RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Okay, scenario for you all:
Fighter is going toe-to-toe with scary monster that has multiple attacks per round. Monster has already inflicted a fair amount of damage on our fighter friend. Initiative order is this: Fighter - 16, Cleric - 12, Monster - 9. Fighter, against all reason, chooses to take a full attack action to bring the monster down before it kills him. Fighter does not succeed.
Knowing that another full-attack action from the monster will most likely kill the fighter, the cleric declares that he is bull rushing the fighter out of melee (perpendicular to the fight with the monster) and casting a quickened cure moderate wounds on him. This action will provoke an attack of opportunity from the monster for leaving threatened squares as normal, but the cleric believes that accepting one AoO is acceptable while allowing another full-attack action is not. By moving the fighter out of melee, the monster will have to take a move action to re-enter melee with the fighter and thusly will only get 1 attack on its turn. Then, back in melee again at the top of next round, the fighter is able to take ANOTHER full attack action.
The question: Can you 'relent' to a friendly bull rush and simply allow the other character's Strength check to move you as many squares as it can, effectively counting your opposed check as a '0' if you want to be moved as far as possible?
The question: Can you 'relent' to a friendly bull rush and simply allow the other character's Strength check to move you as many squares as it can, effectively counting your opposed check as a '0' if you want to be moved as far as possible?
I think perhaps you could. It would be similar to voluntarily failing a save against a friendly spell.
However, since the fighter in this example is determined to go head-on at the monster, will he go along with the friendly Bull Rush or resist it? Something of a meta-game quandry. The player might realize it is in his character's best interest, but does that mean the character will go along with it?
I would think that if the fighter did not technically know that the bull rush was "friendly" (i.e. was not expecting it), he would resist it as a reflex. Even if the cleric were to do something like shout "I'll save you!" or whatever, it would still be a surprise to the fighter.
I would make him roll against the bull rush as normal, personally.
Yeah, there's nothing in the rules that say you couldn't do this and I think I've seen it done before, actually. Have the cleric make a Bull Rush attempt against passive resistance (the fighter is still a big object that may reactively resist being pushed around). In this case, do not ask for a roll from the fighter. Simply assume an average roll of "10" and add the relevant Strength modifier. This is what the cleric is working against.
The odds are that the cleric isn't going to roll high enough to move the fighter out of danger, but then, maybe he'll roll high. Who knows? It's still fun trying.
I think it's a fine tactic, but I'd make the fighter resist as best he can. He's intent on doing as much damage as he can to the monster, and the cleric is trying to push him away. Furthermore, allowing the fighter to willingly fail (take "0") opens the door to abuses whereby characters can perform full-round actions (like full attacks) and still move significant distances.
I like the drama of the proposed maneuever, but part of the drama comes from the fact that it is extremely risky (and may not work at all).
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I think I like Steve's call: Treat the fighter as taking 10. The fighter is a significantly large object to move and there should be some difficulty in succeeding at such a task, but since the fighter is not actively resisting the cleric, he won't put up as much resistance as he COULD. And yes, Fakey, I know that the monster could take two AoOs if he had Combat Reflexes. Fortunately, he doesn't.
Thanks for the feedback, guys!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Furthermore, allowing the fighter to willingly fail (take "0") opens the door to abuses whereby characters can perform full-round actions (like full attacks) and still move significant distances.
*Pictures torch boys being used to move front liners out of the way to avoid full attacks*
Nodwick prays his party never learns of this...
Simply assume an average roll of "10" and add the relevant Strength modifier. This is what the cleric is working against.
I like the idea, but I'm trying to work it through my brain. Wouldn't it be more relevant to have a weight modifier or some such thing? I would think that if the Fighter is not resisting then the heavier the fighter, the harder to move?
Having said that, I have no idea how to equate weight to a roll modifier...
Greg
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Simply assume an average roll of "10" and add the relevant Strength modifier. This is what the cleric is working against.I like the idea, but I'm trying to work it through my brain. Wouldn't it be more relevant to have a weight modifier or some such thing? I would think that if the Fighter is not resisting then the heavier the fighter, the harder to move?
Having said that, I have no idea how to equate weight to a roll modifier...
Overanalyzing is the bane of RPGs. The fighter is a medium creature. Regardless of a fat medium creature or a thin medium creature, the abstract standard should be the same. After all, a fighter with 18 Strength in full plate is just as easy to bull rush as a fighter with 18 Strength unarmored.
|
Simply assume an average roll of "10" and add the relevant Strength modifier. This is what the cleric is working against.I like the idea, but I'm trying to work it through my brain. Wouldn't it be more relevant to have a weight modifier or some such thing? I would think that if the Fighter is not resisting then the heavier the fighter, the harder to move?
Having said that, I have no idea how to equate weight to a roll modifier...
Greg
Simplest response: Add a modifier of 2 to the roll if the fighter is at medium encumbrance, and a 4 if he's at heavy. Sure, it can be silly if the fighter has crazystrength, but it's simpler than trying to add up all his gear weight and figuring out the cleric's encumbrances and so on and so forth. The modifier can either be a penalty to the cleric's roll, or a bonus to the fighter's 'roll'.
|
Flavor: Shoving your buddy out of the way of impending doom is entirely genre-appropriate (it might even be genre-cliched). It's exactly the sort of thing that should happen as a matter of course in a well-described RPG.
Mechanics: The fighter would not be flat-footed to an enemy that tried to make any sort of attack. Which, to me, means that he indeed "sees it coming" and can react. I certainly wouldn't require the fighter to resist the bullrush with all his strength. He knows what's coming, remember, and can make his own decisions. If both PCs are medium, I think it would be reasonable to make the cleric roll against either a 10 or a straight d20 roll. It might also be reasonable for the fighter to use his strength bonus as a penalty on his roll to resist being bullrushed. (I'd allow the monster his choice of which character to attack with his AoO unless there is some specific reason to do otherwise.)
Game Balance: Here there might be a problem. As an occasional thing, this tactic seems fun and reasonable, but lets take a look at an exploit. What if the party decided to tie a rope around the waist of the fighter before each fight, the fighter charged forward to attack, and then, with a readied action (triggered on the attack being complete), the party pulled the fighter back out of danger. (Sort of a "fighter yo-yo".) Spring Attack without a feat at level 1 seems quite a bit more problematic. (And pretty silly, really.)
Ruling: I'd allow the tactic, but I'd also tell my players that if it became a standard tactic, I'd revisit my ruling.
I agree with Doug, the biggest problem would be potential exploits and "fighter yo-yos." At which point, the players are obviously abusing the ruling, so I would to. I'd point out that the fighter keeps getting the wind knocked out of him by having a rope yank into his gut and pull him back every round (or his armor digs in or something, anything that would explain a detriment to the fighter), which would give him heft penalties. If the players complained that I was now "over analyzing" the situation when usually I advocate avoiding such things, then I'd just point out that my exploitation is only a response to theirs. If they go back to playing by the spirit of the rules, so will I.
The DM can't be wrong. What he says is final. It all comes down to how much damage he wants to do to his PR/can avoid doing to his PR/how much he cares about his PR with his players that matters. :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Keep in mind that the yo-yo situation is frequently going to provoke on AoO. It's also not quite the same as the friendly bull rush, which will always provoke an AoO on either the rusher or the rushee. In fact, I'm not sure what you would do to use a rope to perform a quasi-bull rush. Seems more like a grapple to me. Are there rules for that sort of thing for the lasso or some other such weapon?
I'd advise against penalizing players who constantly use the "friendly" bull rush tactic.
That would encourage penalizing a Marshall for constantly using his Grant Move Action ability.
Note: I am not saying they are both the same, nor that if you penalize one you must penalize the other. But it does set up a bad precedent.
I'd advise against penalizing players who constantly use the "friendly" bull rush tactic.
I disagree. The first time we have fun with it, welaugh about it, and its a great action scene that hopefully plays out for the heroes.
The DM then drops a subtle hint indicating that repeated use of this tactic could be construed as a form of metagaming.
The next time (or the third time, etc) there will be consequences and to the players surprise the action won't be nearly as effective (ie the monster DOES have Combat Reflexes, the monster has reach, etc). Better yet, the monsters do it once....
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I agree that this scenario could certainly be exploited by clever players but fortunately I am blessed with players who would brook no such nonsense themselves and thusly expect me to be equally unforgiving.
And Doug pretty much nailed it on the head: It *IS* a genre-appropriate action and honestly one that might even earn an ad hoc XP award for creative tactical thinking on the cleric player's behalf (I tend to do these kinds of things in my games). I think it fits the flavor of the game perfectly and is definitely 'heroic,' so I wanted to find a way to make it work instead of finding a reason to disallow it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'd advise against penalizing players who constantly use the "friendly" bull rush tactic.
That would encourage penalizing a Marshall for constantly using his Grant Move Action ability.
Note: I am not saying they are both the same, nor that if you penalize one you must penalize the other. But it does set up a bad precedent.
Care to tease out that particular argument - I don't get it. That's like saying that the Bard's motivational song implies that a performance check should be required for casting the Bless spell. There's no mechanical relationship between the two tactics, nor do the same game balance arguments necessarily apply. The argument is not that the additional move is broken, it's that the additional move may be problematic if it comes at too low of a cost (e.g., it lets you accomplish the same result as Spring Attack but without expending a feat).
Assuming that the Marshall class ability did the exact same thing as the bullrush/yo-yo trick, that would strike me as a stronger argument for penalizing the ability outside of the Marshall. If anyone can perform the free move tactic without penalty, it weakens the Marshall's class ability, just as if everyone could use scrolls by making an Intelligence check, it weakens the Rogue's access to UMD.
|
|
Keep in mind that the yo-yo situation is frequently going to provoke on AoO. It's also not quite the same as the friendly bull rush, which will always provoke an AoO on either the rusher or the rushee. In fact, I'm not sure what you would do to use a rope to perform a quasi-bull rush. Seems more like a grapple to me. Are there rules for that sort of thing for the lasso or some other such weapon?
I think a yo-yo would always provoke an AoO when the square is threatened (the fighter would be leaving other than with a withdraw action). Since it's still a single attack rather than a full attack, the tactic (we'll be charitable in our naming convention here) could still be useful.
As to what sort of action, I don't know. But I'd allow other characters to pull a character up at the end of a rope in combat, so I can't see that pulling a character across should be less possible. I might require a full-round action, which would then require the pulling character(s) to use Delay rather than Ready. There's no significant mechanical difference other than the maximum length of action in this situation.
Frankly, there are lots of exploits of the turn order available: Warlock moves forward, then uses Flee the Scene to arrive next to bad guy; Wizard Delays to use Benign Transposition to swap the Barbarian with the Warlock; Barbarian full-attacks the bad guy on his Delayed action.
For that matter, transposing another melee combatant into the place of the fighter in the original scenario would be useful, too. And entirely within the rules as I read them. (And no AoO, either.)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think a yo-yo would always provoke an AoO when the square is threatened (the fighter would be leaving other than with a withdraw action). Since it's still a single attack rather than a full attack, the tactic (we'll be charitable in our naming convention here) could still be useful.
I dunno if it's that cut and dried. Isn't the definition of withdraw something like "if all you do is move you don't provoke an AoO." All you're doing is moving, so there's at least something of an argument that you are in effect, withdrawing. I think Bullrush mentions that you provoke an AoO just as you would for moving.
Frankly, there are lots of exploits of the turn order available: Warlock moves forward, then uses Flee the Scene to arrive next to bad guy; Wizard Delays to use Benign Transposition to swap the Barbarian with the Warlock; Barbarian full-attacks the bad guy on his Delayed action.
For that matter, transposing another melee combatant into the place of the fighter in the original scenario would be useful, too. And entirely within the rules as I read them. (And no AoO, either.)
Yeah, but I think the argument is more about the cost of the action rather than the existence of the action. All the exploits you mention above require you to acquire them via advancement in particular classes. The yo-yo/bullrush trick is available without feats and with a minimal investment of cash. So, the question is really what mechanic should be used to resolve the tactic and how much should that mechanic cost. If the fighter can always yield to the bullrush, that seems a little strong. If the fighter has to treat the bullrush the same as if it came from a hostile target, that seems a little awkward. If weight calculations come into play, you've deviated from the core bullrush rules and made two inconsistent treatments of weight depending on the actors involved.
Similarly, the yo-yo trick should use the same rules as pulling something heavy or dragging (which is why grapple came to mind for me).
So, I agree with you, there's all sorts of ways to do this type of thing, it's just a question of how to do model this particular thing in a balanced and logical way.
|
|
Withdraw is a Full-round action, which the fighter hasn't taken, so I wouldn't allow it. (Also, a character being pulled along by friends isn't in much control, so I think AoO works within the D&D model pretty well.)
Also, I just figured out a way to discourage that sort of goofiness in some cases: Sunder is acceptable as an AoO. 8-)
"Right, I got the troll, now pull me back!"
- Sunder rope, Hardness 0, HP 2 or 4 -
"Guys?"
- Hit, hit, rend, bleed -
You could also reasonably require a Balance check or have the fighter be jerked off his feet.
Further, the group is giving up the actions of at least two characters to get a single attack, so it's probably not especially optimal anyway.
(I'd still have my NPCs adapt if it became a standard tactic.)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Isn't the definition of withdraw something like "if all you do is move you don't provoke an AoO."
Actually, a 'withdraw' is a special action in which a character spends a full-round action to move their speed directly away from a target they are engaged in melee with. They do not provoke an AoO from the INITIAL target (the one they are trying to get away from) but the movement provokes AoOs as normal if said movement moves the character through ANOTHER threatened square (including the initial creature's threatened squares if said creature has reach... I think).
I don't think the concerns about the "yo-yo" tactic are all that important. Yanking someone backward by using a rope tied around their waist would cause one of two things - either the person stumbles backward but manages to keep their feet, or they get pulled over. I'd think that if the PC had already used their action and didn't have movement left to move on their own, the yank of a rope around their waist should automatically make them lose their balance (fall prone in the space behind them), and since the movement wasn't their only action in the round, leaving their square should provoke an AoO. So yeah, the PCs could do this, bu the opportunity cost (one of more people using their actions to haul on the rope, and the person being yanked losing their footing) would be enough to ensure it would only be used in situations where it was vitally important (such as if that PC stayed to guard a choke-point).
Care to tease out that particular argument - I don't get it.
Sure.
For some, the idea of a "friendly" bull rush is a bad thing. To paraphrase the general arguments against: "There isn't enough of a cost."
But there is. In the original scenario, the Cleric was willing to put himself in harms way to try and save the Fighter. But that isn't all. The movement of both characters provoke AoO. Even if the Monster only had one AoO available and choose to attack the Cleric, there is still a 25% chance of the attack hitting the Fighter. On top of that, the Monster could elect to do a trip attack for its AoO.
In that scenario alone, any number of things could go wrong - quite possibly causing the death of the Fighter and maybe the Cleric as well.
As far as the yo-yo, there most certainly is a cost. Using the general assumption of a typical party (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Arcane Caster) the group other than the Fighter would likely need to work together to get the Strength necessary to move the Fighter, since the Fighter is likely loaded with heavy equipment. Giving up their other actions in order to pull off the yo-yo is quite a cost.
Even with a non typical group, anyone strong enough to yank the Fighter back would be more effective in combat anyway.
So then, I propose: If a DM is wanting to penalize a group of players who constantly use the "friendly" bull rush, or even the yo-yo, tactic - why wouldn't they also want to penalize the Marshall, who at best is giving up a standard action like the participants of the yo-yo, and at worst isn't even sacrificing themselves in a "friendly" bull rush?
Note: I am not advocating the penalization of any or all scenarios. They all bring their own, inherent, problems beyond whatever the DM would want to add on top of it.
Maybe this is just me, but isn't "shoving the Fighter out of the way of the monster when he is about to bash him to a pulp" the perfect example of what the Aid in Combat action is meant for?
I'd say, give the guy a +2 AC and be done with it...
On a side-note, a 'friendly' bull-rush is like a 'friendly' punch in the nose. You may have all the good intentions in the world, it's still not going to be a very nice thing to do, and someone who doesn't see it coming is probably very reluctant to go along with it.
So if you'd actually want to shove someone away using brute force, who isn't expecting you and is pumped up from adrenaline because he is in a life threatening situation... he's going to struggle for all his worth.
And depending on the Fighter, he might even take his own AoO, just because he isn't expecting the Cleric to smash into him with everything he's got.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Maybe this is just me, but isn't "shoving the Fighter out of the way of the monster when he is about to bash him to a pulp" the perfect example of what the Aid in Combat action is meant for?
I'd say, give the guy a +2 AC and be done with it...
Using your action for the round to award another character +2 AC is barely worth it at lower levels and almost completely useless at higher levels. In the scenario described, +2 AC wouldn't have amounted to much of anything.
On a side-note, a 'friendly' bull-rush is like a 'friendly' punch in the nose. You may have all the good intentions in the world, it's still not going to be a very nice thing to do, and someone who doesn't see it coming is probably very reluctant to go along with it.
So if you'd actually want to shove someone away using brute force, who isn't expecting you and is pumped up from adrenaline because he is in a life threatening situation... he's going to struggle for all his worth.
I disagree. I don't see it as any different than charging someone and tackling them out of the path of an oncoming car/train/whatever that they didn't see coming. They certainly don't 'see your rescue coming' because, if they did, they'd probably be aware of the impending danger and motivate THEMSELVES to move. Secondly, I think that this type of action definitely promotes the theme of heroism present in the fantasy medieval genre. I like allowing it to happen because it tells a good story.
It's definately a good and heroic action, and it should definately be awarded. I think that the Aid in Combat action is more of a problem then the Bull Rush is.
But still; I don't think a Bull Rush can be considered friendly.
Also, the Fighter either isn't aware he is in mortal danger or is willing to take the chance that he's going to get himself killed. It's what Fighters do.
He won't be expecting a 'rescue' in mid combat, not even if he's hurt. He doesn't know the monsters turn is coming up and that he's down to a few last hitpoints. (depending on your system, he might know he is hurt, but still isn't aware he is in his last 6 seconds)
This is not someone not knowing he's going to be overrun by a train. This is someone willfully standing in front of an onrushing train for whatever reason, and he's not willing to budge. If he was, he'd have used his own action to escape the situation.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
He won't be expecting a 'rescue' in mid combat, not even if he's hurt. He doesn't know the monsters turn is coming up and that he's down to a few last hitpoints. (depending on your system, he might know he is hurt, but still isn't aware he is in his last 6 seconds)
This is not someone not knowing he's going to be overrun by a train. This is someone willfully standing in front of an onrushing train for whatever reason, and he's not willing to budge. If he was, he'd have used his own action to escape the situation.
I'm not a big fan of anything that forces characters to act a certain way, particularly given that the core rules operate in a perfect information environment. Why doesn't the fighter provoke attacks of opportunity from the hell hound the wizard summoned? The hell hound doesn't know that he's a friend. Why doesn't the cleric provoke an attack of opportunity when he tries to cast cure moderate wounds on the fighter - all the fighter knows is that someone is trying to touch him while he is fighting. There are a multitude of actions that would be effected by a fog-of-war type perception impairment; none of them strike me as necessary or worth implementing.
The fighter knows the hell hound is his ally, he knows the cleric is trying to heal him, and he knows the bull rush is to protect him. The choice as to how the character responds is rightfully left to the player. And, if you're not going to give the player a choice, at least give him a mechanic to resist the choice. The fighter should get an Int check to see if he wants to yield to the bullrush. The cleric should be able to make a Diplomacy check to get the fighter to move. Etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Also, the Fighter either isn't aware he is in mortal danger or is willing to take the chance that he's going to get himself killed. It's what Fighters do.
He won't be expecting a 'rescue' in mid combat, not even if he's hurt. He doesn't know the monsters turn is coming up and that he's down to a few last hitpoints. (depending on your system, he might know he is hurt, but still isn't aware he is in his last 6 seconds)
The situation was that the fighter's player knew that he was pretty much screwed if he suffered another full attack action from this monster. However, he also knew that the monster was pretty close to dropping as well. He took a gamble because he thought that if he could just hit it a few more times, it would go down. He was wrong and found himself still in melee at the end of his turn. The cleric could see that the fighter was severely injured (he was down to 21 of 128 hp) and knew that another full attack from this monster would almost certainly kill him (the monster was hitting the fighter's AC on a roll of 7 or better), so he decided that he would push the fighter out of harm's way and accept the AoO rather than allow the monster to complete an almost certainly fatal full attack action. Plus, since the party's sorcerer was on top of the initiative stack (at 19), the cleric was confident that the sorcerer could certainly finish what the fighter had started as soon as he got the chance in the next round (after the monster had acted in this round).
All in all, it was some brilliant split-second tactical action and I thought it made a great scene, so I allowed the bull rush (and let the fighter assume a '0' on his roll, which I realize in hindsight was probably a bad call).
I generally rule that an ally performing an offensive action against another ally leaves the "receiver" flat footed. In a combat, you expect people to attack you. You don't expect your friends to attack you though! If you do, you're a terribly paranoid person, or you've been on the receiving end of too many attacks via enchantments on allies. In that case, take some ranks of spot so you can reactively notice their enchanted status, and thus be not flatfooted.
That being said, I remember seeing it mentioned that you can voluntarily give up your dexterity mod to AC if an ally is trying to catch you (Catching a falling character, under the Climb Skill, PHB). Ergo, I would rule that a bull-rushed ally could give up his strength modifier, but his size, stability, and other miscelaneous modifiers still apply, and he must still roll (the abstract which represents the other variables on his part when bull-rushed, such as footing, ground conditions, state of enemy attacks, attention paid, etc.)
I see the tactic as appropriately heroic and creative, and totally within the rules of the game and the versimilitude of the game world. Abuses of it would be met by similar abuses of it by enemies, which is enough to deter my players, I've found.
|
|
The situation was that the fighter's player knew that he was pretty much screwed if he suffered another full attack action from this monster. However, he also knew that the monster was pretty close to dropping as well. He took a gamble because he thought that if he could just hit it a few more times, it would go down. He was wrong and found himself still in melee at the end of his turn.
I've been that fighter. It makes you feel all noble and stuff, of course, which is great. But being all noble and being alive afterward because of the nobility of your comrades is even better. You don't want to always steal the spotlight. 8-)
It also occured to me that the "yo-yo" tactic doesn't even need to penalize the fighter. Even a predatory animal would be smart enough to realize that the cluster of beings behind the warrior was pulling him back, and thus confounding their attempts to combat said warrior. Anything with an Int of 2+ is then going to try its best to get to whoever is pulling the fighter's string and attack them instead. Tactic ended.
Let's even say the PCs are dumb enough to tie the rope to both characters so that either could pull the other from a tricky situation. Fantastic, you've put yourselves on leashes that at least limit your mobility, if not opening up some nasty options for a Bull Rush through the rope, or simply watch as the thing is sundered, as was mentioned above, and all of your "brilliant" plans fail.
The yo-yo situation is actually rediculously easy to counter, which may be one reason no one does it!