lot of what it has to offer. Definitely porting over their iterative attack system. It's very strongly designed, and definitely fixes some of the issues I have with the standard system. In addition, since I'm only running a game for two people, I think I might steal the 10-minute rest and action point system as well.
Thanks for the link. I've found it very helpful.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
|
An idea for a house rule that allows people to go either way would be with a custom feat and a tweak to how iterative attacks work:
Swift Strike (Combat)
Your honed combat experience lets you strike twice as fast as most.
With this feat, you can make an extra attack as part of a full attack at your full BAB, -5.
Prerequisite:Base Attack Bonus +6
Note: Once you reach Base Attack Bonus +6, you must choose either Vital Strike or Swift Strike as a bonus feat.
There would be Improved/Greater/Legendary for both, and the one you take at BAB 6 would determine which feat chain you'd get for free, and you could always take the other one later with the proper feat investment.
It allows crossbow specialists and people who'd rather be more mobile to free up a few extra feats (which apparently they need, due to getting less support than archers and other full-attackers), letting people take the other option, and letting the 1/2 BAB types get some use out of their slings and crossbows at higher levels if they want to help a fight while holding back on spells. It isn't as if wizards ever want to full attack anyway (barring a timely Transformation)
If you change Vital strike to add strength and/or enhancement bonuses in addition to the extra dice, and grant power attack/deadly aim and combat ex (to open up combat options like trip/disarm more easily) and allow this "dual hit" with twf to also deal double sneak attack and possibly the entire whirlwind attack feat chain (as they'll all be waaay more useful now and anyone who cant afford to spend feats on them will be getting jipped) then I would play in a game like that. Otherwise I feel you lose too much.
Most importantly, give monsters the ability to make all their attacks. To keep it in line, I would probably turn natural attacks into a more iterative system (ironic I know) where if they have two claws the first one is at full BAB but a second would be at -2. If they had a third claw it would be made at -4. It gives them opportunities where they may have to choose which attacks are best for a given situation and weigh how many they can get away with. Another way would be determine the number of attacks they will make and add a static penalty to all of them, like -(# of attacks-1) to all attacks (this way is less organic but maybe more balanced). If a dragon can't make their all their natural attacks, they aren't a dragon.
Interesting. in my games i removed standard attacks. Everyone can full attack as a standard action. Of course i have rules in place that deal with feats and ability, that would normally be made as a standard attack or replacing a full attack. It made the whole game more mobile without taking away from the power of martials (but instead adding to it).
we don't have this problem anymore, where martial characters are just too afraid to move for fear of losing all their attacks.
It also really helps rogues, monks and dual wielders in general with being useful in combat.
I think especially anyone focused on dealing damage with melee attacks would get hurt by removal of full attacks, because they have most of their potential in those attacks that wpould now vanish.
|
If you're going to do this, I'd recommend using Trailblazer.
Yes, it's 3.5, but it is a product that basically improves the "spine" of 3.5/d20 games - which Pathfinder is based on. One of the rules modules is around removing iterative attacks, without nerfing the fighting classes.
I heard Trailblazer mentioned once or twice in the past, but never checked it out until now. I like quite a bit of stuff that I saw in there. Worth the $5 if you ask me. Thanks for the link!
If I ever manage to co-ordinate properly with the people I've been in contact with recently into forming a group, I may try merging Pathfinder with some of the rules in there. Would indeed be awesome.
|
|
If you change Vital strike to add strength and/or enhancement bonuses in addition to the extra dice, and grant power attack/deadly aim and combat ex (to open up combat options like trip/disarm more easily) and allow this "dual hit" with twf to also deal double sneak attack and possibly the entire whirlwind attack feat chain (as they'll all be waaay more useful now and anyone who cant afford to spend feats on them will be getting jipped) then I would play in a game like that. Otherwise I feel you lose too much.
Most importantly, give monsters the ability to make all their attacks. To keep it in line, I would probably turn natural attacks into a more iterative system (ironic I know) where if they have two claws the first one is at full BAB but a second would be at -2. If they had a third claw it would be made at -4. It gives them opportunities where they may have to choose which attacks are best for a given situation and weigh how many they can get away with. Another way would be determine the number of attacks they will make and add a static penalty to all of them, like -(# of attacks-1) to all attacks (this way is less organic but maybe more balanced). If a dragon can't make their all their natural attacks, they aren't a dragon.
Ah. My first thought was that people who specialized in readied attacks, or people who didn't want to full-attack would be sacrificing some of their attack power for mobility. But yes, I'd allow other options, such as Power Attack, Deadly Aim or Combat Expertise to be used alongside either sort of attack. Rather than multiply the sneak attack dice, I'm not sure if I should add 50% more dice for each Vital feat taken.
This isn't really about natural attacks, so I never considered them. Between that and Whirlwind Attack,that feat chain works better if the adventure is the kind where you find yourself attacked often by lots of weaker things that keep coming at you, instead of fewer, tougher things.
If you change Vital strike to add strength and/or enhancement bonuses in addition to the extra dice, and grant power attack/deadly aim and combat ex (to open up combat options like trip/disarm more easily) and allow this "dual hit" with twf to also deal double sneak attack and possibly the entire whirlwind attack feat chain (as they'll all be waaay more useful now and anyone who cant afford to spend feats on them will be getting jipped) then I would play in a game like that. Otherwise I feel you lose too much.
Most importantly, give monsters the ability to make all their attacks. To keep it in line, I would probably turn natural attacks into a more iterative system (ironic I know) where if they have two claws the first one is at full BAB but a second would be at -2. If they had a third claw it would be made at -4. It gives them opportunities where they may have to choose which attacks are best for a given situation and weigh how many they can get away with. Another way would be determine the number of attacks they will make and add a static penalty to all of them, like -(# of attacks-1) to all attacks (this way is less organic but maybe more balanced). If a dragon can't make their all their natural attacks, they aren't a dragon.
Ah. My first thought was that people who specialized in readied attacks, or people who didn't want to full-attack would be sacrificing some of their attack power for mobility. But yes, I'd allow other options, such as Power Attack, Deadly Aim or Combat Expertise to be used alongside either sort of attack. Rather than multiply the sneak attack dice, I'm not sure if I should add 50% more dice for each Vital feat taken.
This isn't really about natural attacks, so I never considered them. Between that and Whirlwind Attack,that feat chain works better if the adventure is the kind where you find yourself attacked often by lots of weaker things that keep coming at you, instead of fewer, tougher things.
I was meaning to say those are things you should give your players for free as they qualify for them in exchange for taking their full attacks away.
|
|
I would be letting them choose which they'd want to do mainly, and even do both if they wanted to.
Also, the Vital Strike chain puts all your damage into one accurate attack, whereas extra iterative attacks have the staggered attack progression, which could be seen as helpful to people without as high a Strength or Dex, or who don't trust their dice.