| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of my ongoing frustrations with tabletop RPGs is that characters in melee combat almost never have meaningful tactical choices. You typically just make a roll and hope you hit for damage. Putting together a fighting style of various feats might get you a few more options, but you seldom have to respond to your opponent’s tactics by changing yours. You just do whatever you’re best at, because trying anything else is suboptimal.
I played a Brawler to 17th level, and despite being able to grab tons of feats for all sorts of weird styles, the best option was almost always “Make a full attack.” Combat maneuvers were usually a waste of time.
With PF2’s “three action” combat system, though, I think we can change that. I know many players just want a quick-to-run game, and don’t need play-and-counterplay options to have fun. But I’d like the option to be there, and in a low-complexity way.
What the game lacks, I believe, is dilemmas.
What makes a good dilemma – from a narrative perspective – is when you present two bad outcomes, and it is unclear which is worse. If a monster does something, and the players say, “Oh sh*t” and scramble to get out of the way, you’ve done something right.
Consider a variation on the Rend ability. Right now, if you hit with two attacks, you do rend damage right away. You can’t defend against it, or really respond to it.
What if instead, if a creature hits with two attacks, it grabs you, and then it can spend an action on its next turn to rend, doing massive damage. Now we have a dilemma. Do you use your action to try to kill the monster, or to survive? Do your allies drop whatever they’re doing and rush to save you?
This is why I wish more effects set people on fire. Sure, hitting a crowd of people with fireball for 5d6 is great and powerful, but if it did 3d6 up front and 1d6 fire each round thereafter unless the person spent an action to put out the fire, you suddenly pose a dilemma. Spend an action to put out the fire, or hope to win the fight and put out the fire afterward. (Of course, the dilemma becomes less meaningful as you gain more hit points. In Warhammer 40k’s roleplaying game, you have to make the equivalent of Will saves each round if you want to ignore the instinctual panic that fire poses. If you fail, you have to try to put the fire out.)
So, how do we take this concept and move it into the combat system of PF2? I’d suggest three tweaks to the game’s philosophy. One with magic, one with monsters, one with melee.
1. Magic. Save-or-suck effects always take at least one round to take full effect. You see a medusa, and you’re stunned in horror. If you can still see that medusa at the start of your next turn, you’re petrified. Between then, your allies can block your view, or kill the medusa. Or hold person slows you at first, and at the end of your next turn you’re paralyzed, so you have a round to perhaps quaff a . . . I dunno, maybe have something like potion of dispel magic. Stuff like that.
2. Monsters. Most non-cannon fodder monsters should have something cool that has one round of set-up, and one round of “OH MY GOD DID YOU SEE THAT!?!” Trolls grab, then rend and rip your limbs off. Wraiths weaken you with a touch, then suck out some of your soul. Maybe dragons can spend an action to recharge their breath weapon (but using it takes three actions). Swarms cover you the first round, then crawl into your clothes the next. It can even be as simple as a wolf grabbing and tripping you, then mauling you the next turn while you’re down.
3. Melee. Create some new actions that anyone can do, which encourage different reactions without becoming something you can lock someone down with by spamming it over and over again. The idea is that you probably spend two actions to attack, and then one action to pose a dilemma.
We know that most characters in PF2 can’t make opportunity attacks by default. They need a feat. I’d propose adding three new actions.
- Engage – You choose a foe, and you can threaten them with opportunity attacks. (This encourages them to stay put and keep their defenses up. Pretty basic.)
- Bind – You choose one limb or weapon a foe within your reach has, and they take a -5 penalty to attack you with that. (This encourages them to switch weapons or attack someone else.)
- Drive – You get superior positioning relative to one foe within your reach, and if that foe is still in the same space at the start of your next turn (and you haven’t been forced to move either), you get a +5 bonus to your first attack against them. (This encourages them to move.)
Various combat feats could make you better at these. The Fighter gets the ability to Engage everyone without spending an action. Maybe a feat could let you use Bind as a free action against any enemy you attack. Perhaps some swashbuckling feat lets you Drive one person for free, and then follow them if they move, to get that lovely Princess Bride-style duel full of movement.
Then various fighting techniques could pose their own dilemmas. Tiger Style might give you rend. Crane Style lets you counterattack if someone misses you. Maybe Jujitsu lets you spend an action to choose an enemy, and then if they attack you get can trip and throw them as a reaction, with a bonus on your roll.
If we really wanted to dig into this, maybe some weapons that don’t have the best niche now could get dilemma-based traits.
With spears and other hafted weapons, if someone’s adjacent to you, you get a bonus to bull rush and reposition maneuvers.
Whips can bind anyone within reach, and penalize their attacks even if it’s not against you, which makes them a useful off-hand weapon.
Flails might get a damage bonus if you Drive, because they’re hard to aim, but if your foe stays put you can wallop them good.
What do you think of this idea? Do you like the idea of posing dilemmas in combat?
I like your style. #1 is being met with the degrees of success/failure mechanic in a way. #2 Monster are not being created like PCs. Expect them to have some scary options at their disposal.
I'd also like more melee actions that are class based too since I consider the fighter's access to only generic actions to be one of its biggest downsides in 1e
Lots of cool ideas here. I feel it's likely that some of that will come to light with the new action economy. We've already seen some of it in the preview: The new Power Attack (2 actions for a big punch, or 2 attacks with one at -5?) and the new shield mechanics (2 attacks with one at -5, or 1 attack and put the shield up?) and some spells like Magic Missile (1 to 3 actions depending how powerful you want it to be) and channeling (more powerful with more actions into it). I'm pretty sure feats, spells etc will leverage similar concepts.
A couple of ideas:
- Reach weapon: Take a stance that uses reach to hit a 10' range and get an attack of opportunity on anyone who approaches from 10' to 5'; however, that stance gives a penalty to AC vs attack from 5' range.
- Reach weapon: Shorten your grip to fight normally within 5', but lose benefits of reach and take a -1 to attacks.
- Returning weapon (magic item): One action to throw, one action to retrieve. But you can also do a second attack before retrieving, or even a third attack; but if you don't retrieve, if falls to the ground and must be picked up later.
Oh, and by the way, some of your ideas are usable as new spells or new feats in PF1. I hope you don't mind me stealing them!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely approve, and it gels with how I try to houserule monsters in my games on the fly to make them more interesting.
I think it would definitely help if martials (characters in general really but martials especially) could do more stuff without it all being locked away behind feats. Feats can make those options better and more efficient, but there's lots of combat actions trapped behind feats that are not even that special. Like, literally anyone should be able to attempt a wild swing (a power attack)... but the actual power attack feat can let you do that without a penalty and scale higher. That sort of thing.
Very interesting idea!
I often feel like casters have a similar problem, it's either cast the spell and help or save the spell and hide. That's not a lot of fun either.
Maybe unique combat options could be made for int. casters. You only have a staff, but you've learned how to do this to help, etc.
Very interesting idea!
I often feel like casters have a similar problem, it's either cast the spell and help or save the spell and hide. That's not a lot of fun either.
Maybe unique combat options could be made for int. casters. You only have a staff, but you've learned how to do this to help, etc.
I never had the same problem when playing a caster, since while all you can do is cast a spell I found I usually had a couple that were applicable in a given combat situation.
edit: I can see giving them some abilities that don't use up spells since there's always those times when you're not in a tough fight so to save magic you just do nothing.