Saw a discussion recently about how at mid to high levels the game ends up being like rocket tag where players either win overwhelmingly or lose overwhelmingly.
Thus I had an idea that might mitigate that issue. I can’t test it myself at the moment so if anyone tries it, let me know how it turns out.
Alright, first, the groundwork. One thing I love about 3.x/pf1 is scaling from normal person rightfully terrified of a goblin all the way up to superheroes. Thus I don’t want to limit that scale at all. Second, I wanted minimal changes to the mechanics, so the idea is to stick with current bonuses and such, but to just even things out a bit so the linear bonuses don’t get so wide apart.
Note, I’ll present the idea with one set of values, but at the end I will present a few ways the idea can be altered for different levels of granularity and scope.
This, the idea is that instead of taking bonuses as direct modifiers to rolls, the bonuses are compared and the difference between them dictates the DC of the check, and the key here is diminishing returns as the difference becomes larger, thus having 50 points in your favor is essentially the same as 30 points in your favor. Any stats with a base value, such as AC or SR, subtracts 10 (yes that includes lesser SR). A bell curve roll is used.
Let’s start with an attack roll. The attacker compares their attack bonus vs the defender’s AC (minus the base 10). For example, the attacker gets +2 to attack, and the defender is wearing a chain shirt with some dex for a +6. That is -4 points of difference, and in favor of the defender.
The difference modifies the DC of the roll, but with diminishing returns.
This table sums it up. Meet or beat DC.
Difference, DC
-20 or less, DC 3
-16-19, DC 4
-12-15, DC 5
-9-11, DC 6
-6-8, DC 7
-4-5, DC 8
-2-3, DC 9
-1, DC 10
0, DC 11
1, DC 12
2-3, DC 13
4-5, DC 14
6-8, DC 15
9-11, DC 16
12-15, DC 17
16 or more, 18
Critical hits, if you beat the DC by 5 (one half the average roll of 3d6), then it counts as a critical hit, and if the DC is missed by that value, it counts as a critical miss.
The same can apply to any opposed check, implicit or explicit.
Damage can also be handled similarly, though obviously some changes do need to be made for a proper comparison.
Dmg to HP
HP equals the average of the max value of all the possessed HD (Thus a single d12 plus nine D4s will be 4.8 -> 4 HP, but five D12s and five D4s will be 8 HP), plus BAB and the con modifier. (For a bit less lethality replace the BAB and con modifier with the con score).
This also maintains relevance of DR and resistance, even the DR 1/- from adamantine remains relevant.
The excessive damage rules from 3.5 need to be altered but actually matter so a farmer getting hit by a giant will most likely die.
For damage, compare the attack’s max damage and divide by the max roll of all the target’s HD. (Tip, since each character already knows their own max HD, the value ranges can be pre-calculated, so they look at the damage and see which result range that amount of damage falls within, thus no division math during play. And a player that actually knows their sheet won’t even need to look after a while. The reverse can also be true, the attacker can pre-calculate the ranges from their side too.) The result on the table gives the damage to be rolled.
<.25 = 1
.25 = D2
.5 = D4
1 = D6
2 = D8
3 = D10
4 = D12
+3^(X-1) = +XD12 and roll fort save vs DC 15+[HD of attacker]+[2, doubled for each size the attacker is compared to defender] or die from massive damage.
(Thus if the dmg max is 5 {X =1, -1, equals 3^0=+1} times the HD max, deal 2d12 and roll a DC 16 fort save)
(The values of 3^x-1 are: 5, 7, 13, 31, 85,…)
Roll the above die for how much HP the target loses.
Critical hits still double the damage dealt to HP.
This also makes hitting 0 HP exactly far more likely (you know, those “disabled” rules that no one ever gets to use) and negative HP remain relevant.
Now, the granularity can be changed. You can change the base roll from 3d6 to 3d12 (or die sizes and combinations, even just stick with 1d20) and alter the scale so that range can be wider or narrower. How quickly you scale from the raw difference to the DC can be changed separately from the dice.
The result of changing scale basically sets the limits of the range, at what point does the increase in difference cease to matter at all. Larger dice allow you to scale things in two ways, first to include a larger range of difference, second is to allow more variation in how much smaller differences affect the chance of success.
For example, I’ll put up using 3d12 (cause I love d12s and never get to use them) as a contrasting example. Given the range however, I’ll only put in the top half, should be easy enough to mirror the bottom half of you use it.
Difference, DC
0 = DC 20
1 = DC 21
2 = DC 22
3 = DC 23
4-5 = DC 24
6-7 = DC 25
8-9 = DC 26
10-12 = DC 27
13-15 = DC 28
16-18 = DC 29
19-22 = DC 30
23-26 = DC 31
27-30 = DC 32
31-35 = DC 33
36-40 = DC 34
41-45 = DC 35
46+ = DC 36
Criticals are when beating (or missing) the DC by 10 (one half the average of 3d12).
This is just a basic draft ready for test play. Let me know what you guys think and if anyone actually tries it, let me know how it turns out.
1. you might need some better explanation, as I can't follow what you are doing
2. it seems overly complicated
3. We take care of the rocket tag by boosting the bad guys, usually max HP and a template or two. seems to work just fine to balance the bad guys vs the party.
First, 2 - “balance” is neither the problem nor a consideration of mine. I don’t GM “combat as sport,” which is the only kind that needs “balance.”
Second, 1 -
(Atk bonuses) - (AC bonuses) = Difference.
Look up on the Difference on table for relevant DC. Roll dice against DC.
Hard to describe, especially in describing how the table works, but easy to actually play with.
Third, 3 - beefing up numbers just makes low numbers and everything less relevant. I’ve been searching for a way to make adamantine armor’s DR actually relevant for a while, because by second or third level, the damage amounts are so large that subtracting one or two points is basically irrelevant. This idea maintains the disparity between superheroes and regular people while keeping the balance of values similar to a low level game, so a DR of 1 or 2 is still actually relevant even at high levels. Simply increasing numbers only delays the problem and makes it take up more of the GM’s time while encouraging players to keep on trying to outpace the ever growing numbers.
|
With the normal rules, the player knows their number, so they just roll a die, add their modifier and they are done. The GM then checks the DC (in secret) and the situation is solved.
With your system, the player will need to tell his modifier to the GM and roll without having any idea of his roll is good/bad. Then the GM needs to make some simple math, check a table, and then the situation is solved. I understand that, with time, the table will be memorized, but seems indeed over complicated.
I also did not check the probabilities of success, but with a bell curve it seems hard encounters are basically a no win.
|
|
Just to give an example of the math...
In your example, an attack of +2 against an AC of 16 (tuned +6) would be a "DC 14", since you need "4" to reach it (from your explanation it seemed a DC 8, but that would only make sense if you'd succeed on 8 or less).
With normal rules, you'd have a hit on 14+, so 30% of success, with 5% chance of a crit. With your system you'd also need 14+, so this drops to 16.2%, with 0% chance of crit since the max you can get on a roll is 18 (not 14+5 for crit), and even if you say nat 18 is equal to nat 20, the crit would be 0.46%.
Here is a table comparing the two systems for an AC of 20:
To Hit | vanilla chance % | alt. chance %
<-6 | 5% | 0.46%
-5 > -2| 5% | 1.85%
-1 > 0 | 5% | 4.63%
+1 | 10% | 4.63%
+2 | 15% | 9.26%
+3 | 20% | 9.26%
+4 | 25% | 9.26%
+5 | 30% | 16.20%
+6 | 35% | 16.20%
+7 | 40% | 25.92%
+8 | 45% | 25.92%
+9 | 50% | 37.49%
+10 | 55% | 49.99%
+11 | 60% | 62.49%
+12 | 65% | 74.06%
+13 | 70% | 74.06%
+14 | 75% | 83.78%
+15 | 80% | 83.78%
+16 | 85% | 90.72%
+17 | 90% | 90.72%
+18 | 95% | 90.72%
+19>+21| 95% | 95.35%
+22>+25| 95% | 98.13%
+26>+29| 95% | 99.52%
> +30 | 95% | 100.00%
All in all, your system managed to make "hard rolls" even harder, while doing basically nothing for "easy rolls", which is precisely what rocket tag is.
The idea of rocket tag is "my offense is so big, that if I win Initiative, I win the game", and as I've shown, when you have a big number, nothing changes.
IMO, the rocket tag effect happens because offense (to hit, damage) scales faster than defense (hp, AC, saves). You have much more options to increase offense than defense. I don't think dice are the problem.
IMO, the rocket tag effect happens because offense (to hit, damage) scales faster than defense (hp, AC, saves). You have much more options to increase offense than defense. I don't think dice are the problem.
A fair observation, but I understand Hitomi's frustrations. 3.0 and on through PF1E were also, perhaps unintentionally, made in such a way as to sell more books through increasing offense options, while defense options remained mostly static while also encouraging a binary system with respect to saves(more classes and options over time that took damage from half to zero with nothing in between) and an (again perhaps unintentional) encouragement of a mindset where loss of hit points only happened because a player made the wrong character creation/level up choices. I have my own take to 3.x myself and I have focused on improving some of the more rigid feats and character class abilities to allow for more options beyond simply killing things faster as well as changing base game approaches so that simply killing things faster isn't the only option available to a party.
|
|
Oh, I totally get the frustration. I don't like high level that much specially because of this.
On the other hand, I kind of understand why it is the way it is and, to be honest, I don't feel it is too much broken (unless you introduce Mythic), just that it feels 1-12 is a different game than 13-20.
Like, at higher level, many fights already take a long time to resolve and that is with big offense and low defense. Now, since we have limited resources, to increase defense we'd have to decrease offense, which would for sure make fights even longer and, to be honest, less exciting.
Both as a GM or as a player, it kind of sucks when our attacks/spells don't hit, so perhaps, in the end, this is "as intended" to emphasize the big powers of such levels.
With your system, the player will need to tell his modifier to the GM and roll without having any idea of his roll is good/bad. Then the GM needs to make some simple math, check a table, and then the situation is solved. I understand that, with time, the table will be memorized, but seems indeed over complicated.
This is not right. The player rolls, looks on his table and gives the GM his result. Whether the result is good or bad depends on how evenly matched the player is with target, but the better the roll, the better result, just like normal. The GM then takes the player’s result and compares to the difference (which the gm should have ready already, perhaps not including bless or something which can marked with a token) and notes whether it hit, which is no different from normal.
I also did not check the probabilities of success, but with a bell curve it seems hard encounters are basically a no win.
Now, I normally prefer bell curve rolls even without using such a system.
However, the point is not to make hard encounters easy, but rather to make it pointless to raise one’s stats to ridiculous levels and make monsters that should be scary at a certain level remain scary at that level.
Thus, if a player already has 11 points more atk than AC at their level, there is little point in going higher because it basically requires a critical at that point, and if they actually get 16 points higher for their level, there is zero incentive to go higher because it does nothing for them at all.
One advantage of the bellcurve though, is that it is rare to get those extreme values, making it less valuable to try to get enough atk bonus to “cap out” and get 16 points of atk above level.
However, the method still works if you just use a d20, and that leaves max value as more likely to happen making it more valuable to cap out, but it does make it look better if you’re just looking at extreme results.
Also, you forgot how dmg works on this to scale back lethality. Atk vs Def is just one part of the equation. Arguably dmg plays a larger part of the “I win in one round” part of rocket tag.
Something I did forget, is that my oldest homebrew was to make bab into Base Combat Bonus, and applied to both atk and def. That makes full plate really amazing armor, which is actually what full plate should be. Knights in full plate were essentially tanks in medieval war.
Lastly, you are right about things scaling differently, but with this setup, you can adjust the scaling to account for that. If ac is scaling slower than atk, then you scale ac differently from atk.
Thus, you can scale atk bonus like this,
atk, DC
1, +1
2-3, +2
4-5, +3
6-8, +4
9-11, +5
12-15, +6
16+, +7
Then you scale AC like this,
AC, DC
1, -1
2, -2
3-4, -3
5-6, -4
7-8, -5
9-11, -6
12+, -7
You might want to change the values but do you see how the scaling can be tailored to where you think the problem is?
Both as a GM or as a player, it kind of sucks when our attacks/spells don't hit, so perhaps, in the end, this is "as intended" to emphasize the big powers of such levels.
I find the best way to make players feel powerful, and to make bosses feel dangerous, is to stop making all fights roughly equal in power to the PCs. If the PCs have trouble with a couple zombies at low level, then come back and breeze through them, they feel like they actually got more powerful. Then they face a boss and keep whiffing and realize they can’t win by relying solely on numbers and must actually use strategy and items and the environment and most importantly their wits in order to win, which makes the boss feel dangerous. Also, if fights later on have a mix of easy and difficult foes, that also gives secondary fighters a place, as they can easily handle the lesser enemies while that full melees handle the more difficult ones. Without that, it becomes rather pointless to have only some combat ability if only ever fight monsters that challenge full melees.
The idea is still basically a rough draft and obviously needs refinement, so thanks for taking a look. I hope you keep looking, commenting, and poking holes in it. Hopefully you’ll like it eventually. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the idea, but as a comparatively numbers-stupid person who found THAC0 obnoxious, this is well out of my comfort zone of fiddly level of mechanics to deal with. It might work (though people with a better head for numbers than I have are seeming to suggest it won't), but as a GM or player, I am no way, no how doing that much subtractive arithmetic or consulting a table every time someone rolls a die to see if they hit. Especially not at high levels, where folks are regularly rolling multiple attacks per round with a ridiculous bevy of bonuses and penalties to account for already. (ETA: if it does work for you, great. I'm just noting a key issue here is audience buy in.)
I think an inherent core problem of the d20 system is the d20--with an equal chance of generating any number, it's just too swingy. And the only way to change that is change the dice being rolled. But I don't know how much success folks have had with that as most are not willing to use a multi die system as that always means you are more likely to roll average and that in the end guarantees success more frequently which is apparently a problem, or so I've been told. I do think the advantage/disadvantage system in D&D is an interesting approach, tho then the issue becomes people.trying to maximize advantage constantly.
I think the other thing at least PF1 could benefit from--I can't remember how much of a problem this is in PF2 as I've barely played it--is to have a harder cap on bonuses, so you're not dealing with everything in high level to be DC 40 to 50 for it to even maybe be a challenge. Make a hard cap of +15 or something and make higher levels more about additional abilities or flexibility rather than higher.
I'm running a high level game right now and in the meantime I find it key just to lean into extreme triumph or disaster aspects. In the end the PCs are going to usually succeed at what they set out to so so it's more about just seeing what the consequences of that godlike power is and whose attention it draws and what else becomes possible. Let the successes--or failures--themselves drive the story and create avenues for ever scaling shenanigans.
Had an additional thought: for combat specifically, I think one of the challenges to me is less about to hit and more about damage. Folks who know how to stack bonuses can easily issue hundreds of HP of damage at high levels in one blow. Which means you either need them to miss or monsters need to have ungodly levels of HP, both of which are unsatisfying solutions.
I don't really mind folks that hit--I think it's more satisfying to everyone when you do SOMETHING than whiff every round. It's the one-shot-kill (which can also kill PCs much too quickly) that's the problem, and that's not a result of hitting, per se, it's how damage calculates out. Which suggests the thing that may need to be changed is damage output--whether that's by limiting damage dice or installing a damage maximum or instilling more effective damage soaking mechanisms (e.g., instead of DR, just have an ability that halves all damage or whatever) at high levels.
Which means you either need them to miss or monsters need to have ungodly levels of HP, both of which are unsatisfying solutions.
I disagree - this is the most easy and most elegant solution.
More HP means the bad guys last longer, can avoid the one-shot kill. It allows the players to use those attacks/spells that do insane amounts of damage, so they feel like they are doing cool stuff. And as a bonus, the bad guys actually get to do something to retaliate, since they have avoided that one-shot kill. It's also very easy to do with Combat Manager, just max their HP (or more) and add a template or two.
Which means you either need them to miss or monsters need to have ungodly levels of HP, both of which are unsatisfying solutions.I disagree - this is the most easy and most elegant solution.
More HP means the bad guys last longer, can avoid the one-shot kill. It allows the players to use those attacks/spells that do insane amounts of damage, so they feel like they are doing cool stuff. And as a bonus, the bad guys actually get to do something to retaliate, since they have avoided that one-shot kill. It's also very easy to do with Combat Manager, just max their HP (or more) and add a template or two.
Easiest, yes, but otherwise it is horrible. Increasing HP and dmg reduces everything else involved. For example, adamantine armor grants DR 1-2/- depending on medium or heavy, but even that DR 2 is basically worthless because the dmg and HP values are so high.
Consider Resistance, 5-15 in general is rendered meaningless when taking 50-100 dmg.
Additionally, if you always have to max HP, you have less room for randomizing HP, especially with too much dmg reducing every monster to one or two hits, a difference between the HP of bandit 1 and bandit 2 becomes unnoticeable.
But really, the problem stems from players maximizing numbers, and that stems from “combat as sport.”
When every encounter needs to be “balanced,” resolved with the most basic tactics that rely on numbers, and using few enemies so those enemies are similar level to the PCs, ….
Instead, if the numbers can be kept down and encounters made difficult by numbers, tactics, and environment, then the combat would be much more exciting and interesting, and the ancillary aspects like DR and Resistance remain relevant, and that brings back the idea that you need to attack in the right way rather than simply overwhelm with dmg, and it requires spreading out the abilities the PCs go for since even if they could one-hit-kill everything they hit, there would be too many enemies to kill in one round and the enemies would be limiting how many the PCs could attack at once, which would then mean the players would need to build versatile and broad builds rather than one-trick-ponies.
Simply increasing HP is just a bandaid.
I think an inherent core problem of the d20 system is the d20--with an equal chance of generating any number, it's just too swingy. And the only way to change that is change the dice being rolled.
3d6 variant is described in Unearthed Arcana and works really well. I read somewhere that it is the most common rule variant used, but who knows if it is true.
I do think the advantage/disadvantage system in D&D is an interesting approach,
Works better with multiple dice, where only one gets swapped if the extra die is higher.
Also, advantage can be rolled with different sized dice, which affects how effective it is and therefore scalable.
I think the other thing at least PF1 could benefit from--I can't remember how much of a problem this is in PF2 as I've barely played it--is to have a harder cap on bonuses, so you're not dealing with everything in high level to be DC 40 to 50 for it to even maybe be a challenge. Make a hard cap of +15 or something and make higher levels more about additional abilities or flexibility rather than higher.
I don’t like the idea of achieving this with caps. One of my favorite aspects of 3.x is the smooth scaling from commoner to deity. Caps work against that. Part of why the idea presented in my OP is the complicated way it is, because it preserves the scaling while reducing the numbers applied to rolls.
Though I have other ways of achieving the results in a simpler way, but those require basically reworking the entire system.
Which means you either need them to miss or monsters need to have ungodly levels of HP, both of which are unsatisfying solutions.I disagree - this is the most easy and most elegant solution.
More HP means the bad guys last longer, can avoid the one-shot kill. It allows the players to use those attacks/spells that do insane amounts of damage, so they feel like they are doing cool stuff. And as a bonus, the bad guys actually get to do something to retaliate, since they have avoided that one-shot kill. It's also very easy to do with Combat Manager, just max their HP (or more) and add a template or two.
I am all for adding a template, I don't know about maxing HP.
But really, the problem stems from players maximizing numbers, and that stems from “combat as sport.”When every encounter needs to be “balanced,” resolved with the most basic tactics that rely on numbers, and using few enemies so those enemies are similar level to the PCs, ….
Instead, if the numbers can be kept down and encounters made difficult by numbers, tactics, and environment, then the combat would be much more exciting and interesting, and the ancillary aspects like DR and Resistance remain relevant, and that brings back the idea that you need to attack in the right way rather than simply overwhelm with dmg, and it requires spreading out the abilities the PCs go for since even if they could one-hit-kill everything they hit, there would be too many enemies...
So 2 things.
1. We have discovered that it's virtually impossible to not have players "Make combat a sport" and maximizing everything they can. Pathfinder rewards it way too much.
2. On top of Maximizing HP and adding templates, we also still use DR, Resistances (they do still make a difference, and we also usually double the number of mooks in an encounter, make them smart, and use terrain.But when a fighter/archer at 11th level can fire 6 arrows per round, mostly ignoring DR, and deal over 100 damage, there's very little that Terrain, tactics and numbers can do.
Most bad guys come with a melee attack, and seldom a ranged attack, so hiding from the archer doesn't work, since they need to move to engage the party, and terrain works against them as well. without rewriting encounter, which takes too much time out of our adult lives, we go a simple route - max HP, add more mooks, add templates. sometimes raise the level of the badguys.
enough to make the encounter a challenge, but not to be overwhelming. And still allows the players to have the fun of saying things like "I dealt over 700 damage that round"
|
|
I don't believe rules are the problem, but instead how people use them.
When a player min/max, the "max" part is usually showcased and problematic and I see many GMs (me included in a couple instances) of trying to challenge the PCs against the "max" part, but this usually don't work and can even harm the game in other ways. I believe the answer is to focus on the "min" part.
As an example, take a regular party where one player is a min/maxer to the point of dealing a lot of damage. By increasing AC/resistances/DR/HP, we might reign said player, but as a consequence we also probably made the other three players less effective.
Not only that, by showing the min/maxer that they can't beat enemies that easily, we might actually be incentivizing them to focus even more resources on increasing this damage output!
Now, what did they had to sacrifice to deal humongous damage? Will? AC? Skills? If the player is useless outside of combat, then by increasing the amount of non-combat encounters we'll be incentivizing them to spend resources to participate in that. If said player is constantly being controlled by others, they might invest in will, and so on.
Everything is an opportunity cost and we need to make the players feel it.
I understand that, many times we GMs don't have the time to alter encounters to the point of solving these issues, specially when running APs. Then, I believe the best solution is to talk to the players and ask them to tone down their PCs. Banning problematic stuff also helps (like vanilla summoner, or Mythic Vital Strike, and so on).
It is quite surprising how some talk is easier and wields more positive results than changing the whole system because a small fraction of players are "abusing" it.
Then, I believe the best solution is to talk to the players and ask them to tone down their PCs. Banning problematic stuff also helps (like vanilla summoner, or Mythic Vital Strike, and so on).
It is quite surprising how some talk is easier and wields more positive results than changing the whole system because a small fraction of players are "abusing" it.
I wish it were that easy, but old habits die hard. In my experience, all players eventually become min/maxers, and no amount of talking to them will bring them back in line with the normal constraints of the game.
People want to be the triumphal heroes, and they do this in PF1 by min/maxing so they can always win.
To be fair to your comments, we have banned certain things, Fighters, Multishot, Summoners, etc. but even with that, it's not uncommon to see 500+ damage from one attack round....
We have discovered that it's virtually impossible to not have players "Make combat a sport" and maximizing everything they can. Pathfinder rewards it way too much.
This is an example of why Sir Longears is correct.
It is not the players that make combat-as-sport, it is the GMs.
GMs dictate whether the 15-minute workday is a problem.
GMs dictate whether particular spells and items can be found.
GMs dictate basically the whole game.
First, a good GM does not need prep to run a game at all. But prep can help make a game better, though prep does take time. APs are essentially prep done for you, not a restricted railroad that must be followed. Further, once you can make and run encounters without prep, then you can modify prepped encounters, whether your own prep or from an AP, without any time investment.
And combat-as-sport is the main driver of the need for “balance,” and that need is the biggest time sink for prep. Remove the very source of the need for balance and you drastically reduce the time needed for prep.
How the GM runs the game sets the tone, pace, and expectations for the players. If the GM runs the game like combat-as-sport, then that becomes the expectation of the players. Likewise, if the Gm runs the game like combat-as-war, then that becomes the expectation instead.
Rocket Tag is a problem I've grappled with as well, but I've come to the conclusion that the problem cannot be fixed by just adjusting the numbers. At very best you'd just create more problems by doing that. You need to fundamentally change the design of character classes, monsters, and the way the action economy works.
As others have already noted, part of the problem is that offensive options tend to outstrip defensive options. However, this is really only scratching the surface of the issue. Strong defensive abilities do exist, and when stacked together it's relatively easy to create "no sell" situations where enemies simply do not have a reasonable chance of actually damaging you. If you were to take away the strong offensive options that can overpower these strong defensive options, you can very easily get into a situation where conventional attacks just don't work. AC outscales attack and there's really no point at higher levels in even bothering with conventional attacks when they usually don't work. This is, if anything, even worse than rocket tag.
And this is when we run into the problem of the niche partitioning of the Pathfinder classes. Many Pathfinder classes and monsters are very specialized, having a specific kind of attack they favor. They are both more accurate and more damaging with that attack, but the tradeoff is that they lack the diversity to use other approaches when their main strategy fails. This makes it very difficult to create balanced defensive properties. Anything with an AC high enough to not get rocket tagged by a Fighter who is totally specialized in his weapon is going to be very difficult for a Magus to hit at all. The balance between full BAB classes like the Fighter and 3/4 BAB classes like the Magus practically necessitates rocket tag, since if the Fighter can't hit reliably then the Magus basically needs to burn Arcane Accuracy to hit at all.
But I think there's another angle here that's equally problematic, and that's that there really isn't great counterplay against ganging up against a single target. PC's will often focus their attention on taking down one enemy at a time, as a dead enemy is no longer a threat. To an extent, GM's need to pull their punches here as focusing on a single PC can often feel like bullying even if it is objectively the tactically correct decision the enemies would make. It's just not fun for players to be knocked out of the battle because all the enemies ganged up on them. But from a tactical standpoint it's hard to get away from this since it's often objectively the correct course of action. Once enemies start going down, it often becomes a domino effect where one side's advantage just continues to grow. This can make fights feel faster than they really are, because the fight may as well already be over on the first round because a big hitter on one side is down.
If rocket tag is to truly be solved, I feel the solution would be to add good options to punish the tactic of focusing on a single target. However, there really isn't a good way to do this. The closest thing to a "get off my back" immediate action option is Emergency Force Sphere. This spell is really good at keeping you alive, but a bit overrated in the sense that it's not actually good at winning fights. Unless you build around it you will be effectively out of the fight for at least 1 turn after casting it. Its reputation as an overpowered spell comes less from Arcanists using Dimensional Slide to get around its downsides, and more form the fact that abilities like this that give you a "get out of jail free" card just do not exist in other contexts so it feels uniquely powerful despite being more of a survival tool than a fight winner. I feel that if you want to solve Rocket Tag, you need to hand out abilities like EFS to all classes and monsters like candy, where it's just expected that everyone is going to have defensive abilities that can give them some breathing room. In my view, this is really the only way to solve rocket tag without causing immense collateral damage in other respects.
|
|
Here is another example of how some decisions as the GM could change the "balance" of things.
The biggest point and difference between the caster and non-caster classes is the idea that the non-casters can "do their thing all day", while the casters have "limited resources". This is why spells are so powerful. They aren't available all the time, so the caster needs to think carefully when to use them.
However, what I always see is the casters burning through their spells like there is no tomorrow and when they run out of them, the group calls it a day and continue later. This breaks the whole system, because now spells are basically limitless, and also leads to the mentioned 15 minute day, which also sucks.
leads to the mentioned 15 minute day, which also sucks.
which is one of the easiest things to fix by simply putting the party on a deadline, or putting them in places where it's difficult/impossible to rest.
leads to the mentioned 15 minute day, which also sucks.which is one of the easiest things to fix by simply putting the party on a deadline, or putting them in places where it's difficult/impossible to rest.
Exactly, something the GM controls, not the mechanics, thus, when the 15-minute workday rears it’s ugly head, it is the GM’s failure.
I like the simplified version.
It also applies to Kaju vs supers and mechs.
I mean, Godzilla can't even really see individual humans. A city or an army, they are a credible threat. He starts off eating larger and larger ships laden with fish or something. That there are more and more survivors is because they are not worth the bother. That they eventually die from radiation is something he probably never noticed.
Exactly, something the GM controls, not the mechanics, thus, when the 15-minute workday rears it’s ugly head, it is the GM’s failure.leads to the mentioned 15 minute day, which also sucks.which is one of the easiest things to fix by simply putting the party on a deadline, or putting them in places where it's difficult/impossible to rest.
I have also had some ugly experiences with players attempting to game the system to ensure the DM sticks to the 15 minute day. Lots of rope trick, teleportation, and similar ways to avoid enemies, along with bitter fights over XP because they felt they "overcame the challenge" of certain situations. It's not just the DM, it's the players as well, and expectations that have gone on to become social/gaming contracts.
My personal favorite was the guy who insisted on sticking to the 15 minute day and got upset when wandering monsters found the party by "dm fiat". He didn't last long after the second arguement.
I've always felt that humanoid wandering monsters should have decent weapons and armor rather than treasure. If they follow a lone survivor back to the lair, the chieftain will have the best stuff.
Speaking of potions, there's a good reason the computer games have the blue juice that restores spell slots. This makes the game more about strategy than luck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal favorite was the guy who insisted on sticking to the 15 minute day and got upset when wandering monsters found the party by "dm fiat". He didn't last long after the second arguement.
Yep, If a player doesn't fit well with the rest of the group, and is ok with the table rules, then ousting him is a good solution.
I've always felt that humanoid wandering monsters should have decent weapons and armor rather than treasure. If they follow a lone survivor back to the lair, the chieftain will have the best stuff.
Great advice here. +1
Speaking of potions, there's a good reason the computer games have the blue juice that restores spell slots. This makes the game more about strategy than luck.
This is why I am rebalancing magic in my system to be far less restricted, at least for lower level magics.
Contentious opinions inbound. (Frack, My channeliing me Dad with "old man shouts at cloud" energy...)
I looked at the OP suggestion as I thought: "if I was going to prat about with that much maths and table-looks up, we'd play Rolemaster on the regular." And your system doesn't even have Rolemaster's hilarious critical hit tables.
I genuniely do not see the benefit of adding another layer of complexity and slowing the game down.
Easiest, yes, but otherwise it is horrible. Increasing HP and dmg reduces everything else involved. For example, adamantine armor grants DR 1-2/- depending on medium or heavy, but even that DR 2 is basically worthless because the dmg and HP values are so high.
I run my 3.5/PF1 hybrid with *eight* players and at all levels (my next campaign I intended to end with them being Mythic AND Epic.)
Slightly more years with Rolemaster than with D&D (just) have taught me that you can't have a decent boss battle in Rolemaster, because it just doesn't work, because criticals. RM is basically pretty always "roll dice until you get lucky.") It does some thing well, but, in me old age, satisfying combat is not one of them.
3.x, though, can much more easily do that with what I have found to be surprising ease.
I found long ago, that maximising hit points was the first part of it (especially since I have also long had the PCs have max hit points).
[Sidenote: I also ditched death at -10, because 3.0 imported that from AD&D (where hit points were really low) into a system where they weren't and ten hit points is trvivial. I replaced it with death at half-maximum hit points. (Except for monsters, once they go into negatives, they're dead anyway. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times there's enemy healers with actions to spare to have been able to heal them anyway.)]
The second part was creating a stackable template for boss monsters which increments their hit points, but allows such a creature to sacrfice a whole increment "tank" of hit points to be able to shrug off save-or-dies or anything it doesn't like (Ironheart Surge style). But in a way that, pertinently, still allows the players to not feel like they wasted their actions.
This provides the necessary tanky-iness for boss or solo monsters - suitable for standing up to conceted attacks from 6-8 characters - as well as resistances to the save-or-sucks and save-or-loses, without making th succumb to Final Fantasy Death Spell Syndrome (i.e. anything worth using it on is immune to it).
This has worked STAGGERINGLY well for so little effort (and it can be added on the fly). I've been using it for years, it's probably the best thing since 3.0's multiclassing system; something so obvious in hindsight you wondered why nobody thought of it before.
Is it a video-game-y solution? Abso-fragging-loutely, but y'know what? There's a reason video games DO use that solution.
(Incidently? What gave me the idea? *4E.* The solo monster concept was prehaps the only good idea (and even then implemented poorly) 4E had, but just goes to show, stopped clock and at that.)
(The zero-th solution was to ditch the Death From Massive Damage Rule as another holdover from AD&D (like multiclassing restrictions) which I tossed out of 3.0 - having previously tossed both out in *AD&D* itself. (How's that for heresy? Multiclass humans and dual-class nonhumans of any possible class combinations in AD&D...!))
Additionally, if you always have to max HP, you have less room for randomizing HP, especially with too much dmg reducing every monster to one or two hits, a difference between the HP of bandit 1 and bandit 2 becomes unnoticeable.
And? Getting rid of randomised hit points is a feature not a bug, in my opinion. Random hit points is a hold-over from AD&D that really didn't need to be kept. I have, never once, in my entire 30-year roleplaying career, given the slightest of fracks whether Bandit 1 has more hit points than bandit 2 as a player and DEFINITELY not as a DM.
I occasionally use the average in some circumstances (very low level, and for summoned creatures), but otherwise everything has max hit points.
First, a good GM does not need prep to run a game at all.
I must be a terrible DM, then, with spending basially a full day every week, most of the year preparing for campaigns and quests...
That said...
If I am not having fun playing with making up encounters and generating NPCs, but just using stocks monsters out of a book, I would question why I was even bothering DMing at all. It'd be akin to giving me a LEGO set and then saying I shoiuld only play with the pre-constructed models.
Exactly, something the GM controls, not the mechanics, thus, when the 15-minute workday rears it’s ugly head, it is the GM’s failure.
Again, I must be so bad at this after 35 years; I can't imagine why my players turn up week to week...
More seriously, I also have never had a problem with the 15-minute adventuring day.
If I want to push them resource-wise and put them on a time-limit, I will, but that's the exception, not the rule. Otherwise, let 'em. The whole "four encounters per day" thing 3.0 came up with I always felt lead to three fairly dull encounters and one that was only less dull because the PCs were out of resources. I'd much rather have one or two high-octane combats that are fun for me and them than run four or five or whatever chaff encounters (which are not interesting) to get the players to stick to a timescale that's ultimately just as arbitary; time off-screen is time off-screen at the end of the day.
"But what about the characters without resources?" Which ones would those be? Because without unlimited healing, it doesn't matter how many times the fighter can swing his sword, his hit points are a resource limited by the aforementioned spellcasters (or worse, disposable items).
In my own rules I've seriously buffed up healing spells (3.0/3.5's healign spells every again too much rote copies of AD&D without considering the changed environment[1]), so not only do they compensate for the higher hit points, they stretch out that potential window further in any case.
(Come to that, there are times (in some chaff encounters) when the players of my primary spellcaasters will just cheerfully egg the noncasters on, 'cos they don't think it's worth burning their resources, but maybe my group is unusual.
I mean, it almost has to be, since I've been primary DM for probably twenty years, and DM Forever now.)
Right I'll go away and leave you in peace now, there's a cloud I need to be shaking my fist at or something...
[1]It is obvious that AD&D was my distant forth RPG system and as such earned me no loyalty to its mechanics for their own sake...?
The only real contentious part of your post is the idea that you are somehow objectively correct rather than merely describing a preference.
You start off saying you can’t see the benefit, but that is only because you have tunnel vision around your own preference and take your preference as objective rather than subjective. Once you stop looking at solely your own preferences, you will potentially be able to see things that might benefit someone else’s preference even when such a thing is a negative to your own preference.
Aside from that, if I can get gameplay from a computer, I’ll play it on a computer. If I am going to play a ttrpg, I’ll be doing for the gameplay that can’t be done on a computer. So no thank you on HP. Personally I am disgusted by the idea of reducing combat to a race of HP depletion.
Rings of regeneration and other healing factors become a priority in such games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. Personally I am disgusted by the idea of reducing combat to a race of HP depletion.
But that's all combat is, just done through various means....
. Personally I am disgusted by the idea of reducing combat to a race of HP depletion.But that's all combat is, just done through various means....
No it isn’t. The reduction of combat to merely a race to deplete HP is probably the central piece of what I hate about modern gameplay.
There is a videogame (the name escapes me at the moment) which is famous for being able to defeat the game without any fighting. Why? Because everybody expects to win all conflict with the holy trinity.
In ages past, monsters were not always hostile, and the creation of drow was in response to all the moral issues of dealing with prisoners. What player these days ever considers taking prisoners? What GM these days ever has bad guys surrender?
Beyond that, is the idea of combat as storytelling device and puzzle.
. Personally I am disgusted by the idea of reducing combat to a race of HP depletion.But that's all combat is, just done through various means....There is a videogame (the name escapes me at the moment) which is famous for being able to defeat the game without any fighting. Why? Because everybody expects to win all conflict with the holy trinity.
but that's not combat.....
but that's not combat...... Personally I am disgusted by the idea of reducing combat to a race of HP depletion.But that's all combat is, just done through various means....There is a videogame (the name escapes me at the moment) which is famous for being able to defeat the game without any fighting. Why? Because everybody expects to win all conflict with the holy trinity.
You misunderstand. They enter combat mode and get attacked but pacify instead of attacking in return.
Non-hostile monsters and primarily-diplomatic encounters are not combat encounters. If you can "defeat/bypass" an encounter with a diplomacy check (et al) - and that's frequently an option in Pathfinder APs and for which you get full XP - that's, like, not combat. (Whether you make that check before or during combat, if diplomacy is an option, is largely immaterial, really.)
Otherwise, nonlethal is always an option - though that's just hit points again; as are save-or-loses. (They just don't work first time against my boss monsters - which ARE emphatically combat encounters by design, that's, like, *why* they're boss monsters.)
So there are ways to deal with combat other than by reducing hit points to zero.
It's just that, frankly, none of my players (like, ever, in the last 35 years) have ever shown any interest in using them (aside from save or loses, maybe) unless they are given an explict in-character reason (e.g. they need somone alive) or if some sort of nonlethal combat was pivotal to the entire thing of the game.
(Which would not be in, for example, the Osirion mega-campaign I just finished preparing, which is Mostly Undead/Contructs/Swarms/Outsiders...)
I do, in fact, occasionally have combat encounters which someone might surrender; but, rather like the PF-favoured morale "flees at below x hit points" they tend to go from "fine" to "dead" rather too quickly.
But when you come down to it, combats can really only be resolved either by a) dice rolls for social skills which end (or bypass/circumvent) the combat or b) by reducing Some Numbers to zero, whether that's hit points (or by spectaular critical hits like in Rolemaster) and whether to KO or death doesn't matter, or like, persuasion points or something.
Unless you're playing so freeform roleplaying that you don't use dice for roleplaying encounters at all. Which is fine; but cosmically, that's just taking the dice roll out of the skill check and essentially putting on DM fiat whether you decide this particular thing is swayed by your players. I mean, diceless system exist and you'd don't strictly NEED dice rolls to roleplay. (Rolemaster, incidently, has skills for tax evvasion and midwifery among so many others, but, like diplomacy/bluff/intimidate? Nothign like it. Go figure.)
But conversely, the dice rolls enable those players who don't have the confidence to roleplay to still have the fantasy of playing super-suave characters, where they would struggle in a diceless system.
And none of which addresses the rocket tag problem that the OP was suggesting to fix, short of by virtue of removing combat entirely.
Given your last couple of posts, GM DarkLightHitomi, you almost sound like you don't really like combat encounters (anymore?); which is fine.
(Frack, I am given to understand that one of 2E APs is all about the noncombat and seems to have been quite popular. Not something I would personally run, though I wouldn't be averse to playing[1].
Heck, even some of my games are more about explorarion and skill-based and Finding Out Stuff, which I use Rolemaster for. I still have the odd combat in those, but it is usually more about the exploration itself.)
But if so (and please correct me if I'm wrong) then it seems to me in the OP you're then looking for a solution to a problem you don't need to have. You'd be better spending your efforts shoring up the noncombat options which you want to have and encourage, rather than trying to mathmatically hamper the existing combat system (since the mechanics you propose do nothing to affect the "reduce hit points to zero" issue you say you dislike).
In the aformentioned campaign I've spent so much time writing, research is very important to a couple of phases, so I used the research mechanic out of Shfiting Sands and expanded it out across the whole module, and like it does, awarded XP for researching topics and gaining information, so there is a mechanic reward (and thsu incentive) for doing research.
(Though again, the Mummy's Mask research is essentailly still "reducing hit points to zero" only with a couple of complications, in that you get information at certain "hit point" thresholds and can only reduce the "hit points" below some thresholds by researching in a particular location, which are themsevles aventure locations to find and access.)
[1]Though I have to qualify that by noting that at this point, if I'm not having to DM, I'm more inclined play *almost* anything...
In the cleaves, there is a crown that grants spells that gives contact with a character's favorite deity. Unless they are playing to become a ruler, they can trade it to a sponsor for a staff of life or a wand of major healing. In any case, there should be a balance of combat vs strategy.
But when you come down to it, combats can really only be resolved either by a) dice rolls for social skills which end (or bypass/circumvent) the combat or b) by reducing Some Numbers to zero, whether that's hit points (or by spectaular critical hits like in Rolemaster) and whether to KO or death doesn't matter, or like, persuasion points or something.
This is incorrect though. Enemies can surrender, flee, attempt diplomacy, reach some objective that renders the combat moot such as flipping a lever, and every other option available to players. Heck, reinforcements might arrive for either side or something might happen to split the sides apart ending the fight in a stalemate.
Stop looking at combat as a self contained encounter that ends only when one side is “defeated.” Instead, view combat as a scene for either telling a bit of story, giving a clue, or as a puzzle. When you start looking at combat as a piece of something bigger, you will start seeing far more in the combat than just a race to deplete HP.
Mindset, mindset, mindset. It’s all about mindset, and that starts with the GM. If the GM runs combat like it’s a videogame, then players will play like it’s a videogame or they leave to find a better fitting GM.
It is a mistake to judge what “players” want by what you see at the table, because a major part of human nature is to fit one’s self to the situation, which means most players will play the game as you run it, regardless of how they prefer to play. I even catch myself doing that sometimes and I make a concerted effort to play they I want to see in others (so long as it doesn’t cause friction with other players).
Otherwise, nonlethal is always an option - though that's just hit points again; as are save-or-loses.
Part of considering nonlethal an option is having enemies not fight to the death, and interestingly enough, when players don’t need to deplete HP in order to get a surrender, well, skyrocketing dmg output is no longer as important, because dmg output is no longer correlated with victory.
Save-or-lose bring us back to the combat-as-puzzle options, as saves are different defenses that require different strategies to attack. A sleep spell can not be directly compared to a sword strike because different defenses apply, and the enemy’s defense against a sleep spell is not correlated to their defense against swords.
against my boss monsters - which ARE emphatically combat encounters by design, that's, like, *why* they're boss monsters.)
Incorrect. Boss monsters are the antogonist, a particular role in the situation. The boss monster is the source of whatever problems the protagonists are dealing with. Combat not required at all.
Let give two anecdotes for this one.
First, a pocket adventure I ran, a wizard had a bunch of “monsters” to tend and guard his tower and grounds. The monsters had been acting up lately and no one had seen the wizard in quite some time, so the players were sent to investigate. The “boss” was a golem guarding the wizard who had been unconscious from a magic helm of slumber. The final encounter was not to defeat the golem but rather to get past the golem and awaken the wizard, who could command the golem. Clever play can avoid combat with the golem entirely.
The second anecdote is a story I read of a player who played a good necromancer, and had toppled tyrants and taught the people of the land to use undead to till fields and perform menial labor, but eventually his disciples had started being killed and new kings arose across the lands he freed. Unknown to him till near the end, the GM had been using the first player’s disciples as the antagonists for another group of players. When the group showed up expecting to find an evil lich, instead they found a broken man on his deathbed having watched all the good deeds of his life destroyed. No combat at all, but as the first player told his tale to the group, that was the emotional gutpunch of an end to the campaign.
Bosses do not need to be a big bad monster that must be fought as a great combat challenge.
And none of which addresses the rocket tag problem that the OP was suggesting to fix, short of by virtue of removing combat entirely.
You can not fix rocket tag without fixing the flawed mindset that thinks this:
combats can really only be resolved either by a) dice rolls for social skills which end (or bypass/circumvent) the combat or b) by reducing Some Numbers to zero, whether that's hit points (or by spectaular critical hits like in Rolemaster) and whether to KO or death doesn't matter, or like, persuasion points or something.
Hopefully you can see by now why I think this is incorrect.
Given your last couple of posts, GM DarkLightHitomi, you almost sound like you don't really like combat encounters (anymore?); which is fine.
I don’t hate combat, I hate when combat is just a combat, like it is some sort of gameplay conceit to be handled as independent things to be balanced and confronted like an elaborate game of chess.
But if so (and please correct me if I'm wrong) then it seems to me in the OP you're then looking for a solution to a problem you don't need to have. You'd be better spending your efforts shoring up the noncombat options which you want to have and encourage, rather than trying to mathmatically hamper the existing combat system (since the mechanics you propose do nothing to affect the "reduce hit points to zero" issue you say you dislike).
Combat should, in my opinion, work hand-in-hand with the narrative.
There is a great video about a movie, but when combats come up, he talks about the role of combat scenes, and how they are doing things other than just showing flashy combat, but rather they actually progress narrative or show the audience important information they ned to know in addition to wowing the audience with cool stuff.
Seriously, watch the video. It is not aimed at GMs, but most of it is still applicable to running RPGs.
Link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zhdBNVY55oM&pp=ygUqcGlyYXRlcyBvZiB0aGUgY2 FyaWJiZWFuIGlzIGEgbWFzdGVycGllY2Ug
For me, the goal is to make combat more puzzle like. Hence keeping DMG numbers low, maintaining the usefulness of DR and resistances. Players then can attack and not feel they did nothing but yet they need to find a solution, a better way of dealing with the enemy.
And that goes hand-in-hand with everything else, including the possibility of running away, using the environment, trying to bribe or talk, get reinforcements, etc.
To put it another way, it is supposed to be more interesting than just overwhelming dmg values that drown out all detail.
Though again, the Mummy's Mask research is essentailly still "reducing hit points to zero" only with a couple of complications, in that you get information at certain "hit point" thresholds and can only reduce the "hit points" below some thresholds by researching in a particular location, which are themsevles aventure locations to find and access.
Sounds bland, boring, mechanical. I’d never use it.
The three clue rule and making players actually need to read and learn about the world and piece the information together themselves, to do research by finding the right locations and asking the right questions rather than just getting rolls would be far better in my opinion.
[1]Though I have to qualify that by noting that at this point, if I'm not having to DM, I'm more inclined play *almost* anything...
Well, have you looked at this:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4bjqv?Roads-and-Ruins-ready-to-be-torn-apart-b y-the
|
|
@GM DarkLightHitomi, please, refrain from telling others they are incorrect when the matter is preference. You are making a confusion between "truth" and "your personal opinion". This isn't healthy on a discussion.
IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, I dislike the idea of a "combat encounter", since I prefer to provide my players with problems/conflicts for them to solve, with combat being one of the possible solutions. When a combat begins it means one or multiple sides of a conflict decided to solve a particular problem with violence and it lasts until all sides of the conflict are either unwilling or uncapable of continuing the combat.
This has little to do with "Rocket Tag" though, which is the idea that at high levels the side who wins initiative wins the combat, which to be honest, not every group agrees to be a problem to begin with.
@GM DarkLightHitomi, please, refrain from telling others they are incorrect when the matter is preference. You are making a confusion between "truth" and "your personal opinion". This isn't healthy on a discussion.
Maybe I’m not phrasing it well, but I am distinguishing between issues of preference and issues that are more objective.
The idea that an encounter can only be counted as combat if combat is the resolution, regardless of whether it started with combat or had combat as a possibility is objectively wrong. Desiring all encounters that have combat to be exclusively combat, is a preference. Someone who believes their preference is objective truth is also objectively wrong to believe that.
There are also times when preferences and objectivity are somewhat muddled and disputing one can easily be conflated with disputing both. For example, if someone says “That blue box is a great color!” Disputing that box the box is blue, and claiming it is actually green, is disputing an objective fact, but sometimes, especially with less clear situations, the other side will think you are claiming it is objectively not a great color.