Mixing & Matching Resource Systems

[deaddmwalking]

@JonSetanta

You're already aware that casters have meaningful decisions. The difference between casting fireball (area damage) versus web (area denial, debuff) is significant. You're not going to get that kind of meaningful choice if your martial characters have to spend 1-2 rounds 'charging' before 'discharging'. In fact, the act of charging may deprive them of useful targets that are worth the 'ultimate'. If you've reduced an opponent to 10% of their total hit points (such that a 'normal attack' could drop them), the act of building up to discharge an ultimate feels like a waste.

The rogue MAY have to 'build up' by moving into position, but under optimal circumstances they can 'ultimate' with every attack. Ideally, a rogue will still want to attack even if they can't get sneak, because there is some utility in the action - at least if it means otherwise doing nothing - but they're highly motivated to find ways to get sneak as often as possible.

As a designer, you don't want to say 'rogues must power up by doing 2-3 regular attacks before they get sneak attack'. I mean, I HOPE you don't want to say that. What you really want to do is set up interesting choices for the player. Should the rogue focus on opponents that are easy to sneak up on and likely to drop in a single hit? Or team up with other martial characters to focus fire on the biggest threat (knowing that puts him in greater danger)?

There isn't just one way to set up these kinds of meaningful choices for each class (or even outside of class abilities). OgreBattle has some great examples - Panache and Fury both allow you to build up power and (ideally) unleash that gathered power, but the characters will play extremely differently. Someone with fury almost wants a low Defense and would want abilities that let them trade blows; someone with Panache wants a high defense but still wants people to waste attacks on him; mobility powers that give him a bonus to Defense would synergize well. That does not reduce to 'spend 1-2 rounds doing normal powers; then make a super attack', or, even if it does, you don't want to focus on that. As a designer you do want to think about how quickly the powers build up, and whether they're equivalent and how often you THINK that a character ought to be able to use them, but it NEEDS to be variable.

Sometimes the Fury character is going to end up surrounded and take 8 attacks in a round, all of them hits. Since they're going to be down a lot of hit points, having the ability to do 3 or 4 supers (or a SUPER SUPER) after a round like that is probably a good thing. Meanwhile, getting missed by 8 opponents means you're NOT down any hit points, and are in good shape. There's a good chance that a Panache character shouldn't have supers that deal heaps of extra damage (or at least, not at the same rate as a Fury character). While in MOST situations you might expect each character to accumulate 1-2 'points' per round, that isn't ALWAYS the case. And you want to keep that in mind when you're laying out the power.

As a thought experiment, if you can only get 1 point per round, the Fury character DOESN'T want to get surrounded and attacked by 8 characters. He also wants to get hit by the weakest hitter on team monster. That's probably not what you want for your Fury character - you want him to WANT to get hit, and you want him to get hit by the HARDEST hitting monster, right? Those are the things you want to incentivize. The ability to RETRIBUTE, and getting bonuses to attack/damage when bloodied, as well as some type of 'rage healing' all encourage the character to get his ass kicked in Wolverine fashion.

It all comes down to incentives - you always have a vision of how a character OUGHT to play at the table; making sure that they have mechanical incentives to play correctly is your job as a designer. It is VERY VERY EASY to get this wrong. You might never think of playing 'the wrong way' because you know 'the right way' - and that's why playtesting is super important. Sometimes the behaviors you think you're encouraging aren't really optimal; if you're not careful you have a Berserker hiding in the bushes for 3-4 rounds getting angrier and angrier before he launches his unstoppable fusillade of arrows. And it isn't necessarily a problem if that's the optimal way to play and players enjoy it, even if it isn't what you planned - but it something you need to be aware of.

[JonSetanta]

Not Dragonball style charging resources, that's a waste of turns. But if every +1 resource attack is meaningful, there's a large variety of options at every level, and rewards the attacker for at least avoiding the Five Moves Of Doom, I'm heading in the right direction.

[Kaelik]

And then Tome scaling feat provides Dazelock if you spam the same attack every round.

Seriously, I'm trying to find solutions but it's like dealing with Parliament or Congress.

I'll just resume writing jank and do whatever and y'all can comment on the new thread later.

I think if you asked most people would agree that combat school was a bad idea badly implemented at this point and just like wizards casting planar binding is just one of the bad things that a lot of the game has to take into account but that you would actually not put in a new game and want to avoid replicating the problem of.

[JonSetanta]

Ok. So, hypothetical, let's start by saying every Tome combat option like Trip and Disarm are +1 resource, taking an amount of damage equal to the warriors's level or more each round is +1, and any level 1 Weeaboo Fights Magick maneuver is accessable to anyone with BAB 1 and also +1 resource.
If that's too much it could be feat-allowed.

I'll be scrounging through the SRD for status effects to apply to melee, thrown, grapple, and projectile attacks.


What I'm trying to avoid: Warriors that essentially have some kind of maneuver-variant of a mana drain that allows them to go nova on turn 1.
They might do fine with the ability to build up 1 or more point out of initiative by concentration, and hold it at that capacity as long as they're not resting, but any more than about 1/2 level or BAB and it'll just look like another Paladin Smite from 5e.

[deaddmwalking]

One of the things that I think is a real problem with 3.x is that nobody does anything in combat unless they have the appropriate feat. If you provoke an AoO every time you try to trip or disarm an opponent, and you automatically fail if they hit, you are never going to try to trop or disarm an opponent. And that makes me sad.

One of the first things we did in our Heartbreaker is reverse it. For us, you don't provoke an AoO for trying to trip someone, but if you fail, you provoke an AoO. So if you trip and succeed, great, you're fine. If you trip and fail, your opponent gets the AoO. If you take the feat, you don't provoke on a fail and get a bonus on your check. As a result, people who aren't built for tripping still try to trip. It makes combat more dynamic.

For our warrior class specifically, this didn't go far enough. We want them to be 'the maneuver class'. They get a free follow-up attack when they succeed on a maneuver. Even if they didn't provoke, you'd normally be giving up the opportunity to do damage. The free follow-up attack means that they aren't forgoing damage by using a maneuver.

Even if you let players roll into a combat 'fully charged' that doesn't mean you have to let them nova. They might only be able to spend 1 point per round. If you set it up that they can spend a point on each attack, they typically won't be able to spend more than 1 if they have only one attack (or 2 assuming they can spend it on an AOO). If you set it so spending the point benefits all of their actions for the round, they likewise can't nova. You can use the 'free attack' with the use of the ability to limit things, too. If you say '1 point gives all of your attacks +1d6 electrical damage until the end of your turn', but spending the point requires a standard action but allows you to make an attack as part of the action, you're really giving 'free activation' but limiting it to only 1 activation per turn. As the designer, you can just do that.

[JonSetanta]

I'd rather have temporary buffs activate as a Quick action, then the warrior does either their routine of standard techniques (all of which would be attack roll then damage then special effect), or a standard action maneuver.


Edit: Well shit. I just reread the Nine Swords maneuvers and the level 1 lists are utter crap.
I'll make some new ones.

Edit edit: Hours later, I've watched some action films and thought... How about dividing maneuvers up by what they do rather than "school", and supply warriors with a different option of resource-buildup varied by ability score.

Maneuvers:
Attack
Defense
Boost
Stance
Debuff/Status
Area
Mobility

Maneuver Ranks:
Universal (BAB 1, anyone can do these Cantrip-like maneuvers which would include the Trip, Disarm, Grapple, and similar generic combat choices)
Basic (BAB 1 also, but some kind of entry requirement or spend an hour training to 'learn' each one)
Advanced (BAB 6)
Master (BAB 11)
Heroic (BAB 16)

By dividing them as if Warlock Invocations or Tome feat scaling, this cuts down on the fiddly escalation (and saves a lot of work) that Nine Swords and pretty much every spellcaster class has.


Rage/Trance/Tension/whatever to call it acquisition:
STR - dealing damage
DEX - dodging attacks
CON - taking damage