| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've found that I can speed up combat in Pathfinder by changing the order of presentation of "die roll + modifier"
I've got a fighter who defaults to using Power Attack.
In standard PFS conventions, he hits on a 1d20+18/+13/+8 for 1d8+14 damage.
On my character sheets, I write +18 in one space, and write his adjusted static to hit modifiers next to it, adding any bonuses or penalties, so that the math is "done once" and can be treated as a static modifier plus a die roll, in that order.
So I roll 3d20 and add +18, +13, +8 to each.
It gets written as "18+d20/13+d20/8+d20" with the final static modifier presented first.
My damage is recorded the same way:
14+1d8+1d6 for Power Attacking with a flaming longsword.
When Vital Striking with Power Attack and using the Bane Baldric, it's:
16+2d8+2d6+1d6
On my own play, this is a modest speed increase -- fractions of a second, because I'm good at head-arithmetic, and I realized, playing in my local lodge, that most people aren't.
So, out of curiosity, I listened to how other people were finger-counting, or under-their-breath counting and went "Wait, why are they repeating every single step on every single die roll?"
I started writing out little cards with the "add 2, now add 1, and subtract 2 and add 4 damage..." for them, so that it came down to "Take the big number, roll your die, add it."
And...suddenly everyone's combat rounds went from 3 minutes each to about 30 seconds each.
The trick here is that the human brain is _horrible_ at retaining short procedural sequences in short term memory. So batch them, put the final result as a static modifier, and then add the random number generator, to take advantage of the things the human brain is good at.
This can be enhanced with a slight redesign of the Pathfinder character sheet for second edition.
Make a 'tax form' -- someone puts their basic static modifier down, has a place where they can write down common modifiers, and a place to run the sum plus the die being rolled. Then, for PF2, have a space for them to write their two iterative attacks [-5/-10] with those two boxes shaded slightly differently from each other.
Now, you roll 3d20, and if you're clever, they're coded from light to dark, with light matching the first attack, medium the second attack and dark the third attack.
If you're even kinder to your fellow players, you roll the damage dice (matching colors) at the same time...and have the static modifiers for damage written underneath the static to-hit modifiers.
Yes, it takes up more space on the character sheet, but paper is cheap, and time in combat is precious. :)
I actually do the same thing in my GM play notes, and encourage it from the players at my table. They all use electronic character sheets on phones and tablets anyway, so they can just tag a weapon with a comment balloon that has the math for using various feats or such already worked out.
I roll attack and damage at the same time.
If you roll the hit first you will need to remember all the values and stuff in case your attack would change the enemies ac., for example, dex poison.
I also do this, and encourage my players to do the same thing. I just color code dice and roll all of them at once.
Batching die rolls is fairly common. Pre-batching all the math and making it the static modifier the die roll is added to (rather than looked up and added after the fact) speeds play by a comparable amount, and possibly more.
For a couple of players who have a lot of combinatorial options (rage plus two weapon fighting plus bane baldric), I've actually built them cheat sheet grids, with their options on the Y axis, and a list of "common party buffs" across the top -- they accordion-fold to get the numbers they need.
And the numbers are always presented as "static mod + die size" rather than the other way around, just because it removes a step they have to do on every single round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rolling 3 dice at once won't work in Pathfinder 2nd edition thanks to the change in combat. If your first attack hits and drops the enemy, your second action might not be another attack roll but instead a move action with an attack roll for your third action. If you do the standard "roll all your dice at once" from Pathfinder 1st edition it's going to be awfully tempting to change the action with the low roll after you roll.
This isn't a better or worse thing. If anything it's better as you get more tactical choices (3 tactical choices every round in fact). But that's going to result in a slightly slower to significantly slower turn just because there are more decision points vs Pathfinder 1st ed's often single decision point (full attack or move and attack). Add in too many mutually exclusive options (you can power attack or careful strike or bashing blow or insert any other number of at-will powers here) and you're going to get option paralysis (we've all been at the table with the wizard who can't decide which spell to cast. Only now every character will have to chose which spell or spell equivalent to use each turn).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've found the arithmetic itself isn't the problem, so much as the need to figure out which +2's and -1's apply on every given attack. I had a friend play a Savage Technologist Barbarian TWFing with sword & pistol, and he had a veritable table of static bonuses based on combinations of circumstances (Rage, Power Attack, TWF, two-handing, etc), and it actually took time to hunt for which convenient pre-totalled sum to use.
Rolling 3 dice at once won't work in Pathfinder 2nd edition thanks to the change in combat. If your first attack hits and drops the enemy, your second action might not be another attack roll but instead a move action with an attack roll for your third actionSince you can abort a full attack after the first attack and take a move action, that is true in PF1 as well.
_
glass.
As much as I'd like to seriously trim down the number of conditional modifiers, I suspect that what I want and what the rest of the player base wants aren't the same thing.
So, making what the rest of the player base wants easier to use -- even by a very small amount per combat action -- helps both of us get what we want.
They get their moments of awesome using All The Modifiers!!!!.
I get faster combat rounds because the person who has to count under their breath to track each modifier isn't repeating the process for every single die roll, and can use a Human Psychology Trick to hake their lives easier.
So I get the appeal of adding your power attack bonus to your weapon specialization bonus to your enhancement bonus, an so forth to get a single number that is added to your die roll (careful not to include precision damage here), I don't know anyone who doesn't do this.
What I don't understand is why it's better to write 46+1d10 instead of 1d10+46. Isn't addition (by definition basically) commutative?
So I get the appeal of adding your power attack bonus to your weapon specialization bonus to your enhancement bonus, an so forth to get a single number that is added to your die roll (careful not to include precision damage here), I don't know anyone who doesn't do this.
What I don't understand is why it's better to write 46+1d10 instead of 1d10+46. Isn't addition (by definition basically) commutative?
They're the same thing, but they read to a lot of people psychologically in a different way. It's just the weirdness of how human brains work. I find players often get the math done faster for whatever reason when the static modifier comes first.
I've found the arithmetic itself isn't the problem, so much as the need to figure out which +2's and -1's apply on every given attack.
This always seems to be the core of it. Especially as debuffs from conditions and buffs from allies are quite common occurrences no matter how prepped the player is.
I'm sure its the pain of bards everywhere that they put so much effort into buffing others who promptly forget to add it into their rolls like its an unwanted gift.
Especially as debuffs from conditions and buffs from allies are quite common occurrences no matter how prepped the player is.
And this is one of the good parts of the game I expect to get lost transitioning to PF2. At our table, teamwork is a thing, and it's fun at high-level when the fighter makes his attacks. We're relaxed, so when "does a 23 hit?" gets a frown from the DM, we all as a team start reviewing the buffs. "Did you remember bless is up?", "remember I'm flanking with you", and so on. As much as it sucks when the fighter remembered it all, there's a rush of euphoria when "oh, um, how about a 25?" gets the DM to declare a hit.
I expect PF2 to be more of a solo effort, because remembering buffs is evidently BadWrongFun.
I expect PF2 to be more of a solo effort, because remembering buffs is evidently BadWrongFun.
I hope not - to me this is a challenge to tackle with a pen and a notepad, not fundamental changes to the game.
|
The demo games have included Bless, doing its usual +1 to hit for the PCs, so buffs don't seem to be gone entirely or anything. And Flanking is also still very much a thing.
So I think there's still gonna be some of what you're talking about.
What I suspect there isn't gonna be are a lot of things like Power Attack or Rapid Shot that are on or off for specific attacks and change the to-hit bonus and/or damage. Those we haven't seen any of in the new edition stuff we've seen, and they're a lot of the math, IMO.
I think it's gonna be more like:
Base Stats + Buff Spells + Positioning
rather than the current:
Base Stats + Feat Or Special Attack Modifiers + Buff Spells + Positioning
And probably a few less buff spells as well...but clearly not none.