| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... I've been discussing a some possible house rules with a few friends of mine. The basic idea is to reduce overall damage output to avoid rocket tag, replacing it with increased mobility and in-combat versatility. A secondary goal was to make full attacks faster to resolve.
There is nothing concrete right now, but here are some of our basic ideas:
- Reduce the number of attacks per turn. No iterative attacks are gained at BAB +11+, instead, characters get a few perks, like the ability to reroll attacks that are deflected or miss due to concealment.
- Reduce the damage from critical hits (Maybe make it work like Vital Strike?)
- Hard limit on how many attacks per full attack can be directed at a single enemy (not counting AoO), so that natural weapons don't have too much of an advantage. (e.g.: max of 6 attacks per full attack to a any single target). Additional attacks could still be used to attack a different targets.
To compensate for that, characters would get a few perks:
- Ability to move half their speed and full attack, eventually upgrading to the ability to move their full speed before full attacking
- Combat Maneuvers do not provoke AoO, so that martial characters have more options in combat.
- Unarmed Strikes no longer provoke attacks of opportunity, but they still do not threaten, unless the character has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
- Skills allow for more extraordinary deeds, get a Climb/Swim speed if you have 5 ranks in Climb/Swim. The DC for moving without provoking would be equal to [10 + the opponent's BAB + Str + Dex] (no size bonus), etc.
- Get an second Swift Action at BAB +16, but can't use it for casting spells (nor for using the same ability twice in the same turn. maybe?)
Some feats become general combat options:
Power Attack: Any character with Str 13 and BAB +1 can use Power Attack. There is no feat requirement. However, Power Attack cannot be used in conjunction with Weapon Finesse.
Combat Expertise: All characters can use Combat Expertise. Feats with Combat Expertise and Int 13 as prerequisite instead require only Dex 13.
Bullseye Shot: Removed. All characters can take a moment to steady their aim or simply better position themselves. They can use a move action to get a bonus equal to half their BAB to the next attack roll they make before the start of their next turn. This bonus does not apply to touch attacks.
Now, some combat maneuvers can be quite abusive at low levels (disarm and trip, mostly), so to compensate for that, there are a few changes to their effects:
Prone: The penalty to AC and attack rolls is reduced to -2. Character can stand up as swift action and provoke an AoO, or do it as a move action and not provoke.
Disarmed: Not a condition, but the gist is basically the same as falling prone. When a character drops an object, she can grab it weapon as a move action and provoke an AoO or do it as standard action and not provoke (assuming she can reach the object, of course). If the character has BAB +11, she can do it as a swift action and provoke an AoO or do it as a move action and not provoke.
Admittedly, this makes Blasting and SoD spells relatively more powerful. To address that, SoD spells are mostly nerfed or outright removed. Blasting is more complicated, since it's usually not all that powerful anyway... I'd ban Dazing Spell, but I already do that anyway... :P
Now, these are just initial ideas, they are not finished and not all of them (or any one in particular) would necessarily apply.
What do you guys and gals think? Would you enjoy a game where your martials have lower damage output but a greater variety of options in combat?
Yes? No? Why? And if yes, how would you do it? Share your thoughts!
The idea here is to discuss the pros and cons of such a game, not any mechanic or house rule in particular, and if it you would find it more or less enjoyable than a normal game.
|
The good
Prone and disarm changes are not bad.
Like the half speed and full attack addition.
The bad
I dont have a problem with combat manuevers causing AOO without feat. The issue is the combat manuever system not the AOO without feat. IMO
The ugly
I like damage and SOD as is. Rocket tag is not a bug for me.
I would give it a whirl if someone in my group put the effort forward. To be honest, I would probably just grab 5E and run with it over this. Though if you have your heart set on PF you can probably make it work.
*edit ninja'd
- Armor grants AC and DR (DR 1/Adamantine, 2/Adamantine or 4/Adamantine, for light, medium and heavy armor, respectively). This DR stacks with DR gained from other sources.
Ehhhhhhhhh, no. Don't stack the DR. What you'll get is a lot of monsters with ludicrously high DR. Or just as bad players with DR high enough that they simply don't take damage from all but the heaviest attacks.
The bad
I dont have a problem with combat manuevers causing AOO without feat. The issue is the combat manuever system not the AOO without feat. IMO
I actually hate the fact that every time a martial tries to do something slightly different, he provokes an AoO. I want warriors to try different tactics instead of spamming full attacks over and over again.
The ugly
I like damage and SOD as is. Rocket tag is not a bug for me.
It's a feature. Just not a good one, IMO. But yeah, if you enjoy rocket tag, these changes are quite pointless to you, since reducing rocket tag is pretty much the whole point of this idea. (I also find SoD effects incredibly boring and frustrating).
I would give it a whirl if someone in my group put the effort forward. To be honest, I would probably just grab 5E and run with it over this. Though if you have your heart set on PF you can probably make it work.
WotC beat you to it.
Eh... I'm still on the wall when it comes to 5th edition... There is stuff I like and stuff I really dislike. I'll play a campaign soon, then I'll shape my opinion. For now, I'd rather make a few tweaks to a system I already know than start playing one I have zero with.
I might end up converting to 5ed at some point. But not yet, though.
Would I play it?
No. As much as I dislike AC as a mechanic and how fullattacks are handled, I see how entrenched they are in overall mechanical design. To avoid rocket tag, monsters don't trade full attacks. Martials might get two attacks per round until the spell casters lock down the enemy.
At times I can find the whole idea very aggravating and enjoy the short rocket tag combat, other times the prolonged chess match is interesting (if rounds don't take 30 minutes because people are looking up rules and free action strategizing with each other mid combat).
I don't like the changes to prone and disarm; the two conditions are some of the few meaningful conditions that a martial can impose on another character - nerfing that is nerfing martials in my opinion.
Provoking an AOO on maneuvers is a tool for me (to force out AOOs to enable other actions and making things safer for the other PCs).
I do like less damage and more dancing bit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WotC beat you to it.Eh... I'm still on the wall when it comes to 5th edition... There is stuff I like and stuff I really dislike. I'll play a campaign soon, then I'll shape my opinion. For now, I'd rather make a few tweaks to a system I already know than start playing one I have zero with.
I might end up converting to 5ed at some point. But not yet, though.
IMHO: 4th ed was a great system. The modern issues with WotC D&D aren't on the mechanical side. On the whole, I prefer how Paizo approaches sales. "Here's the rules for free! Look pdfs you can just buy and download! Pls buy our books! They feel nice...". For some odd reason WotC offering me the "Basic Rules" for free is somehow insulting. I'm like "What? You want me to learn a demo rules set? Yeah pass.". I also don't want to hop onto WotC's ship just before they make D&D 6th ed. If 5ed is around for like 3-5 years, I might consider looking into it.
Would I play it?
No. As much as I dislike AC as a mechanic and how fullattacks are handled, I see how entrenched they are in overall mechanical design.
Huh? AC is not changed in any way...
Not sure about these specific ideas, but yes, I would definitely prefer less rocket tag and less full-attack spam.
Not sure about these specific ideas, but yes, I would definitely prefer less rocket tag and less full-attack spam.
Yes, I'm more interested in what people think about the general idea... These specific changes are just stuff my friend and me came up with in a 20min conversation.
There's very little thought put on the specifics.
|
|
If you're changing the rules that much you might as well just start over so that the whole rules set reflects what you're trying to do.
Actually - a d20 rules set that does the approx vibe I think you're going for is Naruto d20. It's an extension of d20 modern (in the Naruto universe unsurprisingly) which reads a bit clunky due to all the rules (think a whole new spell system) but plays pretty well since each character only knows a half dozen or so moves.
Look it up. They have full attacks as in d20 modern - but the moves are such as the in and out hit & run happens.
If you're changing the rules that much you might as well just start over so that the whole rules set reflects what you're trying to do.
I specifically said they are possible ideas... Tsc... I guess I should have simply asked how people felt about the general idea and not posted any specific changes...
So... I've been discussing a some possible house rules with a few friends of mine. The basic idea is to reduce overall damage output to avoid rocket tag, replacing it with increased mobility and in-combat versatility. A secondary goal was to make full attacks faster to resolve.
There is nothing concrete right now, but here are some of our basic ideas:
** spoiler omitted **...
I would like in addition to the current rules as an idea but not as a replacement. Players that intend to quickly end an encounter will find a way.to.do.it. It is better to add mobility through house rules and ban/house rule things that add too much damage. You may also want to make it more difficult to bypas DR. Getting rid of things such as clustered shots will help. Having weapons apply a certain amount of DR instead of all of the DR may also help.
Also making combat manuvers not provoke is would not make them be used more. I have a reach cleric and I only try to use trips or disarms if I think the enemy is better at fighting than me. Other than that I will try to get rid of his hit points to ensure that I live longer and push action economy to the side of my team.
Huh? AC is not changed in any way...Would I play it?
No. As much as I dislike AC as a mechanic and how fullattacks are handled, I see how entrenched they are in overall mechanical design.
Idk, changing up iterative attacks effectively changes AC.
But yeah, definitely misread the DR and replacing AC.
I would you probably need to change how the power attack feat works and the bonus to strength due to the way 2 handed weapons work. If you nerf the damge either give all classes a +3 buff to saves or make spell DCs 5+ everything else instead of 10+ everything else.
..."Here's the rules for free!...
I don't think they have a choice with respect to the rules for Pathfinder being "free". Isn't that part of the OGL?
..."Here's the rules for free!...I don't think they have a choice with respect to the rules for Pathfinder being "free". Isn't that part of the OGL?
That doesn't mean they have to provide the PRD.
I don't get why WotC thought OGL was so awful. Oh no our market is increasing but OUR market share is decreasing in percent! Argh! Players using our rules for free, growing the hobby and extracting whales! How dare they!
NOTE: Pathfinder is a free-to-play with micro-transactions.
I'd suggest taking a look at FantasyCraft/SpyCraft. Some of the differences are:
Actions are handled slightly differently - Free, Swift, Immediate, Move, Standard, and Full-Round Actions are the same. However, Attack Actions are conducted as an "Half-Round Action". You don't get iterative attacks like in 3.5/Pathfinder (though BAB progression is identical otherwise), but instead you can ALWAYS make 2 attacks a round if you don't move (move & attack, move & standard, attack & attack, but no Standard & attack). This makes Attacking more like in previous versions of D&D. Two-Weapon Fighting is simplified and made more powerful, since you can make up to 4 attacks per round at lv1 (and simplified since TWF doesn't become a giant tree of feats - just take it once and you're done).
Hero Points, in the way of Action Dice, are always present. You also have to pay Action Dice in order to activate Critical Hits, and the DM can pay Action Dice in order to activate your Critical Fails, but YOU can also pay Action Dice to activate the Critical Fails of ANYONE, including an enemy (so the players have a bit of control over fate themselves).
Wounds & Vitality are the rule, not a variant. This is especially useful because Critical damage in Spycraft bypasses Wounds when they hit, and goes right for Vitality (they step down the x2, x3, etc., however, because of this, so a 18-20/x2 is just a 18-20, and a 19-20/x3 is reduced to a 19-20/x2, etc.)
It does, however, retain the gnarly old Grapple, etc.; Combat Maneuvers are just a better design.
They also institutes a "Class Level determines AC Bonus" combined with an "Armor Provides DR" rule. It's not a BAD design, just different, but one I don't think suits something like Pathfinder.
---
Basically, I feel like FantasyCraft has the slightly better basic skeleton, while Pathfinder has the superior classes and everything else.
I'd take the "Half-Round Actions" mechanic, and use the Wounds & Vitality, although I like Pathfinder's Wounds & Vitality more, myself (it keeps all the old Critical Rules & Sneak Attack rules the same, so less conversion).
It'd be up to you whether the Armor is AC + DR, but I'm not an enormous fan.
..."Here's the rules for free!...I don't think they have a choice with respect to the rules for Pathfinder being "free". Isn't that part of the OGL?That doesn't mean they have to provide the PRD.
I don't get why WotC thought OGL was so awful. Oh no our market is increasing but OUR market share is decreasing in percent! Argh! Players using our rules for free, growing the hobby and extracting whales! How dare they!
NOTE: Pathfinder is a free-to-play with micro-transactions.
Apparently there were other sites hosting Pathfinder's OGC before Paizo was. Makes sense for Paizo to keep people on their own website than have them looking elsewhere for content that can be posted for free.
I don't think WoTC thought OGL was awful at first; they did create it after all and reserve the right to change it at their whim. It does allow the Pathfinder RPG to exist though, which did kind of cut into WoTC sales.
By the way, I like Pathfinder and have been playing it for a few years now.
Also, here's a big & simple one...
ALLOW FOR WEAPON SPECIAL ABILITIES TO STACK!
Seriously, in a game where casters can do ludicrous things, I see no problem with a character having a +2 Triple-Flaming Longsword.
By the time you could afford that and the DM would normally allow you to have it, you'd be lv12.
Considering half-casters have lv4 spells, and full-casters have lv6 spells at that point, I've never had a problem with my players wanting to do an extra 3d6 fire, ice, electric, or acid (especially considering that they can do similar by having a +2 flaming, frost, shocking longsword).
And before you start thinking it's too crazy for warriors at lv20 being able to do ndX+1+9d6(electric) per attack, or a +1 Composite Longbow with 9 instances of Distance (so its Range Increments are 1000ft, but they still only deal 1d6+1+Str), keep in mind, again, that casters can do thins like cast Gate, Wish, et all. I think that level of power helps balance out martial and sneaker classes with casters.
To the OP: Personally...no. I wouldn't want to play in a game like that. Lowered damage reduces the impact of initiative to, well, a stat that doesn't really matter to martials or blaster casters at all. If you can't 1-shot your enemies, what's the point of going first? Speed should matter...a lot.
First to draw his blade and cut the other guy down ought to result in a death most times. Seems more realistic that way.
"Rocket Tag" as you call also increases the viability of sneak attack based characters, who many people believe are already gimped enough as it is.
EDIT: Removed a quote and reply I should've paid more attention to. It's late. I was sleepy.
What I'm saying, however, is that mechanically, it isn't any less advantageous than a weapon with "n" instances of any ONE of those; in fact, having a weapon with only 3 instances of any one energy type, vs multiple, is actually worse, because Energy Resistance is so common that a triple-flaming weapon, for example, would do much less, in the long run, than a flaming-frost-shocking weapon.
FLUFF-wise, however, it makes MUCH more sense to have a weapon deal oodles of damage of one type. The Sword Kladanets, for instance, is supposed to be soaked in fire, according to Slavic folklore. Why couldn't that be a weapon that does +5d6 fire each attack, along with a slew of other fire-based affects?
And, as I said, dealing +9d6 acid at lv20 seems cray-cray, and it is in a vacuum, but when you consider the things caster-classes are doing at lv20, that suddenly doesn't seem as broken.
Yeah, I just noticed you did say that. Deleted my previous comment. It's late. I was sleepy.
I, for one, really like a lot of the ideas here. I would definitely be interested in playing in a more refined version of these changes and totally get the desire to mod the existing rules. I especially like the idea of increasing martial mobility and giving them some more options.
I think that decreasing the amount of damage done will obviously slow combat up and make debuff spells and options MUCH more attractive instead of a waste of an action - to that end, I would like to see more options for martials to inflict a few debuffs, maybe by improving or adding a few new combat maneuvers?
The only concrete addition I'd add off the top of my head is do what you did with Power Attack to Weapon Finesse as a base option for finesse weapons rather than making it a feat tax.
Perhaps WotC is a little sour about Pathfinder which likely wouldn't exist without OGL on their 3.x?
Anyhow, I haven't played 5e, but 4e is basically what you describe since almost all powers have riders on them for versatility, and you only get one attack anyhow so there's more incentive to move.
Perhaps WotC is a little sour about Pathfinder which likely wouldn't exist without OGL on their 3.x?
Chicken or the egg?
Because I don't think Pathfinder would exist if WotC didn't drop 3.5 and OGL.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would never consider lowering martial damage without reworking magic damage, monster damage, healing, and especially save or die effects.
I do think there's space for a lower (or equal) damage, higher mobility, higher versatility character. But there's no reason that can't be approached through the class design, rather than completely reworking combat.
Cheers!
Landon