|
I'm sure this may have already been posted somewhere on the forums, but I wanted to throw out and idea over here to and see if I can get some feedback.
The primary focus of this thread is to allow martially inclined characters a built-in way to average out their attacks as a choice selection each round, in some cases lowing their first attack, in others eliminating their lowest attack so their other attacks have a chance to hit - all by using total BAB as the variable.
These alt attack values may be more effective when the player has a good guesstimate as to target defenses, would rather increase the chance to hit with two attacks instead of rolling three and hitting only with one, etc.
The idea would be that the player picks the attack routine at the beginning of the round. For the purpose of book keeping (for the players) I will probably only stat up two schemes (core and 1 alt).
Here it is:
+7/+2, Alt attack: +5/+4 (Total BAB 9)
+8/+3, Alt attack: +6/+5 (Total BAB 11)
+9/+4, Alt attack: +7/+6 (Total BAB 13)
+10/+5, Alt attack: +8/+7 (Total BAB 15)
+11/+6/+1, Alt attack: +9/+9 or +9/+5/+4 (Total BAB 18)
+12/+7/+2, Alt attack: +11/+10 or +10/+6/+5 (Total BAB 21)
+13/+8/+3, Alt attack: +12/+12 or +11/+7/+6 (Total BAB 24)
+14/+9/+4, Alt attack: +14/+13 or +12/+8/+7(Total BAB 27)
+15/+10/+5, Alt attack: +15/+15 or +13/+9/+8 (Total BAB 30)
+16/+11/+6/+1, Alt attack: +15/+15/+4 or +13/+11/+10 (Total BAB 34)
+17/+12/+7/+2, Alt attack: +16/+16/+6 or +15/+12/+11 (Total BAB 38)
+18/+13/+8/+3, Alt attack: +17/+17/+8 or +17/+13/+12 (Total BAB 42)
+19/+14/+9/+4, Alt attack: +18/+18/+10 or +18/+15/+13(Total BAB 46)
+20/+15/+10/+5, Alt attack: +19/+19/+12 or +19/+16/+15(Total BAB 50)
The numbers always add up to total BAB (including extra attacks), one rule, cannot go over base BAB for total level. In an open allocation system, the player could decide the array as long as it doesn't go over total points or over total hit die and maximum number of allowable attacks at level(so no: +1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+/+1/+1 for a 7th level fighter).
So you could write out a scheme that gives +14 BAB for first attack for a 13th level fighter/1st level cleric, since total level = 14.
My main focus was to dump or average out that extra +1 or +3 attack into a tighter attack scheme. I know Trailblazer does something similar, but this I believe is different (at least the math is).
Note on multi-classing: Combine BAB of all classes to get Base BAB number. This is the number you would work with for the character in question. So a 5th level Fighter(+5)/5th Level wizard(+2) would be on BAB +7 = +7/+2, Alt attack: +5/+4 (Total BAB 9). Since he is 10th level he can decide to make 1 attack at +9 or since he has high enough BAB for two attacks: +8/+1 or +7/+2 or +6/+3 or +5/+4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As an a aside alt rule: I was considering using up BAB points for extra combat maneuvers (min +5 BAB worth of points).
Example. 12th level fighter with an alt attack scheme of +10/+6/+5 sacrifices the last +5 so that he has +10 (combat maneuver included)/+6
So in effect, you roll that +5 into one of your other attacks as a standard action to perform a maneuver.
So +10(CM)/+6 or if the player likes: +12(CM)/+4 for the best chances to get that CM in.
Some combat maneuvers that can be included:
Aid another (attack or AC bonus of adjacent ally)
Bull Rush (as part of combined attack)
Disarm (as part of combined attack)
Over run (as part of combined attack)
Sunder (as part of combined attack)
Dirty Trick (as part of combined attack)
Drag (as part of combined attack)
Reposition (as part of combined attack)
All would still invoke AoO, unless you have the appropriate feat, but manuvers would be part of attack scheme. All rules are the same - though the manuver added attack must hit, and them CMB/CMD contest and checks occur as if conducting the move as a standard action.
Just a thought exercise.
Gouge away –is it crap for martials or a good alt to that annoying +2 or +3 attack that probably isn’t going to hit anyway?
I don't see a problem with it, other than a little extra math for the players to do, and extra headache for the DM to make sure the player's algebra is up to par. Seems fair enough.
But I REALLY like the idea of 'spending' your BAB to do combat maneuvers.
I like the open option you included so later attacks can have use, either being rolled up for a better bonus or spread out evenly.
The maneuver thing confused me. Where did the +5 go?
|
|
I like the open option you included so later attacks can have use, either being rolled up for a better bonus or spread out evenly.
The maneuver thing confused me. Where did the +5 go?
I used the +5 to "buy" a maneuver into a combined attack, so by eating up a full 5 BAB, you can combine one of the maneuvers into your attack (assumed the highest you have left over). You could (if you had high enough total BAB) do multiple attacks w/combined maneuvers.
So say a 15th level fighter: Alt attack: +15/+15 or (Total BAB 30)
wanted to disarm/attack two foes facing him, it would look like this:
+10(CM)/+10(CM). Using +5 from each of his two atacks to buy the Disarm CM. Still needs to check to Disarm as a separate maneuver using the normal system (AoO, checks, etc) but it does give him increased attack options rolled into his attack.
Using a Level 7 fighter example to Bull Rush: Alt attack: +5/+4 (Total BAB 9)
+4(CM)
So in this instance the Fighter is giving up +5 BAB from his total (and one of his attacks) but is combining a Bull Rush maneuver action into his single attack for (hopefully) greater effect.
I personally have never liked separating out maneuvers as standard actions vs. types of attacks, but this system sort of remedies the problem - at least if you are high enough level/enough BAB.
I think the "averaging out" of attacks works really well when the Fighter type is going against foes at below, at CR and +1 CR and is still confident that he can hit foes.
That way his BAB isn't wasted all on his one first attack (which is usually more than he needs), and he can deploy multiple attacks/smashing in heads with a reasonable expectation of hitting.
Thanks for the feedback.
Interesting.
Must think about this...
Looks very interesting (aka dotting).
So by rolling the Maneuver into the attack, you perform both the attack and the maneuver with the same iterative attack, right?
So if my BAB is 15, I can lose my final attack (+5) to perform both a trip and attack with my +15 attack, correct?
I want to make sure, because some combat maneuvers can be rolling into iterative attacks anyway. At least, by my understanding.
|
|
So by rolling the Maneuver into the attack, you perform both the attack and the maneuver with the same iterative attack, right?
Yes
So if my BAB is 15, I can lose my final attack (+5) to perform both a trip and attack with my +15 attack, correct?
Yes, you can roll it into any of your remaining attack schemes - ideally it would be the one with best chance to hit.
I want to make sure, because some combat maneuvers can be rolling into iterative attacks anyway. At least, by my understanding.
The ones that are not currently rolled into attacks:
Under my offering the Martial is giving up +5 from his total BAB (following the chart in my first post) and gets to conduct and Aid Another as part of his full attack routine. So you are trading +5 for an allies +2 to hit or AC boost. While not great exchange it can help boost an hurt adjacent martial, a martial conducting his own maneuver or feat that is hitting his attacks with negatives, or the classic - protect an adjacent wounded/squishy while still putting the hurt on the enemy in a single attack routine.
Under these variant rules you could Bull Rush while smashing a target while making the Rush (actually you are rolling for the attack first and then the Bull Rush).
Also, theoretically you could Charge, make your end of Charge attack at the end and then conduct another combat maneuver in that attack (any on this list, including Bull Rush) as long as you have the BAB points to spend.
Also attacks can be combined with these Standard Action types:
Dirty Trick
Drag (as part of combined attack)
Reposition (as part of combined attack)
You can conduct Sunder, Disarm and Trip, each as separate a melee attack. You could still "theoretically" sacrifice some BAB on the back end (the low to-hit attacks) to combine the Sunder, Disarm or Trip on your first, highest attack on the front end - utilizing that attack to also conduct the Sunder or Disarm instead of a separate attack. Again, this is dumping the low BAB value into the front end to get a combined effect (damage + check to trip at the attack value). The drawbacks being: If you miss with the first attack you cannot try the CM (eggs all in one basket), and you are giving up +5 BAB from somewhere, which may reduce the total number of attacks you get in a round. Overall though, it is superior in power to the take a Attack Action or Combat Maneuver system that is currently the rule in PF.
These changes are to the core rules are not "sexy" or very radical. In effect what I am advocating is twofold. Full utilization of BAB values as spread out over multiple attacks (in my first post). And combining some combat options - the bread and butter of the Martial classes - as incorporated actions by sacrificing either BAB or lower secondary or tertiary attacks.
One of the big complaints about Fighter-types is their ability to affect the battlefield beyond dealing damage. Under these rules the mart martial classes get a little more flexibility and a little more in options instead of mashing buttons or being stuck on repeat. A fighter can attack AND try to push back a foe at the same time - if he's skilled enough (re:level).
Granted these are not SLA's or magic powers to make Martials the same as wizards - that wasn't my goal. My goal was to give the Martial the ability to control everything he comes into contact with; by aiding his allies, repositioning or moving foes all while doing damage to his enemies.
This IS a power boost for Martials - but I believe at a balance point by making him take some trade offs to pull off what amounts to multiple combat type action types in a single round.
Again, I appreciate any feedback on this offering.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this is a very interesting, if mathematically advanced, proposal, but assuming you start players as 1st level characters, they have many levels to learn the rules by the time this proposal kicks in. i wanted to put these two tables side by side to cross-compare:
Full BAB Pool:
5th - 0 pts (and lower)
6th - 7 pts
7th - 9 pts
8th - 11 pts
9th - 13 pts
10th- 15 pts
11th- 18 pts
12th- 21 pts
13th- 24 pts
14th- 27 pts
15th- 30 pts
16th- 34 pts
17th- 38 pts
18th- 42 pts
19th- 46 pts
20th- 50 pts
3/4 BAB Pool:
7th - 0 pts (and lower)
8th - 7 pts
9th - 7 pts
10th- 9 pts
11th- 11 pts
12th- 13 pts
13th- 13 pts
14th- 15 pts
15th- 18 pts
16th- 21 pts
17th- 21 pts
18th- 24 pts
19th- 27 pts
20th- 30 pts
i notice the 5-pt maneuver-combo option, in my opinion, becomes actually viable around 8th level for a full-BAB character (at +6) and around 12th level for a 3/4-BAB character (at +8).
also, it should be stipulated (if you did already i missed it) that a character cannot burn BAB points to exceed their normal highest BAB attack. this is important for 3/4 BAB characters especially.
|
|
I put that in their somewhere rainzax, but its a good point to restate.
I was messing around with multi-classing BAB max a little. Let me know if you think this is too much.
Note on multi-classing: Combine BAB of all classes to get Base BAB number. This is the number you would work with for the character in question. So a 5th level Fighter(+5)/5th Level wizard(+2) would be on BAB +7 = +7/+2, Alt attack: +5/+4 (Total BAB 9). Since he is 10th level he can decide to make 1 attack at +9 or since he has high enough BAB for two attacks: +8/+1 or +7/+2 or +6/+3 or +5/+4.
Do you think a 5th level Fighter/5th Level Wizard should be capped at +7 max BAB to hit, or go up to +9 for a single attack (by shifting his BAB points under these rules)?
I guess my feeling on this is sort of mixed, yeah he's only a 5th level fighter, but he is still a 10th level character in total and he would only be getting 1 attack a +9 vs. a comparable fighter at 10th level who would have: +10/+5, Alt attack: +8/+7 array or +10(+CM).
Is that giving too much to the multi-classing character? Or do you think as a balance point/keep it simple he should not be able to go above his max total BAB, which would be +7? I was think of this as an exception rule for multi-classed characters who go into a full BAB class. Still need to play with some exploit points on that one.
Thank you for listing the 3/4 BAB pools.
|
|
what is interesting is that, under your more liberal proposal, a 3/4-BAB class (or a mixed-BAB multiclass, which amounts to roughly the same thing) can begin to recoup for 'lost BAB' starting at 8th level by shifting their BAB points into their primary attack, and for the second half of their career, from 11th level and on, can have a 'virtual'-full-BAB at the expense of iterative attacks.
this is especially good for 3/4-BAB classes that have 'proc' effects, such as Sneak Attack and Stunning Fist, or for hybrid martial/casters that use touch attack spells. classes that use this strategy would suddenly have a venue of viable mobility opened up to them. this could be a very good thing?
besides introducing the idea of 'martial level' as an analogy for 'caster level' seems a touch too complicating to justify inclusion.
|
|
what is interesting is that, under your more liberal proposal, a 3/4-BAB class (or a mixed-BAB multiclass, which amounts to roughly the same thing) can begin to recoup for 'lost BAB' starting at 8th level by shifting their BAB points into their primary attack, and for the second half of their career, from 11th level and on, can have a 'virtual'-full-BAB at the expense of iterative attacks.
this is especially good for 3/4-BAB classes that have 'proc' effects, such as Sneak Attack and Stunning Fist, or for hybrid martial/casters that use touch attack spells. classes that use this strategy would suddenly have a venue of viable mobility opened up to them. this could be a very good thing?
I think so - coming from a 1st/2nd ed background, I always felt that multi-classed martials in 3rd and PF got the short end of the stick due to BAB compiling and the way the attack bonuses are allocated.
While using my system does not make multiclassed Fighters as powerful as full dedicated martials, I think the option for BAB allocation undr this system does give some mixed class characters some good tactical choice options (as you said, all at a cost).besides introducing the idea of 'martial level' as an analogy for 'caster level' seems a touch too complicating to justify inclusion.
Lol, yeah - getting people to allocate the math and make BAB schemes seems to be complicated enough.
Technically, for mixed classes that have Full BAB+Anything less class combinations, they will always still be lagging behind full dedicated martials even if the burn their BAB to fill up the gaps for one attack. The main difference being that under this system they get the option to have one "best" attack as a choice vs. taking the default array which for secondary tier martials (rogues) does nothing imo. Getting one "best" attack for a higher level Rogue trying to sneak attack makes the system worth it -if just for the added options of sacrificing attacks for getting that one desperate hit in.
The major component that I didn't see was the difference between standard and full-round. In this system, as rainzax states, partial progression situations can catch-up to full progression classes. But in reality a rogue only has +6/+1 BAB when making a full attack. I would stipulate they can only do this number-crunching when making a full attack, or creating a prescribed list of changes for 3/4 BAB, starting at 8th something like:
Normal Alt.
6/1 6/1 or 4/3
6/1 7 or 4/3
7/2 8/1 or 5/4
8/3 9/2 or 6/5
9/4 10/3 or 7/6
9/4 11/2 or 7/6
10/5 12/3 or 8/7
11/6/1 13/5 or 9/9
12/7/2 14/7 or 11/10
12/7/2 15/6 or 11/10
13/8/3 16/8 or 12/12
14/9/4 17/10 or 14/13
15/10/5 18/12 or 15/15
This keeps the rogue 2 points behind the fighter at all times, or gives them nearly 3/4ths highest BAB with two attacks once they have three attacks.
Keeping the theme, here is full bab, which has a separate progression:
6/1 4/3 none
7/2 5/4 none
8/3 6/5 none
9/4 7/6 none
10/5 8/7 none
11/6/1 9/9 6/6/6
12/7/2 11/10 7/7/7
13/8/3 12/12 8/8/8
14/9/4 14/13 9/9/9
15/10/5 15/15 10/10/10
16/11/6/1 16/16/2 12/11/11
17/12/7/2 17/17/4 13/13/12
18/13/8/3 18/18/6 14/14/14
19/14/9/4 19/19/8 16/15/15
20/15/10/5 20/20/10 17/17/16
|
|
The major component that I didn't see was the difference between standard and full-round. In this system, as rainzax states, partial progression situations can catch-up to full progression classes. But in reality a rogue only has +6/+1 BAB when making a full attack. I would stipulate they can only do this number-crunching when making a full attack, or creating a prescribed list of changes for 3/4 BAB, ...
Excellent points on both counts Colonel. Any allocation changes at the beginning of the attack mean that the attacker should be considered using the "Full Attack" option, even if they end up getting only one attack after the number shuffling.
I didn't look at the 3/4ths BAB chart as much as I was focus on full BAB and giving those characters options with what amounts to wasted BAB arrays (under the current system in PF).
I like what you did with the 3/4 arrays, it gives them some choice options without stepping on Full BAB characters.
The major component that I didn't see was the difference between standard and full-round. In this system, as rainzax states, partial progression situations can catch-up to full progression classes. But in reality a rogue only has +6/+1 BAB when making a full attack. I would stipulate they can only do this number-crunching when making a full attack, or creating a prescribed list of changes for 3/4 BAB, ...Excellent points on both counts Colonel. Any allocation changes at the beginning of the attack mean that the attacker should be considered using the "Full Attack" option, even if they end up getting only one attack after the number shuffling.
I didn't look at the 3/4ths BAB chart as much as I was focus on full BAB and giving those characters options with what amounts to wasted BAB arrays (under the current system in PF).
I like what you did with the 3/4 arrays, it gives them some choice options without stepping on Full BAB characters.
Thanks. I was also thinking of a single tree with the one stipulation that your BAB cannot exceed you character level. This is for the issues that arrive with multiclassing:
6/1 or 4/3 or 7
7/2 or 5/4 or 8/1
8/3 or 6/5 or 9/2
9/4 or 7/6 or 10/3
10/5 or 8/7 12/3
11/6/1 or 9/9 or 6/6/6 or 13/5
12/7/2 or 11/10 or 7/7/7 or 14/7
13/8/3 or 12/12 or 8/8/8 or 15/9
14/9/4 or 14/13 or 9/9/9 or 16/11
15/10/5 or 15/15 or 10/10/10 or 17/13
16/11/6/1 or 16/16/2 or 12/11/11 or 18/15/1
17/12/7/2 or 17/17/4 or 13/13/12 or 19/16/3
18/13/8/3 or 18/18/6 or 14/14/14 or 20/17/5
19/14/9/4 or 19/19/8 or 16/15/15 or 20/18/8
20/15/10/5 or 20/20/10 or 17/17/16 or 20/19/11
Lots of versatility for lots of bookkeeping.
|
|
Most definitely a large amount of bookkeeping, initially I only optioned a single fixed alternate array which was my first listed alt attack in my initial post. The idea of giving the max punch if it meant losing an attack being the focus. Going that route you would really only have two BAB schemes for each level of character progression, vanilla (most number of attacks) and optimized to hit (reduced attacks) and would reduce the list of numbers that martial players would have to keep track off.
Opening up to all sorts of numerical combos provides more options, but a DM who wanted to use this for his game would still give his martials some nice options in his game if he just used the 1st alt scheme in addition to allowing players to incorporate CM in their attack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I was going to create a "stunt" system for +5 BAB (or more) trade-outs to incorporate into attacks, sort of like a list of maneuvers that go beyond the ones listed up thread. The issue for me would be, do I just allow players to try these stunts by sacrificing an certain amount of BAB (min 5) or do make them Feats so they could do them, track them as Fighter Tricks (similar to Rogue tricks)?
I wanted them to be so basic, that wouldn't think to need a feat to pull them off (say like, Death From Above - variant conditional charge attack). Just looking to add some more tools in the Fighters arsenal to pull off some crazy stunts (hence the "stunts" aspect of the name).
I haven't written any out in explicit detail yet, but I would balance them based off of BAB cost and how they figure into a Fighters increased pseudo-action economy increase that I have already put in this system.
|
|
two ideas:
1) what about an open stunt system, which anybody could use, with 'costs' and 'prerequisites' that included BAB-trading and prerequisite combat feats? such a system would favor classes with greater BAB and bonus feats as class features.
example:
Tackle (Stunt)
Stunt Cost: 5
Prerequisites: Any two from Greater Bull Rush, Greater Grapple, or Greater Trip
Benefits: As part of a charge, you roll your CMB against your opponent's CMD, adding any bonuses for bull rush, grapple, or trip maneuvers. If you succeed, your opponent is knocked prone, becomes staggered for 1 round, and you are either now considered grappling with him or he is thrown back 5 feet for every 5 by which your CMB exceeds his CMD (your choice). If you throw your opponent back, you may not move him farther than the distance you moved to make the initial charge.
Stunt Risk: If you fail your CMB roll, you are knocked prone and become staggered for 1 round.
...
2) unless you like the added complication of looking at attack schematics (you did say you have a 1ed background), i think that maybe the BAB re-allotment could be limited to full attacks with full liquidity, and agree that standard attacks should not be able to use the full attack point pool. but, they could use a standard attack pool, which would incidentally be equal to their regular (non-iterated) BAB. for example, +10/+5 has 15 full attack 'points' and 10 standard attack 'points' - allowing for a full +10/+5, a full +8/+7 (or other arrangement), a full +10(CM) (or even a full +5(2CM)!), or a standard +5(CM).
maybe there can be a 5 point trade out for 10 feet of regular movement? that is, a +15/+10/+5 fighter could move 20 feet and attack at +10/+10?
question: for a combined attack/maneuver, is this two rolling of the dice, or one rolling of the dice and the comparing of that value to two defense scores (AC and CMD)?
|
|
two ideas:
1) what about an open stunt system, which anybody could use, with 'costs' and 'prerequisites' that included BAB-trading and prerequisite combat feats? such a system would favor classes with greater BAB and bonus feats as class features.
Excellent approach - the stunt system would remain open (as I intended), but with gate controls of feats held by martials it does by default, become an expanded martial option system.
BTW, your tackle stunt example is spot on and what I was looking for. Something akin to an expansion of the existing current combat maneuver system, but takes it up a level in intensity. And is useful.
2) unless you like the added complication of looking at attack schematics (you did say you have a 1ed background), i think that maybe the BAB re-allotment could be limited to full attacks with full liquidity, and agree that standard attacks should not be able to use the full attack point pool. but, they could use a standard attack pool, which would incidentally be equal to their regular (non-iterated) BAB. for example, +10/+5 has 15 full attack 'points' and 10 standard attack 'points' - allowing for a full +10/+5, a full +8/+7 (or other arrangement), a full +10(CM) (or even a full +5(2CM)!), or a standard +5(CM).
maybe there can be a 5 point trade out for 10 feet of regular movement? that is, a +15/+10/+5 fighter could move 20 feet and attack at +10/+10?
Very impressed rain, I was trying to think of things to do with this system - but you actually put them out there.
The logic being that a small DR hedge is more economical against multiple foes and also my main line Fighters were so heavily outpacing the 2nd tier fighters (non-optimized or the Rogues) that enemy NPC ACs were going off the rails, making them untouchable to anyone but my top tier Fighters.
So I was planning on lowering the ACs (across the board), supplementing the change with DR and now 1st and 2nd-stringer martials could all play together. Damage output was still important to hurt their foes, but again - the DR wasn't nuts - just enough to make encounters last more than 1 or 2 rounds (if they should).
So, where did that leave my martials?
They had excessive to-hit numbers already, way over CR or even CR+4 AC foes. Now I was lowering their target ACs so their excessive bonuses were going to be even less relevant or needed in the system. So I play tested an Overstrike system. Per 5 over the target AC yielded a small boon (extra damage, neg penalty for creatures next attack, bonus AC to adjacent ally next to creature for 1 round, etc).
In effect I created a small suite of abilities for Martials who went over target AC by 5 (per 5, so two effects at 10 over) on their to-hit rolls. These abilities were limited to actual hit rolls.
What you have done here is negated my need for the overstrike system. In effect, using BAB as currency for combat related actions - not even just maneuvers, but the actual combat mobility issues and FA (which has plagued fighters since 3.0) is brilliant. So instead of excessive BAB, those extra points are used as (limited) action currency.
Extra 10ft for a 5 BAB trade out sounds more than fair, and could be a solution to the Standing/mashing buttons effect of FA in Pathfinder.
Now why didn't I think of that?
TL;DR - I think using BAB currency for combat related actions (including movement increases during the combat round) at trade off is brilliant and I am a little annoyed that I was so narrow minded that I only focus on attacks with system.
I also agree with you on the separating out: +10/+5 has 15 full attack 'points' and 10 standard attack 'points' - allowing for a full +10/+5, a full +8/+7 (or other arrangement), a full +10(CM) (or even a full +5(2CM)!), or a [b]standard +5(CM). Using optimized fixed arrays is still several choices more than existed in the game as it stands. I think round-to-round fine number manipulation can lead to a grind down in time, and what you are proposing still allows considerable option flexibility for martials.
Another "BTW" - Initially I was going to proposed the full "+5(2CM)!" idea in my opening post, but I thought that I would be run out of here with torches as and branded a heretic. Glad you had the nerve to mention it - I would run that option in my game in a heartbeat if the player was crazy enough to risk it.
question: for a combined attack/maneuver, is this two rolling of the dice, or one rolling of the dice and the comparing of that value to two defense scores (AC and CMD)?
I think this should be up to the individual DM and group in question. I was going to run them as an If/Then rolling situation: If you hit with that attack then your roll your CMB/CDB checks separately.
But for simplicity and consideration of speed you could make it one die roll and apply mods for the two types of checks.
The attack component must hit for the CM to trigger but you could easily make it one roll for the to-hit (plus mods vs. AC) and the use that same roll for the CMB vs. CMD. Very much a feast or famine approach to the situation, so I would leave that up to the players and DM for their individual games on how they would handle it - long as they understand that the rolled in CM cannot trigger unless the attack it is tied to hits (which is a cornerstone to this system).
|
|
interesting Overstrike abstract...
three lingering concerns:
1) 'liquid BAB' slows down combat. (just like 3ed Power Attack)
while this is true, this only becomes an option/issue starting at 6th level (for a full-BAB character with +6/+1 = 7 'points'), and so assuming that the game is started at 1st level play, this actually might be less of an issue as there are 5 whole levels of play (about 25-50 encounters, no?) with which to learn 'system mastery' such that it is fair to assume the players can manage their own character mathematics options beforehand so as to minimize the potential for slowdown.
2) 5 BAB 'points' for 10 feet isn't enough to adequately address the mobility issue of full attacks except at higher levels of play
(to compare: a 6th level fighter could move 10 feet and strike at +1/+1, an 11th level fighter could move 20 feet and strike at +4/+4, a 16th level fighter could move 40 feet and strike at +7/+7)
true, but at least it's better, besides, we could devise a stunt that utilizes Fleet as a pre-req to assist this:
Dash (Stunt)
Stunt Cost: 5
Prerequisites: Fleet
Benefits: You may move 15 feet as a swift action. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. For each additional time you have taken Fleet as a feat, add +5 feet to this move. For each additional 5 points you pay in stunt cost, add +10 feet to this move. You may not exceed your normal movement speed using this stunt.
Stunt Risk: If an attack of opportunity provoked by this movement deals damage to you, subtract that damage from your remaining move (in feet). You may only finish your move if you have sufficient movement to do so (round down to multiples of 5).
3) handing out free maneuvers is too liberal without investment.
a strong point, and so to heed it we could tie each attack/maneuver to a (basic) stunt with a minimal pre-req. example:
Reposition Attack (Stunt)
Stunt Cost: 5
Prerequisites: Improved Reposition
Benefits: You may declare one of your attacks this round as a 'reposition attack'. If your attack hits, it deals damage as normal, and you may also attempt a free reposition combat maneuver against the same opponent .
Stunt Risk: If your initial attack fails, you may not take a 5-foot step for 1 round.
some good homebrew goin' on here, Auxmaulous!
others care to chime in?
cheers.
Really loving how you're taking this in a different direction, as well as the options offered.
I'd love to play this in my table game, though sadly that's on hiatus atm... !
First off, Dot. This is really cool, if extra bookkeeping. Giving options to classes that don't rely on just magic is always good.
Second, I wrote some custom work based on iterative attacks from the point of view of weapons (weight, length, and maneuverability). In a nutshell, the smaller/lighter the weapon, the more attacks you get each turn.
http://pathfinderhomebrews.blogspot.com/2013/01/weapon-speed-pf.html
I would love to merge these two concepts together, I can see it working pretty well, but I am not sure if it is totally broken or not. Opinions?
Third, A few feat ideas.
Improved maneuvers: drop the price of adding a maneuver by 1 (stackable, minimum cost of 1 per maneuver).
Extra attack: you may create an attack routine that has one more attack than a character of your bab and level could. Your total bab does not increase because of this extra attack.
Defensive offense: when your attack routine has less attacks than normal for your bab and level, you gain a +2 shield bonus to your armor class; you may also increase this bonus by lowering your total bab for an equivalent amount.
Damaging maneuver: when you add a maneuver to one of your attacks, you can voluntarily give yourself a penalty to your cmb roll for an equal bonus to your damage.
Married to my (enter weapon here): when adding (enter maneuver here) to any of your attacks, if you are also wielding (enter weapon here), you gain a +2 bonus to the cmb check.
|
|
1) 'liquid BAB' slows down combat. (just like 3ed Power Attack)
while this is true, this only becomes an option/issue starting at 6th level (for a full-BAB character with +6/+1 = 7 'points'), and so assuming that the game is started at 1st level play, this actually might be less of an issue as there are 5 whole levels of play (about 25-50 encounters, no?) with which to learn 'system mastery' such that it is fair to assume the players can manage their own character mathematics options beforehand so as to minimize the potential for slowdown.
I agree with your premise whole heartily. If a group wants to play with a full array (i.e. Liquid BAB, great term btw) then it does put the burden on the martial player, but to be honest - I have never dealt with a martial player who scoffed at further options - ever. So to me this can be managed by the player with a little advance work and proper layout so that it doesn't need to become a number crunching exercise every time a player wants to shift numbers.
If you compare a mid-level martial to a mid-level caster you will find the caster character has: more options, more choices to record (change day by day) on top of several trackable SLAs tied to their class. The big thing for martials is calculation of bonuses most of which are static and not conditional.
I am of the mind or some extra work = extra rewards and options.
All that being said, giving a player 3-4 new fixed array options (optimized spread and inclusive CM attack schemes) for speed/record keeping sake is still 3-4 more options then what currently exists for martially inclined PCs in PF.
So I'm actually ok with both. I think to reduce the intimidation factor and to make it easier as a first try, limited fixed arrays would probably be easier to manage. As people use the system, they will start to ask - "well, can I lay it out my attacks like this - all the numbers still add up correctly" then a more liquid approach could be embraced.
points 2&3 + Dash and Reposition Attack
You really have a better grasp of the stunt process then I do.
I think your feat choice as a pre-req for dash is both controversial and brilliant (and intent may be unintended). Most "Fighter"-types won't take fleet due to the armor limitation. So the effect of adding into Dash is twofold:
A) This is a light armored Martial character focused stunt. Barbarians, Rangers, and Rogues - which is great.
B) Up valued a limited appeal/use of a limited feat.
Under an alt Stunt system, Fleet - which isn't taken by heavy fighters may be considered just for the mid/high level stunt option. So it wouldn't be taken at low levels. But when the player is higher level and has BAB to burn they may consider it just to use it for the Dash Stunt - which can help them bounce around the battlefield.
Even with a speed cap of 20 for heavy armor, moving 15 instead of 5 (at a cost) during a full attack is still better than the stand and strike routine.
3) handing out free maneuvers is too liberal without investment.
a strong point, and so to heed it we could tie each attack/maneuver to a (basic) stunt with a minimal pre-req. ....
Again, agree. You are taking existing Feats and expanding their use and value with Stunts, in effect making them more useful and attractive than they already were.
As a good by-product you are also not creating the dreaded "chain feat" with your Reposition Attack Stunt.
All characters can attempt to Reposition and Improved Reposition is generally for the Martial who wants to control board position, lines of defense, etc.
So a character already invested in these kinds of tactics gets a reward option at higher levels - which is free, but he still has a vested pre-req.
So what you are doing is pairing up Stunts with existing feats as criteria, thereby removing the free element. That should be the criteria for most all Stunts. The last thing I want to do is saddle Fighters/Martials with corner case feats to serve as a drain on their character choice resources. So far, the way you have presented this rainzax - without creating a micro-system with entry criteria - is pretty damn good.
This approach is reasonable and considerate of Martial PCs resources - are those words too soft to describe characters that trade in steel and blood?
Now which just need some meatshields to come in here and tear it apart or start making demands!
Stunt list so far (Rainzax)
Tackle (Stunt)
Prerequisites: Any two from Greater Bull Rush, Greater Grapple, or Greater Trip
Benefits: As part of a charge, you roll your CMB against your opponent's CMD, adding any bonuses for bull rush, grapple, or trip maneuvers. If you succeed, your opponent is knocked prone, becomes staggered for 1 round, and you are either now considered grappling with him or he is thrown back 5 feet for every 5 by which your CMB exceeds his CMD (your choice). If you throw your opponent back, you may not move him farther than the distance you moved to make the initial charge.
Stunt Risk: If you fail your CMB roll, you are knocked prone and become staggered for 1 round.
Dash (Stunt)
Prerequisites: Fleet
Benefits: You may move 15 feet as a swift action. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. For each additional time you have taken Fleet as a feat, add +5 feet to this move. For each additional 5 points you pay in stunt cost, add +10 feet to this move. You may not exceed your normal movement speed using this stunt.
Stunt Risk: If an attack of opportunity provoked by this movement deals damage to you, subtract that damage from your remaining move (in feet). You may only finish your move if you have sufficient movement to do so (round down to multiples of 5).
Reposition Attack (Stunt)
Prerequisites: Improved Reposition
Benefits: You may declare one of your attacks this round as a 'reposition attack'. If your attack hits, it deals damage as normal, and you may also attempt a free reposition combat maneuver against the same opponent using the same attack result.
Stunt Risk: If your initial attack fails, you may not take a 5-foot step for 1 round.
I can go either way on using the same roll. Again, this is more of a playstyle issue, since the 5 BAB hit is coming out of the attack (CM) roll (some where in their array), while the CMB check is not affected.
Since Attack(CM trigger) is under the assumption that the attack has to hit in the first place, it might make more sense to tie it all to one roll.