| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Putting my vote in for Spell Resistance again. Its a cumbersome and unnecessary hold-over from previous editions of the game. We get rid of the mechanic and simply add the Monster ability 'Spell Resistance' which gives creatures +4 to saves vs. spells and SLA's.
Martials have to overcome AC and DR, casters have to overcome Saves and ER. We're already rolling a ton of dice as it is, and this mechanic needlessly complicates every single round of combat once you get to the middling levels.
Casters can selectively ignore both saving throws and energy resistance, as there are spells which don't have either.
SR is for those spells...although there are spells which ignore it, too.
DOn't forget martials also have to deal with concealment, cover, CMD, saving throws (critical feats), range, movement to target, terrain, AoO's from movement, full attacks vs standard actions, and conditions which largely affect melee more then spellcasting.
If you'd be kind enough to eliminate most of those, we can eliminate SR. It would speed up combat a lot more for melee combat not having to deal with them, vs a caster not having to roll one more die for SR!
==Aelryinth
Casters can selectively ignore both saving throws and energy resistance, as there are spells which don't have either.
SR is for those spells...although there are spells which ignore it, too.DOn't forget martials also have to deal with concealment, cover, CMD, saving throws (critical feats), range, movement to target, terrain, AoO's from movement, full attacks vs standard actions, and conditions which largely affect melee more then spellcasting.
If you'd be kind enough to eliminate most of those, we can eliminate SR. It would speed up combat a lot more for melee combat not having to deal with them, vs a caster not having to roll one more die for SR!
==Aelryinth
I'm not really sure what one thing has to do with the other. Enemy casters have to deal with the same thing friendly ones do, and enemy martials have to deal with the same thing friendly martials do.
Unless you're getting into the 'his wizard is more powerful than my Fighter thing', for which there are hundreds of existent threads. We've eliminated it in our games and its worked out great, though it has to be said that aside from the occasional Sorcerer, we tend to prefer martials and partial casters like Bards or Summoners.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Compared to other combat maneuvers? YES, it is the rocket science of CMB checks.Grapple still needs a flowchart.I keep hearing this comment from people, but I don't get it. Grapple's not that complicated; does it even have enough steps to make a flowchart? Is there something I'm missing?
Are you serious?
If you took out the stuff that's either not unique to grappling in the first place or is repeating stuff you already said, you'd hardly even have a chart left. Or to come at it from the other direction, if we're including general combat maneuver rules and spelling out the steps for things the defender can do after having been affected, we could make a chart the same size for every single maneuver.
Let's make sure that our flowchart for Trip reiterates that attempting it without the feat provokes an AoO and that the AoO's damage penalizes your attempt, and then spread out "you trip him" into multiple boxes to spell out exactly what that means in tiny, bite-size pieces. Oh, and don't forget the boxes for what happens if you fail by 10 or more, and sub-trees for how that's changed depending on whether or not you're using a trip weapon. And let's make sure to include boxes talking about flying creatures and multi-legged creatures too.
Then we'll make a "defender's turn" flowchart which spells out (all in separate boxes) that he gets -4 to melee AC, +4 to ranged AC, -4 to CMD, -4 to attacks, and -4 to maneuvers. Let's show a step-by-step process for standing up and the AoO involved, another for trying to crawl (including all variants based on any rogue talents you might have), another for attacking from prone (including a breakdown of success/failure on said attack), and so forth.
And that's just trip; there's extra boxes for disarm for trying it without a weapon or grabbing the disarmed item or disarming multiple items with a high check; dirty trick gets to have like half a dozen separate "defender's turn" charts based on what condition you impart; bull rush has all those movement shenanigans to track; the list goes on.
Yeah, sorry, but grapple is not significantly (if at all) more complicated than any other maneuver.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leaving them without defenses against spells without saves.Putting my vote in for Spell Resistance again. Its a cumbersome and unnecessary hold-over from previous editions of the game. We get rid of the mechanic and simply add the Monster ability 'Spell Resistance' which gives creatures +4 to saves vs. spells and SLA's.
I'm fine with Spell Resistance existing (Mathematically, it's rather like a miss chance for spells). I just think it should be added to monsters more judiciously, and I think the SR Yes/No line on spells could be a lot more carefully regulated.
I'm fine with Spell Resistance existing (Mathematically, it's rather like a miss chance for spells). I just think it should be added to monsters more judiciously, and I think the SR Yes/No line on spells could be a lot more carefully regulated.Leaving them without defenses against spells without saves.Putting my vote in for Spell Resistance again. Its a cumbersome and unnecessary hold-over from previous editions of the game. We get rid of the mechanic and simply add the Monster ability 'Spell Resistance' which gives creatures +4 to saves vs. spells and SLA's.
My personal tweak would make it based on spell level, not caster level. SR 1 means "ignores 1st level spells." (Most metamagics would raise this value, others wouldn't but still need higher level slots; e.g. Maximize would increase the spell level for this, but Quicken wouldn't)
My personal tweak would make it based on spell level, not caster level. SR 1 means "ignores 1st level spells." (Most metamagics would raise this value, others wouldn't but still need higher level slots; e.g. Maximize would increase the spell level for this, but Quicken wouldn't)I'm fine with Spell Resistance existing (Mathematically, it's rather like a miss chance for spells). I just think it should be added to monsters more judiciously, and I think the SR Yes/No line on spells could be a lot more carefully regulated.Leaving them without defenses against spells without saves.Putting my vote in for Spell Resistance again. Its a cumbersome and unnecessary hold-over from previous editions of the game. We get rid of the mechanic and simply add the Monster ability 'Spell Resistance' which gives creatures +4 to saves vs. spells and SLA's.
Like the 3.0 Rakshasha used to be. Yeah, I played a little Savage Species and it was sooooo cool to laugh at Magic Missile.
Like the 3.0 Rakshasha used to be. Yeah, I played a little Savage Species and it was sooooo cool to laugh at Magic Missile.
I was thinking Globe of Invulnerability, but I suppose Rakshasha count too! (I never played 3.0)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can think of three things, off the top of my cranium, from the very front of the book. Each is simply a legacy item from the dawn of the world's oldest tabletop RPG. Not one meaningfully helps the game. All three have been proven unnecessary by either Feats or Variant Rules. Yet these relics from a time when "demi-humans" inexplicably stopped gaining levels at some point persist.
Suspension of disbelief for the sake of magic is fine. It's the basis of this game. Suspension of disbelief for shoddy simulation that has benefited from 6-7 editions' worth of traditionalism is not cool.
1. Move the bonus to melee attack rolls from Strength to Dexterity. Whether or not my fast is quick enough to hit your face is a function of Dexterity. Whether me doing so hurts you (as opposed to simply annoying you) is a function of Strength.
2. Get rid of the current Armor Class concept. It's a clumsy marriage of armor and "dodging".
3. Get rid of the current Hit Point concept. It, too, is a clumsy mix of health and "dodging".
... the hit points gained at higher levels reflect less his capacity for physical punishment and more his skill at avoiding hits, his ability to dodge and twist and turn.
Sounds like Armor Class, to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2. Get rid of the current Armor Class concept. It's a clumsy marriage of armor and "dodging".
3. Get rid of the current Hit Point concept. It, too, is a shoddy abstraction that benefits from "Well, it's been around since forever".
You're advocating replacing these with, what, exactly? Vitality points? Armor as DR? People have been using variants of those for decades, and they've proved remarkably less popular than the current AC/hp model.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with Spell Resistance existing (Mathematically, it's rather like a miss chance for spells). I just think it should be added to monsters more judiciously, and I think the SR Yes/No line on spells could be a lot more carefully regulated.Leaving them without defenses against spells without saves.Putting my vote in for Spell Resistance again. Its a cumbersome and unnecessary hold-over from previous editions of the game. We get rid of the mechanic and simply add the Monster ability 'Spell Resistance' which gives creatures +4 to saves vs. spells and SLA's.
I don't like the underlying math behind it, primarily due to the fact that it's stilted against players. For characters like the monk, or companions who gain SR from another source like the Celestial Servant feat, it's actually more harmful than helpful as it's more likely to block helpful spells than harmful ones. Bards and Clerics are less likely to be picking up feats to let them pierce spell resistance since their spells are primarily pointed at their allies, and enemy spellcasters are generally at least a level or two higher than the party. Both of those factors together mean that Spell Resistance is just not terribly helpful unless the person who has it also happens to be the party's primary buffer and/or healer as well.
It's also inconsistent even within it's own rules. The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by such spells without forcing the caster to make a caster level check.
It says harmless means the same thing for spell resistance as it does for saving throws, but then goes on to say that a character must lower their spell resistance in order to be affected by spells with that descriptor, so clearly [harmless] does not mean the same thing for spell resistance that it does for saving throws.
I dont have a problem with a mechanic like Spell Resistance existing, but I do have a problem with this particular mechanic, as I'm fairly certain it is not working as intended.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
... the hit points gained at higher levels reflect less his capacity for physical punishment and more his skill at avoiding hits, his ability to dodge and twist and turn.
Where does it say that?
All I found is this:
What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
I know I've heard of other games describing HP as dodging, but I don't think that's a rule in Pathfinder; I've never found the line you cited. Where did you find it?
Are you serious?
Yep. Sorry but, while you make some good points about the flowcharts, I still maintain that grapple is at least an order of magnitude more complicated than any other combat maneuver out there. The only thing that comes close to the hassle of grapple is dirty trick and that's because the GM is required to make a judgement call every single round on what can be done. Even then, that's not so much complicated as just arbitrary on how it'll work each round. In contrast, grapple is...
- The only maneuver with at least 3 layers of the same effect
- The only maneuver which inflicts varying degrees of the same effect on the initiator
- The only maneuver whose base effect works differently depending on who started it
- The only maneuver whose base effect has exceptions to what some of its penalties apply to
- The only maneuver which takes more than one round to fully perform all its facets
- The only maneuver which requires additional factors for success in the case of reach attacks
You're advocating replacing these with, what, exactly? Vitality points? Armor as DR? People have been using variants of those for decades, and they've proved remarkably less popular than the current AC/hp model.2. Get rid of the current Armor Class concept. It's a clumsy marriage of armor and "dodging".
3. Get rid of the current Hit Point concept. It, too, is a shoddy abstraction that benefits from "Well, it's been around since forever".
I'm going to be weird here and agree with both of you.
I think the current AC system is quite unrealistic.
But, having tried to use them, the Armor as DR type variants are too much extra bookkeeping. AC works the way it does to make the game run more smoothly.
I'm fine with Spell Resistance existing (Mathematically, it's rather like a miss chance for spells). I just think it should be added to monsters more judiciously, and I think the SR Yes/No line on spells could be a lot more carefully regulated.Leaving them without defenses against spells without saves.Putting my vote in for Spell Resistance again. Its a cumbersome and unnecessary hold-over from previous editions of the game. We get rid of the mechanic and simply add the Monster ability 'Spell Resistance' which gives creatures +4 to saves vs. spells and SLA's.
I LOVE the way Star Wars Saga handled such things.
Essentially all saves were static DCs. And all force powers (spells) and other special attacks required an attack roll against them.
So in Pathfinder you might have the following:
Fort +5, Ref +2, Will +5
And anytime someone attacks you (which may or may not require an attack roll or spell resistance check as well) you would need to make a saving throw to mitigate the effects.
But in Star Wars, a similar character would look more like this:
Fortitude Defense 15, Reflex Defense 12*, Will Defense 15
So if somebody poisons me, the poison makes an attack roll against my Fortitude Defense (more potent poisons have higher attack rolls). If someone tried to turn me into a bunny, shoot me or blow me up, or charm me, they would have to make "attack rolls" against my Fortitude, Reflex, and Will Defense respectively. The attack rolls could be static (such as with some poisons) or could be based on the attacker's own stats (as they are in Pathfinder).
I found this to be an elegant method of handling pretty much every kind of attack you could ever imagine. Pathfinder sort of went in that direction with Combat Maneuvers and Combat Defense (essentially copying the attack/AC paradigm), but could have been SO much simpler if they had they applied that to other things such as saves.
I sincerely hope they take this route if they ever make a Pathfinder v2. It would simplify HUGE SWATHS of the system.
* Doubles as armor class.
I don't like the underlying math behind it, primarily due to the fact that it's stilted against players. For characters like the monk, or companions who gain SR from another source like the Celestial Servant feat, it's actually more harmful than helpful as it's more likely to block helpful spells than harmful ones. Bards and Clerics are less likely to be picking up feats to let them pierce spell resistance since their spells are primarily pointed at their allies, and enemy spellcasters are generally at least a level or two higher than the party. Both of those factors together mean that Spell Resistance is just not terribly helpful unless the person who has it also happens to be the party's primary buffer and/or healer as well.
Yeah. The 'lower spell resistance' thing is a oft-ignored rule. Not just on the player side, either. When running an encounter against a group of SR-having enemies with class levels (drow, for instance) pretty much everyone forgets they should have trouble with healing or buff spells.
You're advocating replacing these with, what, exactly? Vitality points? Armor as DR? People have been using variants of those for decades, and they've proved remarkably less popular than the current AC/hp model.
I think the Armor as DR, Called Shots, and Piecemeal Armor variant rules are great starting points. Unfortunately, they haven't ever been thought through all the way by their design teams (in my humble opinion).
More importantly, though, the Variant Rules in Ultimate Combat exist in a vacuum. Heck, even Sean K. Reynolds once wrote a very good article in defense to traditional AC, rebutting in the process variants such as "Armor as DR". The problem was that he addressed it as an individual item. My solution would be to re-write all three so that they worked with each other.
1. Armor as DR isn't that difficult a concept to master. GMs are able to deal with DR all the time, thanks to a number of monsters. If you're looking to use this variant "as is", it just needs some text editing to make the reading easier.
2. Piecemeal Armor now serves as a function of Armor as DR. Instead of adding together the value of each piece of armor for a total DR value, track the DR value for individual locations.
3. Now, Called Shots becomes viable. Adjudication and debate for a lot of actions is dealt with. Characters can attack what they want to attack and take the appropriate difficulty penalty from the simple chart in Ultimate Combat. Hell, I'd go so far as to eliminate the Called Shot feats and make the default melee attack a "called shot".
It's not like people swordfighting, boxing, or whatever, don't aim at what they want to hit. Due to the current AC/HP systems, though, unless you're swinging a Vorpal Sword the location of your hit is either a random abstraction or arbitrarily decided by the GM.
And if it was my system to write, I'd eliminate shields from this sort of defense system entirely. Make shields do what they've always done: block stuff, not provide DR. Throw them under some dedicated parrying/blocking mechanic.
Sound complicated? It's really not:
1. You indicate what you're going to attack. The more difficult your target (e.g., "his eyes!"), the harder it will be to succeed.
2. Make an attack roll.
3. Resolve criticals as needed.
3. Roll damage to overcome DR - assuming the creature/NPC/whatever is armored/has natural DR in the location the attacker chose.
4. Assuming damage has been inflicted, apply Called Shot effects.
You've added two steps to the process, one of which takes seconds - at best. The other is simply a matter of the GM and/or the character to jot down a penalty - just as they would with any other instance of some condition affecting a character or an NPC.
My only grief with this system - which requires you to make one minor change to Piecemeal Armor - is that it is built around the current HP system. Because HP aren't changed, and because DR - assuming the armor is equal to the weapon being used - will usually mitigate at least some damage, the Defense score is engineered to be low enough for the attacker to hit more often than not.
Plus, even when you take HP out of the equation, I hate arbitrary crap like "Defense is a base 10 for everyone, plus a couple of (typically) minor bonuses." Really? My 10th-level Fighter has the same base Defense score as a 1st-level Wizard?
The main issue that needs to be addressed is the Defense Score mechanic that comes with it. It gives a flat base value of "10" for any combatant, which means that no consideration is given to the variation in skill between a 10th level Fighter and a 1st level Wizard.
Frankly, I would almost rather see a player make a contested roll using their standard attack roll against their opponenet's BaB + Dex modifier + other, applicable modifiers (but not bonuses typically associated with AC, such as armor enhancement bonus, etc.). I base this off of the idea that a person who seriously trains for combat trains for defense as well as offense, and that recklessness, etc., is sufficiently reflected by things like the Barbarian's rage penalty to AC.
But again - that would require the HP system to be fixed. Speaking for myself, the Wounds and Vigor Variant Rule doesn't satisfy me. Not on its own, and not as a supplement for the other three rules offered by Ultimate Combat.
Where does it say that?
...
I know I've heard of other games describing HP as dodging, but I don't think that's a rule in Pathfinder; I've never found the line you cited. Where did you find it?
I can think of three things, off the top of my cranium, from the very front of the book. Each is simply a legacy item from the dawn of the world's oldest tabletop RPG. Not one meaningfully helps the game. All three have been proven unnecessary by either Feats or Variant Rules. Yet these relics from a time when "demi-humans" inexplicably stopped gaining levels at some point persist.
Suspension of disbelief for the sake of magic is fine. It's the basis of this game. Suspension of disbelief for shoddy simulation that has benefited from 6-7 editions' worth of traditionalism is not cool.
1. Move the bonus to melee attack rolls from Strength to Dexterity. Whether or not my fast is quick enough to hit your face is a function of Dexterity. Whether me doing so hurts you (as opposed to simply annoying you) is a function of Strength.
2. Get rid of the current Armor Class concept. It's a clumsy marriage of armor and "dodging".
3. Get rid of the current Hit Point concept. It, too, is a clumsy mix of health and "dodging".
... the hit points gained at higher levels reflect less his capacity for physical punishment and more his skill at avoiding hits, his ability to dodge and twist and turn.Sounds like Armor Class, to me.
1) Actually, muscle strength is key when it comes to striking not only hard, but fast. There's more than one kind of fiber used in skeletal muscles, you see, and one of them is all about the fast reaction time. It's also something of a misconception that really bulky people wouldn't be very flexible. Muscles are meant to bend and flex, after all.
2) Think of it this way: if it beats your touch AC but not your regular AC, the blow is being turned aside by your shield/armor/natural armor.
3) Rolling with a damaging blow is different from taking it full on in the face. It can be the difference between a sucker punch knocking you out or just dazing you for a second. Granted, this visualization doesn't work quite so well when it comes to hit point damage from things like a Wail of the Banshee or whatnot, but it's otherwise a concept that gets the job done.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In contrast, grapple is...
There's more, but I think that makes the case nicely.
- The only maneuver with at least 3 layers of the same effect
- The only maneuver which inflicts varying degrees of the same effect on the initiator
- The only maneuver whose base effect works differently depending on who started it
- The only maneuver whose base effect has exceptions to what some of its penalties apply to
- The only maneuver which takes more than one round to fully perform all its facets
- The only maneuver which requires additional factors for success in the case of reach attacks
Every maneuver has details unique to that maneuver (or to one or two maneuvers). A couple of maneuvers care about how much you beat the CMD by (IIRC, one more only cares about that if you have a certain feat), while most don't. Some use your weapon, some might use your weapon, some can't use a weapon. Some can replace any attack (full attack, AoO, etc) while others require a standard action (heck, bull rush can only replace a certain type of attack while otherwise requiring a standard action). A couple involve movement while most don't. Some care how badly you fail, while others are risk-free.
You make it sound like every other maneuver in the game is just "roll against CMD, inflict [condition]" and then grapple is the only one with its own little quirks, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Every maneuver has aspects that it only shares with a minority of other maneuvers, and many (not just grapple) have completely unique elements.
Is grapple possibly the most complicated maneuver? Yes. But needing a flowchart (which is what I was originally talking about)? No. Someone who needs a flowchart for grapple isn't doing their other maneuvers correctly either, I'd wager.
Ravingdork, isn't that basically the 4E NAD (Non-AC Defense) system?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
See the very top paragraph. :)
Where does it say that?
...
I know I've heard of other games describing HP as dodging, but I don't think that's a rule in Pathfinder; I've never found the line you cited. Where did you find it?
While the armor and Armor Class system presented in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is tried and tested, some players may yet have a sense that it feels slightly off. That is to say, if a suit of armor is actually protecting the wearer from attacks that strike but simply fail to cause the wearer harm, why then do we say that armor reduces the chance of a hit? The abstraction has been clarified in the rules by defining what it means to be “hit” in combat as actually being “hit in such a way as to effectively cause harm,” but this explanation is still not enough for some players.
That does not appear to contain the line you quoted. In fact, I ctrl+F'd the page for "hit point" and didn't find a thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork, isn't that basically the 4E NAD (Non-AC Defense) system?
Fun fact, 4E didn't originate the idea.
Ravingdork, isn't that basically the 4E NAD (Non-AC Defense) system?
I'm not him, but yes, it is. SW Saga was in many ways a testing ground for the mechanics that went into 4th Edition D&D.
As to the OP, I think I'd prefer Pathfinder if combat maneuvers were easier to do and required less investment to pull off. They should be interesting tactical options for martial characters, rather than requiring multiple feats to do them without provoking an attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about an AC system that uses Armor as DR, and as a base 'to hit' AC of 10 + BAB + ability score + special bonuses?
For example, a 10th level Monk with Dodge would have a base AC of 10 + 7 + 1 + (dex and wisdom) + Monk AC bonus.
Things like Rings of Protection/Amulet of Nat Armor would add to the armor DR, stacking the way it does now.
Hmmm.... will have to ponder this further.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Armor as DR, Called Shots, and Piecemeal Armor variant rules are great starting points. Unfortunately, they haven't ever been thought through all the way by their design teams (in my humble opinion).
Iron Heroes does armor-as-DR and it works really well. There's an entire chain of feats for the fighter-types that gives you maneuvers to reduce an opponent's armor.
It was a class/specialty that I did in the one game I played and it worked really well. I didn't get a lot of kills, but I certainly made it easier for my allies to do significant damage.
Every maneuver has details unique to that maneuver (or to one or two maneuvers). A couple of maneuvers care about how much you beat the CMD by (IIRC, one more only cares about that if you have a certain feat), while most don't. Some use your weapon, some might use your weapon, some can't use a weapon. Some can replace any attack (full attack, AoO, etc) while others require a standard action (heck, bull rush can only replace a certain type of attack while otherwise requiring a standard action). A couple involve movement while most don't. Some care how badly you fail, while others are risk-free.
You make it sound like every other maneuver in the game is just "roll against CMD, inflict [condition]" and then grapple is the only one with its own little quirks, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Every maneuver has aspects that it only shares with a minority of other maneuvers, and many (not just grapple) have completely unique elements.
Is grapple possibly the most complicated maneuver? Yes. But needing a flowchart (which is what I was originally talking about)? No. Someone who needs a flowchart for grapple isn't doing their other maneuvers correctly either, I'd wager.
I'm not disputing that there are aspects of other maneuvers that make them complicated or that substantially differentiate how they work from how something like grapple works. Different =/= complex =/= difficult in all cases. Concurrently, I'm fully away that there is extra math and considerations to other maneuvers that doesn't show up in grapple. However, while there may not be the same 'succeed / fail by 5 / 10' aspect in grapple as there is in, say, trip or disarm or reposition, it DOES have things like the +5 circumstance bonus for maintaining or the -10 for tying up w/o pinning first. Where the other maneuvers have their own bonuses or penalties to the CMD check based on things like hands used, number of legs, etc., grapple has the issue of the grappled condition itself applying several restrictions and penalties that impact a LOT of different factors to the targets battlefield presence. While the factors involved between the maneuvers aren't the same, the concepts applied between them are in many cases analogous enough to consider them equivalent in terms of game complexity. I've certainly seem experienced players forget about that +5 or -10 on grapple before.
I'd also note that comparing the myriad complexities of ONE maneuver to the variations and complexities in how ALL OTHER maneuvers work isn't exactly doing a proper analyst. It's a 1-to-1 comparison between grapple and each other maneuver which places it at the top of the pile. If we leave feats out of it (grapple has at least as many associated with it as any other maneuver, I believe), it's still the maneuver with the longest chain in terms of checks made, actions taken, and time consumed to get the fullest effect from it. And again, grapple affects BOTH the target and the initiator. Nothing else does that by default (thankfully).
It's true, you don't NEED a flowchart to do grapple correctly. Same goes for all the other maneuvers. However, in place of the rote memorization of all the various minor and dynamic facets of the maneuver, it's definitely the one a flowchart would be most helpful for, especially towards non-veteran players.
1) Actually, muscle strength is key when it comes to striking not only hard, but fast. There's more than one kind of fiber used in skeletal muscles, you see, and one of them is all about the fast reaction time. It's also something of a misconception that really bulky people wouldn't be very flexible. Muscles are meant to bend and flex, after all.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that the human body is a complex engine, and that you can't arbitrarily reduce certain functions to categories like "Strength" and "Dexterity". From the second you do so, though, I think you need to apply logic that is consistent with the categories you've decided to go with. As described, Strength informs the damaging aspect much more than the quickness/hand-eye-coordination required to successfully strike someone.
2) Think of it this way: if it beats your touch AC but not your regular AC, the blow is being turned aside by your shield/armor/natural armor.
With respect, it's still two different concepts that do two different things being added up to one number.
3) Rolling with a damaging blow is different from taking it full on in the face. It can be the difference between a sucker punch knocking you out or just dazing you for a second. Granted, this visualization doesn't work quite so well when it comes to hit point damage from things like a Wail of the Banshee or whatnot, but it's otherwise a concept that gets the job done.
"Gets the job done" is basically what's been said since the 1970s. Speaking for myself, I just don't think that "gets the job done" is good enough. I think there's plenty of room for improvement. :)
See the very top paragraph. :)
Where does it say that?
...
I know I've heard of other games describing HP as dodging, but I don't think that's a rule in Pathfinder; I've never found the line you cited. Where did you find it?While the armor and Armor Class system presented in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is tried and tested, some players may yet have a sense that it feels slightly off. That is to say, if a suit of armor is actually protecting the wearer from attacks that strike but simply fail to cause the wearer harm, why then do we say that armor reduces the chance of a hit? The abstraction has been clarified in the rules by defining what it means to be “hit” in combat as actually being “hit in such a way as to effectively cause harm,” but this explanation is still not enough for some players.That does not appear to contain the line you quoted. In fact, I ctrl+F'd the page for "hit point" and didn't find a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're advocating replacing these with, what, exactly? Vitality points? Armor as DR? People have been using variants of those for decades, and they've proved remarkably less popular than the current AC/hp model.2. Get rid of the current Armor Class concept. It's a clumsy marriage of armor and "dodging".
3. Get rid of the current Hit Point concept. It, too, is a shoddy abstraction that benefits from "Well, it's been around since forever".
I'm going to be weird here and agree with both of you.
I think the current AC system is quite unrealistic.
But, having tried to use them, the Armor as DR type variants are too much extra bookkeeping. AC works the way it does to make the game run more smoothly.
Yep. Played with other versions, and they are clunky too. AC works, but it ain't pretty.
[
Essentially all saves were static DCs. And all force powers (spells) and other special attacks required an attack roll against them.So in Pathfinder you might have the following:
Fort +5, Ref +2, Will +5And anytime someone attacks you (which may or may not require an attack roll or spell resistance check as well) you would need to make a saving throw to mitigate the effects.
But in Star Wars, a similar character would look more like this:
Fortitude Defense 15, Reflex Defense 12*, Will Defense 15So if somebody poisons me, the poison makes an attack roll against my Fortitude Defense (more potent poisons have higher attack rolls). If someone tried to turn me into a bunny, shoot me or blow me up, or charm me, they would have to make "attack rolls" against my Fortitude, Reflex, and Will Defense respectively.
I HATE this. If one roll is gonna either kill me or put me out of the combat, I want to roll it myself.
(sarcasm) It's just sooooo much fun to hear "The Evil wizard casts a spell... you're dead!" (sarcasm)
If PF goes that way, I'll just go play another system.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I promise it works this time. :)See the very top paragraph. :)
Where does it say that?
...
I know I've heard of other games describing HP as dodging, but I don't think that's a rule in Pathfinder; I've never found the line you cited. Where did you find it?While the armor and Armor Class system presented in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is tried and tested, some players may yet have a sense that it feels slightly off. That is to say, if a suit of armor is actually protecting the wearer from attacks that strike but simply fail to cause the wearer harm, why then do we say that armor reduces the chance of a hit? The abstraction has been clarified in the rules by defining what it means to be “hit” in combat as actually being “hit in such a way as to effectively cause harm,” but this explanation is still not enough for some players.That does not appear to contain the line you quoted. In fact, I ctrl+F'd the page for "hit point" and didn't find a thing.
Hm, okay. So there's not actually a game mechanic in place saying that HP represents dodging, but rather a contributor for a section of Ultimate Combat misunderstood the system and therefore erroneously made reference to a non-existent rule in much the same way that the original version of Prone Shooter removed a non-existent penalty. Got it. ;)
Ravingdork, isn't that basically the 4E NAD (Non-AC Defense) system?I'm not him, but yes, it is. SW Saga was in many ways a testing ground for the mechanics that went into 4th Edition D&D.
I've heard that said before too. I can't vouch for the validity of the statement, since Star Wars Saga and D&D 4E are worlds apart.
I LOVE SW Saga. I can't stand most of 4E on the other hand (though it did have a few good ideas).
Having all of your attacks follow the same general mechanic, rather than five or more different mechanics was a huge plus. Where 4E failed, I think, was in not leaving enough leeway for the imagination. Much of its mechanics completely destroyed immersion.
I HATE this. If one roll is gonna either kill me or put me out of the combat, I want to roll it myself.
(sarcasm) It's just sooooo much fun to hear "The Evil wizard casts a spell... you're dead!" (sarcasm)
If PF goes that way, I'll just go play another system.
I'm right there with you. Like I said, I'd love to see contested attack-defense rolls, a proper mechanic for parrying and blocking, ripostes for trained Martial characters, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're advocating replacing these with, what, exactly? Vitality points? Armor as DR? People have been using variants of those for decades, and they've proved remarkably less popular than the current AC/hp model.2. Get rid of the current Armor Class concept. It's a clumsy marriage of armor and "dodging".
3. Get rid of the current Hit Point concept. It, too, is a shoddy abstraction that benefits from "Well, it's been around since forever".
Vox populi vox dei is not the way things should work.
I would very much like to separate hitting from hurting, and actual physical wounds from just getting knocked out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where 4E failed, I think, was in not leaving enough leeway for the imagination.
I found it to be quite the opposite. It was so easy to reflavor things in 4e, due to a lack of invasive mechanics, you could re-imagine almost anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't stand most of 4E on the other hand (though it did have a few good ideas).
Like Healing Surges. I love there being a mechanic for meaningful out of combat self-healing outside of spells, channel, or CLW sticks. Doesn't make sense? Oh yes, it does. You're a badass with a broken leg, so what do you do? Walk it off.
Where 4E failed, I think, was in not leaving enough leeway for the imagination.I found it to be quite the opposite. It was so easy to reflavor things in 4e, due to a lack of invasive mechanics, you could re-imagine almost anything.
The issue I had with it was that all the mechanics for different classes were essentially the same, but with different flavor. So sure, that guy over there is placing death shrouds of the realm of shadows on his prey and that guy over there is calling upon the dwellers in the darkness beyond the stars to curse his foes, but realistically they are both just adding 1d6 damage.
It got boring as the mechanics were too homogenized.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that the human body is a complex engine, and that you can't arbitrarily reduce certain functions to categories like "Strength" and "Dexterity". From the second you do so, though, I think you need to apply logic that is consistent with the categories you've decided to go with. As described, Strength informs the damaging aspect much more than the quickness/hand-eye-coordination required to successfully strike someone.
That's what BAB is for, a quantitative representation of the fighting skill you've built up through lots of practice and experience. Think of it as combat-oriented muscle memory, your body remembering just how to place the type of blow you want where you want it and when you want it. A veteran legionaire is going to fare better in a fight than some level 1 farmer with the same weapons and ability scores for this reason. Doesn't matter if he's stronger or more agile, what matters is the experience lets him reliably get past his opponents defenses much more often.
With respect, it's still two different concepts that do two different things being added up to one number.
So, you don't think a large shield might prevent an arrow from hitting someone in the chest? Or that said arrow might fail to take a chunk out of a man's side if he's wearing fullplate? Or that a dragon's scales wouldn't turn aide dozens of such arrows that would otherwise turn it into a pin cushion? Because those seem like classic examples that can be perfectly well represented with the armor system as it stands.
"Gets the job done" is basically what's been said since the 1970s. Speaking for myself, I just don't think that "gets the job done" is good enough. I think there's plenty of room for improvement. :)
Fair enough, but the problem you run into there is how to handle damage as a whole in a completely new way. Every system I've ever seen has handled health as some kind of quantitative 'pool'. Even Numenera essentially has a "0 hp = dead" limit when your three attribute pools are all depleted. Anything less than a complete revitalization of how to represent player health seems likely to just amount to minor modifications of the 'hit point' system.
The issue I had with it was that all the mechanics for different classes were essentially the same, but with different flavor. So sure, that guy over there is placing death shrouds of the realm of shadows on his prey and that guy over there is calling upon the dwellers in the darkness beyond the stars to curse his foes, but realistically they are both just adding 1d6 damage.It got boring as the mechanics were too homogenized.
again, to me, that's a feature, not a bug. Unified mechanics are good; no having to learn a subsystem just to play a new class. Once you get it down, you've pretty much got it down for the whole game. And, as I said, it meant you could reflavor things easily, which was a major boon.
I like that mechanics and flavor are separate, and the lack of invasive mechanics. Let me do things like reflavor a wizard as an alchemist, or play a warforged where all his 'spells' were built-in weaponry.
again, to me, that's a feature, not a bug. Unified mechanics are good; no having to learn a subsystem just to play a new class. Once you get it down, you've pretty much got it down for the whole game. And, as I said, it meant you could reflavor things easily, which was a major boon.
The issue I had with it was that all the mechanics for different classes were essentially the same, but with different flavor. So sure, that guy over there is placing death shrouds of the realm of shadows on his prey and that guy over there is calling upon the dwellers in the darkness beyond the stars to curse his foes, but realistically they are both just adding 1d6 damage.It got boring as the mechanics were too homogenized.
To an extent, I agree. Most of my wizard attacks were lower damage but big on the area effect or persistent condition front. My dailies, like Ball Lightning (god how I loved that spell), had flavor to them that were decidedly wizardish. Each class didn't have to have completely unique mechanics as long as the general purpose, feel, and effect of their abilities fell into a range that matched what you'd expect of a classes achetype. The problem was that too many classes ended up having similar expectations and a wizard at-will would look functionally the same as a druid at-will, or a fighter encounter power would be all but indistinguishable from a rogue one. Without a solid set of class mechanics to reflavor and specialize all these repackaged attacks on the fly, you got a decidedly unpleasant degree of blandness. It's a good idea, but the execution ended up poorly.
That's what the players and GM are for. You don't use the system for flavor, you provide it yourself.
I can't stand most of 4E on the other hand (though it did have a few good ideas).Like Healing Surges. I love there being a mechanic for meaningful out of combat self-healing outside of spells, channel, or CLW sticks. Doesn't make sense? Oh yes, it does. You're a badass with a broken leg, so what do you do? Walk it off.
Yeah, that was a great idea.
But guys- remember, the rules here are NO EDITION WARS! so a little mention of what you liked or didm;t about other editions is OK, but don't get carried away.
I can't stand most of 4E on the other hand (though it did have a few good ideas).Like Healing Surges. I love there being a mechanic for meaningful out of combat self-healing outside of spells, channel, or CLW sticks. Doesn't make sense? Oh yes, it does. You're a badass with a broken leg, so what do you do? Walk it off.
Yeah, that was a great idea.
But guys- remember, the rules here are NO EDITION WARS! so a little mention of what you liked or didm;t about other editions is OK, but don't get carried away.
Doesn't the concept of 'Edition Wars' have more to do with a combative back-and-forth mentality in the vein of, "Is not, idiot / Is TOO, a$$#@!%"? We're not doing that here, we're having a discussion on game mechanics and flavor across various systems. No one's gotten near uncivil enough yet to classify any of this as a 'war'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The swimming and underwater combat rules are a mess. Falling into water, swimming and fighting while submerged should be especially difficult/deadly to most characters. Generally, the only real penalty that players face is a -2 to hit (which is almost meanigless at higher levels).
There's no way a person who is loaded down with 100's of pounds of combat gear, wearing armour and who actually doesn't know how to swim (why the swim skill can be used untrained is beyond me) should be able to fight against enemies underwater with anything close to normal effectivenss (if at all). Have you ever seen a big muscle bound body builder type (read: high Str and Con) who can't swim jump or fall into water? They sink like a stone! BTW, ever actually try to swim while holding on to something in your hands (like a 2 handed greateaxe). If you are underwater and not braced against anything, you can't actually hit someone with any significant force. Also, thrown weapons are completely ineffective underwater but other ranged weapons simply get a -2 to hit? Modern fire arms lose their effectiveness and force after a few feet through water! How can a x-bow shoot at something from the surface to the bottom of a 100 ft deep lake.
In our campaign we had a Dwarf barbarian load himslef down with rocks in his backpack. Walk underwater and proceed to hack and slash several merfolk to pieces easily. It was ludicrous. Even the players felt bad about it.
That's what BAB is for, a quantitative representation of the fighting skill you've built up through lots of practice and experience. Think of it as combat-oriented muscle memory, your body remembering just how to place the type of blow you want where you want it and when you want it. A veteran legionaire is going to fare better in a fight than some level 1 farmer with the same weapons and ability scores for this reason. Doesn't matter if he's stronger or more agile, what matters is the experience lets him reliably get past his opponents defenses much more often.
That's separate from hand speed, hand-eye coordination, etc. Experience and repetition means you're more likely to succeed, but that supplements your natural ability (or lack thereof).
So, you don't think a large shield might prevent an arrow from hitting someone in the chest?
I think shields should contribute to (A) a meaningful block/parry mechanic (as opposed to adding a bonus to an abstraction), (B) provide some sort of cover/concealment, and (C) have some sort of mechanic related to the sundering rules, wherein that arrow might have a chance to punch through.
Or that said arrow might fail to take a chunk out of a man's side if he's wearing fullplate? Or that said arrow might fail to take a chunk out of a man's side if he's wearing fullplate? Or that a dragon's scales wouldn't turn aide dozens of such arrows that would otherwise turn it into a pin cushion?
Sure: hence, Armor as DR. I think full plate should, more often than not, block most weapons. But again, that raises questions about another abstraction: Hit Points.
Same for the dragon. Armor as DR basically means that armor acts in the game as it does in real life. Your training and agility making it harder for someone to hit you was a wholly separate matter. Armor, if anything, simply mitigated your ability to duck, dodge, etc. (which is why the armor cap on Dex modifiers is a great idea). What armor brought to the table was the ability to stop the weapon from hurting you when you got hit.
Fair enough, but the problem you run into there is how to handle damage as a whole in a completely new way. Every system I've ever seen has handled as some kind of quantitative 'pool'. Even Numenera essentially has a "0 hp = dead" limit when your three attribute pools are all depleted. Anything less than a complete revitalization of how to represent player health seems likely to just amount to minor modifications of the 'hit point' system.
Yeah, that's the big challenge. I've yet to figure this part out. At one point, I experimented with a very extreme system, wherein CON = HP, period. I obviously had to re-work the damage that spells did, as well as the entire critical system.
Even then, it was brutal. As a player, you had to be very calculating about what you did in combat (kind of in real life), especially if you were playing a lightly-armored/unarmored character. Full plate was very popular. As a GM, you had to carefully manage the CRs of your encounters.
And hey, some of this made sense. There's a reason why most European men-at-arms who could afford plate armor in the 15th and 16th centuries did so. There's a reason why certain tactics prevail and why others don't. And I honesty liked the pressure it put on a party to come up with tactics that made sense according to the situation they faced, as opposed to tactics that made sense according to the math that drives the game.
The best way I can describe the end product (and why I went back to the drawing board), though, is to point to the scene in "The Two Towers", when the elves show up right before the battle gets going. There's that noble elf-lord who greets Aragorn and says, "We are proud to fight amongst men once more," or some such. Anyways, you had this guy who had probably lived for hundreds, if not thousands of years. He was obviously very good at what he did. But his Constitution score was only so high, and so one jerk ork backstabbing him led to his death.
Like I said, back to the drawing board!
I can't stand most of 4E on the other hand (though it did have a few good ideas).Like Healing Surges. I love there being a mechanic for meaningful out of combat self-healing outside of spells, channel, or CLW sticks. Doesn't make sense? Oh yes, it does. You're a badass with a broken leg, so what do you do? Walk it off.
I liked that healing started at 0. So even if you were giving your half-dead meat shield a cure light wounds, it always got him back into the fight, rather than feeling like a waste (as is the case when you go from -14 to -3 and are still unconscious).
Where 4E failed, I think, was in not leaving enough leeway for the imagination.I found it to be quite the opposite. It was so easy to reflavor things in 4e, due to a lack of invasive mechanics, you could re-imagine almost anything.The issue I had with it was that all the mechanics for different classes were essentially the same, but with different flavor. So sure, that guy over there is placing death shrouds of the realm of shadows on his prey and that guy over there is calling upon the dwellers in the darkness beyond the stars to curse his foes, but realistically they are both just adding 1d6 damage.
It got boring as the mechanics were too homogenized.
I totally agree! After having played about ten sessions or so, I ultimately decided 4E wasn't for me when I got my hands on their first expansion book for arcane casters. I LOVE magic and was excited to read it. Then reading it put me to sleep. WTH 4E!?
The swimming and underwater combat rules are a mess. Falling into water, swimming and fighting while submerged should be especially difficult/deadly to most characters. Generally, the only real penalty that players face is a -2 to hit (which is almost meanigless at higher levels).
There's no way a person who is loaded down with 100's of pounds of combat gear, wearing armour and who actually doesn't know how to swim (why the swim skill can be used untrained is beyond me) should be able to fight against enemies underwater with anything close to normal effectivenss (if at all). Have you ever seen a big muscle bound body builder type (read: high Str and Con) who can't swim jump or fall into water? They sink like a stone! BTW, ever actually try to swim while holding on to something in your hands (like a 2 handed greateaxe). If you are underwater and not braced against anything, you can't actually hit someone with any significant force. Also, thrown weapons are completely ineffective underwater but other ranged weapons simply get a -2 to hit? Modern fire arms lose their effectiveness and force after a few feet through water! How can a x-bow shoot at something from the surface to the bottom of a 100 ft deep lake.
In our campaign we had a Dwarf barbarian load himslef down with rocks in his backpack. Walk underwater and proceed to hack and slash several merfolk to pieces easily. It was ludicrous. Even the players felt bad about it.
Yeah, I especially hate the whole "anything that is fully submerged has total cover from those above" rule. It makes no sense for a whaler to be unable to harpoon a whale from his boat, or for pirates to defend their ship against the kraken underneath tearing everything apart with its tentacles (unless you're an 11th-level martial with the Strikeback feat of course).
*sneers in disgust*