christos gurd's page

1,892 posts. Alias of toastwolf.


I would like to cancel this pending order

I would like to cancel this pending order.

Firewarrior44 wrote:
Check Kirth's profile for This link

yeah every time I back out of a page it disappears

Been out of the loop for quite a while, people still emailing copies of the system?

Well shoot I didn't see this was up!

Little Red Goblin Games wrote:
khadgar567 wrote:
is all contend put in to wiki later

Some stuff.

We tend to put races and classes up on our wiki. We don't put stuff like subsystems, weapons, feats (even support feats), etc up on our wiki. They are there as a way to let folks have access to our material, in some form, but you still get the most out of buying our material. Also- we don't have a set "release date" for material on the wiki. Typically a product has to be 3-6 months after launch and we have to have some free time to add it.

so this product in particular wont contribute much to the wiki, since it adds so much to general player options.

Rysky wrote:
Curious about something with the Athletics Sphere. With the abilities that let you substitute your BAB in place of ranks for various skills would you get the +3 Class bonus if the skill was a Class Skill and you had no ranks in it normally, or would you still need to put at least 1 Rank into the skill to get the Class Bonus?

remember that class skill bonuses aren't ranks in a skill.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

so here's a little gift from little red goblin games.
little red wiki
In this you will find some of the races and classes we have done in the past although magic items, archetypes, feats, spells, and alternate rules will not be posted here. hopefully you guys find this useful, and want you to know that we appreciate all you guys and gals.

Worth getting for the automancer alone!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't mind prowess myself.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

well then

I wonder if anyone is planning to try my arm-mounted sling

Perhaps products that follow themes instead of specific spheres or even hybrid spheres. Could do a take on Sin magic making unique spheres for those.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
Fourshadow wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Fourshadow wrote:

More often than not, I have my PDF by now...not this time. I has a sad. :"(

Skeld, any chance of spoiler-ing the Grippli spell Sweat Poison? I have a Grippli Alchemist and would love to see what it does.

** spoiler omitted **


That seems redundant with their base/racial trait...they already could produce poison. I guess that is for those who swap out...?

I'm guessing the spell is inspired by the Grippli ability...


the race trait is once a day

Kerney wrote:
172) Eidolon blooded-Those with an eidolon

yo there

s'all good, though i gotta ask is that just to make kineticists more tanky or something?

The bane of sorrow is a single rose, frozen forever by the queen as the only remembrance of a long dead former lover. Unlike the other artifacts, this ones sole claim to fame is that it is truly indestructible, not that durability saved from theft long ago by thieves who saw its icy beauty as a valuable treasure.

Berselius wrote:

LOL. Thanks but I don't think it'll fit the bill. The Tane are supposed to be First Worldian weapons of mass destruction and a CR of 1/2 just doesn't fit the bill.

just wanna point this out, but if they typically came in packs of 30 a Cr 1/2 creature could be something of a threat. Not arguing for the example given, just saying their could be justification for a quick breeding or multiplying Thane of a lower Cr.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trekkie90909 wrote:

Some cool new ideas and experiences; thanks for sharing!

@rainzax: I like elements of your rule, they smooth over a couple balance issues in game and I could see them speeding up play in certain instances, and it's easy to implement at someone else's table. I do wonder if you find it marginalizes characters which have specialized into stealth and the like?

@Dox: That's pretty nifty, I hadn't considered something like that, but like it immensely; would you implement it as entirely its own thing, or would it replace the health bonus from con/level? Would it stack with other sources of DR? Might that make the invulnerable rager barbarian archetype (and rage-themed classes in general) overpowered? Would the con bonus from raging just increase DR, or would it also give the normal HP boost?

@christos: That's interesting; how does it work with humans? Did they get a buff too?

humans get a free "heart of" trait of their choosing

It's actually two in one but I house rule away ability score punishment by removing them from prerequisites and dropping race ability score penalties(I rewrote goblins and orcs)

Dox of the ParaDox twins wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Replacing all instances of "touch" with "flat-footed" in the gun rules actually solves everything pretty well. It even would provide a sneak attack caveat because baseline gun rules state that their attacks aren't treated as touch attacks.
I get that that would work but I don't really like that because the flat footed AC is meant for not being be able to dodge where as touch AC is for only dodging but Idk it would work I guess

because not being able to dodge musket balls innately makes more sense than them ignoring armor considering, as a friend of mine likes bringing up, the term bulletproof came from blacksmiths taking a breastplate and fire a gun at it to demonstrate they didn't penetrate and saying "see, proof against bullets"

Replacing all instances of "touch" with "flat-footed" in the gun rules actually solves everything pretty well. It even would provide a sneak attack caveat because baseline gun rules state that their attacks aren't treated as touch attacks.

Well I've play tested removing ability score prerequisite from the game, and I gotta say it didn't harm feats in the least.

MrCharisma wrote:
Wow there's a CR17 monster with a Touch AC of -1. Crazy!

a buddy found it

I'm not gonna pretend im good enough at excel to try my hand at this myself but was wondering if anyone else has?

As in fighter of the nightman, champion of the sun

JosMartigan wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Almost everything mentioned here can be helped withthis
I think the point of this thread was to have Paizo create this wishlist. I don't know if balance or PF Society or what was the motivation. As far as balance, I'd say there is already a lot of broken classes and races in the Paizo stable. But I've also see WAY more broken 3rd Party material.

which would only matter in pfs, and I have found much of the time the opposite to be true(and even when they don't they tend to be more responsive to customer feedback and less over nerfy). Disclaimer I occasionally work in 3pp but I see that all the time with lots of companies outside the ones I work in.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How is this not a sticky thread?

Almost everything mentioned here can be helped withthis

1.severous Snape
2.exploding messages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean trading away weapon groups that you won't be using for advanced weapon training does help alot as does this[/shameless plug]

1 person marked this as a favorite.

my favorite i've found

mdt wrote:

Halve the # of skill points each class get's per level. So, Fighters/Wizards get 1, Rogues get 4, Bards get 3, etc.

Grant everyone skill points equal to their stat bonuses that can only be spent on skills associated with that stat.
So, someone playing a fighter with the following stats :
Str : 16 (+3)
Dex : 14 (+2)
Con : 16 (+3)
Int : 10 (+0)
Wis : 12 (+1)
Cha : 8 (-1)
Would have the following skill points to distribute :
Class : 1
Str : 3
Dex : 2
Wis : 1
Cha : -1
So they'd be very good at physical stuff, not so good at mental, and awful at charisma things.
You were allowed to trade 2 of one stat skill points to get 1 of another (so 2 str's to get one cha for example) to indicate concentrating more on diplomacy than on climbing or swimming.
Finally, if you had a negative stat, and you wanted to spend points on it, you had to spend enough that level to 'overcome' the negative. So from our example, if you wanted to put a point into diplomacy, you had to put spend your class point (1) to negate the -1 charisma skill level, then trade in two attribute skill points (1 str/1 dex, 2 str, 1 dex/1 wis, etc) to get another Cha skill point.
This worked really well, it gave people more skill ranks overall, but it also meant they usually ended up with skill curves that fit their stats, those who were smart ended up with lots of INT based skills, those who were really strong but not so bright (18 str/8 int) usually ended up with lots of climb and swim and not so many Knowledge skill.
EDIT : Note class skill points were 'unaligned' and could be spent on any skill.

Luthorne wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
So who wants to guess what creature type/subtype Krampus will be?
My first guess is fey, my second guess is outsider (native), and my third guess would be a (probably unique) monstrous humanoid.

I could see the cold subtype for any of those as well.

Dread Knight wrote:
Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:
Dread Knight wrote:
I remember there being a Monk/Oracle one that wasn't Elemental Savant. I think it was like Closed Eyed Oracle or something and there was a Zen Mystery. What happened to it?

It was an Oracle/Monk called the Open Eyed Oracle.

** spoiler omitted **...

Ah yes thank you do you or anyone else know where a full write up for Open Eyed Oracle can be found?

if i can find the doc where all my mcas were kept i'll post it up.

ive seen a "few" good gestalts.

the new tortured crusader wisdom based paladin could be interesting since it says that DOES get smite evil, albeit altered.

Maybe approaching some 3rd parties on conversions of their spellcasting classes?

I *might* have time in the future to make my overlord (anime) inspired wizard/ vigilante, but free time is at an all time low lately.

this seems like it could be useful for some here

Or just refluff a nine-ring broadsword instead

Blayde MacRonan wrote:
So with the havocker, do the DCs for infusions use the witch's Int modifier or does it work out like a kineticist and you have to use Con (Dex if it's a form infusion)?

seems to be as with the kineticist.

Goth Guru wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
Where can I find the Brute Alchemist?
There isn't one.
So, homebrew. Cool. Good Name.

there is a brute vigilante

Well this is an interesting concept

It kinda feels like a barbarian/fighter hybrid over cavalier really.

It could very easily be convergent design to be fair.

I'm wondering about these backgrounds mentioned

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bryce Kineman wrote:
DrSwordopolis wrote:
Is "Ready for Anything" the victim of a missing comma, or does the feat really have four prerequisite feats?

I know this doesn't mean anything, but in the book it says, "Prerequisites: Alertness, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Quick Draw, base attack bonus +6 or uncanny

dodge class feature."

I usually translate a listing of prerequisites listed like this. As you only need one of the listed prerequisites. Seeing as it's listed with nothing but commas till the "or". Now I know my English is pretty bad. But I was under the impression that meant the statement of the prerequisites listed as such meant you need Alertness or Improved Initiative or Lightning reflexes or Quick Draw or base attack bonus +6 or Uncanny Dodge.
Forgive me if this has already been clarified or its just my horrid understanding of the English Language(to be fair it's one of the most complex languages in the world)

believe it would have to start with the word "Either" to be any individual prerequisite. As written it seems to be the first 4 feats then base attack bonus +6 or uncanny dodge.

maybe start with this

What you add together to perform a maneuver with a weapon with maneuver with a weapon with maneuver trait, for example a rapier which has the disarm trait, has never seemed clear.


So let's take the rapier for doing disarm. You have:
* Your level.
* Since it has finesse, a dexterity or strength modifier.
* A potential weapon potency rune to give an item bonus.
* Potentially a skill boosting item, like armbands of athleticism, to give an item bonus to skill checks.
* Your weapons proficiency bonus, in this case for martial weapons.
* Your athletics proficiency bonus.
* If it's not a reaction, the multiple attack penalty.

You can only add dexterity or strength, not both.
You can only add one item bonus to a roll.
Is it always the one from the weapon, or is it the largest of the two?
Can a non-weapon skill boosting item ever improve a maneuver with a weapon?
I'm assuming that you can only use one proficiency bonus.
Can you use the largest of the weapon proficiency or skill proficiency?
Does the skill proficiency bonus ever get used for a maneuver with a weapon?
If you aren't trained in the skill associated with the maneuver weapon trait, can you do the maneuver with the weapon?

If the maneuver check with the weapon
= die roll + relevant ability modifier + level + weapon proficiency bonus + weapon potency item bonus + MAP,
then it's really just a standard weapon attack roll labelled something else.

If you can swap bonuses associated from the skill from skill proficiency or an item, that changes things.

Why aren't there more formulas and examples of the math?

The Cavalier Unseat feat has a rather high level requirement of 10. From a jousting tournament perspective, this seems excessive. Most medieval jousters were nobles that probably weren't the most experienced combatants. Taking the feat means burning a feat for a very specific type of encounter scenario. If you aren't fighting mounted combatants, you aren't using it.

That was the 'Advanced Players Guide', and years later, along comes the war lance in 'Lost Omens Knights of Lastwall' that has the Shove trait, which appears to allow exactly the same thing as Unseat, but with no level requirement and no feat cost. Shove appears to move the target off their mount with a single strike using an Athletics check against the target's Fortitude DC, same as Unseat. In fact, it appears better, because it potentially moves the target both off their mount and further than Unseat, up to 10' away.

Other than losing the Reach trait from the standard lance when you try to unseat a mounted target, are you actually losing anything by using a war lance to shove in place of taking Unseat?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The warding circles from Draw Warding Circle seem rather weak given the definition in the text. A straight forward reading would seem to indicate that they only impede movement and nothing else. The creatures mentioned as examples are a ghost and a devil, both often have much more than movement and natural melee attacks as options for actions.

So some obvious questions are:
* Does the circle prevent ranged attacks from the creature from crossing it?
* Does the circle prevent the creature from using a reach weapon to attack anything within reach on the other side of the circle?
* Does the circle prevent spell and supernatural effects of the creature from crossing it?
* Does the circle prevent creatures summoned by the creature from crossing it?
* Is the creature able to enhance themselves or heal while in the circle?
* Is the creature able to use enhancements to their communication across the circle like Glibness?
* Does the circle prevent the creature from using teleportation effects like Dimension Door to get past it?
* Does the creature automatically know that it can't get past the circle?
* Will some contained creatures expend efforts getting past the circle?
* Is the boundary that can't be crossed a cylinder projected up from the circle? If so, can the creature fly within the cylinder? If so, is there a height limit for the cylinder?
* Is the boundary that can't be crossed a hemisphere up from the circle?
* Does the circle prevent burrowing, travel modes through the ground beneath the circle, or digging under the circle?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One rather disappointing issue with the class is the "Your spells still have clear and noticeable visual and auditory manifestations as normal for a spellcaster." rule in Psychic Spellcasting. Wizard and Witch have the Conceal Spell class feats, and Wizard as Silent Spell. Thematically, wizards and witches are both in folklore and fantasy much more likely to have visual and auditory manifestations, while psychics, psychic mediums, police psychics, and psionisists generally have none with the exception of sometimes talking to spirits in a fairly straight forward common language speaking manner, so this discrepancy is incredibly odd. Similarly, while the word sorcerer is applied to a wide variety of magical characters in both folklore and fantasy, the implementation as characters with magic in their ancestral heritage is an odd combination with the lack of a similar ability to not have an auditory manifestation while the non-ancestral bloodline classes have access to that ability.

I'd prefer the class to be closer to the traditional theme, at the very least having access to the same Conceal Spell and Silent Spell feats, but preferably not needing them at all to use powers without the visual and auditory manifestation. If that is deemed unbalancing in the power of the class, I'd be fine with trading off power from elsewhere to have the class fit the theme better.

Does a weapon implement count for both the implement and the weapon for the Twin Weakness feat requirement?

7 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems like it would be useful for spellcasters to be able to dispel effects like Charm and magic items at character levels lower than 5th. You would think that low level spellcasters would be called upon to counter magic too. It also seems like relegating it to 3rd level limits the number uses quite a bit. In that you need to make a check against a DC, it works a bit like skill. Maybe a better approach would be to make it a spellcaster ability and use spell points or burn spells or daily uses instead. That could let it exist at lower levels and make it easier to have it available more if needed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The original introduction of paladin made it a sub-class of fighter with all of the fighter abilities with trade offs being a limit on magic items and alignment restrictions. Then it was made a sub-class of cavalier, which was probably the best match up to the folklore paladin. Paladins in history and folklore were supposed to be the best of the best knights and cavaliers. The PF2 paladin is how someone might create a cleric if they started from scratch with the possible exception of getting a horse that's harder for classes without animal companions to get. The class isn't an offensive knight or cavalier and isn't really able to wield a weapon with the same skill at all, which is far from it's role in literature. In probably the most famous work involving paladins, The Song of Roland, Archbishop Turpin joins them in largely the role that clerics do. Most of the PF2 abilities would be far more appropriate to someone like the Archbishop, with the paladins, instead, serving the role of the weapons to carve through their foes. The PF2 paladin's abilities are more that of a prophet or traveling tent faith healing preacher than the divine weapon that the paladin is in it's place in history and literature. In a game where clerics are already very present, that's a large disservice to what the basis of the paladin is.

If people want options to have characters like the PF2 paladins, that's swell, but there really needs to more at the core be true paladins that are a better match for historical, folklore, and other paladins in literature. The options for a mount are good, as are the abilities to enhance weapons. The class really needs some of the more offensive smite abilities from the past to show that the characters are divine weapons. More importantly, it needs some serious offensive combat skills that show their ability to wield weapons themselves and that they are worthy to be made divine champions and be granted divine enhancement.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bonus Language appears to be the only ability that a character can only get at first level that requires a high ability score. That means that Intelligence is the only ability score that makes characters lose out if it isn't high from the start. It pressures players to put points in Intelligence at 1st level when there is no similar pressure to do it for other ability scores. Unlike racial traits that might be genetic that might make some Ancestry feats only make sense at 1st level, languages are learned. I don't see any reason not to grant the bonus language with ability boosts that bring Intelligence up to 14.

The most obvious ability for Leaf order druids to have is to summon plant creatures. Summon Nature's Ally only has three plant related creatures at middle levels, one's a dryad. The spell needs more plant creatures to work better for Leaf order.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

In cultures with familiars, folklore, and mythology, shamans, witches, and other spell casters would go out into the wilderness on quests to encounter spirits that would take various forms, sometimes animals, or possess animals. Some were devils, demons, nature spirits, or ghosts that took forms to avoid attracting attention. These familiars, familiar spirits, or weyekin would become a source of power for the spell casters or guide them on obtaining power and teach them how to cast spells.

In first addition Pathfinder, most familiars had all of the normal animal abilities, and most of them could communicate empathically with their masters, receive any spell that a spell caster could cast on themselves, deliver touch spells at 3rd level, speak with their masters at 5th, speak with animals of it's kind at 7th, get spell resistance at 11th, and be scry'd on at 13th. They had starting intelligences of 6 that progressed to 15, and could have knowledge, and spell crafting skills. They granted an additional ability based on species, and had improved evasion too. Familiars with the Sage archetype could be vastly intelligent with a large number of skill ranks to allow then to guide and advise their "masters". Witches got all of their spells from their familiars.

In the Playtest, all familiars can communicate empathically. If the familiar is a raven or owl that flies faster than a human can move it gets no additional magical related abilities. If it's a rodent or cat with scent that can climb, it gets no additional magical related abilities. If it's a frog that can swim or an animal with just scent like a dog, it maybe gets dark vision, maybe can speak one language that it's master can cast, maybe grants a low level spell, or maybe can deliver a touch spell, but only one of those magic related abilities. Familiars in the Playtest have little in the way of mental traits, no knowledge skills. They can have one or two minor supernatural qualities, but that makes them lose the natural abilities that their animal counterparts would have. Familiars aren't familiars, instead they are basically just pets with a little empathic communication, and they're significantly more diminished than they were in first edition, which is the opposite of the direction to go to fit the folklore equivalent and a significant disappointment to players that loved them as more useful partners in first edition.

In 1st edition Pathfinder, I loved playing Duelist and Swashbuckler characters. Part of what I liked about the prestige class and class was that attack roll vs attack of the parry and riposte mechanics felt more like real fencing than the roll attacks against AC score mechanics for other melee combat in the game.

The new Parry feats for Fighter treat parrying like adding a stiff layer of armor. It streamlines the combat, but it also lost the fencing feel and all the fun of the old parry and riposte mechanics.

It makes me worry that we won't get anything like the old parry and riposte mechanics with future archetypes or classes, which would be disappointing.

Characters can rent riding dogs, but small characters can't bond with the same riding dogs as animal companions and use them as mounts.

The Cavalier Dedication archetype class feat, lets you bond with a wolf (other canine may use the stats), but only with the explicitly stated GM permission, and then the feat goes on to say that it doesn't get Mount special ability, which leaves in question whether you can use it as a mount at all.

If you do go with the Cavalier archetype, unlike a horse which can be large immediately, a wolf is small until you take Knightly Steed, unavailable until 6th level.

If you take Improved Steed with Savage as the adjustment, your "riding dog" wolf becomes large sized, which is ridiculous for a small character. It will be two sizes larger than a halfling, gnome, or goblin. Horses that start large, by the way remain large after the Cavalier gets both Knightly Steed and Impressive Steed with Savage as the adjustment.

I don't see anything in the mounted combat rules about mount and character size combinations creating problems, which means that a heavy half-orc barbarian on a medium sized pony have no penalties. It's possible then that small characters could ride a small dog without penalties, but it seems cruel.

I'm a bit bothered by the decrease in the number of spells per day for spell casting classes like Wizard, Druid, and Cleric. There are a couple of issues that this creates.

I've always had a big problem with once per day abilities. They mimic nothing in real life, nor do they really mimic anything in fantasy literature and other media. In real life, you get fatigued, but with a little rest, your fairly close to doing things at the level that you were before you first exerted yourself. The other issue is that you have to be hyper-strategic with those abilities and players have to meta-game to know which encounter probably needs that ability to be used to not waste it or waste a day not using it.

Spells in Pathfinder and D&D were a bit like this, but as characters advanced in level, they weren't so bad. By reducing the number of spells per day, spell casting is more like the once per day abilities.

One issue is traveling encounters vs dungeon encounters.

In dungeons, some players want to hold everything in their toolbox until they're fairly certain the they're at the final big boss final James Bond movie finale encounter. It makes some sense. That's what's going to be hard. That means that their foregoing their abilities a lot. This is especially the case at low levels. In 1st edition Pathfinder, at high levels, they could loosen up a bit because even at the finale encounter, they'd have crucial spells available. With less spell slots per day, they're never going to loosen up. They may not recognize that the big tough encounter is the one, and so even then they may never use their spells.

Players expect that while traveling there will likely be only one encounter per day, so they use everything in their toolbox for the encounter. That means that the characters shine and are more likely to do the most dramatic and climatic things during the most inconsequential encounters. It's a bit sad. A GM can try and thwart this by creating multiple per day traveling encounters, but that creates work, and delays even further getting to the end of the dungeon.

Another issue is rest. Some players, seemingly no matter how long they've played, want to deal with encounters by using everything up and then resting for the day, making for a tiny number of encounters per day. As a strategy, it makes sense too. Use everything all at once, and you should be able to beat anything that the GM is throwing at you. Random encounters may happen, but you can rest after those too and they aren't going to be as bad as main encounters. Lots of resting means lengthening game play. There will be more random encounters. Managing rest time takes time. Refreshing stats takes time. GMs can try to discourage resting by making lots of consequences, but that's not fun. Reducing the number of spells per day means that even at higher levels, players are going to want to rest even more frequently. It's not good.

I actually would have hoped that things would have gone the other direction. I would have hoped that abilities and spells refreshed over a period of time without sleeping for an 8 hour period, maybe not immediately after an encounter ended, but over less significantly than a day, so that dungeon game play would be sped up and that traveling encounters wouldn't be so different in game play from dungeon encounters. Instead, we got the opposite.

35 people marked this as a favorite.

When talking about nonspecific characters in the rulebook, the pronouns are always gendered, which makes my head explode.

For example, the book will say "your character within 'her' class".

No one that I know of speaks like that in a professional or formal setting.

I do technical writing as a part of my job, and no writes like that either, nor does anyone write like that in most other non-fiction writing, including newspapers and magazines.

A normal way to speak or write anywhere else would be to say "your character within 'their' class".

In contemporary modern writing and speaking 'they', 'them', and 'their' aren't plural if it's known that the subject is singular. We don't need to use (and few people in formal settings do use) gendered pronouns for nonspecific people anymore.

When writing about medical doctors, you'd write something like "a doctor after treating a patient must wash 'their' hands".

When writing about driving, you'd write something like "a driver must always look both ways after 'they' enter an intersection when at a stop sign".

It's not necessary to apply a gender to something or someone when the gender is unknown. Most of the English speaking world doesn't do it. It doesn't need to be in the rulebook either, and it's somewhat ridiculous when people read it.

Lance is listed as a two handed weapon, and I don't see any way to use it with a shield. Since there are both mounted Paladins and Cavaliers using a lance and shield would seem to be a normal thing to do together on a mount.

Mounted lance combat got no significant attention at all even though both mounted Paladins and Cavaliers are in the Playtest Rulebook.

There's no damage advantage for using a lance while mounted, which is what it's made for.

If having extra damage with a lance while mounted seemed unbalanced before, maybe add or consider the following:
* Extra damage should only result from long straight line charge.
* The extra damage should only result when the lancer ends movement past the target's square.
* Setting a spear against a charging lancer should do similar amounts of damage as the lancer does from a mounted charge.
* Someone falling off a charging mount should receive more damage than falling off a stationary mount.
* Charging while mounted though a group of creatures should provoke attacks of opportunity from creatures other than the target.

In the classic battle between Robin Hood and Little John, they duel on a log with quarterstaves. Acrobatics checks are for moving not standing. Reposition specifically doesn't allow moving someone to a space intrinsically dangerous, so as written, it can't be used to reposition your opponent off the log if falling from the log would do them harm. Trip knocks you prone, but not off your square, and making your opponent go prone isn't the goal. A trip seems like more of a leg sweep action, which seems less applicable. Is there anything explicitly that would push an opponent off the log? The goal isn't to do damage. A wild quarterstaff swing might open you up to damage. It seems like a mix of strength, pushing, and dexterity, balance. Do the rules as written handle this neatly or do new rules need to be added? Should the reposition limitation be ignored? Would a general non-specific maneuver check of CMB vs CMD work? How should balance be handled? It would seem that a successful push could topple both opponents instead of just the target. Is there a way to make the duel fun from a rules standpoint and not just a single action quick ending?