This will be broken down into sections used to explain the rules for this modification. The modifications will be a second based system, more like a PC game, not the turn based as the game is normally. The second based system required a few changes to the attributes, by adding new ones. It also needed changes to the magic system, consumables, and various other parts to the basic game. The Goals seemed simple, but insanity ensued as how much had to be adjusted to fit a fast-moving game. The First PDF is basically the rules to make this more like a video game.
I had a list of Goals to try out and this was the results of that attempt the list was
Second based combat and movement system allows for moving when no attacks are possible and intercepting rushes. In a second Healing can happen, preventing Death, stabilizing them, and even stop them from going down. This had the largest changes and required a few things. Added Speed (Spd) to attributes to work with second based move system, movement is now in Feet. Added Quick Casting to allow spells to work in the new system as well as the ability to hold spells once cast.
Mind Points (MP) system to be used for spells and abilities, this is to make more like a on-line game. Resulted in casters that can use more spells per day if needed or allows for abilities tied to class to be used in combat. Then by limiting MP recovery you could enforce restricted usage long term.
Have it so a low-level character with lots of experience can be a match for someone 1-3 levels above them. One of the things that was always a bother was that someone could not have years of experience and be low level, even if the area they are in should be low level. Result the split in the EXP system, separate class level (CL) upgrades and experience (XP). Tie skills, saves, and some HP and MP to a XP or lower system and CL as the Major Combat, HP and MP system. With this a 2nd level character with 20 years of experience can take on and have a chance against a 2nd level party newly minted.
Create Characters to work in the new system, and man did this turn into an event. Mostly it was in the form of making them and then editing them to remove power creep. It really could not be helped, but it turns out that some ideas really do not always make a good character to play. In one case the Druid was extremely powerful but since you literally would only protect an area you could never leave, not a playable choice. In this I have not been able to complete as play testing is hard to do with my job travailing.
Other things are buried in the notes so I included the Zip file with the excel sheets I was using as notes.
In the notes are basics of an economy
Item creation and costs and the feats that go with those.
The skill system is being reworked as a profession built on skills.
Alchemist as a profession that creates and sells elixirs and the rules for making them.
Abilities that are like feats, and rules for creating them
a Mind Point System (MP) for spells and abilities
New Classes, and features so they fit in the world
I will slowly be making and posting these other items into the thread, but it will take time.
i hope you have players that WANT to play like this. its too much a departure from standard rules for most peoples taste. i tried to wrap my mind around it, but its too complicated for my taste, and adding lots of additional variant rules soent lend itsself to fast, simple, or enjoyable combat in my opinion.
Champions/Hero Systems has second by second combat system.
Not familiar with that one will have to take a look at it, is the Hero system complex for powers as well?
Name Violation:
Only the Speed score and the time table have to be used to make it a second based system. The rest are variable and not needed. So speed was actually achieved with a more diverse fighting tactics for pulling and flanking. My bad is I dumped all of it together for the 4 goals when i probably should have handled it is different topics.
The rest were added to make the system more like a PC game with powered attacks and cool downs to recover. MP system is for that style of play but it give the Magic Casters more flexibility, the down side is the slow recovery. Seems hard at first, especially if you apply everything at once as it is basically a new system at that point.
The Goal that separated the Class Levels and XP levels was a big departure from everything. It was done simply because a NPC with 20 years experience but was only 2nd level was a easy target for a 2nd party and they should not be experience should count for something. Also added because most of the players in our group wanted to lower level characters that could fight in mid-tier battles i they used strategies.
I hope I can make things clearer as the discussion goes on.
-GAFY
I should clarify, the Hero System I am familiar with is 4th edition. Its a point based, not a class based system and had a Fantasy level book called Fantasy Hero.
If you are asking why time based over turned based, then it is a simple because things are actually time based to begin with.
It allows for a combat situation where the group has to act as a group to keep the casters alive to do their function,advance and retreat together to keep a line.
Slow players take longer to reach key points and when they do they no longer have all of their attacks.
It has helped a lot when battling with a character with long reach, you can keep them at bay.
Flanking maneuvers, and the time it takes for a back stab to happen means casters or the rear line have a better chance at releasing spells.
And my favorite, since casting takes time shooting arrows over a few seconds making them spell check every time, once a second keeps things in balance. Concealment becomes all the more important.
Also by pushing the time, you keep a pace going, if someone is delaying it to buy time to think you can now pass them by and let them act in the next second. Forces team leaders and organized play as well. It also if you keep a good pace keeps them interested in the events as they unfold.
I should add: a game never really needs anything but players, changing rules allows you to tailor a campaign to your players and the world they react in.
Any game hack should be focused on game*play* more than what you think makes sense within the game *setting*.
There's a lot more about it in that article.
Time limits are important in standard d20 combat, though. It's not a part of the rules, but I HATE when I tell a player it's their turn and they only then start to look at the map and formulate a plan.
I currently like to give people about 5 seconds to declare their actions before they loose the turn to inaction, but I think going down to 0 will deliver the best dose of white knuckled life-or-death tension combat should have.
So I did way to much reading blurry bloody eyes for days on end would be a good description. With that and a bit of a discussion we did change the table and made it less strict. Also added a few things in the Magic area.
We did agree that you should only get one standard or Immediate action in a second. Mostly it is now just a table for names and their Initiative with a check box to make if they used that second. So it is a basic tracking for where in the round we are at. If you have more actions then seconds left and cannot use them all...
Well that is the players Fault
Quixote wrote:
Any game hack should be focused on game *play* more than what you think makes sense within the game *setting*.
There's a lot more about it in that article.
Thanks for the advice so far, and I am guessing you meant rule system as the setting. That was the point of the second system along with the I hate the same thing in your next sentence. It forced us to a move faster and be ready at the tick so to speak. The change did cause one issue though when some one used all their attacks at the beginning, they sat back and did not pay attention anymore. He also found the rest of the group had pulled back and he was now surrounded by the enemy. He did a valiant job holding the line until the end while the others escaped. Guess the next time he sits back he will not listen to music with the noise cancelling headphones. With orders not to bother him until the next melee. I tried to tell him twice and gestured once but there was no helping him.
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand. There seem to be some grammatical issues with your post that are making your point hard to determine.
And no, when I said "setting", I meant "setting". As in, the metaphor we use the system to represent.
On one hand: a system (for example- moving around a board, claiming ownership of certain spaces, using dice and points to simulate randomness and keep score).
On the other, the setting or metaphor: (you're a business tycoon trying to buy up properties and drive your rivals to bankruptcy).
Together, they form a game (Monopoly).
A ton of hacked rules and additions to TTRPG's are performed in the name of thy metaphor ("but it just makes sense!"). My point is that they should always be made in the name of the system, to enhance gameplay.
Point:
Simplified the time table to no restrictions except 1 you get 1 attack in a second. So players with Multiple attacks have to make sure they have the time to use them.
The old table had built in limits
The rest goes back to not paying attention unless it is their turn. Just because you used all your attacks doesn't mean you no long have to pay attention to the situation. What he though was a easy to win fight turned into a retreat for the rest of the group.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. So combat is based in real time? So you and your players are moving about on the grid and declaring actions, up to their alloted amount, every 6 seconds?
Because if so, that sounds like pandemonium.
I think part of the issue is simply comprehension; that is a sizeable document, and--I mean no offense--it is an extremely confusing read. The first two sections, "Why it was done" and "goals" don't seem to illustrate why you began this undertaking or what your goals are. And it only gets muddier from there.
A consistent style, less extensive use of vague pronouns and the trimming of unnecessary wording/addition of clarifying statements would help greatly.
Another problem is the scope. This isn't just "we changed combat from turn-based to real time." You've added attributes, recalculated experience, skill points and hit points, added new classes and types of magic...this isn't a houserule, it's a new game.
I don't think any of it is necessary or justifiable. But with that said, I have two small points:
1. Speed is a useless attribute. Everything else effects multiple aspects of a character's ability. Speed is one thing. It's like Initiative or hit points. It could be derived from other sources. Your strength, dexterity and maybe constitution. Physical power, agility/coordination, endurance. That's what makes people run fast or slow.
2. This idea of experience versus levels feels extremely flawed.
Experience = levels. That's why, to gain a level, you need experience.
If you've been around a while (an old turnip farmer or a veteran city watchman) and are low level, then you haven't gained as much experience as someone younger who's seen/done/endured more (a farmer who has helped fend off several goblin raids, a watchman in a really dangerous, seedy city).
I'm sorry, I don't understand. So combat is based in real time? So you and your players are moving about on the grid and declaring actions, up to their allotted amount, every 6 seconds?
Because if so, that sounds like pandemonium.
Less So than you would Think. It is easier to say the movement is in real time, but the action is still Melee based and has not really changed. The only change is you get one per second and that is a move then if you wish your action or wait until the next second. So, the move happens every second and you can move up to your current SPD value, you do not need to use it all. A Standard or Immediate action require the full second, Free and Swift less than a second. Breaking it down; lets say your speed is 5 or 1 hex a second, in normal game term that would be a base 30. Instead of going I move my 30 and attack with my 2 strikes that I am allowed, end of your melee round. In the second system you charge forward your 5 and the other teammates go with you. The enemy can charge as well on its turn or run away, provoking a chase. If both charge, then the second were you would meet the move is done at the same time and you attack by initiative. If this happens to be the 6th second, then each side would only have one attack. Fast enemies or allies can allow for flanking maneuvers, so charging in does require some control. So no real difference is there it is just that now you are aware of the time left and can still move during the melee if things go wrong.
Quixote wrote:
I think part of the issue is simply comprehension; that is a sizeable document, and--I mean no offense--it is an extremely confusing read. The first two sections, "Why it was done" and "goals" don't seem to illustrate why you began this undertaking or what your goals are. And it only gets muddier from there.
A consistent style, less extensive use of vague pronouns and the trimming of unnecessary wording/addition of clarifying statements would help greatly.
Also why I limited the scope in the title to the seconds only combat, the general doc was to keep the players aware of the changes and while it does add to our game it is not for everyone. I thought the second break down for a melee was a good concept as it allowed a change in the situation to be more easily handled and why I stated it as the topic of the thread. I will admit I added the rest as a “well why not” and can see now it was clearly a mistake. I should have introduce it in parts as I originally intended.
Quixote wrote:
Another problem is the scope. This isn't just "we changed combat from turn-based to real time." You've added attributes, recalculated experience, skill points and hit points, added new classes and types of magic...this isn't a houserule, it's a new game.
I will leave this one alone for now
Quixote wrote:
I don't think any of it is necessary or justifiable. But with that said, I have two small points:
1. Speed is a useless attribute. Everything else effects multiple aspects of a character's ability. Speed is one thing. It's like Initiative or hit points. It could be derived from other sources. Your strength, dexterity and maybe constitution. Physical power, agility/coordination, endurance. That's what makes people run fast or slow.
Not true, you have speed built into the game based on the armor you wear, and it use to be affected by strength in AD&D. If you divide that number by 6 you had how far you could move in a second. 1/3 of the value was walking speed this was always built into the game. Moving it to its own roll allows the player to decide a bit more of what type of character they have. The rest really is not a argument but more of opinion on attributes; Physical power is a strength score, Dexterity was coordination, Constitution was endurance, agility was a acrobatics skill. Now does strength and Dexterity effect acrobatics in the real world yes, through training you gain that along with endurance. In the game no unless the GM allows it. That is the true bottom line in this one which system does the GM prefer; do you assign a base speed of 5, 10 15, or 20 per melee based on armor type or base it on a attribute score. It really makes no difference to the melee or second based system, as the base system can be divided by 6 to get the same results. So in terms of the game either the set movement system or a attribute will determine if the character is fast or slow based on preference.
Quixote wrote:
2. This idea of experience versus levels feels extremely flawed.
Experience = levels. That's why, to gain a level, you need experience.
If you've been around a while (an old turnip farmer or a veteran city watchman) and are low level, then you haven't gained as much experience as someone younger who's seen/done/endured more (a farmer who has helped fend off several goblin raids, a watchman in a really dangerous, seedy city).
This one is a bit of a floating landmine. XP levels are the basic experience levels, and things are tied directly to them. What is tied to the XP growth is more towards the character; Skills, Feats, and saves. It is the base line learning you can learn about things but never take it to the next level that mastering the task would allow. It is basically some one just wanting to learn the piano vs being a pianist. I don’t have the files with me but at a certain point the CL and XP levels start to go up in a 1 for 1 relationship, this just really delays it. One reason is we liked lower level characters but needed certain things to keep the game playable if we used a premade module. The next reason is one you brought up lets use the farmer example: You are a old turnip farmer and know when to plant your fields that is a skill set the new farmer doesn’t have. Hell, he did not even know only turnips would grow here and goblins are around. The old farmer will know tricks to kill the goblins, does that make him a high-level fighter?
By the current rules to be a good farmer and fighter against the goblins he would be 7th to 19th level.
In this system his XP levels might be in that range but still manage to be less than a 3rd level fighter and probably a retired city guard. Now in this system a clueless jerk of a character will think ha he is low level like me but old so I can beat him easily but those 3-12 XP level difference will show just how clueless they were. The difference in HP and Feats alone will make the old guy a better fighter even if they are the same Class Level. The guy who played a piano for 20 years will play it better than the guy just trained, but still not be a pianist.
So in retro spec yes, I could have and should have trimmed the doc down to the second tables only and entered the rest in other threads. Also I should stop my usually method of just here is the way do this only. I tend to do things this way because of the job I do and if they do something outside the thing needed time and dangerous situation can occur. It makes it hard to go from just do this this to here is why you should do this with a long explanation. Either way you have been a great help in reference material, and thanks for that. SO I feel I owe you on that and will explain anything until you understand it, as it helps me break a habit as well.
If you really need a way to fall asleep look at the GM_Interesting.xlsx file the history section still makes me sleep.
If you want to play around with something then look at the Mon&Mat tab and the Enchanted vs Magic vs powered weapons/items. The table should work for the most part in creating weapons and the cost of them.
I'm sorry, but that is so hard to read. Formatting is your friend.
So...the whole thing...you take turns resolving each characters action in initiative order?
As for the experience thing, it seems like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the experience point abstraction actually represents. But if it makes sense to you guys and is somehow worth the effort...
I'm sorry, but that is so hard to read. Formatting is your friend.
So...the whole thing...you take turns resolving each characters action in initiative order?
As for the experience thing, it seems like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the experience point abstraction actually represents. But if it makes sense to you guys and is somehow worth the effort...
Kind of learning as i go with the features on the site, sorry!
Yes,
Instead of one large turn, with a huge move and all the attacks at once. You instead break it into 6 smaller moves with possible attacks. Each time you will follow the Initiative table.
The other change is that a standard action and immediate action require a second to complete. So you can only perform one at a time, or one in each of the 6 parts. Two attacks would require you to have 2 seconds in the melee with an enemy in range to use them both. The seconds do not have to be consecutive, but on any separate second in the round.
The advantage is you can fight and continue to move instead of ending the move once the fight begins. It is also easier to setup ambushes and track situational awareness.
The experience thing is to us was worth it and it fit the requirements that we wanted. It still represents the same thing rewards for doing a service. It is just Class Features happen less often along with the Hugh HP and MP bonuses that go with it. The basics for the game mechanics still are in the XP side.
So...it's still turn based. You just changed how long a round is.
In your example, the old farmer has more experience. I.E., he is a higher level. It's as simple as that.
Some people can fulfill a role or position for a very long time and not "level up", because they don't experience a whole lot that stimulates growth and they don't "gain experience points".
Someone who worked in a grocery store for 10 years has less experience points than someone who worked at a fire department for 10 years, who has less experience points than someone who was a Navy SEAL for ten years, who has less experience points than someone who worked in a grocery store and fights werewolves and ghosts on the side.
Guess so...
The only change would be the time interval being in seconds instead of every 6 seconds. I can see your point that it is still turn based.
So a more accurate statement would be second based vs melee based play.
Looks like you ended up with a more clear understanding then we did :)
Now we are breaking down the problems in a experience based system, like I said a bit of a floating landmine situation. having experience in a field is not necessarily a level difference, but it is a skill difference. In the current meta skills are associated with levels. It is also unfortunate that levels are tied to fighting abilities.
This does NOT have to be the case. You can split the two up into separate groups.
First is the Skills
second is Fighting abilities
Looking at the first one, you can gain skills in the ability to move stealthily without gaining any abilities to fight. The farmer knowing when when to plant harvest and what will grow. It also follows a few tricks that can be learned without fighting. In terms of the goblins you can build a wall with water running behind it so they attack somewhere else.
NONE of this would build Combat Experience but it would build a skill set.
Now looking at the second one, does combat build skills?
Maybe skills with a weapon, definitely situational awareness you will learn not to fixate on a single thing as it will kill you. It helps bring how you trained into how you react. This is one of those landmines as you can train all your life and not see combat. You will have the same skill set, stealth, speed approach, but things like timing and target fixation you will have no experience in.
How to use a skill in combat is different from learning a skill.
Not a easy thing to break down as they can be related and separate at the same time. That is the point of playing a piano for 20 years, you can be really skilled at it compare to playing as a pianist in a concert hall a different experience but yet both are just playing a piano.
So a more accurate statement would be second based vs melee based play.
I don't get it. A melee is a physical conflict, not a measurement of time.
It's just a different turn-based system.
I've played games with 3-second rounds. I thought they'd feel more hectic, fast-paced. What they ended up being was either longer combats (with twice as many "okay, your turn"'s as a 6-second round) or feeling exactly the same.
Putting a time limit to make a decision before a player looses their turn definitely helps create that hectic, life-or-death feel, though.
Looks like you ended up with a more clear understanding then we did :)
GotAFarmYet? wrote:
Now we are breaking down the problems in a experience based system...
No, these are the issues with a level-based system, and adding another doesn't really solve the issue.
I did a lot of work back in the day coming up with experience point costs for every element of a character; abilities scores, skills, initiative, feats, spells--just do away with the levels and let people increase what they want, when they want. So the farmer can focus on farming and the adventurer can focus on fighting, resisting magic curses, being tough, sneaking around, crafting golems, etc.
I don't get it. A melee is a physical conflict, not a measurement of time.
It's just a different turn-based system.
I've played games with 3-second rounds. I thought they'd feel more hectic, fast-paced. What they ended up being was either longer combats (with twice as many "okay, your turn"'s as a 6-second round) or feeling exactly the same.
Putting a time limit to make a decision before a player looses their turn definitely helps create that hectic, life-or-death feel, though.
Yes, the terms melee, round and melee round are interchangeable for the turn-based system. Alright the true second based system requires a few simple rules but is not tie it to the time system in the game.
1 attack per melee round would give you a 5 second break before you can attack again.
2 attacks per melee round would give you a 2 second break before you can attack again.
3 attacks per melee round would give you a 1 second break before you can attack again.
No one unless under a Hast spell ever had more attacks then 3 in a melee round. That was resolved by letting them attack twice when they did.
So, you end up with a time chart that is 1 minutes in length broken down to 60 slots. Each name slot has two time slots in each entry. The names are placed in initiative order, players, and monsters. After the 2nd or 3rd attack you will have only an occasional overlap of attacks at the same time and a simple roll off resolves that. The problem that it causes is that everyone, and I do mean everyone including the GM are staring at the chart wondering when they go next. The game is not as important as the chart it will become the focus. Does it work yes, but I would not recommend it. It is also the reason Quick Cast Spells got placed in and spell holding times. It really turned it into “Is it my turn yet?” usually answered with a NO and Shut he will tell you when it is your turn.
It simply dragged the game down. That point we tied it to the system in the first doc and 6 second interval. The attacks were with in time brackets, this works but was not the simplest of systems.
That led to the last one I modified well talking to the people here and looking up sites they mentioned. That one uses the 6 second time blocks still but you play out each second. It is also pretty much as you stated pretty much the same turned based system, until they have multiple attacks in a melee round
Quixote wrote:
No, these are the issues with a level-based system, and adding another doesn't really solve the issue.
I did a lot of work back in the day coming up with experience point costs for every element of a character; abilities scores, skills, initiative, feats, spells--just do away with the levels and let people increase what they want, when they want. So the farmer can focus on farming and the adventurer can focus on fighting, resisting magic curses, being tough, sneaking around, crafting golems, etc.
No, it is a experience based system as the game gives you experience points and those points accumulate and turn into Class levels at predetermined break points. All the benefits are tied to Level sure, but it is EXP that your earning to advance with.
The last thi8ng you pointed out is point based system everything has a point value and you assign points as a reward for gaming. It also does not work if the players do not balance their characters. I had also tried that system before we had a Mage that could cast 9th level spells but only had enough HP to survive an attack from a goblin for 1 hit. Picking the monsters they fought generally killed half the party every time because they were not balanced enough to work within the framework the game provided.
This is what led to the idea of mixing what should be tied to XP or points and leave them in a break point system to keep the players characters in a form of balance. The points were then tied to the Class Levels items in a way that allowed you to buy Features.
1. You got an amount of points and it work like the current game system for basic abilities
2. You got a floating system on top of it that you could buy Class Level Features
This still has Issues and flaws as well, so the MP system fixed it so that they could not just go after spells. BAB had to be tied to the buying of full class Levels. You basically start to get how the XP and Class system evolved out of this.
Anyways this is turning into a long post so summary on the three Second base attack system:
1. 6 second melee rounds play the seconds, in a Move then attack format. You follow the Initiative chart for who moves then attacks. Attacks are limited to one per second.
2. 6 second melee rounds, you play by the second, in a move and attack format. You follow the initiative chart for who moves and then attacks. The attacks are limited to 1 per second and brackets of time. Attacks in of a bracket of time are lost if the clock moves past the bracket.
3. Full second system. Roll initiative once to place combatants in the chart and play the seconds. Every attack has a time delay based on Attacks you have. If two or more are going to attack in the same second roll off for initiative.
Y'all are way more in depth with this than i intend to be, but i'll just say this. I tried the tick system with some version of exalted or another. It was obnoxious to track and needlessly complicated. Exactly the sort of thing that people complain turns off new players to a game.
Y'all are way more in depth with this than i intend to be, but i'll just say this. I tried the tick system with some version of exalted or another. It was obnoxious to track and needlessly complicated. Exactly the sort of thing that people complain turns off new players to a game.
Lol, good for you!
I take it as you used the bracketed attacks in time, and would agree. I also dropped that and tried it as just 1 attack in a second which was much easier but most fights are over a few seconds in time because of it. Quixote and I are basically going over opinion on both my system and the game. So neither can win but it turns into long discussions, I like them because they make you think and learn of other options.
So...wait. Your new system is in 6-second blocks? ...like the existing one? But...broken up into six 1-second blips?
GotAFarmYet? wrote:
No, it is a experience based system as the game gives you experience points and those points accumulate and turn into Class levels at predetermined break points. All the benefits are tied to Level sure, but it is EXP that your earning to advance with.
...no. It's level-based. You just have two different levels per character, by the looks of it.
I get the motivation; it's a classic matter of "does it make sense?" And the normal level-based system does not...if the players are playing non-adventurers. But unless you're playing Gardens & Goats, the level based one makes enough sense as is.
GotAFarmYet? wrote:
The last thi8ng you pointed out is point based system everything has a point value and you assign points as a reward for gaming. It also does not work if the players do not balance their characters. I had also tried that system before we had a Mage that could cast 9th level spells but only had enough HP to survive an attack from a goblin for 1 hit. Picking the monsters they fought generally killed half the party every time because they were not balanced enough to work within the framework the game provided.
I know what I pointed out, yes.
And the situation you described...I can't even. If the GM puts enough pressure on the players, immediate survival will take precedent over long-term power at least some of the time. And beyond that, you can just ask your player not to be a jerk and ruin the game for everyone. I mean, I could make an Int11 Cha10 wizard who takes Martial Weapon Proficiency (great club), Profession (barrister) and Craft (shipwright), thus weighing down my party and making every encounter harder...but...just don't.
1 attack per melee round would give you a 5 second break before you can attack again.
2 attacks per melee round would give you a 2 second break before you can attack again.
3 attacks per melee round would give you a 1 second break before you can attack again.
Here is your problem (in my opinion).
You look at a 6 second round and assume/ believe that the 1st level fighter is thrusting with his sword on the 1st second and then standing around for 5 more seconds.
Watch a fencing bout. Pick any 6 second section and look at the number of things each fencer is doing. Feet are moving, hands are moving, body is changing direction... look at the distance being covered. Pathfinder takes ALL of that and boild it down to 5'space and 1 attack/round.
Since the game is an abstraction, it omits all of the things that happen in real combat except for actions which have a direct bearing on hit points.
So...wait. Your new system is in 6-second blocks? ...like the existing one? But...broken up into six 1-second blips?
I will answer this one in the next replay with marcryser
Quixote wrote:
...no. It's level-based. You just have two different levels per character, by the looks of it.[/QOUTE]
No, it is more of a super feat, or feature for a class as it requires prerequisites to gain one. It is based on your primary attribute and a subtracted valve as the time it takes to learn. It is not straight experience based.
1 attack per melee round would give you a 5 second break before you can attack again.
2 attacks per melee round would give you a 2 second break before you can attack again.
3 attacks per melee round would give you a 1 second break before you can attack again.
Here is your problem (in my opinion).
You look at a 6 second round and assume/ believe that the 1st level fighter is thrusting with his sword on the 1st second and then standing around for 5 more seconds.
Watch a fencing bout. Pick any 6 second section and look at the number of things each fencer is doing. Feet are moving, hands are moving, body is changing direction... look at the distance being covered. Pathfinder takes ALL of that and boild it down to 5'space and 1 attack/round.
Since the game is an abstraction, it omits all of the things that happen in real combat except for actions which have a direct bearing on hit points.
Hit points have even been described as not necessarily getting hit, but the amount of strain and energy your body can expend before the enemy lands a telling blow.
So...wait. Your new system is in 6-second blocks? ...like the existing one? But...broken up into six 1-second blips?
marcryser wrote:
1 attack per melee round would give you a 5 second break before you can attack again.
2 attacks per melee round would give you a 2 second break before you can attack again.
3 attacks per melee round would give you a 1 second break before you can attack again.
Here is your problem (in my opinion).
1. You look at a 6 second round and assume/ believe that the 1st level fighter is thrusting with his sword on the 1st second and then standing around for 5 more seconds.
2. Watch a fencing bout. Pick any 6 second section and look at the number of things each fencer is doing. Feet are moving, hands are moving, body is changing direction... look at the distance being covered. Pathfinder takes ALL of that and boild it down to 5'space and 1 attack/round.
3. Since the game is an abstraction, it omits all of the things that happen in real combat except for actions which have a direct bearing on hit points.
Sorry Quixote this will be a bit long
Background:
First off marcryser your 3 statements for my problem:
1. Nope, wrong the time was about how long it took you open a hole in the other persons defense assuming you were still fighting them.
2. Yes, and that still has many flaws in it
3. Yes, but left out a movement system that is also broken
So now a few Quick Definitions:
Hit Points (HP): they are basically what you can handle until a fatal blow is landed on you. The fatal blow can kill out right or render you unconscious and you bleed out and die. This means HP is part of your endurance and defense, it is you turning fatal blows into minor ones that you can survive.
Attacks: this is how many times in a melee round that you can open a hole in your opponents’ defense and attempt to land a fatal blow.
Melee Round: a 6 second block of time in which opponents move and attack each other.
Movement Base: this is the distance you can move in melee round based on the armor and encumbrances from weight your character must carry.
What generally happens is either you play by Initiative or by turn your side our side to complete one melee. There are several problems with each of these, and why they don’t work
First one: Your turn my turn, depending on the distance it is sometime best not to go first. They move and cannot reach you move and attack them killing a few and weakening them. Next round you win the roll killing them with out them even hitting your side. Other option: Oh look, they are in range you run up and kill a few. Then on their turn with less numbers they can only hurt a few of you. You roll again and pretty much the same results you get hurt more maybe a dead guy, but they still lost to much in the opening attack.
Second one: You use initiative, one guy on your side scores high the rest middle to low. The first guy moves all 30 of his movement and attacks. The next 4 are them 1 of them moves 20 and backstabs the first guy who moved killing him oops! The next three have a movement of 30 and run down the hole in you defense guy 1 left, they kill the Mage and Cleric. Now it is two on your side, the two were the mage and the cleric. Now they get one more and he flanks the thief to tie him down in combat. Yeah pretty much you are screwed, but remember the rules allow this and I do mean it allows this.
This led to the start of the system I use, but have updated because it to had flaws, the biggest one is it is complicated and required to much in terms of records. So, It got updated here Updated PDF after talking with Quixote
What we did was to break the 6 second melee round into 6 bits each a second long. Each bit is comprised of two parts a movement and an attack. The move is done first and follows initiative order. Once completed you go to attacks which also follow initiative order. Movement for the game was in all 6 seconds so we divide the movement provided by 6 to get a number you can move in a second. The next thing we did was change the number to an attribute instead base number and influenced it by strength. This was still doable and easy to track.
Then it all took a left turn, the reason was the one you stayed in your statement at number 2 the fencing bout. We had realized that what was going one was the attacker looking for an opening to strike. So, with 6 seconds in a round an attack takes a second that meant for 5 seconds he was looking for a opening or trying to create one. That led to the complicated thing in the original pdf. Why spells take 5 seconds to cast if you only have one attack. The time it takes to cast a spell and having archers always shooting you led to the Quick cast spell system. So well it hits realism it is cumbersome and requires to much records for something that needs to be fast. To us things got changed over time so we know it by heart and had no issues, but to everyone else it way to hard. So that brought it to what it is now in the revised PDF above.
So, the current version is:
1 melee round made of 6 seconds. Each second is made up of two parts move and attack. The move is 1/6th of the base speed or equal to your SPD Attribute, if you use it. The attack requires 1 second but moving does not count against the second. If the melee round has less seconds in it than you have attacks, you lose the extra attacks. The Flow is Initiative based and goes move until all finish then attack. Every 6 seconds is a new round and initiative roll.
Hit points have even been described as not necessarily getting hit, but the amount of strain and energy your body can expend before the enemy lands a telling blow.
I have a slightly different version but basically the same idea.
If you have a chance can you try the new one above and let me know what you think.
Hit points are an elegant abstraction in that they are vague. They do not or benefit from a rigorous definition outside of their mechanical one.
In 3rd edition, it was pointed out that hit points represented how you take a hit even more than how many hits you can take before going down. They were never meant to represent how much meat you're made of; 8 damage from a crossbow bolt to a lvl1 goblin warrior means he's gutshot and dying. To a 13hp fighter, it could be a seriously wounded shoulder. To a 217hp barbarian, it's a graze along her arm.
I often narrate a hit to a PC as something like "your foe swings their axe, but you step to the side at the last minute. The blade slices your shoulder instead of sinking deep into your neck. Take 11."
It is funny though!
3 people with three different descriptions of the same thing. Normally this would would cause a problem and a argument on whose interpretation is right.
Yet, because its hit points we all just go what ever and ignore it. It is a simple game mechanic that states "you subtract damage from here until you die, Heal you add".
Wish all the rules were so easy to implement.
So back to the topic:
Why a second based turn instead of a 6 second melee with one turn in it. Mostly because of the movement system was inadequate, it left to many holes and no way to continue on after your turn and you had movement left.
The problem that it causes is attacks per melee round which are still at 6 second blocks. Limiting them in a logical format adds to much trouble in tracking and is complex. SO the simple solution is 1 attack per second.
Now should that lead to a cool down period of 5 seconds for a single attack (formula: 6/#attacks equals cool down)?
Should the situation just be until the end of the round and then reset?
I don't really see how those definitions of hit points are all that different, really. But okay.
We all saw the same thing at one point a description of HP, we all took a slightly different interpretation of it. Yet no one seems to argue over it like the other rules, it just strikes me as funny.
Quixote wrote:
I don't know how to answer your questions because I'm still unsure what this whole thing brings to the table.
It allows for a continuous use of movement in time, with attacks along the way. The current system only allows for movement, Attack, Next, no mater if you can still do anything or not. It doesn't allow for hit and run tactics and many other things. Depending on how you use Initiative with it, you can have holes in the defensive line. The second system eliminates all that, but can cause issues in how to handle multiple attacks.
I don't know how to answer your questions because I'm still unsure what this whole thing brings to the table.
Been thinking about this question. I find there is no easy way to say it but as "No, it changes out much of the current system, it doesn't integrate with it much at all".
Everything was based on time:
6 Seconds to cast a memorized or read from a scroll spell, 5 to cast the last second to target and release.
1 second to preform an attack.
2 seconds to counter spell. 1 to recognize the school, 1 to cast a counter.
1 second to use a Quick Cast spell, so it cannot be countered but limited number of them.
1 second for combat cast scrolls that release spells in a second. If they are damaged they also release the stored spells.
Movement is per second, and simultaneous with the enemies, then attacks by initiative.
I was thinking the Movement and attack system part might work, but with out the other things being applied it will not work. It is to specialized.
So, lets’ try this Again:
Why using a Second clock in a melee round over a turn based, even though both will use Initiative the same way. Movement can be handled with a Speed Score (Spd) or dividing the base movement by 6. I am going to bypass the time it takes to cast a spell in my system and leave it at the games system of turn, round or what ever time they set and a turn is equal to an attack or standard action.
The Melee Round is 6 seconds in time, that is why the base score is divided by 6 to get the movement per second. The modifiers and penalties for them like using Hustle and Run still apply if using the base speed method.
The Speed score is the maximum you can move in a second and is considered a full (x4) run if you do so. It is directly the feet per second you can move only modified by the weight you are carrying. Divide Spd by 3 to get you walking speed, also considered your 5-footstep speed. A hustle is 2x your walking speed, anything faster is the run (x3) speed until you reach your full Spd score. The modified speed score you get from the weight you are carrying is the speed score used in the following discussions
How does this break down?
Each Second has a movement part then an action part. You can move or not it is a choice, if you do not move then 1/6 of the base movement would be considered lost. You move by initiative or by general statement until combat begins. The next part is the action phase, and it is simply anyone want to do one, those that do follow the initiative rolled. After the actions are resolved you proceed to the next second and begin movement all over again, they the actions. You just keep repeating until all six seconds are used. There is a limit of one standard or immediate action per second unless you have more than 6 attacks from either normal or modified means. Modified means can be form Magic, two weapon fighting, etc. It is quite possible not to be able to use all your attacks in a single melee round. Any extra attacks are lost at the end of the round, you simply did not have the time to use them. The seconds are set as Move then attack, you cannot move after a attack in a single second normally. There are abilities, feats and features that can allow you to move after an attack by allowing you to attack in the normal movement phase. The only rule change to make this work is an Attack of Opportunity (AoO) is an immediate action that occurs in the movement phase but does replace it.
Jumping:
You can simply jump up to your walking speed score in a standing jump. If you use the 10 foot run before you jump you get multiplier for that run speed (2, 3, or 4) to the distance and it increases the time you are in the air as well. The time in air can be carried to the next melee round if you jumped at the end.
Falling:
You accelerate as you fall, every second you fall add 30 to the acceleration until it reaches 180 ft per second. So, the first second you fall 30 feet, at 30 ft/s and a total of 30 feet. The next second will fall 60 feet at 60 ft/s a total of up to 90 feet you can have fallen. The third second you fall 90 feet at 90 ft/s and will have fallen a maximum distance of 180 feet. The damage is still a 1d6 every 10 fallen. Once you hit 180 ft/s of acceleration, 6 seconds, 630 feet and 63d6 and are still falling you have hit the maximum damage you can receive. The height fallen is 30, 90, 180, 300, 450, and 630 for the first 6 seconds, after that divide the remaining distance by 180 to find the time it takes.
Why can this be useful?
The Question always comes up I killed the foe in front of me can I still move?
With this the answer is Yes if there is time left in the round, and answers how far. It also answers can I still attack because you can if you reach a target and have attacks left, again at 1 per second.
Since you haven't answered my question, I'll try to do so for you:
Making this big, sweeping change to the system seems to allow for more tactical movement and flexibility when combining movement and other actions at the cost of much longer, more complex combat rounds.
--does that sound about right?
I can't say it seems like it's worth it, but whatever works for you, I suppose.
Since you haven't answered my question, I'll try to do so for you:
Making this big, sweeping change to the system seems to allow for more tactical movement and flexibility when combining movement and other actions at the cost of much longer, more complex combat rounds.
--does that sound about right?
I can't say it seems like it's worth it, but whatever works for you, I suppose.
No, I don't think it really does. It changes the order of things happening in game play sure, but most of it is controllable. It mostly turns into this is how we are going to advance, in this formation. The enemy and us will combine here in about 2 seconds. Second line has 2 seconds to get into position for line of sight. Combat begins since most of us have 2 attacks or less in a melee round it normally doesn't become an issue. Moving into a position in combat happens all the time, but might take longer before you can attack again.
By removing the spell casting demands in this version it is rather smooth, and it does answer the question can I make it to my next target in time.
...alright. Still don't have a clear, concise answer as to why the game needs this. At least in a way I can understand. But again: whatever you want to do for your games...
It allows chest board movement, or very controlled movement, before during and after a strike. It answers can I get to another opponent in the melee round. You can control a round down to a second, making smaller moves instead of broad ones.
Now the muddled/rambling part:
You always know how far you can get in any point in the round.
It also allowed us to build on it, which I will admit unless you are use to the base 3 or 4 posts above this can get complex. It also limits casters in a serious way when you add the next part. The part that says 5 seconds to cast a spell if you only have one attack. It allowed us to put a time it takes to counter spell, you can start a counter spell to late. Most of it was to limit casters and improve the Martial classes. Making the MP system and Quick Cast spells gave them some power back as a balance.
The posting back and forth with you made me realize that I was trying to explain a system we had gotten use to as it evolved. That evolution had add many complexities added over time, as Ryan Freire pointed out. So the basic approach was to break it down to the smallest unit you can, a second. Then build the system on top of it that will allow a fine control over combat that your players can use. I am not going to say this system is better than the one in the book, it is different though.
as mentioned above, Champions uses something similar. You move in every segment and can act in some. I converted Rifts to this to handle some problems I had with Initiative and Speed, but I don't think Pathfinder has that problem.
In practice this is what happens; it turns out exactly like the normal system would, it just takes a lot longer to get there, since you're now chopping a single action into multiple parts where everyone is active on the board. It seems dynamic, but it's just kind of a extra.
You think people will move like chess, but either they will and it drags the game down into a quagmire of strategery as people move forward and then retreat when confronted by more numerous or powerful forces causing a weird and unejoyable game of cat and mouse, or people just say "F it" and move like they would normally, just 5 feet at a time (the last part is what actually happens).
Just some observations from experience with such a system.
as mentioned above, Champions uses something similar. You move in every segment and can act in some. I converted Rifts to this to handle some problems I had with Initiative and Speed, but I don't think Pathfinder has that problem.
In practice this is what happens; it turns out exactly like the normal system would, it just takes a lot longer to get there, since you're now chopping a single action into multiple parts where everyone is active on the board. It seems dynamic, but it's just kind of a extra.
You think people will move like chess, but either they will and it drags the game down into a quagmire of strategery as people move forward and then retreat when confronted by more numerous or powerful forces causing a weird and unejoyable game of cat and mouse, or people just say "F it" and move like they would normally, just 5 feet at a time (the last part is what actually happens).
Just some observations from experience with such a system.
Thanks,
Ironically it is the same game Rifts, and the Macross version of it that caused this to develop as well. The exception was we used a impulse table from Starfleet battles as the solution.
