Martial and Skill Techniques that are not feats.

[Marthkus]

Orich Starkhart wrote:

I do think that the trade in Mobile Assault gives too much for the least valuable attack.

I disagree.

*As for pounce. You can use mobile assault to move and then pounce to only lose one attack when someone else would've to trade 2.

[Orich Starkhart]

Marthkus wrote:

Orich Starkhart wrote:

Stuff

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You see this as a problem. I don't.

As a response to my post about the movement rules and whether they have characters move faster in combat than overland, this doesn't make sense to me. This originated from your suggestion that I think of the speed of a monk, that this is an intended ramification of your proposed Mobile Assault technique, I asked you to clarify. Maybe the "problem" you refer to is the potential to do more moves with Mobile Assault in a full attack than the double move a character can do as a full round action? Yes, we can agree to disagree.

Marthkus wrote:

I'm against the idea that you can't perform certain actions out of combat that you could in combat.

Generally, I sympathize with this point of view. But I don't understand what you're getting at with your question "what is the purpose of run outside of combat?". It's a form of movement, at a higher rate than walk or hustle. Gets you where you want to go faster, at a cost.

[Weirdo]

@Orich - yes, I meant Improved rather than Greater TWF, I wrote that post at the end of a long day. Also, you may feel the action system needs to be overhauled, but doing so would change one of the basic assumptions of the system. It would not be a quick fix like, say, giving fighters 4 skill points, or giving monks full BAB and d10 hit points.

Orich wrote:

I thought the significant benefits of charge are the bonuses to hit and bull rush, which Mobile Assault does not provide.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone charge unless they either can't reach their target with a single move, or have a special ability that activates on a charge.

Marthkus wrote:

Run is for 3/4 BAB and 1/2 BAB characters. Nothing about an extra move action prevents you from provoking AOOs.

Sorry, I meant losing Dex to AC (consequence of run, not move actions).

Marthkus wrote:

Rogues benefit more from the skill techniques.

Giving rogues more to do out of combat doesn't fix their problems in combat, which this system exacerbates. A good class should be able to contribute both in and out of combat.

Marthkus wrote:

Not a problem. Pounce turns into an extra attack ability from an extra full attack ability.

It's more than pounce - it's also things like mounted charges, or feats like dragon style and charge through, which give benefits for charges (and in the case of dragon style, also the now obsolete-for-martials run action). These options will now be less powerful.

A ton of abilities that were balanced based on the relative costs of move, standard, and full-round actions are now going to be unbalanced in all directions, and that's going to affect a lot of abilities in ways that you can't predict without a lot more analysis. It's like pulling an arrow or piece of glass out of a wound - looks like a quick fix, but plenty of other things could start bleeding. I'm in favour of giving martials more mobility with a full attack, but it's counterproductive to give a huge relative nerf to charging and grappling.

If you can't respond to that with something a little more in-depth and thoughtful than "not a problem" I have nothing more to say.

[Marthkus]

Weirdo wrote:

@Orich - yes, I meant Improved rather than Greater TWF, I wrote that post at the end of a long day. Also, you may feel the action system needs to be overhauled, but doing so would change one of the basic assumptions of the system. It would not be a quick fix like, say, giving fighters 4 skill points, or giving monks full BAB and d10 hit points

I do not like these fixes.

[Drogantome]

I really like this concept and will be adapting it into my game.

I had some thoughts about the balance of these abilites and how they are learned. let me know what you think as the creator :)

Why not tie each technique to an associated skill? for example great leap can be tied to acrobatics skill ranks.

for those techs that do not have a defined skill association key it to BAB.

I was thinking of putting in a training time for a tech having players declare what techniques they are learning for that level. then once they level up the play needs to pass a number of skill/BAB checks against a challenging DC to learn the Tech. You can group Techs in catagories (im going to use basic, advanced, and master) so that you know how many skill checks the player needs to pass to learn it.

to limit how many techs you can learn at each level I was going to allow player to attempt to learn a number of techs equal to their INT modifier.

Lastly I was thinking of requiring an approriate skill or attack roll to execute a technique so that you can do auto abilities that can be unbalancing.

[Marthkus]

@Drogantome

I have separate skill and martial techniques. For martial techniques I had the requirements only be attributes and BAB. For skill techniques I had the requirements only be attributes and skill ranks. I don't want to blend the concepts because that would preclude combat focused skill techniques.

You can make learning the techniques tied level up if you want, but then they feel like feats.

These techniques do not have a limit for a reason. They are not created equal.

You can require a DC to use these if you want.

[gustavo iglesias]

Orich Starkhart wrote:

I know this is fantasy, but I want a sense of verisimilitude.

Then I guess you don't play Pathfinder. Because...

Quote:

Looking a the Monk at 16th level. That's 7 attacks in the flurry, and fast movement of +50 feet;

This is becoming my favorite example for the verosimilitude debate in Pathfinder, over the fact most martials can drink potion as if it were Coke, or fall from the Eiffel tower with no chance to die:

Said monk has, at 16th level, the ability to trip, grapple and pin a rhinoceros, with no magic item.

CMB=16 Monk level+ 5 str (a 14 starting +2 for human and +4 for leveling) +2 improved trip (free feat) +2 fury's fall feat (with Dex 14) =+25 CMB for trip (Rhino's CMD is 24 for trip). Then ki throw means you make him land in any square adjacent to you, and binding throw means you roll for grapple as free action (which you also get with 2+, even with the -4 of not having two free hands, because you tied one of your hand to your back just to make the things more fun)

So, let's talk again about verosimilitude in pathfinder and monks. Starting by the fact such monk can take a rhino by it's horn, throw it over his shoulder and slam it into the ground, and then make a judo-like inmobilization *with a hand tied to his back*.

[Marthkus]

For anyone else confused

verisimilitude  
Use Verisimilitude in a sentence
ver·i·si·mil·i·tude [ver-uh-si-mil-i-tood, -tyood] Show IPA
noun
1.
the appearance or semblance of truth; likelihood; probability: The play lacked verisimilitude.
2.
something, as an assertion, having merely the appearance of truth.
Origin:
1595–1605; < Latin vērīsimilitūdō, equivalent to vērī (genitive singular of vērum truth) + similitūdō similitude

[VM mercenario]

1 This is in the wrong forum. This should be in the homebrew/suggestions forum.
2 Some good ideas, but with a few horrfically broken things mixed in. Mobile Assault most notably. That should be more in line with Rapid Attack. Lose the highest attack for a single move action that can only be used tomove and only come only around level 9 to 11. And wounding strike is just no. NO.
3 redesigning the feat and skill systems is much easier than redesigning the action system, even because the skill and feat system are based on the action system.

[Daethor]

I had a desire for something like this, but I wasn't sure how to execute it. Not sure how I feel about being able to learn all of them, I might make the amount you can learn based on level. Thanks Marthkus! This a really good jumping off point for me :)