| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally I lurk on the advice boards but there's not a whole lot of advice as much as house rules so I kept it here instead.
Further details are in the blog in terms of intent, impact, and what not but I'l post the list here if that's the only thing you're interested in.
1. Untrained Combat Maneuvers do not provoke AoO’s.
2. When a character is dropped below 0 hitpoints there is a 50% chance they remain conscious but with the disabled condition. Every time a disabled character loses hp in anyway there is a 50% chance they fall unconscious until brought above 0 hit points again.
3. When you miss an opponent with an attack by more than 5 + your Dex and Wis modifier you provoke an attack of opportunity from that opponent. This attack of opportunity cannot provoke an attack of opportunity in turn if it misses in the same way.
4. Flanking, higher ground, and charging allow you to roll twice on your attack and take the highest roll.
5. CMD adds either Dex or Str modifier (whichever is highest) not both.
1) I'm just all for this one, let's me play around more with my monsters since they're no long afraid of the smack to the face headed their way.
2) Ehh, I feel there should be some sort of penalty to that roll the more negative hit points you have. I do like the idea though.
3) This is the only one I'm outright against, and I'm a freaking defense loving turtle. Dex should only be used if it applies to finesse melee attacks. Otherwise you're giving more to the stat that already has too freaking much going for it. If they're using str to attack, they use str for this. Adding wis also presents a problem for MAD martials like the magus or paladin. It also makes archery even more powerful than it already is because they don't provoke the AoO because they're halfway across the map.
4) Not sure about this one, I like abilities that grant extra rolls but not a fan of how easy this can make it.
5) Again, I am all for this. My investigator would like to trip things without needing True Strike every time.
3) This is the only one I'm outright against, and I'm a freaking defense loving turtle. Dex should only be used if it applies to finesse melee attacks. Otherwise you're giving more to the stat that already has too freaking much going for it. If they're using str to attack, they use str for this. Adding wis also presents a problem for MAD martials like the magus or paladin. It also makes archery even more powerful than it already is because they don't provoke the AoO because they're halfway across the map.
Keep in mind that this does not punish other martials unless they're flat out dumping Wisdom and Dexterity. Both of which are considered bad ideas.
It doesn't punish good offense so much as rewards great defense. Offensive two handing characters still get the advantages of being proactively dangerous whereas the turtle has to be swung at to even take advantage of the AoO.
As to whether it makes archery more powerful? No, not really. Not worrying about it also means not taking advantage of it.
There's also an element of mindgames here. Let's say on a full attack you decide to use combat expertise on your last attack. That tanks your attack but boosts your AC. The opponent has to then decide whether or not to take the AoO and lose the attack (which can open them up to maneuvers or simply getting walked around.
I think it'd take a lot of playing and math to see everything. But for being something relatively simple to get somewhere rather complex I think that's interesting.
3) I really like the idea of this, as it makes combat MUCH more interactive and back-and-forth, the way it actually should be (for both realism and fun). I'm not sure about execution.
The situation that would worry me offhand much more than the turtles are those 2h heavy hitters, characters with already low attack bonuses, and how swingy the game is in general due to d20s.
Let's say the rogue (or whoever) attacks an ogre... and rolls a 2. Their dex bonus helps but isn't going to be enough - the ogre AoOs the rogue for big damage, and then the ogre's turn comes around and they attack the rogue again.
The flanking rules/advantage system you suggest would help mitigate that a lot, but then just puts even more pressure on certain characters *needing* flanking and positioning to be baseline effective, while other characters can just wade in without so much risk.
I agree you'd need to test a lot of scenarios/math to figure out where the lines are. Does this empower battle clerics and warpriests excessively perhaps? I'm not sure.
1) & 5) I basically like as well. EDIT: I'll add that I actually prefer dropping combat expertise (as a feat) and including deft/powerful maneuvers.
2) I've actually been doing a version of this for... a while. When we played AD&D we always gave Player/heroic/villainous characters a final action on dying or going unconscious, and in 3.5/PF I like to give a fort save or con check to stay disabled for 1 round. I think it should be somewhat based on stats rather than just a static 50%, and I think 50% every round is gonna be a bit weird.
That said, I really appreciate games with levels of damage conditions, where combat might stop when people are dead, but disability/serious injury matter, and even 'blooded' conditions might be enough for some people. Hard to fit into the the d&d HP framework though.
4) is probably fine, but I'd want to see it in play. It seems like it might be awkward mixing in some conditions/situations that provide 'advantage', but leaving others as static bonuses.
#1 I've *always* houseruled that if a weapon has the feature, it does not provoke to use it for that feature. Meaning using a longsword to trip would provoke, but not using a sickle. So I am only partially with you on this.
#2 No change, I'm good with RAW.
#3 Kinda convoluted; PF combat has already so many variables to consider.
#4 In addition to the bonuses? Why? Because action economy and combat in general most times never favors the PC's and they need it?
#5 I approve.
Generally I lurk on the advice boards but there's not a whole lot of advice as much as house rules so I kept it here instead.
...
Hi, Tark. I've no comments, but these are interesting ideas. I'm always glad to check your posts.
#2
I'd be more in favor of changing stabilization rolls to Fort saves, and you gain the disabled condition when you succeed.
#3
Double checking every attack would slow down combat.
#4
I prefer a numeric bonus, although revisiting what number the bonus is could be revisited.
I really like number 4.
1. Common house rule.
2. Don't like it. I'm more of a fan of increasing the death threshold and allowing characters to stay conscious but unable to take actions while dying if they succeed at a Fortitude save. It's more dramatic and allows characters to have "last words" before they die.
3. Don't like it. Slows down combat.
4. Don't like it. I prefer a flat bonus.
5. I agree the CMD calculation needs revisited. It's already heavily stacked against the players because of size bonuses.
A thing of note that has been changed in the blog to reflect as someone pointed out to me.
The re-rolls are in addition to the flat bonuses. That's so they still interact with feats and abilities that increase or decrease that bonus.
A thing of note that has been changed in the blog to reflect as someone pointed out to me.
The re-rolls are in addition to the flat bonuses. That's so they still interact with feats and abilities that increase or decrease that bonus.
Still prefer normal flat bonuses than rerolling. Rerolling strikes me as too strong.
1. I can see the attraction, but this makes maneuvers too common. Trip or disarm can be an auto-win in too many cases so there needs to be a downside. Mardaddy has the right idea (use the right weapon).
2. Better than RAW, but not perfect. I use staggered from 0 to -ConBonus. Below that, Fort save (DC 15-hp) to stay conscious and bleeding but unable to do anything much at all. Speech, find a potion, open a potion or drink a potion. Crawl 5'. That sort of thing.
3. No. Why should the target's AC determine whether he gets an AoO?
4. No. If you must improve those situations, just increase the bonus. For flanking (and any other SA situations) rogues IMC use BAB=level which becomes +1 to +5 over RAW.
5. No. Don't really see the point. CMD needs a wider overhaul anyway, depending on the maneuver.