Min/Max Boards

daggers hitting 4x as often as hammers would work if hammers deal 4x as much damage as daggers.

In essence, yes. However, I'm more interested in making the combat more versatile.
Redesigning the combat rules and ending with only damage difference to compare is (in my opinion) a waste of time. I want to bring something else, something new to the table.

Take, for example, a scenario where you are confronted by a mage. You are armed with a giant and heavy axe. The mage start casting. While you have the option of attacking him with your axe for a max' amount of damage, you decide that it would be better for you to strike fast with a small blade in order to fizzle his spell, as a swing with an axe might take too much time.

Other options for when addressing action times are (not a full list):
Concentrating on an action.
Embracing for a charge or a spellcast on you (including counterspell and parry).
Taking time to aim.

Using some sort of formula or lookup table to figure out what X is

I'd much rather ditch strength bonus then extending combat time with lookup tables or math more intricate then simple addition.

you should probably account for two-weapon fighting somehow.

My answer for twf (for now) is to not give it a special treatment. Meaning that the character is simply armed with two items and when it's her turn to act she can use either one the items as she chooses. No attacking with both at the same time. You can use succesive attackes with the same side or alternate between them as you see fit.

Have I popped in this thread and said AD&D used to do this? Also in combat FFX changed your turn order based on the speed of your action, something I think was semi-kept in the newer games.

I don't think so, no. But wasn't the AD&D was opposite? Like, you had to go the lowest to be better or something? I think I played it 20 years ago or something.
Never played final fantasies, thou, so can't really use unless you elaborate. Are the rounds treated stand alone? This was talked about above, but I can rewrite it again:
Say one person acts quickly, jabbing a small knife. Another one smashed slowly with a massive 2hander hammer. If the rounds are treated separately then each will get 1 attack every round. Even thought the quicker one could act fast enough to strike one more time now and then.

Okay, I see.  You forgot to mention that you're getting rid of rounds and the limitation of only acting once per round. 

Anyway, the suggestion I was making still holds, but the "instead of" in my phrasing needs to be updated. 

Instead of letting tick counts go above 20, and then subtracting from them later, why not use rounds of 20 ticks each?  So, instead of, for example, tick 20 being followed by tick 21, it would be round 1, tick 20, followed by round 2, tick 1. 

That accomplishes the same thing, but it's a far less confusing nomenclature.

I guess that's the same thing. Only thing different is the way you track things. Whether it'd be round 3 tick 7 or tick number 67. If your wording is less confusing then mine then sure - let's use that. Keep in mind that the traditional initiative rules are more strict and won't allow you to act between rounds. e.g. slashing from tick 18 to tick 23.

Well, you declare what you're doing, then other stuff happens, then what you declared actually takes place.  What happens is that "other stuff" has made the action you're now supposed to take impossible?  Which details of your action do you have to decide when you declare it, and which can you decide when it resolves?  If the situation changes between when you declare an action and when it resolves, can you abort the action partway through?  All those are non-trivial scenarios you'll have to account for. 

More specifically though, you'll have to look at the interaction between attack range and movement.  So, you move into range, then you declare your attack.  What if your intended target moves out of range before the attack resolves?  This is especially important if there are attacks that take more ticks than the smallest form of movement. 

Imagine I'm trying to land a big attack, one that takes 20 ticks.  Now imagine my target can move his speed as a 10-tick action.  So, after I declare my attack, my target will move out of range, and I will have wasted my time.  He'd be stupid to stay put and take my super-powerful attack.  And he has plenty of time to get out of the way. 

So, it only makes sense for me to declare a long action if my target has first locked himself into an action so long that he won't have been able to react until after I've already finished.  But why will he declare a long action?  He's in the same situation as I am.  I doesn't make any sense for him to declare a long action until I've already locked myself into a long action.  The first long attack won't be declared until after the first long attack has been declared.  A paradox. 

So, everyone only ever uses the fastest attack, because anything else can be easily countered.  If the long attacks are never used, why are they even there? 

And let's imagine if a 5-foot step only takes 3 ticks.  That makes sense, that lets you move 30 feet in 21 ticks, a little slower than 30 feet per round.  But let's say the fastest melee attack takes 5 ticks.  That also makes sense, that's 4 attacks per round.  How does a melee character hit a target who's 5 feet out of attack range? 

Okay, I declare a 5-foot step.  Now I'm close enough, so I declare my melee attack.  % ticks later I hit.  Except, no I don't.  Because in the 7 ticks it's take for me to get into range and hit him, he's had plenty of time to take his own 5-foot step.  That means he's not in range to attack. 

How does a melee character get any attacks in if his enemy isn't polite enough to stand still and allow himself to be hit?

Well, that was indeed a point that came up in the comments for Mearl's original article. And it does seems to be a major problem (at least in my eyes). Mearl's writing states that if your action is no longer valid then you may choose a different (must be shorter) action then you declared before hand. Another option is forsaking this turns action and receiving an initiative bonus next declaring phase.
You describe two items:
1. When situation changes between declaring an action and starting to act.
2. When situation changes between action commencing and action resolving.
In regards to first point - my idea, in contrast to Mearl's original, is that there is no 'declaring' phase. When it's your moment to act you decide your action as well as starting to act in such way.
For the second item, instead of it being a problem to fix, this could be an opportunity for innovation:
When a character can act quicker and move away - it would be 'dodge'. If a character can act faster and break or disarm the other's weapon, it could be considered 'parry'. These will bring a layer of tactic to the battle that is missing in standard d&d battle (I hope).
Only thing now is to find an elegant implementation.
I'm not sure how to go about it. I'm open to ideas.

Okay, but shouldn't a character with high dexterity and such tend to go before a character with low dex and such?  How about, instead, you roll initiative as normal.  Whoever rolled highest is assignes to tick 1.  Everyone else is assigned a later tick based on how much he beat them by.  You rolled 6 lower than the guy who goes first?  You go 6 ticks after he does. 

You're also going to need some method for determining the order in which people act when they both land on the same tick.

All of this doesn't really affect anything. It's just how you prefer doing things. If it's easier to roll highest instead of lowest then do it. Pick the way you want to play. Mathematically, it doesn't really matter.
The one thing that does change is the dexterity bonus. Honestly? I'm on two minds about it. On the one hand I like it when dexterous characters act first. It's usually one of their shtick. On the other hand - dexterity doesn't really mean faster reaction. Faster hand movements? sure. Acting before anyone else? Intelligent characters sometimes act faster.
It came up in other thread as well. Then again, dexterity is also very beneficial for characters. What with deflection and ranged attack bonus and else. So maybe this one can go away without harming balance?
Not sure.

Same tick would mean acting at the same time. If you really have to differentiate between them then you could roll tie-breaker die, I guess, your pick.

I read mike mearls' new initiative suggestion and a whole lot of comments regarding it (honestly surprised nothing came up in this forum). Nytemare3701 also had a thread which I read. But I'm still not sold on the item presented.

How's this:

Combat start - all characters roll d20 - that is your place.
Goes from lowest to highest.
Character chooses an action. Actions are grouped to 'weights', like 5, 10 or 20.
Action start at your initiative and resolves at initiative + weight. New initiative is initiative + weight.
=If all characters have initiative > 20 then reduce everyone's initiative by 20.

Your thoughts?

If, instead of the current Initiative system, you do the following:

Rolling d20 for initiative.
The lowest number starts the combat, going from lowest number to highest.
Each player declare his action. No more then 1 standard, 1 move and 1 minor action.
Every action will take a certain 'cost' by number. e.g. 10 cost for standard sword swing. And will be added to initiative to a new number.
Every action is resolved when the projected new initiative is reached.

When all involved pass a certain milestone they can all be reduced for a lower number (like, all characters have initiative higher then 20, then deduct 20 from all initiative).

-------------------------------------

The reasoning for this is a better 'react' mechanics: no more a multitude of immediate/swift etc.
Instead, if a wizard casts a spell and it will take him 15 points then I could throw an axe and it will take me only 5 points and it will be resolved before the spellcasting ends.

-------------------------------------

combat feats (or class abilities) for barbarians and berzerkers, that trigger when based on the damage taken or damage dished out respectively.

Marshal


   
"Quote of Some Kind by a member of the class!"

You are a warrior who tells people what to do.

MAKING A Marshal
Short description of play style.
Abilities: The important abilities and why they are important.
Races: Basically how common is the class in the various core races (and other races if you wish to put information in here about them).
Alignment: Alignment restrictions (if any).
Starting Gold: Xd4x10(average gp)
Starting Age: As (core class name).

Class Skills
The Marshal's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Bluff (Cha), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (all) (Int), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Speak Language (Int), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + int)x4
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + int

Hit Dice: d8

Level	Base Attack Bonus	Fort Save	Ref Save	Will Save	Special
1st	+0	+2	+0	+2	Auras, Skill Focus (diplomacy)
2nd	+1	+3	+0	+3	Major aura +1
3rd	+2	+3	+1	+3	Skill Focus (intimidate)
4th	+3	+4	+1	+4	Grant move action 1/day
5th	+3	+4	+1	+4	Extended intimidation
6th	+4	+5	+2	+5	Tactical strike (aid another), Skill Focus (bluff)
7th	+5	+5	+2	+5	Improved demoralization, Major aura +2
8th	+6/+1	+6	+2	+6	Grant move action 2/day
9th	+6/+1	+6	+3	+6	Swift demoralization
10th	+7/+2	+7	+3	+7	Tactical strike (double aid)
11th	+8/+3	+7	+3	+7	Mass demoralization
12th	+9/+4	+8	+4	+8	Grant move action 3/day
13th	+9/+4	+8	+4	+8	Tactical strike (point blank)
14th	+10/+5	+9	+4	+9	Major aura +3,   Tactical strike (flanked)
15th	+11/+6/+1	+9	+5	+9	Rally
16th	+12/+7/+2	+10	+5	+10	Grant move action 4/day
17th	+12/+7/+2	+10	+5	+10	Tactical strike (short range)
18th	+13/+8/+3	+11	+6	+11	Tactical strike (flat-footed)
19th	+14/+9/+4	+11	+6	+11	Command Presence
20th	+15/+10/+5	+12	+6	+12	Grant move action 5/day, major aura +4

Weapon and Armor Proficiencies: You are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, and with all armor and shields (except tower shields).

Auras, Skill Focus (Diplomacy), and Grant Move Action are as per normal, including the options for Draconic Auras and Adrenaline Boost.

Skill Focus (Intimidate): A marshal commands in many ways. He gains Skill Focus (Intimidate) as a bonus feat at 3rd level. If the marshal already has the feat, he can choose a different one.

Extended Intimidation (Ex): A target successfully intimidated by a 5th-level marshal suffers lasting effects. Instead of ending when the marshal leaves, as is normal for the Intimidate skill, the intimidation effect lasts for 24 hours after his departure. Thereafter, the target’s attitude toward the marshal shifts to unfriendly, but a lingering fear remains. Whenever the marshal returns to someone he has previously intimidated, he gains a +4 bonus on his Intimidate check to re-establish the effect.

Skill Focus: A marshal is skilled in deception in personal combat as well as tactical and strategic warfare. He gains Skill Focus (Bluff) as a bonus feat at 3rd level. If the marshal already has the feat, he can choose a different one.

Tactical Strike (Ex): A 6th level marshal is capable of directing the course of a battle while participating. When he attacks an opponent, he may Aid Another as a free action as part of that attack. He may succeed at aiding even if he fails to hit his opponent.
At 10th level, he aids both offense and defense at the same time.
At 13th level, he can use tactical strike with a ranged weapon within 30 ft.
At 14th level, he is treated as occupying all squares surrounding the opponent for purposes of determining if the opponent is flanked.
At 17th level, he can use tactical strike with a ranged weapon within 60 ft.
At 18th level, his attack causes the opponent to be treated as flat-footed until the start of the marshal's next turn.

Improved Demoralization (Ex): A 7th level marshal who uses Intimidate to demoralize an opponent causes the opponent to cower for 1 round then be shaken in the next round.

Swift Demoralization (Ex): A 9th-level marshal can use the demoralize opponent aspect of the Intimidate skill as a swift action rather than as a standard action.

Mass Demoralization (Ex): At 11th level, a marshal has sufficient presence that he can cow multiple foes. Using a Intimidate check, the marshal can demoralize all opponents within 30 feet.

Rally (Ex): At 15th level, a marshal can stop a rout before it begins. As an immediate action, he may use a Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check as the saving throw or opposed check for anyone within 30 ft. who has been subjected to a mind-affecting effect.

Command Presence (Ex): At 19th level, the marshal becomes so adept at influencing people that he can do so reliably even under adverse conditions. When making a Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check to change behavior or feint, the marshal may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent the character from doing so.

PLAYING A MARSHAL
 Brief description on how to play the class you are designing.
 Combat: Here's a section where you will describe common combat methods for your class. Remember to include information on how your class will use his powers in combat.
 Advancement: This is a section on different options and paths that the class can go down when they advance in power.
 Resources: What resources might a member of this PrC be able to draw on.

MARSHAL IN THE WORLD
"A quote of somebody else talking about your class!"
A brief description of how your class is persevered in the world and how he interacts with the world.
 Daily Life: Some general information about the typical day in the life of your class.
 Notables: Make up some cool information about notable figures in the history of your class. It's best to give a little information from one of the good alignment and evil alignment (unless it's a good or evil only class).
 Organizations: Some information about organizations dedicated to the practice of your class and other organizations which members of your class will be attracted towards.

NPC Reaction
 This is an in detail description of how NPC's would perceive your class and the immediate generalization that people would give of your class.

MARSHAL IN THE GAME
 This is a good place to provide a quick note on how your class will effect game play statistically.
 Adaptation: This is a place where you put in detail how people can adapt your class into their campaign setting.
 Encounters: This is a place to describe what sort of encounters PC's will have with NPC versions of your class.


EPIC MARSHAL

Hit Die: dx
Skills Points at Each Level : x + int
Class Ability: The Epic Marshal's Class Ability continues to advance at 21st level and every x levels higher than 20th.
Class Ability: The Epic Marshal's Class Ability continues to advance at 21st level and every x levels higher than 20th.
Bonus Feats: The Epic Marshal gains a Bonus Feat every x levels higher than 20th

I've seen what you posted at the time.
What do you mean by "break"?

I do sort of miss the Secondary Skills from AD&D.  And, have always wanted to encourage some semi-useful basketweaving.  I'll take a look at the d20 Modern backgrounds (referred to as Starting Occupations) and see if there's anything worthwhile in there to pillage from.

I really liked the idea at the time but thought of the implementation as uninspired.

What if Class Skills didn't represent skills that are cheaper, but gave you your starting skills instead?

Like, every class gets X class skills and Y skill points per level.

At 1st level, they get Z points in their X class skills, and Y points to spend anywhere they damn well please.

At 2nd level, you'd just get the Y points, and so on and so forth.

Sign me up in favor for skills costing the same. I'm not sure about the class related bonus thou


BTW, skill ranks scaling and DC meter are more of a problem, IMHO.

Using two types of groups as skill choices begs the question of why not make it two separate groups altogether, as in different pools of point buy and on. I honestly think that it should be a single list with an option to master an ability within the skill. e.g. buying 5 points in athletics and further 5 points in climbing inside the athletics skill set (That's a horrible example, I know, but it's what I got. I misplaced where I wrote down an idea for it from before).

I also hate, personally, everything that crosses the feat-skill boundaries. I loath the +2 bonus feats, and the use int instead of dex feat and even the 'gain additional points to spend' feat. In my mind feats have a certain specific implementation purposes and skills have a different mechanic reasoning. And I would like to keep them apart.

I would also point out that part of the problem could be alleviated by using a different look at the numbers. What I mean is that instead of upping the bonus a skill grant by handing a +1 bonus (thereby inflating the system) it can be given by rolling twice and picking the highest result (or lower) - which gives a better chance but does not raise the highest and lowest possible roll of the player.
I would've loved to see how I can implement a highest-widest multiple die roll (you roll a bunch of dice, say 10d10, and then not only use the sum of the dice but also the number that appeared the most and the highest singular result). It's an option.

Speaking of numbers, I think that having a framework for a rough draft would be nice. We can say that there are target numbers we want to see: An easy mark that most will succeed in, a standard mark giving  50-50 chance, a hard mark for the more skilled and an epic one that those without some sort of training or help would not be able to traverse.

As a side note - I'd like to decouple the int' bonus to skill. Even if it's logical, I hate it when I have to calculate where did the ranks came from and when whenever I'm drained of a level, or even try to haggle int gain before leveling up so I can squeeze another skill rank. That's minmaxing I would like to live without.