I published my "tanking mechanics" in Everyman Gaming, LLC's first product, Psychological Combat.
Here are some facts:
1) You can get people to do stupid stuff by getting under their skin in real life. There is no reason that characters shouldn't be able to do the same in a roleplaying game.
2) Without mechanics that allow players to control enemy tactics to some degree, character builds that focus on defense will never be on par with those that focus on offense.
3) The GM can make encounters more memorable and more challenging if she is given mechanics that give her more control over her PC's actions in combat.
To accomplish this, I created a universal Psychology DC (which uses the same DC as the DC to feint a creature in combat) that is used to combat antagonize, demoralize, and feint attempts.
Antagonize works by making a Charisma-based skill check against an opponent's Psychology DC (either Bluff, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, or Intimidate). How the check resolves is based upon a number of factors, such as whether you are trying to verbally or non-verbally provoke your target, its creature type compared to yours, its size category, and so on. Each skill has its advantages and disadvantages. Based on your result, you force your target to include you in its targeted attacks, but you don't actually restrict what your opponent can do to you. It can cast spells that target you, it can attack you with weapons, or it can act normally (such as moving around or buffing itself and its allies) as long as whatever hostile things it might do targets you.
I've been using my rules for almost two years now and they work spectacularly. I'd recommend giving them a try if you're interested.
|
you force your target to include you in its targeted attacks, but you don't actually restrict what your opponent can do to you. It can cast spells that target you, it can attack you with weapons, or it can act normally (such as moving around or buffing itself and its allies) as long as whatever hostile things it might do targets you.
This is the same thing my proposed system does, but nobody here seems to be able to understand that. They're all stuck in the antagonize feat's absurdity, where affected creatures have only one option: run in a straight line to engage the target in melee, provoking as many attacks of opportunity along the way as possible. No matter how many times I try to explain exactly what you just said, they refuse to hear it. Good luck!
This is the same thing my proposed system does, but nobody here seems to be able to understand that.
Kindly go back and re-read my post. I understand what you're ultimately after, and proposed an alternative way to do it that would also result in more dynamic combat. In moving as an immediate action, you're acting out of turn, so enemies can't throw AoO at you unless they're also able to do so.
I like the idea, but i would ignore the will save completely.
Simply would auto-succeed on it whenever someone does something really threatening to him, like a critical hit, or a strong damaging spell, or something that looks more intimidating than the heavy armored fighter in front of him.
In my tables, i always tell my players that they can "taunt" enemies using the standard action intimidate check. And unless someone is really standing out, the enemy will attack the guy who Demoralized him.
I like the premise of this a lot, encouraging teamwork. The last game I ran was a party primarily made up of casters that were evil and/or selfish, so this would have definitely made them work together a bit better.
I especially like your use of the social skills in combat, that to me is pretty genius.
One thing though, I can't see the last person to hit them be the immediate threat. I see the person who dealt the most damage being the immediate threat. In other words, I like your rules, but I think they need revised for critical hits and one-hit kills.
Perhaps a critical hit remains that mark on the target, unless followed by another critical hit.
|
|
One thing though, I can't see the last person to hit them be the immediate threat. I see the person who dealt the most damage being the immediate threat. In other words, I like your rules, but I think they need revised for critical hits and one-hit kills.
In my original design, each mark had a value determined by how much damage was dealt. You only replaced another player's mark if you did more damage. Then, the will save was based on that value. (Not the exact amount if damage, but a calculation based on it.)
But it was too much accounting so I simplified it. If there's a way to get that concept back without having to constantly write down or remember who did how much damage to each creature every round, I'd love to hear it!
Seems like a whole lot of extra complexity for what amounts to added limitations.
A good DM should be playing the enemies "in character" so the decision of whom to attack should come naturally.
I wouldn't want the rules to limit my abilities as DM to make appropriate decisions,and make me subject to "Player Fiat" *shudder*
Maybe there's a reason the enemy is attacking the person it's attacking.
It would be cool for a ruleset in a GM-less game,where all the players fight the level;but deciding who to attack and how is part of the fun of running a game.
I think it would be cool if PC's had access to Marking abilities,but having everyone mark all the time is TOO BUKU.
But it was too much accounting so I simplified it. If there's a way to get that concept back without having to constantly write down or remember who did how much damage to each creature every round, I'd love to hear it!
Use a damage threshold equal to 10 + 1/2 monster CR + Intelligence modifier. If someone exceeds it, they've marked it or what have you.
Might not be what you're looking for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A good DM should be playing the enemies "in character" so the decision of whom to attack should come naturally.
This.
While I get it that this is a game and that unrealistic things like fireball exist, it's still a game wherein aside from compulsions, you get to do what you want to do.
If you want someone to preferentially attack you, you have exactly two options:
1} appear exceedingly important.
2} appear exceedingly easily addressed yet still a threat.
That's it.
A bank is being robbed by a half-dozen masked and armed men. One of them has a gun to the head of a child. There is nothing that the other five can do to increase their priority in Joe Hero's mind. There is no way that the biggest guy in the thickest body armor can convince Joe to ignore the kid-threatener. No amount of name-calling, no amount of taunting, nothing, is going to change where Joe is headed. Note: I except such obvious things as "tank guy appears to have a bunch of easily-taken weapons", in which case Joe is going to head that way first in order to be ABLE to address the kid-threatener. Joe will still never fight tank-guy.
A bank is being robbed by a half-dozen masked and armed men. One of them appears to have a broken leg and is elderly. Joe Hero is going for that guy first, to eliminate one gun-hand ASAP. Again, the other five can jeer and insult until the cows come home but if Joe isn't being idiotic, the elderly crippled gunman is going down first.
Any mechanical system that isn't a compulsion (a.k.a. "it's magic") makes no sense, and cripples a DM's ability to have NPCs behave in believable ways.
I'm sorry, but what works for a video game doesn't work when you've got one player whose very job is to simulate things realistically and to present a challenge.
Look, you don't need to "mark" opponents or "draw aggro" in order to make tanking in general (and cooperative team play in particular) more of a thing. Instead, just let your martial guys move and full attack, and let them take their movement and/or iterative attacks as immediate actions any time during the round. Now they can step in front of enemies to intercept them, guarding their friends, and you don't need to roll will saves or keep track of marks or any of that. Combat becomes more dynamic, martial classes are more exciting to play because they're not just standing still and full attacking, and everyone wins.
Making move + full attack possible is something I did even back in 3.5, it really does help alot to make combat more dynamic, and martial characters more capable.
I need to remember to look at your rules system sometime, I get the feeling there's some ideas I'd like contained within.
If its unfair to use on the PC's how is it any more fair to use on the fodder? Because where i am standing, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
I understand wanting to try to speed up battle but this sounds like it does the opposite. Tho you don't take away ever option from the mobs you are limiting what they can or would do. In most cases it would be to get picked off as they follow a mob that has them marked while they run after trying to hit. Because lets face it if the mob had any brains they wouldn't be tricked by who they go after thru cheap tricks and this seems like cheap tricks to me. Which is why i say if its not good enough to use on the PC's. It shouldn't be used on the monsters.
When i play or go into battle i want a challenge not easy mode and this just seems like easy mode to me, maybe I'm wrong but i don't think i am.
|
|
A good DM should be playing the enemies "in character" so the decision of whom to attack should come naturally.
When you DM, are you really considering every single goblin or kobold's individual personality and motivations when determining which PC they decide to attack?
Or are you really just saying, "The goblins rush in, attacking whoever's closest, while the goblin king and his shaman stand in the back, making much more tactical decisions." This system is intended to free the DM from having to worry about what all the minions do while simultaneously giving the PCs more control over the battlefield when it comes to dealing with those minions. As designed, the system would very rarely dictate what a boss or even mid-range enemy would do on a given combat round.
Think about it this way: When Bruce Lee assaults the crime lord's palace, do you think the director really gives a damn about the faceless thugs that run at him single file? Who cares? These guys don't even have names. The thugs aren't there to defeat or even really challenge the hero. They're there to take up some time, provide some action, and show off how bad-ass Bruce Lee is.
The director is much more interested in, and puts more time and effort into the final showdown, the confrontation with the main villain. Bruce Lee's tricks don't work on this guy. He's just as strong, smart, and fast as the hero. It's dramatic, it's tense, and even when Bruce Lee wins, he ends up covered in cuts and bruises.
I think the problem here is that some of you consider yourselves, as the DM, to be the representative of the minions and the villain in the story. You're not. You're the director of the movie. It's not your job to beat Bruce Lee; it's your job to make the whole story as fun and entertaining as possible.
There is nothing that the other five can do to increase their priority in Joe Hero's mind.
I totally agree, which is why the aggression system is only used for NPCs, not PCs.
If its unfair to use on the PC's how is it any more fair to use on the fodder?
Uhh, because it's fodder and nobody (players or DMs) should really care that much about fodder? Guys, if you're DMing a game and you're upset about every goblin minion that falls in battle, you might be a little too eager to see your players fail. It's not you versus them; you're there to make sure everyone has a good time, not to beat them. If a player uses an ability (or, gods forbid, this aggression system) to their advantage to kill a minion, you shouldn't feel like they beat you.
Guys, if the system I've proposed isn't for you, that's fine. This thread exists so that people who either agree with me or are on the fence can help me fine tune it into something better. If you don't like it, please don't waste everyone's time cluttering up the thread. Thanks!
There is nothing that the other five can do to increase their priority in Joe Hero's mind.I totally agree, which is why the aggression system is only used for NPCs, not PCs....
Why are NPCs idiots?
I get what you're trying to do, and why, but I strongly advise against it. This would probably be one of the strongest immersion-killer houserules any DM could throw at me.
Use a damage threshold equal to 10 + 1/2 monster CR + Intelligence modifier. If someone exceeds it, they've marked it or what have you.Might not be what you're looking for.
Thanks! This will work for now.
|
|
Why are NPCs idiots?There is nothing that the other five can do to increase their priority in Joe Hero's mind.I totally agree, which is why the aggression system is only used for NPCs, not PCs....
Minions are easily fooled and manipulated, yes.
I get what you're trying to do, and why, but I strongly advise against it. This would probably be one of the strongest immersion-killer houserules any DM could throw at me.
It's just an idea, man. It can't hurt you. Good luck with your game.
It's working great in mine so far. More player teamwork, more cinematic fights, more challenging encounters overall. Win-win for us.
|
if you wanted to apply your 'mark' system more conservatively, possibly as a half way compromise between the two extreme viewpoints (mis-?)expressed up and down this thread, you could borrow the 'trigger' from one fellow poster's strain-injury rules.
namely, that three special conditions (only) warrant a 'mark' - serious injury (confirmation of a critical hit), botching (rolling a natural '1' on) a saving throw, or the felling (reducing to 0 HP or less) of a foe.
just throwing out ideas.
I just have them attack the one who dealt them the most the previous turn.Unless others,are in the way,in which case it attacks who ever is in the way.
Unless it has other reasons.
|
|
The mark would go to whatever person caused it the most damage in a round rather than to who hit it last
That's how the system was originally designed, along with the monster's will save being based on the amount of damage done by the player whose mark it had on its turn. But in playtesting, that turned out to be a lot of accounting and token tracking.
What I was hoping for (and what's happened in playtesting) is that the players interact more with each other and the initiative system. If the wizard is planning to throw a dart and the fighter is going to do a power attach charge, they discuss it and agree to delay/ready the fighter's action until after the wizard has acted.
I must admit I'm not a fan of the mechanic either. For me there are too many variables to consider. The monster's intelligence, prior experience, instincts/habits and tactics would all take precedence over a mark. I sometimes use Sense Motive to help the monster determine which party member would be the primary target.
E.g. a manticore is likely to be territorial and so would challenge the biggest party member, probably a medium sized fighter or barbarian. Even if hit by magic they are likely to still focus on the perceived alpha male
An ambush predator is likely to take out the weakest, probably a small sized rogue or wizard and then retreat
Some primitives are likely to take out the biggest perceived threat, which would be the martial characters until they saw spellcasting.
An intelligent medusa is likely to take out the wizard first, recognising the potential threat in advance
An intelligent vampire is likely to target the cleric first and then the wizard before picking off the rest.
This isn't a movie and shouldn't be played like the game is run that way. That fodder you think is so helpless could wipe the whole party or kill a player and should be played as tho they can. If they are just there to throw and i literary mean throw at the party being no threat at all. Then why have the encounter in the first place.
All monster have tatics and what your system does is take away all tatics from all mobs even bosses unless the mob or boss makes its save which if you want to play that way i say all the power to you but your playing a lesser of a game for it in my opin.
is there a function to Bluff a mark into or out of existence?
It doesn't upset me at all for i would never run a game that limits the game as you seem to want to do. You are taking away free will. Just because you consider a mob pointless doesn't mean it shouldn't have free will still.
is there a function to Bluff a mark into or out of existence?It doesn't upset me at all for i would never run a game that limits the game as you seem to want to do. You are taking away free will. Just because you consider a mob pointless doesn't mean it shouldn't have free will still.
To be fair, Headfirst is doing a good job of staying classy while not letting dissenting voices dissuade him/her. I've got to give that (lots of) credit.
|
|
To be fair, Headfirst is doing a good job of staying classy while not letting dissenting voices dissuade him/her. I've got to give that (lots of) credit.is there a function to Bluff a mark into or out of existence?It doesn't upset me at all for i would never run a game that limits the game as you seem to want to do. You are taking away free will. Just because you consider a mob pointless doesn't mean it shouldn't have free will still.
I agree, Headfirst seems to be taking a lot of flak for just an idea in the House Rules section. I mean, either take it or leave it, but to just come in and make nonconstructive criticism for a proposed house rule seems rude.
I think its a great idea, especially when half of my players came from MMOs and transitioned over to tabletop afterwards. I think this is a neat mechanic that my players would be used to and have the mindset for.
To be fair, Headfirst is doing a good job of staying classy while not letting dissenting voices dissuade him/her. I've got to give that (lots of) credit.
Agreed.
|
|
is there a function to Bluff a mark into or out of existence?wtf i was being serious. like, can a clever sneak-attacking rogue avoid causing a mark??
That's exactly how the bluff skill is used in this system: As a move action, a character can attempt a bluff check to avoid leaving a mark for the damage he just dealt.
There's a feat that makes it a swift action, and there's another feat that greatly reduces the difficulty of the bluff check.
is there a function to Bluff a mark into or out of existence?wtf i was being serious. like, can a clever sneak-attacking rogue avoid causing a mark??
In case you thought I was referring to you, I wasn't. I made sure to yank your quote out of my agreement.=)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Updated with feedback:
(v1.1)
Tanking is a boring, difficult, risky, and thankless job. It's also become a staple of fantasy role-playing to such a degree that more and more encounters are being designed under the assumption that every well-balanced group has one.
These modifications to the Pathfinder rules introduce a quick and easy method of tracking aggression in your game in such a way as to make encounters more dynamic, interesting, and fun.
Whenever a player harms or affects an enemy in any way during battle (using spells, items, skills, etc), he also marks it. A subsequent mark replaces an existing mark; monsters only ever have one mark at a time, the latest one applied.
On its turn, a marked enemy may attempt a Will save or Sense Motive check, DC 10 + the average level of the party. If successful, it may act however it wishes. If unsuccessful, any attacks or other hostile actions it takes must include the player whose mark it bears. If the enemy doesn't have enough movement or any attacks within range of the player whose mark it currently has, it may attack whomever it wishes. Marked enemies are free to take any other actions, such as fleeing or talking, but any hostile actions must include the player whose mark it bears.
Bluff - "Misdirect"
As a move action, you may attempt a bluff check with a DC equal to the highest damage you've dealt from a single attack this turn. If successful, you do not mark the enemy.
Diplomacy - "Soothe"
As a move action, you may attempt a diplomacy check with a DC equal to 10 + the enemy's CR. If successful, you may remove another player’s mark from the enemy.
Intimidate - "Challenge"
As a move action, you may attempt an intimidate check with a DC equal to 10 + the enemy's CR. If successful, you mark the enemy.
Witty
Prerequisite: Diplomacy 1 rank
Once per round, as a swift action, you may attempt to soothe an enemy.
Sly
Prerequisite: Bluff 1 rank
Once per round, as a swift action, you may attempt to misdirect an enemy.
Stern
Prerequisite: Intimidate 1 rank
Once per round, as a swift action, you may attempt to challenge an enemy.
Imposing
Prerequisite: Intimidate 3 ranks
Once per round, as a move action, you may attempt to challenge all enemies within 30 feet.
Subtle
Prerequisite: Bluff 3 ranks
The difficulty for your misdirect actions is equal to half the damage you cause (rounded up).
Convincing
Prerequisite: Diplomacy 3 ranks
Once per round, as a move action, you may attempt the soothe action against an enemy and, if successful, you may place the mark of any of your allies on it.
|
|
Headfirst,
I would consider removing the feats, and instead permit these abilities according to number of ranks. as follows:
Bluff: 1 rank Misdirect, 3 ranks Sly, 5 ranks Subtle
Diplomacy: 1 rank Soothe, 3 ranks Witty, 5 ranks Convincing
Intimidate: 1 rank Challenge, 3 ranks Stern, 5 ranks Imposing
This way, your aggro system sits literally on top of the already functional skill system, and in encounters you choose not to use this (such as a boss fight?), no character has 'wasted' investment in an ability you could simply turn off. plus, your characters who may have already taken these feats can switch them out for different feats. feats are a very limited resource after all.
Headfirst,
I would consider removing the feats, and instead permit these abilities according to number of ranks. as follows:Bluff: 1 rank Misdirect, 3 ranks Sly, 5 ranks Subtle
Diplomacy: 1 rank Soothe, 3 ranks Witty, 5 ranks Convincing
Intimidate: 1 rank Challenge, 3 ranks Stern, 5 ranks ImposingThis way, your aggro system sits literally on top of the already functional skill system, and in encounters you choose not to use this (such as a boss fight?), no character has 'wasted' investment in an ability you could simply turn off. plus, your characters who may have already taken these feats can switch them out for different feats. feats are a very limited resource after all.
I agree with Rain; I think the revision you've done performs your desired goal well, but the feats are an "excess". Adding them to skills makes the skills more desirable, and I couldn't see myself taking the feats over other aspects of the game.
|
|
I would consider removing the feats, and instead permit these abilities according to number of ranks
I like this idea as it makes the system more accessible to people who might not want to invest feats into it, but on the other hand, I really wanted there to be a way for people to invest heavily into it if it was something they wanted to work with.
Maybe I'll incorporate the listed abilities on the existing feats into the skill system and make the feats grant different powers that are even more useful, putting prerequisites on them that make them available around 6th and 13th level.
|
|
Maybe I'll incorporate the listed abilities on the existing feats into the skill system and make the feats grant different powers that are even more useful, putting prerequisites on them that make them available around 6th and 13th level.
Bluff - feat, 10 ranks, you never leave a mark
Diplomacy - feat, 10 ranks, you may switch any mark to another creature freely 1/roundIntimidate - feat, 10 ranks, your mark never leaves you
I like Rain's suggested additions, but I'd still recommend even them being added to skills - if only to further enforce the idea that skills should be useful - and I still wouldn't spend feats on them. This is NOT to say they're bad, but to stress how important feats really are in the grand scheme. The game already suffers from excessive feat bloat.