Straw man and troll less. My correct and logical belief is that if you are going to spend your actions doing something, it damn well better be worth doing. Moving the enemy a few feet (maybe) doesn't quite qualify. Killing them qualifies. Rendering them effectively dead via say... blinding qualifies. This is especially true if you have to burn resources just to get basic competence in something. The thing you had to pay for should be better than the thing you have always had for free, otherwise the former was a waste of your resources to obtain.Telling you that you are wrong is not trolling.
Throwing them off a bridge into a river 'renders them effectively dead'
Show me in the feats I suggested where you had to burn resources.
Grappling is already in the rules. Throwing makes it better.
Here is your post.
(1)And here is CoL back again with his illogical belief that (2)anything that doesn't cause damage is useless, completely ignoring all the reasons one might wish to spend their action not doing damage.
First segment is an obvious attack. Seeing as I am not attacking anyone, especially you this is instigating a fight aka trolling. Second segment is a straw man due to misrepresenting my position. My actual position is that if you are going to do something, it needs to count, otherwise you are wasting your round. If that something is damage, you damn well better do a lot of damage, otherwise you will merely annoy the enemy. If that something is negating the enemy, you damn well better do that too. Sometimes, effects get resisted. That can't be helped. But at least you're on the right track, and not wasting your round on something that will at best tickle the demon/dragon/wizard.
|
So I decided to try and write these up, let me know what you think.
Throw person: If a creature you have succesfully pinned weighs less than your lift over head capacity you may attempt a combat manuever to throw them. You make a CMB check at -5 penalty, if successful you throw the person 5ft and for every 5 by which the DC is beaten another 5 ft to a max of 20ft. If the creature would pass through an occupied square then compare your CMB check to the creatures DC, if your check beats their DC then the creature thrown ends its movement in the adjacent to the target in the square closest to you and both the creature thrown and the creature struck take 1d6 non-lethal damage per 100lbs of the creature thrown and fall prone. On a miss or if the creature thrown does not pass through an occupied space it moves it's total distance and still takes this non-lethal damage and is prone. You may attempt to throw a creature that is not pinned, this adds +15 to the DC.
Momentum Toss: While in a grapple you may use your strength and momentum to send an opponent flying. This effect resolves like a bullrush except you do not provoke an AoO and you cannot follow the creature tossed even if they move greater than 5ft as a result of your check and you have movement left. If you fail your opponent gets a free attempt to toss you, you may end the grapple to prevent this.
Flip: While in a grapple you may attempt to position an opponent so that you may flip them onto their back painfully. This effect resolves as a trip attempt at a -5 to the attempt. If succesful the opponent takes 1d6 non-lethal damage and is prone, neither you nor the creature are considered grappled at this point. For every 5 by which you beat the DC you may add an additional 1d6 non-lethal damage. For an additional -5 you may deal lethal damage with this manuever.
[ooc] remember that having a creature in a succesful grapple adds a +5 to the manuever, so really the -5 are just meant to remove the bonus when attempting these...
I think it's all pretty cool; I'm not the best with the D&D grapple rules; but having had some judo, I do know that IF you try to wheel into me and flip me, and you're not reeeeeeeal good at judo, I can move my foot, grab you by your britches, and body slam you straight back; i.e. I think a throw or a flip should have a grapple/counter roll to bust you on your butt.
I found that in judo, as a real absolute beginner in that martial art, throws were really difficult to do, but counters TO throws were really easy.I had a good deal of karate before I had a little bit of judo; enough to figure that out.
As an aside, in my judo class, they really dogged karate hard. It was like a real life precursor to an internet flame war.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Here is your post.And here is CoL back again with his illogical belief that anything that doesn't cause damage is useless, completely ignoring all the reasons one might wish to spend their action not doing damage.
You said it was "useless". I said that belief is 'illogical'. Where's the trolling in that? I said that you ignore arguments that combat maneuvers have uses. You do. Here is your post:
Note: The following assumes you wish to make the maneuver worth ever using. If you do not wish it to be worth an action, don't do this. Though why you would want to create something that is useless, I don't know.
This was followed by a way of suggestion for putting damage into combat maneuvers scaled by level. You've said very clearly that if we don't do this it is "useless" and not "worth an action". This is wrong. There are many reasons people may choose to use a combat maneuver instead of an attack.
|
Throw effects depend on level.
Anyone may attempt a throw via taking a standard action to make a touch attack. This is resolved as a trip attempt but does not provoke, and your opponent cannot reactively trip you. You can use either Strength or Dexterity for this and get a +4 bonus to the attempt. If you succeed in tripping your foe, you may throw them up to 10 feet away in any direction where they land prone in that square.
My problem with crusader of logics attempt is that it doesn't actually make sense from a mechanics standpoint. What I mean is that it's done as a trip attempt, but for no explainable reason gives you a bonus to doing it and gives you a better benefit than a normal trip attempt for free. I understand that he is trying to make it worthy in his estimate of wasting the round, but then the fact that it functions off of the trip mechanic, but gives bonuses to the trip mechanic, basically means that the trip is being replaced and is a mechanic failure. Nobody will use the trip mechanic because the throw mechanic gives the same benefit then more based on level. Which means the whole thing is an arguement that trip needs to be reworked which isn't the point of this actual discussion.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Anyone may attempt a throw via taking a standard action to make a touch attack. This is resolved as a trip attempt but does not provoke, and your opponent cannot reactively trip you. You can use either Strength or Dexterity for this and get a +4 bonus to the attempt. If you succeed in tripping your foe, you may throw them up to 10 feet away in any direction where they land prone in that square.
My problem with CoL's attempt are that (1) it is in the wrong forum. PRPG uses a simplified combat maneuver mechanic that his veers away from; (2) it scales by level, not by BAB. I see no reason why a 10th level expert (librarian) NPC should gain these abilities; (3) it operates under the assumption that everything bites unless it does damage; (4) it was prefaced by the assertion that everyone else's ideas so far are useless.
The OA book had rules on throwing people in grapples, iirc.
Races of Stone also had some feats for it (pages 139 and 140, Fling Ally and Fling Enemy feats, respectively). It's a basic CMB check under the conversion, but it uses a grapple check to simulate a Bull rush with a larger increment, and didn't require a pin first. It really wouldn't be hard at all to just reflavor a bullrush with some dungeoncrasher ACF type damage add-in to the grapple options, and would be much more streamlined, in all honesty.
Also, I fully agree with CoL here. It either needs to be worth doing as opposed to what you would normally be doing (damage, control, etc), or it's wasted and pointless. There's no reason something people always try to do because "it would be cool" has to be thoroughly ineffective, but just keep in mind there's a lot of creatures out there with ridiculous CMBs that could easily end encounters by throwing PCs everywhere in return. That's going to be the balance issue.
Also, what point does something like this serve in combat except to deal damage? Seriously?
... but just keep in mind there's a lot of creatures out there with ridiculous CMBs that could easily end encounters by throwing PCs everywhere in return. That's going to be the balance issue.
Also, what point does something like this serve in combat except to deal damage? Seriously?
Well, I would absolutely like to see my PCs being flung around by an enraged hill giant (*makes mental note with an evil DM grin*), but, yeah, this is a balance issue.
To your question, are you serious? I mean, seriously? Getting someone out of the way fast in a spectacular manner is not only useful but fun as heck. I mean, come on. Darth Vader throwing the Emperor into the open core of the reactor. Throwing someone over the bar into the bottle rack. A guards getting thrown down a flight of stairs into the reinforcements. Heck, Yeah! That's what I want to do when I play/I want to see when I DM. Seriously!
To your question, are you serious? I mean, seriously? Getting someone out of the way fast in a spectacular manner is not only useful but fun as heck. I mean, come on. Darth Vader throwing the Emperor into the open core of the reactor. Throwing someone over the bar into the bottle rack. A guards getting thrown down a flight of stairs into the reinforcements. Heck, Yeah! That's what I want to do when I play/I want to see when I DM. Seriously!
Vader ended that fight with that throw (and coincidentally, it was more of a pin, move, move, release grapple, than a true "throw"). Throwing someone into the bottle rack in bar fight is more cinematic than "useful" and can really function more through DM adjudication for whatever fits the cinematic feel of the campaign. Guards down stairs would work using bullrush and falling damage, again. Nothing described there is truly "useful" for ending an encounter that's not already covered by the rules, or would vary based on the playstyle of the individual game. Ad Hoc and adjudication covers all that.
Moving someone about isn't "useful" unless it somehow detriments the individual in some way moreso than stabbing him again for a full-round. Yes, it's pretty. Is it effective? Not one damned bit. Now if the mechanics allow it to be effective in addition to the prettiness, sweet. Otherwise, Not In My Game does it need a specific mechanic separate from the rest.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Moving someone about isn't "useful" unless it somehow detriments the individual in some way moreso than stabbing him again for a full-round. Yes, it's pretty. Is it effective? Not one damned bit. Now if the mechanics allow it to be effective in addition to the prettiness, sweet. Otherwise, Not In My Game does it need a specific mechanic separate from the rest.
The problem with combat maneuvers like trip, grapple, bull rush, etc. in PRPG is not that they don't result in damage. The problem is they don't result in a trip, grapple, bull rush, etc. The maneuvers are wasted only because they are too unlikely to succeed.
The benefits of any combat maneuver, whether it be a trip, grapple, or bull rush are going to be circumstantial. If successful, will they be better than stabbing someone for a round? Usually not. Sometimes very, very much so. Saying they are "useless" or "not one damned bit" useful is unimaginative. I can imagine hundreds of situations in which they are useful.
My suggestion for 'throw' was very similar to bull rush but it allowed the target to be moved into any square within the set distance not just straight back. It required a successful grapple first. It did not require the target be pinned. There was no feat being spent on this but it made the 'improved grapple' feat worth more. It allowed for some damage if the target failed an acrobatics check. I think the suggestion for 'flip' LastKnightLeft gave also worked and it allowed the benefit of getting someone flat on their ass while doing a little damage.
You said it was "useless". I said that belief is 'illogical'. Where's the trolling in that? I said that you ignore arguments that combat maneuvers have uses. You do. Here is your post:
The manner of your approach made it come across as trolling. I do not ignore arguments that combat maneuvers have uses. I shoot down arguments that are false regarding valid uses of combat maneuvers.
This was followed by a way of suggestion for putting damage into combat maneuvers scaled by level. You've said very clearly that if we don't do this it is "useless" and not "worth an action". This is wrong. There are many reasons people may choose to use a combat maneuver instead of an attack.
Compared to all the other ideas (spend your entire round to get a very minor effect)... yeah. Those are useless and wastes of actions. In a fight, you have two options:
Hurt the enemy.
Incapacitate the enemy.
The first category is damage. And lots of it, since 300/300 HP is just as fighting fit as 3/300 HP. Otherwise don't bother as you will just tickle and annoy the enemy.
The second is meaningful non damage based effects. Instant death qualifies for obvious reasons. Blinding for a few rounds qualifies as you have just negated their ability to fight for more than long enough to make the death official aka stab them in the face. Knocking prone doesn't qualify unless you can keep them in a Lockdown (see also, spiked chain trippers).
Actions that do neither of the above are complete wastes of time when it comes to killing the enemy. Defensive measures are obviously not relevant both due to the fact they should have been cast before combat, and the fact anyone that's going to be throwing people around doesn't have access to spells anyways.
It is also necessary to overcompensate as PF heavily nerfs anything melees can do that is more complicated than stabbing it in the face, as evidenced by the difference between needing to beat 1d20+29 on an opposed roll and needing to hit DC 69 + multiple legs on a static check. The first requires a size boost, a lot of str or dex, and various miscellaneous bonuses. The latter requires about 30 bonus points coming only from stats, a smaller size bonus, and a much smaller pool of other bonuses. In other words, one you could do if sufficiently optimized. The other just isn't happening.
Edit:
"My problem with crusader of logics attempt is that it doesn't actually make sense from a mechanics standpoint. What I mean is that it's done as a trip attempt, but for no explainable reason gives you a bonus to doing it and gives you a better benefit than a normal trip attempt for free. I understand that he is trying to make it worthy in his estimate of wasting the round, but then the fact that it functions off of the trip mechanic, but gives bonuses to the trip mechanic, basically means that the trip is being replaced and is a mechanic failure. Nobody will use the trip mechanic because the throw mechanic gives the same benefit then more based on level. Which means the whole thing is an arguement that trip needs to be reworked which isn't the point of this actual discussion."
Consider the bonus incorporating the non sucky Improved Trip, so as to remove the two feat tax. Before, trip was only used for Lockdowns. Now that it cannot be, a substitute use must be developed.
Another edit: My methods provide a weak but interesting free option. This is far superior to being expected to sink multiple feats into something that is worse than what you can do for free, which is what Tarren is trying to argue for. My methods would not be so weak if the various melee nerfs were reversed, thereby allowing the maneuvers to work more often. The only other option is to make it cost feats but be better than attacking. Given how stab it in the face scales and how this likely would not scale it is not a practical solution.
Edit 3: Once you get past about oh... level 5 or so you have three options:
The first is to be a spell caster of some kind.
The second is to be a Badass Normal who later evolves into a Charles Atlas Superpower House. Yes, that means being able to grab dragons and throw them around.
The third is to be a Red Shirt.
Since clearly option 1 is automatically ruled out, and option 3 is clearly undesirable in any setting where everyone involved is supposed to be on equal footing, that leaves option 2 as the only valid option remaining.
|
|
stuff
Okay, but what about what my manuevers did? in every instance (while not being better than a standard attack, but once again that goes back to CMBs needing work, not these mechanics) they do damage, i understand it can be negated by DR, while at the same time adding a condition (prone), and they are designed to give more options to grapple, which is already being used.
Taking out the discussion (which just so you know I agree with you that CMB manuevers need a lot of work but I feel that is a seperate discussion) of CMBs being to difficult, if they were reliable actions would my mechanics then at least be palatable then, or would you still think they were a waste of an action?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
LastKnight,
I've drawn upon your ideas and rewritten my proposed throw. I've also included my version of your trip. Your moves are more difficult to do and I think they would be near impossible to pull of given the DC of combat maneuvers. I've slightly increased the damage that can be done and also allowed for throwing someone into a wall.
I'm curious what you think of these.
Tarren
Throw:
If you maintain a grapple for a second round, you can throw your target 5 feet. For every 5 by which your grapple check exceeds the DC to maintain the grapple, you can throw your target an additional 5 feet.
The thrown target can make an acrobatics check to avoid landing prone. The DC to avoid landing prone is equal to the distance thrown. If the target's acrobatics check does not equal or exceed the DC, he or she falls prone. If the target fails the DC by 5 or more, they will take 1d6 falling damage per 10’ thrown.
If the target would pass through a square occupied by a creature, then compare the grapple check used to throw the target to the DC of the creature occupying the square. If your check beats their DC then the creature thrown ends its movement in the square adjacent to the target closest to you. Both the creature thrown and the creature struck take 1d6 non-lethal damage per 100lbs of the creature thrown and fall prone.
If the target would pass through a square occupied by an immovable object, then the target takes falling damage for the distance thrown.
Attempting a throw against targets more than one size category larger automatically fails.
Flip:
If you maintain a grapple for a second round, you can flip an opponent onto their back painfully. If successful the opponent takes 1d6 non-lethal damage and is prone, neither you nor the creature are considered grappled at this point. For every 5 by which you beat the DC you may add an additional 1d6 non-lethal damage. For an additional -5 you may deal lethal damage with this manuever.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
My methods provide a weak but interesting free option. This is far superior to being expected to sink multiple feats into something that is worse than what you can do for free, which is what Tarren is trying to argue for.
What feats? My suggestion doesn't require any feats to work. I have argued elsewhere for a lower DC for combat maneuvers and feats that improved your combat maneuvers in more than one area, but what I'm proposing here does not require multiple feats. You're reading it wrong.
My methods provide a weak but interesting free option.
stuffOkay, but what about what my manuevers did? in every instance (while not being better than a standard attack, but once again that goes back to CMBs needing work, not these mechanics) they do damage, i understand it can be negated by DR, while at the same time adding a condition (prone), and they are designed to give more options to grapple, which is already being used.
Taking out the discussion (which just so you know I agree with you that CMB manuevers need a lot of work but I feel that is a seperate discussion) of CMBs being to difficult, if they were reliable actions would my mechanics then at least be palatable then, or would you still think they were a waste of an action?
Your methods are far too weak and too slow to be worth using.
Tarren: Combat maneuvers are only capable of doing half decent damage presently if you destroy your own treasure to use them. Seeing as you are better off full attacking yourself than breaking your own treasure these are automatically invalid. This is especially true if talking incapacitation since anything capable of doing that will also ruin all of their and thus your equipment. Otherwise, you waste your round either inflicting a minor effect (not worth the action) or doing nothing worth mentioning at all.
|
|
The OA book had rules on throwing people in grapples, iirc.
Races of Stone also had some feats for it (pages 139 and 140, Fling Ally and Fling Enemy feats, respectively). It's a basic CMB check under the conversion, but it uses a grapple check to simulate a Bull rush with a larger increment, and didn't require a pin first. It really wouldn't be hard at all to just reflavor a bullrush with some dungeoncrasher ACF type damage add-in to the grapple options, and would be much more streamlined, in all honesty.
Also, I fully agree with CoL here. It either needs to be worth doing as opposed to what you would normally be doing (damage, control, etc), or it's wasted and pointless. There's no reason something people always try to do because "it would be cool" has to be thoroughly ineffective, but just keep in mind there's a lot of creatures out there with ridiculous CMBs that could easily end encounters by throwing PCs everywhere in return. That's going to be the balance issue.
Also, what point does something like this serve in combat except to deal damage? Seriously?
That's a funny question considering you threw a goblin at another goblin mr. firt level monk. What did you expect was going to happen? I would've dealt some non-lethal damage to the goblins and they would have both fallen prone.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
stuffOkay, but what about what my manuevers did? in every instance (while not being better than a standard attack, but once again that goes back to CMBs needing work, not these mechanics) they do damage, i understand it can be negated by DR, while at the same time adding a condition (prone), and they are designed to give more options to grapple, which is already being used.
Taking out the discussion (which just so you know I agree with you that CMB manuevers need a lot of work but I feel that is a seperate discussion) of CMBs being to difficult, if they were reliable actions would my mechanics then at least be palatable then, or would you still think they were a waste of an action?
Your methods are far too weak and too slow to be worth using.
Tarren: Combat maneuvers are only capable of doing half decent damage presently if you destroy your own treasure to use them. Seeing as you are better off full attacking yourself than breaking your own treasure these are automatically invalid. This is especially true if talking incapacitation since anything capable of doing that will also ruin all of their and thus your equipment. Otherwise, you waste your round either inflicting a minor effect (not worth the action) or doing nothing worth mentioning at all.
All your animals carry their treasure around on their backs? That's odd. Straw man.
Your methods are far too weak and too slow to be worth using.By that standard so are the current suite of combat manuevers
This is true. Trip was only worth it with Improved Trip (get your attack anyways, at +4). Bull Rush was only worth it with Dungeoncrasher (slam them into a wall repeatedly). Grapple was only worth it with Improved Grab (hit and get to try as a riskless free action). Not to mention if you don't focus on them you should never even attempt them due to that AoO, and low success rate thing.
PF nerfed these further, naturally they are even less useful.
All your animals carry their treasure around on their backs? That's odd. Straw man.stuffOkay, but what about what my manuevers did? in every instance (while not being better than a standard attack, but once again that goes back to CMBs needing work, not these mechanics) they do damage, i understand it can be negated by DR, while at the same time adding a condition (prone), and they are designed to give more options to grapple, which is already being used.
Taking out the discussion (which just so you know I agree with you that CMB manuevers need a lot of work but I feel that is a seperate discussion) of CMBs being to difficult, if they were reliable actions would my mechanics then at least be palatable then, or would you still think they were a waste of an action?
Your methods are far too weak and too slow to be worth using.
Tarren: Combat maneuvers are only capable of doing half decent damage presently if you destroy your own treasure to use them. Seeing as you are better off full attacking yourself than breaking your own treasure these are automatically invalid. This is especially true if talking incapacitation since anything capable of doing that will also ruin all of their and thus your equipment. Otherwise, you waste your round either inflicting a minor effect (not worth the action) or doing nothing worth mentioning at all.
What the hell are you talking about? Logic fail.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
What the hell are you talking about? Logic fail.
What are you talking about 'destroy your own treasure'?
EDIT: Not all creatures carry magic weapons on them. Your assumption that they do and your assertion that you might as well kill yourself rather than risk damaging the treasure is yet another of your straw men arguments. You will ignore or downplay all the cases in which a creature doesn't carry treasure.
He means that when you Sunder someone's weapon, you can no longer get it as treasure. Since it's assumed that you are going to defeat this thing anyways, and have the time/space/desire to loot that item, you are technically destroying your own reward for defeating the person. *Edit* I wrote this before your edit.
Basically, this assumes that the point of the game is to kill things and take their stuff.
Which isn't a wrong way to play the game. I like playing Diablo 2, it fills a gamist need in me. I sometimes play D&D like that too. And in a D&D game played in that style, the Combat Maneuvers are literally a complete waste of time unless they give some major advantage over just hitting the target.
.
Then again, that's not the only way to play the game.
I've played a Defender Build before. It was an amalgamation of many classes, using Spiked Chain to first Trip (for smaller targets) and then stop creatures from advancing (for larger targets).
Sure, just beating the hell out of my target with a really strong damaging weapon might have ended specific lives sooner, or could have gotten the job done a bit quicker. However, it would have done the job differently... and I think that's the point some people here are trying to make.
I wasn't playing a character that was all "offense is the best defense". I was playing a character that was setting up flanking for the Rogue to get full attack SA, and to stop the baddies from getting too close to our healer and mage.
My actions in combat were intended to improve the other players abilities. To magnify their output. That can't be done by not doing tactics like Trip, Stand Still, etc.
To put it simply, my character was effective in the group dynamic which he was in. As effective, if not moreso, than a higher damage build would have been.
|
|
Your methods are far too weak and too slow to be worth using.By that standard so are the current suite of combat manuevers
This is true. Trip was only worth it with Improved Trip (get your attack anyways, at +4). Bull Rush was only worth it with Dungeoncrasher (slam them into a wall repeatedly). Grapple was only worth it with Improved Grab (hit and get to try as a riskless free action). Not to mention if you don't focus on them you should never even attempt them due to that AoO, and low success rate thing.
PF nerfed these further, naturally they are even less useful.
Okay well now at least I understand you, and I actually once again agree that the switch made them too damn hard (and broke backwards compatability, because I had an indiana jones type spellcaster who triped with his whip and who couldn't be brought over to pathfider because he would literally fail at all the fun stuff I had him do in 3.5)
So we'll just have to continue to take a different approach to this. I set up mine as options to do in grapple because that is the point at which to me they make logical sense, you have to grab someone to do them. That being said there is one thing my discussion with you has made me think to add.
Throw person: If a creature you have succesfully pinned, you make a CMB check without the +5 circumstance bonus for maintaining the grapple. Creature that are larger than you add +4 to the DC for every size category larger than yours. If successful you throw the creature 5ft and for every 5 by which the DC is beaten another 5 ft to a max of 20ft. If the creature would pass through an occupied square then compare your CMB check to the creatures whose space is being moved throughs DC, if your check beats their DC then the creature thrown ends its movement in an adjacent space to the target in the square closest to you. Both the creature thrown and the creature struck take 2d6+ strength mod non-lethal damage and fall prone. On a miss or if the creature thrown does not pass through an occupied space it moves it's total distance and still takes this non-lethal damage and is prone. For each size category the thrown creature is smaller than medium deduct 1d6 from the damage dealt to the creature struck, for each size category greater than medium a add 1d6 to creature struck. You may attempt to throw a creature that is not pinned, this adds +15 to the DC.
After all it does make sense that the stronger you are the harder you throw. And it will give the damage scaling (esp. since the people trying this are usually high str characters) so that it can bypass those pesky DRs you keep running into at higher level. I know you'll never try these, but I think that your imput is helping to get these manuevers to the place where they do fit in with the current CMB rules quite nicely and that's what I'm aiming for, rules that have general appeal but work sensibly within the current suite of abilities.
What do you guys think?
What the hell are you talking about? Logic fail.
What are you talking about 'destroy your own treasure'?
EDIT: Not all creatures carry magic weapons on them. Your assumption that they do and your assertion that you might as well kill yourself rather than risk damaging the treasure is yet another of your straw men arguments. You will ignore or downplay all the cases in which a creature doesn't carry treasure.
The only current ways you can turn a maneuver into something having a significant effect on the enemy is to throw them into a hazard such as a pit, or some lava. This results in their treasure being destroyed. Since their treasure is your treasure by virtue of mandatory looting to stay at par, you are destroying your own treasure. The cost to recover from death is a few thousand gold. The value of that treasure you'd be breaking if you tried to do those things is going to quickly go beyond that. Especially if such hazards are on the field. After all, you don't go playing around volcanos at level 1. As such, you are better off full attacking and thereby killing yourself and getting revived out of the loot than to destroy said loot.
When even suicide is preferable to option x, and you are arguing for option x, it's a pretty damn good sign you're advocating the wrong freakin' option. This is not a straw man. This is pure and simple fact.
Further, the creatures with the most treasure are the ones that most need said treasure and are most likely to succumb to getting thrown into a hazard. The ones with less treasure are also bigger and stronger, and thus less susceptible due to that whole monster thing. Keeping in mind your success rate is near zero under the absolute best of conditions which these are not... This again is pure and simple fact.
Edit: Lockdown builds are one of the few valid uses of maneuvers. Except they don't exist in PF. Oops.
Edit again: Adding Strength still isn't enough, since it's still 2d6. It's also still non lethal, which means it doesn't affect some things and is inferior to lethal damage. Also, you could just make Improved Grapple work like Improved Trip aka if you succeed on a grab, you can attempt a throw as a free action. That'd at least solve the 'combat is already over, and all you've done is grope on one of the enemy' issue.
|
Combat maneuvers can do both under the right circumstances.In a fight, you have two options:
Hurt the enemy.
Incapacitate the enemy.
Absolutely! I once learned that when people get judo thrown/flipped onto a hard surface (especially a non-padded surface) there is a good chance of a broken arm/wrist/hand or even temporarily stunning the attacker. That's why in martial arts like judo or akido, a practice session usually starts off with ukemi (breakfalls).
Psionic Hamster: Care to elaborate? Because the quoted mechanics do both account for throwing, and make it good enough to be worth using. Which is the point, since any time and effort spent developing a mechanic not worth using is entirely wasted.
I said this before, but I think it's worth repeating:
It's O.K. to have a spell/combat maneuver/magic item/feat that is only useful in a minority of situations.|
|
Edit again: Adding Strength still isn't enough, since it's still 2d6. It's also still non lethal, which means it doesn't affect some things and is inferior to lethal damage. Also, you could just make Improved Grapple work like Improved Trip aka if you succeed on a grab, you can attempt a throw as a free action. That'd at least solve the 'combat is already over, and all you've done is grope on one of the enemy' issue.
Okay I understand where you're coming from with the non-lethal damage part, but that's not going to change for me, there's really no way that throwing a body into another body is lethal unless its shear size or weight is so much greater that it crushes the object its falling on. which is accounted for in the increase in damage dice by size.
But 2d6+ str isn't doing it where the heck does that come from. A normal throwing axe deals 1d6+ str damage, so are you saying using a throwing axe is a waste of an action? And a throwing axe doesn't trip nor can it without a feat. At this point I think you've gone to the place where you're being contrary just to be contrary.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Edit again: Adding Strength still isn't enough, since it's still 2d6. It's also still non lethal, which means it doesn't affect some things and is inferior to lethal damage. Also, you could just make Improved Grapple work like Improved Trip aka if you succeed on a grab, you can attempt a throw as a free action. That'd at least solve the 'combat is already over, and all you've done is grope on one of the enemy' issue.Okay I understand where you're coming from with the non-lethal damage part, but that's not going to change for me, there's really no way that throwing a body into another body is lethal unless its shear size or weight is so much greater that it crushes the object its falling on. which is accounted for in the increase in damage dice by size.
But 2d6+ str isn't doing it where the heck does that come from. A normal throwing axe deals 1d6+ str damage, so are you saying using a throwing axe is a waste of an action? And a throwing axe doesn't trip nor can it without a feat. At this point I think you've gone to the place where you're being contrary just to be contrary.
Yep. Seconded. He's done this to other threads discussing how to improve combat maneuvers.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Psionic Hamster: Care to elaborate? Because the quoted mechanics do both account for throwing, and make it good enough to be worth using. Which is the point, since any time and effort spent developing a mechanic not worth using is entirely wasted.I said this before, but I think it's worth repeating:
It's O.K. to have a spell/combat maneuver/magic item/feat that is only useful in a minority of situations.
Agreed. If it is only going to be used on occassions where it has value, it should be easy to remember how to do and not suck up feats. It doesn't need some random power up to make it the preferred option in every other situation.
|
|
As a side note this is all been discussion based on throwing live unwilling creatures when it comes to willing/unconcious creatures I think Kaisoku had the right idea that seperate rules need to be developed for using bodies as weapons.
As such I suggest:
this is supposed to look like an entry on the weapon chart
Body - 1d6* 2d6* x2 5ft special bludgeoning
*deals non-lethal damage
Body: An unconscious or willing creature may be used as a club or projectile. A Body is always applies the -4 penalties for improvised weapons, this cannot be negated short of transforming the body into wood, stone, or metal. To wield a body as a weapon it should be one size category smaller than you, for each size category greater apply an additional -4. Bodies may be thrown as a standard action, make a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 5ft with a maximum range of 20ft, if you succesfully strike your target you may attempt a trip, this does not provoke an AoO and you cannot be tripped if you fail. Bodies do not follow the standard rules for weapon size. Bodies smaller than small deal 1 damage, bodies larger than medium deal an additional 1d6 per size category larger.
What do you guys think?
|
|
Outsider looking in:
I think it's time with this discussion to define terms the way they do with a philosophical discussion.
i.e.
"assuming there is a God, bla bla bla...."
or
"assuming there isn't a God, bla bla bla...."
So....
1)do you want to mimic reality? do you want Crouching Tiger//guys wearing wires swordfighting on the tippy top of a bamboo forest?
and/or...
2)is it enough to lay a guy prone with a throw so the rogue can stab him in the armpit for free, or does picking up an orc and throwing him at the chief orc have to mean they both have to save vs. death d.c. 19 or immediately suffer a broken neck?
It is my theory that if this isn't defined before this discussion goes much further, this discussion will further degenerate into an attempt to define these abstracts through gorilla grunts, chest beatings, and "loudest mammal with the biggest gun wins."
|
|
Outsider looking in:
I think it's time with this discussion to define terms the way they do with a philosophical discussion.
i.e.
"assuming there is a God, bla bla bla...."or
"assuming there isn't a God, bla bla bla...."
So....
1)do you want to mimic reality? do you want Crouching Tiger//guys wearing wires swordfighting on the tippy top of a bamboo forest?
and/or...
2)is it enough to lay a guy prone with a throw so the rogue can stab him in the armpit for free, or does picking up an orc and throwing him at the chief orc have to mean they both have to save vs. death d.c. 19 or immediately suffer a broken neck?
It is my theory that if this isn't defined before this discussion goes much further, this discussion will further degenerate into an attempt to define these abstracts through gorilla grunts, chest beatings, and "loudest mammal with the biggest gun wins."
Good idea, in my approach whenever you look at my post assume
1) I am attempting, as fairly as possible with concessions to fun and ease of use, to mimic reality
2)it is enough for me to lay a guy prone.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The only current ways you can turn a maneuver into something having a significant effect on the enemy is to throw them into a hazard such as a pit, or some lava. This results in their treasure being destroyed. Since their treasure is your treasure by virtue of mandatory looting to stay at par, you are destroying your own treasure. ...When even suicide is preferable to option x, and you are arguing for option x, it's a pretty damn good sign you're advocating the wrong freakin' option. This is not a straw man. This is pure and simple fact.
Charging minotaurs rarely wear their treasure in the adventures I've seen, but perhaps they do in your campaigns. Likewise for giant zombie servants, flesh golems, earth elementals, girallons, dire rats, rhinoceroses, ad nauseum.
In Return of the Jedi, the emperor wasn't wearing all his treasure when Vader threw him into the energy beam.
Tossing a wizard into a sticky web, or tossing a lich into a beam of positive energy, or tossing the fighter into the 30' pit with "super-tetanus razor blades" disables them without destroying their equipment.
Sure, if you run across a mage bedecked in finery, and it comes down to a choice between throwing him into lava versus dying, you may well be looking at a third option.
--+--+--
I admit, by the way, I'm baffled about your claims that "dying is better". I've never, in all my years playing, seen that to be the case.
Maybe your campaigns are filled with immediate, free access to clerics high enough level to raise dead, all happy to take your character's money. Maybe the level loss never bothers you. Maybe time is never "of the essence" in your party missions.
Maybe, and this is the big one, you run campaigns where a character literally opts to kill himself, and the rest of the party doesn't mind. The monsters then, presumably, stop attacking and let the party shuffle out of the dungeon to find a cleric.
Because if the monsters don't just stop attacking, then committing suicide in the middle of a fight has enormous ramifications. If it's a choice between throwing an NPC into lava or a total party kill, and the PC's choose the TPK because they "prefer suicide over destroying treasure", who raises them?
You claim that this is "pure and simple fact". I do not think that word means what you think it does.
|
|
I think this is good; it's a part of the rules that hasn't been thoroughly addressed, or a subset thereof; notably:
how do I, as a combatant, get the drop on somebody (i.e. I have a sword pointed at your face; you can either 1:surrender instantly, 2:maybe,just maybe, fake me out and get out of it, or 3:get a sword in the face free critical).
I mean, there's "combat in a void," where nothing matters but max damage and walking out of the combat with the other guy's head and treasure, and then there's a multitude of situations where taking an opponent alive is highly preferable.
1)your best adventuring bud is possessed
2)you're an Aztec, and you want to capture your opponent
3)I think you get my drift.
So, even if max damage isn't the ultimate result of the maneuver, it still might be the most useful thing to do.
...But as I see it, there's NO reason to expect ALL creatures carry X gp worth of magical treasure on their 'person'.
It's just as valid for it be in their, you know, 'cave' or whatever.
If creature *DO* carry items on their 'person', it is likely to be 'sized' to their form, making a signifigant portion of it useless to PCs 'as-is', meaning they get to sell it for half-cost...
Further, this whole argument seems to ignore that 3.5 (and Pathfinder) now include the concept of "level appropriate wealth"
So in otherwords, it doesn't matter if you just destroyed most of the lootz that you would/should have gained from defeating creatures: The game actually includes a guideline that says you are 'entitled' to that wealth solely for gaining XP(Levels). Thus, the DM would be 'prompted' to introduce equivalent wealth from another source, to meet the 'level appropriate wealth' level. Those captured items that PCs can't use for whatever reason, and just sell for half-cost should actually count for their effective value (50%) towards the PCs' "level appropriate wealth". RAW.
Of course, the master, Diego ;-), surpasses even the standard rules here, whereby his house-rule converts half the expected character wealth to floating stat-bonuses & the like, and allows items to only carry "special qualities".
In any case, I like Tarren's idea about collapsing the "Improved Maneuver" Feats so that several Maneuvers are covered by one Feat, say all the Combat Expertise Pre-Req ones as one Feat, and all the Power Attack Pre-Req ones as another. Imp. Unarmed & Grapple could be combined as well.
I've seen the reduction in the Improved Maneuver bonus from +4 to +2 discussed in other threads, and have seen the rationale that by reducing to one roll, the chance of failure is lowered, and thus, the bonus should be reduced commensurately. That GENERICALLY makes sense when reducing from two rolls to one, but in the case of Maneuvers, the +4 orginally applied to the Strength check, which was generally the more difficult one (vs. super-Grappler types) and which only allowed one bonus type, Strength enhancements (besides the Imp. Maneuver bonus)... Which indicates to me that the logic for reducing the bonus amount isn't really there, in fact.
Personally, I'd like to see the complete rationale for CMB explained some more by Jason, just so we can focus our feedback in-line with that. As I see it, BAB as a "Defensive" aspect only ever applied to DISARM attempts, not any of the other Maneuvers... I think it's forced application to ALL of the Maneuvers is problematic, since it effectively reduces the value of STR (or DEX with Feat) and decreases the chances of success from ~45-50% to ~30% for "equivalent" opponents whose Attack Bonuses are sufficient to make Touch AC only fail on a 1.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
[T]there's a multitude of situations where taking an opponent alive is highly preferable.
1)your best adventuring bud is possessed
2)you're an Aztec, and you want to capture your opponent
3)I think you get my drift.
4) You've been hired by an eccentric collector of beasts to stock his zoo with strange creatures.
5) Some hooligan has unlocked all the cages and you need to return said creatures to their cages once again.6) Teleportation circle to your left.
7) The volcano god only needs one sacrifice to be satisfied.
WHAT!? Isn't gaining XP, Loot and "Power" the only ways to affect the gaming world,
and thus are the only valid in-character motivations?
What page is "bargaining chip" on, anyways?
/sarcasm
Psionic Hamster: Care to elaborate? Because the quoted mechanics do both account for throwing, and make it good enough to be worth using. Which is the point, since any time and effort spent developing a mechanic not worth using is entirely wasted.I said this before, but I think it's worth repeating:
It's O.K. to have a spell/combat maneuver/magic item/feat that is only useful in a minority of situations.
It is not ok to have a combat maneuver or feat only sometimes useful. It is wastes space all the other times. Same for magic items, as all of these require permanent resources to obtain. If they're useless most of the time, they aren't worth it. Well, maybe a very cheap scroll or something, but that's about it.
Having situational spells might be ok, because you get plenty of them and the choices are not permanent for most classes. See also: The Restoration line. Though getting those in scroll form works better.
lastknight: You're comparing 1d6 + strength + various other bonuses a hit (with up to 5 hits available from one hand, and potentially some double throw action) to 2d6 + strength nonlethal that is far more conditional and has a permanent feat tax a round. Um, no. Apples and oranges.
Chris: Charging minotaurs qualify as those things that lower your already near zero chance of success further due to that whole size and strength thing as stated and as you would know if you quoted the correct portions of my post, or all of it instead of selectively responding. Zombies? Even worse, and why the hell is one near some lava or whatever? Golems? Yup. Elementals? Definitely. More big beasts? Right, more things your maneuvers will never work on and are therefore completely irrelevant, even if they did somehow appear near a hazard to be thrown into. Which they wouldn't due to climate and/or dungeon design issues. Mindless minion, meet pit. Damnit, the expensive golem broke itself. Oops.
The second part exhibits a greater example of Logic Fail on your part. See, there's this neat thing called the party Cleric. There's also this neat thing called True Res, which has no drawbacks save the gold cost, which is still less than the value of even a 'standard treasure' encounter. Much less double or triple. Regardless, you have again missed the point and are likely misquoting me on purpose to join the troll squad, the rest of which has came out of the woodworks and is being ignored. The point is not that you should kill yourself. This much is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain. The point is that breaking your own treasure is literally a fate worse than death. If forced to do one or the other, you are better off killing yourself. Therefore, advocating the thing that is literally a fate worse than death is immensely stupid on your part.
Lastly, if the NPC is 20d6 away from death, how about just hitting him? Hint: It's a lot more reliable, and probably better than 20d6 to boot. If he's not, congrats, you've just did nothing to save yourself, and spent your last action in life screwing yourself.
It is not ok to have a combat maneuver or feat only sometimes useful.:
It's O.K. to have a spell/combat maneuver/magic item/feat that is only useful in a minority of situations.
If you can't even agree on this principle (which I think has been true for D&D in all of its incarnations so far, except maybe for 4E), I don't understand why you like D&D at all.
|
|
Psionic Hamster: Care to elaborate? Because the quoted mechanics do both account for throwing, and make it good enough to be worth using. Which is the point, since any time and effort spent developing a mechanic not worth using is entirely wasted.I said this before, but I think it's worth repeating:
It's O.K. to have a spell/combat maneuver/magic item/feat that is only useful in a minority of situations.It is not ok to have a combat maneuver or feat only sometimes useful. It is wastes space all the other times. Same for magic items, as all of these require permanent resources to obtain. If they're useless most of the time, they aren't worth it. Well, maybe a very cheap scroll or something, but that's about it.
Having situational spells might be ok, because you get plenty of them and the choices are not permanent for most classes. See also: The Restoration line. Though getting those in scroll form works better.
lastknight: You're comparing 1d6 + strength + various other bonuses a hit (with up to 5 hits available from one hand, and potentially some double throw action) to 2d6 + strength nonlethal that is far more conditional and has a permanent feat tax a round. Um, no. Apples and oranges.
No I'm not, I'm comparing a standard action to a standard action. the feats to improve the damage of a thrown axe vs. the free trip attempt on a succesful hit. I concede that there are creatures for whom non-lethal damage won't work, but at the same time neither does sneak attack, or keen weapon, or a variety of other options. By that reasoning sneak attack, keen weapons, improved critical, any feat that modulates the sucess rate of criticals really are also not worth taking. In that instance, I disagree.
Now if we are comparing a standard action to a full round action then yes the standard action falls behind. But that's an unfair comparison anyways.
Now if we are comparing an attack to using a CMB yes a CMB falls behind, but that's the nature of the CMB as it stands and is another discussion entirely.
See edit. One more thing. D&D assumes you have x amount of treasure available to you. That means if you find it, you have it. If you miss the treasure stash because you didn't know it was there, that might be made up for. If you choose to decline what is offered, or destroy it... too bad, you've just knowingly screwed yourself and at this point if the DM gives it to you anyways he's ensuring your actions never matter. In other words, the worst sort of railroading. Epic Fail much?
Re: Why so hostile?
Troll squad has came out of the woodworks to give me more issues. Therefore, smiting is required. Refrain from attacking or get burned.
|
|
See edit. One more thing. D&D assumes you have x amount of treasure available to you. That means if you find it, you have it. If you miss the treasure stash because you didn't know it was there, that might be made up for. If you choose to decline what is offered, or destroy it... too bad, you've just knowingly screwed yourself and at this point if the DM gives it to you anyways he's ensuring your actions never matter. In other words, the worst sort of railroading. Epic Fail much?
Re: Why so hostile?
Troll squad has came out of the woodworks to give me more issues. Therefore, smiting is required. Refrain from attacking or get burned.
I hope that you aren't including me in that, I'm honestly trying to stay out of trolling or appearing hostile (especially since of late I've been failing at it) if I am being so I apologize. I'm just coming at it from a different perspective than you.
Attacking is an attack action. It can be a standard if you only do it once. It does not have to be. You can get multiple attack actions in a round via Haste or any BAB higher than 5.
Sneak attack is an example of situational damage. It's worth it if you can knock down all the barriers in your way via Deathstrike Bracers or other methods and Savvy Rogue so you can get through nearly every immunity.
Criticals are also, except there's fewer things to make them work. On the other hand there's Blood in the Water, which works regardless of whether the actual crit works or not.
I hope that you aren't including me in that, I'm honestly trying to stay out of trolling or appearing hostile (especially since of late I've been failing at it) if I am being so I apologize. I'm just coming at it from a different perspective than you.See edit. One more thing. D&D assumes you have x amount of treasure available to you. That means if you find it, you have it. If you miss the treasure stash because you didn't know it was there, that might be made up for. If you choose to decline what is offered, or destroy it... too bad, you've just knowingly screwed yourself and at this point if the DM gives it to you anyways he's ensuring your actions never matter. In other words, the worst sort of railroading. Epic Fail much?
Re: Why so hostile?
Troll squad has came out of the woodworks to give me more issues. Therefore, smiting is required. Refrain from attacking or get burned.
You haven't stepped out of line. A few others also haven't. But another few have, and they know who they are.
However I would like to take this opportunity to remind you realistic is relative. That word is most often used to mean 'works as it does on Earth'. Except on Earth, there's no waving your hands and mumbling jibberish to create a Fireball (Wizard 5), there is no dodging explosions without a scratch as an Extraordinary ability (Rogue 2, see also: Badass Normal), and there is no becoming stronger and tougher simply by getting pissed off (Barbarian 1). The premise is automatically invalid. The correct definition of that term is internally consistent.
If that means grabbing a dragon by the tail and throwing him around at near epic levels, it is realistic.
If that means the guy with 30 something Strength can benchpress a ton, but not throw a Ogre who weighs about a quarter that a decent distance, it's still realistic. Mundane guy is screwed of course due to lack of Badass Normal/Charles Atlas Superpowers, but it is realistic.
Edit: If it's a grapple thing, you're down two feats for basic competence. Therefore grappling, and the moves therein must be better than the free stab in face.