Paradigm-Shifting Homebrew

[Just to Browse]

The goal of this homebrew is to change the way the game is commonly played.

Rule Changes

Feat Access
All creatures get feats at every odd level. instead of 1st and every 3rd.

Attack of Opportunity
You get attacks of opportunity equal to 1/4 of your BAB (round up). You perform the first AoO each round at your highest bonus, and each consecutive one at a -5 penalty.

Initiative
Initiative is now calculated by your BAB + your Dexterity modifier.

New Combat Rules and Terms
Battered, Sickened, Shaken
Battered is a new term similar to Sickened and Shaken, and now all three have the same text:

A battered/shaken/sickened character takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls, armor class, saving throws, save DCs, skill checks, and ability checks.

Resist X
Resist X (where X is a number) is an effect where all damage taken by a creature with Resist is reduced by X. Magic, weapon, etc. damage is all reduced by Resist. Any effect that specifically ignores all forms of DR also ignores Resist (effects that ignore anything other than DR/Epic still count).

Fear Effects
Fear no longer stacks (i.e. being shaken and then shaken again does not make you frightened).

Full Attacks
Full-attacking is now a standard action. Characters cannot use more than 1 iterative attack in a full attack. Instead of the last two iterative attacks, characters with a sufficiently high BAB get a re-roll once per turn at level 11 and another at level 16.

These re-rolls can be used when the character misses either of their full attack rolls (not combat maneuver rolls). The player must take the result, even if it's worse. You may re-roll one attack twice if you want, and you can re-roll even if you successfully hit.

Attack Damage
When you deal damage with an attack, add your BAB to the damage.

New and Changed Combat Maneuvers
Knockback
As a standard action, you may choose to attempt to knock your opponent back. Make an attack that deals half damage, but knock your opponent back 5' for every 5 damage you did not deal (round up to the nearest 5').

If the target passes through a square occupied by a creature no more than 1 size larger than it, they stop moving and fall prone in that square along with any creatures in that square. All creatures in the square take 2 damage per 5' that the target would have traveled beyond that square.

If the target hits a solid object (such as a wall) or a creature 2 or more sizes larger than it, they fall prone in just before that and take 5 damage per 5' that they would have traveled beyond that square.

Harry
When you deal damage to an opponent, you can choose to make an attack that deals half damage. If the attack deals more than the opponent's Dexterity score, they are harried. A harried opponent has its speed decreased by 10' for all movement modes. Harrying stacks to a minimum speed of 1/3 their original speed (round up).

Interfere
As a standard action, you can increase your threatened area by 5 feet and gain an additional attack of opportunity until the beginning of your next turn. Ranged attacks through your threatened area take a -4 penalty to-hit.

Pummel
As a full-round action, you can make a melee attack that deals half damage, and force the attack target to make a fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 your BAB + your Strength modifier). A creature that fails its save is stunned, and a creature that makes its save, takes no damage, or is immune to stunning is instead staggered.

Feats
Feats That Don't Exist
If a feat no longer exists here, anything with it as a prerequisite is no longer has that as a prerequisite, unless otherwise noted.
Point Blank Shot
Power Attack
Combat Expertise
Combat Expertise (replaced, see below)
Zen Archery (anything with this as a prerequisite is removed entirely)
Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization (any feat with one of these as a prerequisite instead has a prerequisite of the fighter level required to take the respective feat)

Kip Up
Benefit: You can stand up from prone as a swift action.
Special: If your BAB is +6 or higher, you can stand up from prone as a free action.

Tuck and Roll
Benefit: You do not fall prone if you enter an occupied space while moving as the result of a knockback. You may choose to move up to 50% or 150% of the distance that a knockback sends you.

Dodge
(Replaces the PHB feat by the same name)
Benefit: During your turn, you may use a swift action to dodge. All targets with a base attack bonus lower than yours cannot use combat maneuvers against you.

Mobility
(Replaces the PHB feat by the same name)
Prerequisite: Dodge
Benefit: At the start of your turn, you can target a creature. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity for moving through that creature's threatened area.

Dash
Benefit: As a swift action, you may move up to half your move speed.

Duelist
Benefit: When you are using a melee weapon, and an opponent targets you with a melee attack, you can use an attack of opportunity, immediate action, or sacrifice your next turn's standard action to make a DC 15 reflex save. On a success, you negate the attack. At the start of your turn, if you are within that opponent's melee range, you cannot move out of their range.
Special: You cannot use this ability when flat-footed or flanked.

Hard to Catch
Benefit: As an immediate action, you gain the ability to use attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon in order to Harry an opponent within your 1st range increment. You may only use one attack of opportunity per creature this way. This stacks with other harrying effects, down to a minimum of 1/3 of the target's original speed.

Horde Breaker
Benefit: You gain additional attacks of opportunity equal to half your Strength or Dexterity modifier, whichever is higher (rounded up).
Special: This is treated as Combat Reflexes for any feat with it as a prerequisite.

Zen Combat
Benefit: You gain additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Wisdom modifier.
Special: This is treated as Combat Reflexes for any feat with it as a prerequisite.

Classes
Master of Practice
"Training offers diminishing returns. The more you do it, the less room there is to improve. The solution to this problem is not to train more, but to train better."
Prerequisites:
Base attack bonus +4
Proficiency with heavy armor, tower shields, and martial weapons
At least 3 class-granted bonus feats

HD: d12
BAB: Full
Saves: All good
Skills: All skills are class skills, 4 + Int skill points per level
1. Bonus feats, Weapon Aptitude
2. Bonus feats
3. Bonus feats

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: You gain proficiency with 1 exotic weapon when you take this class, plus an additional exotic weapon per class level after 1.

Weapon Aptitude: As the warblade (Tome of Battle), except it additionally stacks with any other class that grants the Weapon Aptitude class ability.

Bonus Feat: You gain a bonus feat, which you must meet the prerequisites for. When your base attack bonus is +7, you gain a second bonus feat, for which you must meet the prerequisites. When your base attack bonus is +11, you gain a third bonus feat, for which you must meet the prerequisites. If you take this class feature multiple times, you can only gain 1 bonus feat from it once per level (another bonus feat is deferred to the next level)


The Elder
"Study study study..."
Prerequisites: ECL 4

HD: d8
BAB: poor
Saves: pick 1 good save
Skills: All skills are class skills, gain 8 + Int skills per level.
1. Bonus Feats
2. Bonus Feats
3. Bonus Feats

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: You do not gain new weapon or armor proficiency.

Bonus Feat: You gain a bonus feat, which you must meet the prerequisites for. When you are ECL 7, you gain a second bonus feat for which you must meet the prerequisites. When you are ECL 11, you gain a third bonus feat for which you must meet the prerequistes. If you take this class feature multiple times, you can only gain 1 bonus feat from it once per level (another bonus feat is deferred to the next level).


Fighter
(NOTE: Despite being only 5 levels long, the fighter is still a base class. There's just no more conceptual room for a guy who takes feats, so I'm letting it go this far and then forcing players to look for other advancement)

HD: d10
Saves: Fort and 1 other of choice good
BAB: Full
Skills: 4 + Int, skills as per fighter and ranger
1. Bonus Feat
2. Bonus Feat, Weapon Aptitude
3. Bonus Feat, Tactical Insight
4. Bonus Feat
5. Bonus Feat, Flexible in Training

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: The fighter is proficient with simple and martial weapons, as well as 1 exotic weapon. He is proficient with light, medium, and heavy armor, as well as shields (including tower shields).

Bonus Feat: At every level, the fighter gains a floating bonus feat, which must be a fighter feat that he meets the prerequisites for. At the beginning of the day, he may spend 5 minutes practicing to change any of these feats so long as he doesn't violate the qualifications for a fighter feat.

Weapon Aptitude (Ex): As per Tome of Battle, except that little bit about counting fighter levels (since he's already a fighter).

Tactical Insight (Ex): As a standard action, the fighter can assay the battlefield. On his next turn, he may grant all allies a move action when he takes his.

Flexible in Training: When qualifying for prestige classes, a 5th level fighter may ignore 1 non-special requirement. If the requirement imposes a minimum level requirement, his ECL must be at least that. Determine minimum level requirements by the lowest index on the following list:
The lowest level available for a feat-less single-classed core character with no wealth.
The lowest level available for a feat-less single-classed character with a base class with the benefit with no wealth.
The lowest level available for a feat-less character multiclassing between two core base classes with no wealth.
The lowest level available for a feat-less character multiclassing between two base classes with no wealth.
The lowest level available for a character with full BAB, all good saves, all skills at max rank, all attributes at 40, treated as all alignments and races, who gains 1 feat per level with no wealth.


If the non-numeric feature is not granted by any of these possibilities, it cannot be ignored. This cannot ignore class features granted only by prestige classes.

Example: Horace, a lawful neutral level 5 fighter wants to take the Knight Protector class, which which has the following requirements:
Base Attack Bonus: +5
Alignment: Lawful neutral or lawful good
Skills: Diplomacy 6 ranks , Knowledge (nobility and royalty) 4 ranks , Ride 6 ranks
Feats: Armor Proficiency (heavy) , Cleave , Great Cleave , Mounted Combat
Horace does not have any ranks in diplomacy, so he can use Flexible in Training to allow him to ignore it. The minimum character level for having 6 ranks in a skill is level 3, so Horace ignores the feature and can take levels in Knight Protector. If Horace instead didn't have Great Cleave, he could also ignore it because its minimum level is 4 due to the base attack bonus prerequisite.

[nonsi]

Power Attack: The core feat requires the attacker to hinder their attack roll. You didn't specify what distinguishes normal attack from PA when a character typically has only one attack.

Harry: Am I supposed to know the target's Con-score? Is it a gambit? . . .

Feat Access: How do you intend to compensate for the fact that spellcasters get more out of feats than noncasters ?

Attack of Opportunity: My personal experience with AoOs is that they tend to slow down the game. Also, I see no justification to allowing them ot become a character's main source of attacks. Keying them off of the number of iterative attack (no Dex) should suffice for any practical purpose.



The feats are nice, especially Tuck and Roll & Hard to Catch, which are innovative.



Also, seems like The Elder trades too much for alleviated prereqs and 4 extra skill ponts.
I believe making it d8 + good Will should even things up.

[Glimbur]

4 more skill points are not worth the same as d12 hit die, all good saves, and full BAB. Master of Practice is maybe not worth taking because feats alone are difficult to make an effective character with, but the Elder is just inferior to it.

Power Attack will result in more mobile combat, because in general a reflex save should be higher than floor(Twice level, str score). This means lots of knockback and less damage if you use this.

Harry is pretty terrible; movement is not generally a big deal, and losing ~14-20 damage in order to reduce their movement by 5' is a bad trade. Maybe if it halved their movement, or the reduction in damage was significantly less.

Feat Access: Pathfinder does it and it seems to work ok. I like feats.

AoO: I usually find that the limit on AoO's for a character that cares about them is how many people provoke, not how many AoO's are available. This saves a feat on Combat Reflexes and makes provoking riskier in general, because it is much harder to run someone out of AoO's. That's fine as long as that's your goal.

The initiative change helps clerics and hurts rogues. Fighters are a bit better. It's not necessarily bad, just different.

Dash and Duellist are worth taking, and Mobility is maybe worth it. Hard to Catch requires an AoO with a ranged weapon, which requires a special ability to get. The other feats are... not worth taking. Kip up is something you can use cheap magic items for, tuck and roll interacts with knockback which seems like a bad attack option in general, and Dodge isn't that great because the maneuvers aren't that great.

[Just to Browse]

== ALL ==

Thanks guys! I'll be adding more, changing the classes, and start putting in clarifications on feats and maneuvers.

Also expect clarification/readjustment of AoOs, since I've basically cannibalized them already, and a combat maneuver for stunning!

== nonsi ==


Power Attack: The core feat requires the attacker to hinder their attack roll. You didn't specify what distinguishes normal attack from PA when a character typically has only one attack. My bad, the goal was to get rid of the the Power Attack feat, and replace it with this.


Harry: Am I supposed to know the target's Con-score? Is it a gambit?A gambit, yes. I sort of figured players would know the general range (10s, 20s) by looking at the enemy. Perhaps this is my bias.


Feat Access: How do you intend to compensate for the fact that spellcasters get more out of feats than noncasters ?My goal is to make feats for non-casters be a much bigger deal... but that's all I really got.


Attack of Opportunity: My personal experience with AoOs is that they tend to slow down the game. Also, I see no justification to allowing them ot become a character's main source of attacks. Keying them off of the number of iterative attack (no Dex) should suffice for any practical purpose.The reason I wanted to add this was because I wanted to allow players to do things between turns, and since AoOs already exist I just upped the number. I can see why this would be a bad thing, but to change it I'd need some other way of allowing several out-of-turn actions.

... Perhaps I could make AoOs auto-damage? Then I'd need to modify stuff like Stand Still.


The feats are nice, especially Tuck and Roll & Hard to Catch, which are innovative. Much obliged. :smallsmile:


Also, seems like The Elder trades too much for alleviated prereqs and 4 extra skill ponts.
I believe making it d8 + good Will should even things up.While I do appreciate this idea, but I'm a little worried about it. My thoughts on this go to casters who want a 1-level feat dip, and I want to make sure that scenario doesn't end up being an obvious buff to all casters. It's good to know that you want me to buff this, though, here I was thinking it was too powerful >_>

== Glimbur ==


4 more skill points are not worth the same as d12 hit die, all good saves, and full BAB. Master of Practice is maybe not worth taking because feats alone are difficult to make an effective character with, but the Elder is just inferior to it. The reason I made these two classes separate is because, when I write characters I always run into 2 kind of feat-starved builds: Those that have used their feats, but still kind of suck because they're fighters, and those that don't have nearly enough feats to remain competent. The Master of Practice is supposed to be a class that grants more bonus feats to classes which already have lots of bonus feats (and thus are affected by diminishing returns), so the chassis is good to compensate. However the Elder is supposed to be a class that grants bonus feats to the feat-starved, and in acknowledgement of how big a deal feats are, it comes with very few bells and whistles.


Power Attack will result in more mobile combat, because in general a reflex save should be higher than floor(Twice level, str score). This means lots of knockback and less damage if you use this. The goal is to encourage knockback attempts at low level to decrease lethality at low levels, which giving melee types a method of objective control at high levels. It will mean less damage at high-levels, and I'm currently looking for a substitute there.


Harry is pretty terrible; movement is not generally a big deal, and losing ~14-20 damage in order to reduce their movement by 5' is a bad trade. Maybe if it halved their movement, or the reduction in damage was significantly less.The goal is to do this on an AoO, and to proc the AoO a lot (like if they move through 3 of your threatened spaces). Since power attack doesn't exist, I'm hoping that (at high levels) the lackluster damage is enough to encourage players to use this instead. I could certainly be wrong though.


Feat Access: Pathfinder does it and it seems to work ok. I like feats.I always want more feats.


AoO: I usually find that the limit on AoO's for a character that cares about them is how many people provoke, not how many AoO's are available. This saves a feat on Combat Reflexes and makes provoking riskier in general, because it is much harder to run someone out of AoO's. That's fine as long as that's your goal.Yeah, my goal was to encourage people to plop themselves in the middle of a fight with big reach and ruin attempts to hit squishies in the back. That reach is coming soon.


The initiative change helps clerics and hurts rogues. Fighters are a bit better. It's not necessarily bad, just different. I'm still not sure what to do about this change. Maybe wisdom-based casters and minmaxed monks go first is... weird... but perhaps not necessarily bad? Time will tell.


Dash and Duellist are worth taking, and Mobility is maybe worth it. Hard to Catch requires an AoO with a ranged weapon, which requires a special ability to get. The other feats are... not worth taking. Kip up is something you can use cheap magic items for, tuck and roll interacts with knockback which seems like a bad attack option in general, and Dodge isn't that great because the maneuvers aren't that great.Hard to Catch is supposed to grant those AoOs for every square they move. I'll update it to reflect that.

Kip Up and Tuck and Roll are meant to decrease the crowd control power of Knockback. Imagine tossing high-priority targets into a wall and stealing the macguffin with it, or debilitating two characters by punching one into the other. Prone is a very good condition to inflict with just one attack.

Dodge is mostly made to beat out Harry, Trip, and Knockback so you can dash to the backline and take out high-damage targets. I might actually change it to "status conditions you don't want", to encourage anti-mage behavior. Not sure if that's too much though.

[nonsi]

My bad, the goal was to get rid of the the Power Attack feat, and replace it with this.

I see no issue with PF's version of PA.
The main problem with PA, as Amnoriath has kindly shown us, are all the game supplements that hog it without exclusions and that every damage multiplier out ther also multiplies the PA-associated extra damage.
If you rule that damage multipliers are keyed only to weapons' base damage, all PA problems go out the window.




A gambit, yes. I sort of figured players would know the general range (10s, 20s) by looking at the enemy. Perhaps this is my bias.

Problem with gambits is that they tend to be frustrating and make players spend a lot of time digging the resources and working out strategies.
Make the Con deduction accurate automatically and save yourself a lot of headache.




My goal is to make feats for non-casters be a much bigger deal... but that's all I really got.

Then feel free to leech other people's ideas.




The reason I wanted to add this was because I wanted to allow players to do things between turns, and since AoOs already exist I just upped the number. I can see why this would be a bad thing, but to change it I'd need some other way of allowing several out-of-turn actions.

What's wrong with in-turn actions and readied actions ?




... Perhaps I could make AoOs auto-damage? Then I'd need to modify stuff like Stand Still.

Since I don't dig your vision on this one, I'll wait until (if) you come up with something.




It's good to know that you want me to buff this, though, here I was thinking it was too powerful.

I was just evaluating them against each other. (see below)




While I do appreciate this idea, but I'm a little worried about it. My thoughts on this go to casters who want a 1-level feat dip, and I want to make sure that scenario doesn't end up being an obvious buff to all casters.
. . .
The reason I made these two classes separate is because, when I write characters I always run into 2 kind of feat-starved builds: Those that have used their feats, but still kind of suck because they're fighters, and those that don't have nearly enough feats to remain competent. The Master of Practice is supposed to be a class that grants more bonus feats to classes which already have lots of bonus feats (and thus are affected by diminishing returns), so the chassis is good to compensate. However the Elder is supposed to be a class that grants bonus feats to the feat-starved, and in acknowledgement of how big a deal feats are, it comes with very few bells and whistles.

Well, this one's is somewhat in the [YMMV] department, but also holds a respectable seat in the experience department.
My many years in homebrew forums and a lot of observation of char-op forums (along with some serious personal effort to crack this one) has taught me one thing: PrCs and guaranteed balance don't mix.
No matter how hard you try, you'll never remove all the loopholes.
The solution that works for me: Whatever the class is - Make every level count in terms of game options. Make the base classes a lot more complete. Make each class so much fun that people won't want to dip - unless it serves them thematically.




The goal is to encourage knockback attempts at low level to decrease lethality at low levels, which giving melee types a method of objective control at high levels. It will mean less damage at high-levels, and I'm currently looking for a substitute there.

The goal is to do this on an AoO, and to proc the AoO a lot (like if they move through 3 of your threatened spaces). Since power attack doesn't exist, I'm hoping that (at high levels) the lackluster damage is enough to encourage players to use this instead. I could certainly be wrong though.

Careful not to throw off damage too far back, so that people won't lose interest altogether.
An encounter should always have the potential of being gritty.
One-round lethality should always be a possibility on the gaming table - especially for focused melees. At least situation-wise.




Yeah, my goal was to encourage people to plop themselves in the middle of a fight with big reach and ruin attempts to hit squishies in the back. That reach is coming soon.

If someone wishes to dominate the battlefield, they should be melees.
Rouges and Rogue-esque classes should be more about subtlety than martial prowess.




I'm still not sure what to do about this change. Maybe wisdom-based casters and minmaxed monks go first is... weird... but perhaps not necessarily bad? Time will tell.

Make it BAB + Dex-mod, to give the subtle dudes a better chance to apply their manipulations.
It's also a good thing for making casters more dependent upon noncasters. Promotes cooperation.




Kip Up and Tuck and Roll are meant to decrease the crowd control power of Knockback. Imagine tossing high-priority targets into a wall and stealing the macguffin with it, or debilitating two characters by punching one into the other. Prone is a very good condition to inflict with just one attack.

That's something you don't see a lot today.
Good call.




Dodge is mostly made to beat out Harry, Trip, and Knockback so you can dash to the backline and take out high-damage targets. I might actually change it to "status conditions you don't want", to encourage anti-mage behavior. Not sure if that's too much though.

Just don't make any specific combat option a no-brainer.

[Morph Bark]

Power Attack as a maneuver rather than a feat is a good thing as it reduces feat tax. 5' per 2 points of damage reduced is a lot though, effectively about 5' per 2 levels you have, roughly.

Feat access like that is Pathfinder-like and I've begun to implement it in my campaigns as well starting with the last side-adventure we had.

Attack of Opportunity: granting everyone Combat Reflexes for free (effectively) or making it equal to your attacks per round is good and fair, but both is a bit much and would make combat very much a game of opportunity attacks, which can detract from other things and bog down the game.

I like your version of Mobility. Ways of avoiding AoOs are good use to a PC.

Dash is, at the same time, both a stronger and a weaker version of Travel Devotion, which itself is a very good feat. This may be good or bad depending on what you want to do.

Speaking of what you want to do, what do you aim to accomplish with this "paradigm-shift"? What is the paradigm you wish to shift to with this homebrew? Looking at it, I may be interpreting it wrongly, but what's here is mostly aimed at melee folks. Always good, but with that thread title I wonder what you wish to do further.

EDIT:

... Perhaps I could make AoOs auto-damage? Then I'd need to modify stuff like Stand Still.

That could be an idea. At first I was thinking it might be bad in an unrealistic sense, but everything that triggers AoOs are things during which you are less able to respond to attack (such as being on the run, during a charge). I'd be careful about it though, because it's a pretty big change, and would be an important thing to consider, because you've already granted everyone more AoOs.


While I do appreciate this idea, but I'm a little worried about it. My thoughts on this go to casters who want a 1-level feat dip, and I want to make sure that scenario doesn't end up being an obvious buff to all casters. It's good to know that you want me to buff this, though, here I was thinking it was too powerful >_>

For a single feat casters won't take that dip, unless it is to get into a PrC that grants access to 9th-level spells. Otherwise, dipping Elder would actually have them lose power, because rule number one of casters is "don't lose caster levels" in their builds. (A rule freely disregarded for builds that are fun or for gish builds, but that's another tale.) So no need to worry about the Elder being too powerful, unless it also starts granting caster level increases.

[Quellian-dyrae]

Duelist is probably too good; it completely ignores the enemy's offensive capabilities, and can likely be used more often than a single enemy can attack (due to all the bonus AoOs). Maybe change it to an opposed attack roll? Or make the DC 10 + half the attacker's attack bonus or something?

[Just to Browse]

OK, from the current feedback I'm going to pitch the bonus AoO idea. AoOs will just be based on iteratives. With that, I will make Harrying a bigger deal (and make it explicit for AoOs if you want to do so) and AoOs totally aren't static.

The reason I changed Init to Wisdom was because of the free AoOs, so now I'll be sending Dex back to Initiative.

I also added more things to Power Attack, to incentivize (further) hitting people into things.

I'm also going to rewrite the Elder and Master of Practice, because no one in their right mind should take 9 levels of a class like that and the Master actually still feels... unkind.

EDIT: Morph, my goals for this are:
Make combat involve a lot more moving around and positioning, instead of standing and full-attacking, or charging and attacking.
Force players to react to things the enemy does without resorting to "let's kill them".
A bunch of misc stuff, like encouraging feat-heavy builds, mob tanking, and hightailing it for objectives instead of brawling all day.

[Hanuman]

I really like the Kip Up special addon, I really feel that feats need to be expanded as your character progresses, especially combat feats.

I really dislike dodge, it makes you immune to something like grappling. This should pretty clearly be a way to avoid, such as you could use dex for resolving/avoiding combat maneuvers and get a +2 on it.

[Just to Browse]

I see no issue with PF's version of PA.
The main problem with PA, as Amnoriath has kindly shown us, are all the game supplements that hog it without exclusions and that every damage multiplier out ther also multiplies the PA-associated extra damage.
If you rule that damage multipliers are keyed only to weapons' base damage, all PA problems go out the window.It's not that I specifically dislike the implementation of the feat, it's that I dislike a feat whose sole purpose is to allow mundanes to deal decent damage. Power Attack is the go-to feat for any melee build because it's the only consistent scaling damage source, and I just don't want that to happen. If anything, damage boosts like that are just going to be automatic (and smaller, to help with THF > TWF problems).


Problem with gambits is that they tend to be frustrating and make players spend a lot of time digging the resources and working out strategies.
Make the Con deduction accurate automatically and save yourself a lot of headache.What do you mean by this? Like tell the players enemy Constitution before they attack?


What's wrong with in-turn actions and readied actions ?My goal is to keep people watching the fight the whole time in case they can pull an AoO, instead of taking their turn and dozing. Readied actions would be good, but it won't guarantee what I want. Plus I'd rather let players do more than try and make them ration actions.


The solution that works for me: Whatever the class is - Make every level count in terms of game options. Make the base classes a lot more complete. Make each class so much fun that people won't want to dip - unless it serves them thematically.Well these guys are made for dips, but hopefully the levels matter more now. I realized that with the number of feats the class granted (and the number you'd have naturally at high levels) that players would probably be seeing enormous diminishing returns.


An encounter should always have the potential of being gritty.
One-round lethality should always be a possibility on the gaming table - especially for focused melees. At least situation-wise.Sure it'll stay possible, but the kind of lethality I'm worried about is greatsword-wielding fighters OHK'ing enemy tanks at level 1. Because I hate that feeling as a player.


If someone wishes to dominate the battlefield, they should be melees.
Rouges and Rogue-esque classes should be more about subtlety than martial prowess.I have come to agree. The change is reverted. Init now also goes to Dex.



Just don't make any specific combat option a no-brainer.
Right, that is a problem... I don't know what to do for this, though. I think I'll remove the targeting and replace it with "Enemy BAB <= Your BAB" while keeping it to combat maneuvers. So fighters can still be tripstars/grapplemancers and tackle you and wizards will smack you with crowd control, but you can dance through crowds of thugs.

And then mobility will be changed!

EDIT: BIG update. I realized I had to reorganize--added 2 combat maneuvers (melee gets stun attacks!), a bunch of combat QOL improvements, and the fighter!

[nonsi]

It's not that I specifically dislike the implementation of the feat, it's that I dislike a feat whose sole purpose is to allow mundanes to deal decent damage. Power Attack is the go-to feat for any melee build because it's the only consistent scaling damage source, and I just don't want that to happen. If anything, damage boosts like that are just going to be automatic (and smaller, to help with THF > TWF problems).

I'm with you on that.




What do you mean by this? Like tell the players enemy Constitution before they attack?

No, just that the exact deduction is automatic (provided there's enough damage to deduct from).
And no. They're not supposed to know their opponents' Con.




My goal is to keep people watching the fight the whole time in case they can pull an AoO, instead of taking their turn and dozing. Readied actions would be good, but it won't guarantee what I want. Plus I'd rather let players do more than try and make them ration actions.

I assume that - other than realism - that was the purpose behind AoOs in the 1st place.
If this is not enough for someone to still doze off, they should seriously ask themselves "what the hell am I doing here?".
The problem lies either with them or the DM, not the game.




Well these guys are made for dips, but hopefully the levels matter more now. I realized that with the number of feats the class granted (and the number you'd have naturally at high levels) that players would probably be seeing enormous diminishing returns.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[Just to Browse]

No, just that the exact deduction is automatic (provided there's enough damage to deduct from). So instead of saying "decrease damage by enemy Con" it should be "decrease damage by [X]" where [X] is some number like 10 or 15?


I assume that - other than realism - that was the purpose behind AoOs in the 1st place.
If this is not enough for someone to still doze off, they should seriously ask themselves "what the hell am I doing here?".
The problem lies either with them or the DM, not the game.I'll admit that as a DM sometimes I give combats that drag on. AoOs help pad my failures.


I'm not sure what you mean by that.The idea is that people who take a bunch of feats will fill out their desired feat chain or maximize the metamagic combo they want, but then as they continue gaining feats, there won't be anything else they can add to their schtick (due to the fact that there aren't infinite feats for every archetype) so eventually the TWF Master of Practice will start branching out into things that don't boost TWF, and then when he's at level 15 with 23 feats he'll be branching into maybe two or three different avenues, and his ability to use all of his feats at once is very low, so each individual feat brings less to him than it would bring to another character that is feat-starved.

[nonsi]

So instead of saying "decrease damage by enemy Con" it should be "decrease damage by [X]" where [X] is some number like 10 or 15?

Example:
Suppose a target has Con 13.
The attacker declares execution of the maneuver and scores a hit.
Damage is rolled and then 13 points are detracted (without the attacker knowing how much was detracted) to a minimum of zero.
If the initial damage is 13 or more, then the attacker did his part successfully, otherwise the attempt fails automatically.




I'll admit that as a DM sometimes I give combats that drag on. AoOs help pad my failures.

The thing you should ask yourself is how frequent the prolonged encounters are, are they similar or varied enough to promote interest and how attached are the players to their characters. From my experience, when dealing with minmaxers, the answer to the latter usually amounts to "not very much" (which makes dozing off a predictable result).




The idea is that people who take a bunch of feats will fill out their desired feat chain or maximize the metamagic combo they want, but then as they continue gaining feats, there won't be anything else they can add to their schtick (due to the fact that there aren't infinite feats for every archetype) so eventually the TWF Master of Practice will start branching out into things that don't boost TWF, and then when he's at level 15 with 23 feats he'll be branching into maybe two or three different avenues, and his ability to use all of his feats at once is very low, so each individual feat brings less to him than it would bring to another character that is feat-starved.

Again, you're describing a symptom of minmaxing over versatility.
Ever played Might & Magic? I did many years ago.
At the end of the game the party plows the battlefield without even slowing down. At this point I ended up uninstalling the game out of boredom.

What I'm saying is that feat chains with 8+ feats shouldn't exist. Any such chain consists of lousy feats (TW-Defense anybody?).

[Just to Browse]

Example:
Suppose a target has Con 13.
The attacker declares execution of the maneuver and scores a hit.
Damage is rolled and then 13 points are detracted (without the attacker knowing how much was detracted) to a minimum of zero.
If the initial damage is 13 or more, then the attacker did his part successfully, otherwise the attempt fails automatically.

OH I SEE! So the player would be like "I want to Harry" and roll damage, and the DM would say "you would deal 0 damage, so you can't", and then the player would just make it a regular attack or some such?


That I'm saying is that feat chains with 8+ feats shouldn't exist. Any such chain consists of lousy feats (TW-Defense anybody?).That just exacerbates the problem. Let me try to explain better: The point of the Fighter, Master of Practice, and Elder is that you load up on tons of feats. After loading up on all your core build feats and all the things that look cool and awesome, you will have extra feats to spare, and you'll start investing those in extraneous slots that aren't as important to you. Every extra feat you get becomes less important in the grand scheme of your build, so in order to make a class level of "get a bonus feat" useful, it either needs to scale in quantity (e.g. Master of Practice) or quality (e.g. Fighter).

[nonsi]

OH I SEE! So the player would be like "I want to Harry" and roll damage, and the DM would say "you would deal 0 damage, so you can't", and then the player would just make it a regular attack or some such?

No!
The player doesn't say "I want to Harry".
The player either declares "I Harry" or not. A decision that is made before making an attack roll.
Once damage is rolled, the DM detracts the target's Con.
if the resulting damage >= 0, then it means there was enough damage in there to execute the Harry. Notice that an attacker could deal zero damage and still make a successful Harry.




That just exacerbates the problem. Let me try to explain better: The point of the Fighter, Master of Practice, and Elder is that you load up on tons of feats. After loading up on all your core build feats and all the things that look cool and awesome, you will have extra feats to spare, and you'll start investing those in extraneous slots that aren't as important to you. Every extra feat you get becomes less important in the grand scheme of your build, so in order to make a class level of "get a bonus feat" useful, it either needs to scale in quantity (e.g. Master of Practice) or quality (e.g. Fighter).

Good. This means that a character cannot be a high-level one-trick-pony.
There's a limit to how far you can push the numbers up. e.g. no human alive today will ever high-jump higher than 10ft without mechanical aids.
Another example is MMA. The best fighters are always versatile fighters (Fedor & Silva reigned supreme for a long time thanks to that).

[Just to Browse]

if the resulting damage >= 0, then it means there was enough damage in there to execute the Harry. Notice that an attacker could deal zero damage and still make a successful Harry.Wow it only took me an entire weak to understand this. Thank you for being patient.

But doesn't this make it still a gambit? The chance of Constitution reducing the damage below 0 could mean an entire attack is wasted, and I really don't want players to be mad about that. I was considering halving the damage instead, because it could lend to some better scaling, but I hate division with a burning passion.

[nonsi]

Wow it only took me an entire weak to understand this. Thank you for being patient.

On that note, you could do something for me, if you find the time and patience for it: PEACH my Dradonfury Disciple (nothing fancy, just overall impression and glaring problems you encounter - I'll take silence as "it's solid and not horribly broken").




But doesn't this make it still a gambit? The chance of Constitution reducing the damage below 0 could mean an entire attack is wasted, and I really don't want players to be mad about that. I was considering halving the damage instead, because it could lend to some better scaling, but I hate division with a burning passion.

A player should know his character's average damage (with a certain degree of approximation).
Given there's no saving throw involved, I recognize no elements that make this maneuver more of a gambit than others.
Most creatures have 8 < Con < 25.
Having avg dmg >= 20 should yield a high degree of success.
Having avg dmg <= 10 should yield a low degree of success.

Of course that gargantuan monsters probably have very high Con, and their mass is usually a testimony to that, so the players have tools to work with.

[Just to Browse]

Done and done.