Dungeonaday campaign/freeform combat playtest [PFRPG][OOC]

[HolyMan]

I 'd say he's ready for an IC thread but since he doesn't say anything it would be pointless for a bunch of quiet posts lol

HM

yes I thought a reminder that he has a samurai jack hat was neccesary

 

[Malvoisin]

So, I've been doing some thinking about the issue of flanking as raised earlier. I'll get to that, but let's talk about some more general movement concepts first.

My proposal is that for any combat encounter, I'll enumerate the visible enemies, and specify what direction (one of the eight cardinal compass directions) they are relative to the party's position. Also, I'll specify a general distance category (really close, close, moderate, far, really far). If a character has a movement of 40+ they can reach enemies at moderate range with a standard move. If movement is 30+ you can reach someone close in a standard move. If movement is 20+ you can reach someone really close with a standard move. With a full round move action, you can extend your range one category further.

If you close to within striking distance of an enemy, you are considered to be engaged in melee with that enemy (and vice versa, unless Reach is involved...we'll get to that later). If engaged in melee, you will incur attacks of opportunity for spell casting, use of ranged weapons, and other activities as specified in normal OGL rules. I would like to eliminate the 5' step, so we'll need to discuss how to withdraw from a melee engagement if desired, whether such activity incurs an AOO, and whether it would be a standard or full round action. There needs to be some mechanism in place, otherwise casters will be in trouble.

I like the idea of 'ganging up' as proposed by Walking Dad. I'd like to use a cumulative +2 attack bonus to each addtional character who attacks the same foe. But, I'm not sure this should automatically constitute an opportunity for sneak attack damage, as it does seem a bit overpowered to me. I think I'd rather rule that rogues have to move a bit more precisely (akin to the older concept of 'backstabbing') to get a chance for sneak attack damage. I agree that this should call for an Acrobatics check to avoid AOO's.

So...brainstorm with me, guys. What do you think so far? Nothing is set in stone, so let me hear your ideas!

 

[HolyMan]

Tactical movement is used for combat. Characters generally don't walk during combat, for obvious reasons—they hustle or run instead. A character who moves his speed and takes some action is hustling for about half the round and doing something else the other half.
Table: Hampered MovementConditionAdditional Movement CostDifficult terrain×2Obstacle*×2Poor visibility×2Impassable—* May require a skill check
Hampered Movement: Difficult terrain, obstacles, and poor visibility can hamper movement (see Table: Hampered Movement for details). When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move.
If more than one hampering condition applies, multiply all additional costs that apply. This is a specific exception to the normal rule for doubling.
In some situations, your movement may be so hampered that you don't have sufficient speed even to move 5 feet (1 square). In such a case, you may use a full-round action to move 5 feet (1 square) in any direction, even diagonally. Even though this looks like a 5-foot step, it's not, and thus it provokes attacks of opportunity normally. (You can't take advantage of this rule to move through impassable terrain or to move when all movement is prohibited to you.)
You can't run or charge through any square that would hamper your movement.

And let's not forget conditions I'm sure the dungeon a day is not all level ground and open spaces.

But I belive you are on the right track all encounters start at a certain distance, so that's where we should start.

HM

 

[Rhun]

My proposal is that for any combat encounter, I'll enumerate the visible enemies, and specify what direction (one of the eight cardinal compass directions) they are relative to the party's position. Also, I'll specify a general distance category (really close, close, moderate, far, really far). If a character has a movement of 40+ they can reach enemies at moderate range with a standard move. If movement is 30+ you can reach someone close in a standard move. If movement is 20+ you can reach someone really close with a standard move. With a full round move action, you can extend your range one category further.

Sounds good so far.

If you close to within striking distance of an enemy, you are considered to be engaged in melee with that enemy (and vice versa, unless Reach is involved...we'll get to that later). If engaged in melee, you will incur attacks of opportunity for spell casting, use of ranged weapons, and other activities as specified in normal OGL rules. I would like to eliminate the 5' step, so we'll need to discuss how to withdraw from a melee engagement if desired, whether such activity incurs an AOO, and whether it would be a standard or full round action. There needs to be some mechanism in place, otherwise casters will be in trouble.

There is a mechanism in place. The withdraw action. Allows you to retreat from combat without provoking an AoO.

I like the idea of 'ganging up' as proposed by Walking Dad. I'd like to use a cumulative +2 attack bonus to each addtional character who attacks the same foe. But, I'm not sure this should automatically constitute an opportunity for sneak attack damage, as it does seem a bit overpowered to me. I think I'd rather rule that rogues have to move a bit more precisely (akin to the older concept of 'backstabbing') to get a chance for sneak attack damage. I agree that this should call for an Acrobatics check to avoid AOO's.

I like the rules for ganging up, at least the +2 per additional enemy. It helps maintain the "realism" that one swordsman (despite his skill) should certainly be hard pressed against three or four enemies. I think stating that the rogue has to use precise movement and an acrobats check would be ideal...since nobody is going to just let someone get behind them during combat.

 

[Malvoisin]

There is a mechanism in place. The withdraw action. Allows you to retreat from combat without provoking an AoO.

LOL, upon rereading what I wrote, it does sound silly doesn't it? I suppose what I meant is something more like a partial withdrawal. That is, if we do away with the 5' step, will there be any means for, say, a caster to safely cast a spell (without provoking an AOO) once he has been engaged in melee? Or should we keep the 5' step (or some equivalent...'sidestep' maybe'...the literal 5' step makes no sense in a mapless combat after all)?

 

[Guest 11456]

That leaves Tailspinner, haven't heard from you in a while. How are things coming with your rogue?

Still working on fluff, but here is crunch:

[sblock]Zooey Heimlich
Female Human Rogue 1
Alignment: Chaotic Good
Age: 16
Height: 6’-1”
Weight: 145#
Eyes: Brown
Hair: Black
Skin: Fair

Str: 13 (+1) 3 pts
Dex: 20 (+5) 17 pts, +2 race
Con: 10 (+0) 0 pts
Int: 10 (+0) 0 pts
Wis: 10 (+0) 0 pts
Cha: 10 (+0) 0 pts

Hit Points: 6
AC: 18 (+3 armor, +5 Dex) Touch: 15, Flat: 13
Init: +5

BAB: +0
CMB: +1
CMD: 16
Speed: 30'

Saves:
Fort +0 (+0 base, +0 Con)
Ref +7 (+2 base, +5 Dex)
Will +0 (+0 base, +0 Wis)

+6 Melee, MW Rapier, 1d6+1, 18-20/x2, Piercing
+5 Ranged, Hand Crossbow, 1d4, 19-20/x2, Piercing, 30’

Skills:
Acrobatics +9 (1 Ranks, +3 TCB, +5 Dex)
Climb +5 (1 Ranks, +3 TCB, +1 Str)
Disable Device +9 (1 Ranks, +3 TCB, +5 Dex)
Escape Artist +9 (1 Ranks, +3 TCB, +5 Dex)
Linguistics +4 (1 Ranks, +3 TCB, +0 Int)
Perception +4 (1 Ranks, +3 TCB, +0 Wis)
Ride +6 (1 Ranks, +0 TCB, +5 Dex)
Sleight of Hand +9 (1 Ranks, +3 TCB, +5 Dex)
Stealth +9 (1 Ranks, +3 TCB, +5 Dex)
Swim +5 (1 Ranks, +3 TCB, +1 Str)

Language: Common, Dwarven

Feats:
Combat Reflexes (1st level)
Weapon Finesse (race bonus 1st level)

Traits: Fencer, Rich Parents

Class Abilities: Sneak Attack +1d6, Trapfinding.

Racial Abilities: Bonus feat, skilled, weapon training.

Equipment:
Traveler’s Outfit (0gp, 0#, worn)
Signet Ring (5gp, 0#, worn)
MW Studded Leather (175gp, 20#, worn)
MW Rapier (320gp, 2#, belt)
Backpack (2gp, 2#, back)
Hand Crossbow (100gp, 2#, pack)
Hand Crossbow Bolts [30] (3gp, 3#, pack)
MW Thieves’ Tools (100gp, 2#, pack)
Everburning Torch (110gp, 1#, pack)
Bedroll (1sp, 5#, pack)
Silk Rope (20gp, 10#, pack)
Sacks [2] (2sp, 1#, pack)
Treasure (18pp/9gp/7sp, 1#, pack)
Total (1050gp, 49#)

Encumbrance: 50#/100#/150#/300#/750#[/sblock]

 

[Rhun]

LOL, upon rereading what I wrote, it does sound silly doesn't it? I suppose what I meant is something more like a partial withdrawal. That is, if we do away with the 5' step, will there be any means for, say, a caster to safely cast a spell (without provoking an AOO) once he has been engaged in melee? Or should we keep the 5' step (or some equivalent...'sidestep' maybe'...the literal 5' step makes no sense in a mapless combat after all)?

That is a good question. Of course, if we do away with it, that does allow a lot more use of Concentration for Casting Defensively.

 

[jkason]

I like the idea of 'ganging up' as proposed by Walking Dad. I'd like to use a cumulative +2 attack bonus to each addtional character who attacks the same foe. But, I'm not sure this should automatically constitute an opportunity for sneak attack damage, as it does seem a bit overpowered to me. I think I'd rather rule that rogues have to move a bit more precisely (akin to the older concept of 'backstabbing') to get a chance for sneak attack damage. I agree that this should call for an Acrobatics check to avoid AOO's.

It seems to me that requiring an Acrobatics check to flank removes the previously-available option of just taking longer to get in place for a flank. True, rogues are more likely to have the ranks to do that, but it seems slightly unfair to require them to take ranks in that particular skill to effectively use an unrelated class ability (and it seems to me there are probably other feats / abilities that might use Flanking, which might further complicate forced Acrobatics).

Since we're going with the powered up 'gang' concept, though, maybe a trade-off to 'activate' sneak attack? As is, if the rogue Flanked and there were two other allies in melee, he'd get a +4 to an attack that before generally never got more than a +2.

Since conceptually Sneak Attack is supposed to be a more precise hit to a harder-to-reach area, what if Rogues can activate Sneak attack by trading off (at least) +2 of a 'group attack' bonus? They give up the standard bonus they'd get with Flanking rules for the ability to use it without a strategic limitation on where they are in relation to allies.

Just a thought. I'm horrible at working out how the math in these sorts of things is supposed to achieve balance, so feel free to pitch this to the side if I'm thowing things out of whack.

 

[Guest 11456]

Range Increments: engaged, adjacent, near, really close, close, moderate, far, really far, distant.

5-foot step is replaced with "step away".

If someone is "engaged" with an enemy they can "step away" to "adjacent".

Since rogues must "move precisely" to get a chance to get a sneak attack in, their movement decreases by a step.

Thus a rogue who has a movement of 20+ could reach someone that is "near" in a standard round if "moving precisely".

 

[Guest 11456]

Also instead of using an actual measure for base speed such as 30 feet, abstract that as well. Perhaps:

1' - 10' : Very Slow
11' - 20' : Slow
21' - 30' : Average
31' - 40' : Fast
41' - 50' : Quick
51' - 60' : Speedy