I’m thinking about 4th edition and house rules – again. Here’s something that is taking a lot of time, or even if it doesn’t take a lot of time, it makes for an uneven distribution of time used at the table: More than one attack, possibly with different attack bonuses.
Proposed solution:
I’m torn on tumbling. Do away with the skill and do away with attacks of opportunity due to movement? No more retreat? Or do away with the skill and always allow the attack of opportunity (like the old-school rules)? These attacks of opportunity also prevent people from easily running through a group of enemies. But at the table I find that these attacks of opportunity are rarely effective, because either the Tumble skill is too high, or their attack bonus is too low. Maybe the way to prevent a low-level mob from running past you is to ready an action to attack the person running past you. (The alternative would be to make tumbling harder – the opponent makes an attack roll vs. 10 + your Tumble skill, maybe. Concentration—same thing, right?
So:
Hm... I’m trying to figure out whether these rules actually bring some element of enjoyment to the table for tactically minded players, but I just don’t see it.
See also Everyone's Twice as Fast Now by Dave Noonan on Gleemax.
See also: House Rules.
#RPG #thoughts #rules
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
Just play 4E 😃
I actually think things like Rapid Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting, and the like could grant extra damage dice, rather than extra attack rolls. Now, granted, this does not allow you to divide your attacks amongst multiple targets, but how often do people actually do that?
Opposed rolls or rolls based on the attacker’s bonus are part of *Arcana Evolved* for Concentration and Tumble. If you eliminate tumbling and defensive casting altogether, and thus have movement and spellcasting constantly provoking attacks of opportunity, that might make the Mobility feat worthwhile. Or imagine a version of Combat Casting that grants a +4 AC bonus vs. attacks made while spellcasting?
Eliminating attacks of opportunity makes it a lot harder to play a front-line defender. If enemies can just race by you without repercussion to attack the squishy mage or archer that is ravaging them, why would they bother with the tough-looking armored guy up front? I like free movement, but there should be consequences. Of course, I also like the tactical movement mini-game in 3rd edition.
– Adrian 2008-03-18 13:30 UTC
---
Hehehe. As for 4E, I’m not sure I liked the power-based combat I’ve heard about.
Extra damage dice... That’s pretty cool. You would have to explain how those multiple attacks relate to simple damage increasing feats like weapon specialization (or get rid of it).
One alternative would be to simply disallow it like 2nd edition. I find that these days some monsters should simple not be allowed to run past you because they won’t survive a hit, or they have the necessary skills and feats to avoid the repercussions.
We could also allow bull-rushing in any direction. Then getting to your friends behind enemy lines requires one of you to bull-rush the enemy tank aside so that the second one can pass. That would be a neat solution...
– Alex Schroeder 2008-03-18 14:08 UTC
---
Yes, power-based combat is a huge change. However, if you eliminate iterative attacks, simplify the skill system, and get rid of things like Tumble and Concentration that prevent attacks of opportunity, it seems like you are well on your way to 3.75E 😃
You’d have to give melee classes some way of dealing more damage. Perhaps a bonus to damage equal to half their BAB? You’d probably see a lot of Power Attack and Combat Expertise, since the 1st attack tends to hit at mid to high levels regardless. How does SAGA handle it?
– Adrian 2008-03-18 16:20 UTC
---
Yeah, I was in fact thinking that maybe fighters using the *Book of Experimental Might* get a feat every level and Weapon Focus & Specialization will in fact stack. This makes the Greater Weapon Focus & Specialization feats useless.
Yes, I’m definitely going down the road of 3.75... I keep thinking of tweaks, will write it all up one day, and ask players of my next campaign whether they’re willing to give it a try.
I’m not unhappy enough with 3.5 to switch current campaigns, though.
– Alex Schroeder 2008-03-18 17:44 UTC
---
When you say Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization stack, do you mean a fighter could take the feats multiple times for the same weapon?
I think fighters still need more high level feats that are either fighter only or require so many prerequisites that only fighters could qualify. Take, for example, Weapon Supremacy from the PHB2:
That is a pretty good feat. Problem is, fighters have too few of these.
– Adrian 2008-03-19 10:27 UTC
---
Paizo just put out their Pathfinder RPG Alpha rules (for free – you just need a paizo.com account to download it). You probably want to check them out – they are very much 3.75E. The skill system is significantly revised (actually, very similar to something you proposed before), all classes get a lot more class abilities (in particular, the fighter looks somewhat improved, though I have a feeling not enough for my liking), and they’ve tried to unify the mechanics on combat maneuvers, among other changes. Looks interesting, and is at least worth reading if you like tinkering with rules (like I do).
– Adrian 2008-03-19 15:08 UTC
---
I just saw a comment on the Pathfinder RPG board on iterative attacks. John Robey says “SWSE’s model of a single attack that gains a bonus of +1/2 character level to damage works out to very similar math, while simultaneously speeding up combat (no more rolling a bazillion dice for one character’s turn) and creating a more dynamic, movement-based encounter.”
I like it.
– Alex Schroeder 2008-03-20 11:34 UTC
---
Did they look at the effect this has vis-a-vis criticals? Large static plusses to damage = huge damage on criticals, especially if you are wielding an axe or, Pelor forbid, a scythe or pick.
– Adrian 2008-03-20 13:37 UTC
---
Scythe for the win!! 😄
Other posts in that thread ¹ mentioned that maybe iterative attacks weren’t the problem (they didn’t slow down the game) but that having to choose between movement and full attacks was. The proposed solution was a new feat for fighters that allows them to do a full attack as a standard action. In particular, Krome suggested this one:
*Mobile Tank Feat* Requirements: Combat Expertise, Dodge, Power Attack Benefit: You can move up to your normal Speed in combat while using the Full-Attack maneuver. Each attack must be delivered from a different space. Movement may still provoke Attacks of Opportunity. Normal: A full attack is a full-round action and allows no move action.
But I have yet to see the need allow more mobility on the battlefield.
– Alex Schroeder 2008-03-20 16:11 UTC