|
Not sure if this is the best place for this thread... hopefully it is!
So we're playing along (Curse of the Crimson Throne), and it becomes clear that our party's now 3rd level half-orc barbarian (Str 18) exists solely (in the mind of his player) to fling enemies that he's grappled around the battlefield.
I'm unsure what to do with this - i would think it would be REALLY hard to throw a struggling foe any distance at all, plus i'm worried about abuse if i say he IS able to throw them. If the throw-ee is flung at a group of NPCs, knocking them all off of a tower just because Barbarian's grapple is higher, isn't that a bit ridiculous? One of my players suggested just considering it a Bull Rush (that wouldn't provoke an attack of opportunity), an idea that i'm going to try, but i wanted to get the advice of some of the fine people here on the boards. :)
Also, the hulking hurler class gives the ability "Really Throw Anything" which gives a much more clear picture of what can be thrown, but only with that particular prestige class (which requires Large size or larger)..
Basically, i'm wondering:
-whether to allow it at all (especially noticing that it's no longer possible to move your enemy when you're grappling or grappled)
-what mechanic to use (Bull Rush makes the most sense in my mind)
-whether he would be able to cause damage (to the projectile, to the people he hits, or both)
-what kind of range would be appropriate(??)
Would love some input, thanks in advance!
There are feats in Races of Stone (Fling Ally, Fling Foe) that allow this (prerequisite: Large size or larger), as well as maneuvers (Setting Sun school) in the Tome of Battle that do something similar.
I wouldn't allow it with a simple grapple check, though.
|
|
There are feats in Races of Stone (Fling Ally, Fling Foe) that allow this (prerequisite: Large size or larger), as well as maneuvers (Setting Sun school) in the Tome of Battle that do something similar.
I wouldn't allow it with a simple grapple check, though.
Thanks hogarth! i had an inkling that i wasn't just being a jerk, that certain things (ie things that can only be done with a feat or class feature) should not be able to be adjudicated down to an improvised roll or two.
Any other opinions? and hogarth, what (if anything) would you allow it with (other than the aforementioned feat or features)?Appreciating any input.
Any other opinions? and hogarth, what (if anything) would you allow it with (other than the aforementioned feat or features)?
Appreciating any input.
(I also forgot the "Snatch" monster feat in the Monster Manual; that allows you to throw a creature, too.)
You might get some inspiration from the "Rules of the Game: Grappling" article(s) on WotC's web site:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050308a
For instance, they suggest that you could "judo flip" an opponent into an adjacent space by making a grapple check at a -4 penalty. Maybe you could extend that by adding +5' to the throwing distance for each +5 you exceed the DC by, or something like that. But that would make it very hard to accomplish in Pathfinder, I suspect (where the base DC is pretty high already).
i had an inkling that i wasn't just being a jerk<snip>
Isaiah, did the barbarian's player accuse You of being a jerk for not letting them have their way without careful consideration?
The reason I ask is because about a year ago, one of the players in my group had two back-to-back physically dominant characters. The first was a minotaur ranger (who got killed when he tried to use air walk to melee a red dragon), and the next was a bear hengeyoki monk who was an expert grappler.
The problem that we ran into was that the player was very much a glory hound. While he had generally roleplayed his minotaur appropriately, he was just off-the-wall with the monk. In pitched battle when party members were getting swallowed by a fiendish behir, he was more concerned with trying to grapple hobgoblins and use them as clubs rather than contributing meaningfully to the fight with his unarmed attacks of the flaming talwar he was trained in.
At the time, I ruled that if he succeeded the grapple checks to maintain a pin by enough that he could indeed swing enemies around, however that because he was not proficient in using hobgoblins as weapons that we would take both the improvised weapon penalty and the penalty for being non-proficient in such a weapon. Furthermore, he would deal damage only comparable to a normal 2-handed weapon rather than his monk's unarmed damage.
Regardless, the player was so amused that his new character was strong enough to pull this off, that he insisted on using it even when it jeopardized the rest of the party. (His character was one of the beefcakes, so abandoning that role left the frailer characters exposed to physical threats they were ill-suited to handle.) There were at least 3 sessions where the player's ass-hattery very nearly resulted in TPKs for such reasons.
Finally, the character in question ended up getting nuked to ash (literally) by an empowered vile flamestrike cast by a boss. Since they are the highest level creatures in the area and just barely have access to raise dead, that character is safely in the afterlife now.
Anyway, the point is, when You get in a situation like this, don't presume that YOU are the one being a jerk just because You don't let the player have their way. There's a good risk the player seeking to test the limits of the rules may verge on ruining the game for everyone involved.
|
|
I need to clarify, the player didn't call me anything disrespectful, i just DM with a style that says "NO" as a knee-jerk reaction (usually followed by a tenative "maybe" the next day or so), and my players know that an initial 'no' is not necessarily a definite 'no'; and i end up feeling stupid the next day because it was actually a fun and good idea, that seems wonderful in the light of day. I have a grand group of players, but they're very much for things that end up having to be adjudicated. The barbarian's player in particular has a flair for unorthodox thinking, and tends to either take classes that are less powerful -or- cripple a character just to see if he can "find another way"; Examples: He's played both a 1st level commoner, and a 65 year old fighter. He's played too many LARPS, i think, and free-form is how he thinks. :) I love my players, don't get me wrong. And while i'm a pretty big proponent of playing the game you want to play (i'm a notorious powergamer whenever i can be, though usually well within the RAW), i usually like to find something that makes more sense to the rules than to the fun.
Having said all that, i'll return to the original topic.
Narrowed down to these options so far (unless someone else has more):
-Allow Combat Maneuvers (Bull Rush, Disarm, Sunder, Trip) by a grappler using typical rules, but including the +5 circumstance bonus if the opponent doesn't break the grapple. Throw is treated as a Bull Rush (through the air).
-Use the judo flip option found on Wizard's page mentioned by hogarth.
-Disallow throwing without a feat or class feature to allow it.
-Allow the player to whip NPCs to his heart's content, success on a grapple check allows the player to toss a grapplee up to his maximum encumbrance with a 10' range increment. Touch attack to hit other mobs with the poor sod, then opposed strength check to knock them all prone (and deal 10d6 damage to all involved).
-Some other, mysterious, spooky option.
What do you all think?
What do you all think?
Glad to hear that the situation isn't one that's a problem. Obviously I started having flashbacks when I first read Your prior post. ;)
As for the damage, I think 10d6 would only be appropriate if the character was capable of hurling the poor enemy 100-feet. I would treat damage as if it was either falling damage. However, this would be for the falling damage if there was nothing in the way to block the hurled creature's horizontal progress. i.e. If the barbarian is capable of throwing a hobgoblin 30 feet, but they crash into another hobgoblin 10 feet away, it would be 30-feet worth of falling damage, not 10.
For enemies who are in the way, I'd resolve it as a ranged unarmed trip attempt against the occupants of two adjacent 5' squares. On a hit, the damage suffered by the person being thrown is divided evenly between those who get hit. I'd also allow the damage to add to the chance of the targets being knocked prone.
If the defenders have not yet taken their turn that round, they can use their action to try and catch their comrade. In that case it could be resolved as a bullrush instead that halves or negates the damage.
|
|
Well I probably would allow it depending on strength, check his character sheet and see his lift over head capacity, does the creature he is throwing fall within the limit? then if it does I would say it is possible, but it would involve several checks. First the grapple check to grapple in the first place, then he would need to pin, then the following round if he maintains that pin with a grapple check at -10 to the check he can lift the creature over his head (I have picked people up over my head before it's damn near impossible if they are strugling, but can be done). Failure ends the grapple and provokes an AoO. Then comes the strength check, I would say that anything under a DC20 puts the creature prone in an adjacent square. a DC twenty would put them at 10ft away, and then for every five by which they beat the DC another 5ft. So in the end the character takes three rounds to move the creature most likely between 5-10ft. A bullrush is a much better mechanic, but doesn't give you that flavor.
On the other hand he could do as a ground based throw, where you don't actually pick up the enemy but rather use your weight and strength to spin them around and toss them without picking them up, I do this a lot when wrestling and its actually quite effective. In this scenario (and I would make the player describe which type of thorw he was doing first before deciding which mechanic would be used) It would be if you are in a grapple you can use an opposed strength check to spin the enemy then perform a bullrush (without actually moving) as a free action at a +5 bonus. If you fail the strength check however the enemy gets to do it to you (which has also happened to me :) ).
Maybe you are going about this the wrong way...
You admit to being a powergamer yourself, but describe the player as a more roleplaying oriented fellow that likes odd characters.
So maybe it is not so important to said player how much damage he does, but more important that he gets to envision the carnage he is inflicting!
I understand (and admire) that you recognize your own GM "weakness", a tendency to say no to anything new or weird (or am I misunderstanding this?). You are afraid to set a dangerous precedent that will lead to everyone throwing monsters around if it turns out to be the most effective way of combat!
Ideally you would want people to do different things in each combat, to make things interesting. But, sometimes it is also cool for someone to have a trademark attack...
In the end I'd allow for the player to do it. Come up with some rule on the spot. If it turns out to be too powerfull, you can always change your ruling later!
Be sure however to narrate the coolness of what happens! Because that is what I think your player wants! So he knocks down two foes by throwing a third, it happens all the time in Xena :-) They may be stunned one round, and embarassed! Then they get back up and attack the party with newfound vigor.
If you feel it gets out of hand (the player is doing nothing else) you can always take him aside and ask him to change tactics or let the bad guys start copying his moves! "Oh no, the evil twin doppelganger has lifted our magic user and oh crap - he is gonna throw him".
In the end I'd allow for the player to do it. Come up with some rule on the spot. If it turns out to be too powerfull, you can always change your ruling later!
Be sure however to narrate the coolness of what happens! Because that is what I think your player wants! So he knocks down two foes by throwing a third, it happens all the time in Xena :-) They may be stunned one round, and embarassed! Then they get back up and attack the party with newfound vigor.
While it's great to allow players to do cool stuff like throwing enemies around, it sort of devalues the feats and/or class abilities that allow you to do the same thing.
I'd vote for "allow it within reason, but give it a hefty penalty".
While it's great to allow players to do cool stuff like throwing enemies around, it sort of devalues the feats and/or class abilities that allow you to do the same thing.
I'd vote for "allow it within reason, but give it a hefty penalty".
Yes, that is a good point!
But in the situation I would allow it. Then later you could say to the player "look here, this feat allows you to throw people, and since you don't have that feat I will not allow this in the future".Of course, if I already knew that at the time, I would disallow it and quote the rule in question.
|
|
sorry, should have clarified a couple of things:
/sarcasm and relenting to peer pressure
-Allow the player to whip NPCs to his heart's content, success on a grapple check allows the player to toss a grapplee up to his maximum encumbrance with a 10' range increment. Touch attack to hit other mobs with the poor sod, then opposed strength check to knock them all prone (and deal 10d6 damage to all involved).
/end sarcasm and relenting to peer pressure
and my powergaming is completely within the RAW.
Appreciating the discussion here, i quite like the idea of enemies making some sort of check to catch the "projectile" to reduce the damage. Lastknightleft, if i yield on this, i'll likely use your mechanic though. It's well thought out and balanced.
I think i'm going to stick with a modified bull rush though. Reasons:
-simplicity
-heavy projectiles don't generally have a chance to knock down opponents, why should a living one?
-Despite my players burning conviction that HE (as a player) could toss a struggling foe, i'm utterly unconvinced. And even though his character has "a strength of 18!!!"(his emphasis) and is able to carry the foe as a Heavy Load, that doesn't mean that tossing is automatically a reasonable combat action.
I'll allow him to take the Fling Foe feat, but only pertaining to Small or smaller creatures, but i don't like the idea of giving someone an ability that others would have to purchase (through feats or class) to use. And i'll tell him that any enlarge person effects + that feat = tossing to your hearts content (medium creatures). I'm sure we'll have this fight again though once he's enlarged and wants to toss trolls.
:)
I'll continue to welcome more viewpoints!
|
|
Appreciating the discussion here, i quite like the idea of enemies making some sort of check to catch the "projectile" to reduce the damage. Lastknightleft, if i yield on this, i'll likely use your mechanic though. It's well thought out and balanced.
Why thank you :) just two things though.
heavy projectiles don't generally have a chance to knock down opponents, why should a living one?
Because a living one can react to the momentum you've built in attempting to fling them and use it to their advantage. a heavy projectile is unintelligent and doesn't react or struggle in any way to being thrown, it's the same reason that if you fail in a trip attempt they can attempt to trip you, but if you attempt to push over a statue the statue doesn't react (unless of course its a golem or animated or...)
and the other thing, I wouldn't allow someone throwing people into other people to do damage unless the person thrown was wearing spiked armor or significantly larger. well I take that back, I'd allow it to do 1d6 subdual damage per size catagory = to and > than (i.e. a medium creature deals 1d6 damage to a medium creature and 2d6 to a small, armor spikes turning the damage to normal) and I would only allow damage at all if it was a pick up and throw and not a momentum toss. Also I would make tossing one person into another be a ranged touch attack with a reflex saving throw equal to the difference between your touch AC and the attack roll, failure makes you fall prone.
As for mechanics and feats, I would allow the mechanics as is and use feats as follows, for pick up and throws there would be a feat that allows the player to throw someone with the -10 penalty to the grapple check without needing to actually pin them. and another feat to reduce the penalty to -5 with the previous feat as a pre-req. this represents training in throwing struggling opponents.
And for the momentum toss, I would have a feat that allowed you to not be thrown on a failed toss.
|
|
also as far as style goes I'm the opposite of you. I'm a yes you can DM, if someone says I want to do this, I pick a mechanic I feel is similar and say well do x. for example, in the game I'm in a player wanted to use his whip to pull on orc on the other side of a pit of acid into it, so I took two seconds to think and said okay give me a touch attack roll which when it suceeded I said give me a grapple check, which when it succeeded I said give me an opposed strength check, which suceeded and the orc fell in the pit. Had he missed the touch attack then nothing would have happened, failed the grapple roll then his whip wouldn't have had the grip to pull and wasted the attack, and if he failed the strength check he would have been pulled into the acid pit.
I'm a yes you can if you accept the consequences of failure DM and my players love that, when I tried to do things only by the rules and only if they had the feats, they didn't enjoy the game as much.
My basic stance now is that (except for mechanic bonus feats like the skill bonus feats and the improved feats) if a person wants to do something allowed by a feat, take a look at the feat and allow it with appropriate checks and consequences, feats just negate the need for checks and get rid of failure consequences.
Yesterday in our game, a friend and I tried to grapple while the others were setting up a duel at dawn.
My character, with Agile Maneuvers and Improved Grapple, has a CMB of +13 and my friend had one of +9.
Since (15+13) - (20+9) = 1, he could only do anything against me with a 19 or 20. All he could hope for was to have a slight chance to escape from the grapple.
In following rounds, I would get a +5 bonus, to a total of +18, which would raise the DC to escape to 33, which he just cannot match.
And he had about the same ability scores as I. Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me, that I could overpower every wizard or sorcerer in just one round.
What is also unclear is, when you get the +5 bonus. If I start a grapple, both I and the opponent gain the grappled condition. And if you don't escape the grapple, your opponent gains a +5 bonus. If I start the grapple, do I have to escape from it to avoid the +5 of my opponent? I would think not, but the text doesn't elaborate on that. There would have to be a few lines about who's currently having the upper hand.