Bringing Back the Fighting Man

[Li Shenron]

There's a common school of DM though that PCs should never ever encounter 1 hit die creatures after about 4th level, 'cause such encounters are "no challenge."

The "pushover encounters are not fun" school of thought is common enough that you share it.

The "pushover encounters are not fun" is not what you claimed to be a common school of thought.

What you claimed, I re-quoted above.

 

[Theory of Games]

I think basing a Fighter ''extra attack table'' on the cleric's turn undead table could be a good idea.

Once per round you gain a free attack against creature of an ever-increasing CR within your weapon range (or in a X ft zone if ranged?). At higher level, very low CR creatures hit by one such attack must save against death or fall to 0 hp.

That looks very interesting. Maybe a little more complex than I wanted, but interesting still. I might crunch some numbers. Thanks!

PF2 does this by allowing a higher level opponent to just critical more often with the <10> system. I think it does what you are after better.

YEah. I really like PF1e but after reading 2e I fell back to the RC. I guess I'm trying to "go backwards to go forwards" with my gaming? I do like PF2e's action economy though.

 

[Lanefan]

PF2 does this by allowing a higher level opponent to just critical more often with the <10> system. I think it does what you are after better.

Unless I'm missing something, a critical still only affects a single opponent, meaning you can still only slay them one as a time. The idea here is more that a Fighter can potentially sweep aside a number of very weak foes all at once.

 

[payn]

Unless I'm missing something, a critical still only affects a single opponent, meaning you can still only slay them one as a time. The idea here is more that a Fighter can potentially sweep aside a number of very weak foes all at once.

You can have up to 3 attacks a round in PF2. Granted its -5 for the second and -10 for the third, but the system is built specifically to make lower level foes just vanish before your very capable power. They will also struggle to even hit the PCs and not likely be able to critical them at all.

 

[Horwath]

Variant cleave rules would work best here.
After you reduce a target to 0, make attack roll vs one target withing reach, if attacks hits deal remaining damage to that target, if still is remaining damage, repeat.

 

[Gus L]

PF2 does this by allowing a higher level opponent to just critical more often with the <10> system. I think it does what you are after better.

Honest question - isn't Pathfinder already a fairly feats heavy system? Does it need additional tactical combat rules? Especially if those rules exist outside the existing character building mini-game?

I get why people use cleave rules as a fighter add-on in things like OD&D or B/X and all of their more recent progeny... but in a feat and build system with complex tactical combat already it seems like just another drop in an already very full bucket.

 

[payn]

Honest question - isn't Pathfinder already a fairly feats heavy system? Does it need additional tactical combat rules? Especially if those rules exist outside the existing character building mini-game?

I get why people use cleave rules as a fighter add-on in things like OD&D or B/X and all of their more recent progeny... but in a feat and build system with complex tactical combat already it seems like just another drop in an already very full bucket.

Perhaps you are confused, PF2 does this as built into the system and doesnt require a feat at all.

 

[Mannahnin]

I made a thread about this in 2022, after Dan at Delta's D&D Hotspot did a big retrospective about these "sweep" attacks (as Pool of Radiance dubbed them). I like the rule, but I'm aware that making and resolving several attacks isn't everyone's cup of tea, so I also discussed a couple of alternative, faster versions.

 

[Gus L]

Perhaps you are confused, PF2 does this as built into the system and doesnt require a feat at all.

Oh I'm certainly not claiming any Pathfinder knowledge. I don't play it and likely won't given I'm not a tactical combat or Contemporary Traditional fan.

So cleave is part of the basic Fighter kit in PF (or is it for everyone?). This strikes me as an interesting design choice but potentially inconsequential in a system with feats and fairly complex tactical combat options. In OD&D, which I do play, the cleave ability can be a powerful one because combat is so simple, the system has a low power curve, and encourages asymmetrical encounters.

Regardless of where one uses it however, cleave is a situational ability - it matters only when there are a larger number of weak foes in melee combat that have not been blasted, slept, turned or otherwise magicked away. In OD&D, especially if one believes it's best played as a skirmish/warband style game cleave matters ... but in regular B/X or later editions it has decreased usefulness. I wonder if the complexity of the mechanic is worth it from a design perspective honestly.

 

[Mannahnin]

Regardless of where one uses it however, cleave is a situational ability - it matters only when there are a larger number of weak foes in melee combat that have not been blasted, slept, turned or otherwise magicked away. In OD&D, especially if one believes it's best played as a skirmish/warband style game cleave matters ... but in regular B/X or later editions it has decreased usefulness. I wonder if the complexity of the mechanic is worth it from a design perspective honestly.

I remember being very happy with the "sweep" ability in my first long-running OD&D game, when around 4th level or so our fighters started being able to handle a couple of dozen orcs without needing a sleep spell to save the party.

I think the ability would still be very good in B/X, but at least Moldvay reduced the numbers of humanoids encountered to help compensate for the loss. I do include a variant on the sweep rule in my current B/X house rule package.

If you're worried about complexity or speed of resolution, I mentioned a couple of alternatives in the post I linked above.

One is simply to make a single attack and damage roll for up to as many adjacent/in melee (grid vs. TotM) opponents as the Fighter's level. Another is to roll a die with as many sides as the character has levels, and have them kill that many foes within reach, abstracting out that average damage is going to equate to average HP for 1HD foes, and subsuming the attack rolls in that single die. So for a 4th level fighter, they can simply kill d4 Orcs per round. For a 5th level Fighter, you can simply roll a d6 and re-roll 6s. Same with a 7th level fighter and a D8.

Joshua Macy, on his blog, alternately suggests rolling a number of d6s equal to the number of attacks allowed, with a target number from 3-6 based on what kind of armor/AC the opponents have. He made a nice table converting the numbers needed to hit given ACs on a d20 to d6s with a little rounding. This lets you factor in the armor class but still get the attacks resolved quickly with a small handful of dice.